Eagle Forum of Alabama supports the ALSDE in movements toward greater flexibility and independence from the federal government. This approach will yield greater positive results for student achievement, involved parents, and inspired educators. Please encourage your Alabama State Board of Education member to vote down the plan unless these important changes our made. Contact your Alabama State Board of Education member today. Tell them to oppose the plan as submitted because SEL, Common Core and invasive data collection harm Alabama’s students. We want true academically superior standards and programs. Contact your board members now!
October 5, 2017
Alabama Consolidated State Plan Recommendations (9-26-2017 Draft)
Alabama is a sovereign state of the United States of America. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reserves the right of Alabama to govern its own education programs. It states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The statutory purpose of ESSA is to “allow States and LEAs the flexibility to target Federal funds to the programs and activities that most effectively address the unique needs of Sates and LEAs.” Sec. 5102. ESSA further states that, “Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, LEA, or school’s specific instructional content, academic standards and assessments, curriculum or program of instruction, as a condition of eligibility to receive funds under this Act.”
1. Alabama’s Consolidated State Plan should acknowledge Alabama’s protection from federal control restored under ESSA, and reflect this statutory return of power to Alabama’s education authorities throughout our Plan. (Page 2)
2. Remove social and emotional learning requirements, along with other complicated psychological evaluation that exceeds the training of public school educators and administrators. (Page 2)
3. Remove mandatory requirements to use “College and Career Readiness” standards (also known as ‘Common Core’ Standards), and allow ALSDE the flexibility to use other standards as well as CCR. (Page 4)
4. Eliminate supplemental information that is superfluous that can result in creating unintentional requirements and unintentional relinquishment of state control to the federal government. (Page 8)
5. Remove ‘birth’ from the age requirement in Early Childhood Education. (Page 9)
6. Replace “democracy” with “the United States Constitution and how a Republic” works. (Page 10)
7. Remove references to “every student” and “all students,” and replace with “every public school student,” and “all public school students.” (Page 10)
Eagle Forum of Alabama Recommendations the Following Changes to the Revises State Template for the Consolidated State Plan 2-26-2017 Draft:
In order to establish a high-performing system of public schools, and to enhance the experience of Alabama’s education for its students, parents, teachers, and administrators, Eagle Forum of Alabama recommends the following:
- Alabama’s Consolidated State Plan should acknowledge Alabama’s protection from federal control, and reflect this statutory return of power to Alabama’s education authorities throughout our Plan. The statutory purpose of ESSA is to “allow States and LEAs the flexibility to target Federal funds to the programs and activities that most effectively address the unique needs of Sates and LEAs.” Sec. 5102. ESSA further states that, “Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, LEA, or school’s specific instructional content, academic standards and assessments, curriculum or program of instruction, as a condition of eligibility to receive funds under this Act.”RECOMMENDATION: Overview, Page 7, paragraph 6, remove and add wording:On March 14, 2016, … Executive Order Number 16 (Appendix A) establishing an ESSA Implementation Committee, states in part:WHEREAS, offering greater stability and flexibility, the ESSA allows states to determine best practices for the implementation of academic standards, testing, accountability, school improvement, and teacher quality;WHEREAS, giving states control of academic standards, prohibiting the Secretary of Education and other federal agent from incentivizing states into adopting specific standards, this flexibility will allow governors to tailor state plans to best fit the needs of local communities;Therefore the governor authorized the following appointees to “The Alabama ESSA Committee: Appointees were”
Remove social and emotional learning requirements, along with other complicated psychological evaluation that exceeds the training of public school educators and administrators. This is not the role of public school educators, and these issues fall outside of the ALSDE purview. They may violate parents’ rights, and will likely result in unknown costs to the education system including legal fees.
“When the Every Student Succeeds Act was enacted, speculation swirled that states might use it as a launching pad to use measures of students’ social and emotional competencies to determine whether their schools are successful. Nearly two years later, not a single state’s plan to comply with the federal education law—and its broader vision for judging school performance—calls for inclusion of such measures in its school accountability system.”
- [Emphasis mine.] Blad, Evie “No State Will Measure Social-Emotional Learning Under ESSA. Will That Slow Its Movement?” Education Week. (October 4, 2017) 4 pages.RECOMMENDATION: Pages 34-35, remove wording:“Strategies and Activities: Create Restorative Justice practices for school discipline – Restorative Justice is a powerful approach to unacceptable or at-risk behaviors that focuses on retooling consequences so that they are less negative and punitive. Rather, the consequences involve constructively “repairing” the “damage” done by the student in a way that shifts the focus from punishment to learning” … “Train LEAs on Positive Behavior Supports philosophy (PBIS) o Work with LEAs that have high numbers of out-of-school suspensions and expulsions of special education students. o Analyze the data determining the incidents, develop a plan, implement the PBIS philosophy to fidelity and review the data, adjust strategies as needed. o Review the end-of-year data. o Support all schools and LEAs in the PBIS philosophy. o Support all schools and LEAs in the PBIS philosophy.”
RECOMMENDATION: Pages 35, remove wording:
Bullying PLU/CEU – Collaborative effort of the ALSDE and Alabama Education Association (AEA): Closing Achievement Gaps through Community Conversations that Lead to Collective Action – The Community Conversation focuses on helping a broad cross-section of the community engage in a discussion about how all students can be free of bullying. It is about meeting the educational and social emotional needs of children-as well as their health needs-and engaging families and communities in addressing those needs as prerequisites to learning in school.
RECOMMENDATION: Pages 24, remove wording:
The ALSDE has recently organized and is finalizing the staffing plan of its Office of School Improvement and Turnaround (OSIT). A primary function of this office will be to create and review existing policies and practices for school improvement and intervention, in addition to developing supports for the LEAs requiring assistance. These supports will include evidence-based improvement strategies and models; addressing human capital capacity through professional learning and development; school and district audits with action planning to address priority needs; matching schools and districts with vetted external partners to address specific needs; and technical assistance by a cadre of OSIT staff that includes academic content experts, school improvement and strategy personnel, in addition to climate, culture, and mental health specialists.
RECOMMENDATION: Pages 51, remove and add wording:
The ALSDE will use Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1 state-level funds to support activities to address behaviors identified through the ALSDE’s data collection sources such as Attendance Reports, School Safety Reports, Student Health Reports and Students Incident Reports (discipline). Some examples of state-level activities, not an exhaustive list, follow:
- Promoting community and parent involvement in schools.
- Providing school-based mental health services and counseling.
- Promoting supportive school climates to reduce the use of exclusionary discipline and promoting supportive school
- Establishing or improving dropout prevention.
- Identifying and utilizing strategies to address chronic absenteeism.
- Supporting re-entry programs and transition services for justice-involved youth.
- Implementing programs that support a healthy, active lifestyle (nutritional and physical education).
- Implementing systems and practices to prevent bullying and harassment.
- Developing relationship building skills to help improve safety through the recognition and prevention of coercion, violence, or abuse. conflict resolution programs.
