DESE Stifling More Debate About Common Core?

DESE doesn't like answering questions.

That was evident in the May 2 statewide meetings that were designed to be "informational" only.  DESE representatives were clear to the attendees that answers were not to be forthcoming but could be found within a week on its website.

The answers still aren't there and the clock keeps ticking.

Has DESE  blocked James Shuls of Show-Me Institute for wanting to have an "old-fashioned" debate on the merits of Common Core? 

From More Evidence of DESE Stifling Debate About Common Core?:

*******************************************

On May 3, I sent a tweet to the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and Commissioner of Education, Chris Nicastro. In the tweet I wrote, “I’m willing to have a good ‘ol fashion debate on the merits of #CommonCore. Missourians deserve that.” Apparently, state education officials aren’t interested in a true debate about Common Core, because I am now blocked from accessing the DESE Twitter page.

The tweet was sent the day after DESE officials hosted eight meetings throughout the state regarding the Common Core. Each meeting was conducted in the same way. The moderators read from scripts and refused to allow open dialogue. At the meeting in Springfield, the moderator can be heard telling the audience that they are “welcome to go ahead and leave” if they didn’t like how the meeting was being conducted.

I attended the meeting at Lindbergh, which was halted when citizens demanded to be heard.

Many people’s take-a-way from these meetings was that DESE was not interested in a true debate of the issue; they were more interested in controlling the message.

I have sent an email request to the commissioner and the head of the DESE communications department asking to be unblocked and to be told why my account had been blocked in the first place.

We shall see what they say. For now, it seems like just another example of the department trying to stifle debate about the Common Core.

**********************************************

Send this article to your state senator and representative.  Since SB210 did not pass due to a filibuster threat, DESE is not being held accountable to any taxpayer or legislator on Common Core questions on cost or data retrieval.  

Why would a state agency funded by taxpayer dollars be allowed to block a taxpayer and educational writer/researcher from DESE's twitter account?  Is this because he asked for a debate on Common Core?  Ask your legislators this question.  If indeed this blocking has to do with Shuls' request for a debate, this is the height of bureaucratic arrogance.

If Common Core is so wonderful, why does DESE want to quash any serious discussion/questions about it?  Why didn't most Missourians learn about CCSS when the Governor and the Commissioner signed on to the adoption of them in 2009?  I guess you could tweet DESE and ask those questions but you may be blocked as well.

You gotta love government transparency.  It instills such trust in those bureaucrats in charge of educating your children.    

Call the Common Core Bullies Out. Just Say No to Standardized Testing.

gra·tu·i·tous  (gr-t-ts, -ty-)adj.

1. Given or granted without return or recompense; unearned.

2. Given or received without cost or obligation; free.

 Is public education gratuitous or forced?

Is the Blue Hat movement the beginning of the doom of Common Core?  Below is a story of a student's refusal to take the North Carolina's state test to protest standardized testing and the coming Common Core assessments.

You will discover and learn about the enormous bureaucracy strangling public schools.  You will learn about the bullying tactics of school administrators and lawyers.  What is the state's responsibility in the providing of education?  Is it to adhere to standardized testing and federal mandates?  In the last House hearing for SB210, Ron Calzone testified to what Missouri had to provide constitutionally in education.  From the Missouri Constitution:

Section 1(a). A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, the general assembly shall establish and maintain free public schools for the gratuitous instruction of all persons in this state within ages not in excess of twenty-one years as prescribed by law.  

Read the rest of the education section here.  What is missing from the Constitution?  There is no legal adherence of children/parents to take standardized testing and the withholding of free public education for a student if he/she refuses to take such testing.  There is no Federal law on taking standardized testing either, so the threat of withholding education from citizens based on testing refusal may very well be illegal. 

Parents, this is how Common Core will begin to be defeated.  Be part of the Blue Hat movement started by this student and father.  Refuse to be part of the problem, instead, be part of the solution.  Don't be bullied by CCSS bullies.  Use those "anti-bullying" lessons mandated in curricula to your advantage and push back on the bureaucratic bullies on the school, district, state and national levels.  It is your decision on the educational direction for your child, not a bureaucrat who needs your child to test for AYP measures, financial remuneration from the Federal government based on test results or data gathered for other reporting purposes.

