Defunding Common Core Standards--NCLB Waivers And Why Urgent Attention From Parents Needed

10.6.11 -- “The Roadmap to Winning a NCLB Waiver” – Donna Garner’s response to this article:

Bottomline: The Obama administration will pick the “judges” and “set the definitions.”  Whoever has that kind of control will determine the outcomes.  In other words, the Obama administration will be able to decide beforehand which states get the NCLB waivers and which ones won’t.  Those states that dance to the Obama administration’s tune (meaning the adoption of Common Core Standards and its accompanying national standards, national curriculum, national assessments, teachers’ salaries tied to students’ test scores, teachers teaching to the test each and every day, national indoctrination of our public school children, national database with student/educator/family-identifiable data) will get the NCLB waivers.  AND all of this will be done right under the noses of Congress without their ever having taken a single vote.

I beg of you to contact your Congressmen. (I have posted various Congressional e-mail addresses at the bottom of this page.)  All they have to do is to cut the funding for Common Core Standards/Race to the Top RIGHT NOW, and the whole Obama scheme would come falling down in ashes.

States and locals can work together to write their own standards that are explicit, grade-level-specific, knowledge-based, academic, and measurable.  Then these standards can be tested with a majority of objective (instead of subjective), right-or-wrong answers so that the resulting student scores can be trusted.

In May 2008 Texas began redoing its curriculum standards and is in the process of redoing its testing and accountability system.  Other states could do the same.  The Texas Education Agency has even offered to help other states to develop their own state-specific process.  

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2011/09/_overall_instructions_a_plan.html?cmp=ENL-EU-VIEWS1

Roadmap to Winning an NCLB Waiver

By Michele McNeil on September 29, 2011 6:01 AM

Although Education Secretary Arne Duncan holds the ultimate power in choosing which states get a No Child Left Behind waiver and which don't, a group of outside judges will wield a tremendous amount of influence in deciding states' fates.

And now, the very important peer review guidebook is out from the department, which issues instructions to the judges as they evaluate each state's waiver plan. This document outlines (almost) exactly what states have to do to win the judges over and get coveted flexibility under NCLB.

The judges have not been selected yet, and it's unclear how many will be needed and if their names will be made public before the judging starts. (If you'll remember, in Race to the Top, their identities were kept secret until after the winners were announced by the department, they said, to prevent undue influence.)

In the guidance, there are a lot of clear-cut, yes or no questions that will be easy for the judges to answer: Is the state part of the Common Core or has its university system certified that its standards are college- and career-ready? Does a state's school turnaround strategy include a provision for additional student learning time? Did a state attach its guidelines for its teacher and principal evaluation systems?

But then come the more complicated, nuanced, and even controversial decisions and judgments peer reviewers will have to make.

Overall, peer reviewers for the waiver package will be deciding whether a plan is "high-quality," and "comprehensive and coherent." They will also be looking for whether the plan will increase the quality of instruction and improve student achievement.

The judges also will examine whether the state "meaningfully" engaged and solicited input from teachers and their representatives. More importantly, the judges will be told to ask: Will implementation be successful because of the input and "commitment" of teachers and their representatives? Commitment seems like a pretty strong word, and seems akin to the buy-in the department stressed as part of Race to the Top.

Then, the peer reviewers will drill down and focus on the three main commitments states have to make to get more freedom under NCLB.

On adopting college and career ready standards

Judges will ask: Is there a plan to provide professional development to teachers and principals? Will the state disseminate high-quality instructional materials to accompany the new standards? Is the state planning to increase access to college-level courses, dual-enrollment courses, and other accelerated learning opportunities? Is the state going to work with colleges of education to better prepare teachers for the new standards?

On creating a differentiated accountability system

Are the state's new proficiency targets ambitious but achievable given the state's existing proficiency rates? In identifying rewards for successful schools, has the state made the case that the rewards will actually be meaningful and worthwhile to schools? For the "focus schools" (those that aren't in the bottom 5 percent, but are within another 10 percent of the state's most-troubled schools), has the state justified that the interventions selected will actually increase student achievement? Has the state outlined a rigorous review process for outside providers who will help with school turnaround work?

On adopting guidelines to improve teacher and principal effectiveness

Is student growth a significant enough part of the new evaluation system to differentiate among teachers who have made "significantly different contributions" (emphasis added) to student growth or closing achievement gaps? Will evaluations be frequent enough? Is there a plan for differentiated professional development based on evaluations? Will the state's plan ensure that local school districts will actually be able to put these new evaluation systems into place by 2013-14 (as a pilot), and 2014-15 (full implementation)?

