Education Task Force Convenes

Post by Sue

Today was the first meeting of the Education Task Force made up exclusively of legislators and created by SB169 during the 2013 General Session. The goals as outlined in the legislation include identification of long-term education policies, alignment of public and higher education in support of a successful education system for student achievement, long-term priorities for funding and budgeting, and setting standards to be economically competitive in the United States and throughout the world. During the session I wrote a post about this task force explaining its composition and discussing my concerns about the task force usurping the constitutional role of the elected Utah State Board of Education. I ended the post by asking “Do you think a task force comprised exclusively of legislators should be doing this or does it infringe on the constitutional role of the Utah State Board of Education?”

Today the process began with short opening remarks by Legislative leaders. Senate President Neiderhauser began by saying he has a long frustration in voting on education bills, which are the number one issue in our state and provide an educated workforce to attract business to our state. He feels there seems to be lots of confusion “out there” about education and that we need to work in a unified way. He said this task force is not a competitive venture with current efforts like the Governor’s Education Excellence Commission. Instead, the Legislature needs to discover ways to get to the goal of 66% of our population having postsecondary training and decide what our education system should look like in five or ten years to have an educated workforce. He reiterated that we need to focus on positive policy discussions because the bottom line is student outcomes. Niederhauser said he doesn't want to hear about self-interest in this discussion because we may have to break down some of those silos. According to him they are leaving everything on the table going forward and nothing is sacred when it comes to student outcomes - so if it means a change governance, then they will, if we need to change funding, then they will. He said that they want to hear from all who are interested and are looking forward to a robust discussion on education.

House Speaker Lockhart’s opening remarks began with the statement that we have a 19th century education system and need to look at governance. She said we tend to have a blame game in education and that’s a problem because we should all be on the same team. She would like to look at how to leverage technology and stated, "If I have any ideas that people don’t agree with, then prove me wrong." According to her, the President and her do not have an agenda for the end so they’re not trying to move this task force to a pre-determined end and reiterated that they want input from everyone so they can make good public policy.

The task force looked at some data presentations on student achievement, funding, and higher education and these are filled with data and charts for those interested in statistics. Prosperity 2020, sponsored by the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, gave a presentation on the goal to have 66% of Utahns with postsecondary training; currently, 43% of Utahns hold certificates or degrees. Our percentage has improved but our competitive standing with other states has dropped so we have work to do. Prosperity 2020 is committed to seeing improvement on all levels because third grade students need to read on grade level in order to eventually lead to postsecondary training. There also needs to be an emphasis on retaining college-level students and designing our education system to fulfill the needs of the workforce. I am supportive of the goals of Prosperity 2020 and many of their legislative priorities, but this begs the question: does education exist simply to service the workforce? Food for thought.

Dr. Martell Menlove, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, reiterated on behalf of the Utah State Board of Education the importance of a statewide body of elected people with the constitutional responsibility of general control and supervision of public education in our state. Speaker Becky Lockhart challenged him by asking if the State School Board just wants everything to stay the same and he responded by repeating the terms from the Utah Constitution and then saying that the terms need to be defined. What does establishment & maintenance and general control & supervision mean? She countered with the example of Idaho that has one board that controls public and higher education both. I firmly believe that the outcome of this Task Force will be a recommendation to change the governance structure of K-12 education. I said this during the session and my view has not changed after this first meeting; indeed it’s been strengthened.

Dr. Tim Beagley from the State Charter School Board presented that a perfect system of education would have the leaders give schools benchmarks and standards, tell them how they will be assessed, hold them accountable and then get out of the way and let them do it. Speaker Lockhart agreed that it sounded like a perfect system. But I submit that it would require the Legislature to stop micromanaging public education and I’m not sure that’s realistically possible because legislators’ constituents clamor for them to make changes rather than lobbying their local school boards.

The next meeting of the Education Task Force will be on Wednesday, June 26 at the Capitol. Stay tuned.

Sue Carey, a Utah Mom and long time volunteer advocate for families and children at Utah's State Capitol, can also be found on Twitter @swcarey.

 

One Size Fits All?

Post by Joel Coleman
Joel Coleman currently serves on the Utah State Board of Education, he is a former teacher, administrator and is the founder of the charter school: Monticello Academy in West Valley.  This post originally appeared on his blog: The Educator and is reprinted here with his permission.

As I have fielded inquiries and criticisms from people around the state for my explanations of the role the State Board of Education plays, it has become increasingly apparent to me that some of the strongest opponents of Utah’s core standards are people who don’t want any standards at all. Some of them have children that don’t even attend public schools, and therefore are not subject to the standards we are required to implement, anyway. But as I have dialogued with them I have come to realize part of the opposition to the standards the board adopted is exactly what I described above: it is an opposition to ANY standards – and the criticism of the new standards naturally follows. This, I believe, is the reason I repeatedly hear and read comments imploring us to reject a “one size fits all” approach to public education. Whether the standards are adopted by a teacher in a single classroom, by a district, by the State Board of Education (as is currently required by law), or at the federal level (which I certainly oppose) – any standards are a “one size fits all” approach. So what follows here is an explanation sent to me recently. I’m posting it to clarify some misconceptions, at least I hope it will…

The words “Standards” and “Standardization” do not mean the same thing! Utah’s core standards are not used to standardize and inhibit student progress. They are used as standard benchmarks used to help students gauge progress toward fulfilling their individual aspirations.

The purpose of Utah’s core standards is not to drive everyone to achieve the same specific goals for each student or for them to achieve at the same pace. It is not designed to promote sameness. Teachers are to use the standards much like a physician uses developmental standards to understand and plan for each child’s needs. The standards are used to help teachers understand in a broad manner what individual children should be able to know and do at each grade level. They are used to benchmark and not judge progress. Our goal is to optimize learning for each student. It is hard to know where an individual student needs assistance or advancement if there are no standards to measure their unique progress.

