The Common Core Standards We're Not Talking About

Yesterday, the Women's Legislative Council of Utah County hosted a presentation on Common Core. State School Board member Dixie Allen and former Alpine School District board member Mark Clement presented arguments for supporting the Core, while mother Alyson Williams and BYU math professor David Wright presented arguments for opposing it.

Williams has shared the text of her presentation - below - and the video of the meeting will be posted as soon as it's available.

The Common Core Standards We're Not Talking About

We’ve heard that with Common Core we’re just setting higher standards for learning, right? Why would a mom who wants the very best for her children be against that?

We are a community with high standards for all kinds of things, not just education. Standards can be examples, expectations, models, patterns, or precedents to follow or measure oneself against.

Keeping those synonyms in mind I’d like to talk about the standards we’ve set for our children in the course of adopting the Common Core. You may be surprised to learn that we have set new standards not only for Math and English, but also for how public education is governed.

At the beginning of Obama’s first term, our Congress passed the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, also known as “the Stimulus” which included $100 Billion dollars for education. At the time major newspapers buzzed about the unprecedented power of assigning this much money to the discretion of the Education Secretary with virtually no congressional oversight. From the Stimulus came the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and the Race to the Top grant programs, that enabled the Department of Ed to set rules for education, in exchange for the money – rules that normally would be determined by the States themselves under the 10^th Ammendment.  

This 36 page document, “The Road to a National Curriculum”, was written by two former top lawyers for the US Department of Education. In it they offer an analysis of how these reforms violate three Federal laws. They conclude, “The Department has simply paid others to do that which it is forbidden to do.”  (p.18)

Using taxpayer money from the stimulus to implement reforms that weaken the State’s autonomy over education is not a high enough standard for me and my children.

Proponents of these reforms like to point out that adopting these reforms was a legitimate exercise of state’s rights because the development of the standards was led by the Governors at the National Governors Association. The problem is, the Utah State Constitution does not grant authority over education to our Governor. Furthermore, there is no such thing in the U.S. Constitution as a council of governors. Comparing best practices is one thing, but Governors working together to jointly address issues and create rules that affect the whole nation is not a legitimate alternative to Congress, our national representative body. The organizations that introduced Common Core to our nation, state-by-state, had no constitutional commission to do what they did.

Allowing rules for education to be set by those with no authority to do so is not a high enough standard for me or my children.

The Governor didn’t decide on his own that Utah would adopt these reforms. The agreements were also signed by the State Superintendent acting in behalf of the State School Board. The Utah Constitution does give authority to the State School Board to set academic standards. It does not say that they can outsource a role we entrusted to them to a non-governmental trade organization who outsourced it to another group of hand-picked experts. This is called “delegation” and it has been established in legal precedent (three cases cited on this slide prepared by the USOE – slide 24 USBE rebuttal) to be unconstitutional.

Elected officials delegating a job we entrusted to them to a body outside the jurisdiction of state oversight is not a high enough standard for me and my children.

The official USOE pamphlet on the Common Core adoption says that the State School Board “monitored this process.” But Dane Linn, who was the education director for the NGA at the time the standards were being written, stated, “All of the standards writing and discussions were sealed by confidentiality agreements, and held in private.” There were no meeting minutes, no public records, no obligation by the lead writers to even respond to the input of anyone who submitted it, including any input from our school board. As a parent and a taxpayer, this process cuts me out completely.

As citizens of a self-governing Republic, this non-representative process is not a high enough standard for me and my children.

While this process was different than the way standards have been vetted in the past, the State School Board insists their involvement and review was adequate and that there was time for public input. The USOE published this timeline for adoption of the standards. (USBE slide rebuttal page 22.) Here it says that the summer of 2010 was the public comment period. However, the final draft was not available until June 2, and the Board took their first of two votes to adopt them two days later on June 4. The second and final vote was made a month later, but the first formally announced public comment period I could find was in April of 2012 – 22 months after the Board officially adopted the standards.

No meaningful public input on changes that affect all of our community schools is not a high enough standard for me and my children.

When the Department of Education ran out of grant money to get states to implement their reforms, they offered the states waivers from unpopular requirements of No Child Left Behind that many Utah schools were not anticipated to meet. While the No Child Left Behind law did grant limited authority to the Department of Education to waive certain conditions, it did not grant them authority to require new conditions in exchange. 

This increasingly common habit of the executive branch to waive laws and replace them with their own rules, as if they held the lawmaking authority assigned to Congress, is not an acceptable standard for me and my children.

This is not the only example of the Department of Education overstepping their authority. In order for States to collect the individual student data required by these reforms, the US Department of Ed altered the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act weakening the protection of parental control over sharing student data. Both the Electronic Privacy Information Center and Fordham University’s Center for Law and Information Policy have written briefs charging that the Education Department acted illegally.

