Author Topic: Common Core Education And More About Federal Government Control  (Read 77154 times)


  • Guest
Common Core Education And More About Federal Government Control
« on: December 20, 2013, 02:42:05 PM »
It's All About Federal Government Control !

Common Core Education is not about education, it is about Federal Government Control !

Just as ObamaCare or ACA is not about Affordable Health Care, it is about Federal Government Control !

Gun Control is not about citizens protection but simple disarmament and it is about Federal Government Control !
The idea of giving  everyone a guaranteed basic income is not about helping the poor, it is about Federal Government Control !

Flooding the country with illegals that can be made dependent on Federal and State aid is about Federal Government Control !

Homeland Security isn't about our country safety, it is about Federal Government Control !

NSA isn't about our safety, it is about Federal Government Control !

When do the people wake up ?

After all their constitutional rights are gone and they are totally dependent on the Federal Government?

Is that when?

Sorry that will be to late!


The States were bought by the Federal Government with your tax dollars and they accepted out of greed.

Common Core was publicized as a state-led, voluntary initiative, but it was actually an offer states couldn't refuse if they wanted their share of billions of federal education dollars. Now that most states have signed on, they're getting more – and less – than they bargained for.


Reliance on technology hurting education
PUBLISHED: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2013 AT 5:00 AMommon Core is not about education. It is about competition. It is about our students in the United States competing with students from the Far East and Canada.
Common Core seeks to create an educational system that meets the needs of the marketplace. So Common Core is about business and economics also.

What about education?

Common Core a monopoly on education

By Mark Schenck Contributing columnist

A monopoly is when one person or company has overwhelming control of a certain sector of business. Monopolies have a negative effect on the economy. They destroy competition, which benefits consumers by providing a choice of products — that in turn stimulates creativeness and helps to control product cost.

Many laws have been written to control monopolies. Fortunately the federal government forbids monopolies in the commercial sector, however it has a different set of rules to govern it’s own “Single Option Programs” — such as the one soon to be adopted in a school near you, the “Common Core’ Curriculum.”

This method of teaching is just as it’s name suggests: Common Core Curriculum will in fact become the common standard for all schools. This in itself denotes ‘Common Core’ as a monopoly — and what has the g overnment stated about the effects of monopolies on creativeness, choice, and cost?

Republicans back away from Common Core as legislative roadblocks advance
By Reid Wilson
December 17 at 6:00 am

Even as international studies show American students falling farther behind Asian and European students in math, science and reading scores, a group of Republican governors, mostly in Southern states, are distancing themselves from a set of education standards that most of their colleagues are embracing.

The governors find themselves under pressure from opponents of Common Core standards. Those opponents, largely made up of conservative activists, say the standards are a federal power grab aimed at dictating state education policy, which should be the domain of the states.

“There is serious public concern about the reach of the federal government into state public education policy,” Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant (R) said in a statement Monday, when he announced an executive order that reaffirms his state’s “right and responsibility to define and implement its own public school standards and curricula.”

“Our classrooms will not become delivery vehicles for bureaucratic federal mandates. We have made tremendous progress in enacting improvements in our public education system, and we will continue pursuing what works for Mississippi children,” Bryant said.


Rotten to the Core
Instead of ill-conceived standards, improve schools with vouchers and competition

By Vicki E. Alger

December 17, 2013

Americans expect more individualization, from flexible workplace schedules and telecommuting, to TV programs that can be watched at viewers' convenience.

Yet American education is moving in the opposite direction toward one-size-fits-all schooling thanks in no small part to the Common Core national standards. Savvy education consumers should reject this growing centralization and start demanding from education what they demand from every other industry sector: more innovation and personalization.

Common Core was publicized as a state-led, voluntary initiative, but it was actually an offer states couldn't refuse if they wanted their share of billions of federal education dollars. Now that most states have signed on, they're getting more – and less – than they bargained for.

Common Core is supposed to provide a consistent understanding of what students should know to be college- and career-ready. But it turns out Common Core's standards are no more rigorous than the average state standards were. Worse, new Common Core-aligned tests cost state taxpayers about twice as much their previous standard tests.


Common Core aka NCLB: Why Neither Can Work
Posted: 12/19/2013 2:14 PM

Fast forward eight years and the introduction of Common Core Standards. In a country where learning disabled students and non-English speaking students are grouped into regular classrooms, it becomes problematic for so-called standardized education to be administered to all. Like clothing, one size (or test) does not fit all.

