Why I Oppose Common Core

Who is in control of our children's education?

This shift to the Common Core is a huge lurch away from bottom-up, local control to top-down, centralized control. Common Core is about creating a single pathway to supposed economic and educational success. Think about it, 45 states all adopting the same standards at the same time. 45 states all implementing Common Core testing, nationwide, at the same time. All the publishers and teacher training courses aligning to Common Core at the same time. And, what about college? the ACT and SAT? They, too, will be aligning to Common Core. What are the options should you object, as a parent, as a school, as a district? What are the options if we decide, once we have full implementation and actual experience to back up the Common Core experiment, that we made a mistake? How do we amend? How do we turn back? A few years from now, it will be too late. We have just signed on to a system to eliminate, through attrition, virtually all other options in public education. 

And who made this decision about what our kids will learn? Five people with a nod from Bill Gates and a couple of DC lobbying groups, were able to get their untested vision implemented via financial and legal incentives, as well as disputed promises of 'greater rigor', 'college and career readiness', and 'international benchmarking'. We have decided to go down this path due, in part, to incentives, but also to the idea of not being left behind the rest of the states. That, somehow, Utah wasn't capable of taking care of our own. It shows a supreme lack of confidence in the people, teachers, and principals of Utah that our State Board thought they needed to rush to adopt the Common Core, along with other states to get the federal money, instead of allowing the debate, discussion, and involvement of local Utahns in this process. 

People will say, “It doesn't matter where we get it, the ends justify the means.” We must reject that notion. What we are saying, in effect, is that the principles we stand for don't matter. That parents and local communities don't matter—only the opinion of the so-called experts matters, as long as our kids learn what the experts want them to learn. Why would we want to encourage a system where the people are not involved in creating the best schools? Instead, we have a system where we trust the experts to tell us what 'the best' actually means. And in this case, those 'experts' are in control.

In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter about education and linked it to the proper role of government. In it, he articulates two important principles. He said, “if it is believed that these elementary schools will be better managed by the governor and council, the commissioners of the literary fund, or any other general authority of the government, than by the parents within each ward, it is a belief against all experience. …

No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to.”

Common Core violates both these principles: 1) Parents must direct the education of their kids in school, not the government, and 2) Good and safe government, and that includes public schools, comes from dividing and distributing power. Consolidated power is not safe, and creates the potential for corruption, and, at the very least, destroys the means for innovation and outside the box thinking.

Jefferson goes on to say,“What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body...” 

This is EXACTLY what Common Core does.

We are at the crossroads. We can abdicate our parental and local responsibilities to the so-called experts and the rich philanthropists, or we can reclaim bottom-up, parent-controlled education. In the end, I will stand on the side of parents, local teachers, and local communities deciding what is of most worth to pass on to their own children.

Buy My Vote!

The Utah PTA supports Count My Vote. But the Utah PTA is a huge organization, with money, power and influence. Their vote will be counted. But will yours? 

Count My Vote is a petition drive to stop Utahns from choosing candidates through neighborhood elections. Utah PTA's support was based on the claim that the initiative 'supports the democratic process and encourages its membership to be active participants in the election of child/parent-friendly representatives'. It is assumed that a move away from Neighborhood Elections will result in 'child/parent-friendly representatives'. Fortunately, we have the benefit of history as well as experience in other states to show this idea of greater citizen participation is actually untrue. What experience does show us is how moving away from a grassroots-level of choosing candidates empowers organized, special interests over the unorganized electorate, in short, over the public interest.

When discussing politics, most of us despise the concept of money controlling candidates, organized special interests trumping the average person, and 'the political machine' providing one candidate after another without true input from 'the little guy'. We admire and embrace characters like Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. American exceptionalism is seen through the view of the regular David going up against the establishment's Goliath and conquering based on truth and principle. In the end, we love and embrace the concept of 'Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.' Nowhere do we tout Government of the special interests, by the rich and powerful, for the well-connected.