Unelected officials gutting laws that were established by Congress to protect my family’s privacy is not a high enough standard for me and my children.

Ever since we started down the road of adopting Common Core, in fact, I’ve noticed a much greater influence over education by unelected special interests. In an article published in the Washington Post in May, for example, it was estimated that the Gates Foundation has spent at least $150 million dollars to fund and promote Common Core.

A July 2010 Business Week cover story on Bill Gates quotes Jack Jennings, director of the Center on Education Policy saying, “As a private entity that doesn’t answer to voters,Gates can back initiatives that are politically dicey for the Obama Administration, such as uniform standards … In the past, states’ rights advocates have blocked federal efforts for a national curriculum. Gates ‘was able to do something the federal government couldn’t do.”

When one very rich man has a greater influence over the direction of public education than parents, teachers and local communities that sets an unacceptable standard for “we the people,” for me, and for my children.

What is the justification for pushing these reforms through, bypassing the checks and balances of our established legal framework? We have to do it we are told so that our children will be “career and college ready.” 

The Govenor, on his webpage for education, says we need to implement these reforms to “align educational training to meet the workforce demands of the marketplace.” 

To me, all of these workforce goals seem to imply that the highest aim of education is work. Historically, the purpose of American education was to nurture the development of self-governing citizens, with work being incidental to that development. This nation has uniquely thrived according to the principle that a free market with good people pursuing their own dreams works better than attempts at centrally regulated markets with efficiently trained workers.

Being an efficient employee in a job that matches a data profile collected by the state from cradle to career is not a high enough standard for education, not for my children.

Thomas Jefferson was an early proponent of publicly funded education. He saw literate citizens educated in history and principles of good government as a necessary condition of maintaining liberty. He said, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

How tragically ironic if in the very name of public education we end up eroding those very safeguards of liberty that he championed.

My opposition to the way we’ve adopted Common Core (and the rest of the education reforms introduced in the Stimulus) is not just about the education of my children, it is about the type of government I hope my children will inherit when they have children of their own. I believe we can set high standards for math and english without circumventing, stretching, or ignoring the high standards for self government that have made our nation unique in all the history of the world. This is the Constitution of the United States of America. 

These standards ARE high enough for me, and my children.

Alpine Parent Society Launches

Those who follow the blog know I have a special interest in education issues. I also have a passion for getting ordinary people involved in their government. Combining these two interests of mine, I've gotten together with a couple of other moms and launched the Alpine Parent Society.

Our goal is to help facilitate community awareness of and involvement in the governance of Alpine School District. We aim to do it by organizing so that there is always a lay citizen in attendance at Board Meetings and Study Sessions.

ASD does a number of things well, but it has also fallen in line with most of the educational trends of the day, for better or worse. I believe that our District can step out of the long line of school districts following the exact same path to the exact same mediocre workforce-focused destination, and become an exception - a leader in family-honoring, principle-centered, knowledge-based education. I hope our organization can facilitate feedback to the School Board that will help them see a good way to do just that.

Check out the blog for the Alpine Parent Society, where we have our first two reports published. Even though we're calling it a "Parent Society," we welcome any and all residents of the Alpine School District, regardless of parental status. All you need to do to be part of the group is and commit to attend just one or two School Board meeting per year. Email me or post a comment on this blog or the APS blog to let me know you want to join the effort.

Another note I feel I should make is that right now, the group is heavy on those who share my political and policy philosophy, as I and my co-organizers reached out to friends to get it started. But we heartily welcome people of all perspectives and opinions to be part of this organization. One of the big challenges of a grassroots effort like this is that in welcoming everyone who's interested, you get all stripes and styles. The companion challenge is actually assembling a diverse group - when people disagree, they often don't want to be associated. 

My goal with the APS is to get all kinds of people with all kinds of opinions to participate, get familiar with their elected officials and administrators, and report things as they see them, the good and the bad. It will help the District and Board get a feel for the variety of views held by their constituents, and hopefully help all of us constituents better understand how governance of the District works, as well as have patient respect for each others' views. 

The next Board meeting and Study Session are on September 10. We'd love to have you there!

Abusing Basic Rights through School Attendance Laws - Nebraska Case Studies

My friend and popular Common Core blogger Christel Swasey shared on her blog today the following article, which I wrote about the anti-family trend in school attendance laws sweeping the nation. Her posting of it, including her insightful commentary, can be found here: Compulsory Education's Unforseen Consequences: Nebraska Case Studies.

Abusing Basic Rights through School Attendance Laws: Nebraska Case Studies

12-year-old Lucas Maynard and his parents found themselves in truancy court last week. Lucas’ offense? He got sick too much this year. The punishment? They're still waiting to find out, but the judge has informed him that removal from his parents’ custody is a possibility.