Goals without benchmarks, action steps or standards invite mediocrity, sameness, and failure. To reach a goal or destination you must know where you are, where you want to go and how you are going to get there. Without standards you cannot answer critical educational questions about each individual student. How do you become literate? What is mathematics literacy for a Utah student? Measuring individual student progress toward literacy proficiency and mathematics proficiency is impossible without standards.

Standards are tools for individual teachers and individual students. The Utah core standards are intended to help students become innovative, to excel and to compete with their peers. Students need effective communication, literacy, and numeracy skills if they want to be ready to compete in the emerging global marketplace, at a college or university, or in occupational certificate programs after high school. The standards help Utah students and parents understand and acquire the essential knowledge, concepts, and skills within critical content areas often chosen by parents and student. They are like a set of building codes. They help teachers build an individualized curriculum that is solid and designed according to the learning styles and needs of each student. They define what students should know and do to be college and career ready.

Utah’s core standards do not dictate the materials, teaching style, or curriculum to be used by the teacher. They do inform what should be taught, but in the context of determining what students know and then responding to their individual needs. If a school or district forces students to learn the same thing at the same time in the same way, they have a major instructional problem not a standards problem. A teacher who teaches page 65 on Monday and then page 66 to everyone on Tuesday, without thought or knowledge of what individuals or groups need, is a technician not a teacher. Differentiation of instruction that embraces diversity, creativity and personal excellence is an essential expectation of all educators. It is, in fact, an educator standard. Failure to teach what kids need to know is usually a preventable instructional tragedy that can be remedied if teachers understand the expected standard.

Utah has had core standards for decades. The Utah Core is to be taught with respect to differences in learning styles, rates, and individual capabilities. Locally-selected textbooks and teacher-produced materials are used as tools in implementing the core. Local school districts and charter schools control employing teachers and often set locally-determined curriculum, methods and pedagogy to be used in classrooms. State standards help us ensure students are measured against a stable target. They help districts and charter schools develop and provide high quality curriculum and courses. The new standards are based on rigorous post-secondary and career-ready expectations. Data shows that students need literacy and numeracy skills that will help them be ready to compete in the emerging global marketplace. This expectation is just as important for young people who enroll in occupational certificate programs after high school; success in these programs and in on-the-job training requires the skills and knowledge embedded in the core standards.

Local schools and teachers control the curriculum and instruction. The core standards do not dictate the curriculum or delivery of content. Utah’s core standards and the curricula are not the same. The curriculum includes content, instructional elements, methods, pedagogy, materials and resources that are used to teach the high standards Utah has adopted. The standards help teachers organize and prepare for instruction just like building codes help an architect prepare a blueprint. Homes built using building standards or codes are not identical. They are built based on the individual needs and values of the owner but still use the code. The curricula used to implement the core standards vary according to district or charter and the individual needs of students. Locally-selected textbooks are used as tools in implementing the core. At a state level, research-based strategies and materials are recommended, not mandated, leaving the final instructional decisions to districts, charter schools, and classroom teachers. Local stakeholders will continue to innovate and make improvements to their curriculum over time. Teachers are not restricted to a specific grade level or timeline of standards. If children need to review or move slower, the teacher is in command. If students need to go faster or further the same applies.

What's The Deal With "Common Core"?

Post by Senator Todd Weiler
Senator Weiler originally posted this on his site: Senate District 23, it is reprinted here with his permission.

I have had a lot of people contacting me with concerns regarding Common Core. This is what I have been able to ascertain so far:

What is common core?

The Common Core State Standards (Common Core) are a set of math and English language arts curriculum standards adopted by 45 states. The Common Core was developed by a state-led effort known as the Common Core State Standards Initiative, coordinated by the National Governors Association for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Educators, administrators, researchers, parents, community groups, and private companies all reviewed the standards and provided feedback during the process. Included within the common core are college-and-career-readiness standards, which address what students are expected to learn when they have graduated from high school, and grade level standards for kindergarten through grade 12, which address expectations for elementary through high school. The State School Board adopted the Common Core as Utah’s core standards for mathematics and English/language arts in August 2010.

Utah professors in both Math and English at local institutions of higher education have endorsed the new core standards. See http://www.schools.utah.gov/core/Utah-Core-Standards/CommonCoreResourceGuide.aspx

How did we get here?

In 2008, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers began a push for common standards for English language arts and mathematics in cooperation with interested states. In May 2009, Governor Jon Huntsman and Superintendent Patti Harrington signed a Memorandum of Agreement to participate in the development of the Common Core (Utah’s Common Core MOA). Utah’s Common Core MOA does not require nor commit Utah to adopting the Common Core. Participation in the Common Core States Standards Initiative (the Common Core Initiative) was “voluntary for states.” The purpose of the MOA was to set up a process for the development of the Common Core Initiative and commit states to “the process and structure as described” in the MOA. Utah’s Common Core MOA does not commit Utah to maintaining the Common Core.

In May 2010, Governor Gary Herbert signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Utah to join the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), a group of states working to develop computer adaptive assessments aligned with Common Core. SBAC has received a grant of $160 million from the federal government through the “Race to the Top” (RTTT) Fund along with a supplemental award of $15.9 million to develop assessments and associated materials. (Utah sent a letter withdrawing from the SBAC in August 2102, issued its own RFP, and awarded a contract to AIR — which is also assisting other states in developing their computer adaptive tests.)

In the MOU, Utah agreed to adopt “a common set” of college and career standards and “common achievement standards”. This is what we now call “Common Core.”

Utah has had its own standards in place since 1984, and has revised them every 5-7 years. Prior to the 2009 agreement to use Common Core, Utah individuals who were elected or were overseen by elected officials created those standards. So the teachers and parents, etc. had some avenue if they wanted it changed.

Even though the legislature did not create the standards, there have been instances where they made firm requests that the standards be adjusted and the state school board considered and complied.

Contrary to what many have been told, Utah has not received any federal dollars to adopt or implement these standards. But the way we accepted our NCLB waiver arguably requires that we keep them — but our basis for that can be changed.

