The Ties That Binds Common Core and CSCOPE and HOW IT IMPACTS Home Schooling And Private Schools Also. Hear Donna Garner Break Down The Future States Will Choose--Learning vs Indoctrination. Facts Are Out and Parents and Teachers Need To Know

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

Shanker Institute Manifesto--A Critical Response To It As America Should Not Be Dumbed Down--By Those Whose True Goal is Power

Why One National Curriculum is Bad for America       

Closing the Door on Innovation

A Critical Response to the Shanker Institute Manifesto and
the U.S. Department of Education’s Initiative
   to Develop a National Curriculum and National Assessments
Based on National Standards

We, the undersigned, representing viewpoints from across the political and educational spectrum, oppose the call for a nationalized curriculum in the Albert Shanker Institute Manifesto “A Call for Common Content.”1 We also oppose the ongoing effort by the U.S. Department of Education to have two federally funded testing consortia develop national curriculum guidelines, national curriculum models, national instructional materials, and national assessments using Common Core's national standards as a basis for these efforts.2

We agree that our expectations should be high and similar for all children whether they live in Mississippi or Massachusetts, Tennessee or Texas. We also think that curricula should be designed before assessments are developed, not the other way around.

But we do not agree that a one-size-fits-all, centrally controlled curriculum for every K-12 subject makes sense for this country or for any other sizable country. Such an approach threatens to close the door on educational innovation, freezing in place an unacceptable status quo and hindering efforts to develop academically rigorous curricula, assessments, and standards that meet the challenges that lie ahead. Because we are deeply committed to improving this country’s schools and increasing all students’ academic achievement, we cannot support this effort to undermine control of public school curriculum and instruction at the local and state level—the historic locus for effective innovation and reform in education—and transfer control to an elephantine, inside-the-Beltway bureaucracy.

Moreover, transferring power to Washington, D.C., will only further subordinate educational decisions to political imperatives. All presidential administrations—present and future, Democratic and Republican—are subject to political pressure. Centralized control in the U.S. Department of Education would upset the system of checks and balances between different levels of government, creating greater opportunities for special interests to use their national political leverage to distort policy. Our decentralized fifty-state system provides some limitations on special-interest power, ensuring that other voices can be heard, that wrongheaded reforms don’t harm children in every state, and that reforms that effectively serve children's needs can find space to grow and succeed.

The nationalized curriculum the Shanker Manifesto calls for, and whose development the U.S. Department of Education is already supporting, does not meet the criteria for sound public policy for the following reasons.

First, there is no constitutional or statutory basis for national standards, national assessments, or national curricula. The two testing consortia funded by the U.S. Department of Education have already expanded their activities beyond assessment, and are currently developing national curriculum guidelines, models, and frameworks in accordance with their proposals to the Department of Education (see the Appendix). Department of Education officials have so far not explained the constitutional basis for their procedures or forthcoming products. The U.S. Constitution seeks a healthy balance of power between states and the federal government, and wisely leaves the question of academic standards, curriculum, and instruction up to the states.3 In fact, action by the U.S. Department of Education to create national standards and curricula is explicitly proscribed by federal law, reflecting the judgment of Congress and the public on this issue.4

Even if the development of national curriculum models, frameworks or guidelines were judged lawful, we do not believe Congress or the public supports having them developed by a self-selected group behind closed doors and with no public accountability. Whether curriculum developers are selected by the Shanker Institute or the U.S. Department of Education’s testing consortia, they are working on a federally funded project to dramatically transform schools nationwide. They therefore ought to be transparent and accountable to Congress and the public.

Second, there is no consistent evidence that a national curriculum leads to high academic achievement. The Shanker Manifesto suggests that the only possible way to achieve high academic achievement is through a single national curriculum. Yet France and Denmark have centralized national curricula and do not show high average achievement on international tests or a diminishing gap between high- and low-achieving students. Meanwhile, Canada and Australia, both of which have many regional curricula, achieve better results than many affluent single-curriculum nations. The evidence on this question has been exhaustively addressed elsewhere.5 It does not support the conclusion that national standards are necessary either for high achievement or for narrowing the achievement gap. 

Moreover, population mobility does not justify a national curriculum. Only inter-state mobility is relevant to the value of a national curriculum, and inter-state mobility in this country is low.  The Census Bureau reports a total annual mobility rate of 12.5% in 2008-9,6 but only 1.6% of the total rate consists of inter-state moves that a national curriculum may influence. Other data indicate that inter-state mobility among school-age children is even lower, at 0.3%.7

Third, the national standards on which the administration is planning to base a national curriculum are inadequate. If there are to be national academic-content standards, we do not agree that Common Core’s standards are clear, adequate, or of sufficient quality to warrant being this country’s national standards. Its definition of “college readiness” is below what is currently required to enter most four-year state colleges. Independent reviews have found its standards to be below those in the highest-performing countries and below those in states rated as having the best academic standards.8

Fourth, there is no body of evidence for a “best” design for curriculum sequences in any subject. The Shanker Manifesto assumes we can use “the best of what is known” about how to structure curriculum. Yet which curriculum would be best is exactly what we do not know, if in fact all high school students should follow one curriculum. Much more innovation and development, and research evaluating it, is needed to address this knowledge gap. This means we should be encouraging—not discouraging—multiple models. Furthermore, the Shanker Manifesto calls for national curricula to encompass English, mathematics, history, geography, the sciences, civics, the arts, foreign languages, technology, health, and physical education. We wonder what is not included in its sweeping concept of a national curriculum.