Addressing today's Common Core Standards, Margaret Dayton writes, "NCLB is evolving into a more dangerous national curriculum than was proposed in its original, overwhelming proposal, and plans to address re-authorization don't seem to exist anywhere."


Here's Another Reason Conservatives Should Favor Giving Everyone A Basic Income
Danny Vinik   Dec. 19, 2013, 12:16 PM

In recent months, the idea of giving everyone a guaranteed basic income has garnered increased interest from economists and journalists alike.

The idea is pretty simply: you send all adults a check every month, no conditions attached. It would eliminate the numerous bureaucratic government agencies that currently help low-income Americans.


Deportations under Obama plunged to just 1 percent last year

By Stephen Dinan  The Washington Times

The Obama administration deported just 1 percent of illegal immigrants living within the interior of the U.S. Last year, according to statistics released Thursday, which signals that most illegal immigrants face little chance of being kicked out of the country.

In fiscal year 2013, which ended Sept. 30, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed 133,551 immigrants, down more than 25 percent from the previous year, even as the estimated number of illegal immigrants grew to 11.7 million.


This just a small list of Federal Government Controls possible controls of the of the people !

I am sure there is a lot more.

You are invited to add to the list if you have the cahonies.

« Last Edit: December 20, 2013, 05:40:26 PM by ROSS »


  • Guest
Re: Common Core Education And More About Federal Government Control
« Reply #1 on: January 16, 2014, 05:04:53 PM »
Posted on December 27, 2013

The Latest Educational Gimmick

Common Core Standards come to California.

It is late on a Tuesday afternoon and I am sitting in the school library, which was recently converted into a computer center. This means it can no longer be used as a library, but libraries are considered obsolete in the coming Common Core Standards (CCS) era. It appears that at least one third of the books have already been given away or boxed up and sent to the downtown book depository.

You see, Common Core Standards set new “literacy expectations,” reflecting a “shared school responsibility,” using new “metacognitive strategies” to “direct thinking and learning,” in order to prepare students for “life in a technological society.”

Got all that? Neither have I.

The CCS is just one more in a long line of schemes cooked up to “close the gaps” and try to improve black and Hispanic school performance. Among other things, the CCS will shift “literacy” away from the Western Canon to what will be 70 percent non-fiction. This will include how-to books, technical manuals, court opinions, “global informative/explanatory texts,” and—believe it or not—government documents such as the Environmental Protection Agency’s Recommended Levels of Insulation, and California’s Invasive Plant Inventory. Dead white authors are not part of the CCS agenda.

Common Core promises national standards that are “robust,” “real world,” “aligned with college and work expectations,” and “evidence based.” It will use “best practices,” be “internationally benchmarked,” and promises to close the pesky racial achievement gap that 50 years of “best practices” have failed to close.

Do not be fooled. CCS is a particularly insidious program of socialism, white guilt, global citizenship, self-esteem, and culturally sensitive language.

Words such as “fireman,” “policeman,” and “chairman,” are strictly forbidden in CCS. Instead, we must talk about fire fighters, police officers and chairpersons. Naturally, no one is ever “disabled.” He is “differently abled,” “has disabilities,” or is “physically or mentally challenged.” Students who commit outrageous crimes on campus are, believe it or not, “behaviorally challenged.” Students who fail repeatedly are “at potential,” as opposed to those who are likely to fail, who are “at risk.”

The other day, all the teachers at our school were called in for a lecture on the new standards. “We are honored today,” the principal began, “to have the area superintendent, recently voted educator of the year, to conduct our professional development and help us get ready for Common Core Standards implementation.”

“Let’s get started right away,” the area superintendent announced, writing a series of education acronyms on the board. “This school is a designated Intensive Support and Innovation Center, an ISIC school, and it is the teaching methods, the pedagogy that needs to change. Teachers here are focusing on product and not on content and delivery methods, which is causing our students to fail repeatedly.”

So it’s our fault. We teachers call students who fail the same classes repeatedly “The F Troop.”

So what does it mean to be an “Intensive Support and Innovation Center, an ISIC school”? It means ours is one of the worst-performing schools. Since bad test scores are our fault, it means the bureaucrats in their plush offices have decided to lather us up with a whole new layer of bureaucracy and browbeating. Among other things, this means “professional development”–teacher training every week. I can’t tell you how much teachers hate this. The ISIC motto is the usual drivel: “We Innovate and Transform Learning to Inspire Excellence.”