The minutes of the Utah Start Board of Education (State School Board) meeting on August 6, 2010 state that the Board voted unanimously to adopt the Common Core Standards. This document states that it “supersedes the specific governance provisions of the MOU,” and has the same five-step Exit Procedure as the MOU. This vote effectively replaced Utah’s core K-12 standards with Common Core State Standards developed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. On this date, the State School Board formally adopted Common Core as Utah’s core standards for English language arts and mathematics.

On January 7, 2011, the U.S. Department of Education entered into a Cooperative Agreement with SBAC. (In August 2012, the State School Board withdrew from the SBAC.) This has become to be known as the “Race To The Top” (RTTT) Award. However, Utah did not win a RTTT award. The award is deemed cooperative because the Secretary of Education has determined that “substantial involvement” of the Department is necessary for success. The Appendices contain 14 Conditions, including compliance with the Stimulus Act (ARRA) and all applicable operational and administrative provisions. There are Budget tables totaling $149 million for four years, plus $10 million for three years of comprehensive assessment. Finally, the separate Grant Award Notice covered the $149 million and $10 million items above. And it specified “substantial involvement of the Department of Education.”

What is the effect of Utah’s Waiver from No Child Left Behind (NCLB)?

On September 23, 2011, the Secretary Duncan invited states to request flexibility regarding specific requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). States were given the opportunity to replace the federal accountability system with an accountability system developed by the state. Under the federal accountability system, schools were annually evaluated based on meeting targets for the percentage of students scoring proficient on English language arts and mathematics assessments with the goal of all students attaining proficiency by 2014.

To obtain flexibility, the Department of Education requires a state to adopt college-and-career-ready standards (i.e., common core standards) and develop and administer high quality assessments tied to those standards. The State School Board submitted a flexibility request and received approval on June 29, 2012. In its flexibility request, Utah noted its adoption of the Common Core and its membership in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) to fulfill the Department’s requirements for flexibility. But then Utah sent a letter withdrawing from SBAC on August 9, 2012.

Utah was not required to fully adopt the Common Core nor participate in an assessment consortium (such as SBAC) to obtain flexibility from the current ESEA requirements. However, as part of its application for ESEA flexibility, Utah made assurances to the Department of Education regarding its current incorporation of the Common Core into its core standards and Utah’s membership in SBAC.

Although Utah’s application for flexibility made goals and assurances related to its status as a Common Core state and membership in SBAC, Utah could have taken the option to adopt standards other than the Common Core or withdraw from SBAC (which it did). Utah could still petition the Department to allow it to amend or change its approved flexibility request, or it could still re-apply for the ESEA flexibility waiver with different college-and-career ready standards or assessments.
Although the ESEA flexibility waiver has been granted for two years, a state may amend its request: “The Department encourages Utah to continuously evaluate the effectiveness of the plans and other elements of its ESEA flexibility request as it proceeds with implementation, and to make necessary changes to address any challenges that it identifies. . . . If Utah wishes to make changes to its ESEA flexibility request, Utah must submit those changes to the Department as early as feasible for the Department’s review and approval.”

When Utah received the waiver, it was automatically excused from the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) reporting. As of September 2011, about one-fifth Utah schools were not meeting the AYP standards as designated by NCLB. About 20 of those schools were Title 1 schools and would therefore be required to offer to bus children to better schools and offer more tutoring.

After the changes are submitted to the Department, the changes could be approved or the Secretary could decide to terminate Utah’s waiver for non-compliance with the ESEA flexibility waiver. If the waiver is terminated, Utah and its school districts and charter schools (LEAs) would be required to comply with the current provisions of ESEA without the flexibility. If the Secretary terminates the waiver, “Utah and its LEAs must immediately resume complying with the requirements of current [ESEA] law.” At that point Utah could re-apply for ESEA flexibility with the new standards or simply comply with current ESEA provisions without flexibility.

Can Utah get out of Common Core?

Utah’s 2009 agreement with the Common Core State Standards Initiative says “This effort is voluntary for states” and does not require the state to do anything as a participating member other than adopt the standards. Utah can stop using common core as its state standard. Since the MOA signed by Utah to participate in the development of the Common Core does not require nor commit Utah to adopting the Common Core, and because Utah did not receive federal money related to its adoption of the Common Core, Utah is not required to keep the Common Core as its state standards.

Some maintain that Utah is required to keep Common Core unless and until it changes the waiver. So it might be more fair to say that Utah does have the option of using other standards that are not aligned with the Common Core. However, it would require Utah to re-write and then be reapproved for the NCLB waiver — or just abandon the waiver all together. Utah could also adopt “standards that are approved by a State network of institutions of higher education, which must certify that students who meet the standards will not need remedial course work at the postsecondary level” — an option the federal government originally offered the state when it applied for its waiver. Such an alternative would allow Utah to develop its own standards and still obtain relief from some stifling NCLB regulations and receive the funding to which those regulations are attached. Two states – Minnesota and Virginia – have received NCLB flexibility waivers by choosing this option. In all events, changing Utah’s standards by leaving Common Core would requirement an amendment to the flexibility waiver for NCLB.

In both January 2010 and May 2010, Utah submitted applications to receive grants through the first two phases of the Obama administration’s “Race to the Top” (RTTT) Fund. As part of its evaluation process for determining which states would receive funds, the federal government gave preference to a state if it had “demonstrated its commitment to adopting a common set of high quality standards” by participating in a consortium that included “a significant number of states” and was “working toward jointly developing and adopting a common set of K-12 standards.” Because the state did not win a grant in either the first or second phases of RTTT funding and did not apply for phase three, it is not required to remain in Common Core because of RTTT. But the waiver is a separate matter, as set forth above.

In 2012, the Utah Legislature passed a bill requiring the state to administer statewide computer adaptive tests aligned with Utah’s core standards. The State Office of Education released a “request for proposal” in order to have its own assessments developed or to adopt another existing assessment. It eventually awarded a contract to American Institutes for Research (A.I.R.). AIR is the only vendor that has been approved by the U.S. Department of Education, which makes some people question the amount of federal influence.

What are assessments?