What the well-connected have realized is that under the cover of democracy or the will of the people, you can dilute the power of the everyday person and transfer that power to organized, rich, and powerful institutions. Stop and think about how effectively you or your neighbors can take on an issue against a much more powerful, well-funded organization—whether a corporation or a non-profit foundation. Corporations and foundations have lawyers and funding, and people who are paid to devote their full time to a given set of issues. You and I have to fight them while juggling car pools, homework, and after-school activities, not to mention a 9-to-5 job. When it comes to the unorganized neighbors versus the organized special interests, the odds are not in our favor.

Count My Vote is supported by special interest organizations and people with large amounts of money. By contrast, the Utah Caucus is the only organization for the unorganized public—it allows everyone who wants in, to participate. The powerful special interests want to shift power away from you and your neighbors to them and their money. Your state legislator is more beholden to his or her neighbors than to the Utah Taxpayers Association, the Sierra Club, and the Utah PTA. In other states, your neighbors don't meet with the Governor or sitting US Senators. Elected officials don't deign to share a meal with Mr. Random Citizen without a significant campaign contribution. In Utah, your neighborhood delegates have met with, spoken to, queried, and grilled our Governor, our Senators, and every other elected representative. Candidates for every office are anxious to come to delegates' homes, answer questions, and respond to delegates' emails. This is the definition of government by the people.

What is the difference between you and a delegate? Nothing. Just come to your Neighborhood Caucus and get elected or elect someone who shares your principles. In the end, do you trust the people who are paid lobbyists for every major organization in the state (those you agree with as well as those you don't) to vett candidates and hold them accountable? Or do you trust, Joe, your neighbor? Do we really want a Mr. Smith to go to Washington, or do we want the guy who paid his dues by working for the organized special interests of this state? Should those making our laws establish common standards of right and wrong which apply to all, or should they grease the palms of those who put them in office? In the latter case, “Freedom itself ceases to be a right and becomes a gift, or the fruit of a corrupt bargain, because in such degraded regimes, those who are close to and connected with the ruling class have special privileges.” (Charles Kesler, Claremont Review of Books)

The Utah PTA supports Count My Vote because the Utah PTA will be able to get close to the ruling class and have special privileges. They believe the organization of the Utah PTA will make better decisions in selecting legislators than you will. We think of the PTA as parents and teachers working locally, in the classroom. However, Count My Vote will transform the Utah PTA into a much larger statewide, political player, along with every other organized special interest group that is willing to pay. And that greater influence will come at the expense of your neighborhood vote. If you believe those in special interest organizations will select better candidates than you and your neighbors, then you should support them, recognizing you support a government of the elite and well-connected. But, if you want your voice to really count, and your elected representatives to truly be accountable to you, you need to reject this petition. The Neighborhood Elections are your chance to maintain a 'government of the people, by the people, and for the people.' Don't let the Utah PTA Buy Your Vote!

Brian Halladay
Wendy Hart
Paula Hill

What I'm Supposed to Say and What I'm Not Supposed to Say

What I'm Supposed to Say

On Oct. 8, the Will of the Board supported approving approximately 80 clubs in our Senior High Schools.  Each of the clubs had followed the rules outlined in our board policy.  The board policy on clubs was reviewed just this year (not by the full board, but by a committee).  Our job, as board members, is to make sure our policy is complied with.  The Board approved all the clubs.  It is not rubber-stamping to approve the paperwork of all clubs that complied with our policy. 

I can appreciate that you might have some concerns about some of the clubs or else the process, but the board has a policy, and it was followed.  The Will of the Board is that we go forward and we support these clubs and the decision of the Will of the Board.

How did I vote?  What's important is the Will of the Board has been made known.  We had vigorous discussions and then a vote was taken.  Now is the time to be supportive of the direction the Board has taken.  If we were to have well-known differences of opinion on issues, then we would not be a support to our district, and our employees would not be directed properly knowing there might be some differences of opinion.  As such, highly-effective boards debate and discuss, and then go forward in full support of the Will of the Board.

That is what I'm supposed to tell you.  That is what I have been trained and lectured to tell you. That is the acceptable thing to say.  And I should not elaborate further.  I certainly shouldn't put what I'm about to write on a blog or a facebook post.  If you felt the need to know more, you could check out the audio and the minutes of the past board meetings, if you knew they existed and where to find them.

