This is an important, informative video series from American Principles Project and from Concerned Women for America. It explains in great detail what is happening to American Education.
Showing posts with label Common Core Initiative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Common Core Initiative. Show all posts
Sunday, November 18, 2012
What's Happening to American Education?
This is an important, informative video series from American Principles Project and from Concerned Women for America. It explains in great detail what is happening to American Education.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Common Core Initiative Petition
I signed this petition today. http://utahnsagainstcommoncore.com
1. Utah did not seek out CCI; the initiative was presented as an eligibility enhancement by the U.S. Department of Education in its The Race To The Top grant. Joining the SBAC, too, improved eligibility in the grant application. When Utah agreed to join the CCI and SBAC in 2009, the standards had not yet been written.
Utah joined both the CCI and the SBAC to win points toward getting the grant, and although Utah won no money, the extremely expensive and educationally restricting consequences of having agreed to sign up for CCI and SBAC remain.
2. Utah has two new, conflicting sets of educational standards to juggle– the Utah Common Core, to which we currently teach, and the CCSS, to which our tests are being written. Utah is not likely to stick with the Utah Common Core when testing begins based on the federal CCSS in 2014. The appendix to the SBAC states that the tests will be based on the CCSS (federal) standards, and the SBAC project manager, WestEd, has affirmed:
“In order for this [testing] system to have a real impact within a state, the state will need to adopt the Common Core State Standards (i.e., not have two sets of standards.)” -April 2012 statement from WestEd Assessments and Standards Senior Research Associate
3. There is no amendment process for the CCSS (federal standards) and withdrawing from the SBAC requires consortium and federal approval (page 12). If we delay the state will be too financially invested and legally entangled to withdraw.
4. There has been no cost analysis, legal analysis, legislative input or public input regarding CCI/SBAC. Implementation of CCI has already begun in Utah schools; full implementation of the initiative and its tests will be completed in the 2014-2015 school year.
An independent think tank in Massachusetts states that the cost over the first 7 years to states will be 16 billion dollars, or over 200 million per state, on top of regular educational needs. The Congressional Budget Office was not asked to do a cost analysis because asking would have pointed out that this was not a state-led initiative, contrary to the claims of its proponents. States’ commitments to CCI require billions of dollars in implementation and maintenance spending, money that competes with already-stretched educational budgets.
5. Utah leaders have signed Utah on as a governing member of the SBAC. As a governing member we get one vote out of 21 governing states to influence deviations from the original assessment structure and scope, consortium policy, and consortium governance. Utah can be held hostage by other states.
6. The U.S. Department of Education (through the America COMPETES Act, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the Race to the Top competition) has required the states to develop massive databases about school children.
7. The Common Core initiative represents an overreach of federal power into personal privacy as well as into state educational autonomy. There will be personal student information collected via the centralized testing-data collection, accessible to the Executive Branch. SBAC assessments’ inclusion of psychometric testing for database profiling purposes and is a violation of Utah law per code section 53A-13-302.
8. Both of the CCI’s testing arms (SBAC and PARCC) must coordinate tests and share information “across consortia” as well as giving the U.S. Department of Education phone responses, written status updates and access to information “on an ongoing basis.” Data will be triangulated with control, oversight and centralization by the Executive Branch (U.S. Dept. of Education). “Cooperative Agreement between the U.S. DOE and the SBAC”
9. The Department of Education has eviscerated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) by issuing new regulations that allow nonconsensual tracking and sharing of this personal data with other federal agencies, with government agencies in other states, and with private entities.
10. Utah has ceded her voice and educational sovereignty because Utah’s top educational leaders are persuaded that having standards and testing in common with other states matters more than holding onto the state’s right to raise standards sky-high. To Utah education leaders, the right to soar seems a freedom not worth fighting for, and maintaining state educational sovereignty is not a priority.
In an April 2012 statement from the Utah State Office of Education’s legal department: ” The whole point is to get to a place where there is a ‘common core’ – that would mean the same standards for all the states that adopt it. If the states had the freedom to ‘disagree’ and ‘change’ them, I guess they would no longer be ‘common’.”
