Call the Legislative Hotline at 1.800.562.6000
Ask legislators to support HB 1891 to delay the adoption and implementation of the CCSS. Ask them to request a hearing on HB 1891.
The Common Core State Standards are not in the best interest of Washington students, parents, or taxpayers.
Where’s the Money?
The Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) was required by HB 6696 (2009-10) to submit a report to the legislature by January 1, 2011. It appears that this report was not available to the public until February 1, 2011, just days prior to a House Education Committee hearing for HB 1443 which was related to the adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). OSPI’s report, Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics: Analysis and Recommendations Report to the Legislature January 2011, was to include estimated costs to state and school districts for the implementation of the CCSS. One might expect the report to include information about how the implementation would be funded.
In going through this report I easily found the estimated costs for the CCSS implementation. It is interesting that the estimated state costs are 9.4% and the local district costs are 90.6% of a five year total estimate of $182,600,000. After seeing the estimated costs, I was curious as to how OSPI planned for the state and the local districts to pay them. After looking at and trying to decipher the information about the funding sources, I am still curious. Where's the Money? Show Me the Money! That's what's missing. OSPI has identified funds for all but $4,750,000 of the five year estimated state level costs. As for the five year estimated local district costs of $165,500,000, OSPI has identified potential funding sources that may be used, but local district level funds available are indeterminate. The question remains, HOW WILL THE LOCAL DISTRICTS PAY THEIR COSTS? Local taxpayers guard your wallets, bank accounts, and first born---local districts will be looking to take what you have whether you like it or not.
OSPI is willing to make a major commitment on behalf of the local districts without showing or ascertaining that funds are available to meet the fiscal obligation. Doesn't sound fiscally responsible to me. Do you, personally, make major financial commitments without first determining if you can meet the obligation? The state may be making just such a commitment for you---the taxpayer. Is it okay with you?
| Estimated Costs for CCSS Implementation | ||
| Estimated State Level Costs | Per Fiscal Year | Five Year Total |
| 2010-11 (FY 11)* | $2,500,000 | |
| 2011-12 (FY 12)* | $3,400,000 | |
| 2012-13 (FY 13)* | $3,600,000 | |
| 2013-14 (FY 14)* | $3,800,000 | |
| 2014-15 (FY 15)* | $3,800,000 | |
| Total Five Year Estimated State Level Costs | | $17,100,000 |
| | | |
| Estimated District Level Costs | | |
| 2010-11 (FY 11)* | $25,300,000 | |
| 2011-12 (FY 12)* | $29,600,000 | |
| 2012-13 (FY 13)* | $35,100,000 | |
| 2013-14 (FY 14)* | $41,800,000 | |
| 2014-15 (FY 15)* | $33,700,000 | |
| Total Five Year Estimated District Level Costs | | $165,500,000 |
| | | |
| Total Five Year Estimated State Level and District Level Costs | | $182,600,000 |
| | | |
| *Yearly cost estimates are from the OSPI report. See Pages 24 and 29. | ||
| Funding Sources for CCSS Implementation | |||
| Funding Sources for the Implementation of the CCSS | Annual | Five Year Total | |
| State Level Sources | | | |
| State Assessment Budget* | $150,000 | $750,000 | |
| State Funding for Regional Mathematics Coordinators* | $1,600,000 | $8,000,000 | |
| Title II, Part A, Teacher and Principal Quality (federal)* | $510,000 | $2,550,000 | |
| Title II, Part B, Math Science Partnership Grant Funds (federal)* | $125,000 | $625,000 | |
| School Improvement Grant Funds (federal)* | no amount provided | | |
| SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortia (SBAC) Supplemental Grant $250,000–$300,000 over four years* | | $300,000 | |
| | | | |
| Five Year Total of State Level Fund Sources | | $12,225,000 | |
| Estimated Five Year State Level Costs Total | | $17,100,000 | |
| | | | |
| Est. State Level Costs Minus State Level Fund Sources | | $4,875,000 | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| District Level Sources* | | | |
| Basic Education Funding (state) # Title I (federal) and Learning Assistance Program (LAP, state) & Title II, Part A, Teacher and Principal Quality (federal) % School Improvement Grant Funds (SIG, federal) & Title II, Part B, Math Science Partnership Grant Funds (federal) @ | Unable to determine amounts | indeterminate | |
| The district level funding sources have been identified and listed above. Given the information in the report it is not possible to determine the amount of funds from any given source that would be allocated to support the implementation of the CCSS. Districts may have commitments for funds, or portions of funds, from any given source that would preclude them from being available to support the implementation of the CCSS. | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| Estimated Five Year District Level Costs Total | $165,500,000 | ||
| | |||
| * Fund source information is from the OSPI report. State level sources pages 25-26. District level sources pages 30-32. | |||
| # Figures presented were not consistent and could not be used to determine any annual or five year total amount of funds available | |||
| & An unspecified portion of an undisclosed amount may be used by qualifying districts | |||
| % An unspecified portion of an undisclosed amount may be used according to individual district’s comprehensive plan | |||
| @ WA receives $2.5 million of which $2 million may support implementation efforts | |||
| | |||
The OSPI report does not provide a budget for the implementation. If a budget is considered to be a list of all planned expenses and revenues, the OSPI report falls far short with its information. It provides estimated expenses and potential revenue sources, but the potential revenue sources do not all include available revenues. Taxpayers, local school district administrators, parents, voters, and legislators should all demand a full accounting from OSPI showing revenues equal to or greater than estimated expenses.