- Establishing community partnerships.
3. Remove mandatory requirements to use “College and Career Readiness” standards (also known as ‘Common Core’ Standards), and allow ALSDE the flexibility to use other standards as well as CCR. The 2015 NAEP results place Alabama dead last in Math and English in the Nation. This is a significant decline from where Alabama was trending before Common Core/College and Career Readiness Standards were implemented in 2012 – 2013. Prior to implementation of these standards, Alabama had been trending upward.
The terms ‘college and career’, ‘college and career readiness,’ and ‘world-class expectations’ have pre-defined meanings connected to common core standards. These terms would otherwise have highly favorable implications for Alabama education if they actually resulted in a “world-class education” or an education that truly equipped ALL Alabama students for the future. However, these terms have been nationally hijacked by Common Core advocates to embrace common core standards which fail to equip some students with the ability to pursue a college education following high school graduation. Further, these standards have been proven to be conspicuously detrimental Alabama students’ academic education. Effectively, a “career or career readiness” path may limit students’ job opportunities to the labor pool or lower paying jobs. Rather than equipping students with a world-class education or inspiring students to dream of future college possibilities and equipping them to pursue such possibilities, a career readiness path can mean limiting Alabama students’ creativity, potential and education. More importantly,using these terms in the Alabama Consolidated State Plan, straps the ALSDE and Alabama students, educators and administrators to predefined national standards and assessments resulting in federal expectations and oversight. This is a violation of the ESSA Act. See Introduction.
RECOMMENDATION: Page 18, Baseline Date paragraph, remove and add wording:
Alabama’s English proficiency assessment went through a standards setting study in 2016 in order to meet the rigorous Alabama language demands. of College and Career Readiness standards. Alabama will use the 2016-2017 school year test results for baseline data.
RECOMMENDATION: Page 20, paragraph 2., remove wording:
Alabama’s English proficiency assessment went through a standards setting study in 2016 in order to meet the rigorous language acquisition demands of College and Career Readiness standards. Therefore, Alabama will re-calculate the target percentages with the 2016-2017 baseline data once we have two years of data. Alabama’s EL committee compared our English language proficiency assessment to other states that use the same assessment to set targets for growth.
RECOMMENDATION: Page 21, paragraph iv.,a., remove bullet labeled “CCR – (College and Career Readiness)(Schools with a Grade 12) from the Alabama ESSA indicators graph. It is the second bullet in the purple box located on bottom right of the graph. The purple box is labeled “School Quality/Student.” This is a second and unnecessary indicator, that can be easily replaced:
RECOMMENDATION: Page 23-24, paragraph iv.,e., remove paragraph and graph:
Alabama understands the impact school has on career and or college success. As a result, we have included our college and career ready indicator as another measureable indicator for high schools in this area. Students have multiple opportunities to be declared college and/or career ready. Students can be identified as college or career ready by the successful completion of one of six options. Our goal is that our students will benefit from challenging, world-class standards in all subjects. One of the supporting structures for this goal is that all students will earn at least one college or career readiness indicator prior to leaving school. As a measure of success, our goal is to increase the college and career readiness rate of all students in a cohort to 94% by 2030. The six indicators of college and career readiness currently utilized are achieving a benchmark score on the ACT, scoring a 3, 4, or 5 on an Advanced Placement exam/scoring a 4, 5, 6, or 7 on an International Baccalaureate exam, scoring silver level or above on ACT Work Keys, earning a transcripted college credit while still in high school, earning an Industry Credential, or being accepted for enlistement into any branch of the military. These indicators are periodically revisted to determine if additional indicators need to be included. A screen shot of the current Alabama College and Career Readiness Dashboard can be found in Appendix C.
Re-letter Appendixes D to C, and E to D.
Remove this graph as well:
RECOMMENDATION: Page 26, Schools with Grade 12, and bottom picture to reflect percentage changes, remove and add information:
Schools with a Grade 12:
- Academic Achievement as measured by proficiency: 20 25%
- Growth as measured by Learning Gains: 25 30%
- Graduation Rate: 30%
- Progress in ELP: 5%
- School Quality/Student Success: Attendance (Chronic Absenteeism): 10%
- College and/or Career Ready: 10%
RECOMMENDATION: Page 45, paragraph 4, remove wording:
Title II, Part A state-level funding will support the needs of educators statewide by funding a variety of a professional learning opportunities designed to assist teachers, principals, and other school leaders with resources to identify students’ specific learning needs. These opportunities will offer professional learning that is designed to address the needs of students with disabilities, students at-risk of failing and not meeting state academic standards, English Language students, gifted and talented students, students transitioning from neglected and delinquent facilities, homeless students, and foster care students. Currently this is being accomplished through various means to include both seminars and virtual opportunities. Alabama’s eLearning uses a web-based model to provide educators with effective professional learning that leads to gains in content knowledge, improvements in their practices and increases in achievement of their students. In addion, Alabama Learning Exchange (ALEX) web portal delivers and sustains support for teaching, leading and learning through a repository of lesson plans, podcasts, web resources and learning assets aligned to Alabama’s College and Career Ready Standards. This portal also houses ALEX Resource Development Summits, Girls Engaged in Math and Science(GEM-U), ALEX Certification for Excellence Program, Podcast Camps, Project –Based Learning seminars and training sessions, and Alabama History digital Content eTextbook Resource Project. These resources in addition to the face-to-face professional learning opportunities assist in addressing special population students
RECOMMENDATION: Page 69, remove Appendix C, and Re-letter Appendixes D to C, and E to D.
Eliminate supplemental information that is superfluous and can result in creating unintentional requirements and unintentional relinquishment of state control to the federal government. We do not want to limit the way in which Alabama is allowed to use the federal dollars, nor do we want to obligate ALSDE to utilize our allotment in any particular way, now or in the future.
RECOMMENDATION: Page 7, paragraph 2, remove and add wording:
“This law requires the state to use state-authorized Alabama will use assessments and other key performance indicators that give a total profile of the school or school system, or both, a school’s grade, at a minimum shall be based on a combination of student achievement scores, achievement gap, college and career readiness, learning gains, and other indicators as determined by the State Superintendent of Education to impact student learning and success.”
RECOMMENDATION: Page 9, paragraphs 1, remove and add wording:
“…Recognizing that our students and teachers need access to technology to personalize instruction and learning, Alabama recently funded, with the help of E-Rate, wireless access to support 30 devices in every classroom in every school to provide the essential infrastructure for technology rich learning. Our next step is to increase the number of portable devices and technology tools for students in those classrooms for use in coding, robotics and other STEM courses. Teachers will need avail themselves to continuing quality professional development in the use of these 21st century learning tools and resources.”
We do not want students to increase the use of electronic devises unless absolutely necessary. “Study by faculty members at West Point finds students perform better academically when laptops and tablets are banned from the classroom.” Straumsheim, Carl. “Leave It In the Bag.” Inside Higher Ed (May 13, 2016) 10 Pages.