In order to determine if students are learning and understanding the standards through the teaching of the curriculum, schools administer assessments. Utah law requires the State School Board to develop an assessment method to uniformly test students in basic skills courses. In the 2012 General Session, the Legislature passed H.B. 15, Statewide Adaptive Testing, which enacted a new requirement to test Utah’s core standards in science, math and English/language arts with a computer adaptive assessment system.

The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) was authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the federal government provided funding to two consortia of states to develop assessments aligned with the Common Core. Utah initially joined the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), a consortium of 27 states created to develop an adaptive assessment system.

On August 3, 2012, the State School Board voted to exit SBAC. The Board’s August 3, 2012 Meeting Summary states that the Board voted to end its membership in SBAC in order to avoid a conflict of interest related to the Board’s request for proposals for an adaptive assessment system required under 2012 General Session H.B. 15, Statewide Adaptive Testing. Utah is no longer a member of SBAC and through the RFP process has contracted with the American Institutes for Research (A.I.R.) to develop Utah’s computer adaptive assessments.

What will common core cost?

The answer is not yet clear.

According to the Utah State Office of Education, “Utah is not spending any more money on the common core adoption than is typically associated with core standards revision — which have been in place since 1984. School districts and charter schools have received no additional funds, federal or state, to implement the new core standards or new instructional materials and curriculum. In fact, earmarked funding for professional development, which is used to train Utah’s public school educators in new core standards, has decreased significantly. Before 2008. school districts and charter schools had $78 million in state funds for professional development through the Quality Educator Block Grant. This funding has been almost completely eliminated. For the 2011-12 school year, the Legislature allocated only $2 million in state funds for professional development, and cut that amount in half for the following school year. Furthermore, textbook costs are not anticipated to increase.

Whenever new standards are implemented, school districts and charters are required to phase in new materials. Due to restricted finances, many do not immediately purchase new books.Instead, most have a five-to-seven-year textbook replacement plan.

“Utah is spending money on developing new computer adaptive assessments. In 2007, Governor Jon Huntsman convened a Blue Ribbon Panel on Assessment. The panel, stakeholders throughout the state, and the Utah State Board of Education concluded that computer adaptive assessments should be studied and, if successful, should be adopted statewide. Successful pilots were conducted, and the State School Board concluded that state funds should be sought for computer adaptive assessments aligned to state standards. This request would have been made for whichever state standards were adopted by the State Board.”

The Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel had similar findings in regards to the cost of implementation of the new core standards in Utah. It concluded that the federal government may only require a state to comply with a public education mandate if the mandate is a condition of the receipt of money accepted by the state through a federal program. If a state were to fail to comply with the conditions of a grant, the federal government could require the state to refund the money as a penalty for non-compliance. While Congress has no authority to regulate activities for a general welfare purpose, it may tax and spend “for the general welfare.” According to United States Supreme Court jurisprudence, Congress may not directly regulate certain interests that traditionally belong to the states, such as education. Congress may, however, indirectly regulate traditionally local interests by conditioning a state’s receipt of federal money on the state meeting certain conditions.

There is a limit to Congress’s ability to coerce a state to act by granting or withholding federal funds. The United States Supreme Court has noted the possibility that a given set of federal conditions to a state’s participation in a federal spending program could be so onerous as to rise to a point where “pressure turns into compulsion,” regardless of whether Congress has sought the consent of the states as part of the federal program.

In South Dakota v. Dole, the state challenged a grant of federal funding for roads that required South Dakota to raise its minimum drinking age to 21 or lose 5% of the state’s ongoing federal transportation funding. The Court recognized that a circumstance could exist where the conditions placed on receipt of the federal money were so extreme that they amounted to coercion of the states. The Court ruled in favor of the federal government, finding that a loss of 5% of ongoing transportation funding was minimal and that the state’s argument that it was “coercion [was] shown to be more rhetoric than fact.” Despite the Court’s specific holding in Dole, the case left open the possibility that a future grant program offered to the states by Congress could be struck down if the grant conditions were so onerous that a court could determine that they amounted to “coercion.”

Is Utah required to give student-identifying data to the federal government or other states because of the Common Core or SBAC?

Neither Utah’s adoption of the Common Core nor its past participation in SBAC require Utah or its school districts and charter schools to share data or report student information. Utah school districts and charter schools are required to report certain aggregated (non-identifying) student information pursuant to certain federal programs, but both of the largest federal public education programs explicitly prohibit the reporting of student identifying information to the federal government. Utah will have to comply with the same federal reporting requirements whether it continues to use its current standards based on the Common Core or if Utah adopts other core standards created exclusively for Utah.

There is some concern about data sharing that may be associated with using national assessments. Those will arguably link Utah into national data banks that we don’t have control. Therefore, Utah will not have any say regarding what information is collected or to whom it is distributed. So it may be more fair to say that Utah schools are required to report certain aggregated (non-identifying) student information pursuant to certain federal programs. The Legislature has attempted to secure the information of Utah students, but this is an issue that has proven to be complicated. Some people fear that federal FERPA changes have made it optional to share this data.

Can Utah change the Common Core?

Utah adopted the Common Core standards and they are now Utah Core Standards in math and English language arts, and yes, Utah can change the Utah standards at any time. In early April 2013, the State Board adopted new standards in cursive writing, adding that to the Core standards. So we have already made changes to adapt these to Utah’s needs. So there is little or no argument that Utah can add whatever it wants. But the true concern is that the assessments are tailor made to the standards, with the curriculum falling somewhere in between. Since teachers will be evaluated on how well their students perform on the assessments, they will be motivated to teach only the common core materials.

Utah could change or substitute portions of the Common Core. Utah’s Common Core MOA does not require nor commit Utah to adopting the Common Core but, by the terms of the MOA, allows Utah to add 15% on top of the Common Core: “States that choose to align their standards to the common core standards agree to ensure that the common core represents at least 85% of the state’s standards in English language arts and mathematics.”

