What does HF 2439 authored by State Representative Ron Jorgensen (R-Sioux City) actually do?

As you might guess a bill that garners widespread bipartisan support would be deemed non-controversial.  That being the case it is easy to infer that it doesn’t do much to address problems with have with the Common Core; especially since supporters of the Common Core voted in favor of this bill.

Here is what it actually does do.

• It directs the the Department of Education to maintain a website where persons may access up-to-date information regarding the Iowa Core content standards and and the assessment standards that have already been adopted.
• Starting on January 1, 2015 the state board shall provide a periodic review, accept public comment regarding, and revise as necessary, the Iowa Core content standards and the assessment standards.  Section 26 states that public comment during reviews shall be gathered online, hold at least three public hearings in three different locations, and they are to provide public notice of these meetings, as well as, public notice of any actions to “strengthen, amend or modify” the standards after these meetings are held.  The department shall submit a report summarizing its activities, findings and recommendations to the state board, the governor, and the general assembly by February 1, 2015 with this first review.
• They are to submit an annual report to the Iowa Legislature by January 15th regarding the activities, findings, and student progress under the Iowa Core content standards and assessment standards.
• This annual report shall include the department’s findings and recommendations, including, but not limited to recommendations relating to any proposal to amend or modify the Iowa core content standards and the assessment standards adopted by the state board.  Any revision or modification made and adopted shall not be adopted by the director until this annual report is given either to the Iowa Legislature or until the Director of the Department of Education appears before the House and Senate Education Committees.
• They stipulate that the state will not direct curriculum, text books, educational materials and instructional materials that those decisions are left to the local school districts and accredited non-public schools.
• Regarding data, it directs the state to establish policies related to data security, it limits the type of data that can be collected, primarily academic, it directs the data to be kept confidential by the department and school district or accredited non-public school, unless ordered by court otherwise.
• They are to report to the Legislature what kinds of data is currently being collected by November 1, 2014.
• They say student data shall not be provided outside of the state unless it is necessary for a student transfer.
• They are to notify the Legislature and governor of any changes required by federal reporting requirements.  The Department can not implement those changes until they report to the Legislature while they are in session or until the direct appears before the House and Senate Education Committees.
• They stipulate that student data shall not be published by the department except in aggregate form.

What this bill does not do.

• It does not repeal the Common Core State Standards.
• It does not release Iowa from it’s agreement with Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium.
• It does not give the Iowa Legislature final say over standards.
• It doesn’t impact the type of curriculum offered to schools.  We understood it wasn’t the state mandating curriculum, rather it is market forces at play.  You have 45 states that have adopted the Common Core that drives the textbook and curriculum market.  The only way to provide real choice in curriculum is to not have national standards along with aligned assessments.

The best thing this bill does is requires the Department to halt any implementation of new standards or modifications until they’ve reported to the Iowa Legislature.  Representative Jorgensen told me yesterday that the Iowa Legislature could then act if they see fit through legislation or appropriations.  We didn’t have that before so that is a good step.  The bill does bring more transparency through public comment, the website that is supposed to give updated information, and public hearings.  We didn’t have that codified before either.  That is another additional step.  Also we have stronger language related to student data privacy than what is currently in the Iowa Code.  There will be greater transparency provided, and it is also good that the Department has to report to the Legislature before implementing any changes.  Also I have to wonder, I don’t know this for certain, if this doesn’t put the brakes on the Next Generation Science Standards from being adopted and implemented.  If so that is certainly a positive.

This is not a perfect bill.  The gold standard would be a full-out repeal.  This does have potential for some good.  There are some changes that I hope the Senate will consider in order to strengthen the bill:

• The review language is too general.  The Legislature needs to address the review process, it leaves too much up to the Department of Education, and I don’t believe that is healthy since they’re the ones who pushed us down this road to begin with.  Strong review language like what I’ve seen in other states would include an independent review board.  That board would consist of specific types of people parents (who are not educators or administrators), business community, classroom instructors, content specialists from higher education institution, and general members of the community.
• There are loopholes with in the student data language.  For instance on pg. 6, lines 30-32, it states a loophole with student data that it will be kept confidential “except as necessary to carry out duties and responsibilities of the state board or the department.”  Exactly what necessary duties would those be that it would require them to violate confidentiality?
• pg. 7, lines 2-5, is just worthless since it states “the department shall establish and maintain a policy relating to the sharing, security, and confidentiality of student data in compliance with the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act…”  FERPA has been gutted and should not be considered a benchmark.  They should remove any reference to FERPA from the bill.

Representative Jorgensen told me that he was trying to forward legislation that would have a chance at getting picked up in the Senate.  I understand that.  I registered undecided on the Bill in its original form as it frankly does not do any harm, especially since we did not have a repeal or roll back bill survive the funnel.  This bill has the opportunity to make a couple of key changes and if the Senate amends the bill to strengthen like I suggest it could be even better.

This isn’t the bill I would have liked to come away with after the legislative session, but it is the best bill we currently have.

The post The Iowa House Passed HF 2439, What Does It Do? appeared first on Iowans for Local Control.

In the meantime, we have a document to which few are paying any attention – the SBAC MOU.

Why does the Smarter Balance Assessment Consortia (SBAC) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) even matter the Common Core debate?

It matters because the MOU has signed away our state sovereignty for education in Iowa.

Iowa must now submit to the governance of the SBAC.

• Iowa is bound to “to every statement and assurance made in the (MOU)” (page 1)
• Iowa must “adopt the Common Core standards” (page 3)
• Iowa student, teacher and district evaluations would be developed by SBAC (page 4)
• Iowa must “Adhere to governance as outlined” in the MOU (page 3)
• Iowa must “Agree to support decisions of the Consortium” (page 3)
• Iowa must change laws to meet the SBAC requirements.
• Iowa must “Identify and implement a plan to address barriers in State law, statute, regulation, or policy to implementing the proposed assessment system and addressing any such barriers prior to full implementation of the summative assessment components of the system.” (page 3)

Iowa must ask permission to leave SBAC.