What I'm NOT Supposed to Say

I voted against the clubs.  You may agree; you may disagree.  But, now you know.  I have lots of reasons why.  So, rather than tell you how we all need to support the Will of the Board, I will let you know what my main concern is: lack of representation. 

Most people believe their elected officials are elected to represent them.  Most people think that 'board approval' implies the board members looked at individual clubs and applications and thought, "Gee, that's a good idea.  Let's do that!"  That's what approval means.  Most people think there will be disagreements on a board, and that a majority will win.  As a result, the minority will lose.  But, to be transparent, even the Supreme Court issues majority and minority opinions.  Our Board is not supposed to do that. 

The reality is "board approval" means we rubber-stamped the paperwork required by our policy.  The students and faculty sponsor(s) jumped through the appropriate hoops, and we "approved" their hoop-jumping.  Our approval was not based on merit, debate, or community values.  Our approval was a foregone conclusion, a mere formality. 

I believe the Board is elected to represent you, the taxpayers of this community.  I also don't see a single, homogenous group of people with unified beliefs on every issue.  As such, you are better represented by a diversity of opinions, ideas, and issues.  It is assumed that anything voted on by the board requires community/public approval.  We are approving on your behalf.  If we just rubber-stamp, we only pretend there is "taxpayer" approval. 

As parents, you need to be aware that just because a club is "approved" for the school, you should not lower your guard on any level.  Please understand, the board has no role in vetting or whittling down applicants.  It doesn't matter if the reason is the threat of a lawsuit, questionable charter activities, or anything else.  If the board doesn't have the option to vett anything, we should not be voting on it, period. 

I was told we couldn't look at each club individually, on the merits.  If we were to pick and choose, we could be sued for discrimination. I have been involved in situations where I was told one thing relative to legal counsel, and then found out, with greater research and citizen involvement, the reality was quite different.  Because of this experience, I requested legal counsel meet with the Board.  That request was denied, but the administration spoke with legal counsel instead. 

Who Is In Charge? 

This denial goes to the heart of the matter.  What is the role of the school board?  Is the Board there to represent the public's will to the district or does the board represent the district's policy to the public?  Of course, politicians would skirt the issue saying it's not a mutually-exclusive question.  A balance of the two approaches is helpful with an emphasis on one or the other, depending on circumstances.  But which method is most important and why?

I believe the board should represent the will of the people, even if that goes against the will of the government administrators. We create the system and direct government to work on our behalf.  I believe we should have a trust-but-verify relationship.  This is not to say that we don't hire good people.  We do.  But the role of the board is oversight, and verification of that trust.  To trust, without formal verification, is not the role of the Board.

In the example of approving clubs, I recognize our administrators have addressed similar issues in the past, and, with renewed conversations with attorneys, felt they had a good handle on things on their end.  My fellow Board members, apparently, felt their issues were resolved, based on district administration directives.  But for me, the verification issue comes with my ability to field the questions you, the public, might have.  The questions I would ask are not the same as those our administrators or even my fellow board members would ask.  You should be represented by the various questions and perspectives of the entire board, not just the majority. 

So, you must decide what the school board's role should be.  This is your school district.   How much representation do you want?  How much oversight should the Board exercise?  Yes, the district will function smoothly if the Board is supportive of everything the administrators do. But sometimes the best system comes with debate and resolution, give and take, and it isn't always smooth. I believe the best possible public education system is achieved when the foundation is built on involved, informed citizens, not smooth-operating government administration.

Without the benefit of legal counsel, I came to our meeting feeling we were being held hostage with the threat of a lawsuit.  In short, we must accept ANYTHING that is placed in front of us.  I still don't know if the board could have rejected some of the applications, based on state law, or requested amendments to them.  But, in the spirit of transparency, here were some of my additional concerns.

1) Should a board approve a club charter that states it will report school or district policy concerns to a third party, such as the ACLU?  Are we really comfortable approving a club that, by my read, may essentially be looking for ways to sue the school or the district?  I certainly want all legitimate issues brought to the appropriate parties on a school or district-level.  But are we legally obligated to empower a club to set us up for lawsuits?

