NGSS: Standards for Grades 5, 9-12. My Letter to the State Board

Dear State Board Members:

I am concerned with the standards-adoption process I've observed since 2010.  Due to a lack of opportunity for the public to be involved during the Common Core adoption process in June and August of 2010, state law changed to require parent advisory committees for standards.  However, I have not found those "safe-guards" of advisory panels to address the fundamental questions required for standards adoption.

Just like with the math standards, average parents who have concerns with the current standards or with proposed new standards, do not have the time, energy or money to be able to effectively combat them with organizations that have full-time staff and who receive more time to discuss, debate, and propose than the 2 minute comment period allowed or by sending everything in an email. To that end, I hope you will forgive the length of my email, as I am unable to attend the committee meeting, and I want to include as much information as possible.  

I would like to address my main concerns with further adoption of the NGSS for science, and then address the questions I hope you will answer before voting on them.

CONCERNS WITH NGSS

1. ACT scores do not support switching to NGSS. In 2015, when I first wrote about my concerns in adopting NGSS, Utah scored higher in science on the ACT than the national average.  Utah tests ALL of its juniors on the ACT, which would naturally lower the ACT average when compared with states who allow for self-selection.  Utah's science ACT scores were higher than all those states who test 100% of their juniors as well (as per the 2014 stats, which were the latest ones available at that time:  you can see them here: https://web.archive.org/web/20150915050646/https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2014/pdf/CCCR14-StatebyStateScoreSummary.pdf.)  

Since then, ACT has redesigned their test, and Utah has adopted NGSS (pretty much) for grades 6-8.  As of 2017 (https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/cccr2017/CCCR_National_2017.pdf, see pg. 14), Utah is one of 17 states, testing all its juniors.  Our science percentages (on benchmark) are exceeded only by 3 states (CO, MN, WI), none of which have adopted NGSS: http://ngss.nsta.org/About.aspx) In a quick search, I have been unable to find "raw scores" like I did for the 2014 ACT.  

Either way, if you think ACT is a good measurement of science mastery, then I'm unsure why we would jettison something that is working for something that hasn't shown itself to work for those states who have adopted these standards.

2. Fordham Foundation rates UTAH "clearly superior to NGSS.  NGSS is rated a C.  Fordham rated Utah's science standards (pre-NGSS for grades 6-8) a B, 7/10.  Please read their critique.  (http://edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/20130612-NGSS-Final-Review_7.pdf)  

A few quotes:

"In reality, there is virtually no mathematics, even at the high school level, where it is essential to the learning of physics and chemistry. Rather, the standards seem to assiduously dodge the mathematical demands inherent in the subjects covered."

"NGSS physical science coverage is mediocre throughout grades K–5. Sadly, its quality declines rapidly and steadily in middle school, and still further at the high school level, where little positive can be said. Indeed, the physical science standards fail to lay the foundation for advanced study in high school and beyond, and there is so little advanced content that it would be impossible to derive a high school physics or chemistry course from the content included in the NGSS."

"In reality, we found virtually no mathematics in the physical science standards, even at the high school level, where it is essential to the learning of physics and chemistry. Rather, the standards seem to avoid the mathematical demands inherent in the subjects covered." 

"A second troubling problem is that some topics are poorly covered—or omitted entirely—throughout the grades. Energy, and heat energy in particular, is a prime example of an important topic that is poorly addressed."

"Third, the NGSS also seem to shun precise scientific vocabulary, often resulting in muddled meaning."

"High school physical science content is virtually nonexistent. Entire areas that are fundamental to the understanding of physics and chemistry—and essential prerequisites for advanced study—are omitted. Among these are chemical formulas, chemical equations, the mole concept and its applications, kinematics, thermodynamics, and pretty much all of modern physics, including all of the advances of physics since about 1950, as well as their transformative engineering applications." 

"Nor is energy ever covered with adequate depth and rigor (as explained further below). The idea of building on earlier non-rigorous ideas of energy and making them rigorous at the high school level is glaringly absent. " 

"High school chemistry is largely absent from the NGSS. What little content is included is too often found in vaguely worded performance expectations that assume mastery of knowledge not previously introduced. The standards are further weakened by limitations found in the clarification statements and assessment boundaries, which place arbitrary caps on the knowledge and skills that will be assessed each year, as well as the near-total absence of mathematical relationships and problem solving, and the avoidance of appropriate scientific vocabulary."

"Nothing in NGSS might form a basis for the standard high school physics course, much less preparation for an “advanced” course in physics." 

"We cannot discourse on the strengths of material that is absent."

3. Science appreciation, not science: One reviewer, Ze'ev Wurman testified before the Ohio House (http://educationnext.org/wurman-testimony-math-science-standards-ohio/)  that the NGSS will create students who have an appreciation for science but who can't do science.  His conclusion states:

"The proposed New Generation Science Standards are flawed and aimed at preparing science and technology consumers rather than technology creators. They offer a false promise of enhancing STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, Math] preparedness..."

4. Before-the-fact Training: All public school districts and charter schools were invited to send staff to a training at Weber State in the Fall of 2014, (6 months PRIOR to the grade 6-8 standards being presented to the State Board for public comment) to receive training in these new science standards.  Why train teachers/curriculum directors on something that might not happen?  Why are these standards so incredible that it requires a full-day seminar, before the fact, to properly train everyone?  

5. The adoption of the MOU for science test questions (just today) gives rise to similar concerns as the training.  Most of those states involved (I assume, since I was unable to find the MOU previous to today, and haven't had a chance to read it), will have similar standards, and it is my assumption these standards are NGSS.  As such, NGSS standards being used to write test questions leads to de facto standards adoption, whether Utah adopts NGSS or not.  What is tested is what will be taught.  We could keep our current science standards, but once we put NGSS test questions on our end-of-year tests, that is what will need to be taught to "prove" to the state our kids are learning.  

