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.

DESE Commissioner Doesn't Like Citizen's Question on Data Gathering

Dottie Bailey covered the hearing on SB210 House Education Committee yesterday.  She caught up with Education Commissioner Chris Nicastro after her testimony, wanting to ask her about the state's move from collecting aggregate student data collection to a student level data collection system.  A question that has not been satisfactorily answered in any of the May 2 DESE hearings is if individual student data is being gathered by DESE and if so, where that individual data is being sent.  Dottie attempted to ask the commissioner that question and this is what happened:

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

From Notes and phone slapped down by Chris Nicastro…for asking a question:
 

On Monday May 13th, 2013 I made my way down to Missouri’s Capitol, Jefferson City.  I wanted to attend the SB210 House Education Hearing Committee meeting regarding Common Core.  SB210 is not massive legislation, it is just asking for DESE (Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) to have meetings in each of the 8 Congressional Districts in Missouri.

Just doing my duty as a citizen journalist, I got a statement from the bill’s sponsor Representative Kurt Bahr and a few other Representatives on the committee.

Not shocked but disappointed there was not one other journalist in the entire Capitol from what I could tell. I thought the place would and should be covered with them regarding this major news story and the general public’s interest.  But who was I kidding, crickets made louder noises.  

Additionally, this Friday, May 17th is the end of this legislative session.  I peeked in on the gallery floor from the second floor and it looked like little ants with laptops running amock.  The only one with any poise or maybe it was the gavel, but the Speaker seemed to have everything under control and was directing traffic with ease.

Another reason I went to Jefferson City that Monday is that I wanted to try and get a statement, you know since I’m in the neighborhood.  A statement from someone in DESE regarding the recent audit that showed an unaccounted for amount of $130 million dollars.  Easy enough or so I thought, silly citizen journalist…

During earlier discussions of SB210, it was found that DESE has not followed the foundation formula used to distribute the $130 million dollars to the districts. One of the amendments was to have an interim committee look into this situation. (See my previous blog) However before the hearing on Monday I found out that amendment had been taken out.  O.K., no problem, I can still ask the question that no one is asking.

Many people in Missouri and around the country are concerned about Common Core and it’s data collection aspirations.  This is one of the items the people want more clarification on from DESE.  They want to ask their own questions, just not be spoken to like third graders. Up to this point DESE delivers their talking points and says how great the Common Core Standards are going to be……enter the love music..ugh.

I had in my possession, a screen shot from DESE’s own website regarding the sharing of information to the Federal government.  You can go to their website and see it for yourself here.  The whole overview but particularly the last paragraph states that instead of data being collected as aggregate now will transition into being collected on an individual level.

Half way through the hearing, the Commissioner of Education, Chris Nicastro was speaking.  She went on and on about the wonders of Common Core.  One of the Representatives asked about the cost of broadband needed for the assessments to take place.  Commissioner Nicastro said, “I believe that broadband should be a Civil Right.” No I am not kidding.  The room erupted in laughter trying to hide their disgust.  Hey John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, you guys forgot something in the Constitution…Life, Liberty and unlimited access to 24/7 Broadband.  Truly the Founders did a couple back flips in their graves.

Near the end of her time given to speak she was asked about the sharing of individual student’s data being shared with the government.  She assured everyone that only aggregate information would be shared.  The little hairs stood up on the back of my neck as I had the screen shot from DESE’s website laying in hands.  She started to get up, I grabbed my phone and the stranger next to me and said “let’s go”.  I turned on the camera on the phone and we followed her.  I asked her very kindly if I could ask her some questions.  She barked at me and said she didn’t have time.  Again I very kindly said, no problem I would walk her out.  She asked who I was and who I’m with….she rolled her eyes.  I persisted and asked her to explain her comments before and the contradictory screen shot I was holding in my hand.  She mumbled something and then slapped the paper out of my hand.  Then turned to the girl holding my camera phone and slapped the phone too.  But the camera girl caught the phone before it hit the ground.  She walked quickly away and I said “Thank you”…didn’t really know what to say…..

I was shocked and a little startled that she retaliated in that way.  I really thought with her position and caliber of being a professional educator she would conduct herself in a manner of integrity and grace.  Boy, was I wrong….it was Slapfest–Hissyfit 2013 in the basement of the Capitol building.  But what should I expect from someone telling untruths and then being confronted on them.  If she was telling the truth wouldn’t she have just told me I was incorrect and to check again.

They bummer part is my battery on my phone died and we only got half of the quick walk to the garage.  My camera girl and I are the witnesses to the slap fit Ms. Nicastro had but it reminds me that people trying to hide something usually act out like children.

Needless to say I didn’t get a statement regarding the unaccounted for $130 million dollars.  But I will be following up on that story.

So what are your thoughts?  Do you think it was a reasonable or ridiculous behavior by an appointed government official?

Senate Bill 210 Voted Unanimously Out of House Education Committee

May 13, 2013 The House Education Committee held their hearing on senate bill 210 (Lamping-R). Representative Kurt Bahr led the bill in front of the committee and addressed questions for almost 20 minutes. Bill supporters were given approximately 25 minutes to testify including testimony from Anne Gassel, Gretchen Logue and Jerry Briehan.  In addition, over 900 witness statements in support of SB210 were delivered to the committee. When called, there was no official opposition to the bill. However, Commissioner Nicastro and other representatives from DESE were allowed to give informational testimony for another 35 minutes including time for questions from the committee. Some additional informational testimony was provided by those supporting the bill.

DESE's testimony did not address the bill which requires 2 subject reports, 8 congressional district meetings (with Commissioner Nicastro in attendance) completed by December 31, 2013 and a final report to the Senate and House by January 31, 2014. Instead, their testimony covered the usual talking points about common core - how they were fewer, clearer and more rigorous, and would produce career and college ready students.

Barbara Reys testified once again about the high quality of the common core math standards, noting that Fordham Institute had graded all the states' standards and had given Missouri's math standards a D. She did not testify that she  

-->was the co-chair of a standards development committee which authored Missouri K-12 Mathematics Learning Goals, the very ones she testified were only graded a D. That would have allowed a committee member to question whether she was the best "expert" for MO to send to sit on the CC review committee.

DESE general counsel Mark Van Zandt testified that the agency would never collect or share any data illegally, noting that laws were in place to protect the privacy of student data. He neglected to mention that the laws he was referring to, the Family Rights and Privacy Act has been changed to allow the open sharing of individual student data, meaning that the law no longer protects student privacy. The Electronic Policy Information Center (EPIC) comments to the regualtory notice of the US Department of Education's proposed rulemaking on changing the FERPA definitions say, "The ED's proposals expand a number of FERPA's exemptions, reinterpreting the statutory terms "authorized representative," "education program," and "directory information." These proposals remove affirmative legal duties for state and local educational facilities to protect private student data." (emphasis added) EPIC has since filed a lawsuit against the USDoEd for overstepping their statutory authority with regard to a congressional act.


The bill, which had been stripped of the Senate amendments and returned to its original senate substitute language focusing only on Common Core costs and data was voted out of committee late Monday night by a 17:0 vote. It now goes to the House Rules Committee who is expected to turn it around quickly. It will go for a third reading on the House floor and, if voted out, go back to the Senate to be truly agreed and finally passed.  We are in the home stretch and still in the race. The Senate could take it up Thursday or Friday, which is the last day of the 2013 session.