Read the comments after the article.  Contact the ACLU if you have stories of your student being denied a free public education because of opting out of standardized testing.  When standardized testing is not used to track student progress but is used for federal funding formulas, teacher/principal evaluations and data gathering, it is time for students to refuse to participate.  From one of the comments:

I’m not against standardized testing when it’s used strictly for evaluative purposes. In fact, testing can be quite helpful in identifying learning disabilities and be the first step in getting a child much need intervention services. I’m against standardized testing when it’s used for promotional purposes that wind up being punitive. It’s an insult to the teaching profession because it’s essentially taking the power of evaluating a student out of the teachers’ and principals’ hands…the very people who spend countless hours every school year with our children and know them much better than a ridiculous 3 hour test could.

It's time for parents to reclaim their educational decision making power.

From Opting Out-Updated: 

**********************************************

Zoe and I had quite an adventure today.  Watch the video below for details. 

In essence though, she was told that she is not able to attend school unless she is willing to take the test.  More to come on this as things develop.

Update and Timeline:

March 2013-Zoe and I form a crazy notion to start a national campaign to do something about the teach to the test standards.

April 2013-We decide it will start with a Youtube based revolution.  We call it the Blue Hat Movement.  We make a little website…and shoot some video content but decide that we are not ready yet to make a final one.  We also choose a date for a nationwide rally date for a boycott.  Zoe also says that “if we really want to make a statement, then I would like to opt out of taking the state tests this school year.”  I tell her that this kind of idea is way too big and discourage it.  But I do call the County Test Coordinator for Chapel Hill Public Schools.  I am told that though they must discourage her from not testing…she will not be harangued and will proceed to the next grade with no repercussions.

May 2013-Zoe becomes pretty much dead set on not taking the MSL’s at the least.  Her mom and I sign on.  Her mom even sets a meeting with the school principal.  The meeting never happens but Zoe’s mom is told that there will not be any negative side effects of Zoe not testing.

May 13, 2013-Tomorrow is the first MSL and I email her teachers a friendly note, even though they already know that she is opting out.  The note, verbatim, is below:

“Zoe will not be participating in the MSLs this school year, and we wanted you to both know why, so you are not caught off guard when the test day arrives.

Her choice, which her mother and I both support, stems from quite a lot of research.  In essence, not doing the MSL is an act of civil disobedience.  It is a well thought out plan.  Zoe feels, as do I, that the Common Core Standards, Obama’s Race to the Top, Standardized Testing, and Pearson Publishing are essentially harming education in our country.

Zoe basically just does not want to be a part of a system that doesn’t leave teachers free to teach in ways that they see fit from the start.   We would really love for McDougle’s administrators and teaching staff to support Zoe in her efforts to “vote” for a better form of education in our schools.  Change must start somewhere.  And as long as we keep giving kids these tests, that we do not wish to be giving them, nothing changes.  Zoe has just decided to be a part of the change now.

Please do let me know what activity she can do while the other students are taking the test.  She will be armed with many books to read and does not wish to be a distraction to the other students during test time.

Also please note that I already have spoken with the County Test Coordinator based out of the Lincoln Center and he is apprised of the situation.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via email or call me at _______.”

*****************************************

Read the principal's response (via the school district's lawyer) here.  Pay attention to this section:

I must also remind you that if she’s absent on test day and returns to school this year, we must test her when she returns.
I don’t have the latitude to not administer the test, regardless of the parents’ feelings on the matter.

I understand your concerns, but Zoe is hurting the teachers and our school by not testing. You may withdraw her if you want to protest the test.”

Parents, is this the gratuitous public education envisioned by the writers of the Missouri Constitution?  Did they believe the free education offered was to have students/parents avail themselves of educational opportunity or was the participation in education a collective experience that had to do with school funding and teacher evaluations?

It's time to say no.  It's time to call the bullies out.  There is no law in Missouri (check your state) or federal law compelling your students to be a collective lug nut in the education machine.

Binoculars or Common Core. Which Choice Will Allow Creativity to Flourish and Allow School Districts to Operate on Budget?

The video "Give Your Kids Binoculars and Get Out of the Way" with Neil deGrasse Tyson contains advice on how to get kids interested in science.

Spoiler Alert.  It has NOTHING to do with the implementation/adoption of Common Core standards or more federal involvement in education. He believes parents (and maybe teachers, too?) should be getting "out of the way" and encouraging children's curiosity.  He contends children create disorder in the lives of the adults around them and what do adults do?  They stifle the child's curiosity. 