11. The effort to nationalize and centralize education results in severe loss of state control of education and pushes states into a minimalist, common set of standards. Dr. Sandra Stotsky, an official member of the CCSS Validation Committee, refused to sign off on the adequacy of the standards and testified that “Common Core has yet to provide a solid evidentiary base for its minimalist conceptualization of college readiness–and for equating college readiness with career readiness. Moreover… it had no evidence on both issues.”
12. The Common Core standards are experimental, expensive, controversial, and have not been piloted.
13. Common Core standards are not considered among the best standards in the nation, and there are clearly superior standards. Additionally, the CCI robs states of the sovereign right to raise state standards in the future. There’s no provision for amending the CCSS federal standards, were we to choose to still remain bound by them.
14. The Common Core English standards reduce the study of literature in favor of informational texts designed to train children in a school-to-work agenda. The unsophisticated composition of those selected to write the Common Core Standards and the lack of transparency about the standards-writing process also raises concerns.
15. CCSS states a goal to promote “career and college ready standards,” a euphemism for “school-to-work” programs, diluting individual choice by directing children where to go and what to learn. They make no distinction between 2-year, 4-year or vocational standards.
16. Common Core has not proven to be state-led nor strictly voluntary; the U.S. Department of Education Secretary rages against states who reject the Common Core Initiative.
When South Carolina Governor Haley backed away from the “voluntary” CCSS, she drew a sharp response from Arne Duncan, the federal Secretary of Education. Duncan also publicly insulted all Texas students on television, saying “I feel very badly for Texas school children,” following Texas Governor Perry’s refusal to join the CC initiative. (Yet Texas math standards are higher than Common Core standards.) Messages in public letters from Duncan to Utah leaders conflict with multiple, legally binding documents signed by his team at the U.S. Department of Education.
Utah’s State Superintendent admits that the U.S. Dept. of Education is already putting requirements on the state of Utah associated with the Common Core standards.
17. The Common Core Initiative, far from being state-designed, is the product of the U.S. Department of Education funding and directing special interest groups (NGA, CCSSO, NCEE, Achieve, Inc., WestEd, and others) via federal grants.
18. The Common Core Initiative violates fundamental laws that protect states’ independence. The Federal Government’s creation of national curricular materials, through contractors, and its control and oversight of testing and data collection, and its tests written to federal, nationalized standards, are in violation of three existing laws: NCLB, the Department of Education Organization Act, and the General Education Provisions Act; States have a responsibility to protect the balance of powers granted in the Constitution.
19. Transparency and public debate about Common Core are lacking. Utah educational leaders have a responsibility to encourage public discussion and lively debate about Common Core, because the initiative will impact children, taxpayers and teachers for a long time to come.
A spiral of silence has descended upon Utah educators, many of whom fear losing their jobs if they speak up against Common Core. There is intense pressure to agree with the Common Core Initiative at the State School Board level as well. Applicants for School Board membership must take a survey before a committee selects its pool of potential candidates. The first survey question asks: “Do you support Common Core?”
How could one with a differing view ever be elected?
Evidence and Concerns About Common Core
A rising number of teachers, parents and taxpayers are expressing concerns about Utah’s adoption of the Common Core Initiative (CCI), its accompanying federal standards for states (CCSS) and its federally overseen and controlled testing arm (SBAC). Why?1. Utah did not seek out CCI; the initiative was presented as an eligibility enhancement by the U.S. Department of Education in its The Race To The Top grant. Joining the SBAC, too, improved eligibility in the grant application. When Utah agreed to join the CCI and SBAC in 2009, the standards had not yet been written.
Utah joined both the CCI and the SBAC to win points toward getting the grant, and although Utah won no money, the extremely expensive and educationally restricting consequences of having agreed to sign up for CCI and SBAC remain.