• “A state requesting an exit from the Consortium must submit in writing their request and reasons for the exit request.”
• “Upon approval of the request, the Project Management Partner will then submit a change of membership to the USED (U.S. Education Department) for approval” (page 12)

How do we regain our state sovereignty over education? The request is simple: The Governor of Iowa, the State Board of Education President and the State Director of Education only need to send a letter to Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortia informing them that Iowa wants to regain its state sovereignty and we wish to exit SBAC. If the request is granted by SBAC and the federal government, Iowa would then be free to implement Iowa Core with no interference by outside entities.

Page numbers listed above are for the SBAC MOU which can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/IowaSBAC or you can read a summary of highlights below:

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, Iowa’s History and the Connection to Common Core

On June 8, 2010 Governor Chet Culver signed the first Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium(SBAC) Memorandum of Understanding(MOU). The SBAC MOU obligates Iowa to adopt and use the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The finalized Common Core State Standards were released June 2, 2010. This gave Iowa 6 days to review the finalized CCSS before committing to adopt them.

On June 1, 2011 Governor Terry Branstad submitted an addendum to the MOU. The addendum requested a role change in the Consortium, changing Iowa from an Advisory State to a Governing State. This addendum states: “We have adopted the Common Core Standards which are known as our Iowa Core Standards. Our new Governor, State Board Chairperson, and State Director of Education believe this is the right time for Iowa to be involved in building a system of formative, interim, and summative assessments, organized around the Common Core Standards.”

Highlights from the SBAC MOU (as not covered below)

• The MOU is subtitled “Race to the Top Fund Assessment Program: Comprehensive Assessment Systems Grant Application CFDA Number: 84.395B” (page 1).
• The MOU binds Iowa “to every statement and assurance made in the (MOU)” (page 1).
• “The Consortium intends to build a flexible system of assessment based on the Common Core Standards in English language arts and Mathematics…” (page 2).
• “A sophisticated design will yield scores to support evaluations of student growth, as well as school, teacher, and principal effectiveness.” (page 3)
• “On-demand and curriculum-embedded assessments will be incorporated over time….” (page 3)

Iowa’s Responsibilities to SBAC (page 3)

• “Adopt the Common Core Standards, which are college-and career ready standards, and to which the Consortium’s assessment system will be aligned, no later than December 31, 2011.”
• “Fully implement statewide the Consortium summative assessment in grades 3-8 and high school” for both Math and ELA no later than 2014-2015
• “Adhere to governance as outlined” in this MOU
• “Agree to support decisions of the Consortium”
• “Identify and implement a plan to address barriers in State law, statute, regulation, or policy to implementing the proposed assessment system and addressing any such barriers prior to full implementation of the summative assessment components of the system.”

Responsibilities of the Consortium (page 4-5)

The Consortium will provide the following by the 2014-15 school year:

#1,#2, and #3: A comprehensively designed assessment system (see MOU for details).

#4 “Psychometrically sound scaling and equating procedures.”

#5 “Reliable, valid, and fair scores for students and groups that can be used to evaluate student achievement and year-to-year growth; determine school/district/state effectiveness for Title 1 ESEA; and better understand the effectiveness and professional development needs of teachers and principals.”

#6 “Achievement standards and achievement level descriptors that are internationally benchmarked.”

#7 “Assess for the state or its authorized delegate to secure item and task bank that includes psychometric attributes required to score assessment in a comparable manner with other state members,…” (note: “item and task bank” is another term for database)

#8 “Online administration with limited support for paper and pencil through the end of 2016-2017 school year. States using the paper and pencil option will be responsible for any unique costs associated with the development and administration of the paper and pencil assessments.”

#9 “Formative assessment tools and supports that are developed to support curricular goals.”

#10 “Professional development focused on curriculum and lesson development as well as scoring and examination of student work.”

#11 “A representative governance structure….will be responsible for implementing plans that are consistent with this MOU, but may make changes as necessary through a formal adoption process.”

#12 Through the 2013-14 school year, a Project Management Partner will monitor for the U.S. Department of Education the progress of deliverables of the proposal.

#13 By September 2014, a financial plan will be approved by Governing States.

#14 “A consolidated data reporting system will be provided.

#15 States will be responsible for any hardware and vendor services necessary to implement the operational assessments. SBAC may elect to jointly procure these services on behalf of the Total State Membership.

How to Exit from the Consortium (page 12)

“Any state may leave the consortium without cause, but must comply with the following exit process:

• A state requesting an exit from the Consortium must submit in writing their request and reasons for the exit request.
• The written explanation must include the statutory policy reasons for the exit,
• The written request must be submitted to the Project Management Partner with the same signatures as required for the MOU,
• The Executive committee will act upon the request within a week of the request, and
• Upon approval of the request, the Project Management Partner will then submit a change of membership to the USED (U.S. Education Department) for approval”

Items bolded are for emphasis and are not bolded in the MOU document.

The Iowa SBAC MOU document is located at: http://tinyurl.com/IowaSBAC

You can download this information as a handout here or as one page summary here.

The post Iowa’s Smarter Balanced MOU: Why It Matters appeared first on Iowans for Local Control.

The federalist in me would like to point out to said staffer how wrong that mentality is as the Federal government does not have a legitimate role in education.  Iowa should reject any attempt by the Feds to change standards as they are prevented constitutionally and by federal statute from doing such a thing.

Put that aside for a moment.

The State Board of Education had legal standing to adopt the Common Core State Standards due to a change in the code in 2008 giving the board authority to align the Iowa Core with any “nationally or internationally recognized standards.”  They demonstrated why they shouldn’t have been given that authority and it is not wise for the legislature to continue to grant them that authority in the future.

For instance, we’ve documented the problems with the process to adopt the Next Generation Science Standards and that was meant to be a more open process.

Even a process like that did not exist when the Common Core was adopted.

State Representative Cindy Winckler (D-Davenport) insinuated that the development of the Iowa Core and the Common Core dovetailed with one another.  That is simply not true.  Also they claim this was an open and transparent process.  That isn’t entirely true as a review of the timeline of the Common Core’s development and adoption in Iowa will show.