Will Common Core will help kids explore and feed their curiosity...or just put them in a common box like everybody else?

From the video transcript:

********************************************

Neil deGrasse Tyson: I'm often asked by parents what advice can I give them to help get kids interested in science? And I have only one bit of advice. Get out of their way. Kids are born curious. Period. I don’t care about your economic background. I don’t care what town you’re born in, what city, what country. If you’re a child, you are curious about your environment. You’re overturning rocks. You’re plucking leaves off of trees and petals off of flowers, looking inside, and you’re doing things that create disorder in the lives of the adults around you.

And so then so what do adults do? They say, “Don’t pluck the petals off the flowers. I just spent money on that. Don’t play with the egg. It might break. Don’t....”  Everything is a don’t. We spend the first year teaching them to walk and talk and the rest of their lives telling them to shut up and sit down.

So you get out of their way. And you know what you do? You put things in their midst that help them explore. Help ‘em explore. Why don’t you get a pair of binoculars, just leave it there one day? Watch ‘em pick it up. And watch ‘em look around. They’ll do all kinds of things with it.

For me at age 11, I had a pair of binoculars and looked up to the moon, and the moon wasn’t just bigger, it was better. There were mountains and valleys and craters and shadows. And it came alive. Not the full moon because there are no shadows cast when the moon is full; got to wait for it to be half moon or crescent moon, and look at the edge between light and dark with a simple pair of binoculars. 

I was transformed by picking up a pair of binoculars and looking up, and that’s hard to do for a city kid because when you look up you just see buildings -- and really your first thought is to look in people’s windows. So to look out of the space -- out of living space -- and look up to the sky, binoculars go far, literally and figuratively. That’s what got me started on the universe. It might get some kids you know started the same way.

********************************************

I guess buying binoculars would be too expensive for school districts to buy.  Oh, no, wait.  Kirkwood School District decided it needed iPads for all their students to the cost of almost $2 Million by 2015.  How long will these iPads be appropriate before they are outdated due to new technology?  From kirkwood.patch.com:

With an estimated total of roughly $1.8 million for the cost of the project, the first phase will cost $325,000. The price includes an iPad Mini, a case and basic applications on the device. Students in 3rd grade and higher will be able to take the iPads home.  

What wasn't mentioned in this article was the move to use iPads is part of Common Core implementation.   For approximately 5,000 students in the district, the cost comes out to $360.00 per iPad.  A good pair of binoculars cost less than that and they don't have software that becomes obsolete in a few years.  But binoculars  aren't part of Smarter Balanced Assessment Common Core technology requirements, are they?  How much will new applications cost the district?  How much insurance will KSD parents have to pay for 3rd graders who have trouble locating their coats much less an iPad?  Did KSD understand that the iPads are only one part of required technology by SBAC?

From Smarter Balanced Releases Technology Strategy Framework and System Requirements Specifications:
 

This framework provides two levels of technology specifications: minimum requirements for existing devices and recommended guidelines for new purchases. Students using technology that meets only the minimum specifications may experience periods of slowness during the assessment, while technology consistent with the recommended guidelines will likely result in a more fluid testing experience.

In addition to the hardware and bandwidth requirements, eligible devices must also have a 10” class screen, a mechanical keyboard, headphones, wired or wireless Internet access, and administrative tools to temporarily disable features, functionalities, and applications that could present a security risk during test administration. The technology specifications apply only to the Smarter Balanced assessments and should not be considered minimum specifications to support instruction, which may require additional technology.

Is there any more hardware, bandwith, device, other technological expenses the district will need to incur for Common Core implementation?  How much additional money is needed to support instruction?  These are questions to ask the district at the June 4 Common Core meeting in Kirkwood and if there is a bond increase wanted by the district, how much this increase is due to Common Core implementation.

Those binoculars are sounding better and better. They are cheaper and are student directed as opposed to the top down standardized consortia owned standards and assessments.



Details on Kirkwood School District meeting:

06/04/13
North Kirkwood Middle School Library, 11287 Manchester Road
6:00pm - 7:30pm

Dr. Williams, superintendent of schools, is hosting a school/community conversation on Tuesday, June 4 from 6-7:30 p.m. in the North Kirkwood Middle School Library, 11287 Manchester Road.  Dr. Williams and administrative services team will answer questions and listen to suggestions from the school community.  The community is encouraged to attend.