2. Utah has two new, conflicting sets of educational standards to juggle– the Utah Common Core, to which we currently teach, and the CCSS, to which our tests are being written. Utah is not likely to stick with the Utah Common Core when testing begins based on the federal CCSS in 2014. The appendix to the SBAC states that the tests will be based on the CCSS (federal) standards, and the SBAC project manager, WestEd, has affirmed:
“In order for this [testing] system to have a real impact within a state, the state will need to adopt the Common Core State Standards (i.e., not have two sets of standards.)” -April 2012 statement from WestEd Assessments and Standards Senior Research Associate
3. There is no amendment process for the CCSS (federal standards) and withdrawing from the SBAC requires consortium and federal approval (page 12). If we delay the state will be too financially invested and legally entangled to withdraw.
4. There has been no cost analysis, legal analysis, legislative input or public input regarding CCI/SBAC. Implementation of CCI has already begun in Utah schools; full implementation of the initiative and its tests will be completed in the 2014-2015 school year.
An independent think tank in Massachusetts states that the cost over the first 7 years to states will be 16 billion dollars, or over 200 million per state, on top of regular educational needs. The Congressional Budget Office was not asked to do a cost analysis because asking would have pointed out that this was not a state-led initiative, contrary to the claims of its proponents. States’ commitments to CCI require billions of dollars in implementation and maintenance spending, money that competes with already-stretched educational budgets.
5. Utah leaders have signed Utah on as a governing member of the SBAC. As a governing member we get one vote out of 21 governing states to influence deviations from the original assessment structure and scope, consortium policy, and consortium governance. Utah can be held hostage by other states.
6. The U.S. Department of Education (through the America COMPETES Act, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the Race to the Top competition) has required the states to develop massive databases about school children.
7. The Common Core initiative represents an overreach of federal power into personal privacy as well as into state educational autonomy. There will be personal student information collected via the centralized testing-data collection, accessible to the Executive Branch. SBAC assessments’ inclusion of psychometric testing for database profiling purposes and is a violation of Utah law per code section 53A-13-302.
8. Both of the CCI’s testing arms (SBAC and PARCC) must coordinate tests and share information “across consortia” as well as giving the U.S. Department of Education phone responses, written status updates and access to information “on an ongoing basis.” Data will be triangulated with control, oversight and centralization by the Executive Branch (U.S. Dept. of Education). “Cooperative Agreement between the U.S. DOE and the SBAC”
9. The Department of Education has eviscerated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) by issuing new regulations that allow nonconsensual tracking and sharing of this personal data with other federal agencies, with government agencies in other states, and with private entities.
10. Utah has ceded her voice and educational sovereignty because Utah’s top educational leaders are persuaded that having standards and testing in common with other states matters more than holding onto the state’s right to raise standards sky-high. To Utah education leaders, the right to soar seems a freedom not worth fighting for, and maintaining state educational sovereignty is not a priority.
In an April 2012 statement from the Utah State Office of Education’s legal department: ” The whole point is to get to a place where there is a ‘common core’ – that would mean the same standards for all the states that adopt it. If the states had the freedom to ‘disagree’ and ‘change’ them, I guess they would no longer be ‘common’.”
11. The effort to nationalize and centralize education results in severe loss of state control of education and pushes states into a minimalist, common set of standards. Dr. Sandra Stotsky, an official member of the CCSS Validation Committee, refused to sign off on the adequacy of the standards and testified that “Common Core has yet to provide a solid evidentiary base for its minimalist conceptualization of college readiness–and for equating college readiness with career readiness. Moreover… it had no evidence on both issues.”
12. The Common Core standards are experimental, expensive, controversial, and have not been piloted.
13. Common Core standards are not considered among the best standards in the nation, and there are clearly superior standards. Additionally, the CCI robs states of the sovereign right to raise state standards in the future. There’s no provision for amending the CCSS federal standards, were we to choose to still remain bound by them.
14. The Common Core English standards reduce the study of literature in favor of informational texts designed to train children in a school-to-work agenda. The unsophisticated composition of those selected to write the Common Core Standards and the lack of transparency about the standards-writing process also raises concerns.
15. CCSS states a goal to promote “career and college ready standards,” a euphemism for “school-to-work” programs, diluting individual choice by directing children where to go and what to learn. They make no distinction between 2-year, 4-year or vocational standards.