The Iowa Core was first developed in 2005 when the Iowa Legislature passed SF 245 which set voluntary standards for high school students in literacy, math and science.  The Iowa Core was made mandatory for public and accredited non-public schools, expanded to K-8, and added social studies and 21st century skills in 2008 when the Iowa Legislature passed SF 588.

In March 7, 2009, the U.S. Department of Education announced the Race to the Top “national competition” to distribute the Stimulus money through two rounds of grant awards.  RTTT application & process It directed judges to award a state “high” points if the consortium includes a majority of the States in the country,”  but “medium or low” points if the consortium includes one-half of the states or fewer.

On June 1, 2009, National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers had formally launched their Common Core State Standards Initiative to develop and implement national K-12 academic standards.  They commissioned Achieve, INC. to develop the standards.  The first draft of the Common Core is released in March and drew more than 10,000 comments on the CCSSI website.  Only a summary of those is made available on the corestandards.org.

On March 11, 2010, the first Iowa State Board of Education meeting, around the time the first draft was released the public agenda made no mention of the Common Core State Standards.  Looking at the minutes for the meeting that month we see that Judy Jeffrey, the director of the Iowa Department of Education, mentioned them during her report.

Jeffrey indicated that the National Core Standards document is open for public input at www.corestandards.org. Department staff members have been continually providing comments to earlier drafts.

Jeffrey mentioned there are concerns with the document. One concern deals with categorization by grade levels rather than age ranges or grade spans. Another concern is the stipulation by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the NGA that states need to adopt the standards word for word. Another concern deals with “skill and drill” in the language arts section.

Jeffrey stated that the Department is extremely supportive of the movement and believes that National Core Standards are essential for all of the students in the nation. Jeffrey told State Board members that if they are in agreement with these concerns, they should weigh in during this time of public comment either as a Board or individually. (emphasis mine)

We come to May 13, 2010, the final draft of the Common Core State Standards were released, and there is no mention of the Common Core on the agenda, but it was mentioned during the director’s report according to the minutes.  Acting Director Kevin Fangman gave the Board an update on the status of Iowa’s Race to the Top grant application:

Fangman stated the Race to the Top (RTTT) Memorandum of  Understanding (MOU) for school districts to submit if they are planning to  participate in the RTTT application is due Friday, May 14. The Department has currently received MOUs from 70 of the 361 school districts. It is anticipated over 200 districts will sign on. Currently, four of the eight Urban Education Network districts have signed on; however, it is anticipated that all of them will sign on. The RTTT application will be submitted by June 1 and finalists will be notified in July. Fangman explained the process used to award the grants. There is approximately $3.5 billion left to be disbursed during this round of RTTT.
 
As part of the RTTT application, Iowa must adopt the Common Core Standards by August 2. Therefore, it is likely that the Board will be asked to take action at the July State Board meeting. During the June State  Board retreat, time will be taken to help build an understanding of what  this means with regard to the Iowa Core.
 
Fangman reported that there is an assessment consortium competition for $160 million (two consortiums will be awarded for a total of $320 million).  Iowa is in the Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium with 31 other  states. This consortium is focused on a Balanced Assessment System around the Common Core Standards. Fangman provided additional details about the consortium.
 
Fangman also indicated that institutes of higher education are now being asked to sign on and say they will accept certain scores for summative assessments that are given in high school that measure college and career readiness. As a result, students would not be required to take remedial classes in math and reading.

There was discussion about whether there are alignment issues, concerns  that the Common Core Standards and assessment model are so complex that they won’t produce the desired end results, how information will be reported to the general public, the role of Board members to communicate this information in plain English, and how the Department can manage these initiatives with limited staff. (Emphasis mine)

Does anyone remember some PR push about the Common Core after that meeting?  I sure didn’t.  I remember the original Iowa Core being debated and discussed, it made the news, but crickets on this.  The Common Core and Race to the Top was on the public agenda for the Board’s retreat listed as an hour-long presentation given by Fangman on June 23-24, 2010, but there are no minutes for that meeting available on the Department’s website.

Their next meeting was on July 29, 2010 it was listed on the agenda.  Looking at the minutes we find there was no public comment given.  In attendance there were three reporters: Staci Hupp of the Des Moines Register (now the communications director at the Department), Patrick Hogan of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, and Lee Rouse of WHO-TV.   Did media coverage go beyond a news cycle?

Here is what the minutes record:

The Governor urged the Board to adopt the Common Core Standards. He stated that he feels good about the fact that the State Board, school districts, educators, and the Department have worked collaboratively in trying to find the best pathway to excellence in education for the future…..”

….Kevin Fangman introduced Rita Martens and Judith Spitzli, Department Program Consultants. Fangman indicated that an in-depth comparison was done comparing the Common Core Standards and the Iowa Core. He recapped the development of the Common Core Standards and future plans. If the Common Core is adopted, it would become part of the Iowa Core and not a separate document.

Martens described the process used in the alignment. She indicated that the Achieve organization created an online tool for states to compare their state standards with the Common Core Standards. With the help of Brad Niebling, an AEA alignment specialist, it was decided to use Achieve to conduct the study. Work teams were convened in English language arts and mathematics. Martens explained the make-up of the work teams and the process used with the Achieve tool. She also reviewed the research questions used during the alignment process and the results of the English language arts questions.

Judith Spitzli reviewed the results of research questions that related to mathematics. She reminded the Board that states are allowed to add 15 percent of their own standards in addition to the Common Core. She indicated that the Department was very pleased with the results and now has a process to fall back on.

There was discussion clarifying information on the additional content that will need to be added to the Iowa Core, difference in specificity between the Iowa Core and the Common Core Standards, clarification of inclusion of instructional strategies, and the types of delivery mechanisms other states that have adopted the Common Core are using to help equip teachers.

A few observations.