I glanced around the room at the weary faces, and knew everyone was tired of being blamed for student failure. I looked at the math department and realized that not a single teacher among them had fewer than 25 years of experience. What is it we haven’t tried? How dare this overpaid functionary lecture us about teaching methods? And what on earth does he mean by “product,” as opposed to “content”?

Although I knew better than to challenge district officials on education dogma, I was fed up with being browbeaten by out-of-classroom, clueless bureaucrats who work in cushy offices far from school campuses. “How do we help students who enter our 11th grade classrooms with third grade reading skills?” I asked stupidly, knowing district administrators are well trained to handle any sign of opposition to what they are so well paid to promote. The area superintendent was ready with a canned answer: “You must scaffold, break down the lesson to make it more understandable for those students who need extra help in catching up. I suggest you break the students into small groups and have them teach each other the lesson.”

“Also,” I continued, “how are students who read far below grade level expected to do homework assignments from the 11th grade text which I am mandated to assign to them?”

“Homework shouldn’t be assigned,” the area superintendent responded sternly. “The district superintendent himself said that homework should count for no more than 10 percent of a student’s grade. You are focusing on productivity and not content and delivery. What do you think this is, a factory? A student who does not do homework falls behind the rest of the class and will be unable to catch up.”

I didn’t dare ask the question I really wanted to pose: “How are students supposed to take the new, essay-only CCS tests on iPads, which we haven’t yet received, in a school like ours that does not have WiFi?”

I knew that not one other teacher in the room would demand answers to my questions about CCS; they wanted me to shut up and let the superintendent finish so they could go home.

Friday was career day for 11th graders. The first speaker was an official from the Department of Power and Water. He started by asking the students: “Where does most of our water come from?” One student raised his hand: “the ocean.” “Good answer, the official said, but most of our water comes from the Eastern Sierras.” The official asked another question: “Does anyone know where most of our power comes from?” Another student raised his hand: “From the sun.” “You’re on the right track,” the presenter said, “but we haven’t developed solar power to a great extent yet, most of our power comes from far-away generators.” For raising their hands and answering the questions, each kid received a prize. That’s the only way to get them to participate in a session like this one. Maybe these students need Common Core literature after all, I thought.

Later, that same afternoon, after a long week and as I was packing up to go home, the assistant principal knocked on my classroom door: “We are getting a new student on Monday,” he tells me casually, “who has Sudden Death Syndrome. If any of your students see him passed out on the floor in the bathroom or out on the PE field, tell them to report it to the office.”

I wrote to a cyberpal in St. Louis about CCS: “I see that your state, Missouri, is trying to opt out of the Common Core Standards that are being forced down our throats in California.”

“Yes,” he replied, “the Democrat governor is the only politician in the state who wants it. Republicans, who dominate the state legislature, don’t want it because it’s another Obama boondoggle. Black Democrats reject it because they’re bought and paid for by the teachers’ union, which doesn’t want it because teachers’ careers, especially for teachers in urban black districts, will be at the mercy of their black students’ test scores.”

We should be so lucky in California. The state has embraced Common Core and plans to implement it in full this spring. Teachers like me are set up to take the fall when CCS, like all the grandiose programs before it, inevitably fails.


  • Guest
Re: Common Core Education And More About Federal Government Control
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2014, 06:21:44 PM »

Common Core is an integral part of UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development: globalization is the standardization of systems. Whether the system is law enforcement or land use or government, the standardization, harmonization, and integration of all international methods of management is essential for total control. 

Education is the flash point for embedding system acceptance in all sectors of the population.  Standardized propaganda is developed for pre-kindergarten to post graduate school; this is what is meant by 'Life Long Learning.' 

Breaking down traditional methods of learning in order to re-socialize the populace is the goal.  Obedient, dependent people who are constantly being propagandized will provide the 'human capital' to fully implement UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development.

Regardless of the content of this nationalized and internationalized system of behavioral modification, the goal and outcome will be to fundamentally destroy the individual's rights.


For more, please click on the following links that will take you to posts about Common Core on this website

Globalization is the Standardization of Systems

Common Core is Institutionalized Terrorism

Common Core is Agenda 21

Common Core: The Tip of the Iceberg

Common Core Backlash

The World Happiness Index and Mass Murder

The Mainstream Press Lies About UN Agenda 21--Why?