How will Washington pay for the CCSS implementation?
We still don’t know where the money is.
OSPI’s Report
To find information about the CCSS and related Issues check out the following links:
Betrayed - Why Public Education Is Failing
BobDeantalk.com Comments on Education and Politics
A weather blog? Yes! The politicians need to know which way the wind is blowing. Look for entries about the CCSS and math.
Common Core State Standards Related Articles, Documents, Websites, and Blogs
OSPI Budget Info Related to Standards
Washington State & the Common Core State Standards
Please call and email your WA State legislators and members of the House Education Committee and ask them to support legislation that will repeal or delay the adoption and implementation of the CCSS and to vote no on any legislation to adopt and implement the CCSS.
Call the Legislative Hotline at 1.800.562.6000
Ask legislators to support HB 1891 to delay the adoption and implementation of the CCSS. Ask them to request a hearing on HB 1891.
The Common Core State Standards are not in the best interest of Washington students, parents, or taxpayers.
To download a pdf of Where’s the Money? click here.
5 comments:
There is so much to say in response.
But for starters, the A and A- ratings from the Fordham Report were assigned by Steve Wilson (is that his name?). Wasn't he the same person who had the final say on the current WA State standards? Of course he would rate his own standards higher.
And, in addition, the cost of maintaining and supporting the existing WA State standards at the same level the Common Core Standards will be supported will be extremely high - much higher than the costs of implementing the Common Core.
And, from my perspective, as I watch the politics of all this - it is really all about control, isn't it? If we keep everything in the state, WTM folks, who have time on their hands, can make their frequent trips down to Olympia and lobby for their agenda, will continue to exercise, and try to impose, a very narrow definition of high quality math education on the students of the State of WA.
A little reflection the "truth" about this issue is that the Common Core Standards will move us much more quickly towards being internationally competitive than the current state standards. And again, that is because there will be much more support for implementation, there will better textbooks available, the assessment system will be far superior, etc. than what we can do within the state. OSPI simply does not have the capacity to support the current standards in a way the supports students and teachers well. (Perhaps some of your organization are the same folks who are saying "no more taxes" constantly.
There is more to say. /. . . .
Anonymous - How will the cost to maintain the current math standards be higher than implementing the new standards? The current standards have been reviewed with the teachers and teachers have been trained. Textbooks have been purchased. The standards are already online. Please explain your thinking in that comment. As a taxpayer, why would you want to spend any money (state or local) to change the math standards once again and this time, they are WORSE than the ones we currently have? This taxpayer doesn't want to spend another dime on new math standards.
I am not a WTM member but I do agree with their views on math education in Washington. I attend legislative hearings when I can and I take time off from work to attend the hearings. I assume the WTM folks do the same.
Please explain your logic in "the Common Core Standards will move us much more quickly towards being internationally competitive than the current state standards."