First, during the subcommittee meeting I heard at least two people mention the alignment study.  This study was done by Achieve, INC. the same organization who developed the Common Core State Standards.  Conflict of interest anyone?  Second, note that the board’s minutes clearly show that the Common Core is part of the Iowa Core.  So can we dispense with the notion that Iowa doesn’t have the Common Core?  We do.  Governor Branstad’s executive order did not undo what was done on July 29,2010.

Third, I want to point out is that in the minutes it says “states are allowed to add 15 percent of their own standards.”  Does that sound like the state has control over the Common Core to you?  Fourth, this is obviously a Department directed initiative.  The board was simply a rubber stamp, and it seems like that process may repeat itself with the Next Generation Science Standards.  Fifth, there was no public comment – none.  No mention in the board minutes of a forum being held to solicit public comment from Iowans.  There was no dissent offered that we can see from the minutes.  What we have here is an echo chamber within our educational establishment and bureaucracy.  Sixth, we seen in the March minutes that they expressed the concern the standards would need to be adopt the standards word for word and they did it anyway.

Unless this process is radically changed to include dissenting points of view, actual debate and a robust process of allowing public comment it is painfully obvious to me that the Board should no longer be a steward of this process.

So we see a flawed process.  More than that we have a constitutional issue at play.  I believe the Iowa Legislature abdicated their responsibility when they granted the State Board of Education the authority to align standards.  This violates the separation of powers.  The Iowa State Board of Education is part of the executive branch, and their responsibility is to carry out the laws and statutes of the state as they relate to K-12 education.  They also should provide leadership for the Department, not the other way around.  They should not also function as the legislative branch which is how they function when they adopt standards.

This is executive overreach that is off the chain and the Legislature allowed it, and they continue to allow it by their lack of action.  The Iowa Legislature must provide a check on the State Board of Education.

The post Why the Iowa State Board of Education Should Not Set Standards appeared first on Iowans for Local Control.

State Rep. Larry Sheets
(R-Moulton)

I just learned this morning about a new bill – HF 2205 which is similar to HF 2204 and SF 2123 in essence rolls back the Iowa Core to the 2006 standards which were the original 9th-12th grade standards in English, math and science passed by the Iowa Legislature.  The bill was introduced by State Representative Larry Sheets (R-Moulton).  It is co-sponsored by State Representatives Dean Fisher (R-Garwin), Greg Heartsill (R-Melcher-Dallas), Ralph Watts (R-Adel), Dwayne Alons (R-Hull), Stan Gustafson (R-Cumming), Tedd Gassman (R-Scarville), Tom Shaw (R-Laurens), Sandy Salmon (R-Denver), Dave Maxwell (R-Gibson), and Guy Vander Linden (R-Oskaloosa).

HF 2204 still has not been assigned a subcommittee, HF 2205 has.  The subcommittee which will meet on Thursday, February 20th at 11:00a in Room 19 in the State Capitol Building.  The committee consists of:

• Tedd Gassman (R-Scarville), Chair – tedd.gassman@legis.iowa.gov
• Mary Mascher (D-Iowa City), Ranking Member – mary.mascher@legis.iowa.gov
• Mary Ann Hanusa (R-Council Bluffs) – maryann.hanusa@legis.iowa.gov

The House switchboard is (515) 281-3221.

Remember that the funnel deadline is this Friday.  Please be respectful and ask them to support this bill.  I’d also encourage you to discuss with Representative Mascher she sent out last week:

Finally, Republicans brought in out-of-state, tea party “experts” to talk about ending Iowa’s efforts to boost student achievement.  Educators have been working on the Iowa Core for the last five years.  A great deal of effort has been devoted to identifying state standards for students that are both rigorous and relevant for the 21st Century.  Republican legislators are echoing misconceptions about the Core and trying to dismantle all of our efforts to improve student learning.

She has a problem with out-of-state experts being brought in to provide testimony on the Common Core which is part of the Iowa Core and Smarter Balanced Assessments (yesterday’s testimony on HF 2140 was all from in-state by the way), but doesn’t have a problem with the Iowa State Board of Education adopting a set of standards written by out-of-state groups and adopting an assessment developed by mostly outsiders?  This is simply inconsistent.

Also I am disappointed that she is turning this into a partisan debate.  There is plenty of Democrat opposition to the Standards in states like New York, New Jersey and New Mexico.  Perhaps she should talk with some of those folks.  Also I’m not sure everybody who testified last Wednesday can accurately be labeled “Tea Party,” not that it really matters.  We could have just as easily brought in Diane Ravitch and Paul Horton who are both liberal and against the Common Core (which we would certainly be open to doing). Unfortunately this is a tactic employed by some who advocate for the Common Core.  They’d rather spout talking points, try to pretend the Common Core is not part of the Iowa Core, and label those they disagree with rather than actually discuss the issue.

Update: Since time is short we should contact all of the members of the House Education Committee:

• Ron Jorgensen (R-Sioux City), Chair – ron.jorgensen@legis.iowa.gov
• Quentin Stanerson (R-Center Point), Vice Chair – quentin.stanerson@legis.iowa.gov
• Sharon Steckman (D-Mason City), Ranking Member – sharon.steckman@legis.iowa.gov
• Ako Abdul-Samad (D-Des Moines) – ako.abdul-samad@legis.iowa.gov
• Josh Byrnes (R-Osage) – josh.byrnes@legis.iowa.gov
• Dennis Cohoon (D-Burlington) – dennis.cohoon@legis.iowa.gov
• Cecil Dolecheck (R-Mount Ayr) – cecil.dolecheck@legis.iowa.gov
• Greg Forristall (R-Macedonia) – greg.forristall@legis.iowa.gov
• Joel Fry (R-Osceola) – joel.fry@legis.iowa.gov
• Ruth Ann Gaines (D-Des Moines) – ruthann.gaines@legis.iowa.gov
• Tedd Gassman (R-Scarville) – tedd.gassman@legis.iowa.gov
• Curt Hanson (D-Fairfield) – curt.hanson@legis.iowa.gov
• Mary Ann Hanusa (R-Council Bluffs) – maryann.hanusa@legis.iowa.gov
• Megan Hess (R-Spencer) – megan.hess@legis.iowa.gov
• Kevin Koester (R-Ankeny) – kevin.koester@legis.iowa.gov
• Mary Mascher (D-Iowa City) – mary.mascher@legis.iowa.gov
• Linda Miller (R-Bettendorf) – linda.miller@legis.iowa.gov
• Walt Rogers (R-Cedar Falls) – walt.rogers@legis.iowa.gov
• Patti Ruff (D-McGregor) – patti.ruff@legis.iowa.gov
• Sandy Salmon (R-Denver) – sandy.salmon@legis.iowa.gov
• Art Staed (D-Cedar Rapids) – art.staed@legis.iowa.gov
• Cindy Winckler (D-Davenport) – cindy.winckler@legis.iowa.gov
• Frank Wood (D-Eldridge) – frank.wood@legis.iowa.gov