Fifth, there is no evidence to justify a single high school curriculum for all students. A single set of curriculum guidelines, models, or frameworks cannot be justified at the high school level, given the diversity of interests, talents and pedagogical needs among adolescents. American schools should not be constrained in the diversity of the curricula they offer to students. Other countries offer adolescents a choice of curricula; Finland, for example, offers all students leaving grade 9 the option of attending a three-year general studies high school or a three-year vocational high school, with about 50% of each age cohort enrolling in each type of high school. We worry that the “comprehensive” American high school may have outlived its usefulness, as a recent Harvard report implies.9 A one-size-fits-all model not only assumes that we already know the one best curriculum for all students; it assumes that one best way for all students exists. We see no grounds for carving that assumption in stone.

Conclusion

The Shanker Manifesto does not make a convincing case for a national curriculum. It manifests serious shortcomings in its discussion of curricular alignment and coherence, the quality of Common Core’s national standards, course sequence and design, academic content, student mobility, sensitivity to pluralism, constitutionality and legality, transparency and accountability, diverse pedagogical needs, and the absence of consensus on all these questions. For these reasons, we the undersigned oppose the Shanker Manifesto’s call for a nationalized curriculum and the U.S. Department of Education’s initiative to develop a national curriculum and national tests based on Common Core’s standards.

         **************************************************************************************************************************

Signatories

Initial signatories before May 6, 2011

John Agresto
President, St. John’s College, Santa Fe, 1989-2000, Member Board of Trustees & Past Provost, American University of Iraq, Author, The Supreme Court & Constitutional Democracy

G. Donald Allen
Associate Head & Professor, Department of Mathematics, Texas A&M University, Director, Center for Technology-Mediated Instruction in Mathematics

Hon. Steve Baldwin
Former Chairman, California State Assembly Education Committee, Former California State Assemblyman, Former Executive Director, Council for National Policy

Gary Beckner
Founder & Executive Director, Association of American Educators

Hon. Marian Bergeson
Former California State Secretary of Education, Former President, California School Boards Association, Former California State Senator

Michelle D. Bernard
President and CEO, the Bernard Center for Women, Politics, and Public Policy

Ben Boychuk
Former Managing Editor, School Reform News, Heartland Institute

Hon. Christian N. Braunlich
Vice President, Thomas Jefferson Institute, Former Member, Fairfax County (Va.) School Board

Matthew J. Brouillette
President & CEO, Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives, Former middle and high school history teacher, Former charter school board member

Morgan Brown
Director for School Improvement, Charter School Partners, Former Assistant Commissioner, Minnesota State Department of Education, U.S. Assistant Deputy Secretary of Education for Innovation and Improvement, 2006-2008

Audrey V. Buffington
Former State Supervisor of Mathematics, Maryland State Department of Education, First Recipient, Mathematics Educator of the Year Award, Maryland Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1978

Doug Carnine
Former Director, National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators, Co-Author, Direct Instruction mathematics series, Former Member, Advisory Board, National Institute for Literacy

Michael C. Carnuccio
President, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs

M. Bloucke Carus
Chairman, Carus Corporation, Chairman, Education Committee, Illinois Manufacturers’ Association, Publisher of 14 leading children’s magazines, Past Chairman, International Baccalaureate North America, Developer, Open Court reading program

Walt Chappell
Member, Kansas State Board of Education

John E. Chubb
Distinguished Visiting Fellow & Koret K-12 Education Task Force Member, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Former Chief Academic Officer & Co-Founder, Edison Learning, Co-Author, Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools

Paul Clopton
Research Statistician, U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs Medical Center, San Diego, Past Member, California State Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Criteria Committee, Past Commissioner, California State Commission on Teacher Credentialing

John Colyandro
Executive Director, Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute

Kim Crockett
President & General Counsel, Minnesota Free Market Institute

David Davenport
Counselor to the Director & Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, President, Pepperdine University, 1985-2000, Past Distinguished Professor of Law & Public Policy, Pepperdine University

Timothy C. Draper
Founder & Managing Director, Draper Fisher Jurvetson (venture capital), Former Member, California State Board of Education

Brandon Dutcher
Vice President for Policy, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Publishing Editor, Choice Remarks

John C. Eastman
Founding Director, Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Donald P. Kennedy Professor and Former Dean, Chapman University School of Law