All around the country, there is a quiet assault on families taking place. In the name of “helping children,” state laws and school district attendance policies are being altered to draw thousands of innocent children into the juvenile justice system and wave the heavy threat of state force and social services intervention over the heads of ordinary good parents.

Innocent children whose crimes amount to being frequently ill, or struggling with mental health issues such as autism, or being the victim of bullying, are being hauled into court, coerced into lengthy “diversion programs,” threatened with removal from the custody of their parents, actually removed from the custody of their parents, and in other ways terrified and treated like criminals. Their families are being put through the wringer with unpaid time from work for court dates, costs for attorney fees, and fear of state intervention in their families.

Untold numbers of other families are being frightened into doing everything possible to avoid entanglement in this system, including sending their kids to school sick and cancelling family travel. It is happening in states all over the country – I personally know of cases in Indiana, Texas, and Wyoming, with particular knowledge of what is happening in Nebraska because of personal involvement.

Here’s how it’s been playing out in Nebraska. In 2010, motivated by an attempt to get points on its Race to the Top application, the Nebraska legislature passed a law at the request of the Governor which effectively took away the right of a parent to excuse her child from school. The new law required schools to report kids to law enforcement if they had more than 20 days of absence – for any reason at all. Nebraska could get more points on its application by having a plan in place to increase attendance. All states were able to earn more points for implementing more oppressive attendance laws.

At the same time, school districts started tightening up their attendance policies, disallowing excuses for family travel or time home with seriously ill family or military parents on leave from deployment. Before the change, Nebraska applied the reasonable and widely-used standard of reporting kids with unexcused absences – those whose parents hadn’t accounted for their whereabouts.

Where once state law, school district policies, and public officials worked to reduce truancy – kids missing school without their parents’ permission (a.k.a. “skipping”) – the focus is shifting to reducing absences of any kind. The shift is leaving untold collateral damage in its wake, including the relationships between school administrators and the parents they serve. And it’s shifting our culture to embrace the “state knows best” mindset, minimizing the authority of parents and giving far too much power to state officials to decide what’s “best” for individual children. It’s also generating a lot of business for the social service industry.

Last week, the story of the Maynards – referred to above – became the latest in a long list of such stories out of Nebraska. Their story highlights much of what’s wrong with the “brave new approach” to school attendance that’s sweeping the nation. Lucas experienced a lot of illness – plus two days of impassable winter roads in rural Nebraska – during the past school year. This innocent offense landed him in court, forced to sit away from his parents between the prosecutor and the guardian ad litem assigned to him, listening in terror as the judge informed him that one of the consequences of his absences from school could be removal from his parents’ custody. (Children are assigned a guardian ad litem in cases of alleged abuse or neglect. So the state of Nebraska has implied that the Maynards committed abuse or neglect by keeping their son home when he was ill and when the roads were too dangerous to travel!)

The Maynards’ entire story can be read at the Nebraska Family Forum blog. Unfortunately, it’s only one of hundreds if not thousands of such cases, and that’s just in Nebraska. The toll around the country is much higher, with many cases even more egregious, such as this one involving a 9-year-old in Wyoming.

If you see attendance policies and laws like this, don’t wait a day to contact your local school boards and state legislators. They need to hear the message that laws and policies must protect the fundamental right that parents have to make decisions for their children. For those who are lucky enough to live in states and districts where this approach hasn’t been implemented yet, watch your legislature and local board meetings like a hawk! Proponents of this approach to school attendance are pushing the “state knows what’s best for each child” approach all over the country, including here in Utah this last session.

It’s another piece – an especially frightening piece – of the education reform puzzle that is shaping up all over the country.

More stories from Nebraska

The Chambers Family

A quiet middle-schooler with severe allergies is sent to the county attorney, forced to submit to a drug test without her parents’ knowledge, made to feel like a criminal, and ends up attending school when sick, staying in a quiet room where she naps and eats lunch – just so they can count her present.

The Herrera Family

A mother decides to homeschool her 3^rd-grade daughter for the last few weeks of the school year after school officials fail to deal with her bullies and she gets beaten with a stick on the way home from school. Because she doesn’t waited to receive official notice of approval from the state – her daughter was in imminent physical danger – when she comes back the next year she is reported to law enforcement, made a ward of the state, and her mother is placed on the child abuse and neglect list.

The Garrity Family

The story of a 15-year-old boy with autism shows how families who already struggle with unique challenges are abused and put through further suffering by the state of Nebraska and its school districts.

The Hall Family

A well-liked honor roll student with seasonal asthma is forced into a “diversion program.” Diversion from what? Asthma? The solution the following year is that when she is too sick to go to school, her parents must bring her to school so the school nurse can verify the parents’ judgment.

