For those willing to take a serious look at Common Core…

Tonchi Weaver provided a factual presentation to South Dakota Legislators.  They (and South Dakota voters) would do well to examine it carefully.

 

Dear Representative/Senator:

 

Dr. Melody Schopp made a misleading statement in her testimony to the House Education Committee on HB1093.   At approximately 52:25 into the sound clip she said: “South Dakota was not required by our waiver (from No Child Left Behind) to choose either “Smarter Balanced” (SBAC) or PARCC”. What she said is true, but not the WHOLE truth. The whole truth is that South Dakota IS required by the conditions of Race to the Top to join an assessment consortium. Smarter Balanced and PARCC were the only possible options; there were no other choices.

In her response to Rep. Wollman’s question regarding Federal dollars connected to the Smarter Balanced assessment, Dr. Schopp stated that South Dakota chose Smarter Balanced Consortium willingly and we could have developed our own test and still be in compliance with the waiver. That is not true. South Dakota is bound by the requirements of the Race to the Top (see sources below) in which we agreed to the Common Core standards and assessments, which is how we got the waiver. On page 59 (see below), it is clear that state assessments must be developed through a multi-state consortium – neither Smarter Balanced or PARCC were named because the consortiums had not yet been given proper names. They are both federally funded.

Dr. Schopps’ claim that the SBAC was chosen because it was “less expensive” has never been documented. Consider what South Dakota will pay for the following:

– annual fees for participation in a consortium ($2,041,885.50 for 2014-2017)

– consultant services for administration, scoring, and reporting ($3,859,927.09 for 2014-2017)

– various forms, materials, data forensic analysis, inventory of student responses documentation, committee meetings and Institutions of Higher Education (HIE) reporting ($4,105,660.95 for 2014-2017)

– the per-pupil cost of the summative assessments is predicted to be $30-$40. That would place the average summative assessment cost for South Dakota students at $7,483,350.00 for 2014-2017 PLUS the cost of the interim and formative assessments. If that per-pupil cost applies to the other contracted assessments, an additional cost of $5,743,719.00 would be needed to pay for assessments, ballooning the total cost for assessments over the three-year agreement to: $13,227,060.00.

– the future cost of supplying students with personal touch screen iPads (no firm estimate available)  

All this expense, and South Dakota does not even own the results – the consortium has all the rights!   

 

Dr. Schopp is a participant in the governance structure of the Smarter Balanced Consortium and her name appears on the list of steering committee and work group representatives. Examination of the Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) with SBAC reveals that it is the responsibility of those members to “address barriers in State law, statute, regulation, or policy…to the full implementation of the summative assessment components of the system“. Other states who signed MOU’s listed existing and anticipated barriers to implementation on the page directly preceding the official signatures. Oddly, South Dakota’s MOU document revealed no barriers. Why? This is important because:

– SDCL 13-3-51.2 is an existing barrier to the consortium from gathering psychometric information as they describe in Section C of the MOU. There are efforts in this session to weaken this law to satisfy the voracious data collection drive of the consortium and other parties.

– Another existing barrier is South Dakota’s lack of a state budget item to fund technology and assessments. SB53 this year seeks to change that situation on page 5, lines 2-6. Once established through SB53, this budget item would favor education technology for the instruction of students and de-emphasize the importance of teachers in the classroom.

– HB 1093 filed this year represents a potential barrier to the consortium from achieving their 95% participation goal. The right of parents to direct the education of their own children is overshadowed by the needs of the consortium. 

 

Dr. Schopp is a noted education reformer who has served on a high-level task force for the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) focusing on the transformation of school learning environments. The CCSSO is a powerful national lobbying organization as well as a co-owner of the copyrighted Common Core Standards.

Please remember that in addition to her role as the head of the Executive Branch Department of Education, Secretary Schopp is also the change agent representing the Smarter Balanced Consortium and the CCSSO when she gives testimony and evasive responses to your questions in committee – and in every other venue.

As a volunteer lobbyist, I must accurately disclose whose interests I serve when speaking on the record. Likewise, full disclosure should be required of the Secretary.