Here is a flyer that you can either use as talking points or forward on to members of the House Education Committee.  I would encourage you to focus on the quality of the standards.  Also be sure to emphasize that the Common Core State Standards provide the foundation for the Iowa Core Math and ELA standards.

The post HF 2205 (Common Core Roll Back Bill) Subcommittee Meeting Thursday appeared first on Iowans for Local Control.

HF 2141 – This bill would have removed Iowa from the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium.  It died in subcommittee.  State Representative Sandy Salmon (R-Denver) supported it and State Representatives Josh Byrnes (R-Osage) and Cindy Winckler (D-Davenport) were opposed.

HF 2140 – This would make the Iowa Core (along with the Common Core State Standards) voluntary.  This subcommittee was supposed to be held last Wednesday, but it has been rescheduled for TODAY at 11:00a at the State Capitol Building Room 102.  Subcommittee members are:

• State Representative Sandy Salmon (R-Denver) sandy.salmon@legis.iowa.gov

• State Representative Greg Forristall (R-Macedonia) greg.forristall@legis.iowa.gov

• State Representative Sharon Steckman (D-Mason City) sharon.steckman@legis.iowa.gov

They can also be reached on the Capitol switchboard – (515) 281-3221.

There was testimony given last week for both of those bills by Henry Burke, Jane Robbins of American Principles Project and Bruno Behrend of the Heartland Institute.  You can watch the testimonies and read a recap here.

SF 2123 – This bill rolls back the Iowa Core to the 2006 standards.  It has been assigned to a subcommittee, but a meeting has not been scheduled yet.

You can reach the subcommittee members:

• (Chair) Robert Dvorsky (D-Coralville) – robert.dvorsky@legis.iowa.gov

• Robert Hogg (D-Cedar Rapids) – robert.hogg@legis.iowa.gov

• Amy Sinclair (R-Allerton) – amy.sinclair@legis.iowa.gov

The Senate Switchboard number is (515) 281-3371.

HF 2204 – Was introduced last week and it is identical to SF 2123.  It was introduced by State Representative Salmon and was co-sponsored by State Representatives Tedd Gassman (R-Scarville), Dwayne Alons (R-Hull), Larry Sheets (R-Moulton), Tom Shaw (R-Laurens), Dave Maxwell (R-Gibson), Dean Fisher (R-Garwin), John Landon (R-Ankeny), Ralph Watts (R-Adel) and Jason Schultz (R-Schleswig).  This bill has not been assigned to a subcommittee yet.

Remember this Friday is the deadline for bills to be out of committee in order still be considered this legislative session.

The post Common Core Legislation Update 2-16-14 appeared first on Iowans for Local Control.

The key language is this:

Adopt a set of core content assessment standards applicable to all students in grade twelve in every school district and accredited nonpublic school.  For the purposes of this subsection, “core content assessment standards” includes reading, mathematics, and science.  The core content assessment standards shall be identical to the core content assessments standards included in Iowa’s approved 2006 standards and assessment system under Tit. I of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965…

So basically we’d go back to the Iowa Core Standards that were in effect in 2006.  No Common Core math and English language arts standards, and no social studies or 21 Century Skills standards either.  Also this bill removes the language in the code that requires an assessment that is aligned to Iowa’s standards.

It isn’t a perfect bill for instance they still need to remove this language from the Iowa Code – “As changes in federal law or regulation occur, the state board is authorized to amend the core content assessment standards as appropriate.”  Since there are two federal laws that state the Federal government is not allowed to dictate standards upon a state this language in the code is unnecessary.  Also, the state legislature not an unelected board should make those changes if deemed necessary.

Also “core curriculum requirements” have been changed to “high school graduation requirements.”  It seems to me that the teeth have been taken of the standards Iowa will be left with if this bill were to pass.  All in all this is a very good bill that will likely get tweaked in committee.

This bill is cosponsored by State Senators Randy Feenstra (R-Hull), Amy Sinclair (R-Allerton), Jerry Behn (R-Boone), Mark Chelgren (R-Ottumwa), Jake Chapman (R-Adel), Ken Rozenboom (R-Oskaloosa), Michael Breitbach (R-Strawberry Point), Rick Bertrand (R-Sioux City), Dennis Guth (R-Klemme), Mark Segebart (R-Vail), Joni Ernst (R-Red Oak) and Bill Anderson (R-Pierson).

It has been referred to the Senate Education committee, but it has not been assigned a subcommittee yet.  Next week is funnel week so this bill needs to make it out of committee by February 21 if it is going to survive.

Here is the contact information for the Senate Committee:

The Senate Switchboard number is (515) 281-3371.