In reality, it will take another 11 years for the state to realize the positive impact the current math standards have on Washington's students. All the students who were above 4th grade when the new standards were implemented were mathematically handicapped by the old standards. I know because my 18 year old is one of them. The reform math (old standards) was put in place when she entered kindergarten and she grew up without having instant recall of math facts and I didn't know until she was in 9th grade that she never learned long-division (not required under the old standards). She asked me a question while I was at the computer and I told her to figure out the answer by dividing it. She started to run to get her calculator and I told her that she could either do it in her head or scratch it out on the paper she had with her. She said she never learned long-division (which I knew wasn't required but figured she had a teacher who taught it to her like my younger daughter's teacher did). She will be the first to tell you that she was let down by the education system. Luckily, once she got into middle school, her district still had traditional math and she was able to make it through high school math and took her one required college math clas last quarter and passed with a 3.7. She was only able to do that because of the traditional math education she received after elementary school (which is no longer offered in middle school despite the fact that the math standards changed in 2008).
The downward spiral of math education took over a decade to crash and it is going to take over a decade to recover.
Anonymous - have actually compared the current Washington math standards to the CCSS math standards? If not, you need to. The Washington standards provide examples so teachers, parents, and students can get an idea of what each standard actually wants students to learn. The CCSS does not. The CCSS does not (at least not that I can find) require students to have instant recall of their basic math facts but it does require instant recall of two-digit numbers and they are, in my opinion, a year later than they should be.
Until you've actually compared the two, you should not be commenting on them. If you have compared them, I don't understand how you can think the CCSS are better than the current Washington math standards.
My last question. Do you have kids currently in the K-12 public education system? I do have kids in the public education system and I'm tired of the math problem that the 2008 math standards finally corrected. I'm sorry, but I just don't trust the education establishment with math anymore--I've seen, firsthand, the damage they can do when they try to "fix" math education. They create a mess and blame it on everyone except themselves.
To Anonymous
Just so you know, Steve Wilson is a big fan of the Common Core Standards and supports their adoption.
Considering the $182 million start up costs to change to Common Core it will take years for the state of Washington to break even by what they might save (pure speculation) on the Common Core. And that doesn't count throwing away the more than $100 million in implementing our current standards.
Steve Wilson was extremely kind in giving the CCSS math standards an A- I would give them an F as being almost totally unusable by the majority of stakeholders. They will be a disaster.
What the SBAC, directed by the architect of our WASL, and the PARCC, directed by Achieve, will accomplish is to give us a national WASL disaster. Hopefully when more people understand that what they are doing is a violation of federal law under sec 103b of Pubic Law 96-88 Oct 17,1979 they will be shut down and defunded.
Dear Anonymous (3:50 p.m.):
Your comments are in bold. My response follows.
Of course [Steve Wilson] would rate his own standards higher.
This is the same unsupported and slanderous statement made by OSPI staff when they visited Spokane to peddle the CCSS. Where is your support for this statement?
the cost of maintaining and supporting the existing WA State standards ... will be extremely high - much higher than the costs of implementing the Common Core.
This is the same unlikely and unsupported claim made by OSPI staff when they visited Spokane to peddle the CCSS. Where is your support for this statement?
it is really all about control, isn't it?
This is a true statement. It is all about control. The people who are forcing the CCSS down the throat of Washington taxpayers are working hard to wrest all control from the people who actually have the children's best interests at heart - their parents and teachers.
If we keep everything in the state, WTM folks, who have time on their hands, can make their frequent trips down to Olympia and lobby for their agenda
Don't you mean "WTM folks who take time away from their jobs and families to travel on their own dime (as opposed to the taxpayer dime) to exercise their rights as American citizens to free speech, to freely assemble, and to address grievances"? Or is it just people who agree with you who should get to testify in Olympia?
There you have it, folks: The real CCSS agenda. It's much easier to force your agenda on the people when they have no say at all.
the Common Core Standards will move us much more quickly towards being internationally competitive ... there will better textbooks available, the assessment system will be far superior
Wow. And keep the world safe for democracy no doubt. You have certainly drunk the Koolaid. These are the same wild, unsupported claims made by OSPI staff when they visited Spokane to peddle the CCSS. Where is your support for these statements?
There is more to say.
I hope if you say it, you include something of substance to back it up, because you did a very weak job here.
You sound familiar, Anonymous. Are you sure you don't work for OSPI?
At least you have some costs given to your legislature. Our Department of Education, based on letters we circulated to that agency via parents and cc'd to our legislators, said there would be no cost to Missouri!
I've uncovered a document stating it has at least $1.4 million unfunded over three years, and I know that is just the tip of the iceberg. We also have a high ranking Education Senator (Republican) stating that there is no cost to Missouri and districts don't have to sign onto the common core if they don't want to.
Sigh.
Post a Comment