Michelle Easton
President, Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute
Former Deputy Undersecretary, U.S. Department of Education, Former President and Member Virginia, State Board of Education

Karen R. Effrem, MD
President, Education Liberty Watch

Robert S. Eitel
Member, Talbert and Eitel,PLLC, Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of Education, 2006-09, Senior Counsel, U.S. Department of Education, 2005-06

Siegfried Engelmann
Professor of Special Education, University of Oregon, Recipient, Award of Achievement in Education Research of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents, 2002, President Engelmann-Becker Corporation (curriculum development)

Robert C. Enlow
President & CEO, Foundation for Educational Choice

Richard A. Epstein
Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University Law School, Peter & Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law Emeritus & Senior Lecturer, University of Chicago Law School

William A. Estrada
Director of Federal Relations, Home School Legal Defense Association

Bill Evers
Research Fellow & Koret K-12 Education Task Force Member, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education for Policy, 2007-2009, Commissioner, California State Academic Standards Commission, 1996-98, 2010

William Felkner
Founder & Director of Policy, Ocean State Policy Research Institute

Liv Finne
Director for Education, Washington Policy Center

Will Fitzhugh
Founder & President, The Concord Review

Greg Forster
Senior Fellow, Foundation for Educational Choice

John Fonte
Senior Fellow & Director of the Center for American Common Culture, Hudson Institute

Jamie Gass
Director, Center for School Reform, Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research

Paul J. Gessing
President, Rio Grande Foundation

Ronald J. Gidwitz
Co-Founder & President, GCG Partners, Former CEO, Helene Curtis, Member, Board of Governors & Chairman of Governmental Relations Committee, Boys and Girls Club of America, Former Chairman, City Colleges of Chicago, Former Chairman, Illinois State Board of Education

Jay P. Greene
21st Century Chair & Head of the Department of Education Reform, University of Arkansas, Fellow in Education Policy, George W. Bush Institute

Walter Mellor Haney
Professor, Educational Research, Measurement and Evaluation Program, Lynch School of Education, Boston College

David R. Henderson
Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Former Senior Economist, President’s Council of Economic Advisers

Collin Hitt
Senior Director of Government Affairs, Illinois Policy Institute

Hon. Pete Hoekstra
Former Member, U.S. House of Representatives, Former Member, U.S. House Committee on Education and Workforce, Former Member, U.S. House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education

Robert Holland
Senior Fellow for Education Policy, Heartland Institute, Policy Analyst, Lexington Institute

Gisele Huff
Member, Advisory Committee, Program on Education Policy and Governance, Harvard University

Lance T. Izumi
Koret Senior Fellow and Senior Director of Education Studies, Pacific Research Institute, Immediate Past President, Board of Governors, California Community Colleges

Franklin Pitcher Johnson, Jr.
Founding Partner, Asset Management Company, (venture capital), Former Member, Board of Trustees, Foothill-De Anza Community College District

Krista Kafer
Fellow, Centennial Institute

Kevin P. Kane
President, Pelican Institute for Public Policy

Hon. Greg Kaza
Member, Michigan State House of Representatives, 1993-98, Executive Director, Arkansas Policy Foundation

C. Ronald Kimberling
U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education for Postsecondary Education, 1985-88, Former Chancellor, Briarcliffe College, Member, Illinois Task Force on Higher Education and the Economy, 2008

Hon. Keith King
Co-Founder, Cheyenne Mountain Charter Academy; James Irwin Charter High School, Colorado Springs Early Colleges, Colorado State Senator, Member, Colorado State Senate Education Committee

E. Floyd Kvamme
Partner Emeritus, Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfield & Byers (venture capital), Past Executive Vice President, Apple Computer, Past Co-Chairman, President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology

John R. LaPlante
Policy Fellow, Minnesota Free Market Institute

Hon. Yvonne W. Larsen
Past President, California State Board of Education, Past President, San Diego City School Board, Vice Chair, “A Nation at Risk” Commission

Casey Lartigue , Jr.
Director, Overseas Relations, Center for Free Enterprise (South Korea), Former Education Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Co-editor, Educational Freedom in Urban America: Brown v. Board Education after a half century

Doug Lasken
Retired English Teacher & Debate Coach, Los Angeles Unified School District

Howard H. Leach
Vice President, Leach Capital, Former U.S. Ambassador to France, Former Chairman, Board of Regents, University of California

Briana LeClaire
Education Policy Analyst, Idaho Freedom Foundation

George Leef
Director of Research, John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, Former Vice President, John Locke Foundation, Book Review Editor, The Freeman magazine

George W. Liebmann
Executive Director, Calvert Institute for Policy Research

Dan Lips
Former Senior Policy Analyst, Heritage Foundation, Former Research Associate, Cato Institute, Senior Fellow of Education Policy Studies, Maryland Public Policy Institute

Hon. Peggy Littleton
El Paso County Commissioner, Colorado, Former Member, Colorado State Board of Education