I don't mean to be rude or controversial, but from the time it was raised by Board Member Burningham in 2010 that adoption of one set of national standards (Common Core for English and Math) would lead to adoption of national standards in all the other areas, we have seen this occur.  There is no evidence that national standards yield better results than those that do not.  (It's about 50:50.)  What other standards did the science review committee look at?  And if no others, why not?  

Surely, there are many states that have science standards with a proven track record that are rated higher than Fordham's review of NGSS.  In 2013, there were 20 states with higher standards than NGSS, as well as the NAEP, TIMSS and ACT Frameworks.  Massachussetts' A-minus standards have, I believe, at least a 13-year track record and their tests are in the public domain.  (I know this is true for English and Math, but will be looking to find out for science.)  Are we interested in the BEST standards for our students, or do we want to have the SAME standards with most states?  For me, the answer is clear: I would like the best!  I have yet to find evidence (other than opinion) that NGSS will provide the best science education for our students.  

QUESTIONS THE BOARD SHOULD ANSWER FOR ALL STANDARDS

Here are the questions I would like to see asked by this Board for every set of standards, both existing and proposed.  I, personally, would appreciate receiving an answer to these questions, but understand if that isn't possible.  

The Burden of Proof to adopt new standards needs to be on you, as our elected State Board members.  Just because standards are "new" or the current standards are "old" isn't sufficient reason to assume that new is better.  Often, tried and true, is the best scenario.  

Additionally, since changing the math and English standards was voted down due to the hefty cost, why would we want to change other standards unnecessarily?  Or will these standards not incur any additional cost?  And if not, why not?  (Incidentally, as you go knocking on doors for campaigns, you don't hear "We need new science standards!"  You WILL hear tons of complaints about the math standards.  If there isn't a desire in the board to address the math standards that a large group of parents think is broken beyond comprehension, I think we should be very wary about changing something that the people don't think is broken, like science.  

1.) What is lacking in our current set of standards?  Please be specific; don't just say 'they need to be updated'.  With all due respect, if our previous standards were based on truth and objective fact, then, unless there have been changes, and science would be one of those areas where I would agree there are probably 'holes', there is no need to throw out the objective truth that we are already teaching.  Can we simply 'tweak' what we have now?

2.) What is the evidence that the proposed set of standards will be able to fill those gaps in our current standards?

3.) Have the proposed standards been either pilot-tested (for how long, what were the demographics, what were the metrics used to show improvement) or, as a baseline, benchmarked against other states or countries that we feel confident have been successful with this particular discipline?  (And what are those metrics?)

4.) Taken as a whole, over the course of 13 years, is there a prevailing worldview that emerges, and if so, is that worldview consistent with the diversity and the values of the citizens of this state? Do we seek to provide a broad, general knowledge, without influencing the attitudes, values, and beliefs of our students?  

5.) What are the pieces that are missing from the proposed standards?  For example, the NGSS do not address Life Systems, specifically body systems, or energy, or physics.  Climate change is heavily emphasized, but electric circuits are briefly mentioned.  While I appreciate both climate change and electric circuits being taught, it appears, at least to me, that there is an over-emphasis of one at the expense of others.  It is usually easier to find problems in things that exist.  It is much more difficult to take the time to determine what isn't even there.  

6.) Do the standards seek to obtain compliance of thought, instead of an understanding of the rationale and disagreements involved in controversial or politically charged issues?  This is especially important in science.  If we create a generation of students who believe that all science is not to be questioned, we have failed in our task.  Science is always to be questioned, and refined.  We should be constantly looking for ways to support or to disprove the current knowledge of the day.  

7.) Have you looked at some of the available curricular materials, as well as other states' implementations, to make sure that implementation of these standards, while supposedly wonderful in theory, won't fall flat in the application?  My past experience with the adoption of new standards and 'programs' (over the last decade) has been a trail of grand promises and disappointing results that are always blamed on local districts and teachers.  There has never been, or that anyone will admit, a set of bad standards.  It's always blamed on poor implementation.  With all due respect, if a set of standards can't be implemented successfully in at least 51% of the schools, then they should not be adopted, no matter what the claims and promises.  (Please see item #3.)

8.) Is there enough emphasis on fact and foundational knowledge?  There is a trend to focus on 'critical thinking' and to not get bogged down into rote memorization.  While I can appreciate and respect that position, it is impossible to have critical thinking about any issue without the foundational, factual knowledge of the subject.  Especially for children in the early grades who have limited abstraction and limited reasoning skills, are we allowing and encouraging those fact-based pieces of information that will form the foundation for greater understanding later on? 

9.)  Will these standards strengthen the parent-child relationship or hinder it?  For example, implementing standards that parents don't understand or that place them in a negative light vis-a-vis their child, no matter how great they are supposed to be, creates a rift between parent and child.  This is an unacceptable consequence for an education system that is supposed to be secondary and supportive to the primary role of the parent in educating his or her children.  The more involved parents are, the better the academic success of the child.  That is the number one factor in student success... the parent, not the standards.  We need to keep that in mind.  

Thank you for your time and effort, and my very great thanks if you made it all the way through this email.

Sincerely,

Wendy Hart

Mother

Alpine District Board Member (NOT speaking on behalf of my board) for ASD2

Business Owner

Highland, UT

Parent Letter on New Science Standards: "I believe that science is absolute, but man's understanding of science is what shifts."

We are nearing the end of the 90-day public comment period on the proposed Utah Science Standards (that are a direct copy and paste of the Next Generation Science Standards).  Please take the time TODAY to read the standards and to fill out the survey for our State Board of Education.  If you don't comment, you get what those in power want you to have.  The NGSS were adopted by the Kansas State Board of Education.  A lawsuit was brought against them, stating that the NGSS violated First Amendment rights by promoting an anti-theistic worldview.  The lawsuit was dismissed, stating that, "parents and children who are plaintiffs as “bystanders” whose injuries from the standards are abstract, rather than concrete and particular, opponents argue."  You may like the standards, but you have to wonder if parents and the children who are subjected to these standards do not have legal 'standing' then who does get to sue about standards?  So, the answer is to weigh in before they are adopted!