What You Can Do:

Know your state representative and state senator, as well as your local school board representatives. Keep an eye on the legislature when it's in session and on school board meetings, and be prepared to speak up if you see something that concerns you, or something that pleases you. Our representatives need our positive feedback when they are considering something we like as much as they need our negative feedback when the situation calls for it.

Alpine School Board Approves a Sound and Respectful Attendance Policy

This post is long overdue, but it's been on my to-do list and deserves reporting, so better late than never.

It its April board meeting, the Alpine School Board approved a change to its Attendance Policy for Secondary Schools which deserves the praise and thanks of everyone. The change added this section to the policy:

1.3 The Alpine School District Board of Education has determined that the parent or legal guardian of a student can excuse and (sic) absence for reasons they deem necessary.

While too many school districts around the country are moving further away from a positive working relationship with parents which includes respect for parents' choices about their children's absences - by reducing the reasons for which a child can miss school and increasing prosecution of ordinary, parent-excused absences - Alpine has chosen a better direction. It has chosen to reflect our community values by showing respect for the families it serves through this excellent policy.

A huge thank you goes out to the Alpine Board of Education!

Further Information:

ATTENDANCE POLICY FOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS - Policy 5156
http://policy.alpinedistrict.org/policy/5156_Attendance_Policy_for_Secondary_Schools_Policy

What You Can Do:

Contact the members of the Alpine School Board and thank them for adopting this policy.

President John Burton  johnburton@alpinedistrict.org  
Scott Carlson  scarlson@alpinedistrict.org
Brian Halladay  bhalladay@alpinedistrict.org
Wendy Hart  wendyhart@alpinedistrict.org
Paula Hill  paulahill@alpinedistrict.org
JoDee Sundberg  jsundberg@alpinedistrict.org
Debbie Taylor  debbietaylor@alpinedistrict.org

State Board of Education Votes to Add Cursive to Standards

The State Board of Education voted today to add handwriting and cursive to Utah's Core Standards. The Board will give the proposal time to receive public input before taking a final vote on it.

This is an excellent decision by the State Board. 
The ability to write cursive, and especially to read it, are important parts of a thorough education. These skills allow a person to participate in family history and other archival research, read facsimiles of source documents from the American founding and other historic documents, and participate in the civilzed art of the hand-written thank you note or personal letter (something which all of us could probably make time to do more often!)

It's unfortunate that the Common Core standards don't include handwriting and cursive. Kudos to the State Board for voting to move ahead with adding these skills to the standards for Utah's schoolchildren.

Further Information:
Utah School Board gives approval to keep cursive in schools

What You Can Do:
Contact the members of the State School Board and tell them "Thank You!" 
http://www.schools.utah.gov/board/Board-Members/Find-Your-Board-Member.aspx

Public Meetings on New Utah Student Assessments - IMPORTANT!

The Utah State Office of Education is holding public meetings around the state about the new computer adaptive tests being adopted under Common Core. These presentations will give members of the public the opportunity to learn and ask questions. 

Please make the time to attend one of these meetings! We are approaching a HUGE overhaul of testing as we know it, overseen by a contractor whose credentials and mission raise great concern. Here is the schedule:

Schedule for Regional Meetings on Computer Adaptive Tests

The company the state has hired to direct the formation of the assessments is named "American Institutes for Research (AIR)." This organization is not an academic assessment company. It is "one of the world's largest behavioral and social science research organizations." (From it's website.) "AIR is continuously building upon its long history of contributing to evidence-based social change." (AIR History)

AIR's founder, John C. Flanagan, did some impressive work. He was "a major figure in

American psychology. During World War II he developed the aptitude tests that successfully identified the best candidates to serve as American combat pilots. At AIR he further developed the “critical incident technique,” which the Annual Review of Psychology called one of the "most important personnel selection milestones of the past 60 years." Flanagan went on to apply his technique to education." (AIR History)

But is it really appropriate to apply "personnel selection" techniques to school children? Do you want your child and the children of Utah to be assessed this way?

There are hundreds of parents concerned that a behavioral science research organization is directing the writing of tests that our kids are going to be taking. That group of concerned parents will grow to thousands and tens of thousands as more learn about who AIR is, and what computer adaptive testing is.

Under computer adaptive testing, no two students will see the same test. Each question is modulated based on the response to the previous question. A typical grade-level test administered today contains about 200 questions, and all the students see the same ones in the same order. Under computer adaptive testing, a grade-level test will have about 1600 possible questions. 

With 13 grade-level tests, that makes for over 20,000 possible questions for Utahns to try to review. How can we be sure these tests will match our values? And with the stated mission and focus of AIR, can we feel really good about accepting these assessment for our kids without reviewing every question?

Parents and community members, get out to one of these meetings. If you've missed the one for your district, attend another. You have the chance to speak up before your children become someone else's guinea pigs in a great social experiment.