Carrie L. Lukas
Executive Director, Independent Women’s Forum, Former Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Former Senior Domestic Policy Analyst, U.S. House Republican Policy Committee

Paul Lundeen
Member, Colorado State Board of Education

J. Robert McClure
President & CEO, James Madison Institute, Former Member, State of Florida Education Strategies Planning Council Member, Florida Committee for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Michael W. McConnell
Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford University, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Former Federal Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Kelly McCutchen
President and CEO, Georgia Public Policy Foundation

Michael McKeown
Professor of Medical Science, Department of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology & Biochemistry, Brown University, Co-Founder, Mathematically Correct (math-education advocacy group)

Matt A. Mayer
President, Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions

Edwin Meese III
Former Attorney General of the United States, Former Rector (chairman of governing board), George Mason University, Former Professor of Law, University of San Diego

John D. Merrifield
Professor of Economics, University of Texas, San Antonio, Editor, Journal of School Choice, Director, E.G. West Institute for Effective Schooling

Stan Metzenberg
Professor of Biology, California State University Northridge, Science Consultant, California State Academic Standards Commission, 1998, Former Commissioner, California State Curriculum Commission

R. James Milgram
Professor Emeritus, Department of Mathematics, Stanford University, Member, Validation Committee, Common Core Standards, 2009-10, Former Member, NASA Advisory Council

Charles Miller
Former Chairman, Education Policy Center of Texas, Former Chairman, Board of Regents, University of Texas System, Chairman, U.S. Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education (Spellings Commission)

Marcia Neal
Vice-Chair, Colorado State Board of Education

Hon. Janet Nicholas
Former Member, California State Board of Education

Grover Norquist
President, Americans for Tax Reform, Member, Board of Directors, ParentalRights.org, Former Economist & Chief Speechwriter, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Daniel Oliver
Former General Counsel, U.S. Department of Education, Former General Counsel, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Former Chairman, Federal Trade Commission

Gen Olson
President, Pro Tem, Minnesota State Senate, Chair, Minnesota State Senate Education Committee

Chris Patterson
Former Director of Research, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Member, Policy Advisory Board, Texas Institute for Education Reform

John W. Payne
Education Policy Researcher, Show-Me Institute

Hon. Betty Peters
Member, Alabama State Board of Education

Sally C. Pipes
President & CEO Pacific Research Institute

Daniel P. Racheter
President, Iowa Association of Scholars, President, Public Interest Institute, Co-Editor, Federalist Government in Principle and Practice

Howard Rich
Chairman, Americans for Limited Government

Roberta R. Schaefer
President & CEO, Worcester (Mass.) Regional Research Bureau, Former Vice Chair & Member, Massachusetts State Board of Education

Hon. Bob Schaffer
Chairman, Colorado State Board of Education, Former Vice-Chairman, Colorado State Senate Education Committee, Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 1997-2003

Wilfried Schmid
Dwight Parker Robinson Professor of Mathematics, Harvard University, Member, National Mathematics Advisory Panel, U.S. Department o Education, 2006-08, Member, Steering Committee, NAEP Mathematics Assessment, 2000-01

Pete Sepp
Executive Vice President, National Taxpayers Union

Gilbert T. Sewall
Director, American Textbook Council
Former history instructor, Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass., Former Education Editor, Newsweek magazine

Hon. John Shadegg
Member, U.S. House of Representatives, 1995-2010

Hon. Florence Shapiro
Chair, State Senate Education Committee, State of Texas, Member, Southern Regional Education Board, Commissioner, Education Commission of the States

Jane S. Shaw
President, John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy

John Silber
Dean, College of Arts & Sciences, University of Texas, 1967-70, President, Boston University, 1971-96, Chairman, Massachusetts State Board of Education, 1996-99

Eunie Smith
(widow of Congressman Albert Lee Smith, Jr.), President, Eagle Forum of Alabama

Lisa Snell

Director of Education & Child Welfare, Reason Foundation

Don Soifer
Executive Vice President, Lexington Institute, Member, Public Charter School Board, District of Columbia

Joel Spring
Professor, Department of Elementary & Early Childhood Education, Queens College & Graduate Center, City University of New York

Shelby Steele
Robert J. & Marion E. Oster Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Author, The Content of Our Character

James Stergios
Executive Director, Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research

Terry L. Stoops
Director of Education Studies, John Locke Foundation

Sandra Stotsky
21st Century Chair in Teacher Quality, Department of Education Reform, University of Arkansas, Senior Associate Commissioner of Education, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1999-2003, Member, Validation Committee, Common Core Standards, 2009-10

Christopher B. Summers
President, Maryland Public Policy Institute

Robert W. Sweet, Jr.
Former Acting Director & Deputy Director, National Institute for Education, Former Reagan White House Policy Staffer, Former Senior Staffer, U.S. House Committee on Education & the Workforce

Kent D. Talbert
Partner, Talbert & Eitel, PLLC, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Education, 2006-09, Former Education Policy Counsel, U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce

Peter Thiel
President Clarium Capital (hedge fund), Managing Partner, The Founders Fund (venture capital), Founder, Former CEO & Former Chairman, PayPal

Abigail Thernstrom
Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Member, Massachusetts State Board of Education, 1995-2006, Vice Chair, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Stephen Thernstrom
Winthrop Research Professor of History, Harvard University, Co-Author (with Abigail Thernstrom), No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning.