  

The IRS, DESE and Sergeant Schultz: Complete Lack of Accountability.

Do you remember "Hogan's Heroes"?  Sergeant Schultz was known for his "I see nothing, I know nothing" response to issues around him.  This is similar to Lois Lerner's refusal to testify in Congressional hearings about what happened at IRS, even as she stated she did nothing wrong.  If she didn't do anything wrong, then why wouldn't she talk to Congressmen and women trying to determine exactly how and why the IRS targeted specific groups requesting tax exempt status?

Like the IRS, the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is taxpayer funded.  DESE makes decisions that impacts taxpayers, children and teachers while using money allocated by the state legislature and federal agencies.  The IRS and DESE should answer to the people funding their existence, but they have something in common:  they don't want to answer your questions, believe they are above having to be accountable for their actions and will deflect or refuse to answer questions by taxpayers and legislators. 

The tragedy for Missouri citizens and legislators is that SB210 did not pass this past legislative session. Missouri SB210 would have provided a venue for citizens to find out:

• the educational direction/development for Missouri children
• the money it will cost taxpayers for this educational direction/development (taxpayers never had the opportunity to either for or against this plan)
• who, what, why data will be gathered on children without parental permission/knowledge
• where this data will be used

Since SB210 was withdrawn at the threat of a filibuster, citizens will now have to wait another year for their chance to ask these questions if a similar bill is filed.  DESE attempted to pass off the statewide May 2 meetings as fact finding for citizens but they were really a waste of time for anyone looking for serious answers to serious questions.  These meetings were scripted and no speaker had the authority to answer questions.  In retrospect, why did people take their time to attend these meetings?  They were a total waste of time.

Why did Lois Lerner attend a congressional hearing to announce that she would not answer any questions and then walk out?  Why did Chris Nicastro speak for "informational purposes" to SB210 in the legislative hearing that had absolutely nothing to do with the bill?  The bill was to address concerns about cost and data collection, both of which she touched on briefly, but she never did answer direct questions to these issues.

Lois Lerner was allowed to walk out of a hearing, and Chris Nicastro was allowed to hijack the SB210 hearing to deliver her speech on why CCSS would transform Missouri education.  "Don't worry, be happy"....legislators and taxpayers.  Don't worry that certain groups are targeted by the IRS and don't worry that CCSS is unfunded, unresearched and your child's data will be given to various federal agencies and third parties without your knowledge or permission. 

Bureaucrats are doing what they want with your money, setting the rules and not being held accountable to legislative bodies or taxapyers.  SB210 could have shed some light on the Common Core adoption and implementation in Missouri. Do you or the legislators REALLY think DESE is EVER going to truthfully answer the questions posed to them in the May 2 meetings?

The clock is ticking without DESE providing answers to May 2 questions (these answers were to be posted within a week after the meetings).  You should be getting very angry at this obfuscation from national and state  bureaucrats thumbing their noses at you.  Watch the clock (posted on the website) ticking up the days DESE doesn't answer the questions you have.  Who holds the IRS and DESE accountable?  Why is DESE allowed to spend money it doesn't have on educational theories with no research/data to prove it will work?  Why is personal data gathered on your family and your child without your knowledge or permission?

Since Missouri citizens don't have a venue to ask the appointed commissioner of education these questions, Nicastro sent in a video of herself for DESE's "informational" meetings.  She dodged questions when questioned by legislators and sent her lackeys (who don't have the authority to answer questions) to the "informational" DESE meetings to impart talking points to taxpayers.   She knows nothing, tells legislators "look at the DESE website for the answers" in hearings (to the questions they didn't ask), or she just won't bother to answer your questions at all (as evidenced by the DESE website where it still says answers "coming soon" to May 2 meeting questions).  Is the commissioner channeling Sergeant Schultz and Lois Lerner?

"I See Nothing, I Know Nothing"

"I Did Nothing Wrong."

A complete lack of accountability

Here's the link for DESE's videos on Common Core.  These speakers "know nothing" either on the cost of the standards or the data gathered on students.  They don't answer the questions taxpayers are asking but keep telling us DESE is a transparent agency.   There is no accountability from the IRS or DESE to taxpayers and/or legislators to the questions they ask.  And the clock keeps ticking and not one bureaucrat is responsible for the answers.  