• Herman Quirmbach (D-Ames) Chair – herman.quirmbach@legis.iowa.gov
• Brian Schoenjahn (D-Arlington) Vice Chair – brian.schoenjahn@legis.iowa.gov
• Joni Ernst (R-Red Oak) Ranking Member – joni.ernst@legis.iowa.gov
• Daryl Beall (D-Ft. Dodge) – daryl.beall@legis.iowa.gov
• Jerry Behn (R-Boone) – jerry.behn@legis.iowa.gov
• Nancy Boettger (R-Harlan) – nancy.boettger@legis.iowa.gov
• Tod Bowman (D-Maquoketa) – tod.bowman@legis.iowa.gov
• Robert Dvorsky (D-Coralville) – robert.dvorsky@legis.iowa.gov
• Rita Hart (D-Wheatland) – rita.hart@legis.iowa.gov
• Robert Hogg (D-Cedar Rapids) – robert.hogg@legis.iowa.gov
• David Johnson (R-Ocheyedan) – david.johnson@legis.iowa.gov
• Liz Mathis (D-Cedar Rapids) – liz.mathis@legis.iowa.gov
• Amy Sinclair (R-Allerton) – amy.sinclair@legis.iowa.gov
• Mary Jo Wilhelm (D-Cresco) – mary.jo.wilhelm@legis.iowa.gov
• Brad Zaun (D-Urbandale) – brad.zaun@legis.iowa.gov

We need bipartisan support for this bill if it is going to survive.  Fortunately this is not a partisan issue.  I’d encourage you when you contact the Democratic members of the committee that there is Democrat sponsored legislation in other states.

For instance:

In New Jersey you have , which was introduced by State Senator Jeff Van Drew (D-Dennis Township), and then there is a companion bill which was introduced by Assemblyman Bob Andrzejczak (D-Middle Township).  This bill if passed creates a task force to study the Common Core State Standards and delays the use of their Common Core Assessment.  New Jersey is part of PARCC.

In New Mexico you have . This bill introduced by State Senator Linda Lopez (D-Albuquerque) and it would halt the implementation of the Common Core and withdraw the state from the PARCC testing consortium. It would also require public hearings and a fiscal analysis of the new standards before they are brought into effect.

Can Democrats in the Iowa Senate support measures like that?  I believe so.  Do many of them believe in local control in education?  I would think so since many are opposed to the state imposing laws related to traffic cameras on local municipalities so it would stand to reason they would support local control measures for education as well.

Also this doesn’t eliminate Iowa’s standards it just rewinds them back to the 2006 standards (which a Democrat-led House and Senate passed and Democrat Governor Tom Vilsack signed into law).

Also they could look at what liberals like Diane Ravitch and Paul Horton have to say.

I believe both parties should resonate with data privacy and high-stakes testing.  In Tennessee you have HB 1841 introduced by State Representative Gloria Johnson (D-Knoxville) with a companion bill, SB 2221, that was introduced by State Senator Jim Kyle (D-Memphis).  As introduced this bill allows parents to opt their children out of high stakes testing.  There are many Republican sponsored bills that advocate pulling out of the testing consortium.  In Iowa’s case that would be Smarter Balanced.

Legislators should be concerned about the cost of assessments.  Can Iowa really afford paying $27.30 per assessment per student when we have been paying $3.50?  That’s quite a leap!  Also I believe all legislators should be concerned about whether the Common Core ELA standards will actually prepare our students for college and whether the math standards will adequately prepare our students for STEM fields.

Then there is the simple fact these were not field tested.  Are our legislators really going to allow Iowa students to be used as guinea pigs as these standards are rolled out in 45 states without a field test?  I hope not.

The post Support SF 2123: the Iowa Senate’s Common Core Rollback Bill appeared first on Iowans for Local Control.

Find out why the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party of Iowa passed a Resolution to Stop Common Core, Sen. Chuck Grassley has worked to stop the funding at the federal level, and states across the nation are working to repeal or reject all or portions of the Common Core State Standards, Next Generation Science Standards, as well as, pulling out of their Common Core assessment consortiums PARCC or Smarter Balanced – including some of our own state legislators.    This top-down, centralized approach to education reform is is an issue that can bring liberals and conservatives together.

There are Stop Common Core Legislation Introduced in the Iowa House up for subcommittee hearings the next day, Wed – 2-12-14, and CWA of Iowa CWALAC wants to make sure parents, teachers, and legislators, fully understand their impact.

The speakers are:

Jane Robbins J.D., senior fellow at the American Principles Project, whose work includes education policy, student privacy and parental rights issues. Ms. Robbins has drafted state legislation on educational transparency and sovereignty that has led to a parallel resolution by the South Carolina Southern Baptist Convention, model ALEC legislation, and emulated legislation in several states.

Henry Burke is a Civil Engineer with a B.S.C.E. and M.S.C.E. He has been a Registered Professional Engineer (P.E.) for 37 years and has worked as a Civil Engineer in construction for over 40 years. Mr. Burke had a successful 27-year career with a large construction company. Henry Burke serves as a full-time volunteer to oversee various construction projects. He has written numerous articles on education, engineering, construction, politics, taxes, and the economy including state specific costs for the implementation of Common Core / Iowa Core.

Bruno Behrend J.D., as the Senior Fellow for education policy at The Heartland Institute, Behrend deals  with strategies in moving forward to stop Common Core / Iowa Core even after implementation.

This is a free event and no RSVP is necessary.

Questions? 515-259-0087 or info@iowa.cwfa.org.

The post Common Core Forum in Des Moines This Tuesday! appeared first on Iowans for Local Control.

This bill has been assigned to a subcommittee whose members are:

• State Representative Sandy Salmon (R-Denver) sandy.salmon@legis.iowa.gov
• State Representative Josh Byrnes (R-Osage) – josh.byrnes@legis.iowa.gov
• State Representative Cindy Winckler (D-Davenport) – cindy.winckler@legis.iowa.gov

They can also be reached on the Capitol switchboard – (515) 281-3221.

Please contact these members and respectfully ask them to support HF 2141 so it can be considered by the entire House Education Committee.  Focus on the cost of the assessments.  The Iowa Department of Education plans, if allowed by the State Legislature, to utilize the full suite of assessments provided by Smarter Balanced which will cost Iowans $27.30 per student per assessment.  Iowa currently pays $3.50 per student per assessment for the Iowa Assessments.  We simply can not afford this.  Also this does not take into consideration the cost of scoring the assessments and not every school district in Iowa is set up to meet the technology requirements.

Also there are data collection concerns related to Smarter Balanced agreement with the U.S. Department of Education.