Jeremy Thompson
Executive Director, Alaska Policy Forum

Lil Tuttle
Education Director, Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute, Former Vice President and Member, Virginia State Board of Education

Richard Vedder
Adjunct Scholar, American Enterprise Institute, Distinguished Professor of Economics, Ohio University, Commissioner, U.S. Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education (Spellings Commission)

Herbert J. Walberg
Distinguished Visiting Fellow & Koret K-12 Education Task Force Member, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, University Scholar, University of Illinois at Chicago, Former Member, National Board for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education

Hon. Pete Wilson
Former Governor, State of California

Jim Windham
Chairman, Texas Institute for Education Reform

Ze’ev Wurman
Senior Policy Adviser, U.S. Department of Education, 2007-2009, Commissioner, California State Academic Commission, 2010, Past Member, California State Mathematics Curriculum Framework and Criteria Committee

Hon. Kimberly Yee
Member, Arizona State House Representatives, VIce Chairman, Arizona House Education Committee

         *************************************************************************************************************************

Appendix:  Excerpts from the Assessment Consortia’s
Plans to Develop a National Curriculum

According to the proposal by the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium in its application for a U.S. Department of Education grant in June 2010, it intends to:

“interpret or translate [Common Core’s] standards before they can be used effectively for assessment or instruction” [SMARTER Balanced Proposal. Page 34]

– “translate the standards into content/curricular frameworks, test maps, and item/performance event specifications to provide assessment specificity and to clarify the connections between instructional processes and assessment outcomes.” [SMARTER Proposal, page 35]

– provide “a clear definition of the specific grade-level content skills and knowledge that the assessment is intended to measure” [SMARTER Balanced Proposal, page 48]

– “convene key stakeholders and content specialists to develop assessment frameworks that precisely lay out the content and cognitive demands that define college- and career-readiness for each grade level.” [SMARTER Balanced Proposal, page74]

– “develop cognitive models for the domains of ELA and mathematics that specify the content elements and relationships reflecting the sequence of learning that students would need to achieve college and career-readiness” [SMARTER Balanced Proposal, page 76]

Similarly, the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) consortium proposed in its application to the U.S. Department of Education in June 2010 to:

– “unpack the standards to a finer grain size as necessary to determine which standards are best measured through the various components … To do this, the Partnership will engage lead members of the CCSS writing teams … and the content teams from each state, assessment experts and teachers from Partnership states.” [PARCC Proposal, page 174]

– “develop challenging performance tasks and innovative, computer-enhanced items … [that] will send a strong, clear signal to educators about the kinds of instruction and types of performances needed for students to demonstrate college and career readiness.” [PARCC Proposal, page 7]

– ”develop model curriculum frameworks that teachers can use to plan instruction and gain a deep understanding of the CCSS, and released items and tasks that teachers can use for ongoing formative assessment.” [PARCC Proposal, page 57]

**************************************************************************************************************************

End Notes

1. “A Call for Common Content,” American Educator (published by American Federation of Teachers), vol. 35, no. 1 (Spring 2011), pp.         41-45.

1.  

1. See

1. Grover Whitehurst, Don’t Forget Curriculum, Brookings Institution, 2009; Neal McCluskey, Behind the Curtain: Assessing the Case for National Curriculum Standards, Cato Institute, 2010.

**************************************************************************************************************************

Will Parents Allow Their Children To Suffer Child Abuse In Public Schools

“Child Abuse by the Federal Government -- How and Who?”

by Donna Garner

4.18.11 

To set our public school children up for failure is an example of child abuse; and when the federal government does it, it is still child abuse.

If you are a citizen, taxpayer, and/or a parent and you are desperately concerned about what is being taught to our public school children, you must take a few minutes to listen to this videotape from a legislative public hearing and to read the notes posted below.

One of the people who testified is Dr. Sandra Stotsky who tells about her first-hand experiences as a member of the Validation Committee for the Common Core Standards.  

At the same time that the Obama administration has been federalizing the healthcare system, his administration has been federalizing the public schools across this country.

The Obama administration through Sect. of Ed. Arne Duncan and the U. S. Department of Education has mounted a massive effort using Stimulus dollars to pressure all states to participate in Common Core Standards/Race to the Top/national assessments/national database.

In a time of tight budget constraints, please join me in contacting your Congressmen and asking them to cut completely all spending on the Common Core Standards, Race to the Top, national curriculum, national assessments, national teacher evaluation system, and a national database.  