Further Information:

New Tests Coming to Utah Schools - Salt Lake Tribune

American Institutes for Research (AIR) website

Christel Swasey's Blog - Posts about AIR
April 2 post
November 27 post

USOE page: "Student Assessment of Growth and Excellence (SAGE)"
Includes FAQs and other useful information.

Watch this Google video conference with 3 Utah moms discussing AIR, behavioral research in education and computer adaptive testing.

What You Can Do:
Attend a meeting! Here is the public invitation sent out by the USOE. View the PowerPoint presentation the state will use at the meeting so you can be prepared with your questions.

If you can't attend a meeting, send an email to the USOE with your questions:
John Jesse, Director of Assessment: John.Jesse@schools.utah.gov

AND/OR email your questions to your local district assessment coordinator, who you can look up on your school district website. 

Psychological Profiling of Your Child in Utah

In 1964, the Pennsylvania Department of Education contracted with a group of unelected officials from the Carnegie Foundation to develop what became known as the Ten Quality Goals of Education. These goals were based on a theory that public education should address more than academic knowledge and skills - "the three R's." According to this theory, education should address "the whole child," including how he thinks, feels and acts. 

While everyone knows that a well-educated person enjoys the direction of a wise guardian as she learns how to think, feel and act, most people don't think about the proper source of that direction. Prior to the "Ten Quality Goals," it was solidly established that the feeling and acting dimensions of education - what a child is taught to believe - were the territory of families, and Reading, Writing and 'Rithmetic were the territory of schools. But today, most people don't think twice about a school teacher, or counselor, being counted as that wise guardian. 

This is thanks in large part to the shift in thinking that occurred in the wake of the release of these goals. Ever since, educrats have employed countless ways to try to affect more than just academic knowledge in their students.

Here in Utah, the State Office of Education (USOE) is also involved in this effort to influence the way your child thinks, feels and acts - to influence his beliefs. Thanks to Morgan Olsen, we now have a better picture of the kinds of beliefs the USOE tracks and tries to influence - via testing - in our children. 

As you read through her article below (copied from Utahns Against Common Core), ask yourself whether these things are the appropriate role of the school system, or whether it's time to call for a return to academic foundations in education, and leave the transmitting of beliefs to families.


Is the USOE Practicing Psychological Profiling on your Child?

Do you know what Psychological Profiling and Perception Data are?

If…

“Profiling: the use of personal characteristics or behavior patterns to make generalizations about a person, as in gender profiling.” (Dictionary.com)

Then Psychological Profiling is the use of psychological characteristics or behavior patterns to make generalizations about a person.

Perception data is essentially Belief Data. According to the Utah State Office of Education’s (USOE) “Utah’s Model for Comprehensive Counseling and Guidance”

 “Perception data: Perception data answer the question, “What do people think they know, believe or can do?” These data measure what students and others observe or perceive, knowledge gained, attitudes and beliefs held and competencies achieved. These data are often collected through pre- and post-surveys, tests or skill demonstration opportunities such as presentations or role play, data, competency achievement, surveys or evaluation forms.” (pgs. 58-59)

Did you know the USOE outlines Student Outcomes, Standards, and Competencies for your child’s Perception (Belief) Data? (125-130)

“The school guidance curriculum is designed to facilitate the systematic delivery of guidance lessons or activities to every student consistent with the school CCGP statements of philosophy, goals and student competencies.” (48)

The following picture is an example of a few of Utah’s  CCGP Student Outcomes (125-130):

Did you know your child’s success is determined by whether they Master the CCGP outcomes?

“Student monitoring: Monitoring students’ progress ensures that all students receive what they need to achieve success in school. It entails monitoring… standards- and competency-related data.” (33)

“Standards- and competency-related data: These data measure student mastery of the competencies delineated in the Utah CCGP Student Outcomes.” (57)

Did you know School counseling programs’ are evaluated on whether they made progress towards full implementation of the CCGP Student Outcomes?

Even though each school is urged to create its own CCGP Program with its own competencies and the Utah’s CCGP Models says the “117 indicators listed in the Utah Standards for Student Competencies… are not meant to be all-inclusive.” (45), the scoring rubrics (222) for the Program Audits require increasing alignment with Utah CCGP Student Outcomes over time. Under this evaluation method schools will eventually be fully aligned with Utah’s CCGP Student Outcomes, and psychological profiling will become mandatory throughout all of Utah’s CCGP programs.