The 2nd bill that Gassman introduced is HF 2140.  It would make the Iowa Core (along with the Common Core) voluntary and strikes language in the Iowa Code giving the State Board of Education the authority to change the standards.

This bill is cosponsored by State Representatives Heartsill, Schultz, Maxwell, Salmon, Alons, Sheets, Shaw, Fisher, Landon, Watts, Rogers and Stan Gustafson (R-Cumming).

It also has been assigned to a subcommittee consisting of:

• State Representative Sandy Salmon (R-Denver) sandy.salmon@legis.iowa.gov
• State Representative Greg Forristall (R-Macedonia) greg.forristall@legis.iowa.gov
• State Representative Sharon Steckman (D-Mason City) sharon.steckman@legis.iowa.gov

They can also be reached on the Capitol switchboard – (515) 281-3221.

Please respectfully request that they support HF 2140.  We encourage you to focus on these points:

• It restores local control.  School districts can tailor standards according to the needs of their students and exceed the quality of the current Iowa Core with the subpar Common Core Math and English-Language Arts standards.  Parents should be able to have a voice in what their child learns and how.  Education policy should be decided by those who are most directly accountable to the people – elected school boards.
• Iowa should retain sovereignty over our standards, not cede control to special interest groups and trade organizations or to the Federal government.  This is done best keeping the decision-making at the local level.  An unelected board should not be allowed to function as the executive and legislative branch.  There is no accountability.
• The quality of the Common Core State Standards is questionable.  Dr. Sandra Stotsky, a member of the validation committee for the Common Core English Language Arts standards, states that the ELA standards would put our students college readiness at risk.  Dr. James Milgram, a member of the validation committee for the Common Core Math Standards, will not adequately prepare our students for STEM.
• The Common Core Math & ELA standards (in Iowa Core) are developmentally inappropriate for younger students.
• Our U.S. History standards have been given an F and our science standards a D by the Fordham Institute.  Local school districts can do better.
• It’s data-less reform.  We are rolling out a grand experiment in our schools.  There is no evidence that centralizing education around a set of common standards will raise student achievement.  The Common Core State Standards in particular were never field tested and they were written by a lead team of writers with no classroom experience.  Only two of the five lead writers had experience writing standards.

The post Stop Common Core Legislation Introduced in the Iowa House appeared first on Iowans for Local Control.

Concerned Women for America – Iowa urges Iowans to contact their legislators about co-sponsoring legislation that has not been filed yet.

We’ll echo that.  Here are the bills that are drafted, but not yet filed:

1. State  Representative Sandy Salmon (R-Janesville) is sponsoring a bill that would make the Iowa Core (which includes the Common Core) voluntary.  This would restore local control to school districts.  They can choose to continue their participation or they can opt to save money by not participating.
2. State Representatives Salmon and Tedd Gassman (R-Scarville) are co-sponsoring a bill that would require Iowa to exit the Smarter Balanced Consortium.
3. State Representatives Salmon and Gassman are co-sponsoring a bill that will return local control to school districts by allowing district school boards to set standards removing the State Board of Education from the process.  It will also prohibit the State Board from adopting the Next Generation Science Standards.
4. State Representative Larry Sheets (R-Moulton) is sponsoring a bill that would prevent the Iowa Department of Education from entering contracts.
5. State Representative Jason Schultz (R-Schleswig) has a bill that would stop the collection of students’ non-academic data.

Call your representative at 515-281-3221 on Monday or e-mail today and over the weekend and ask that they co-sponsor the five bills listed. You can find out who your legislators are by going to https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislators/find.

The post Common Core Bills Need Cosponsors, You Can Help appeared first on Iowans for Local Control.

You can read Dr. Effrem’s letter below:

By Karen Effrem, MD

On January 23^rd, 2014, thirty-four chief state school officers sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan trying to reassure the public that individual student test data will not be given to the federal government and that that data is safe as the Common Core national standards and federally funded and supervised national tests are put into place.

Here are the important quotes from that letter:

• “We are writing today to confirm that the consortia will not share any personally identifiable information about K–12 students with USED or any federal agency.”  (Emphasis in original)
• “Our states have not submitted student-level assessment data in the past; the transition to the new assessments should not cause anyone to worry that federal reporting requirements will change when, in fact, the federal government is prohibited from establishing a student-level database that would contain assessment data for every student.”
• “As we have historically done, our states will continue to provide USED with school-level data from our state assessments as required under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended in 2002. Our states and local education agencies will continue to retain control over student assessment data and will continue to comply with all state and federal laws and regulations with regard to the protection of student privacy.”
• “We are confirming that our states will not provide such information to USED and that everything we have said here is consistent with our understanding of the cooperative agreement between the consortia and USED.”

These statements are problematic on a multitude of levels for the following reasons:

• The testing consortia are under obligation to the U.S. Department of Education to provide individual student test data via the cooperative agreements that they signed:

“Comply with and where applicable coordinate with the ED staff to fulfill the program requirements established in the RTTA Notice Inviting Applications and the conditions on the grant award, as well as to this agreement, including, but not limited to working with the Department to develop a strategy to make student – level data that results from the assessment system available on an ongoing basis for research, including for prospective linking, validity, and program improvement studies; subject to applicable privacy laws” (Emphasis added)

• The most applicable privacy law, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), has been so weakened via regulation that there is no real protection of individual student data.
  • There is a whole section of current federal FERPA regulations allowing the disclosure of individual student data without consent (All quotes in this next section are from §99.31 of the FERPA regulations):

§99.31   Under what conditions is prior consent not required to disclose information?

• Individual student data may be released without consent to organizations and entities that have “legitimate educational interests,” which basically means for any reason that a state or the federal governments or researchers or corporations want to use the data in conjunction with any state or federal program.

(a) An educational agency or institution may disclose personally identifiable information from an education record of a student without the consent required by §99.30 if the disclosure meets one or more of the following conditions:

(1)(i)(A) The disclosure is to other school officials, including teachers, within the agency or institution whom the agency or institution has determined to have legitimate educational interests.