You can see Grades 6 -8 here: http://www.schools.utah.gov/CURR/science/Revision.aspx  The NGSS standards are located here: http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards And (MOST IMPORTANT), the survey can be found here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SciencePublicReview You can make comments about the process, as well as the specific standards, even though the survey doesn't mention the process.  For my concerns, go here. 

I am sharing with you a letter from Julie King, a mother, a trained social worker, and involved parent about her concerns with adopting the NGSS.  It is reprinted with her permission.  Please note, she uses anatomically correct terms and discusses concerns with the national human sexuality standards, as well.  I find her human sexuality standards discussion relevant, but will leave it to her letter to explain why.

****************************************************************************
Dear State School Board Members:

I wanted to share my thoughts about the science standards.  I have several concerns with the standards.  First, my greatest concern with the standards is our own reliance on our limited human understanding.  I believe that science is absolute, but man's understanding of science is what shifts. I remember being taught in college that infants do not feel pain and I thought that was the most ridiculous thing I had ever heard. Guess what? That was recently found to be false. But up until about 1987, it was common for infants to be given paralytics for surgery, but no pain medication. It sounds pretty barbaric.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/brain-scans-show-babies-feel-pain-adults-world-first-proves-what-every-mother-knows-330092

We are constantly learning things we had no idea about from neuroplasticity to whether or not Pluto is a planet.  We used to believe that cigarettes were great and that nicotine was not addictive.  Once again, the substances or science did not change, our understanding of it did.  Part of science curriculum should be addressing these limitations, learning about how we have made mistakes and corrected them, as well as studying scientists such as Madame Curie, Galileo, and Edison.

Second, I have a problem with the USOE presenting the SEED as Utah-created when it is plagiarized from Next Generation Science Standards.  Plagiarism is “the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.”  As far as I can tell, the only adjustment to the NGSS has been renumerating the standards for SEED as well as removing 2 words.  Other than that, it is a word-for-word paste and copy.  In addition to that, Fordham recently evaluated our current standards as well as NGSS.  Utah standards were given a B and NGSS was given a C.  Why are we trading our science standards for poorer ones?  If we need to update our standards, we should do that and not take a color-coded science standard and assume it is superior because it is a national standard.
http://edexcellence.net/publications/final-evaluation-of-NGSS.html


Third, there are holes in the NGSS.  There is a lack of computer science as well as chemistry and the lack of any human anatomy is what raises a red flag for me.  Why would we completely eliminate human anatomy?  Here comes the crazy conspiracy theory- because once that hole in the standards is “discovered,” we will be able to patch it with the National Sexual Education Standards.  But that is crazy, right?  Utah would never adopt national sex ed standards.  Just like we were told repeatedly we would never adopt national science standards.   This is actually my field of expertise.  I am a social worker and have taught child abuse prevention programs to preschoolers up to PhD candidates.  I have worked with abused children and sex offenders, rape victims and domestic violence victims.  I have also been a foster parent.  I am not a prude.  My children have learned and used anatomically correct terminology since they learned to speak.  My sons learned that they have a penis and my girls learned they have a vagina.  They have also been taught about what is appropriate and inappropriate touch.  I have no problem being forthright with my children.  We talk about everything from date rape to roofies.  Those are hard conversations and best answered by parents in their home, articulating their belief systems and principles.  I have been trained in how to talk to children about sexuality and appropriate boundaries.  This is what the standards say-“By the end of 2nd grade, students should be able to:  use proper names for body parts, including male and female anatomy.”  This standard is actually a K-2 standard which means that this content can be introduced in kindergarten.  My kindergarten-aged children were able to do this without a problem.  But this was taught at home.  Now imagine that Johnny blurts out that Uncle Jimmy touches his penis.  The other kids laugh, the teacher reacts in a shocked manner, and Johnny feels ashamed.  Johnny is teased on the playground and called names.  When we put teachers in a place to teach something this sensitive when they are not trained properly, we revictimize kids.  Do I want Johnny to disclose this abuse?  Absolutely!  But I want it to be done in a way that makes him feel safe and does not revictimize him.  And throwing in a professional development once a year about teaching sex ed standards is not enough.  The potential to damage our children with sex ed standards when not taught appropriately is astounding.  And our most vulnerable children-those who suffer abuse-will be the ones who pay the highest price.

Fourth, there is obvious bias in the standards.  By only looking at the grade 6-8 standards, we lose the overview of what NGSS truly is.  We need to look at the K-12 standards.  Let’s be real-we are not going to adopt NGSS for 6-8 and not the rest of the grades.  I was taught evolution and I have no problem with teaching about global warming or climate change.  But I also think this goes back to my first comment that what we understand about science constantly changes.  In my sex ed class in high school, I was taught that watching porn is a normal and sexually healthy activity that everybody does.  We are now starting to see how addictive and poisonous pornography is.  We need to be aware of what we teach as fact and what we present as theory.  One of the points in science we should focus on is asking why? and constantly questioning what we feel we know.  Part of true science is being willing to question things and doubt.  We need to look at what our focus is.  When they are over 50 mentions of climate change and only one reference to electric circuits, we are overemphasizing one idea and excluding others.  Am I ok with my kids learning about climate change?  Absolutely!  But I am not OK with my kindergartener being asked to solve global warming .  The following is a kindergarten standard:
Communicate solutions that will reduce the impact of humans on the land, water, air, and/or other living things in the local environment.* [Clarification Statement: Examples of human impact on the land could include cutting trees to produce paper and using resources to produce bottles. Examples of solutions could include reusing paper and recycling cans and bottles.]
Do you know what kindergarten science should be?  The five senses, weather, and the life cycle of a butterfly and ladybug.  Maybe planting seeds and learning about how plants grow.  That’s it.  When was the last time when you were in a kindergarten class with 25 active children?  With less than 3 hours a day, kindergarten should largely be about reading and learning to follow rules.  Rules like keep your hands and feet to yourself and take turns.  Not about rationing paper so that less trees are cut down.