2013: The Year We Reach Critical Awareness of UN Agenda 21

Guest Post: Charlotte Iserbyt on Common Core

Turning 6 year olds into Propaganda Machines: Common Core


Guest Post: Charlotte Iserbyt on School Choice/Common Core



  • Guest
Re: Common Core Education And More About Federal Government Control
« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2014, 06:23:08 PM »
You won't see it called Agenda 21.  It won't come with flashing lights announcing that it's part of a global standardization program to inventory, monitor, and control every aspect of your life.  Example?Common Core is the 'new' inventory and control system adopted by nearly every state in the US to fully implement Skinnerian training.  This system creates people who will go along to get along, who will be 'good obedient citizens'.    RESIST.  TELL YOUR SCHOOL BOARD THAT YOU WANT OUT OF COMMON CORE.  This is a top down federal/global system for pseudo-education and is a tremendous threat to our independence as individuals and as a nation.

Read the following article and then get more info by delving into this

and by reading Orlean Koehle's book, Common Core: A Trojan Horse for Education Reform.

A terrific website for analysis of Common Core

How’s Your Common Core Knowledge?
via Truth in American Education by Shane Vander Hart on 1/28/13

An interesting quiz was published at The Progressive… they challenge readers to test their public ed savvy.  These are the last four questions and answers:

7. Common Core Standards were developed because
a) parents worry that US children score far below other countries on international tests.
b) teachers lack the skills to craft adequate curriculum and wanted help.
c) state departments of education asked for them.
d) of grass-roots concern that children need special tools to compete in the Global Economy.
e) the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation paid for them

8. Common Core Standards in literacy were written by
a) classroom teachers.
b) child psychologists.
c) university researchers.
d) business leaders.
e) a lawyer who specializes in “standards-driven reform” and someone whose background is in Management Consulting, who once tutored children while studying at Yale.

9. The new Common Core tests
a) let the teachers know exactly what each student needs to learn next.
b) give parents evidence teachers are doing their job.
c) ensure that standards are being met.
d) give principals a fair way to evaluate teachers.
e) make fiscal demands many districts cannot meet.

10. The new online feature of Common Core testing
a) will reduce administration costs.
b) will streamline student evaluation.
c) offers new opportunities for creativity.
d) will lead to more individualized learning.
e) means students will be tested many more times each year.

Here are the answers as given by The Progressive…

7. E
“Is the Gates Foundation Involved in bribery,” July 23, 2010
“JoLLE Forum–Rotten to the (Common) Core,” Nov. 1, 2012
8. E
David Coleman bio; Susan Pimentel bio
9. E
“Federal Mandates on Local Education: Costs and Consequences–Yes, it’s a Race, but is it in the Right Direction?”
10. E
“Common Core Assessments”


  • Guest
Re: Common Core Education And More About Federal Government Control
« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2014, 06:27:37 PM »
But we don't want to be Social Idiots do we?
We want to follow orders. don't we?



The joke is that you can mess with my kids but don't touch my dog.  Well, luckily it's not true that people--parents and educators---will stand quietly and allow their children to be abused by standardized testing and 'educational' programs.  I almost typed 'pogroms'.  Look it up.

So the Associated Press finally broke down and did a story on Common Core, but didn't name it.  They focused in on just standardized testing and not on standardized curriculum.  According to a former Bush operative who helped write No Child Left Behind, Sandy Kress, the problem is in 'overtesting.'   After the Associated Press adds a couple of columns to muddy the issue and not address standardized 'education' and data collection, Kress wraps up the article in phony concern for the children.  Here's the quote: "This is about way more than testing," Kress said.  "The question is whether we're (she means 'Society' here) willing to hold ourselves accountable.  The question is whether there are consequences for adults and whether we're serous about all children meeting standards.  This is a test of our culture and whether we're prepared to see these aspirations to reality.  I worry that we're not going to pass this test."

She's worried that society won't be able to pull off the most massive, comprehensive social manipulation since Nazi Germany, Maoist China, and Soviet Russia.  Worried.

Now I want to read you something from a book called The Gulag Archipelago.  This book was written by a man who was a prisoner in Soviet Russia during the years of Lenin and Stalin.  The book covers the years 1918-1956, and it's painful reading. The passage I'm going to share with you will answer your question:  How can people do these things?  Do they actually believe that they're doing the right thing?  Why can't they listen to us? 