“The CCGP Student Outcomes: The CCGP Student Outcomes serve as the foundation for the Utah CCG Program.” (32)

“The program review provides evidence of the program’s alignment with the Utah Model for CCGP. The primary purpose for collecting this information is to guide future actions within the program and to improve future results for students. The review aligns with and includes all Utah Model program components for the Utah Model for CCGP.” (77)

From the Performance review scoring rubrics:

“STANDARD IX: School Guidance Curriculum. The program delivers a developmental and sequential guidance curriculum in harmony with content standards identified in the Utah Model for CCGP.” (238)

“Evidence is provided that the guidance curriculum is in harmony with the CCGP Student Outcomes identified in the Utah Model and is supportive of school improvement goals.” (238)

If a school doesn’t score well enough they will lose grant money tied directly to the CCG Program, and some of the Guidance Counselors will lose their job.

Are you aware the USOE tells school Guidance Counselors to collect Perception (Belief) Data from your child to create “programs and activities designed to provide extra time and help to those students who need it”?

“Through the analysis of disaggregated data, educators discover which groups of students need additional help and design interventions specifically geared toward those students’ needs. For example, to help all students learn to the same high standards, teachers may create differentiated instruction, and schools might institute programs and activities designed to provide extra time and help to those students who need it. These intentional interventions are strategically designed to close the achievement gap.”

In the same way, school counselors know that not all students come to school with equal academic and personal/social resources. Disaggregated data help uncover areas where groups of students are having difficulty.”  (60)

“Disaggregated data: Data separated into component parts by specific variables such as ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status.” (Glossary)

Here’s an example the USOE gives of how Perception (Belief) data can be used to create a program:

“To ensure every student achieves high academic standards and masters the Utah CCGP Student Outcomes, it is important to not just look at aggregate, global data from the entire student body, but also to disaggregate the data. To disaggregate data, school counselors separate data by variables to see if there are any groups of students who may not be doing as well as others. For example, although a high school counselor might feel good about seeing that 60 percent of all seniors complete four full years of mathematics, she may not be as happy if she sees that 75 percent of white students complete the four years while only 20 percent of students of color complete four years of math. Disaggregated data often spur change because they bring to light issues of equity and focus the discussion upon the needs of specific groups of students.” (58)

Using factors we know the student databases keep track of, let’s change a few variables around to see how this type of practice could affect a different group of people:

“To ensure every student achieves high academic standards and masters the Utah CCGP Student Outcomes, it is important to not just look at aggregate, global data from the entire student body, but also to disaggregate the data. To disaggregate data, school counselors separate data by variables to see if there are any groups of students who may not be doing as well as others. For example, although a high school counselor might feel good about seeing that 60 percent of all seniors complete CCGP Student Outcome MG:A3.7: respect and protect the environment with a willingness to make necessary changes to accommodate the changing ecosystem, she may not be as happy if she sees that 75 percent of non-seminary students complete the four years while only 20 percent of students in seminary complete student outcome MG:A3.7. Disaggregated data often spur change because they bring to light issues of equity and focus the discussion upon the needs of specific groups of students.” (58)

What kinds of programs do you think a guidance counselor would create to deal with this sort of “problem”?

Do you think it’s okay for the USOE to create desired Student Outcomes for Students’ beliefs without parental input?

“Much gratitude is expressed to the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) for permission to base this current Utah Model for Comprehensive Counseling and Guidance on The ASCA National Model: A Framework for School Counseling Programs, 2nd Edition.” (3)

Do you think it’s okay for the USOE to create desired Student Outcomes for Students’ beliefs at all?

Do you think it’s appropriate for the state to do this in the name of education?

What can you do about it?

• Know your parental rights and exercise them. See What are my parental rights? For more information.
• Do not sign permission slips allowing schools to collect personal data from your child.
• Exercise your right to review the curriculum before signing anything.
• Teach your child what is appropriate to share with others and what is private information.
• Tell your Educators, and Elected Officials you are against the inappropriate collection and transfer of data by Utah’s State Longitudinal Data System and against the collection and use of perception data in any school system.
• Ask Legislators to defund Utah’s SLDS.
• See our Action List to learn more about how to contact your Elected Officials.

What You Can Do:

Contact the Utah State Board of Education and tell them that psychological profiling and the collection of perception data are not the appropriate role of the education system. 

Clinical Psychologist Raises Huge Concerns about Pyschological Testing Via Common Core

Below is a letter from a Clinical Psychologist who is concerned about the psychological data that will be collected on your child as Common Core is implemented. Everyone should consider the points he raises and questions he asks.

I don't claim to agree with every opinion expressed in the letter, but I wholeheartedly share his concerns and and echo his questions about the pyschological testing and tracking components of Common Core. Education should be focused on imparting academic knowledge and skills, not on molding the mental state of other people's children.

Dear Mrs. Swasey & Mr. Beck:

I am writing this note on behalf of your joint request to address issues surrounding the Common Core State Standards Act (CCSS) that is currently in the process of being implemented in the vast majority of our public school systems in the country.

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).