I hope that you seriously consider the feedback from parents as we are often in classrooms and see the challenges that teachers and their students face when we apply top-down approaches to education.

Julie King
Mother of 4 children (ages 16, 13, 11, and 8)
School Community Council representative for an Alpine School District School and a charter school (UCAS)
PTA member and Westlake council president-elect

Walks and Talks like National Science Standards But....Really an Ostrich

Come Wednesday, May 6  @ 7pm to the public comment meeting for Utah's Newly Proposed Science Standards being held at Provo School District Office, 280 West 940 North, Provo, Utah, 84604. 

The new science standards are All That and a Kit-Kat.  (or that's what you're supposed to believe).  In point of fact, there are a lot of problems with the standards...starting with the fact that they are a cut-and-paste version of a set of national science standards (designed to not be exactly Common Core science, hence the new name, but created by the same organization anyway.) This is the chance to make a difference.  In a couple of years, when you see the problem, it will be much harder to fix. 

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are the next set of 'state-led, not national, but adopted by lots of states, nationally, standards' that aren't really Common Core; although, they were developed by the same organization (Achieve, Inc) that started us off on the Common Core standards for English and Math.  (If you call them Common Core Science Standards, you will be ridiculed.  They changed the name....walks like a duck, talks like a duck...Ostrich--with webbed feet and much smaller!)

In May, 2009, a concern was raised by State Board Member Kim Burningham, that the adoption of a national set of standards (Common Core) in a couple of subjects (English and math) would lead to subsequent adoption of additional subjects. (Audio, May 1, 2009, National Common Standards)

In July, 2011, this same concern was raised at our Alpine School Board retreat, after the adoption of Common Core.  I was, personally assured we wouldn't adopt another set of national standards, by then-Curriculum director at the State Office, Sydnee Dickson, "I do want to address, Wendy, one of the comments you made about science and social studies. Our board has been very clear, that if national standards are developed, or even a consortium of states come together that we will not adopt those because there are just too many philosophical variances within those, and so, they've just been really clear, up front, that we're not going there." (1st Audio file @ 38:45: http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=850)

At the beginning of the Common Core implementation process, we were repeatedly assured, from all sides, that national science and social studies standards would never be adopted by Utah...until now.

While there are several concerns about the parent panel not knowing that these standards were, in fact, the NGSS, and how long it took to figure out that the 'science writing team' was really the science 'cut and paste from the NGSS document' team, the bigger issues are:

1) Parental Control: Parents, during the public comment meetings, were told that not everything that exists in the NGSS has been presented to the public.  The teachers will get much more detail on what the standards actually are. "It would be too overwhelming" for parents to actually see and know and understand what their kids are being taught.

2) Lower standards: Fordham Foundation rated Utah's current science standards 'Clearly Superior' to the NGSS standards.  Utah has B-rated science standards and NGSS are C-rated.  Why would we exchange our locally-developed/controlled, better standards for something sub-par, just to stay behind with other states? (Sarcasm alert!) Clearly, we wouldn't want to be known for our better standards and our superior science education, when we could have students held back to be common and below what they could be.  This way, we don't make the other states feel bad.  

From Fordham's review:

"Among the shortcomings of the NGSS is its acute dearth of math content, even in situations where math is essential to the study and proper understanding of the science that students are being asked to master." [emphasis mine]

Oh, and Fordham LOVES national standards and Bill Gates' money.  These standards are so bad, that even they are not willing to endorse them for states like Utah.

3) Science appreciation, not science: One reviewer, Ze'ev Wurman testified before the Ohio House that the NGSS will create students who have an appreciation for science but who can't do science.  His conclusion states:

"The proposed New Generation Science Standards are flawed and aimed at preparing science and technology consumers rather than technology creators. They offer a false promise of enhancing STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, Math] preparedness..."

 4) Slanted perspectives: And our own State Superintendent, Brad Smith, at an educational forum held at Westlake HS last Friday said that some of the topics in these standards present a one-sided view of an issue.  He is hoping to 'tweak' these standards to make them acceptable.

5) Before-the-fact Training: All public school districts and charter schools were invited to send staff to a training at Weber State last fall to receive training in these new science standards.  Why train teachers/curriculum directors on something that might not happen?  Why are these standards so incredible that it requires a full-day seminar, before the fact, to properly train everyone?  Something smells like a duck too. 

6) Controversial: A group in Kansas has filed a lawsuit, and is now appealing on the basis that these standards prohibit a worldview that is compatible with a belief in God.  Wyoming's legislature has blocked the adoption of NGSS.  This is not a basic set of science standards without controversy.  Could that explain the need for a Utah writing team and a different name?

Please come tomorrow and comment.  Contact the State board and ask them to scrap this attempt at giving us lower standards in the interest of being the same as other states. Please do not accept the idea that we can tweak standards we don't want. 

A friend of mine who analyzed textbook bias in college indicated that the hardest form of bias to spot is the one of omission.  You can see what is there, but you have to step back and see what is missing.  What is the picture of the world these standards are painting?  According to Mr. Wurman, one where kids are consumers of science, but don't have the abilities to be scientists, themselves....

Oh, and they're not a duck....I mean NGSS or national standards or ....!

Common Core IS NOT Dead, Board Goals, State Issues

A lot is going on in education.  Most importantly, tomorrow, Tuesday, Jan. 23, our Board will have a retreat to set goals for the district for 2018.  Please email me or reply on facebook with what goals you would like us to set.  (I can bring up to 2 goals, but I would like to see all your thoughts.)

I'm going to give you a brief summary of what's going on Locally, Statewide and Nationally in education.

Local:

1. Board Retreat, setting Board Goals.  Review of 21st Century Learning/STEAM schools.  It is the school district's plan to convert all of our schools into 21st Century/STEAM schools.  Right now, Cedar Ridge, Ridgeline and Highland (if I recall) in my area are all 21st Century Learning.  This means more project-based learning, less memorization, more technology and a focus on the 6 C's: Collaboration, Communication, Critical Thinking, Creativity, Citizenship, Character.  