Sign the petition to rid Missouri of Common Core standards.  We haven't stopped fighting to make DESE responsible to the taxpayers, legislators and students.  Pre-filing bills begins on December 1.  Join us.  Make your voice heard.  Watch Lois Lerner's IRS response and you understand how the adoption/implementation of Common Core has occurred during the last 3-1/2 years in Missouri.  No one is responsible for (the governor, the commissioner and the State Board of Education) or apparently concerned about the cost, loss of local control, the run around of the legislative process and invasive data retrieval on individual students, teachers and principals.  It's time to hold these officials accountable.

 

Teacher Reports on Her Common Core Experience in the Classroom

Received via email:

********************************************************************

I just got a first-hand, super-dose of the Common Core. For two days last week I (substitute) taught in an Idaho  elementary school that is implementing the  Common Core curriculum. It was horrible! I've taught at this school before, and it wasn't like this then. I couldn't believe the way they micro-managed every move the kids made, even on the playground. The principle was marching up and down the halls like a little general.  And the way they had taught the kids math was absurd! I’ve read about Common Core, and I have been concerned. But this experience "inspired" me to take a deeper look.  I went on youtube, and lo and behold there was a quote from Idaho’s own Tom Luna on Glenn Beck. Here's the link to that, and a second one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdhR6_C0C00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hp9NUzn5oY

Missouri Coalition Against Common Core 

http://www.moagainstcommoncore.com/

I am sending these three links to the parents of every Idaho school-age child I know. This is for real. Feel free to use my story, if you like. We've got to get it out of Idaho before the parents have no more say in what is being taught in their schools, and Common Core ruins the lives of their kids!

*************************************************************

If you have more teacher stories about Common Core, pass them along and we'll let people know how these non-researched/fact based standards, assessments and curricula are playing out in real life with teachers, students and principals.

 

A Clinical Psychologist's Concerns With Student Data Gathering

Last week during the House Education Committee hearing on SB210 Representative Margo McNeil asked witness Gretchen Logue what she was so worried about with the data gathering. Specifically she asked, "What is your worst case scenario with the data gathering?" Perhaps this article, written by a clinical psychologist, can offer a perspective on the dangers of gathering individual student data that Rep. McNeil could not herself imagine.

From CommonCoreFacts.blogspot.com March 19, 2013 Dr. Gary Thompson

By way of background, I’m an African American Doctor of Clinical Psychology (Psy.D.) currently serving as Director of Clinical Training & Community Advocacy at a private child psychology clinic in South Jordan, Utah.  I completed undergraduate education at both the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, and Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.  In addition to my personal experiences involving my four children in public schools, I have completed multiple thousands of hours in training/therapy/assessment/legal advocacy work with children in both the private and public school settings in multiple western states.   I am also the author of a award winning doctoral project/dissertation which tackled the ago old problem of why many African American school aged children underperform in public schools titled, “Cracking the Da Vince Code of Cognitive Assessment of African American School Aged Children:  A Guide for Parents, Clinicians & Educators” (Thompson, G. 2008).

Dr. Thompson goes on to clarify that he is not an education professional and recognizes both pros and cons of common core standards themselves. He limits his comments to his area of expertise, "psychological and educational assessment/testing, as well as privacy acts surrounding the use of these tests in both private and educational setting."

He writes, "According to the U.S. Department of Education, CCSS will authorize the use of testing instruments that will measure the “attributes, dispositions, social skills, attitude’s and intra personal resources” of public school students under CCSS (USDOE Feb, 2013 Report).  In a nutshell, CCSS simply states that it will develop highly effective assessments that measures….well….almost 'everything'.”

A careful, or even a casual review of a “comprehensive evaluation” would clearly show that the level of information provided about a particular child is both highly sensitive and extremely personal in nature. They are also extremely accurate.  In a private clinic such as ours, we follow strict privacy guidelines regarding patient privacy (HIPPA) and when dealing with educational institutions, we also make sure that we comply with the FERPA Act (Federal Education Reporting & Privacy Act). 

And here is where Dr. Thompson lays out the problem with the data being gathered by the federal government.

"The accuracy of psychological testing has grown in the past 10 years to astonishing levels.  The same tests used in our clinic for assessments, are used in part by federal law enforcement agencies, the military, local police departments, and the Central Intelligence Agency. (Interesting enough, these agencies are also interested in finding out about alleged terrorist’s, serial killers, or airline pilots “attributes, dispositions, social skills, attitudes and intra personal resources”).  When placed in the “right” hands of trained mental health professionals, psychological testing can save lives.   Placed in the “wrong” hands, psychological testing can ruin lives as well as cause psychological trauma to people if they have knowledge that their results were used for nefarious purposes."