16. Common Core has not proven to be state-led nor strictly voluntary; the U.S. Department of Education Secretary rages against states who reject the Common Core Initiative.
When South Carolina Governor Haley backed away from the “voluntary” CCSS, she drew a sharp response from Arne Duncan, the federal Secretary of Education. Duncan also publicly insulted all Texas students on television, saying “I feel very badly for Texas school children,” following Texas Governor Perry’s refusal to join the CC initiative. (Yet Texas math standards are higher than Common Core standards.) Messages in public letters from Duncan to Utah leaders conflict with multiple, legally binding documents signed by his team at the U.S. Department of Education.
Utah’s State Superintendent admits that the U.S. Dept. of Education is already putting requirements on the state of Utah associated with the Common Core standards.
17. The Common Core Initiative, far from being state-designed, is the product of the U.S. Department of Education funding and directing special interest groups (NGA, CCSSO, NCEE, Achieve, Inc., WestEd, and others) via federal grants.
18. The Common Core Initiative violates fundamental laws that protect states’ independence. The Federal Government’s creation of national curricular materials, through contractors, and its control and oversight of testing and data collection, and its tests written to federal, nationalized standards, are in violation of three existing laws: NCLB, the Department of Education Organization Act, and the General Education Provisions Act; States have a responsibility to protect the balance of powers granted in the Constitution.
19. Transparency and public debate about Common Core are lacking. Utah educational leaders have a responsibility to encourage public discussion and lively debate about Common Core, because the initiative will impact children, taxpayers and teachers for a long time to come.
A spiral of silence has descended upon Utah educators, many of whom fear losing their jobs if they speak up against Common Core. There is intense pressure to agree with the Common Core Initiative at the State School Board level as well. Applicants for School Board membership must take a survey before a committee selects its pool of potential candidates. The first survey question asks: “Do you support Common Core?”
How could one with a differing view ever be elected?
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Common Core is More Than a Little Problematic: A "Dear Neighbors" Letter
Read this.
Dear Utah Neighbors,
As a Utah educator, citizen and believer in the freedoms outlined in the U.S. Constitution, I am writing to ask you to take action in asking our state leaders to study the Common Core Initiative and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium which Utah has joined, and to sever those ties for Utah.
Our governor is right now in the process of considering all aspects of having signed Utah up for these educational initiatives, and as our state school board is almost ready to vote on it, this April, I am urging our Governor, State Superintendent, and the State School Board to vote to get us out. I have studied it. Please do your own study and then take action if you feel to do so.
If you feel that these issues deserve further study and deliberation by all stakeholders before we move forward as a state and as a group of educators, I would ask you to contact our state school board members (contact information is provided below) and ask them to answer the issues below with documented proof --going beyond catch-phrases and rhetoric-- to prove how Common Core and the SBAC tests are good --for kids, for Utah's budget, and for the future of Utah educators' freedom from federal restrictions.
Studying the quality of Utah’s new Common Core standards for English and math is not a meaningful exercise, sadly, because the SBAC's nationalized tests make individual states' standards a moot point. But studying the federal Common Core standards, which have been adopted by many states, the ACT, the SAT, and which were created at the request of an association of Governors, using federal grant money, by a D.C. group called Achieve, Inc., is actually meaningful, because that's what our kids will be tested on.
How SBAC will make our own state corestandards irrelevant:
1. The SBAC appendix states that tests must align with federal standards. Read it. It does not say that tests must align withUtah's standards. That is where Utah educators, politicians and all of us have been confused.
2. What the implementation of the standards actually might look like in our schools in Utah could be this: We would teach our own Utah Core Standards, which differ from other states' standards within the SBAC. Then we take the tests. We soon will understand that we will not have time to teach the 15% we added to our own corestandards and it hampers our students' scores on these commonized tests, so we will then teach without that part that was our own innovation, adjusting our standards more and more to make them relevant to"college readiness" as defined by the tests, while they grow less and less aligned with our own sovereign ideas. The SBAC will make Utah's own standards of negligible importance once testing begins in 2014-2015. But by then, when the state realizes this fact, how much money will have been invested in realigning our old standards withthe new ones? Will backing out be cost-prohibitive by then?