I, personally, have grave concerns with more tech in schools, especially with the emphasis on character traits and values, as evidenced by the 6 C's and the national ESSA (replacement for No Child Left Behind) requirements.  More on ESSA below.  Here is an interesting read on Critical Thinking that I agree with.  https://www.memoriapress.com/articles/the-critical-thinking-skills-hoax/

2. The Board set up a Local Building Authority last meeting to facilitate paying for the rebuild of Scera Park Elementary in Orem without raising taxes or going through a bond.  You can read more about it on my blog: https://wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2018/01/local-building-authority.html

3. This is an election year.  4 Alpine Board Seats will be up for election this year, as well as 1 State Board seat in our area.  I would like to encourage everyone to take a moment and think seriously about running for office.  The 4 ASD Seats are: Saratoga Springs/Eagle Mountain (currently held by Paula Hill who will not be running again), American Fork (currently held by John Burton), West Orem (currently held by JoDee Sundberg), and Highland/Alpine/Cedar Hills (currently my seat).  As always,  I welcome any and all to throw their hats into the ring.  Civil public debate is the BEST way to get the best ideas working for our kids.  The State Board seat is currently held by Joel Wright and covers most of ASD, except Orem and a small part out West.  Government of the people, by the people and for the people requires not just a few people involved, but all of us.  And the Founders expected that people would rotate their service in public office.  The deadline to file is mid-March.

State:

1. The State is close to releasing the new science standards for grades 5, 9-12.  Since the Grade 6-8 standards are a rewording of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), it is my personal belief that the Board will adopt, without hesitation, the NGSS for these grades as well.  I have many concerns about these standards, but the biggest one is that Utah currently scores higher on ACT science than any state that also tests 100% of its juniors, not just those who self-select as wanting to go to college.  (That means our scores will be lower, on average, than those states that let kids decide whether to take the ACT or not.)  We also score higher than the national average on the science portion of the ACT.  So, I'm unsure why we would adopt standards that show other states doing more poorly.  Not to mention that the math is almost non-existent, as are body systems, chemistry and physics.  Also, Utah's current science standards (except Grades 6-8) received a B grade.  NGSS received a C from Fordham Foundation.  You can read more by searching NGSS on my blog: https://wendy4asd.blogspot.com/search?q=ngss  Here's the video from when we adopted Grades 6-8: https://wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2015/11/utahs-new-science-standards-national.html  The arguments are the same.  Please share with your friends and neighbors and ask them to contact the state board: board@schools.utah.gov to express their concern or their support.  If you are supportive, I would love to know why and where the NGSS has worked and by what measures it has worked.
2. The State's ESSA plan was rejected, in large part, due to our opting out of SAGE.  Rather than finding out why parents don't want their kids to take SAGE, the Board is looking at renaming SAGE.  They have hired a new testing vendor, Questar, to continue with the SAGE testing, but the terms of the proposal indicate we need to continue to use the same questions as SAGE.  So, new vendor, same questions, new name.  
3. Associated with that, the State Board is deciding how they want to handle the ESSA rejection by the Feds.  Please remember, when ESSA was being passed, everyone said that it returned Local Control of education to the states.  Those of us who opposed it said that it wouldn't.  What does everyone think now?  The options are 1) Ask the US Dept of Ed for a waiver for the opt out provisions, 2) Tell the Feds we don't want their Title 1 money and ask the Legislature to make up the difference in funding (my preference) or 3) Change state law to REQUIRE parents to submit their kids to SAGE testing against their will (Land of the Free?)  I have good reason to believe that if the State Board were to play their cards right, the Feds would be hard-pressed to hold back funding for the lowest socio-economic strata of kids in the lowest funded state in the nation.  But they'll try. 
4. The Legislature is in session.  1300 bills opened about education, if I remember correctly.  Please pay attention and email your legislators.  I'm sure there will be a desire to limit opting out of SAGE testing and other measures designed to limit parents in their primary role of raising their kids.

Feds:

1. ESSA requires a measurement for non-cognitive measures.  Just watch how everything will be focused on things like GRIT and perseverance, as well as technology.  The "nice" thing about technology is that you can have second-by-second information about your kid sent to a computer program to determine if your kid has the right attitudes, values and beliefs.  The desire to have knowledge is over.  "The most controversial issues of the twenty-first century will pertain to the ends and means of modifying human behavior and who shall determine them. The first educational question will not be 'what knowledge is of the most worth?' but 'what kinds of human beings do we wish to produce?' The possibilities virtually defy our imagination." (John I. Goodlad) 
2. Secretary DeVos declares the "Common Core is dead!"  It's not.  Not by a long shot, and that is in large part due to ESSA.  You can read more about that here:  https://truthinamericaneducation.com/common-core-state-standards/betsy-devos-aei-american-enterprise-institute/  Please share this information with friends and neighbors.  Most BAD Educational ideas never die.  They just get renamed, rebranded and shilled to the public again as the "latest and greatest" education silver bullet.  

State Standards: Burden of Proof Rests on the State Board

Below is my letter to the State Board regarding the adoption of the NGSS standards for science in Utah.

IMPORTANT: Please make sure you comment on the science standards.  You can see Grades 6 -8 here: http://www.schools.utah.gov/CURR/science/Revision.aspx  The NGSS standards are located here: http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards And (MOST IMPORTANT), the survey can be found here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SciencePublicReview We were informed last Wednesday (May 6) that even though the comments are set up to discuss specific standards, we are free to include philosophical, process, and other concerns in our comments.  Please comment as soon as possible, as there is only a 90-day comment period. 

My Letter:

Dear State Board Members,

I am asking that you restart the entire process of science standards adoption.  There is a very real, very large deficit of public trust on the issue of standards.  While I appreciate the parent review committees and the public comment periods, it really is the perception that this was a 'done deal'.  The subsequent release of the Fine Arts standards that are identical to the national fine arts standards indicates a desire by either this Board or the USOE or both to completely align everything we do to a national set of standards created by a national set of 'supposed' experts in these fields.  The assumption that national (or broadly-adopted) standards are inherently superior is flawed, as is the assertion that a lack of national (or broadly-adopted) standards will  prohibit individual students to grow up to be successful, educated individuals.  Some high-performing nations have national standards, but about the same number do not. 