Below are issues regarding CCSS “testing” policies that have not been addressed by the Common Core to State’s Governors’, State Superintendents, State School Boards, local school district superintendents, local school boards, to parents of children in public school education:

1. Common Core does not address what types of tests will be utilized on our children.
2. Common Core does not address, specifically, exactly who is developing these tests.
3. Common Core does not address the fact that these tests have not yet been developed, and are not available for public consumption or private review by clinical psychology  researchers and psychometric professionals.
4. Common Core does not address if the soon to be completed tests will be subjected to the same rigorous peer review process that ALL testing instruments are subjected to prior to being released to mental health professionals for their use in the private sector.
5. Common Core does not state which public school employees would be administering or interpreting these tests.   There is a reason that School Psychologists cannot “practice” outside of their scope in school districts.   As hard working and as wonderful as this group is, their training pales in comparison to the average local clinical psychologist.
6. Common Core does not address the well documented, peer-reviewed fact that both African American and Latino students, due to cultural issues, tend to have skewed testing results when cultural issues are not addressed prior to the initiation of such testing.  This should probably be addressed if these results are going to be following a student “from cradle to high school graduation.” 
7. Lastly, once these highly intimate, powerful, and most likely inaccurate testing results are completed, who EXACTLY will have access to all of this data?   Common Core DOES address this issue and it is the subject of the next section.

Records do not leave our clinic unless the guardians of the children instruct us, or unless a District Court judge orders the release of the records.   In some cases, we are even ethically obligated to fight court orders that request private mental health records.   

Common Core State Standards radically changes this game.  

Buried in all of the fine print of the CCSS is a provision that allows participating school districts to ignore HIPPA protections.   The newly revised FERPA laws grants school districts and states HIPAA privacy waivers.  Department of Health & Human Services Regulation Section 160.103 states, in part,: “Protected health information EXCLUDES individually identifiable health information in education records covered by the Family Education Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA), as amended 20 U.S.C. 1232 g”.

CCSS also states that this “information” may be distributed to “organizations conducting studies for, or on behalf of, educational agencies or institutions to develop, validate, or administer predictive testing.” (CCSS (6)(i). 

In summary CCSS allows the following by law:

1. Grants school districts a waiver from FERPA in terms of deleting identifying information on their records.
2. Allows school districts to then give these identifiable records basically to anyone who they deem to have an viable interest with these records.
3. These organization or individuals chosen by the government to use this data to develop highly accurate predictive tests with no stated ethical procedures, guidelines, or institutional controls.   (What are they exactly trying to “predict”?”
4. All without written parental consent.  

The data being gathered in the P-20 database model, the 400 data points, in some cases are circumstances of birth, but in most cases are really a record of personal choices and actions. They are evidence of lives lived (e.g. level of college completed by parents, religious affiliation), the same kind of evidence used in criminal investigations to determine motive or involvement. As evidence they should share the protections of the 4th amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. The 5th amendment right not to incriminate oneself is stripped from children before they even know they have such a right. Their data set will be used to map out their life course. The ways in which the government proposes to use the data amount to a sentence for children that is limited only by their willingness to exert the effort necessary to break out of the path the system determines for them.

Perhaps of greater concern Representative McNeil is that the government's need, as laid out in regulatory language that defines what they want to know, will come to override our constitutionally protected rights like those described in the 4th and 5th amendments. These rights are supposed to be inalienable. They exist merely because we exist. The concern is that the government will be successful in convincing the people that its desire for something is greater than our rights, as the Georgetown Law Journal claimed. The concern is that through nothing more than mere regulation by a bureaucrat, our foundational document, the Bill of Rights, may be obliterated.

SB210 Is Laid Aside

Today politics prevailed. The interests of the people were laid aside with SB210 allowing a state department to continue ducking the public's questions and the legislature's authority. Our countdown clock continues and will remain at the top of our page awaiting DESE's response to at least some of the questions the public has about Common Core.

We may never get answers to the conflicting comments we have heard about common core.