- RECOMMENDATION: Page 18, paragraph 4.c, remove wording:To fulfill ESSA requirements,ALSDE has created long-term goals for English learners to determine increases in the percentage of students making progress in achieving English proficiency that are both ambitious and achievable.RECOMMENDATION: Page 20, paragraph 2., remove and add wording:
As a part of ensuring that English learners succeed and meet the long-term goals, the ALSDE has collaborated with the Southeast Comprehensive Center (SECC). The SECC will support ALSDE with co-developing will develop an EL Plan that will guide local education agencies and schools with supports designed to enhance and improve instructional programs for EL students. This project will include co-planning and co-facilitation of EL stakeholder meetings for developing the plan. SECC will provide ALSDE with expertise, resources, strategies, and tools for working with ELs. In addition to developing an EL plan and resources, the SECC support will enable the ALSDE to will measure the impact professional learning has on EL students and the change in practice at the local level.RECOMMENDATION: Page 20, paragraph iv.,a., remove wording:Alabama embraces utilizing multiple measures for student success and is working to create a system of public education that is equitable, accountable and just. Through meetings with various stakeholders, the Alabama ESSA Accountability Workgroup, and other state-wide meetings, it was apparent that stakeholders shared an interest in having indicators supportive of Alabama’s personal allegiance to the continuous self-improvement and commitment to helping children find their success. not only in school but in their careers and lives thereafter.RECOMMENDATION: Pages 27-29, remove all yellow highlighting. The yellow highlights set up a new, unnecessary, costly state agency called the Office of School Improvement and Turnaround (OSIT.) Existing ALSDE currently performs these responsibilities.RECOMMENDATION: Page 36-37, remove entire REACH section. This is another new, unnecessary, costly state program that will put a strain on existing ALSDE staff and limited resources.
Remove “birth” from age requirement in Early Childhood Education. The Plan currently requires Alabama to provide early childhood education from birth through third grade. Alabamians strongly disagree about the value of early childhood education. Certainly infants and toddlers are not pursuing an academic education as charged by the ALSDE. Not to mention, that there are exorbitant costs associated with these programs. The Department currently doesn’t require any formal education until age 7. Further, there is proof that there is little value if any in early childhood education, and that any gain is quickly lost by th third grade. Since Alabama is not required to commit to an early childhood education it is certainly unnecessary to commit to begin education for families at birth. This is can be extremely invasive and violative of parental rights. Therefore, to do so will place unnecessary requirements on Alabama’s students, educators and administrators, not to mention a cost burden we are not capable of bearing. Alabama should not commit to this age requirement in our State Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Page 9, paragraph 2, remove wording:
Additionally, Alabama is committed to providing a strong educational foundation built by a high quality early childhood education (birth through third grade). The Every Student Succeeds Act provides an opportunity to address the importance of high quality early learning experiences, and to support the development of a seamless learning continuum providing the fundamental skills needed to succeed in later years. Alabama will work with LEAs to enhance early learning and improve coordination and alignment of early learning programs from birth through third grade across Titles I, II, III, IV, V, and VII. Please refer to Appendix D C for all allowable uses of Title funds.
Alabama students need to understand the requirements of the United States Constitution and how a “Republic” works. The ACSP summarizes the ‘world-class expectations’ for students. It is commendable that the ACSP encourages students to understand the requirements of our government, an essential component of a well-educated society; however, the ACSP inaccurately identifies the United States government as a democracy. The United States is not a democracy; it is a REPUBLIC! Two very different forms of government. This wording is a poor reflection on Alabama’s academic improvement.
RECOMMENDATION: Page 9, paragraph 1, replace wording:
“… public schools that challenges all children with world-class expectations for understanding English and its rich literature, mathematics, history and the requirements of a democracy the United States Constitution and how our Republic works, the sciences and the arts.”
RECOMMENDATION: Page 10, paragraph 1(4), replace wording:
“… that challenges all children with world-class expectations for understanding English and its rich literature, mathematics, history and the requirements of a democracy the United States Constitution and how our Republic works, the sciences and the arts. Such a system demands educators with a deep understanding of the subject being taught, a personal allegiance to continuous self-improvement and a commitment to helping all children find their success in school, careers, and their lives.”
7. Remove the repeated references to “every student” and “all students,” and replace with “every public school student,” and “all public school students.” We have private school students and homeschooled students, who do not come under this act. This language is potentially harmful to unintended recipients.
RECOMMENDATION: Do a document search and replace appropriately.
MARGARET SMITHSON CLARKE, Esq. (ret.)
Policy Analyst, Eagle Forum of Alabama
Please contact your State Board of Education Member to vote against the ESSA Plan
With the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (the replacement for No a Child Left Behind), each state is submitting its ESSA implementation plan (The Plan) to the federal Department of Education.
When approved by the State Board of Education and Governor Kay Ivey, it will become a legally binding agreement between Alabama and the USDOE. Here is the current ESSA state draft from ALSDE’s website
The ESSA Implementation Committee was formed by Governor Bentley to provide input into our state ESSA plan. ESSA requires input from stakeholders and parents. Three members of the committee were Eagle Forum of Alabama leaders with expertise in education issues. All three are also legal professionals. After the plan was completed and released, these three and other ESSA members closely reviewed the plan and provided their concerns in a formal report linked here. Eagle Forum of Alabama has met with Superintendent Sentance on three occasions to discuss our concerns. The review has also been provided to each member of the state board. To date, these concerns have not been addressed in The Plan even after we had been assured that they would be. While there are a number of concerns with The Plan as written, two major concerns are:
- The reference to Alabama College and Career Standards, which is Common Core.
Putting these words in this legal document means that even if the board were to vote to repeal Common
Core, the state could still well be bound to keep standards based upon Common Core.
- Programs promoting Social Emotional Learning and other invasive programs.
While many lofty words can be used to describe this latest fad in education, basically it is
teaching students what government officials think are “proper” thoughts, attitudes and beliefs.
This is the purview of parents, not the government. Eagle Forum has been assured that SEL would not be used in Alabama schools. But, it was addressed in a number of sessions at this summer’s MEGA conference for teachers, and Superintendent Sentance recently sent out a letter inviting all interested parties to a training session on SEL.
Please contact your State Board of Education Member to ask that they vote against this ESSA contract with the federal government unless The Plan is significantly revised and the invasive programs have been removed.
August 17, 2017
Eagle Forum of Alabama has conducted an extensive review on ESSA and the Consolidated State ESSA Plan (“The Plan”) for Alabama. Eagle Forum of Alabama has reviewed committee reports from the strategic planning committees formed by Superintendent Sentance and the Alabama Ascending Plan and has studied the ESSA Implementation documents and report in addition to the Consolidated State ESSA Plan because all are attached or were referenced as sources for the consolidated draft plan from Superintendent Sentance. Eagle Forum of Alabama diligently monitored, researched and served on implementation committees, sub-committees and attended the parental engagement tours held throughout Alabama. Eagle Forum of Alabama recorded, photographed, and collected official handouts as well as documents from every implementation committee event or meeting held in the state.