What's missing? The guidance offers zero help to peer reviewers (or states) as to what it means for a state to have to use its new evaluation system to "inform personnel decisions." So, what does that mean? Can you give the poorly performing teachers lunch duty, and does that count? Will you need to hire and fire based on the evaluations? This is a huge question mark.

The Politics K-12 initial takeaway: The extensive number of questions in the Common Core section makes it clear that the department sees implementing standards as a huge challenge. There seems to be a lot of room for interpretation, especially in the teacher evaluation section, and in deciding whether state-designed interventions in low-performing schools are appropriate. If it wasn't clear before, it is now: The people chosen to be peer reviewers—their backgrounds, their ideologies, their employers—will matter greatly.

Senators -- E-Mail Addresses

(2.10.11)

Senate -- Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee

http://help.senate.gov/

Senator Tom Harkin                        Committee Chairman   (D-IA)   Democrat
E-mail Address(es):
  harkinintern8_help@help.senate.gov

Senator Michael Enzi                                                      (R-WY)
E-mail Address(es):
 (Delete contact) 

Senator Lamar Alexander                                                (R-TN)
E-mail Address(es):
  brandon_ball@alexander.senate.gov

Senator Richard Burr                                                      (R-NC)
E-mail Address(es):
  eric_leath@burr.senate.gov

Senator Johnny Isakson                                                  (R-GA)
E-mail Address(es):
  glee_smith@isakson.senate.gov

Senator Rand Paul                                                          (R-KY)
E-mail Address(es):
  seana_cranston@paul.senate.gov

Senator Orrin Hatch                                                         (R-UT)

E-mail Address(es):
  juliann_andreen@hatch.senate.gov

Senator Orrin Hatch                                                        (R-UT)
E-mail Address(es):
  senatorhatch@hatch.senate.gov

Senator John McCain                                                      (R-AZ)
E-mail Address(es):
  christopher_bowlin@mccain.senate.gov

Senator Pat Roberts                                                       (R-KS)
E-mail Address(es):
  joshua_yurek@roberts.senate.gov

Senator Lisa Murkowski                                                 (R-AK)                                                  
E-mail Address(es):
  karen_mccarthy@murkowski.senate.gov

Senator Mark Kirk                                                           (R-IL)
E-mail Address(es):
  jeannette_windon@kirk.senate.gov

 Senators -- Other

Senator Tom Coburn                                                          (R-OK)
E-mail Address(es):
  jenny_clem@coburn.senate.gov

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Congressmen -- E-Mail Addresses

(2.10.11)

Congressmen -- Education & the Workforce Committee

http://edworkforce.house.gov/Committee/SubcommitteesJurisdictions.htm

Congressman John Kline           Chairman   (R-MN)
E-mail Address(es):
  brian.melnyk@mail.house.gov

Congressman Tom Petri                        (R-WI)
E-mail Address(es):

(Contact deleted)        

Congressman Buck McKeon                (R-CA)
E-mail Address(es):
  chris.perry@mail.house.gov

Congresswoman Judy Biggert                (R-IL)
E-mail Address(es):
  brian.looser@mail.house.gov

Congressman Todd Platts                        (R-PA)
E-mail Address(es):
  mollie.vanlieu@mail.house.gov

Congressman Joe Wilson                        (R-SC)
E-mail Address(es):
  melissa.chandler@mail.house.gov

Congressman Duncan Hunter                   (R-CA)
E-mail Address(es):
  allison.sadoian@mail.house.gov

Congressman David Roe                           (R-TN)
E-mail Address(es):
  amanda.little@mail.house.gov

Congressman Glenn Thompson                   (R-PA)
E-mail Address(es):
  matthew.brennan@mail.house.gov

Congressmen -- Other

Congressman Eric Cantor           Majority Leader      (R-VA)
E-mail Address(es):
  liz.keith@mail.house.gov

Congressman Paul Ryan                                    (R-WI)            Chm. -- House Budget Comm.
E-mail Address(es):
  allison.steil@mail.house.gov

Congressman Darrell Issa                                    (R-CA)                   Comm. on Oversight,  Comm. on Judiciary
E-mail Address(es):
  kelsey.kerr@mail.house.gov

Congressman Mike Pence                                    (R-IN)                    2008 -- Chm. House Repub. Conf.
E-mail Address(es):
  lindsey.craig@mail.house.gov

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

Truth That Common Core or National Standards Is Truly A Dumbing Down--Even In Science

Boston Herald

Circulation: 185,000

Science friction

By Boston Herald Editorial Staff | Sunday, August 14, 2011 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Editorials

We’ve always thought Massachusetts should stay out of national curriculum standards in math and English because our standards were better, but the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education signed up anyway. We did say national standards were bound to be an improvement for many states. Now we’re no longer so sure.