The Common Core State Standards Initiative license grant states: The NGA Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) hereby grant a limited, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to copy, publish, distribute, and display the Common Core State Standards for purposes that support the Common Core State Standards Initiative (emphasis added). These uses may involve the Common Core State Standards as a whole or selected excerpts or portions. The license grant allows Utah to use the Common Core in whole or in portions “for purposes that support the Common Core State Standards Initiative.” If Utah amends the Common Core standards significantly, it is uncertain whether NGA and CCSSO would consider the changes or substitutions to be supportive of the Common Core State Standards Initiative.

According to the minutes of the August 3, 2012 State School Board meeting, there is no “core police” that will stop or prohibit Utah from amending the Common Core standards in excess of the 15% allowed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative. The State School Board is free to add to (but not delete from) to the standards to meet a state’s individual need and encouraged all states to look at those needs. Even if Utah has the legal right to amend the Common Core by more than an additional 15% added to the top, it risks losing benefits a state gains when it adopts the Common Core. If Utah amends its core standards to make them significantly different from the Common Core, Utah may not be able to accurately compare its students’ performance to the performance of students in other Common Core states. Also, Utah may not be able to take advantage of products and materials developed for the Common Core states, which may be more cost effective. Legally Utah is free to amend its core standards significantly beyond the 15% added to the top. Doing so, however, could cause Utah to lose certain benefits of being a Common Core state.

Is Common Core different than curriculum?

Core standards are concepts, knowledge, and skills that students need to understand and master as they move through their schooling that prepare them for further education or careers after high school graduation. Standards are not curriculum. Utah law requires the State School Board to establish core curriculum standards.

Utah Code 53A-1-402.6(2) provides that the board shall:
(a) identify the basic knowledge, skills, and competencies each student is expected to acquire or master as the student advances through the public education system; and
(b) align the core curriculum standards and tests administered under the Utah Performance Assessment Systems for Students (U-PASS) with each other.

The State School Board adopts standards in a range of subjects including math, English language arts, driver education, social studies, science, and fine arts. These core standards are revised every five to seven years to assure that students learn what they need to know to be successful after public school.

Curriculum is an educational plan; it sets forth how and what is used to teach the standards. It may include content, teaching materials, and methods. Strategies are recommended at the state level, but are not mandated. Utah law requires local school boards to establish curriculum, which may vary from district to district and be tailored to local needs. UTAH CODE Subsections 53A-1-402.6(4)–(5) provide that
(4) Local school boards shall design their school programs, that are supported by generally accepted scientific standards of evidence, to focus on the core curriculum standards with the expectation that each program will enhance or help achieve mastery of the core curriculum standards.
(5) Except as provided in Section 53A-13-101,each school may select instructional materials and methods of teaching, that are supported by generally accepted scientific standards of evidence, that it considers most appropriate to meet core curriculum standards.

Although the federal government cannot control curriculum, some are concerned that it can effectively drive the curriculum by controlling the assessments on the standards. There remains the concern that the adoption of federal standards diminishes local control, i.e., a parent’s ability to go to the local school board and seek a change in curriculum from what is currently being taught.

What are my sources?
UTAH CODE ANN. § 53A-1-402.6 (2012).
BRENDA HALES, UTAH STATE OFFICE OF EDUC., IMPLEMENTING UTAH’S CORE STANDARDS IN READING/LANGUAGE ARTS AND MATHEMATICS: COSTS (2012)
Common Core Standards for Mathematics, COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE, http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf (last visited Aug. 14, 2012); Common Core Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE, http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf (last visited Aug. 14, 2012).
UTAH CODE ANN. § 53A-1-402.6 (2012).
Process, COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE, http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/process (last visited August 7, 2012).
Official minutes of the State Board of Education, which discussed the Common Core at its February 5, March 5, and May 7 meetings; adopted the Common Core on first reading at its June 4 meeting; and adopted the Common Core on final reading at its August 6, 2010 meeting. In a joint meeting with the State Board of Regents on June 25, 2010, the Board discussed the Common Core. The Legislature’s Education Interim Committee discussed the Common Core at its June 17, 2009 meeting.
Board Meeting Summary, UTAH STATE OFFICE OF EDUC. (Aug. 3, 2012), http://www.schools.utah.gov/board/Meetings/Summary.aspx.
Letter from Arne Duncan, U.S. Sec’y of Educ.,to Chief State School Officers (September 23, 2011), available at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/secletter/110923.html.
Memorandum of Agreement between The Council of Chief State School Officers and The National Governors Association for Center for Best Practices, and the State of Utah regarding Common Core Standards (May 2009) (signed by Governor John Huntsman and Superintendent Patti Harrington).
South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).
U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 66 (1936).
Memorandum of Agreement between The Council of Chief State School Officers and The National Governors Association for Center for Best Practices, and the State of Utah regarding Common Core Standards (May 2009) (signed by Governor John Huntsman and Superintendent Patti Harrington).
COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE, BACKGROUND ON THE INITIATIVE (2010); COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE, POWERPOINT—MARCH 2010.
Public License, COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE, http://www.corestandards.org/public-license (last visited Aug. 1, 2012).
Board Meeting Summary, UTAH STATE OFFICE OF EDUC. (Aug. 3, 2012), http://www.schools.utah.gov/board/Meetings/Summary.aspx.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) require Utah school districts and charter schools to report certain aggregated student information.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. No. 101-476, 104 Stat. 1142 (2004), codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1416(b)(2)(C)(iii)(2006) (“The State shall not report to the public or the Secretary [of the U.S. Department of Education] any information on performance that would result in the disclosure of personally identifiable information about individual children. . . .”).
U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., ESEA FLEXIBILITY REVIEW GUIDANCE 6 (2012).
UTAH BD. OF EDUC., UTAH ESEA FLEXIBILITY REQUEST 34 (2012).
Letter from Deborah S. Delisle, Assistant U.S. Sec’y for Elementary & Secondary Educ., to Hon. Larry K. Shumway, Utah Superintendent of Pub. Instruction (July 9, 2012), at 3.