The USOE is proud to saythat they can change any standard at any time by a majority vote, but what if we don't have the majority vote and what good is that claim when they can'tchange the SBAC tests or the federally acceptable standards by a majority vote?
No cost analysis: financial quicksand for Utah:
No cost analysis was done before Utah joined the Common Core and signed up for the SBAC tests. This oversight appears to benot only an educational funding snare, but an ongoing financial snare for the state. The only independent think tank who's made anofficial study of costs I've run across --that has not been bought by federal grant money to do the study in the first place-- is the Pioneer Institute. Their white paper states that over the nextseven years, each SBAC state will spend at least 16 billion just keeping up with SBAC and CC adjustments. Already, withSB97, Utah has appropriated 15 million to take effect July 1st, for the new "uniform online summative test system and online adaptive test system."
Why was no cost analysisdone when we joined CC nor when we joined SBAC? There are two reasons that I can see:
1) Few people do a cost analysis on grant money. Utah assumed itwould be a financial win. We never got the money, yet we agreed to be in CC and SBAC to earn points toward our grant application, in the hopes of winning much needed school money.
2) Congress was bypassed. Normally, legislators would have analyzed any project that required state or federal funding. Why were no questions raised when theappropriate process was skirted?
What benefit is Common Core to Utah?
What tangible benefit do we get from being involved with this Common Core initiative? None. If educators feel that any item on the common standards are great, then Utah can absolutely use it. It's all inthe public domain. We don't need to belong to CCI to get our tax money from the federal government. That would be illegal --a bribe. As Senator Rubio puts it, " The Executive branch does not possess the authority to force states into compliancewith administration-backed reforms... it violates the constitutional separationof powers."
And if the computer adaptive testing idea is great, then let's do it, but on different terms andwith a different entity than the federally-tied, Common Core bound, SBAC.
No public discussion of Common Core
Most people don't even know what Common Core is. Utah signed up without legislative discussion or approval, even though it affects state education and budget in a huge way. There was no public discussion. The State Superintendent of Schools and our Governor signed us up in order to qualify to win points toward winning a federal grant (Race to the Top). We didn't get the grant, but we're unfortunately still signed up for CC and SBAC. Other states did study it out, and didn't join: Texas, Virginia, Alaska, Minnesota, etc.
Federal strings overstepstate bounds:
Proof of federal ties? Glad you asked:
In the agreement document between the SBAC --of which we are part-- and the U.S. Dept. of Ed.,the opening line says:
"In accordance with34 CFR 75.200(b)(4), [by the way, that fancy number is not a law,but an I.D. to a federal grant which was used to persuade states to join CC and SBAC] this award is a cooperative agreement because the Secretary of Education (Secretary) has determined that substantial communication, coordination, and involvement between the U.S. Department of Education (Department or ED) and the recipient is necessary to carry out a successful project."
Did you catch that? "Because the secretary of education has determined…" Just one person seized authority, violating laws left and right, because he alone "determined it was necessary" --Arne Duncan alone.
That "substantial communication, coordination, and involvement" attempts to negate federal laws that would otherwise protect Utah from having the SBAC's individualized student information, collected by the testing process, now available for federal perusal --to name just one possible consequence of such illegal federal involvement.
Another interesting point of federal intrusion is in the "escape clause" of the SBAC, which states that if a member state wishes to withdraw, it must jump through hoop after bureaucratic hoop, the last of which includes --you guessed it-- getting federal approval to withdraw.
What's Wrong With Nationalized Education?
It's illegal, accordingto the U.S. Constitution. Yet, some people say that nationalization of curriculum is a good idea because they value equal opportunities for all, more than they value individual freedom for all(to soar or to fail.) In America, we've got constitutional separation of powersto ensure that no one group can take over anything important, such as education. Nationalized curriculum is a bad idea for Utah because it creates group-think and can dim innovation andindividual value systems, dictate and indoctrinate. Whatever your point of view on nationalized curriculum, the fact remains that Common Core pushes it, via the common tests. (To ensure high student performance on standardized tests and for merit pay, teachers must teach the common curriculum that prepares students for the test.)