The National Governor's Association and common core proponents in general site a main reason for having common standards is so that children moving from state-to-state, district-to-district will not experience an interruption in their education. There will be no subject matter holes because everyone is being taught the same thing. Yet when pressed, DESE insisted in front of a House Committee that Missouri owns the standards and can change them at any time. In fact, all states can, and have, changed the standards. That, by definition, would mean that the standards are no longer "common" among the states and a child would once again experience an interruption in his/her education should he/she move. This would also make the state’s standards out of line with the assessments. So which is it: alignment state-to-state or autonomy to set one's own standards?

DESE staff stated that some schools have been implementing Common Core for 3 years and have shown "tremendous results." How are they calculating these tremendous results? This statement is impossible to make as no common core assessments have been approved or administered. If the results are found in the existing MAP assessment scores, how is that possible? Those tests are not aligned with common core. What is actually being measured? If we are seeing improvement in an existing test, why do we need SBAC tests?  The indication from states who were early adopters of CC like Kentucky, is that following curriculum aligned with CC produced a 30% drop in student scores on existing state standardized tests. How are we not seeing a decline, but in fact an improvement?


DESE has stated that they do not share data with the federal government, that it stays in state. But the MOU’s signed by the state with the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortia (SBAC) in May 2010 states the consortia will provide “Reliable , valid and fair scores for students and groups that can be used to evaluate student achievement and year-to-year growth; determine school/district/state effectiveness for Title I ESEA…10) Professional development focused on curriculum and lesson development as well as scoring and examination of student work…. 14) A consolidated data reporting system that enhance parents, students, teacher, principal district and state understanding of student progress toward college and career readiness.” SBAC is housed in Washington state.

http://www.moagainstcommoncore.com/documents/Missouri%20SMARTER%20Balanced%20MOU.doc

This means that individual student data will be retained by SBAC who in turn has an agreement with the US Dept of Ed that says it will “Comply with, and where applicable coordinate with the ED staff to fulfill, the program requirements established in the RTTA Notice Inviting Applications and the conditions on the grant awarded, as well as to this agreement, including, but not limited to working with the Department to develop a strategy to make student level data that results from the assessment system available on an ongoing basis for research, including for prospective linking, validity and program improvement studies; subject to applicable privacy laws.” The reality is that once the data leaves the state we no longer have control of where it goes and who has access to it. Changes to FERPA (the laws they are referring to) means there is little appreciable protection of that data.

http://www.moagainstcommoncore.com/documents/SBAC%20USED%20agreement%20copy.pdf

Additionally, DESE promised in the Race To The Top application (p.15) that they would “Provide a database accessible to researchers throughout the nation that is the first-ever link between student performance, teaching practices, and leadership decisions.”

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7ljWzvYU6irOTMtMVJOTXhjc2c/edit

Commissioner Nicastro has said that it is not costing the state any new money to implement common core. She further testified that the reason the RTTT costs were so high was because that application was for a Cadillac program that we were not fully implementing, because we did not get the grant. However, in that grant (p. 40) she wrote “Implementation of the reform plan described in this proposal will not stop if the State does not win Race to the Top funding. Missouri has a long tradition of fostering innovative improvements in education, and this will not change. Race to the Top funds will allow the State to move forward aggressively and comprehensively in adopting these reforms. In the absence of Race to the Top funding, the State and its partners would continue moving forward but will do so over a longer time-period and, in some areas, will have to adopt a more incremental approach."

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7ljWzvYU6irOTMtMVJOTXhjc2c/edit

There are so many more questions which, if answered, would at least provide some clarity as to our direction. Unfortunately, DESE does not seem to believe it is worth their time to provide those points of clarification. They miss the opportunity to have the public on their side and the legislature providing cover for them from the feds. Keep your eye on the answer clock. It looks like it will be here for a long time.

 

Tying Socio-Economic Status to Test Scores

In speaking to groups about common core and the data collection that is occurring because of it and simultaneously to it, we often get the question, "What is the government's plan for all that data? What are they going to do with it."

USA Today reported on a a new white paper released, the U.S. Department of Education which may partially answer that question. The paper (Improving the Measurement of Socio-Economic Status  for the NAEP)  "proposes classifying students by more than just their parents’ income or education levels. It explains the federal government should be able to tie test scores to a host of indicators, including: whether parents own or rent their home, how many times a family has moved in the past year and whether anyone in their household gets medical assistance."