As stated by Superintendent Sentance at the State Board of Education meeting on July 11, 2017 when referring to the Consolidated State ESSA Plan for Alabama, “this is a legally binding document for the state of Alabama.” Eagle Forum of Alabama therefore recommends that Alabama utilize the greatest amount of flexibility authorized under the ESSA and revise The Plan as stated below.
- Inaccurate history of ESSA Implementation Committee and lack of student and parental involvement in ESSA implementation process
The Plan incorrectly states that all stakeholders were involved in The Plan’s development. Eagle Forum of Alabama found that parents were not properly valued or included in the process, and that it was extremely difficult for Alabama’s citizens, parents, and students to engage in the ESSA implementation process. In contrast, this process made it easy for state employees, paid lobbyists, agency heads, and state paid administrators to participate. There was also concern about possible violations of the Alabama Sunshine Law in relation to the date and time of announcements for ESSA committee meetings. Page 8 of The Plan claims that “ESSA Implementation committees worked in conjunction with Strategic Planning Committees.” This is also incorrect. There was no meeting or correspondence between these committees or bodies unless it was conducted unofficially without the consent of the general ESSA implementation committee.
The development of The Plan described on page 7 is inaccurate as well, as parents were not involved in the implementation committee or its sub-committees in a meaningful way. Neither were parents involved with the strategic planning committees in a meaningful way. The Plan therefore needs to reflect an accurate record of their lack of involvement or access. Page 14 describes an “expansive process,” in which “Alabama has been diligently engaging stakeholders”. Detailed communications were made by a committee member to the Chair Jeana Ross about the serious problems with the online survey by ESSA committee members. The questionnaire was difficult for parents to find, difficult to access from the website, and the instructions and submitting process was not working properly. While the committee member was told these problems would be addressed, this same problem for parental or public input remained during the implementation process.
- Utilize ESSA’s Opportunity for Flexibility and Local Control
The Plan should take advantage of the flexibility authorized under ESSA and adjust certain provisions accordingly.
- Both the ESSA and the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) explicitly restrict the role of the federal government in education. While GEPA puts the SEA’s in an oversight role for federal grants and asks them to encourage participation in their programs, for example, Section 438 states that none of its provisions authorize the federal government to exercise any “direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system.” Thus, the law clarifies that states should not allow undue influence by the federal government on its curriculum or published documents.
- In the present version of The Plan eight different oversight programs will be over the LEAs in Alabama. Each of these federal programs require oversight and are overly broad. (page 50-52)
- Florida’s ESSA plan requests waiver from the 95 percent testing mandate cited under ESSA section 1111(c)(4)(E) which is referenced on page 28 of the consolidated plan. Eagle Forum of Alabama recommends Alabama pursue the same waiver request from this mandate, as the federal government has no legal authority for this mandate.
- In addition, ESSA provides some prohibitions on testing mandates from the USDOE and the Secretary of USDOE. Moving control of testing and assessments back to the states is a step towards real education reform and local control. Lastly, the Superintendent and Alabama State Board of Education members have been successful in obtaining more flexibility from the current Secretary of Education by ending the Act Aspire contract.
- As State Board of Education member Jackie Ziegler pointed out during discussion of The Plan at SBOE meeting; Page 14 contains an error that needs to be changed. ACT Aspire will not be Alabama’s interim accountability system. Eagle Forum of Alabama’s research shows that Global Scantron is a Common Core aligned system as well.
- The term “Students” needs to be clearly described as public school students.
Page 9 uses the term “all students,” which is then used throughout the ESSA plan. Given that this document is purportedly “legally binding on the states” as stated by Superintendent Sentance, The Plan needs to avoid overly broad language and, therefore, clarify that the word “student” is in reference to public school students only.
- Inaccurate Description of American government promoted
The United States government has a Representative Republic form of government, not a “democracy”. “Democracy,” however, is what describes our government on page 9 of The Plan. It is of pivotal importance that students understand basic civics starting with a proper understanding of the American system of government as outlined in the United States Constitution. In order for students to understand and exercise their rights as citizens, they must have an accurate and basic knowledge of our government structure, and this error needs to be addressed.
- State Revision Procedure of Academic Standards and Assessment Section
Eagle Forum of Alabama agrees with the implementation committee recommendation that Alabama’s revision process for its academic standards should provide greater feedback to parents and the public who have concerns about the standards review process. The course of study statute addresses the process for changing course of studies. Section 16-35-1 states, “Composition; appointment, qualifications and terms of members. The State Board of Education shall appoint a courses of study committee as set forth below for the purposes and functions as hereinafter provided.” Since new data has emerged following the implementation of Common Core in Alabama, the Plan faces possible compliance issues as Common Core does not provide challenging academic standards. Eagle Forum of Alabama encourages moving Alabama forward with standards that hold a proven academic track record of growth and success.
- NAEP historical revisionism needs to be addressed
There is no acknowledgement of the correlation between Common Core implementation and failing test scores. Before Common Core implementation Alabama’s academic achievements in reading due to the Alabama Reading Initiative were acclaimed nationwide. (https://www.alsde.edu/sec/ari/History/ARI%20History.pdf) At this time, Alabama had risen from near last to 25th in overall grades and scores according to Education Week. But that was before Common Core implementation in 2012 in Math and 2013 in English.
According to 2015 NAEP tests, Alabama’s average math score in both 4th and 8th grade was the lowest of any state. Some Common Core promoters continue to blame Alabama’s poverty rate as the cause of its failing scores, but in doing so, they ignore Alabama’s previous successes under its earlier standards despite these demographics. Indeed, according to PARCA Perspective published in October of 2015, “Between 2013 and 2015, Alabama’s average score declined in both grades. …While Alabama’s higher poverty rate puts it at something of a competitive disadvantage in national comparisons, a deeper look shows it’s not Alabama demographics skewing the results. Name the group-black, white, Hispanic, poverty and non-poverty-all perform worse than their peers in all other states.” The Plan needs to adequately reflect Alabama’s NAEP history.
- Common Core reinforcement and promotional rhetoric
Eagle Forum of Alabama encourages Alabama to seek greater flexibility and independence from the federally controlled Common Core system, which promotes academically inferior standards. Common Core was not created by educators or leaders in Alabama. Therefore, it should not be represented as Alabama led or created. Alabama’s education system must move towards local and state control. Most importantly, Eagle Forum of Alabama wants academically superior standards to replace the failing Common Core standards. On page 16 of the Plan it falsely describes Common Core as “rigorous”. “Access for ELLs [English Language Learners] recently went through a standards setting study in 2016 in order to meet the rigorous language demands of College and Career Readiness Standards.” (pg. 16) As the Superintendent Sentance has stated Common Core standards are not “internationally benchmarked” nor “rigorous” standards. We recommend promoting greater flexibility for local educators and more independence from the USDOE in The Plan. The Plan should therefore remove its “College and Career ready” indicator for accountability, as tying Alabama to this indicator with 10 percent ensures the continued promotion of Common Core which has failed Alabama’s students. (pg. 21-24) The Alabama Ascending Plan also reinforces Common Core on page 6 and the Strategic Planning Committees promote Common Core throughout. Common Core is referenced in the documents as “College and Career Readiness Standards.” (pg. 16 of The Plan) In order to achieve the long term goal outlined in the Plan to “reduce the number of students not proficient in 2030 by 50%” Common Core must be replaced with superior standards.