As a “local clinical community scientist”, I have an ethical obligation to our community at large to provide unbiased opinions regarding issues that affect the education experiences of school-aged children and their respective guardians.  The “Common Core States Standards Act” (CCSS) falls uniquely into this category.    I have devoted many hours reading commentaries and studies, both pro and con, regarding the overall efficacy of CCSS.

In a nutshell, the (mostly) progressive public education community speaks highly of CCSS and its stated goal of raising educational standards across the board in a effort to improve the educational process for all students in the country, particularly under performing African American and Latino students nationwide.  

The (mostly) conservative opponents of CCSS claim that involvement in public school education should be primarily a local/statewide process, and that Federal intrusion into public school education is not effective for multiple alleged reasons.  In addition, there are disputes involving the CCSS curriculum itself whereas proponents cite multiple sources of research that allegedly support the efficacy of the education content.

Opponents also cite similar competing references that support their contention that CCSS curriculum stifles’ teachers’ creativity and that the content, especially in math, is not effective for early learners, gifted students, and children with diagnosed learning disabilities. The amount of information available to voters and parents by “experts”, both for and against CCSS, is overwhelming in its length, complexity and emotional intensity.   Like the Affordable Care Act, the implementation of the Common Core State Standards in the vast majority of public schools nationwide, has caused a seemingly unbridgeable divide in many quarters of this country.

I am not an expert in the development and implementation of core educational curriculum in public schools, so I will not comment on the issue.  I am not an expert on the effects of federal government involvement, verses local involvement, in public school education, so I will not comment on the issue.  I am not a forensic accountant with expertise in the areas of national and local financial accounting tax monies submitted towards public education, so I will not comment on that issue.  I am also not a politician, nor do I represent any special interest groups that could even be remotely tied to the multiple and complex issues surrounding CCSS.  I find the political process in this day and age to be ineffective and personally unfulfilling, and will not comment on the efficacy of education platforms set forth by the three main political parties.   I am, however, an expert in psychological and educational assessment/testing, as well as privacy acts surrounding the use of these tests in both private and educational settings.   My remaining comments will focus on these two issues as they are addressed by the CCSS.

Educational Testing

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.”  

Our clinic performs these comprehensive IEE’s (Individual Education Evaluations) on a daily basis. These test measure “attributes”, “dispositions”, “social skills”, “attitudes” and “intra personal resources” as stated by the USDOE.    In addition, we utilized state of the neuro-cognitive tests that measure the informational process functioning of children in school (Cognitive Assessment System, Naglieri 2002).   

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). 

  

Bluntly put, if a client’s records somehow get into the hands of anyone besides the parents without written consent from the parents, or a court order, our clinic would be shut down in a heartbeat and the clinician who released unauthorized comprehensive assessments would lose their license.   Clinical Psychologists in graduate level classrooms and clinical training sites spend years getting these basic privacy rights pounded into our heads.  Failure to articulate and implement strict privacy guidelines issued by the Federal Government, State licensing boards, or the American Psychological Association (APA) would result in immediate dismissal from graduate school academic institutions, as well as any clinical psychology training sites in either Internship or Residency settings.   

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.

Privacy

  

I mentioned above that our private clinic is subjected to multiple federal, state, and professional association regulations when it comes to protecting and releasing mental health records.   The rationale behind these regulations is obvious in nature both to the professionals, as well as their clients.   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.  

Prior to CCSS, public school districts were required to adhere to the same rules and regulations regarding private records as our clinic is subjected to.   HIPPA tells us how to store records, were to store records, and whom to release them too.  FERPA (Federal Education Records Protection Act) is subjected to HIPPA requirements when it comes to protecting sensitive education records.   As show herein, educational testing records are highly sensitive and it only makes common sense that this practice of protecting these sensitive records continues.   

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 HIPPA privacywaivers.  

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:

 Grants school districts a waiver from FERPA in terms of deleting identifying information on their records.

1. Allows school districts to then give these identifiable records basically to anyone who they deem to have an viable interest with these records.
2. 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”?”
3. All without written parental consent.   

The “Comprehensive Statewide Longitudinal Data System,” employed by CCSS that will hold this sensitive data, per DOE webpage, states, “all States implement state longitudinal data systems that involve elements specified in the “America Competes Act”.   I spent two hours pouring over this Act to see if there were any further guidelines to Federal of State officials as such may pertain to privacy issues.   None could be found.    

Proponents of the CCSS point to volumes of articles and promises and policies that state that our children’s data will be private and protected by the national and state data systems that will shortly be implemented per CCSS guidelines.   I have very little doubt that the computer systems employed by Federal, State and local districts that contain this data will be state of the art computer systems.  Others whom are experts in this field may differ strongly).  The point however is this: CCSS does not specify who can have access to their records, or for what specific purposes this sensitive data will be utilized.   When it comes to addressing privacy issues, the CCSS contains abundant, generalized “legal speak”.