By involving itself with SBAC, via grants, the Federal Dept. of Education has crossed the line oflegality; they also cross the line by offering NCLB waivers in exchange for states' loyalty to the Common Core Initiative. Read what Senator Marco Rubio of Florida says about NCLB waivers. Read what Senator Mike Fair of South Carolina and his governor are doing to escape CC and SBAC. Read why Texas, Virginia, and other states never joined. They did their homework on this better than Utah did.
Why did we join CC and SBAC?
Utah state signed upbecause the Federal Department of Education wanted us in. We were cash-strapped and easy to manipulatewith the bait of a large federal grant. The Federal Department of Education incentivized Race To The Top byawarding points in the grant application. Points came from adopting CC. More points came from joining SBAC.
We didn't win the grant money, but we are stuck with membership in these groups that we didn't even investigate before joining. And we're still in --unless Governor Herbert, Superintendent Shumway and the Utah State School Board get us out.
What benefit do we get from membership in Common Core? Nothing but a huge commitment to march lockstep with the federally popularized standards. These standards, and any good ideas in them, are all in the public domain, so we can take what we like and leave the rest.
A federal grant was given to the NGA and the CSSSO and the NCEE to develop and implement the CC standards. With money comes obligation. Even though the NGA/CSSSO did technically initiate the Common Core Initiative, the state-led claim is marketing, not reality. A group in D.C. called Achieve, Inc., did the developing of the original standards, which Utah meshed with. It wasn't a group of Utahns, Nevadans and South Carolinians sitting down with their governors to come up with standards.
Many believe this undertaking is a good thing --based on good faith that those higher up did their research.
We all want better for our kids, but this undertaking is a costly, burdensome and less-productive wayto do it. We need to question and figure out a freer, more cost-effective way to raise Utah standards and get great technology-based testing.
--If we even want that much testing for our kids.
No public discussion of testing young kids
In Finland, where matriculation exams show kids are as well educated as they are in super-smartSingapore and South Korea, there are no tests for young kids. Finland is not a conservative nation. But they only test their matriculating young adults. So why have we all bought into the idea of testing, testing, testing?
There are many teachers beside me who resent the intrusion on teaching time. Kids don't love it, either.
I'm sure there are arguments for and against testing young kids. My father had me taking the SAT and ACT from 7th grade for practice. But have these pros and cons been heard? I haven't heard any discussion at all about it. Why not? We seem to just go along with whatever the"professional educators" led by the Arne Duncans have to say.
If you investigate the SBAC's plans for collection of longitudinal data on individual kids, you will see an invasion of personal privacy happening there, too. They don't just collect information about whether the kids can do math and read.
But I have said enough for today.
Thank you for studying this matter further and for urging our state school board to do so.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Common Core: The Groupthink Gang
Whoever controls curriculum, controls ideas. It is no small thing to have Utah enrolled in the Common Core initiative and all its entangling political cooperatives and assessments.
I've started gathering testimonies of those who are against the Common Core Initiative.
Ze’ev Wurman, a former U. S. Department of Education official, said:
“[E]ven the defenders of the national standards do not claim they are at the level
of international high achievers. Currently South Carolina has good standards in
English and mathematics, even as they can be improved. . . . [I]ts new history
standards are the best in the nation, and its science standards are also excellent
and among the top 5 in the nation. South Carolina showed it can improve the
standards on its own if it so wishes and has no need to trade them for mediocre
standards that transfer control out of state to Washington, D.C.”
Dr. Sandra Stotsky, Professor of Education Reform, University of Arkansas, said:
“Common Core’s ‘college readiness’ standards for English language arts and
reading are simply empty skill sets. . . . Common Core’s ELA ‘college readiness’
standards weaken the base of literary and cultural knowledge needed for
authentic college coursework.”
The American Principles Project said:
“The Common Core Standards facilitate the practically unlimited sharing of our
children’s private, personally identifiable data with other government agencies
such as the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services, and even with
private entities.”