"Ideology--that is what gives evildoing its long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination.  That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes, so that he won't hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors. ..  Thanks to ideology, the twentieth century was fated to experience evildoing on a scale calculated in the millions.  This cannot be denied, nor passed over, nor suppressed.  How, then, do we dare insist that evildoers do not exist?...Yes, a human being hesitates and bobs back and forth between good and evil all his life.  He slips, falls back, clambers up, repents, things begin to darken again.  But just so long as the threshold of evildoing is not crossed, the possibility of returning remains, and he himself is still within reach of our hope.  But when, through the density of evil actions, the result either of their own extreme degree or of the absoluteness of his power, he suddenly crosses that threshold, he has left humanity behind, and without, perhaps, the possibility of return."   From Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago.

According to the Associated Press article, students all over the United States are refusing to take standardized tests.  Opt-outs, boycotts, protests, and moratoriums are spreading. 


           COMMON CORE IS AGENDA 21.


  • Guest
Re: Common Core Education And More About Federal Government Control
« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2014, 06:32:57 PM »

A Letter by James Arnold
Superintendent, Pelham City Public Schools
Pelham City, GA

I must state from the outset that I am innately suspicious of the underlying motives or claimed educational benefits of any initiative--Common Core included--supported by the Governor of Georgia who, having instituted austerity cuts in 2003, led Georgia to be one of the only states to use teacher furloughs to balance the state budget, and who consistently under-funded public education in order to  promote quality fishing.

Common Core is a standardized national curriculum. Why is this problematic? From an historical context, a centralized school curriculum serves the goals of totalitarian states. It's also illegal. The General Education Provisions Act, the Department of Education Organization Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act all forbid or protect against the USDOE sticking its nose into the curriculum choices of state and local districts. In spite of these measures, the USDOE has been funding, since 2010, the efforts of two separate testing companies to create a national curriculum for English and mathematics. In reference to the creation of the USDOE in 1979, President Carter said in his State of the Union Address that "states, localities and private institutions will continue to bear the primary responsibility for education." Carter's Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Joseph Califano, said, "Any set of test questions that the federal government prescribed should surely be suspect as a first step toward a national curriculum [and] a national control of curriculum is a form of national control of ideas."

In spite of the inherent legal issues, Common Core was created through a secretive process, with no thoughts for opportunities for public input, no attempt at the solicitation of public dialogue, no evidence of discussion or critique from experienced educators, no foundational research or pilot programs, and created on the assumption that any standardized national curriculum was better than no standardized national curriculum at all. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, evidently immune to mundane legalities and to legal advice, immediately made acceptance of the Common Core a requirement for approval of state applications for exemptions to the No Child Left Behind Act.

"From where did the Common Core originate?" you might ask. You might, but evidently most states either did not ask, or did not care. The National Governors' Association Center for Best Practice, the Council of Chief State School Officers, Achieve, Inc., ACT, the College Board, the State Higher Education Executive Officers, and the National Association of State Boards of Education all claim credit for developing these standards on behalf of the states. States quickly jumped on the Common Core train before they were aware of exactly what the standards would be or, perhaps more importantly, what they would cost to implement. State DOEs in states that have rushed to adoption are apparently unbothered by the fact they have relegated themselves to the role of administrative agents for a nationalized curriculum, with little or no thought to the cost of implementation.

There are additional issues:

 1. There are few interdisciplinary connections among subjects. Research for many years has shown the positive effects of interdisciplinary connections on student learning and achievement. Innovation is at best ignored and at worst proscribed for teachers and for students. Standards, by their very nature, insist that if anything at all must be excluded because of the constraints of time in class, whether it be the length of the school term or year, or the amount of "material to be covered," it must not, at any cost, be the standards themselves. Creativity will no doubt be the first casualty.

2. Citizenship, personal development and the promotion of democratic values are ignored. Again I quote Califano: "[A] national curriculum is a form of the national control of ideas." I do not believe for one second that the omission of democratic values was inadvertent or unintentional. I do believe these standards will be, by design and intention, difficult to amend in any way, shape or form.

Georgia was quick to hop on the Common Core bandwagon. The rationale given by the Georgia Department of Education behind this mandated implementation of Common Core was three-fold. The Common Core, they contend, provides:

1. an answer to the problem of student mobility;
2. an opportunity to create an economy of scale, and;
3. an opportunity to compare "apples to apples" when ranking schools, systems, or students between and among states.