Here are some of my concerns and requests.

The most major concern is that of creating uniformity and centralization.  Education is not something that can or should be standardized.  We like to think that there are certain basics that all kids should know, and there may be, but they are very broad and many must keep the individual child in mind.  In point of fact, that is why we have teachers...to customize and personalize this process of every individual.  Our system of education has been extremely successful when we harness the power of the individual, and not try to fit everyone into the same mold.  I realize with accountability measures, this is a very difficult thing to do.  But it doesn't get easier when we buy into the idea that we will be left behind if we don't keep up with the national standards group du jour.   While that may be true, we will never have the opportunity to excel either.  And, I'm afraid, that is the intent.  When we have no risk, we have no chance of failure, but we have no chance of success either.  Centralization removes the flexibility of adaptation and change.  Even if we have the power to change, in a few years, we will lack the ability due to SAT, GED, ACT and textbooks all aligning.  We have to be completely sure that these are the very best standards and that we will NEVER want to change without the rest of the states going along. 

Additionally, adopting national or broadly adopted standards has been touted as allowing teachers greater resources.  I have heard this repeated over many years as justification for national or frequently adopted standards.  We have felt slighted in the past for having had our own standards.  However, I hope you understand that in trying to find non-CC textbooks and materials, right now, it is virtually impossible.   You have to order out-of-print materials and lots of things on eBay.  Common Core was officially adopted by 46 state only 5 years ago.  So, while you may have a lot of materials to choose from that are aligned to CC, they are really shades of gray.  Bright colors and pastels no longer exist.  There are no laboratories of education that are trying different ideas and finding success or failure.  There is no compelling free-market interest to create or to continue to supply textbooks and teaching materials to the small private and homeschool market and the 5 states that didn't sign on to Common Core.  It's a boon for the textbook suppliers--one set of standards equals one set of teaching materials that can be moved around and modified, but, ultimately, stay the same.  (Bill Gates predicted as much, and was quite excited about it.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=323WQrPHslg )  It has been suggested that because of this lack of resources, we MUST align our standards to those of other states.  With all due respect, we will then be hastening the demise of diversity and options.  We are walking directly into that trap and helping set the bait for others. 

At the end of the day, each of you has the burden of proof, as our elected representatives, to explain the following to us, the parents and citizens of Utah, for every set of standards that you adopt. 

1.) What is lacking in our current set of standards?  Please be specific; don't just say 'they need to be updated'.  With all due respect, if our previous standards were based on truth and objective fact, then, unless there have been changes, and science would be one of those areas where I would agree there are probably 'holes', there is no need to throw out the objective truth that we are already teaching.  Can we simply 'tweak' what we have now?

2.) What is the evidence that the proposed set of standards will be able to fill those gaps in our current standards?

3.) Have the proposed standards been either pilot-tested (for how long, what were the demographics, what were the metrics used to show improvement) or, as a baseline, benchmarked against other states or countries that we feel confident have been successful with this particular discipline?  (And what are those metrics?)

4.) Taken as a whole, over the course of 13 years, is there a prevailing worldview that emerges, and if so, is that worldview consistent with the diversity and the values of the citizens of this state? Do we seek to provide a broad, general knowledge, without influencing the attitudes, values, and beliefs of our students? 

5.) What are the pieces that are missing from the current standards?  For example, the NGSS does not address Life Systems, specifically body systems, or Computer Science.  Climate change is heavily emphasized, but electric circuits are briefly mentioned.  While I appreciate both climate change and electric circuits being taught, it appears, at least to me, that there is an over-emphasis of one at the expense of others.  It is usually easier to find problems in things that exist.  It is much more difficult to take the time to determine what isn't even there.  (This concept is why the request to point out the standards one doesn't like doesn't work.  I can point to those I don't like, but I can't point to those that do not exist but should.)

6.) Do the standards seek to obtain compliance of thought, instead of an understanding of the rationale and disagreements involved in controversial or politically charged issues?  This is especially important in science.  If we create a generation of students who believe that all science is not to be questioned, we have failed in our task.  Science is always to be questioned, and refined.  We should be constantly looking for ways to support or to disprove the current knowledge of the day. 

7.) Have you looked at some of the available curricular materials, as well as other states' implementations, to make sure that implementation of these standards, while supposedly wonderful in theory, won't fall flat in the application?  My past experience with the adoption of new standards and 'programs' (over the last decade) has been a trail of grand promises and disappointing results that are always blamed on local districts and teachers.  There has never been, to my knowledge, a set of bad standards.  It's always, we are told, just poor implementation.  With all due respect, if a set of standards can't be implemented successfully in at least 51% of the schools, then they should not be adopted, no matter what the claims and promises.  (Please see item #3.)

8.) Is there enough emphasis on fact and foundational knowledge?  There is a trend to focus on the 'critical thinking' and to not get bogged down into rote memorization.  While I can appreciate and respect that position, it is impossible to have critical thinking about any issue without the foundational, factual knowledge of the subject.  Especially for children in the early grades who have limited abstraction and limited reasoning skills, are we allowing and encouraging those fact-based pieces of information that will form the foundation for greater understanding later on?

9.)  Will these standards strengthen the parent-child relationship or hinder it?  For example, implementing standards that parents don't understand, no matter how great they are supposed to be, creates a rift between parent and child.  This is an unacceptable consequence for an education system that is supposed to be secondary and supportive to the primary role of the parent in educating his or her children.  The more involved parents are, the better the academic success of the child.  That is the number one factor in student success... the parent, not the standards.  We need to keep that in mind. 