In terms of privacy issues, below are issues regarding CCSS “privacy” 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 the parents of children in public school education:

Exactly WHO will have access to records obtained by this national/state database?  The generic political answer of “Appropriately designated education officials or private research entities” does not “cut the mustard.”

1. For what EXACT purpose will this sensitive data be utilized?  
2. What organizations will have access to identifiable academic records?  Other than generic information regarding race, age, gender and geographic location, why does the Federal database require identifiable information to be accessible? 
3.  If the political responses to these questions are “all information contained in the database is unidentifiable and securely stored,” then why were changes made to FERPA to allow an exemption to educational privacy rights when it comes to the implementation of Common Core State Standards?
4. What type of “predictive tests” are currently being designed and who will have access to results of whatever is being measured?

Conclusion

Like the infamous “No Child Left Behind” laws that on some levels (with the sole exceptions of the 2004 IDEA Act included in NCLB), have set back progress of public school education years, I honestly believe that a few lawmakers with good hearts and intentions honestly wanted to find solutions to our public school systems.  I believe also that the Obama Administration wants every child to have a proper and rigorous education and that the implementation of Common Core will bring them closer to that goal.

I am also, however, a local clinical community scientist. In this role I have several serious questions concerning CCSS noted herein which have yet to be answered to my satisfaction as a scientist, education advocate, and parent. I would implore every Governor, State Superintendent, and State School Board member in the country to honestly and openly explore the issues cited above and provide accurate answers to these issues to the public in “plain speak”.

Given the gravity of these issues, I cannot professionally endorse the Common Core State Standards as currently written until pointed clarification is provided by politicians and educators from both party’s endorsing CCSS.  Nor in good conscience can I enroll my toddler in a public school system that utilizes CCSS until these issues are clarified to my satisfaction. 

The issues involving psychological testing and privacy are issues that should be of concern to every parent with a child enrolled in public school.    The power granted federal and state education administrators via the regulations of CCSS are unprecedented in nature.   Some parents will be quite comfortable with CCSS even in light of the issues detailed in this letter.   Some parents would be aghast with the same provisions.   Regardless, parents deserve to be clearly informed about these and other issues surrounding CCSS in a clear and straightforward manner so that they can make educated choices regarding their children’s educations.

On a final note, I wish to publically show my support to the underpaid and overworked public school teachers nationwide.  If I had the power, I would elevate their status to that of a medical doctor in terms of pay and prestige. What they do with the limited resources available, and with the burden of bureaucracy following their every professional move is simply nothing short of amazing.  Our clinic employees several public school teachers (One is a former Utah Teacher of the Year), and school psychologist due to their amazing talents and abilities of reaching the hearts and minds of our young and diverse educational psychology clients.  

There are answers to most of the perplexing questions facing public school officials.  I believe these answers can be readily found in multiple peer-reviewed journals in neuropsychology, clinical psychology, education and public policy.  Answers can also be found by mining the experiences, wants and needs of our hardworking public school teachers on the local and statewide ground level, as well as local parenting organization of various stripes.  Once science and cultural based solution are found and implemented, I believe even cynical conservative lawmakers nationwide would be more willing to pony up additional tax payer money when presented with imaginative, science based educational models in pubic school systems.   On the other hand, simply adding billions of dollars towards a 150-year old foundational system of education in crisis without implementing massive changes is irresponsible, unimaginative, and most likely politically and monetarily motivated. 

When politics and money are taken out of the public school education policy arena and replaced with common sense and culturally sensitive science, mixed in with local value systems, I believe we, as a nation will make great strides in the goal of educating our children.   

Until that time comes, it is my wish that regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation and political affiliations, our country will join together at the grass roots to amicably reach “common core” grounds of restoring our once proud public education system.  

Best regards,

  

Dr. Gary Thompson

Director of Clinical Training & Community Advocacy Services

Early Life Child Psychology & Education Center, Inc.

www.earlylifepsych.com

Doctor Thompson can be reached for comment at drgary@earlylifepsych.com

Further Information:

Framework for a Multistate Human Capital Development Data System

Dangerous Federal Privacy Act Changes

What You Can Do:

Contact the State School Board and ask for the answers to the questions that bother you most. Or, if you feel there are too many concerns to cover, you can just ask the broad, basic question: Why has the state adopted a set of standards (Common Core State Standards) which will be used to collect this kind of information about our children?

Contact the Assessment Department of the Utah State Office of Education (801-538-7651) and ask whether the new assessments will include this psychological data. 

Contact the Governor (801-538-1000) and share this letter, highlighting your biggest concerns. 

Contact your State Representative and State Senator and share this letter, highlighting your biggest concerns.