Student achievement seems to be missing from that particular continuum. The Common Core, along with the denigration of public school teachers, the constant assertions that public schools are failing miserably, and an insistence on the "market based" (translated to mean "privately owned for-profit educational agencies") approach to education are promulgated by Republicans[1]. "For Republicans and for the benefit of Republicans" fits nicely into the anti-public education agenda of the last decade. None of the reasons presented for the adoption of the Common Core had anything to do with improving achievement but had everything to do with flushing public education down the tubes until the public gives up, throws its collective hands into the air, and consents to pay for the private education of the privileged few. The abandonment of public education to its own financial devices will serve to maintain the traditional lifeline of the uneducated for those who depend upon them for labor, for as long as possible. Public education can only do more with less for so long. Just for the record, I find it personally difficult to believe that the minority parents who make up the majority of the 93% or so of students in public education have not seen that attack directed toward the education of their own children. Go figure.

Adopting a curriculum to solve societal mobility issues is like measuring flour with a yardstick; it defies credibility, and even the rather relaxed laws of common sense. There are easier solutions. "Economies of scale" mean little when our legislature continues to underfund public education. When you can't afford textbooks, the opportunity to not buy new ones at a cheaper price is hardly an advantage. It is rather troubling to note the number of educational "reforms" that ignore educational research, as if invoking the magic word "reform" is enough to allow any imposition, however implausible.

With adoption of the Common Core standards, you can rest assured that Common Core standardized testing is not far behind. How can we expect a single, nationwide standardized "pick-a-bubble" machine-scored test to measure what is taught in practically every school system in the U.S. effectively? The documented testing issues we already see with state assessments will increase exponentially. The June, 2012 Georgia State Board of Education minutes listed over $25,000,000 in state contracts for testing and test development for 2013. Whether these investments are educationally justifiable or wise never seems to be the question. The point of ranking states, schools, systems, and students eludes me, unless it is an attempt to shame low performers into magically doing better. I feel that neither anger nor shame can serve as a prime motivational tool. Cooperation and collaboration, however, have worked wonderfully, but are consistently in absentia from those whose declared purpose is educational reform.

Standardized tests were designed, once upon a time, to serve as prescriptive tools to help teachers help students. Presently they serve as autopsy reports that include first-time test-taker results with the primary purpose, not to assist teachers in improving student achievement, but to rank schools and systems. Teachers cannot effectively use data provided at the end of the school year to assist students who leave their classes two weeks later. If we were serious about using these tests to measure achievement—and there’s a mighty big "if" about whether they do--we would give them at the beginning of the year to provide substantive data for teachers.

In a time when parents--and, as an extension, the public--are demanding more and more personalization for their children's educations, Federal and state educational agencies continue to insist upon more and more standardization--falling once again into the fallacy of "what's good for one child is good for all children."

The Common Core standards will ultimately serve not to improve student achievement but to increase the profits of standardized testing companies. The effects of poverty, family and socio-economic factors on education will continue to be largely ignored in our infatuation with the misguided belief that student achievement will improve through intensified measurement. The "teach to the test," "test prep," and "testing pep rallies" environments will grow stronger through the implementation of annual growth measurements (annual growth = 100%--the 2011 proficiency rate of first-time test-takers divided by 6) for schools, and flawed teacher evaluation models that tie teacher ratings and salary to student scores will serve as almost insurmountable incentives for teachers to teach to the test, by the test, and for the test.

The U.S. has, since the 1950s, been rated in the bottom 25% of every educational rating system imaginable. The fact that our country has set the economic standard for the rest of the world, that our creativity, achievements, and scientific progress far overshadow the nearest competitors would seem to lead us toward the beginnings of a discussion about the efficacy and reliability of the ranking systems we seem to trust as infallible measurements. Those that point to our nation's rank among international educational rankings also conveniently forget to mention that in our country every child is entitled, not just to attend school, but to expect to achieve, or at least to be tested. Every score from every student counts. There is no selective testing or tracking, and no other country makes the effort to educate every child. When our best students’ scores are compared to those of other countries—surprise, surprise!-our rankings compare favorably with anyone's.

Sooner or later even legislators must see that it's not about race, it's about poverty; it's not about a test score, it's about student achievement; it's not about a standardized curriculum, it's about good teaching; it's not about the business model, it's about personalization; it's not about competition, it's about cooperation. Until that time, we will continue to get the kind of legislature and public education system that we vote for.