And what will they do with the  socio-economic classification? "It would allow us to target resources better," Sean Reardon of the Stanford Graduate School of Education.

The paper calls for better ways of collecting data on students and discusses how the NAEP currently collects this information, through a 13-question survey that eighth-grade students fill out at the end of the test. It asks them how  much school their parents completed. It can also include questions such as: "Does your family get a newspaper at least four times a week?" and "About how many books are there in your home?" For fourth-graders, it has asked whether they have Internet access, a dishwasher or a "clothes dryer just for your family."  The only good news here is that people recognize what poor reporters our kids are of this kind of information, making it only a slight indicator of SES.

However, that doesn't stop them from trying to use the kids as data collectors. The report suggests "Cognitive laboratory studies should be conducted on various question types for collecting student reports on parental occupation." So rather than ask mom and dad what they do for a living, let's ask better questions to get the kids to tell on them.

The report also acknowledges that data collection will likely require sharing with data collected by other government departments. "In addition, the development of a new SES measure is likely to incur both anticipated and unanticipated side effects, including the requirement to coordinate with other federal programs within and outside NCES, and consequences such as attention given to equity and educational resource distribution."

For those that want a deeper understanding of the data collection landscape, both with Common Core and with the P-20 Council, we have posted a great page on MO Against Common Core under the Topics tab called Data Collection. This is a great resource to learn more about government data collection on students.

A Common Core Worksheet from Missouri and a First Grade Social Justice Text from Utah

A Missouri parent sent this in from her 3rd grader's workbook.  Time for Kids is a Common Core aligned curriculum provider:

TIME For Kids is committed to helping teachers meet Common Core State Standards, National Curriculum Standards for Social Studies and National Science Education Standards. Click here to learn more about TIME For Kids and national learning standards.

Regardless of what the Science/Social NATIONAL standards are, Time for Kids will support them and are committed to help teachers meet those standards via Time for Kids common core aligned curriculum.  A private company doesn't really know what these standards are, but gee golly, Time for Kids will be there to align the curriculum to meet those standards.  See how this works?

More time in school will be taken up in test taking (think "NCLB on Steroids").  "Hannah" thinks "it's good that kinds in many other states will take the same tests".  Why do you think Time for Kids would portray being common as a good thing?  Since welcoming/accepting the idea that students should learn from common standards is paramount for CCSS proponents, the students have a lesson from Time for Kids instilling that message.  Yay!  Common Core!

Notice the math problem?  The "old" way of answering is multiple choice which is dependent on the student knowing his/her math facts.  The common core way is language dependent and has less to do with math facts than it does with explaining how you came to the answer.  Remember, this is 3rd grade.  Note that this student prefers multiple choice because he/she can "think" about the possible answers. 


Keep those worksheets coming into Missouri Education Watchdog.


In the meantime, watch this video from Utah with material from a common core aligned textbook for 1st graders teaching them how to be social justice activists:





Just a question: Does having the "Common Core Aligned" stamp on the cover gives these publishers, whose vision is social engineering, a pathway into the schools?  Just who is writing the curriculum? Is Common Core the vehicle for not only data collection but also for political theories?

Watching the DESE Countdown Clock. Citizens Still Waiting for Answers to Questions from the May 2 Hearings.

Time elapsed since DESE Common Core May 2 meetings:





We've installed a DESE clock to determine how long citizens have to wait for the answers to questions DESE promised to answer from its May 2 Common Core standards statewide meetings.  Citizens were told questions/answers would be listed within a week on the DESE website.  In fact, the commissioner referred legislators many times to use the DESE website for their various questions in the House Education Committee hearing on May 13, rather than answer their questions at the hearing.  But what happens when the answers to your questions aren't listed because DESE refuses to even entertain the question?


Here's what you find when you link to DESE's site looking for answers to questions from the Common Core statewide meetings:

Common Core Statewide Meetings

On May 2, 2013, meetings were held across the state to answer questions related to the State Board of Education’s decision in 2010 to adopt new standards in English language arts and mathematics, more commonly known as the Common Core State Standards.

• Presentation from meeting
• About Missouri Learning Standards
• Questions and Answers (Coming soon)

When is Coming soon?  It's been more than a week.  The Commissioner did not welcome a citizen's question after the SB210 hearing in the House Education Committee, so taxpayers still don't have answers to their various questions and concerns. 

When DESE publishes the questions and answers from the May 2 meeting, we can stop the clock.