THE TRUTH COMES OUT -- TEXAS PUBLIC HEARING

On 4.14.11, various experts testified before the Texas House Sovereignty Committee in support of HB 2923.  Among those were Texas Commissioner of Education Robert Scott, Pioneer Institute Executive Director Joe Stergios, and Dr. Sandy Stotsky (Professor of Education Reform, University of Arkansas). 

TESTIMONY BY TEXAS COMMISSION OF EDUCATION ROBERT SCOTT

The insightful remarks made by Texas Commissioner of Education Robert Scott start at marker 23.30 - 43.20.  Scott has worked for Democrats and for Republicans and has also spent time on Capitol Hill.  He pointed out in his testimony these very valid reasons not to support the Common Core Standards:

Even before NCLB became law, there was already a prohibition against the U. S. Department of Education funding curriculum standards, curriculum materials, and assessments.  However, because the Common Core Standards were produced with Stimulus funds and not with NCLB funds, the Obama administration has decided that they have not violated federal law.  Scott, who is an experienced attorney and an expert on education law, believes the administration is making a fallacious argument.

Scott also said he is troubled by who owns the CCS, who could change them, and how often.  He has sought the explicit legislative authority given to the USDOE, yet no one has been able to provide him with that language.

One reason Scott did not want Texas to participate in CCS is that he does not like the idea of the federal government having the authority to establish a teacher evaluation system that will determine which teachers get terminated and which ones get to stay.

Scott feels strongly about the dangers of the national data collection system that is tied to CCS.  Student-identifiable data that is used for state programs should not be shipped out to Washington, D. C. on someone’s thumbnail drive where the data could be compromised.

TESTIMONY BY JIM STERGIOS, PIONEER INSTITUTE

Jim Stergios, the Executive Director of Pioneer Institute, makes his very interesting remarks at marker 43.29 - 1:01.00.

TESTIMONY BY DR. SANDRA STOTSKY, MEMBER OF CCS VALIDATION COMMITTEE

Dr. Sandra Stotsky’s testimony is posted at marker 1:01.00 - 1:23.24. 

VIDEOLINK TO PUBLIC HEARING

Here is the video link from the Texas House State Sovereignty Committee Meeting:

http://www.house.state.tx.us/video-audio/committee-broadcasts/committee-archives/player/?session=82&committee=460&ram=11041410460 

PROVISIONS IN TEXAS HB 2923

HB 2923 ensures that the state of Texas has sovereignty over its public schools and that for Texas schools to be accredited, they must follow the state-adopted standards, curriculum requirements, and tests. 

HB 2923 also states that Texas will not participate in a national database.

HB 2923 would discourage any Texas school district from participating in the national takeover of the public schools by the federal government (i.e., CCS/RTTT).

WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF DR. SANDRA STOTSKY 

 Testimony for Texas Legislative Hearing on HB 2923 --  April 14, 2011:

 Sandra Stotsky, Professor of Education Reform, 21st Century Chair in Teacher Quality, University of Arkansas

I thank Chairman Creighton and the members of his committee for the opportunity to speak in favor of House Bill No. 2923, a bill on state sovereignty over curriculum standards, assessments, and student information.  

My professional background:  I draw on much state and national experience with K-12 standards, curricula, and assessments.  I was the senior associate commissioner in the Massachusetts Department of Education from 1999-2003 where, among other duties, I was in charge of the development or revision of all the state's K-12 standards.  I have reviewed all states' English language arts and reading standards for the Fordham Institute in 1997, 2000, and 2005.  I co-authored Achieve's American Diploma Project high school exit test standards for English in 2004.  I co-authored the 2008 Texas English language arts and reading standards.  Appointed by then Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, I served on the National Mathematics Advisory Panel from 2006-2008.  Finally, I served on Common Core's Validation Committee from 2009-2010.   

I will speak to the following points:

1.  The mediocre quality of Common Core's English language arts/reading standards, especially in   grades 6-12, and what its lack of international benchmarking means.  

2.  The high academic quality of Texas's 2008 English language arts/reading standards.  

3.  The non-transparent process that was used to develop Common Core's standards.

4.  The non-transparent process now being used to develop a national curriculum and national tests based on Common Core's standards by the two testing consortia funded by the U.S. D.E.  

COMMON CORE’S LACK OF COLLEGE READINESS FOR ELAR

Point One: Common Core’s “college readiness” standards for English language arts and reading do not aim for a level of achievement that signifies readiness for authentic college-level work. They point to no more than readiness for a high school diploma (and possibly not even that, depending on where the cut score is set).

Despite claims to the contrary, the Common Core are not internationally benchmarked. States adopting Common Core’s standards will damage the academic integrity of both their post-secondary institutions and their high schools precisely because Common Core's standards do not strengthen the high school curriculum and cannot reduce the current amount of post-secondary remedial coursework in a legitimate way.