I watched the leaders of the Common Core Initiative as they gave a seminar to teachers on the following link. I don't even need to make a commentary. If you watch and listen, you will see what their purpose and aim is: groupthink. Just like the nightmare regimes you learned about in history class, the groupthink gang is back.
I've started gathering testimonies of those who are against the Common Core Initiative.
Ze’ev Wurman, a former U. S. Department of Education official, said:
“[E]ven the defenders of the national standards do not claim they are at the level
of international high achievers. Currently South Carolina has good standards in
English and mathematics, even as they can be improved. . . . [I]ts new history
standards are the best in the nation, and its science standards are also excellent
and among the top 5 in the nation. South Carolina showed it can improve the
standards on its own if it so wishes and has no need to trade them for mediocre
standards that transfer control out of state to Washington, D.C.”
Dr. Sandra Stotsky, Professor of Education Reform, University of Arkansas, said:
“Common Core’s ‘college readiness’ standards for English language arts and
reading are simply empty skill sets. . . . Common Core’s ELA ‘college readiness’
standards weaken the base of literary and cultural knowledge needed for
authentic college coursework.”
The American Principles Project said:
“The Common Core Standards facilitate the practically unlimited sharing of our
children’s private, personally identifiable data with other government agencies
such as the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services, and even with
private entities.”
I watched the leaders of the Common Core Initiative as they gave a seminar to teachers on the following link. I don't even need to make a commentary. If you watch and listen, you will see what their purpose and aim is: groupthink. Just like the nightmare regimes you learned about in history class, the groupthink gang is back.
http://usny.nysed.gov/rttt/resources/bringing-the-common-core-to-life.html
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Reasons to Get Out of the Common Core Initiative and SBAC
Here are links to some resources if you are wondering whether Common Core and the SBAC are more complicated than they seem, and about more federal political agendas than the good of the school children.
Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/sc-gov-nikki-haley-backs-bill-to-block-common-core-standards/
Senator Michael Fair of South Carolina http://www.electmikefair.com/?p=220
Cato Institute http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-other-federal-takeover/
The Pioneer Institute http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pubs_white_papers.php
http://pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/120209_NationalCurriculum_PR.pdf
The Heritage Foundation http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/28/south-carolina-resisting-the-national-standards-push/
A teacher against the common core: http://autodizactic.com/blog/?page_id=1399
and, here's more from The American Principles Project :
1. It's not state-led.
"The fed. gov't did not create Common Core, but neither did the states. The "state-led" claim is marketing, not reality. CC was created under the National Governors Association (a trade group that does not include all governors) and the Council of Chief State School Officers. They contracted with Achieve, Inc., a nonprofit in DC, to write the standards. Achieve worked through the same people that have been pushing a national curriculum. States had little or no input.
http://townhall.com/columnists/emmetmcgroarty/2011/02/23/education_revolution_without_the_people/page/full/
Even though the feds didn't create CC, they are incentvizing/coercing states to accept it, and Duncan is in a big panic now that the some states are balking:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/say-i-threatened-you-again-and-ill-mess-you-up/
2. Whoever is paying for the tests will control the tests
The primary avenue through which the feds will control this going forward is the assessments, which are still being drafted by SBAC and PARCC. The feds are funding the assessments to the tune of $350 million. Whoever is paying for the tests will control the tests, and even CC proponents admit that what's on the tests will control what's taught in the classroom. (Under CC, a state may add 15% content to any subject area, but that additional content will not be on the tests -- so no teacher will spend much, if any, time on it. And the state may not subtract anything from CC -- it must accept CC word for word.) The result: a national curriculum, whether they call it that or not. The argument that the standards will not affect curriculum is ludicrous -- the whole point of standards is to affect curriculum.
http://truthinamericaneducation.com/uncategorized/arne-duncan-junked-common-core/
3. Sounds like GROUPTHINK. Take a step back and see the bigger picture in what the feds are doing. This plan isn't an education model; it's a workforce model. The progressive dream is to have a national curriculum that trains children to fill specific jobs in the workforce, and to track each student from preschool through career to see how all the gov't programs are working. This plan requires collecting and disseminating reams of data on students, which the feds are orchestrating through Race to the Top, the Stimulus bill, etc. See http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/how_the_feds_are_tracking_your_kid_xC6wecT8ZidCAzfqegB6hL.