2) I am concerned about approving a club that might pose harm or a health risk for some students.  In speaking with a First Responder in suicide cases as well as a medical doctor, I have been warned that some discussions of suicide lead to more harm than good.  It is a very difficult subject to tackle without the appropriate training.  Mentioning suicide in the club application requires a much more thorough vetting, in my opinion.  What will be discussed?  Who will be overseeing and directing the discussion?  What is their certification?  How much, if any, time will be devoted to this topic?  Even though, it's an important topic, I am not comfortable without greater assurances that we are following the Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm."  If I can't assume no harm will come to our students, I can't approve it. 

3) Breaking state law, by allowing students without a signed parental-consent form to attend club meetings, was another issue.  It was expressed that hopefully this discrepancy would be resolved by the club members. 

A system produces exactly what it's designed to produce.  If you don't like the idea of your elected "representatives" rubber stamping administrative decisions, you have the power to change it.  You need to ask the people who represent you to not be afraid to do so, no matter the consequences.  This is either representative government or it is a rubber stamp. Don't fall for political double talk about it being both. Ultimately every school board election is about who is in charge. If the people do not assert their rightful dominance with proactive, transparent representatives, the void is filled by well-meaning, smooth-operating government administrators.  You get to decide which it will be.

How Do I Find the Truth? Follow the Money and Read the Grant Documents

I have had many people say, "I've heard so many conflicting stories about ________________.  How do I find out what is really the truth?"

When it comes to government, one of the best ways is to read the grant applications.  Common Core and the idea of 'Common Standards' has been involved in a handful of formal, legal documents, all tied to money from the Federal Government.  It stands to reason that IF you are receiving money for something, the best way to determine what will ACTUALLY happen, is to read what the money is supposed to be used for.

This is horribly boring reading, but many people involved in researching Common Core have spent the time looking at 1) The State Fiscal Stablization Fund (SFSF), 2) The Race to the Top Grant (RTTT), 3) The ESEA (No Child Left Behind or NCLB) Waiver, and 4) The Statewide Longitudinal Database System (SLDS).  All four contain four things:

1. Common Standards and Assessments
2. Improving Teacher Effectiveness (not really professional development, but tying teacher pay to the tests.  Teachers now have high-stakes testing, as well.)
3. Improving Low-performing schools (really shutting down neighborhood schools and turning them over to a 'higher-level' for management--without elected representation--a semblance of 'privatization')
4. Pre-K to College and Career Data Systems

Here is a MUST READ analysis of the Race to the Top Grant Application.  I don't care what side of this argument you are on, it is important to know WHAT we were, and are, committing our state to.  You may feel the merits outweigh the strings, but shouldn't we proceed with full knowledge of both?

http://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2013/10/14/the-common-core-memorandum-of-understanding-what-a-story/

This is where 'rigorous' and 'internationally benchmarked' come from.  They are the promises ("benefits") the Federal government is making to the states about what the Common Standards WILL BE.  Note what "state-led" really means in this application.  This is how we know WHAT we were being expected to do.  Even though Utah didn't win any money with Race to the Top, it outlines the details of what Utah was signing on to when it adopted Common Core and all the rest.  Because we have received money for the remaining 3 grants, listed above, we are still tied in to all those same requirements.  (See a nice graphical presentation here:
http://prezi.com/embed/icbma_8t5snu/?bgcolor=ffffff&lock_to_path=1&autoplay=0&autohide_ctrls=0&features=undefined&disabled_features=undefined)

Since the RTTT Grant application was over 400 pages long, I doubt any of the State Board members read it, at the time.  They were placing trust in their staff and their administrations.  However, they were committing you and me to what they signed.  It, nicely, outlines who has really been in charge in this 'more rigorous standards' process. 

