Utah State Office of Education Endorses New Anti-American AP History Framework

Today at the meeting of the Legislature's Education Task Force, the Utah State Office of Education recommended that Utah adopt the new A.P. History framework recently released by the College Board. The new framework has been decried by teachers and organizations all over the country for its anti-American tilt.

The USOE stated at the meeting that the new framework "is merely a framework, with the important and essential details to be added by teachers." Sounds a lot like the official line for Common Core: "They're just standards. Teachers still get to choose curriculum." I suppose that's not surprising, given that the man who's the "architect of Common Core," David Coleman, is also now the president of the College Board.

As for the USOE's assertion that teachers get to fill in the details as they like, it seems to forget that AP teachers have always been in the business of preparing their students to take the AP exam. If something is not emphasized in the framework/syllabus/guidelines they work from, they take a risk by spending time on it - a risk that their students' scores will suffer.

The new History framework has been decried by decorated AP History teacher Larry Krieger (also see here), the Republican National Committee, National Review writer Stanley Kurtz, and education senior fellow of Robert P. George's American Principles Project Jane Robbins. Texas just rejected the framework last week.

To get a feel for the direction of things, take a look at the sample test released by the College Board, as well as the Course and Exam Description. Then you can begin to draw your own conclusions. 

There appears to be plenty of cause for concern that the Utah State Office of Education is willing to embrace this changed framework.

Utah GOP Delegates Overwhelmingly Support Partisan Elections for School Boards

At the Utah Republican Party State Convention today, delegates overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling for partisan races for school board races. Current procedure is non-partisan races for local school board seats, and a bizarre process of "vetting" by an appointed committee and the Governor for the State Board of Education.

The resolution, submitted by education activist Oak Norton, was vigorously opposed by organizations representing the education establishment, who have the only well-organized network in the state capable of vetting candidates and motivating people to vote for chosen ones under a non-partisan system. This leaves them with an unusual amount of power in school board elections. It's an unhealthy amount of power, if you believe in active voter participation.

It's well known that school board races are among the least followed by the general public, which isn't surprising given that under a non-partisan structure, they have no efficient way to figure out who they are and where they really stand. Establishing partisan elections would provide two additional well-organized state networks to vet candidates and motivate voters - the Democrat and Republican parties. 

Partisan elections for school board races will increase voter participation, and greatly increase the connection of elected board members to their constituency. Let's hope the members of the legislature heed the call of delegates, whose support for today's resolution was so strong, it only required a voice vote.

HB 131 - The "Nine Keys" to Successful Implementation

As discussion about HB 131, the bill to implement 1-to-1 mobile devices in Utah's public schools, continues on Capitol Hill, there has been mention of "doing the right things" in implementing such an initiative. To my knowledge, the specifics of these things haven't been thoroughly discussed publicly.

It appears a major driver - if not the main driver - behind this initiative is an organization called Project RED, so it's reasonable to conclude that the suggestions made by that organization for "doing the right things" are those to which legislators are referring. In the case of Project RED, it recommends "Nine Keys" to successful implementation of a 1-to-1 initiative.

For those skeptical about or opposed to the idea of local schools giving every child a tablet or laptop, these "right things" will likely confirm a sense of skepticism or opposition. For those supportive of local schools providing a device to every child, the "Nine Key Implementation Factors" may raise a bit of concern.

These Keys are discussed thoroughly in the document "The Technology Factor:

Nine Keys to Student Achievement and Cost-Effectiveness." They are:

1.  Intervention classes: Technology is integrated into every intervention class period.
2. Change management leadership by principal: Leaders provide time for teacher professional learning and collaboration at least monthly.
3. Online collaboration: Students use technology daily for online collaboration (games/simulations and social media).
4. Core subjects: Technology is integrated into core curriculum weekly or more frequently.
5. Online formative assessments: Assessments are done at least weekly.
6. Student-computer ratio: Lower ratios improve outcomes.
7. Virtual field trips: With more frequent use, virtual trips are more powerful. The best schools do these at least monthly.
8. Search engines: Students use daily.
9. Principal training: Principals are trained in teacher buy-in, best practices, and technology-transformed learning.