Conflicts with data-work group recommendations and privacy concerns
The data collection sub-groups official recommendations that were unanimously supported were that no data would be collected beyond what was required by the federal government pursuant to ESSA. That means anything collected indirectly or directly for the Federal Government beyond what ESSA requires is in violation of the data sub-groups official recommendations. Eagle Forum of Alabama supports the data-sub groups unanimous recommendations to protect children from invasive data collection practices that violate student and family privacy.
- N score
The Superintendent Association, along with the data work group, recommended only providing what was legally required and nothing further. The number used for the N score is much lower than the number the state should utilize to exercise flexibility. This not only conflicts with suggestions from Alabama’s educational leaders, but it endangers student privacy and Alabama’s sovereignty. De-identified data or aggregated data can be re-identified to contain personally identifiable data. https://techscience.org/a/2015092903/ The Plan proposes a number of 20 as referenced page 13, but ESSA does not require 20 for the N score. Therefore, Eagle Forum of Alabama recommends the number of thirty or higher for the N score.
- Subjective factors that require inaccurate surveys or Personally Identifiable Data (PII) data collection
Data from areas of “student engagement,” “educator engagement,” “school climate and safety,” or any data that could lead to increased psychological profiling in the accountability scheme should not be used or listed in The Plan. Eagle Forum of Alabama recommends ALSDE use academic factors instead.
- Graduation Tracking System
The state sets out as its goal to identify students starting in 3rd grade as at risk of dropping out by using a strategy of the Graduation Tracking System (pg. 33-34). Clarification of this system is needed, as is clarification of its purposes, including its purpose: to “increase grade promotion rates leading to students graduating on time.” This language is unduly vague and without clarification, leaves room for ineffective instruction and undue grade promotion. Significantly tracking systems usually hold high dangers for student privacy and Alabama currently has no comprehensive student privacy protections. Labeling students at an early age can be very detrimental in tracking systems. Lastly, this tracking system contains an inherent flaw by allowing the criteria to be constantly shifted. (pg. 34) Eagle Forum of Alabama advises not including any tracking systems in The Plan.
- Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Privacy Concerns
School-based counseling and mental health programs should not be expanded at this time, as there is no way to protect this data. FERPA has been critically weakened by USDOE and is outdated as it was passed in 1974. The law is antiquated in addressing the technological changes in society. In Alabama, the Comprehensive Student Privacy Protection Act has not yet been passed. There is no privacy protection for Alabama’s students; therefore, students will be harmed by PBIS. It should not be included in The Plan.
- Diagnostic testing for 5k and mandatory four-year plan
The diagnostic testing requirements listed in the Alabama Ascending Plan for entering kindergarten have not been fully defined, and not enough information has been provided. Any such pre-assessments should only serve to improve the teachers’ approach and shouldn’t be tied to any state or local assessment. In regards to The Plan we recommend that any reference to an assessment aligned to the diagnostic testing be dropped.
The four-year plan in 8th grade described in Alabama Ascending is a continuation of an earlier model from Plan 2020. Mandatory plans of this nature are not voluntary and should be under the control of the parent and, student not included in federal agreements. In addition, states that have moved forward with mandatory four-year plans or mandatory career plans violate parental and students rights. http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/08/us/chicago-high-school-graduation-requirement/index.html Mandatory plans of this nature may face constitutional litigation from families or students as public schools are not constitutional free zones. It is best for the students and families to make these decisions. The school does not need to approve of plans or require one from the student.
- Social and Emotional Learning
- Superintendent Sentance agreed with concerned leaders and parents that social emotional learning is not the role of public educators, but the role of parents. In addition, schools are not properly equipped or trained for this area. Social and emotional learning, however, is still included in The Plan (page 34) as well as the Alabama Ascending Plan. It is the continued position of Eagle Forum of Alabama that it is not the role of ALSDE to analyze or control a child’s development in these areas, and it is not the role of the federal government to force a state to enact such provisions. https://thenationalpulse.com/commentary/attention-parents-social-emotional-learning-state-education-plans/ Removing social emotional learning from the Alabama Ascending plan as well as from The Plan and other attached documents will ensure teachers are not threatened with lawsuits and are not distracted from attending to critical areas of learning and student academic growth. Eagle Forum of Alabama therefore recommends that all references to social and emotional learning or associated programs be removed from both the Alabama Ascending Plan and The Plan. (pg. 18 of AL Ascending)
- In addition, the terms “suicide prevention,” “bullying and harassment,” “crisis prevention and conflict resolution,” “human trafficking,” “child abuse awareness and prevention,” “safety and violence prevention,” and “trauma informed classroom management” used in The Plan are outside of the realm of academic teaching and should be removed. Alabama law already requires educators and administrators in public education to report suspected child abuse and training already is provided in many of these areas. While these are important issues, it is not the role of the public educator to address them. Some of these areas of involvement infringe on the role of the parents in society and involve subjective value judgement of students and could lead to possible discrimination as these terms or programs are defined. The primary role of the educator should be providing quality educational instruction to their public-school students, not addressing social or societal problems.
- Office of School Improvement and Turnaround (OSIT): Eagle Forum of Alabama finds that the creation of a new state agency (OSIT) is promoting the wrong approach to helping schools needing improvement and is a counterproductive use of federal or state funds. On page 24 it describes using staff to intervene by using “Climate, culture, and mental health specialists.” These staff members will be promoting social and emotional health, which co-opts parental rights and will not improve student academic performance. Schools will be provided different levels of “support” from the office depending on how they perform on Alabama’s six selected indicators, including the college and career ready rate for that school. This is an overly broad practice of intervention in schools and promotes the top down approach that has not been effective in the past. OSIT has no record of success and should not be institutionalized by the ESSA plan.
- PBIS Social and Emotional Concerns: The promise to improve “school conditions” for Title 1 schools is listed on page 32-33 of The Plan this includes social and emotional learning agendas. For example, it includes references to “restorative justice practices for school discipline” and training LEAs for positive behavior supports (PBIS) philosophy. This portion of the Plan is somewhat unclear and unduly broad. Given a number of schools receiving Title 1 funds also serve high-achieving populations as well as high-risk populations, it seems The Plan is establishing a state-wide discipline approach that will not fit needs of every school system. Alabama should therefore leave room for local agencies to be trained in the philosophy that best works for its students’ successes.