No Man Can Serve Two Masters: School Grading/Accountability

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. (Matthew 6:24)

School Grading is touted as a way for parents to find out how well their school is doing. Obviously, we pay lip-service to parents being primarily responsible for their child's education, but we have higher levels of masters who take that power away from parents. If the teachers, schools, and student are graded based on how well the student does on a test, then everything is dependent on that test. I believe all those involved in setting standards, assessments, and school grading in this state are intending to have the best outcomes available for children. However, it is important to stop and look at the principles behind these issues and what the end results most likely will be. Who is the master we will serve?

A prime case in point is the presentation we received as a Board on Aug. 13 about the new school grading and teacher evaluation programs.   (A great overview can by found online, courtesy of the Alpine Parent Society.) These programs have been put into law by the legislature, but are also requirements of the Federal Waiver from No Child Left Behind. I could go into the mathematical flaws in the system, the necessary faith in the test creators, and the fact that testing drives what is taught in the classroom. However, the biggest issue I have is who will truly have the power to determine what our children learn. If you realize teacher evaluations, school grades and student grades are all tied to the new state SAGE (Common Core) tests, you realize whoever writes and grades those tests affects every aspect of education in this state. Say what you will about standards, the practical application of it will be in the tests.
 

Here's an example. Some people have heard recently of the Toni Morrison book, The Bluest Eye. I have never read it, but the excerpts I've read put it, in my opinion, in the category of pornography. (You may disagree, but bear with me for the sake of the argument.) I have an acquaintance back East whose children have read this repeatedly in her private, Catholic school, not because the teachers and administrators agree with the book, but because selections from the book appear on the AP English test. In this case, the AP test determines what is taught in the classroom, even if it is completely contrary to the values and mission of a particular school.

Additionally, the federally-funded Common Core tests (SBAC and PARCC) are testing “process and communication skills over content knowledge”, according to one reviewer. Since our test-developer (AIR) is also developing the SBAC test, one wonders if our state tests will follow suit. If so, anyone who fails to teach the proper methodology, not just the facts, puts their students, their career, and their school in jeopardy. (An example of this from another state can be found here.) Testing is the way standards, curricula and teaching methods are enforced. 

Joseph Stalin is supposed to have said, “It doesn't matter who votes. It matters who counts the votes.” Similarly, “He who makes the tests, controls the education.” The Master of our Education is the test-maker/grader. 

Parents can want certain things taught. Our laws and constitution can say how parents are primarily involved in their child's education. We can speak till we're blue in the face about how parents and local control of education are so important. But as soon as we tie everything to the grade on a test--a test parents have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL over--we realize we have a different master. Instead, we must have complete faith in the test developers.  Have they created a fair, accurate system of measuring what we, as parents, want?  And if they do not, there is nothing we can do at a local level to change it. 

We think an end-of-year test will be testing fact, knowledge, and information. However, the emphasis of the SAGE (Common Core) testing is to test “higher-order thinking” over fact. Most parents want their kids to learn higher-order thinking. But what does higher-order thinking mean to the test developer? Benjamin Bloom, author of the well-respected Bloom's Taxonomy (used extensively in education) defines it this way,”...a student attains 'higher-order thinking' when he no longer believes in right or wrong.” (Major Categories in the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, p. 185) This is completely inconsistent with my motto on education: Truth vanquishes darkness. 

You cannot serve two masters. 

Education cannot serve the parents if they can't control the test.  Higher-order thinking cannot lead to the discovery of truth if it also means no right or wrong.  

In the end, who is the master of education in Utah? The state tests, brought to you by American Institutes for Research. It's not you, and it's not me.

*****************************************************
About 50% of the time, I agree with the Utah School Boards Association (USBA) on legislation. This is one of those times. We may not agree for all the same reasons, but we agree on the end result. Last session, the legislature passed SB271 on school grading. This is an update of a school grading bill from 2011. In response to the 2011 law, the State Office of Ed developed a process for grading schools, called UCAS. UCAS is mathematically flawed and, like every accountability measure emanating from the state, will take local control away. SB271 is opposed by the USBA because, while they must have some sort of school grading to get the No Child Left Behind waiver, they prefer the UCAS grading system. I think we need to get rid of it all. However, I will be at the press conference/rally the USBA is holding in opposition to the current version of school grading, SB271, on Tuesday, September 3, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. at the Utah School Boards Association (USBA) office at 860 E. 9085 South (East on 90^th South, just east of 700 East and the Canyons School District ATC buildings).  I'd invite everyone who is opposed to the enforcement Common Core via testing, or to centralized control over education to attend.