• The regulations give private corporations, foundations, and researchers or even volunteers access to our children’s data without parental consent.

(B) A contractor, consultant, volunteer, or other party to whom an agency or institution has outsourced institutional services or functions may be considered a school official under this paragraph provided that the outside party—  (Emphasis added)

(1) Performs an institutional service or function for which the agency or institution would otherwise use employees;

(2) Is under the direct control of the agency or institution with respect to the use and maintenance of education records; and

(3) Is subject to the requirements of §99.33(a) governing the use and redisclosure of personally identifiable information from education records.

• FERPA currently allows data to be given without consent to authorized representatives of the following entities including the US Department of Education, which combined with the cooperative agreement quoted above make the state chiefs letter MEANINGLESS.  The authorized representatives include the “contractor, consultant or volunteer” entities quoted above :

(3) The disclosure is, subject to the requirements of §99.35, to authorized representatives of—

(i) The Comptroller General of the United States;

(ii) The Attorney General of the United States;

(iii) The Secretary [of Education]; or (Emphasis added)

(iv) State and local educational authorities.

• The regulations  give the states and the consortia carte blanche to “legally” give individual student test and other data to the federal government without consent to continue to develop and evaluate the national tests and “improve instruction” meaning the NCLB waivers that require the Common Core standards.

(6)(i) The disclosure is to organizations conducting studies for, or on behalf of, educational agencies or institutions to:

(A) Develop, validate, or administer predictive tests; (Emphasis added).

(B) Administer student aid programs; or

(C) Improve instruction.

• So, even though the letter says the states will comply with current federal law and regulations, nothing is stopping the states entering into an agreement with the consortia and the consortia from “redisclosing” this data to the feds.

(ii) Nothing in the Act or this part prevents a State or local educational authority or agency headed by an official listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section from entering into agreements with organizations conducting studies under paragraph (a)(6)(i) of this section and redisclosing personally identifiable information from education records on behalf of educational agencies and institutions that disclosed the information to the State or local educational authority or agency headed by an official listed in paragraph (a)(3) of this section in accordance with the requirements of §99.33(b).  (Emphasis added.)

• The data is supposed to be protected but may be given to any entity with a “legitimate interest” in the information, which as has been explained is defined very broadly.

• Although there is a prohibition against a national student database in one section of federal  law called the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA) that says, “Nothing in this title may be construed to authorize the establishment of a nationwide database of individually identifiable information on individuals involved in studies or other collections of data under this title; (Section 182)” that language appears to be negated by this language in Section 157:

“The Statistics Center [meaning the National Center for Education Statistics] may establish 1 or more national cooperative education statistics systems for the purpose of producing and maintaining, with the cooperation of the States, comparable and uniform information and data on early childhood education, elementary and secondary education, postsecondary education, adult education, and libraries, that are useful for policymaking at the Federal, State, and local levels.” (Emphasis added).

That language is even more worrisome in light of the grants to fund and promote state longitudinal databases in section 208 of ESRA, in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and even more heavily promoted in the Race to the Top K-12 and Early Learning Challenge programs.  Although the federal government will not be developing a national database, the SLDS and other regulatory language allow it to happen in a de facto manner.  (Here is a  full analysis of the federal issues).

• This loss of data privacy when the federal government is of the national tests is extremely worrisome, especially, as shown below, because the standards and assessments are meant to teach and test psychological parameters.

“The [federal] review will focus on two broad areas of assessment development: the consortium’s research confirming the validity of the assessment results and the consortium’s approach to developing items and tasks.”   (Emphasis added)

• Given that the federal government admits  that the Common Core standards will be teaching and the aligned national tests will be assessing psychological or “non-cognitive” traits, parents should not be reassured by this letter:

“In national policy, there is increasing attention on 21st-century competencies (which encompass a range of noncognitive factors, including grit), and persistence is now part of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.”  (Emphasis added.)

“[A]s new assessment systems are developed to reflect the new standards in English language arts, mathematics, and science, significant attention will need to be given to the design of tasks and situations that call on students to apply a range of 21st century competencies that are relevant to each discipline. A sustained program of research and development will be required to create assessments that are capable of measuring cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal skills.” (Emphasis added).

The only way to truly protect our children’s data is to restore local control of education that has been usurped by the unconstitutional presence and actions of the US Department of Education. Until that ultimate goal is reached, we will work to remove each of our states from the state longitudinal data systems and demand genuine state developed standards and assessments, instead of name changes, cosmetic adjustments to the Common Core standards, and deceptive reassurances about state control of test data.

NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS:

• Education Liberty Watch
• Badass Parents Association
• Badass Teachers Association
• Home School Legal Defense Association
• Parent-Led Reform
• Parents and Educators Against Common Core
• Special Ed Advocates to Stop Common Core

STATE ORGANIZATIONS:

• Alabama Eagle Forum
• Alabamians United for Excellence in Education
• Arkansas Against Common Core
• Core Concerns, Fort Collins
• Stop Common Core in CT
• Florida Stop Common Core Coalition
• Florida Parents Against Common Core
• Georgians to Stop Common Core
• Idahoans for Local Education
• Hoosiers Against Common Core
• Iowans for Local Control
• Kansans Against Common Core
• Parents and Educators Against Common Core Standards in Kentucky
• MA Parents Interested in Common Core
• Massachusetts Coalition for Superior Education Standards
• Stop Common Core in Michigan
• Minnesotans Against Common Core
• Missouri Coalition Against Common Core
• Parent Led Reform Nevada
• C5-NJ (the Committee to Combat the Common Core Curriculum-NJ)
• NM Refuse the Tests
• Stop Common Core in New York State
• Parent Led Reform Oregon
• South Dakotans Against Common Core
• Parent Led Reform Texas
• Stop Common Core in Virginia
• Stop Common Core Nevada
• Washington State Against Common Core Standards
• Wyoming Freedom in Education

The post Iowans for Local Control Co-Signs Response to CCSSO Letter on Student Data Privacy appeared first on Iowans for Local Control.