 

Here is the documentation referenced above:

Excerpt from South Dakota’s Race to the Top Application signed by Governor Rounds 01/11/ 10, pg. 32:

 

Should South Dakota not receive funding under the Race to the Top initiative, the work will go forward. It will be at a slower pace. Funding has been and is being sought through other programming to such elements such as the Statewide Longitudinal Data System can move forward given the timelines indicated in this proposal. The School Improvement Grant is being developed currently and that plan will move the efforts of school reform and restructuring along in the state.

The evaluation of teachers and principals to better insure all of the students in our state will have highly effective professionals in front of

them daily will proceed. South Dakota has invested a great deal in improving the effectiveness of our education professionals. That will continue

with the help of the Bush Foundation and Teacher Quality Initiative funding that has already been received.

The work with the CCSSO Common Core Standards and Assessments will move forward as indicated.

 

 

On page 59 of the Race to the Top application is the following excerpt from the US Department of Education’s requirement of states applying for Race to the Top:

 

(B)(2) Developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments (10 points)

The extent to which the State has demonstrated its commitment to improving the quality of its assessments, evidenced by (as set forth in Appendix B) the State’s participation in a consortium of States that—

(i) Is working toward jointly developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments (as defined in this notice) aligned with the consortium’s common set of K-12 standards (as defined in this notice); and

(ii) Includes a significant number of States.

 

In the text box below, the State shall describe its current status in meeting the criterion. The narrative or attachments shall also include, at a minimum, the evidence listed below, and how each piece of evidence demonstrates the State’s success in meeting the criterion. The narrative and attachments may also include any additional information the State believes will be helpful to peer reviewers. For attachments included in the Appendix, note in the narrative the location where the attachments can be found.

 

Evidence for (B)(2):

 A copy of the Memorandum of Agreement, executed by the State, showing that it is part of a consortium that intends to develop high-quality assessments (as defined in this notice) aligned with the consortium’s common set of K-12 standards; or documentation that the State’s consortium has applied, or intends to apply, for a grant through the separate Race to the Top Assessment Program (to be described in a subsequent notice); or other evidence of the State’s plan to develop and adopt common, high-quality assessments (as defined in this notice).

 The number of States participating in the assessment consortium and the list of these States.

Recommended maximum response length: One page

 

South Dakota‘s response to (B)(2) above, proving that the above criterion has been met:

 

ATTACHMENTS RELATED TO THIS SECTION

1 – MOU – from CCSSO Standards and Assessment work

 

The partnership with the Council of Chief State Officers has also allowed South Dakota to be a partner in the work they will do in creating assessments to align with the Common Core Standards work. Again, as stated in the MOU, “…the goal is to establish

an on-going development process that can support continuous improvement of this first version of the common core based on research and evidence-based learning and can support the development of assessments that are aligned to the common core across

the states, for accountability and other appropriate purposes.

South Dakota is seizing the proverbial reform bull by the horns and working to strengthen its data accountability systems.

This will apply not only for the endeavor detailed in this application, the AIII [American Indian Institute for Innovation] STEM Academy, but for its entire educational system.

The opportunity to align the new common core standards with the development of complementary and rigorous assessments will be a win-win for our students, educators, and communities.

Again, South Dakota and its STEM team will also be pursuing the development of internationally benchmarked assessments of project-based learning that aligns with the work to be done at the AIII Academy and the Race to the Top participating LEAs. The results of these assessments of student growth in applied learning will also be published and made available to all stake holders through the AIII STEM Network and used to make adjustments to the project’s work. Again, the final step, after the results have been analyzed and revised, will be to move the work out into the state to be used by all LEAs that are implementing the project based STEM learning. Educational Service Agency staffs will also be instrumental in this process.

According to the most recent update to the Council of Chief State Officers website, there are 48 states and two territories that have signed on to this initiative.

Assessments have not yet been developed, but the MOU attached for the previous section demonstrates South Dakota’s membership in this consortium and the consortium’s statement that assessment work will result.

The consortium members are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia,

Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North

Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota,

Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

 

Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding any of this information.

 

Respectfully,

Tonchi (Toni) Weaver

SD Citizens For Liberty, Inc.

Rapid City, SD  

348-7521 (h) 390-4078 (c)

***Tonchi Weaver*** is a conservative activist and Life and Liberty News contributor