In fact, the Common Core standards may lead to reduced enrollment in advanced high school courses and to weakened post-secondary coursework because Common Core's "college readiness" ELA/R standards are designed to enable a large number of high school students  to be declared "college ready" and to enroll in post-secondary institutions that will have to place them in credit-bearing courses.  These institutions will then likely be under pressure from the USDE to retain these students in order to increase college graduation rates.  

TEXAS’ NEW ENGLISH / LANGUAGE ARTS / READING STANDARDS 

Point Two:  To avoid the charge of bias, I draw on Fordham's own 2010 review of Texas's 2008 English language arts/reading standards. Fordham gave the Texas standards A- and Common Core's ELA standards B+.   Here is Fordham's overall judgment:   

"Texas’s ELA standards are more clearly written, better presented, and logically organized than the Common Core standards. The Texas standards include expectations that more thoroughly address the comprehension and analysis of literary and non-literary text than Common Core, including helpful, detailed standards that outline genre-specific content and rhetorical techniques. In addition, Texas has prioritized writing genres by grade level.   Grade: A-"

QUALIFICATIONS FOR WRITERS OF COMMON CORE STANDARDS 

Point Three: After the Common Core Initiative was launched in early 2009, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers never explained to the public what the qualifications were for membership on the standards-writing committees or how it would justify the specific standards they created. Most important, it never explained why Common Core's high school exit standards were equal to college admission requirements without qualification, even though this country's wide ranging post-secondary institutions use a variety of criteria for admission.  

Eventually responding to the many charges of a lack of transparency, the names of the 24 members of the “Standards Development Work Group” were revealed in a July 1, 2009 news release. The vast majority, it appeared, work for testing companies. Not only did CCSSI give no rationale for the composition of this Work Group, it gave no rationale for the people it put on the two three-member teams in charge of writing the grade-level standards.  

STOTSKY’S EXPERIENCES ON COMMON CORE VALIDATION COMMITTEE

Another seemingly important committee, a Validation Committee, was set up with great fanfare on September 24, 2009.  The 25 members of this group were described as a group of national and international experts who would ensure that Common Core's standards were internationally benchmarked and supported by a body of research evidence.

Even though several of us regularly asked to examine this supposed body of research evidence, it became clear why our requests were ignored.  In December 2009, the Parent Teacher Association,  indicated the real role of this committee--more like that of a rubber stamp. The PTA predicted that: "both sets of standards will be approved simultaneously in February 2010 by members of the Validation Committee."  Why did it think so?   Why did the Gates Foundation think so, too?  Vicki Phillips and Carina Wong published an article in the February 2010 issue of Phi Delta Kappan talking about Common Core's standards as if they had already been approved.  The final version of these standards didn't come out until June 2010. 

After submitting many detailed critiques from October 2009 to May 2010 in a futile effort to remedy the basic deficiencies of Common Core's English/reading standards, I, along with four other members of the Validation Committee, declined to sign off on the final version.

NATIONAL CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENTS

Point Four: Both testing consortia, funded by the USDE, are currently developing curriculum frameworks, models, and guides, as well as instructional materials, behind closed doors, with no public procedures for the selection of curriculum developers, for public comment and further revision, and for final public approval if what the USDE and these testing consortia are doing is constitutional and legal. Below are excerpts from the two testing consortia’s approved applications that show clearly their intentions to develop a national curriculum.  In addition, the Albert Shanker Institute issued a "manifesto" in March applauding Common Core's goals and quality and urging the development of a national curriculum based on its standards.  Among the signers is the president of the Fordham Institute.

QUOTES FROM ONE ASSESSMENT CONSORTIUM -- SMARTER

According to the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium's application to the USDE  in June 2010, it intends to:

 “interpret or translate [Common Core’s] standards before they can be used effectively for

assessment or instruction” [SMARTER Balanced Proposal. Page 34]

– “translate the standards into content/curricular frameworks, test maps, and item/performance

event specifications to provide assessment specificity and to clarify the connections between

instructional processes and assessment outcomes.” [SMARTER Proposal, page 35]

– provide “a clear definition of the specific grade-level content skills and knowledge that the

assessment is intended to measure” [SMARTER Balanced Proposal, page 48]

– “convene key stakeholders and content specialists to develop assessment frameworks that

precisely lay out the content and cognitive demands that define college- and career-readiness for each grade level.” [SMARTER Balanced Proposal, page74]

– “develop cognitive models for the domains of ELA and mathematics that specify the content

elements and relationships reflecting the sequence of learning that students would need to

achieve college and career-readiness” [SMARTER Balanced Proposal, page 76]

QUOTES FROM SECOND ASSESSMENT CONSORTIUM -- PARCC

Similarly, the June 10 application from the other testing consortium funded by the USDE, the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), is planning to:

– “unpack the standards to a finer grain size as necessary to determine which standards are best measured through the various components … To do this, the Partnership will engage lead

members of the CCSS writing teams … and the content teams from each state, assessment

experts and teachers from Partnership states.” [PARCC Proposal, page 174]