Utah Child Protection Registry

Post by Evelyn Call, Utah Child Protection Registry

Kids these days are growing up in an online world.  Children as young as two are using tablets, mobile phones and computers.  93% of teens (12-17) are online and 63% of teen internet users are online every day.  The online world is changing quickly and parents are struggling to keep up on what their kids are doing and who they are talking to.  And to make matters worse 67% of teenagers say they know how to hide what they do online from their parents.

So what can parents do to limit the negative messages their children are exposed to online?  This is where Utah’s Child Protection Registry comes in.  In 2005, the Utah State legislature voted to create a registry where parents can register their email addresses, cell phone numbers and instant messenger ID’s to block adult advertising from targeting their family’s inboxes.  Companies marketing products and services such as alcohol, tobacco, pornography, online gambling and illegal drugs will not be able to send their advertisements to those Utahns who have opted out of such messages.  Current spam filters direct this kind of content to a folder in your inbox while the Utah Child Protection Registry prevents you from ever receiving them in the first place. 

Here’s what you do- log onto https://donotcontact.utah.gov register the email addresses and cell phone numbers you want to protect and that’s it!  The service is fast, easy and best of all completely FREE!

The Registry will not solve all of the problems faced by parents, but it will give families one extra layer of protection from harmful enticements. 

2013 Legislative Wrap-Up

This year's 2013 Legislative Wrap-up, comments submitted by readers.

Drum roll please.......

This session's winners:

Children who get to ride in smoke free cars - Linda
Schools who will get a 2% increase in the WPU - Kim
Judi Clark - Tim
Public education students because of the increased WPU and enrollment growth funding - Sue
Winners are technology in education (STEM, on-line programs, etc.); and the legislators who own land or development companies connected to the prison relocation. - Tracy
STEM - though can anyone exactly define what that means? - Karen
The public, in that they received increase access through social media and other means, this session we saw a question texted to a Senator asked during a Senate debate on the floor, that's progress - Karen

This session's losers:

The public who will still not get a decent unbiased system for electing the State School Board - Linda
Wolves - Karen
Pre-K students from needy situations - Kim
Preschool students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and will start school behind - Karen
The State School Board - Tim
The Gun Lobby - Karen
Public Education students because the increase is not nearly enough - Sue
At-risk children in the education system (low income and ELL); and openness and transparency in the legislative process (the last week of the session is scary and needs to change.) - Tracy
Those eligible to vote, that have not registered prior to election day - Karen
The political process, which despite the efforts of many and the evidence of the late session shenanigans surrounding S.B. 271, still was not changed - Karen

Legislative Awards go to:

Rep. Jim Bird for always being an out-of-the-box thinker who cares about kids - Linda
Sen. Aaron Osmond for careful investigation, an open mind and creative thought - Kim
Rep. Eric Hutchings for his fair and thoughtful discussion of the State Earned Income Tax Credit - Karen
Sen. Aaron Osmond for his early education attempt - Sue
Rep. Rich Cunningham for actually trying to represent his constituents (as opposed to most legislators who are representing special interest groups.)  Rep. Cunningham sent out multiple e-mails during the session asking for his constituents' opinions on specific bills and hot topics including education and guns. - Tracy
Rep. Jennifer Seelig for toughness - Tim

On the last day of the session, we ran a Twitter series called "Best of the Utah Legislature", the following "awards" were given:

Best question in a committee went to Rep. Dan McCay who asked during a discussion on the Chronic Absenteeism Bill, Where is the socialism in this bill?
Best statement taken out of context went to: Taxpayers are wimps.
Best (worst) performance of a rap song on the House floor went to Rep. Jeremy Peterson for his rendition of "Ice, Ice Baby."
Best "we can all agree she worked for it whether or not we agree with it" went to Rep. Patrice Arent for her passage of HB13.
Best public display of friendship went to BFFs Sen. Jim Dabakis and Gayle Razika.
Best facial hair personified went to the "Kingbeard"
Best Parliamentarian went to Sen. Valentine, who did not let one rule be broken or even threatened in the Senate.
Best use of alternative mode of transportation went to Rep. Jenn Seelig and her scooter.
Best use of anatomically correct models went to Rep. Mike Kennedy who received bonus points for offering to trade Rep. King a brain for a heart.
Best performance in bill presentation went to Sen. Aaron Osmond, because well...he's an Osmond.

And finally, Utah Moms Care won a HOTHie this session, thanks for all your support and interaction!

You Write the Session Wrap-Up

The session ended a week ago.  Every year following the session every major newspaper in the state runs their session wrap-up.  This year you get a chance to give your two cents.  Write up short responses to the following questions, and we'll have this years: Utah Moms Care Legislative Winners and Losers.  I anticipate posting it in a week (Thursday the 28th), send your responses to the following questions to the email: utahmomscare@gmail.com.  Thanks!

1. Who were this year's winners?
2. Who were this year's losers?
3. If you could give one Legislator an award, who would it be, and what would it be for?

I am looking forward to your responses (please note in them if you would like to remain anonymous and also remember the blog's civility policy applies).

The Fate of 2013 Session Bills

Here is a list of bills that were highlighted during the 2013 Session, and their final fate.  A quick overview of terms - enrolled means it passed and is awaiting the Governor's signature, filed means it was defeated either by a vote or by the fact that it did not make it through the process.