Relevant content and applications of knowledge through critical thinking, problem solving, modeling, and higher order thinking skills should be the focus and goal of our educational processes. Education is not supposed to be about determining or defining a specific amount or trove of material that must be learned in order to advance to the next level, but about cultivating and growing students' inquisitiveness and curiosity, which eventually grow into life skills. None of these skills or processes can be measured with any degree of reliability, accuracy, or validity by a multiple choice machine-scored test.

My suggestion is that we trust teachers enough to give them the freedom to do what they do best: teach children on personal and individualized levels. Micromanagement is an egregious sin and an almost irresistible temptation for State and Federal officials.

I predict a period of extensive frustration on the part of teachers before they get to the point that they must eventually reach in order to decide that, if anything is to be done to effectively implement the Common Core Curriculum, they must do it themselves at the local school level. Teachers, in this case as in so many others, are not the problem; they are our unrecognized salvation. Just as with the Georgia Performance Standards, the efforts of teachers will eventually--in spite of everything politicians can do to make them look like scapegoats for what are truly societal issues--be the salvation of Common Core implementation. Teachers will prevail in spite of state and Federal mandates and implementation schemes, and not because of them; until, of course, the next big reform comes around the corner, and the rules and expectations change once again.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2014, 06:34:40 PM by ROSS »


  • Guest
Re: Common Core Education And More About Federal Government Control
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2014, 07:48:16 AM »
Emphasis is mine.

Some states rebrand controversial
Common Core
education standards

By Lyndsey Layton,   Published: January 30 

 Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) used an executive order to strip the name “Common Core” from the state’s new math and reading standards for public schools. In the Hawkeye State, the same standards are now called “The Iowa Core.” And in Florida, lawmakers want to delete “Common Core” from official documents and replace it with the cheerier-sounding “Next Generation Sunshine State Standards.”

In the face of growing opposition to the Common Core State Standards — a set of K-12 educational guidelines adopted by most of the country — officials in a handful of states are worried that the brand is already tainted. They’re keeping the standards but slapping on fresh names they hope will have greater public appeal.

Read more here:


Miami Herald >  News >  Legislature
Posted on Saturday, 01.18.14
Renaming ‘Common Core’ standards
does little to end education debate

By Kathleen McGrory
Herald/Times Tallahassee bureau

TALLAHASSEE --  The state education department tried to distance itself from the controversial Common Core State Standards last week by recommending changes to the benchmarks and giving them a new name.

“The proposed standards are truly our own,” Deputy Chancellor Mary Jane Tappen said during a Tuesday workshop on the freshly named “Florida Standards.”

But is Florida really moving away from the national benchmarks, which have drawn Tea Party ire in recent months? Or are the suggested revisions a matter of semantics?

“At their heart, the standards in Florida are still Common Core standards,” said Anne Hyslop, a policy analyst with New America Foundation’s Education Policy Program, noting that many of the proposed changes are minor.

Hyslop added: “The Rebranding and Messaging is Largely Political."

Read more here:


Rebimbas supports
delaying, examining
Common Core

Thursday, January 30, 2014

HARTFORD — State Rep. Rosa Rebimbas (R-70) joined her Republican colleagues this week on calling for Gov. Dannel Malloy and the state Department of Education to delay implementation of the Common Core teaching program and teacher evaluation process.

The legislators want it delayed until further study on the effectiveness and feasibility of the program can be performed and the discussion can be brought out into the public.

During a press conference in the Legislative Office Building the House Republican Caucus Education Committee questioned the timing and implementation of the Common Core curriculum across the state and called upon the legislature’s Education Committee to hold a public hearing on the Common Core. 

According to a press release issued by Rebimbas’ office, the committee highlighted problems regarding technology concerns with administering assessments under the Common Core and questioned the reliability and feasibility of linking student achievement scores on the Smarter Balanced standardized test system to teacher evaluations.

“Rushing to implement legislation that makes major changes to how our children learn, how our educator’s teach and how both students and educators are evaluated without first properly examining the pros and cons of the system is a recipe for disaster, and that’s what we’re seeing now,” Rebimbas said in the release.  “Connecticut’s Common Core program must be reevaluated with clearly vetted and well established guidelines.

Feedback from educators across the state has already pointed out several potential problems with the program, including implementation problems in terms of internet technology requirements for computers in order to take the tests, students struggling with keyboarding skills at young ages, and the sheer amount of new projects and initiatives being rolled out at the same time, the release stated.

Rebimbas added in the release, “To meet the Common Core requirements, teachers and administrators are asked to do many more hours of administrative work which takes them away from teaching and the work they now must do.”