Just remember, we can't serve two masters. Until we reassert our rightful position, as masters of our children's education, education in Utah will continue to be subject to a master set up by those who are willing to fill the void we have left.

How Can I Have an Impact on the Direction of our District? Answers Here!

As school starts, I want to inform you about 3 opportunities for you to get involved.  I have lots of people say they'd like to be more involved, but other than PTA, what can they do?  Also, you want to have an impact in your child's education, but how much time does it really require.  Well, here you go.

1) I am looking for one volunteer to serve on the District Community Council for the Ridgeline/Timberline/Westfield area.  The DCC is the public input arm of the district.  It will require you to attend about 80% of the School Community Council meetings from those 3 schools, and then attend a meeting at the District Office once every two months to report on any issues from those 3 schools.  Please let me know if you are interested.  This is a great opportunity to have input, to communicate the local issues, and to provide feedback.

2) The district would like 3 volunteers from the 'empty nest' crowd to participate in a single evening focus group in September.  The aim is to find a way to better communicate and involve our empty nesters in the direction and focus of the district.  Please let me know if you are interested in participating.

3) And finally, the Alpine Parent Society is in full swing.  A few enterprising mothers have started the society to attend and report on Board meetings and any other important doings of the district.  It is on a rotating basis, and you only need to commit to 2 times each year.  Each meeting will be about 1.5 hours.  So, this would be a total commitment of 3 hours each YEAR.  This helps to increase the transparency of the board, and to allow the local community to have an impact.  Also, just because Parent is in the name, it really means any taxpayer in the district.  So, just like the empty nest coalition, you needn't have kids in district schools to participate.  Here's the link: http://alpineparentsociety.wordpress.com/  We had great success with this in Highland City.  I think the goal is to have a couple of people attend each board meeting.  But for right now, they just want to get people in the swing of things.  Please sign up today!

Thanks for your support!

Wendy

Aug. 6, 2013 @ 6pm: Hearing on Property Tax Increase!!!

Tuesday, Aug. 6, 6pm at the District Office, 575 N. 100 E., American Fork!!!!


Tonight is the final hearing and vote on the tax increase for the district.  While it is a minimal tax increase, scheduled to raise $1.5 M to replace the amount being sent to charter schools by the state, I believe that a tax increase is a measure of last resort.  While we can always find good things to do with that money, the question is whether or not we need that additional amount to fulfill our obligations.

As an example, during June's meeting, we purchased a piece of property from MATC for $1.4M.  This property may be used to move our Adult Services classes for those with disabilities from our Lindon facility to American Fork.  We could also use it to house our At-risk students' alternative High School.  In short, there are many potential uses, but nothing concrete at the moment.  So, do we need to now raise taxes from our patrons for the same amount?  Sure, we can raise taxes and replace carpets and make repairs.  But, we could also not purchase property and do the same thing.  For me, I would have preferred to wait on the property until we were more clear on its use before expending the money. 

Just because our district can use your tax money to do good things, just because it's not a lot of money, does that mean we have a moral imperative to take your money by force?  I think we are under a greater obligation to make sure this is the last possible course of action for educating the kids of our district before we come to you with our hand open.  Property taxes, as I've said before, are the most eggregious form of taxation.  You don't get more money as your property values increase, but you still have to pay the increased taxes.  This places a huge burden on people who are undergoing income difficulties.  There are waivers for the elderly and the disabled, but nothing for a young family that moved into their first home last year and then lost their full-time employment, or a military family affected by the sequester.  While I know we could use the money, I am not convinced that it meets the criteria of being the last, possible resort.  I think it is just simply a matter of wanting to get the amount back that the legislature sent to the charter schools.  I disagree with the legislature on this one, but I'm not comfortable making you pay for their mistake.  For me, showing up the legislature on the backs of our taxpayers isn't what good government means.