H.B.13 Protection of Children Riding in Motor Vehicle - Rep. Arent
Banning Smoking in the Car with Children Present - Is this the year?
On The Road....
Enrolled

H.B. 23 High Occupancy Vehicle Land Amendments - Rep. Handy
On The Road....
Enrolled

H.B 58 Protection of Athletes with Head Injuries Act - Rep. Ray
Strengthening the Law on Concussions
Enrolled

H.B. 59 School Board Election Provisions - Rep. Nielson
Changes Coming in the State School Board Nominating Process
Never Heard

H.B. 64 Felon's Right to Hold Office - Rep. Moss
Child Sex Offenders on School Boards
Enrolled

H.B. 78 Request for Legislation Amendments - Rep. Powell
Why Public Policy Procedures Should Be On Your Radar
Filed

H.B. 79 Motor Vehicle Registration and Insurance Amendments
On The Road....
Enrolled

H.B. 83 Speed Limit Amendments - Rep. Dunnigan
On The Road....
Enrolled

H.B. 91 Voter Registration - Election Day Registration - Rep. Chavez-Houck
Register and Vote the Same Day!
The Last Day
Filed

H.B. 103 Wireless Telephone Use Restrictions - Rep. Perry
Teenagers, Cell Phones & Driving
Enrolled

H.B. 105 Serious Youth Offender Amendments - Rep. Snow
Juvenile Justice - The Treatment and Sentencing of Minors
Enrolled

H.B. 134 Parent Notification Related to Student Safety - Rep. Froerer
Bullying and Student Safety
Enrolled

H.B. 154 Suicide Prevention Programs - Rep. Eliason
Teen Suicide Prevention
Enrolled

H.B. 197 Earned Income Tax Credit and Related Amendments - Rep. Hutchings
Earned Income Tax Credit - Would it benefit your family?
Filed

H.B. 258 Straight Party Voting Amendments - Rep. Arent
Straight Ticket Voting - Should The Option Be Removed?
Filed

H.B. 260 Party Affiliation Amendments - Rep. Powell
Unaffiliated Voters - Should They Be Able To Change Their Registration At The Polls
Never Heard Because of H.B. 262

H.B. 262 Unaffiliated Voter Amendments - Rep. Hall
Unaffiliated Voters - Should They Be Able To Change Their Registration At The Polls
Enrolled

H.B. 267 State Board of Education Elections - Rep. Moss
Changes Coming in the State School Board Nominating Process
Never Heard

H.B. 269 Training of School Nurses - Rep. Ray
Strengthening the Law on Concussions
Enrolled

H.B. 271 Funding for Public Education - Rep. Bird
Funding Education Through Alcohol Revenue
Update on Funding Education Through Alcohol Revenue
Filed

H.B. 272 Traffic Signal Amendments - Rep. Kennedy
On The Road....
Enrolled

H.B. 283 Safety Belt Enforcement Amendments - Rep. Perry
On The Road....
Filed

H.B. 298 Parent Seminar on Youth Protection - Rep. Eliason
Teen Suicide Prevention
Enrolled

H.B. 307 CPR Training in Schools - Rep. Moss
Restoring Funding for CPR in Schools
Update on H.B. 307 CPR Funding in Schools
Filed

S.B. 52 Game Fowl Fighting Amendments - Sen. Davis
The Last Day
Filed

S.B. 55 Insurance Coverage for Autism Spectrum Disorder - Sen. Shiozawa
Expanding Autism Insurance Coverage
Filed

S.B. 71 Results-based Financing for Early Childhood Education - Sen. Osmond
Investing in Early Education
Sen. Aaron Osmond - Financing Early Education
Filed

S.B. 79 Student Centered Learning Pilot Program - Sen. Stephenson
The Fate of Two Education Bills
Filed

S.B. 82 Student Achievement Backpack - Sen. Stevenson
The Fate of Two Education Bills
Enrolled

S.B. 86 Independent Executive Branch Ethics Commission
The Last Day
Enrolled

S.B. 114 Safety Belt Amendments - Sen. Robles
On The Road....
Primary Seat Belt Law Barely Passes Senate Vote
Filed

S.B. 141 Education Contribution on Tax Returns - Sen. Thatcher
Well Meaning Education Funding Is Folly
Enrolled

S.B. 169 Education Task Force - Sen. Reid
Public Education and the Utah Constitution
Enrolled

S.B. 184 Youth Suicide Prevention Revisions - Sen. Robles
Bullying and Student Safety
Filed

S.B. 228 Penalties for Specific Juvenile Offenses - Sen. Shiozawa
Juvenile Justice - The Treatment and Sentencing of Minors
Enrolled

S.B. 271 School Grading Bill Amendments - Sen. Adams
School Grading - Do We Really Need TWO Systems?
School Grading Bill Zips Through Process Despite Questions and Concerns
The Last Day
Enrolled

S.C.R 5 Concurrent Resolution Endorsing the Utah Education Excellence Commission - Sen. Stevenson
What is 66x2020?
Enrolled

S.J.R.3 Joint Rules Resolution on Requests for Legislation - Sen. Osmond
Why Public Policy Procedures Should Be On Your Radar
Enrolled

S.J.R. 5 Joint Resolution on State Superintendent of Public Education - Sen. Reid
Who is Governing Education?
Filed

S.J.R. 6 Joint Resolution on Circled Bills - Sen. Osmond
Why Public Policy Procedures Should Be On Your Radar
Filed

The Last Day - Live Blog Post

Today's is the last day of the 2013 Session of the Utah Legislature, watch this page for updates as bills move quickly to their passage or death.

The House started the day off with a unanimous passage of S.B. 86 Independent Executive Branch Ethics Commission.  The Independent Executive Branch Ethics Commission will only take up Executive Office Complaints (Governor, Lt. Governor, Auditor, Treasurer and Attorney General).  This bill was a reaction to the recent controversy surrounding the Attorney General, though will not be able to address ethics concerns retroactively (meaning it will not hear the complaints against John Swallow).  According to a Salt Lake Tribune Article, Legislators are at how they would like to address the complaints against Swallow, and there may be more resolution to that concern today.  To read the Tribune article, read here: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/56001887-90/complaint-swallow-general-attorney.html.csp

After a long debate about whether a law was needed, S.B. 52 the bill making Cock-fighting a felony, went down in the House with a vote of 28-39.  Of note, Rep. BIRD called the question on the bill ending the debate, maybe he was feeling pecked on.  (groan, I know, it is the last day.....)