- While Eagle Forum of Alabama believes strongly in helping children with special needs, PBIS is being used to improperly label children with disabilities or the wrong disabilities. Parental consent should be required for mental health screenings and to avoid any constitutional violations. The data file produced from PBIS is also suspect for its authenticity, educational effectiveness, and collection method. PBIS should not be included in The Plan.
- Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants: Because these programs violate constitutionally protected parental rights and promote invasive psychological practices, Eagle Forum of Alabama objects and recommends their removal. Section 4108 of ESSA describes programs that utilize a broad range of factors that will likely result in subjective or invasive programs: “Early identification of mental health symptoms, drug use, and violence, and appropriate referrals.” Medical treatment and referrals should require parental consent, but there is no legal requirement for consent in this section. Teachers are not trained as medical or psychological professionals to diagnose children or to conduct screenings. This will lead to a host of problems for Alabama’s students in regards to academic development.
- 21st Century Community Learning Centers: Eagle Forum of Alabama’s research and study finds that 21st Century Community Learning Centers have not been an effective use of educational resources. Public education is a part of the community but it is not the community alone. These community learning centers will be primarily used for non-academic purposes and will not be dedicated to Alabama k-12 system. We recommend not including any agreement involving community learning centers.
- Invasive Programs that need to be removed or addressed in Alabama’s ESSA Consolidated Plan
- “Engaged Families and Communities”
Eagle Forum of Alabama, like other leaders in education policy, wants parents and students engaged in their education at every step. However, the “Engaged Families and Communities” programs listed in ESSA and cited on page 21 of the Plan do not promote family engagement. Instead this aspect of ESSA promotes monitoring and collecting personal data on families-especially their interpersonal communications and their communications with the public education system. Data collection on families does not improve parental engagement in the public education system. It should be removed or altered appropriately.
Eagle Forum of Alabama recommends removal of all aspects of the Reach initiative and Reach Advisory Program from The Plan. The student advisory program listed on page 34-35 of the consolidated plan raise problems for parental and student rights. “It is not everyone’s responsibility”; it is students and parents responsibility to direct and control their education. This is a philosophical perspective of education that violates parental rights and promotes collectivism in Alabama’s public education system. More information would need to be provided to parents before this program should be supported.
- Improper Instructions on ESSA Intervention Programs for At-Risk Youth and Homeless Assistance
(722(g)(1)(B) is a non-regulatory guidance section from the USDOE. (pg. 54-59 of The Plan) Eagle Forum of Alabama finds the invasive factors to be used to identify homeless children as concerning. The list cited on pg. 54 includes a broad sweeping list of factors that may indicate homelessness gives broad authority to school based personnel and representatives from other service agencies this list to identify homelessness. This includes many factors such as looking at grooming practices and living at a temporary residence. (pg. 54) “The McKinney Vento Act is designed to address the challenges that homeless children and youths have faced in enrolling, attending, and succeeding in school.” https://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/160240ehcyguidance072716.pdf
- “What if the LEA determines that it is not in the child’s or youth’s best interest to attend the school of origin or school requested by the parent, guardian, or unaccompanied youth?” The section of instructions in this non-regulatory guidance are concerning in relation to parental rights and other legal rights of families and students. While aspects of homelessness student data collection is required by ESSA, Eagle Forum of Alabama suggests removing the identification factors from the plan listed on page 54. We did not find that these exact factors were required. Additionally, the non-regulatory federal guidance from (722(g)(1)(B) engages broad sweeping assumptions about homeless children and their families. Eagle Forum of Alabama encourages a re-examination of the enforcement of this ESSA section to ensure the best treatment of homeless children and their families especially in regards to their legal rights pages 54-59.
- Strategic Planning Committees Bureaucratic Approach to Education
- The Plan on page 8 and as well as the Alabama Ascending Plan include the strategic planning committee reports and the Alabama Ascending Plan which were composed in major sections by these planning committee’s recommendations. Eagle Forum of Alabama finds that the science, math, and reading committees reports will, if implemented, increase bureaucracy by creating new agencies and increase federal control of Alabama education’s system. Most importantly, they fail to address deep problems with Alabama’s current Common Core standards.
- Eagle Forum of Alabama sees that it is not teacher preparation or experience that is the greatest barrier for students but instead the failing system of Common Core especially its impact on testing, professional development, and curriculum. Common Core’s emphasis on informational texts replacing classic literature is not addressed by reading committee. Alabama’s teachers and students can compete with any state but face bureaucratic barriers to focusing on academic achievement. The reading committee supports keeping the “College and Career Readiness Standards” but fails to address Common Core’s impact on teachers and students shown by NAEP scores. (pg. 5 of reading) “The council will develop a statewide literacy plan in collaboration with MS, SC, and TN with support from the Regional Education Lab (REL).” (page 14 of reading) Eagle Forum of Alabama finds this announcement deeply concerning as Alabama needs to control its own teacher preparation not outside organizations or regional councils.
- The science committee report primarily focuses on tools, funding, and a three-dimensional approach to science education. While Eagle Forum of Alabama also supports a hands-on approach to science education in part, teacher’s knowledge in their subject area remains critical. Instead of swinging the pendulum solely towards a three-dimensional approach reducing emphasis on knowledge for students and educators a more balanced approach would be more productive for science education in Alabama. If tools and funding are issues at this time CPLE would not be a productive use of state educational resources. There are already many SEA agencies that are responsible for improving science and math education as well as instruction in Alabama. Including AMSTEC, AMSTI, STEM, and ASIM referenced in the report already acting. (pg. 5-9 of science) Additional agencies and initiatives would be wasteful and increase state bureaucracy in science education. We also already have existing Colleges of Education which teach courses on science education and require teacher preparation that cover these areas of education. These college education departments should not be supplanted by new state agencies.
- Math educators should not be focused on “advocacy” or “empowerment”. (pg. 2 of math) Community development and workforce development should not be the primary focus or main goal of math educators in Alabama. However, an entire subcommittee was set up to focus on these areas. (pg. 2 of math) The main goal of math educators in Alabama should be to provide excellent and high quality math instruction to public school students. The sub-committee “Teacher Education Programs in Higher Education” was almost primarily composed of individuals from higher education instead of current k-12 instructors in Alabama’s public schools.
- Math education summary shows a derogatory perspective on Alabamians and especially parents. “The committee urges the public to help make these recommendations a reality by realizing mathematics cannot be a dinner joke about not mattering in our lives.” (pg. 41 of math) This derogatory approach to parents and students is harmful to engaging parents in education reform. It should not be supported. It is not funny that in its forty-six-page report and 55 recommendations not one includes addressing failed Common Core math standards. Alabama’s parents care deeply for their child’s education especially in math and that is why they support reforms to current standards.