Having attended the Provo meeting last night, I heard a lot of promises and things that sounded really good.  I have heard all those things as they relate to Common Core and Investigations Math.  In both instances, the promises did not materialize.  Please do not adopt standards based on promises.  Please adopt standards based on fact, and knowledge, and proof, not just the opinion of 'experts'.  Sometimes 'experts' are wrong or have their own agendas too.   

The burden of proof is not on the people to show that the standards are bad, or wrong, or insufficient.  It is up to you to demonstrate to us that adopting these new standards will provide the opportunity for each, individual student in Utah to live up to their potential, to be free to choose their own direction in life. 

Thank you for all the long hours that you spend in our service and your willingness to listen, even when we disagree.  It is greatly appreciated. 

Sincerely,

Wendy Hart
Mother of 3
Highland, UT
Board Member, Alpine School District, Alpine/Cedar Hills/Highland
Business Owner

*********************************
Additional thoughts on the NGSS.

As mentioned in my last post, the NGSS are controversial because

1) They are rated lower (C) than our current science standards  (B) by Fordham Foundation (who regularly rates standards).  This is important because Fordham is a big supporter of Common Core and all things national standards-like.  I think it's important to note, in the Fordham review, the specific concerns, rather than just the grade overall. 

2) These standards were developed by Achieve, Inc., the same group that gave us the Common Core standards

3) These 'national' standards will allow us to use the same tests for science as a lot of other states; thereby ensuring that Utah no longer has control over what we teach in our classrooms, since the testing will dictate what is taught. The biggest problem with all these 'national' concepts is the idea that there is one single set of standards that everyone, everywhere should be taught and that whomever developed these standards (Achieve, Inc.) is the repository of all that is good and right with education.  Science is science, and we should have no dissent, debate, or discussion.  Furthermore, if parents have concerns with what their children are being taught, it is because, as one U of U professor said, they are 'Luddites'.

4) These standards are touted as being able to guarantee that we are not left behind in Utah.  Just an interesting side note, Utah is one of a handful of states that provides the ACT to all Juniors.  (What that means is that our scores will be lower than those states where students self-select whether or not to take the ACT.)  Of those states that test 100% of their students, Utah scores higher than any of them on the science portion of the ACT.  Utah also has a higher science score than the national score overall, including all those states where only the 'smart' kids decide to take the test.  So, the idea that we are 'falling behind' other states, doesn't seem to add up.  At least not by this measure.  And there is no evidence that these standards will make us even better....None.

and finally..

5) The State of Kansas was recently involved in a lawsuit over these standards on First Amendment grounds because it was alleged that these standards (taken as a whole, not just specific standards) and the required evidence of mastery would prohibit a theistic world view.  And this is where the "Luddite" comment is coming from.  The thinking is that if you oppose these standards, it is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't want your child to understand real science.  It's not that you want to have science left open to what we know and what we don't know without promoting or dismissing one worldview over another.  School should not be teaching religion, but it should not be anti-religious either. If we teach a worldview that prohibits a belief in a Creator, then are we not, essentially, teaching religion?  We are told that with these new standards, our kids will know how to ask questions better.  However, if you read all the materials, you find that the questions our kids will be asking will be limited and directed into a particular worldview.  77% of the population of the US considers themselves Christian.  Why is it necessary to prohibit this worldview in a science class?  Why must any worldview be adopted in science class?  Why can't we just provide for what we know, what we don't know, and teach the scientific method?  And we should NEVER, EVER try to convince children that science is settled, that there is no room for questioning or that there are only a certain set of appropriate questions.  But that's what I see.  We are using the cover of science to manipulate the beliefs and values of our kids, not to teach them how to become scientists or to understand the world around them. 

Utah's New Science Standards: National and Lower Quality

You have until Monday, November, 9th to comment on the proposed Utah Science Standards that are, essentially, the Next Generation Science Standards. 

Please watch and share this video, and then comment for our State Board. 

Why The Next Generation Science Standards Are Wrong For Utah

Comment here: http://www.schools.utah.gov/CURR/science/Revision.aspx  Even though, the form requests specific comments on specific standards, it is perfectly acceptable to provide general comments on the standards as a whole or the process as a whole.

Unless massive amounts of people speak up, the adoption of these standards is already a done deal.


The legislature has made public comment and parent committees a requirement, since We, the People, complained about this lack when the Common Core standards were adopted.  Take advantage of the opportunity to weigh in on what our children should learn about science in this state, and how much of it should be exactly the same as every other state.  (Just curious how we get diversity of thought in scientific inquiry, if everyone is taught the same things in the same way?)

Here is a link to the Next Generation Science Standards that, if we adopt grades 6-8, will almost assuredly be adopted throughout K-12.  http://www.nextgenscience.org/  For fun, search certain terms in their search box to see where the emphasis of the K-12 standards would be.  Make sure to put things in quotes, e.g. "digestive system" or "climate change" or electron to look for those words as a pair.  Utah has made some adjustments, but if they are essentially NGSS, rest assured that all the materials that will be used in the classroom will be based on NGSS.  The changes Utah has made will have minimal impact.

Every set of standards, of late, that has been adopted or considered has been based on national standards.  There is no evidence that national standards improve education, but it is true that parents have less say and less impact on what is taught in their local schools the further away they are from those who make the decisions.

For more information on the standards, see my previous posts.  Please share with 5 of your friends and submit your comments to the State Board!

State Board needs to Prove the new standards are better: http://wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2015/05/state-standards-burden-of-proof-rests.html

Science is Absolute, but Man's Understanding of Science is what Shifts: A Parent Letter
http://wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2015/06/parent-letter-on-new-science-standards.html

NGSS and SEEd: National Science Standards?
http://wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2015/05/walks-and-talks-like-national-science.html

No on Question1 and School Board Races| A Philosophy

Please vote NO on Question 1!  There are so many reasons why, but the most important is that it sets a very dangerous precedent.  I'll also discuss the school board candidates below [Spoiler: State Board 9: Avalie Muhlestein and Julie King in ASD 1 (Westlake HS area)].  Please study and be informed before casting your ballot.