– “develop challenging performance tasks and innovative, computer-enhanced items … [that] will send a strong, clear signal to educators about the kinds of instruction and types of performances needed for students to demonstrate college and career readiness.” [PARCC Proposal, page 7]

– ”develop model curriculum frameworks that teachers can use to plan instruction and gain a

deep understanding of the CCSS, and released items and tasks that teachers can use for ongoing formative assessment.” [PARCC Proposal, page 57]

====================

From Donna Garner - 4.18.11

FOLLOWING ARE STATEMENTS TAKEN FROM MY NOTES OF THE 4.15.11 HEARING

States typically pay 90% of their own education costs. Why give the federal government, which pays only 10%, complete control over a state’s public schools?

Common Core Standards (CCS) completely de-emphasize the teaching of the great pieces of literature. 

Texas’ new English / Language Arts / Reading standards (adopted in May 2008) are the best in the entire United States.

Math Professor Jim Milgram believes the new Math framework and standards presently being developed in Texas may become the best in the country.

CCS do not have discreet standards for courses such as Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II.  CCS “blends math.”  Where is the empirical research to show that teaching “blended math” courses will produce well-prepared math and science graduates?  

CCS have not been internationally benchmarked, and there is nothing to prove that students who are taught the CCS will be competitive wth students from other countries.

By the time Texas’ Social Studies standards were adopted in 2010, the Texas State Board of Education had had five public hearings during eighteen months of intense public input. The CCS had no public hearings in Congress nor anywhere else. No votes were ever taken on the CCS by Congress.

Under pressure from concerned citizens, the DOE finally established a short public comment period on the CCS; but nobody has been allowed to see the actual feedback  submitted by the public.  

A member of the CCS Validation Committee attempted to establish an interchange with a CCS draft writer and was told such exchanges were prohibited.

When the Texas Education Agency looked at the fiscal note to implement the CCS in Texas, it would have cost $3 Billion extra dollars; and Texas would have had to dump its own standards, tests, and accountability system that have taken years and millions of dollars to develop.

The CCS will allow one monolithic vendor to get the entire federal contract.

The writers of the national assessments (SMARTER and PARCC consortia) cannot develop test items unless there is well-defined curriculum content by grade level in the CCS; and there is not.  Therefore, the two consortia are struggling because they have been forced to produce curriculum content first before they can possibly begin to develop the actual assessments.  This means that these two assessment consortia (funded by the federal government) will be telling local teachers not just what to teach but how and when.  The entire assessment package is required under the DOE contract to be ready by 2014-15.   

Since 2009, there have been at least 230 data breaches in America. CCS requires a national database of personal information on all public school students, families, and educators. A national database would be a sure target for data mining and for security breaches.

Using its CCS national database, would the federal government try to nudge students into certain career pathways?

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com



Hope Alabama Board of Education Will Envision Their Legacy Nov 18th As They Vote On Common Core Standards

My response to Alabama Board of Education’s decision on Nov. 18 to commit to the Common Core Standards:

Please remember this little graphic that explains succinctly the dangers of the Common Core Standards/Race to the Top. 

*The arrow means “lead(s) to”: 

National standards  →  national assessments  →  national curriculum → 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 of students and teachers

===================================================================

The dangers of Alabama being forced to teach the Obama administration’s national curriculum:

“Obama’s Dangerous Agenda Sweeping over our Schools”

by Donna Garner

11.8.10

On Nov. 6, 2010, the New York Times weighed in on the bullying issue in schools, and the article affirms what I have been saying in my articles: The Obama administration aligned with Kevin Jennings’ gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender agenda is being forced into schools under the guise of the “bullying” issue.     

To give you important background information, please take the time to read through my three articles before you read the New York Times article (posted below).

One of the most gripping statistics that I found in the latest Centers for Disease Control HIV report (2005-2008) is the following; and I believe it says it all:

From 2005-2008…Most (74%) diagnoses of HIV infection in adults and adolescents were in males. Among males diagnosed with HIV infection from 2005-2008, 70% were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact. The percentage of diagnosed HIV infections attributed to male-to-male sexual contact was even larger (85%) among males aged 13 to 24 years.”

We as adults must protect our children from being indoctrinated into the homosexual lifestyle; it is truly a matter of life and death.

My Three Articles

(1) “What Is the Centers for Disease Control?” -- 10.23.10:  http://www.educationnews.org/breaking_news/health/101841.html

(2) “Bullying Agenda” -- 10.26.10:  http://www.educationnews.org/index.php?news=101979

(3) “Open Letter to Parents, Legislators, School Personnel: Which Policy Are You Going To Promote?” -- 11.7.10:

http://www.educationnews.org/blogs/102489.html

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

===================================================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/07bully.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=education

New York Times

November 6, 2010

In Efforts to End Bullying, Some See Agenda

By ERIK ECKHOLM

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com