S.B. 271 School Grading Amendments spent the day yesterday hanging out on the top of the calendar in the House.  This blog highlighted the bill and the process on the bill here and here.  Early yesterday morning Rep. Powell put out publicly a substitute bill that would have put the Utah Comprehensive Accountability System (UCAS) into code, instead of the creation of a new grading system.  There was a lot of politicking going on yesterday, and Rep. Hughes left the bill circled on the calendar.  Late last night Rep. Hughes put out a substitute of his own.  The substitute, according to Rep. Hughes, gained the support of Superintendent Martell Menlove and the School Board Association's Patti Harrington.  This morning's debate centered a lot on the value of grading schools in general, and not on the bill specifically.  There is still a lot of confusion out there on whether this substitute will result in two systems.  This bill is a perfect example of when the the Legislative process is infuriating.  Hughes, Niederhauser and Adams all argued that this HAD to happen this year, because the Legislature only granted the State Office two years to come up with their own grading system for schools.  If they all knew this had to happen this year, then why did this bill come out so late in the session?  Why was it timed to only have one public hearing?  And what are we even left with?  Due to the substitution of the bill, the Senate will now have to hear the bill one more time.

This afternoon the Senate heard the substitute bill of S.B. 271 School Grading Amendments.  Sen. Adams simply stood up, said he supported the House's substitute and moved the bill for final passage.  Sen. Jones said it looked as though many of the education community's concerns had been worked out, and then voted against the bill.  Sen. Jones was the only other Senator to speak, and it passed the Senate 18-8.  This bill now heads to the Governor for his action - either a veto, a signature or he can allow the bill to become law without his signature (a symbolic move).

H.B. 393 Competency based Education Amendments  barely squeaked through the House Education Committee with a 6-5-5 vote, then had a vigorous discussion on the House floor leading to a 43-26-6.  Today the bill was heard on the Senate floor.  Sen. Urquhart stood up and said this bill lets the School Board do what they already know how to do.  No one questioned him, and everyone voted for it.  It passed unanimously.  After it's passage Sen. Hillyard stood up and let everyone know that this program had not been funded, though the fiscal note was not too large, it does make this is an unfunded mandate.

All afternoon the Legislature spent their time working out the differences between the Senate and the House on alcohol legislation and the discussion about moving the Draper prison.

This evening the Senate heard H.B 91 the bill on Same Day Voter Registration, which Sue originally explained here.  There was a lot of conversation and concern about the process for clerks and voter fraud.  Due to those concerns the sponsor of the bill put off the implementation date for two years.  Sen. Madsen proposed that the bill also be amended to only last for two years.  This would have allowed same day voter registration for the 2016 Presidential Election.  Even with all of these considerations the bill failed on a 10-18 vote.  The discussion at times was a little disconcerting, as the argument was both made and implied that any voter that would register the day of the election had no business voting.

One of the final bills heard in the Senate was H.B 363, a bill providing grants for schools to bring their students up to the Capitol.  The Legislature set aside $9,800 for this, so the opportunity for this will be very limited.

Update on Autism Insurance Coverage

Post by Sue

I wrote a post a month ago about the effort by Sen. Shiozawa to expand insurance coverage for autism spectrum disorders. It contains many facts and links that explain the problem. The current bill is 4SubSB55 and it has changed dramatically from its first incarnation. There was considerable opposition to the original bill on the grounds that government should not be mandating insurance coverage in a free market economy and worry that the costs would spiral out of control. Sen. Shiozawa worked on multiple compromises with detractors, and in the end, the Senate would only approve an expansion of the current pilot program for children who qualify for Medicaid. He characterized it as a "painful yet pragmatic decision for me”. For fiscal year 2013-14 it appropriates from the General Fund a one-time allotment of $1,500,000 to fund autism treatment. This will allow more children to participate and will continue the effort to gain data on the benefits of the treatment for children with autism spectrum disorders. This substitute bill passed the Senate 20-6-3 and you can see the vote here. The bill is now in possession of the House Rules Committee but as of the morning of March 14th (the last day of the session) has not been put up on the House calendar for a vote.  This does not bode well for its passage this year, but does not make it completely impossible.  Stay tuned today.

Sue Carey, a Utah Mom and long time volunteer advocate for families and children at Utah's State Capitol, can also be found on Twitter @swcarey.

Who Is Governing Education? Part Two

At the beginning of the legislative session, this blog had a post called Who Is Governing Education?, in which SJR5 was discussed. This would have moved the authority to hire and fire the State Superintendent of Public Education from the State School Board to the Governor. The question asked in the post was “do we improve what is happening in the classroom at local schools by putting the Governor over the Superintendent?”

This session there was also introduced a bill to create an Education Task Force comprised completely of legislators to create a long-term plan for education in Utah. This blog posted an opinion on that idea. On Wednesday night, the Legislature passed the bill creating the one year task force. Watch for future information about their meeting times.

Legislators can make the motion to "strike the enacting clause" on a bill - this has the effect of making them null and void or as is said "kills the bill".  On Macrch 11th, Sen. Reid permanently killed SJR5 on the Senate floor to allow the task force to address public education governance. Here is a transcription of his remarks along with the link to listen. http://utahlegislature.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=3111&meta_id=84130 It begins at 03:28:11.

“I've thought about this legislation a lot over the weekend and while I believe I have the two-thirds required support in the Senate for the legislation, my consideration really had to do with our Education Task Force bill that's hopefully going to be entertained and voted in support of over in the House. I think there's a number of issues that that task force will take into account, and governance, obviously, should be one of them. And so with that consideration, I thought it'd be useful to delay this legislation and allow the School Board and others, the State School Board and others, to come before the task force and talk about what the relationship, the governance relationship, should be among the parties, namely the School Board, the Legislature and the Governor, and in fairness to them, get their input and have a full and open discussion with them about that. I imagine there's other legislation on the board today that should be given the same consideration of the task force. I'm not going to try to determine that for the other Senators, but there clearly are issues, and some of that was spoken to by Sen. Hillyard on a piece of legislation. There are other pieces of legislation that on their own look very helpful and productive, but in context of where we want to go as a Legislature, they actually might be distractions. Again, I'm not going to try to enforce my interest in any of that on the body, or even influence it, but simply to say that there's going to be an important process with this task force that I think will be helpful. In consideration of that, I think I need to be one of those who sets my legislation apart from our process of the body, and so with that, Mr. President, with SJR5, I move to strike the enacting clause.”