- In addition, the strategic planning committees did not include parents or students in their process. While their report describes their extensive work they only met three times. (pg. 2 of math) Eagle Forum of Alabama recommends reworking the Alabama Ascending Plan and removing input from the strategic planning committee as they worked outside of the ESSA implementation process. In addition, their suggestions were not shared or discussed by the ESSA implementation committee members. Some of the committees suggestions, if implemented, would violate federal law. “This will be accomplished through a nationally aligned rigorous curriculum….”. (pg. 5 of reading) Since a national curriculum has been prohibited by Congress, the promotion of such a system conflicts with ESSA. Eagle Forum of Alabama strongly advises removing any references or recommendations from these three committees or suggestions from any of the planning committees in any attached plans or included documents with The Plan.
Ultimately ESSA is a policy paradox for Alabama as there is some opportunity for flexibility and movement away from the failed federal initiatives. However, there remains extensive and coercive federal overreach under ESSA. Eagle Forum of Alabama supports the ALSDE in movements towards greater flexibility and independence from the federal government. This approach will yield greater positive results for student achievement, involved parents, and inspired educators. The ALSDE has been promoting ESSA on its website and representing it in an improper light. ESSA represents federal overreach into state education systems and should not be promoted to the public by the department. http://www.alsde.edu/dept/essa/Pages/home.aspx
While the department will need to share the applicable laws on its state website, promoting ESSA or legislation that gives the Secretary at the Federal level authority over Alabama’s education system is not the proper role of ALSDE. The ALSDE was not tasked to defend or promote the federal education legislation through parental engagement tours or its ESSA meetings. Instead the requirement of public input meant reaching out for meaningful feedback on ESSA.
Eagle Forum of Alabama supports Superintendent Sentance, Governor Ivey and the State Board of Education in taking the best advantage of ESSA that is possible under the law. Unless the items or areas allowing for flexibility under ESSA are utilized, no greater flexibility will be achieved for Alabama in education. We recommend that the State Board of Education vote down The Plan in its current form until these recommendations have been made since The Plan will be a legally binding document with the federal government. There is no guarantee the USDOE will approve amendments or changes at a later time for Alabama.
Respectfully submitted by Eagle Forum of Alabama and
Alabama ESSA Implementation Committee Members:
Deborah Love, J.D., Executive Director Eagle Forum of Alabama, ESSA Implementation Committee Member, Data Collection and Reporting-Sub Group Committee Member, and Early Learning Sub-Group Committee Member,
Krissie Allen, J.D., M.A.Ed., ESSA Implementation Committee Member, Standards, Assessment and English Learners Sub-Group Committee Member
Margaret Clark, J.D., M.A. Biblical Studies: ESSA Implementation Committee Member, Accountability Sub-Group Committee Member, Titles Programs, Grants and Requirements Sub-Group Committee Member
Shag LaPrade, M.S. Health and PE., Ret. Marine Gunnery Sergeant, School Board Member for Coffee County 2010-2016, ESSA Implementation Committee Member, Data Collection and Reporting-Sub Group Committee Member
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Deborah Love, Executive Director (205) 879-7096
Eagle Forum joins all Alabamians in offering our prayers and deepest sympathy to the family and friends of the adorable five-year-old boy who authorities report died while in the care of an employee at Community Nursery and Preschool Academy in West Mobile.
The fact that the family has already filed a lawsuit indicates that current laws were not properly followed to ensure the child’s safety. As stated in the Alabama Statute Title 38, “THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES SHALL, PRIOR TO THE DISBURSEMENT OF ANY SUBSIDIZED CHILD CARE FUNDS, REQUIRE ALL EMPLOYEES AND APPLICANTS OF LEGALLY OPERATING CHILD CARE FACILITIES TO SUBMIT VERIFICATION OF THE APPLICATION FOR A CRIMINAL HISTORY BACKGROUND CHECK AND THE RESULTS THEREOF WHEN OBTAINED.” (ALA.CODE 1975 § 38-13-3)
Minimal research reveals that the Community Nursery and Preschool Academy in West Mobile received federal subsidies, thus AL DHR had an affirmative duty to ensure background checks were conducted and received by DHR before they released funds. In addition to the state law, the Federal law requires these safety regulations to be followed. In 2013, the Inspector General clarified current Federal regulations to address states failing to oversee subsidized funds in licensed exempt facilities. “As written, the proposed regulations do not allow providers to self-certify compliance with health and safety requirements, and require States to take specific steps to monitor all CCDF providers.” https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-10-00231.pdf. Additionally, in 2014, President Obama signed important legislation insuring accountability with federal funds, and all child care facilities receiving federal funds including licensed-exempt face additional inspections and requirements.
Yet some irresponsible news outlets are accusing legislators who opposed a bill in the last legislative session of being responsible for this child’s death. Rev. Robin Mears who helped in writing the Child Protection law in 1999 and is Executive Director of Alabama Christian Education Association stated, “IF the 2017 legislature had passed HB277, it would not have prevented this tragedy. WHY pass more laws if the agency entrusted to oversee the compliance with those laws is AWOL?” In addition to the background check requirement, Alabama law already requires staff qualifications to be provided to parents in a signed affidavit. This must be sent to DHR as well. There are other regulations including that multiple agencies are required to inspect all licensed exempt facilities. http://dhr.alabama.gov/services/Child_Care_Services/license%20Exempt%20Centers.aspx
At least twelve state agencies are already required to regulate every child care facility whether licensed or licensed (exempt). The four legislators cited by columnists as having been responsible for the defeat of HB277 acted in good faith, borne out of an honest political disagreement over both the effectiveness and appropriateness of certain facets of the bill. There is no evidence to suggest that licenses ensure child safety.
Parents should not falsely rely on this as supporters of HB277 suggest. Examples of abuse have occurred in every child care environment in Alabama. Incidents of child abuse and neglect have even occurred at licensed facilities after complaints were filed with proper authorities.
Eagle Forum of Alabama rejects the falsehood that child safety and religious liberty are mutually exclusive. Eagle Forum of Alabama finds that current child safety laws are sufficient if they are enforced by the proper authorities. Eagle Forum of Alabama’s analysis on HB277 was signed by twenty organizations, child care providers, and leaders including, The Blackstone & Burke Center For Law and Liberty and the South East Law Institute.
HB277 would not have improved child safety or prevented failed compliance by DHR with existing laws. The statements recently made by some misinformed media sources are false and misleading. Eagle Forum of Alabama and the legislators mentioned work every session to promote sound public policy solutions to pressing issues faced by Alabama families. Several falsehoods have been repeated and spread in the media about licensed exempt facilities in Alabama. Some such statements appear to have been borne out of prejudice against ministries which hold traditional values and religious beliefs. One major lie is that licensed exempt facilities are exempt from DHR regulation or state laws involving child safety including back ground checks. That is false. No one is legally allowed to harm children in Alabama regardless of the environment. Again, it is up to state prosecutors and DHR to enforce our laws in the areas of child safety.
Rather than address the issue of DHR’s failure to ensure that federally subsidized facilities follow the law, proponents of HB277 advocate removal of religious liberty protection of all church ministries. Some have disingenuously and deceitfully refused to recognize the facts in favor of unconstitutional church regulation. The individuals who violated current state laws and the authorities who failed to enforce them are the individuals responsible for this tragic death. Clearly the individual who neglected or harmed the child should be held responsible. The question remains, “Why is DHR not ensuring compliance with federal and state law?”