NO ON QUESTION 1: A Dangerous Precedent
Question 1 is a polling question.  To my knowledge, we have never had an opinion poll on our ballots.  So, instead of paying lobbyists to lobby the legislature or to get signatures for a ballot initiative, you are being used by an organization that was unable to accomplish their objectives by either of those options.  If you can't change laws the regular way, and you're rich and famous, you try to find a way around the normal lawmaking process. Co-opting citizens to pressure lawmakers is now a thing.  

Question 1 doesn't change A SINGLE THING. But the proponents HOPE the legislature will increase gas taxes, and then play a shell game to get SOME of that money into K-12, (as well as Higher Ed and Roads and money for UDOT. Shhh!  Don't tell anyone that part.  It isn't as emotionally appealing as grade-school kids.)  Legislators also know that GAS TAX CANNOT be used for Education under our Utah Constitution (hence the shell game).   If lots of people vote yes on Question 1, then the Question 1 proponents can browbeat legislators into passing, supposedly, their version of legislation that they were unable to get signatures for to get on the ballot. (Of course, politics being what it is, there is no guarantee that what we end up with will look anything like what the proponents are selling.)

But we want more money in K-12 education!  Do the ends justify the means?  Never!  Why are legislators wary of raising taxes? Because the legislators must represent their constituents and run for re-election.  Gas taxes negatively impact those who are struggling, working multiple jobs to make ends meet, and those who live farther away in rural areas than those on the Wasatch Front.  Legislators in those areas would be motivated to discuss and debate ways in which their constituents will be less impacted.  However, the majority of people in Utah live on the Wasatch Front.  So, Question 1 Proponents assume the majority of Utahns will support Question 1.  If you and your neighbors can feel good about "helping kids" (and college students and roads), then who cares if we make those who can least afford the gas tax increase suffer?  Majority rules.  And tyranny by the majority is becoming the way to get your pet policies passed into law, especially if you're rich and can spend tons of money to influence an election.

The solution: Donate RIGHT NOW to our Alpine District Foundation.  Don't wait for the legislature or Our Schools Now or a ballot initiative.  You can donate to:

•  the district as a whole, 
• an entire school (look to donate to our specialty schools like Summit, Polaris, Horizon, or Dan Peterson), 
• a program: band, drama, history, or 
• directly to a classroom at a given school.  

Your donation is tax-deductible and will go exactly where you want it to go.  You can also donate supplies or other materials as well.  Want to donate a set of trombones to the band?  You can do that.  And what's better than just donating directly to our schools?  You don't force others to spend more money on a gas tax that will help pay for roads and college students.  Imagine if those who have spent MILLIONS to finance the Question 1 ads had, instead, donated that money to their local schools!  (P.S.  For those in other districts, you have a foundation too!)

For more information on my concerns with Question 1, click here to see my video.  (Side note: did you know Utah spends the largest percentage (40%) of its budget on education, more than any other state in the country?)

In the future, if Question 1 succeeds in changing state law, mark my words, it will become the method of choice for those with time and money to circumvent the average person's voice. Just a reminder that checks and balances and separation of powers are the bedrocks of our freedom.  Direct democracy: going to the majority of the people and using them as the big stick to beat the legislators up with, violates those principles and disenfranchises those who don't have the time, money or power to object. This is an unraveling of the checks and balances that prevent that other "golden rule"--the person with the gold, makes the rules--from destroying freedom.  Success on Question 1 doesn't bode well for freedom in the future.  Please VOTE NO on QUESTION 1, and I promise you it doesn't mean you hate children.

School Board Races

State Board:
I, personally, like both District 9 candidates for State Board.  However, if you voted for me because of my support for traditional math and my opposition to Common Core, you will want to support Avalie Muhlestein.  I appreciate her outside-the-box vision for education, and her desire to get rid of so much state-level accountability that sucks up time, money, and other resources that could be returned to the local level to pay more for teachers.  At the end of the day, we have state-level accountability because we don't trust our local people and our local teachers.  I want to trust our local people and get the state out of the accountability and data collection business.  I recommend you read through her platform and her issues, and consider a donation to Avalie's campaign.

Alpine School District:
The West area is the only race for ASD where there is much discussion and debate (see below).  For the other 3 races, I predict Amber Bonner (my area--ASD2), Sarah Beeson (AF--ASD3), and Ada Wilson (W. Orem--ASD5).  I had actually hoped there would be more debate, discussion and involvement in these races.  But, unfortunately, very few people are willing to run for school board. (3 seats are up in 2 more years, so start thinking about public service.)  While it is often a thankless job, our society is stronger when people are willing to step up to the plate and serve their community in elective office.  I'm grateful for all those who have thrown their hats into this ring.

For those in my area, I will be voting for Amber Bonner. Amber is very active and involved, has kids still in the schools, and asks questions.  She thinks things through, and wants, more than anything, to have smaller class sizes.  And she find ways to support teachers.  I think Amber will do an excellent job as our representative.  And most importantly (to me, at least), Amber listens to different perspectives.  And even if you see things differently, Amber knows you can still "care about kids." (Our inside joke.)

In ASD 1 (Westlake area), again, I, personally, like both the candidates.  But, my endorsement goes 110% to Julie King (see here and here).  Julie is a tireless advocate for parents and for finding ways to make things work for those kids who just don't fit neatly in the "box".  Instead of trying to find ways to make everyone the same, Julie is actively facilitating parents finding the perfect match for their individual kids in our system.  Julie is a "doer".  She has been a District Community Council rep at our special needs school out west, Horizon.  On one of her first visits, she realized they had serious problems with the entry doors.  She took it upon herself to find a way to get those doors fixed. Julie is supportive of fixing math, getting better standards (not CC or NGSS), expanding Gifted and Talented options, securing Data Privacy, and PARENTAL RIGHTS.  My only regret about not running again is not being able to serve with Julie on the board.  We have served together on the State Board's Data Privacy Commission, and she always has such interesting insights from her experience in Social Work, with the Juvenile Justice system, and as a Foster Parent.  Whether you are in her voting area or not, please consider donating to her campaign.