It also may explain some of the more troubling aspects of the CC standards, such as the de-emphasis on teaching literature in favor of teaching "informational texts." After all, Bill Gates (whose foundation is paying for much of this) doesn't need entry-level workers who understand Shakespeare -- he needs entry-level workers who can understand computer manuals. Under CC, we'll won't be educating children; we'll be training them to fill jobs at (politically connected) companies. " - From the American Principles Project.
4. Teachers haven't been told. They only hear about the academic questions. Why? Ask a teacher or a state office of education official how the standards amendment process works, how a state can get out of its consortium, or why the assessments (SBAC consortium) has exhibit B appendix that describes having to align with federal standards. They won't know-- guaranteed.
Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/sc-gov-nikki-haley-backs-bill-to-block-common-core-standards/
Senator Michael Fair of South Carolina http://www.electmikefair.com/?p=220
Cato Institute http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-other-federal-takeover/
The Pioneer Institute http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pubs_white_papers.php
http://pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/120209_NationalCurriculum_PR.pdf
The Heritage Foundation http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/28/south-carolina-resisting-the-national-standards-push/
A teacher against the common core: http://autodizactic.com/blog/?page_id=1399
and, here's more from The American Principles Project :
1. It's not state-led.
"The fed. gov't did not create Common Core, but neither did the states. The "state-led" claim is marketing, not reality. CC was created under the National Governors Association (a trade group that does not include all governors) and the Council of Chief State School Officers. They contracted with Achieve, Inc., a nonprofit in DC, to write the standards. Achieve worked through the same people that have been pushing a national curriculum. States had little or no input.
http://townhall.com/columnists/emmetmcgroarty/2011/02/23/education_revolution_without_the_people/page/full/
Even though the feds didn't create CC, they are incentvizing/coercing states to accept it, and Duncan is in a big panic now that the some states are balking:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/say-i-threatened-you-again-and-ill-mess-you-up/
2. Whoever is paying for the tests will control the tests
The primary avenue through which the feds will control this going forward is the assessments, which are still being drafted by SBAC and PARCC. The feds are funding the assessments to the tune of $350 million. Whoever is paying for the tests will control the tests, and even CC proponents admit that what's on the tests will control what's taught in the classroom. (Under CC, a state may add 15% content to any subject area, but that additional content will not be on the tests -- so no teacher will spend much, if any, time on it. And the state may not subtract anything from CC -- it must accept CC word for word.) The result: a national curriculum, whether they call it that or not. The argument that the standards will not affect curriculum is ludicrous -- the whole point of standards is to affect curriculum.
http://truthinamericaneducation.com/uncategorized/arne-duncan-junked-common-core/
3. Sounds like GROUPTHINK. Take a step back and see the bigger picture in what the feds are doing. This plan isn't an education model; it's a workforce model. The progressive dream is to have a national curriculum that trains children to fill specific jobs in the workforce, and to track each student from preschool through career to see how all the gov't programs are working. This plan requires collecting and disseminating reams of data on students, which the feds are orchestrating through Race to the Top, the Stimulus bill, etc. See http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/how_the_feds_are_tracking_your_kid_xC6wecT8ZidCAzfqegB6hL.
It also may explain some of the more troubling aspects of the CC standards, such as the de-emphasis on teaching literature in favor of teaching "informational texts." After all, Bill Gates (whose foundation is paying for much of this) doesn't need entry-level workers who understand Shakespeare -- he needs entry-level workers who can understand computer manuals. Under CC, we'll won't be educating children; we'll be training them to fill jobs at (politically connected) companies. " - From the American Principles Project.
4. Teachers haven't been told. They only hear about the academic questions. Why? Ask a teacher or a state office of education official how the standards amendment process works, how a state can get out of its consortium, or why the assessments (SBAC consortium) has exhibit B appendix that describes having to align with federal standards. They won't know-- guaranteed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)