An influential body has proposed new science curriculum standards (“frameworks” in education jargon). The state board plans to align the Massachusetts standards with whatever national ones emerge. Both the board and the national organizations sponsoring the “Common Core” project should reject this bewildering effort from the National Academy of Sciences.

We were alerted to this by Ze’ev Wurman, a software expert who helped develop California’s standards and who commented critically on the new Massachusetts standards. In his blog comment on the Academy’s proposal he said: “The framework does not expect students to use any kind of analytical mathematics while studying science.”

The document only expects students by grade 12 to be competent in recognizing this and expressing that, and in using “simple mathematical expressions’” to see if something “makes sense,” Wurman wrote.

Wurman could find only one equation in all 280 pages of the proposal. A careful reading of the 29 pages of the physical sciences section, where equations would be most important, found none at all.

This is baffling. Mathematics, to which the authors devoted much praise, is the language of science. Wurman’s conclusion, which we share: The document “simply teaches our students science appreciation.”

The size of the document is a disqualifier, too. Teachers and principals need a concise document that will tell them what students need to know and how to learn it, not endless streams of sludgy prose.

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view.bg?articleid=1358585

Common Core Standards and Truth In American Education--New Site To Give Facts

[6.8.11 -- I was notified today that a new website has just been launched -- Truth in American Education. The site looks very informative, current, and well done to me. - Donna Garner]

http://truthinamericaneducation.com/

Excerpts from this website:

Truth in American Education (TAE) shines a beacon of light directly on the government’s behind-the-scenes efforts to drastically alter American education. As taxpayers, parents and concerned citizens, we believe that proper respect for the American people requires that major educational changes be subject to an open and public discussion prior to approval and implementation, not the other way around…

Truth in American Education provides information to parents, taxpayers, school board members, educators and legislators who are concerned about these issues.

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

Common Core Standards or Nationalization of Education Leads To National Disaster)

5.28.11 -- Politico.com

A ‘Common’ Education Disaster

By DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN & ANNIE HSIAO

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55857.html#ixzz1NsJZQKOh 

Education standards are hot. The hottest are the Common Core Standards –- cooperatively-developed standards for k-12 English and Mathematics classes. Sadly, this voluntary movement is being distorted into a sweeping federal centralization and control of what students learn.

Reflecting the growing popularity, standards-based reform is now the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s education agenda. The President’s Blueprint for Reform – his top four priorities for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act – begins by “calling on all states to develop and adopt standards in English language arts and mathematics.”

But not just any standards, it turns out. The administration has chosen to sanction precisely the same Common Core Standards.

For example, it tied $4.35 billion of the Race to the Top federal funding to their adoption – even before they were finalized. On top of that, it is already funding – to the tune of $345 million – two consortia to develop assessments, instructional materials, and professional development based specifically on the Common Core Standards – perilously close to a de facto curriculum.

In short: voluntary out; coercion in. Federal control up; local control down.

That would be fine if international evidence showed that national standards and curriculum improved global competitiveness. High-performing countries with national curriculum, like Finland and South Korea, are more homogenous than the United States — which is poorly suited for a sweeping one-size-fits-all centralization of educational content.

Moreover, even those countries preserve local flexibility. Most national curricula highlight a few key topics, and permit teachers to develop the content to address them.

Usurping local control from states and districts is an unprecedented overreach by the federal government into education. It robs schools of the freedom of flexibility and opportunity for innovation.

Perhaps most important, once the feds take over who gets to decide what the curriculum and standards look like? Dense concentration of decision-making could lead to special-interests groups driving the agenda for their interest, not the students’.

The federalization of the Common Core Standards has provoked an outcry from a bipartisan group of leading education reformers. They released a letter reminding the nation that there is no constitutional authority for a national curriculum. In addition, there is no evidence demonstrating that national standards improve educational outcomes, or a track record showing that the Common Core Standards are rigorous and first-rate.

The latter point brings the debate full circle. Yes, standards are a good idea. But critics of the Common Core Standards include five dissenters of the Common Core Validation Committee, some of the most internationally reputable standards experts.

They argue that these English language arts standards for grades six to 12 do not reflect knowledge needed for college-level work and that the standards themselves are unclear and ambiguous. Though proponents of these standards claim they have been informed by research, no research was ever provided.

Similarly, in math, the standards were found to be poorly organized, lowered expectations for college-readiness, were confusing and focused on low-level mathematics.

National standards are a bad idea. Nationalization of the wrong standards is even worse.

Education reform is a serious issue. Too serious to let the administration’s penchant for education pork-barreling lead America’s students down the disastrous path of federal curriculum micromanagement, and the overthrow of local school boards, districts — and ultimately parents.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin served as a director of the Congressional Budget Office. He is now president of the American Action Forum. Annie Hsiao is the director of education policy at American Action Forum. 

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com