See our Get the Facts document here.
At its Work Session August 10, the State School Board heard a presentation by Supt. Sentance that was prompted by a resolution he offered to the Board to rescind common core. That presentation and the subsequent discussion can be viewed here beginning at 1:06. Visuals can be found here:
Although the resolution provides for a vote at the November 9, 2017 meeting, it is important that citizens begin meeting with and contacting board members now.
Eagle Forum emailed each Board member extensive documentation to show the common core of failure in Alabama. See open letter here.
We urged that they rescind Alabama’s Common Core Standards called Alabama College and Career Standards (ACCRS) and that they move expeditiously to empower duly appointed course of study committees to replace ACCRS with new standards informed by the best of the best pre-common core standards in the nation so that our students can return to the positive trajectory they were on prior to common core implementation. If Alabama football sets standards nationwide, why can’t Alabama students do the same?
Replacing ACCRS will:
1. Stop CC standards under which Alabama Dropped to Dead Last; Restore the Upward Trend Prior to Common Core
2015 NAEP (“the nation’s scorecard”) results place Alabama dead last on Math and English, a significant decline from 26th among the states, which is where we were in 2011 before Common Core. Nationally, only non-common core states showed no decline on NAEP. Alabama ACT scores also show the inferiority of Common Core. The 2015 ACT report shows only 16% of Alabama students meet the benchmark in all 4 subjects – down 5 points just since 2014. These Assessments that show a pitiful 20% proficiency in Math after 3 years of common core (cc) and a 62% proficiency in English after 2 years of cc cannot be explained away. 
2. Protect all children from “irreversible damage” due to 4 years of CC Math documented by California data under Phil Daro CC Math. Alabama is beginning its 5th year now! See pre-eminent math standards writer Dr. James Milgram letter.
3. Protect young children from the developmentally inappropriate common core regimen that, as predicted by 500 early childhood specialists, causes harmful stress, not better learning.
4. Reject Objectionable Readings that indoctrinate rather than educate. Enable Alabamians to select
curriculum without the intimidation of federally funded curriculum modules and expectations.
5. Reject CC aligned assessments.. Protect student data privacy, and prevent potential psycho-social and behavioral assessment.
6. Reject assessments being utilized to predetermine career paths. Enable students to choose their own future.
“Common Core Damage Will Last Years to Come”
Dr. Peter Wood, President National Association of Scholars
For a comprehensive list of authoritative books and papers on common core, go here.
President Trump announced on Twitter Wednesday that he will ban transgender people from serving in the military in any capacity, reversing an Obama administration decision to allow them to serve openly and drawing dismay and anger from advocates.
Citing the need to focus on what he called “decisive and overwhelming victory,” Trump said that the military cannot accept the burden of higher medical costs and the “disruption” that transgender troops “would entail.”
“After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”
July 7, 2017
Dear Eagle Leaders,
News and Notes is our Eagle Forum weekly newsletter created to help us stay informed, connected and mutually supported. It features information about national issues, state news, action items, upcoming events and words to inspire.
If you have state news and events to offer for inclusion in News and Notes, we invite you to submit detailed information to Julia Warton via email at email@example.com by Wednesday at Noon each week.
Thank you in advance for your contributions to News and Notes and, especially, THANK YOU for your tireless dedication and effective work for faith, family and freedom.
Eunie Smith, President, Eagle Forum
Anne Cori, Chairman, Eagle Forum
Please contact your Senator NOW and ask that they vote NO on HB277. You may reach your Senator at (334) 242-7800. New information has come to our attention this week. Please see below.
Eagle Forum of Alabama has received new information this week regarding HB277. We ask for you to oppose HB277 as it seriously threatens religious liberty of ministries in Alabama. We do not want to see the Federal Government controlling internal policies of church ministries.
Reviewing DHR’s application for the 2016-2018 Child Care Development Fund grant leaves zero doubt HB277 was written and presented for the sole purpose of DHR meeting requirements as set forth in the grant award. HB277, the Child Care Safety Act, can be directly tied back to DHR.
The following is a summary of facts regarding the Alabama Child Care Development Fund (CCDF):
• Nancy Buckner was sent a letter from Administration for Children and Families (Office of Child Care) on June 14, 2016, informing her Alabama DHR was conditionally awarded CCDF Funds for three years, beginning June 1, 2016 thru September 30, 2018. ‘Conditionally approved’ means conditions in the grant must be met by specific dates during the grant cycle.
• Faye Nelson, Deputy Commissioner for Family Services (DHR) is listed as the person responsible for the grant submission and oversight of distribution of funds and compliance to unmet requirements.
• DHR received $92,297,586 in CCDF funds for 2016. 2017 and 2018 funding amounts have not been released. (Source: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/occ/resource/fy-2016-ccdf-allocations-including-redistributed-funds )
• Alabama DHR is contracting with Quality Enhancement Agencies (Voices?) to administer subsidy program eligibility services and quality enhancement. (p. 21)
• Alabama DHR and Alabama Partnership for Children received $1.2 million from the Kellogg Foundation specifically to promote licensing and regulation by educating parents, providers, faith-based leaders, policy makers and the community about the benefits of regulated child care settings. (p. 27; wkkf.org) “Don’t Be in the Dark” campaign. It’s about child safety, right?
• DHR contracts with Quality Enhancement Agencies (Voices?) to provide consumer education to inform the public about quality child care and assist families in making informed child care choices. “Don’t Be in the Dark” campaign. (p. 29)
• A requirement for a state to receive CCDF funds is, “Each state is required to certify it has in effect licensing requirements applicable to all child care services provided within the state (not restricted to providers receiving CCDF), and to provide a detailed description of such requirements and how such requirements are effectively enforced.” (p. 110)
• DHR states in their grant application, “There are no current staff to child ratio or group size requirements for exempt programs. DHR will have requirements in place by September 30, 2016 for exempt programs participating in the child care subsidy program. Exempt child care programs participating in the subsidy program will be subject to the same staff/child ratios and group size as licensed programs.” (p. 116)
• CCDF grant requirements mandates states establish health and safety requirements for providers serving children receiving CCDF assistance. DHR stated in the grant application they would have these health and safety requirements (Minimum Standards) in place no later than July 31, 2016. (p. 123)
• DHR states in their grant application they will have policies and practices implemented to ensure that providers for children receiving assistance and their facilities comply with applicable State or local licensing and health and safety requirements no later than August 31, 2016. (p. 131)
• CCDF grant requirements mandate license-exempt CCDF providers be inspected by DHR at least once prior to opening and at least once annually. (p.136)
• Grant requirements mandate criminal background checks on child care staff members and prospective child care members no later than September 30, 2017.
• DHR states in its grant application they have a statewide quality rating and improvement system in place as of March, 2016. There are currently 26 STARS rated facilities in the entire state. 26 out of over 1,000.