1. It would seem that more 1-on-1 teacher time would be more beneficial for a student in an intervention class than more 1-on-1 computer time.

2. It's highly troublesome that we are facilitating a "fundamental shift" in education, surrounded by an atmosphere of crisis and urgency that makes most people embrace such a shift. Why must teachers and principals, parents and lawmakers, always be marketed to under this new system? 

3. Are state leaders really advocating DAILY games and social media use by students as young as 1st grade? 

4. How will this look? Will students read books on tablets? Is this really the best use of technology, or the best thing for young developing eyes?

5. WEEKLY assessments?! Yikes! I recognize that they may be short and easily built in to the curriculum, but do we have to keep testing kids as if they're some sort of factory product in a quality control process? 

6. We're considering the lowest ratio possible.

7. This one isn't clear. Does it mean that 1.) visual field trips can be powerful if used frequently, or that 2.) the more a child uses a device, the more powerful a visual field trip is? The first - doing a virtual field trip once per month - sounds great. But the second doesn't. It would mean, "The less experience with the real world a child has, the more satisfied he is with just seeing pictures and movies about things."

8. DAILY search engine use? That would necessitate daily device use.

9. Once again, marketing to principals and teachers.

Perhaps I misunderstand what the "right steps schools need to take for proper implementation" are. If so, I welcome a correction. But it appears these 9 Keys will be part of a "successful implementation plan."

At the beginning of the referenced document, there is a featured quote: 

"Project RED is nothing less than a blueprint for remaking American education—second-order change—not through more or better testing, charter schools, longer school days, more or even better teachers, but through fundamentally altering how we do education, the first real change in the process of education itself in a thousand years."

So what is "second-order change?" 

Second-order change is deciding – or being forced – to do something significantly or fundamentally different from what we have done before. The process is irreversible: once you begin, it is impossible to return to the way you were doing before. (From the National Academy for Academic Leadership.)

Has the unique and transforming role of teachers changed so much; has the nature of children's development changed so much; has human nature changed so much; have the basic needs and goals of human existence changed so much, that we need to leave everything behind so that we can never return?

HB 131 has good intentions behind it, but at its core, it's "radical" change. It's expensive radical change. There are too many unknowns about the effect of so much tech use on children's development, and too many knowns about the interests driving this overhaul, and the cascade of other education overhauls we've seen in the past four years.

Let's put the brakes on this idea, step away from the fast-moving "gotta have tech now or the kids will all become panhandlers!" train, and put more focused thought into the proper role of technology in education.

Mostly-Good Bill - SB 131 - Needs an Important Change

A mostly-good bill passed out of the Senate Education Committee last Friday, with a small line that could create big problems. If passed, the bill could push some schools to start focusing on "absenteeism." This is concerning, and the bill should be amended to fix this problem. (For a brief discussion of the problems with a focus on "absenteeism" rather than "truancy," read my blog post written last year in response to a legislative attempt to codify this focus in Utah.)

SB 131 is a bill that makes some clarifying changes to the Student Leadership Grant, a great program established last year that encourages schools to help their students set goals and develop other leadership skills. This year's bill creates a definition for what is meant in the law by "academic achievement." There's much to like about this program and this bill, but tying the grant to improved attendance numbers as an academic measure is an approach that is rife with problems.

If a school is under pressure to improve its attendance numbers in order to maintain a grant that is having a decidedly positive effect on its students, that pressure will necessarily be passed on to the families at the school, even when students' absences don't have any effect on a student's academic achievement. Such pressure can strain relationships between school staff and parents, which is never beneficial for students.

If individual schools feel improved attendance would be an important element in improving the environment at their school, they should be free to focus on it. But the penalty of state law threatening the revocation of grant money should not be used to apply a mandate to schools participating in this great program.

Line 82 in SB 131 should be changed to "truancy," or deleted, to make this mostly-good bill a very good bill.

Update: The sponsor of SB 131, Aaron Osmond, has said he will introduce an amendment to this bill to change the word "attendance" to "truancy," which will resolve the problem. Please contact your state senator and ask them to support the amendment to change Line 82 from "attendance" to "truancy," and the amended bill.