Legislators also called for public hearings so the program and process can be fully vetted

On Tuesday, Malloy and legislative leaders sent a letter to the Performance Evaluation Advisory Council asking them to delay coupling the new evaluation system and the Common Core, according to

Read more here:
« Last Edit: January 31, 2014, 07:54:48 AM by ROSS »


  • Guest
Re: Common Core Education And More About Federal Government Control
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2014, 01:57:21 PM »

A little more reading about "Common Core"

Rotten to the Core:
Government Schools
‘Common Core’
February 4, 2014


This guy has been trying to educate us apparently since  9/2/01.
Have we listened?

Dysfunctional Public Education
No Accident


  • Guest
Re: Common Core Education And More About Federal Government Control
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2014, 05:50:15 AM »
Pro-Common Core panelist:
‘The children belong to all of us’

By Watchdog Staff  /   February 4, 2014  /

By Eric Owens | The Daily Caller

At an event on Friday sponsored by a leftist think tank, former Massachusetts education secretary Paul Reville called Common Core critics a “tiny minority” and asserted that “the children belong to all of us.”

Reville also claimed that opponents of Common Core are against any academic standards, reports

“To be sure, there’s always a small voice — and I think these voices get amplified in the midst of these arguments — of people who were never in favor of standards in the first place and never wanted to have any kind of testing or accountability, and those voices get amplified,” Reville declared.

“But those are a tiny minority,” he added.

Reville, a Harvard professor who served as secretary of education under current Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, then bashed federalism and suggested that
children are communal property.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2014, 05:52:49 AM by ROSS »


  • Guest
Re: Common Core Education And More About Federal Government Control
« Reply #9 on: February 08, 2014, 07:19:02 PM »

What Happens When Your Child
Doesn’t Take The Common Core Test

February 3, 2014

BILOXI, Miss. – Mrs. Nikki Woodward is a mother who is passionate about her children’s education.

Common Core just say noHer oldest is a high performing high school student in the high school. Her 5th grade daughter is equally talented and has historically earned top test schools in the district. She noticed a big change this year in the curriculum, and began to question school district and state education officials on the matter. The more she learned, the less she liked the Common Core materials being presented, particularly the curriculum being presented to her 5th grade daughter.

Woodward decided to opt her daughter out of the tests, but the school district contended that she could not opt her out. The District told her the tests were required and a parent could not “opt-out.” When time came for the test, she kept her 5th grade daughter home. She writes,

“I was not allowed to “opt-out” of my daughter taking the CC Benchmark testing. My only option was to keep my daughter out of school for the FOUR days of CC Benchmark testing in January, which I did. Those days were considered unexcused absences.”

Today she received a call from the school attendance officer, Ms. Crystal McKay who is a “state attendance officer” for Biloxi Public School District. The school district has now become quite aggressive about the matter and has threatened her with legal action. She writes,

“I just received a call from the attendance compliance officer for Biloxi School District. The school is mandated to report 5 absences to her. I explained to her the reason my daughter missed those 4 days of school. She informed me that after 12 absences in a school year, CHARGES WILL BE BROUGHT AGAINST THE PARENT. I looked at the school calendar and there just happens to be 12 days of standardized testing in a school year.”
For those unaware, the common core tests are not simply end of the year tests. There are “formative” assessments and “sumnative” or final assessments. According to both Consortia, the formative tests are to see how well a child is progressing, and are not supposed to be used for ranking purposes. The Partnership for Assessing College and Career Readiness (PARCC) states,

“The diagnostic assessments will provide teachers with the means to preemptively identify potential content-related weaknesses that help explain why students are (or might later)struggle in reading, writing and/or mathematics so that they may be addressed earlier.”

The formative assessments are supposed to tell the teacher if the children are learning the material. Only the final end of the year assessment is supposed to be used for that purpose.

The state of Mississippi, or at least the Biloxi School District, views formative tests differently than the consortia. The district plans to bully all the parents into bringing their children to all  the test. This needs to stop; the parents they are going after are the parents who care about their children and their education, and this appears to be retaliation against her. The consortia says these tests are merely indicators of progress, and do not have any value beyond that.

When Common Core arrived in her state, Woodward started to question the administration on the United Nations curriculum being taught in her child’s school. She confronted the “powers that be” on what was being taught and told them that the curriculum was covering material that was contrary to what the laws in Mississippi stated.



SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk