Transcript The Common Core - Home School Legal Defense Association


History and philosophy behind nationalized standards.

What is the Common Core State Standards Initiative?

Where did the Common Core come from and how did it
get here so fast?

The Core Concerns:
 Nationalization of education.
 Standardization of education and children.

What can I do to fight the Common Core?

Children were educated at home or by tutors.

From the dawn of public schooling until recently, every local
public school district decided on its own what children would
learn. Education was considered a sacred local right.

Funding was exclusively local.

Localities paid for their schools, controlled what kids learned,
and controlled the selection of teachers.

High literacy rates.
“It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the
Scriptures . . . and that learning may not be buried in the graves of our fore-fathers in Church and
commonwealth, the Lord assisting our indeavors: it is therefore ordered by this Court and Authoritie
therof;
“That every Township in this Jurisdiction, after the Lord hath increased them to the number of fifty
Housholders, shall then forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all such children as shall
resort to him to write and read, whose wages shall be paid either by the Parents or Masters of such
children, or by the Inhabitants in general, by way of supply, as the major part of those that order the
prudentials of the Town shall appoint.
“. . . And it is further ordered, that where any town shall increase to the number of one hundred
Families or Housholders, they shall set up a Grammar-School, the Masters thereof being able to
instruct youth so far as they may be fitted for the Universitie.”

Karl Marx (1818–1883).

Communist Manifesto (1849) outlined 10
ways to turn a free nation into a
communist nation.

Tenth Plank:
 Free education for all children in public
schools.
 Abolition of children’s factory labor in its
present form.
 Combination of education with industrial
production.
Photo Credit: Flickr, http://goo.gl/pytxtD

Progressive educator John
Dewey argued for a standardized
curriculum to prevent one student
from becoming superior to others
and envisioned a workforce filled
with people with “politically and
socially correct attitudes” who
would respond to orders without
question.
Photo Credit: Flickr, http://goo.gl/v6PTeH

During the early 1900s, states began to increase control over education.
Immigration and nationalism were two primary reasons for this.

Blaine Amendments (no government aid to religious schools), regulation
of private education.

In 1918, federal legislation was introduced to create a federal Department
of Education, in part to make sure that federal funds only went to states
that enforced English-only education.

Conflict began between parents, teachers, and this
new, standardized approach to education.
Nebraska passed a law regulating education in foreign languages: “No person,
individually or as a teacher, shall, in any private, denominational, parochial or
public school, teach any subject to any person in any language other than the
English language.” It also prohibited foreign language instruction of children who
had yet to successfully complete the eighth grade.
Robert Meyer, a teacher in a one-room school house, was charged with violation of
the act while reading the Bible to students in German.
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the law: “His right thus to teach and the
right of parents to engage him so to instruct their children, we think, are within the
liberty of the [14th] amendment.”
Oregon’s compulsory education law required nearly all children ages 8–16 to attend
public school. (Homeschooling was allowed if monitored by the local school district.)
When this law was amended to eliminate a private school attendance exemption, a
nonsectarian private school and a Catholic private school sued.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down the prohibition on private schools:
“The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose
excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to
accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the
State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the
high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965—federal government began to
get involved.

Around this time, homeschooling began to see a renaissance.

1979—U.S. Department of Education created.

1983—“Nation at Risk” (a report commissioned by the U.S. Department of
Education) brought public attention to declining performance in public schools.
Our “. . . once unchallenged preeminence . . .” is being “. . . overtaken by
competitors around the world…” and a “…rising tide of mediocrity . . .”

Produced rush of “fixes” but there was no improvement by end of 1980s.

Federal government began to put more mandates on states in exchange for federal
funds. States responded by taking more power over education away from local
communities and centralizing it in the state.

Academic improvement was weak or nonexistent.

Marc Tucker, president and chief
executive officer of the National
Center on Education and the
Economy.

Wrote an 18-page letter to Hillary
Clinton in 1992, days after Bill
Clinton was elected president of
the United States.

Photo Credit: Google Images, http://goo.gl/LbbU53
Known as the “Dear Hillary” letter.

Bypass elected officials in school boards and state legislatures by making federal
funds flow to state governors and their appointees on workforce development
boards.

Have school personnel use a computer database to store information about every
student and his/her family, identified by the child’s Social Security number. This
would include academic, medical, mental, psychological, behavioral data, along
with interrogations by counselors. This data would be available to the school, the
government, and future employers.

Use “national standards” and “national testing” to cement national control of tests,
assessments, school honors and rewards, financial aid, and the Certificate of Initial
Mastery (CIM), designed to replace the high school diploma.
(continued)

Tucker envisioned a school system based on the German system,
full of top-down control. The Tucker plan would train children in
specific jobs to benefit the workforce and the global economy
instead of educating them to make their own life choices.

Tucker’s plan would change the mission of the schools from
teaching children academic basics and knowledge to training
them to serve the global economy in jobs selected by workforce
boards. Nothing in this comprehensive plan has anything to do
with teaching schoolchildren how to read, write, or calculate.

Sound similar to the Common Core?

Hillary Clinton’s premise: It
takes a village to raise a child.

Can parents be trusted to raise
kids on their own?
Photo Credit: Flickr, http://goo.gl/jJIyc2

Melissa Harris-Perry is an MSNBC host
and Tulane University Professor.

In an ad for her TV show on April 4,
2013, she said: “We have to break
through our kind of private idea that
kids belong to their parents or kids
belong to their families and recognize
that kids belong to whole communities”
(emphasis added).
Photo Credit: Flickr, http://goo.gl/1CrIvk

Harvard professor Paul Reville is a former
Massachusetts secretary of education.

Topic is the Common Core during a February
2014 roundtable.

Why should states have different academic
standards “when the children belong to all of us
and we’ve moved, and the same logic applies to
the nation, and it makes sense to educators, it
makes sense to policy makers, and it’s why
people voluntarily entered into [the Common
Core]”? (emphasis added)
Photo Credit: Flickr, http://goo.gl/ctudKf

In 2007, the National Governors Association’s Center for Best
Practices jumped in with support.

In 2008, “Benchmarking for Success” was published from the
National Governors Association (NGA), the Council for Chief
State School Officers (CCSSO), and Achieve, Inc. The report
called for a “common core” of national standards and
advocated following Germany’s example of adopting
“common, jointly developed ‘national education standards.’”

According to Sandra Stotsky, Ph.D: “Drafting began by three private organizations
in Washington, D.C.—the National Governors Association (NGA), the Council
for Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), and Achieve, Inc.—all funded for this
purpose by a fourth private organization, the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation.”

29 education experts were on the validation committee which oversaw the
drafting and which was supposed to sign off on the standards.

Members of the validation committee had to sign a nondisclosure agreement.

5 members of the validation committee, including James Milgram and Sandra
Stotsky, refused to sign onto the final draft.

The Common Core is content standards for math and English.

President Obama’s very first legislative agenda item.
It passed the House and Senate.

Created Race to the Top and a slush fund of $4.35
billion for competitive grants to states that adopted
certain education reforms.

One reform was the Common Core.

Signed into law on February 17, 2009.

Immediately after Race to the Top was created, the Common Core started
moving quickly.

June 1, 2009—The Common Core State Standards Initiative was launched with
48 states coming on board and signing a memo committing to the development
of Math and English Language Arts standards, sight unseen!

September 2009—The first draft of the Common Core was released.

June 2, 2010—The Common Core is finalized and publically released.

By end of 2010, 40 states had adopted the Common Core, and by the end of 2011,
45 states had fully adopted it.

TX, VA, NE, AK, and MN (adopted only ELA) held out.
1.
The Common Core nationalizes our education system.
Control over education shifts from parents and local
decision makers to Washington bureaucrats.
2.
One-size-fits-all standardization. “College and career
ready” goals push for greater testing and data collection.
Children are treated like assembly-line products instead
of individuals with unique, God-given identities.
Common Core is the antithesis of individualized education
that has proven so effective in homeschooling.

Decision making is far removed from parents, teachers, and voters!

Easily influenced by politically-correct norms, social engineering. Is
DC out of touch with the rest of America?

Last nail in the coffin of local control over education.

Doesn’t take into account rich diversity and needs of each state.

If the U.S. were to truly adopt a national set of standards, curricula,
and tests, and no states were exempted, it would only be a matter of
time before pressure built for private schools and homeschools to
conform.

Three sets of laws prohibit the federal government
from prescribing the content of state curricula and
assessments:
The General Education Provisions Act (1974),
2. The Department of Education Organization Act (1974), and
3. Elementary and Secondary Education Act—as amended by the
No Child Left Behind Act in 2001.
 In 2001, HSLDA fought hard to get Congress to include the
language in the next image and other important
amendments in NCLB:
1.
Section 9527 [20 U.S.C. 7907]: No federal funds to create national
curriculum
SEC. 9527. PROHIBITIONS ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS
(a) GENERAL PROHIBITION.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize
an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a
State, local educational agency, or school’s curriculum, program of instruction, or
allocation of State or local resources, or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to
spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.
(b) PROHIBITION ON ENDORSEMENT OF CURRICULUM.—Notwithstanding any
other prohibition of Federal law, no funds provided to the Department under this Act
may be used by the Department to endorse, approve, or sanction any curriculum
designed to be used in an elementary school or secondary school.
(c) PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING FEDERAL APPROVAL OR CERTIFICATION
OF STANDARDS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, no State
shall be required to have academic content or student academic achievement
standards approved or certified by the Federal Government, in order to receive
assistance under this Act.

Race to the Top was a competition for federal education grants authorized by
the 2009 Stimulus Bill. Feds used money to incentivize what they could not use
force of law to accomplish.

In order to even be competitive, states had to promise:
1.
That they would fully adopt a set of common college- and career-ready
standards supplemented with only 15% of their own standards.
2.
That they would expand their state’s longitudinal data system to be compatible
with the format of other states’ data systems and to contain new data including
student health, demographics, and success in postsecondary education.

Race to the Top was more than just a state-by-state
competition that drove the adoption of the Common
Core standards.

The Department of Education held the Race to the Top
Assessment Competition in which consortia of a
majority of states promised to create and implement
identical K–12 assessments.

The Department of Education also created Race to the
Top Early Learning Challenge and Race to the Top
District Competition.
2. National Assessments:
Race to the Top wasn’t only a state-by-state competition
that drove them adoption of the Common Core
standards. The Department of Education also held a
competition in which consortia of a majority of the states
promised to create and implement identical K-12
assessments.
A program officer at the Department of Education monitors
all of the assessment content and has the authority to
redirect consortia activity if the “outcomes are
inconsistent with the intended project outcomes.”

This concern goes to the heart of the standards. The Common Core
standardizes mediocrity across the nation. Some states truly did have
poor academic standards. Other states, however, had strong academic
standards. This set up a healthy competition among states where they
competed for families. Now they’re all the same. No incentive to
strengthen standards.

The philosophy driving the Common Core is now moving into testing
(ACT, SAT), national databases, and college admissions. These all
have the potential to impact homeschoolers.
From HSLDA’s analysis paper, “The Dawning Database: Does the Common Core
Lead to National Data Collection?” September 10, 2013

Forty-six states currently have databases that can track students
from preschool through the workforce (P-20).

States that competed in the Race to the Top state competition
and members of the assessment consortia are committed to
gathering P-20 (preschool through the workforce) data about
each student.

This includes student-specific data: student enrollment,
demographics, transfers, teachers, test records, transcripts, and
sometimes Social Security numbers and home addresses.

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) formerly guaranteed
that parents could access their children’s personally identifiable information
collected by schools. Schools, however, were barred from sharing this
information with third parties.

However, in January 2012 the Department of Education reshaped FERPA
through regulations. Now any government or private entity approved by the
Department of Education has access to students’ personally identifiable
information. (Lawsuit by Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) against
this was thrown out due to lack of standing September 2013.)

Additionally, the Department of Education has funded and overseen the
development of guidelines for building data systems. These systems can collect
and link personally identifiable information across state lines.

Educational data collection is now concentrated around a few models, meaning
that states are getting closer and closer to keeping the same
data and using the same interoperable technology to store it.
The Common Education Data Standards, a division of the Department of
Education, says, “The State Core Model will do for State Longitudinal Data
Systems what the Common Core is doing for Curriculum Frameworks
and the two assessment consortia.”

The Data Quality Campaign, a private sector program that has accepted
federal funding, explains that the Common Core’s emphasis on evaluating
teachers based on their students’ academic performance and tracking students’
college and career readiness requires broader data collection.

The authors and funders of the Common Core have been heavily involved in
developing data models and overseeing data collection:
 National Governors Association started an initiative to collect data on
states’ postsecondary institutions.
 Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation currently funds the Data Quality
Campaign, one of the leading voices on database expansion and alignment.
 The Council for Chief State School Officials now oversees the
federal National Education Data Model.

The Common Core ends up establishing the lowest common
denominator as the academic standard in the public schools and
any other schools that adopt the Common Core.

The Story-Killers, a book by Hillsdale Professor Terrence Moore.

Erin Tuttle and Heather Crossin, private school moms in Indiana,
were appalled at the illogical math problems.
AN INSIDER CRITIQUES
THE STANDARDS
Sandra Stotsky
Member of the Common
Core validation committee
THE FOLLOWING 11 POINTS ARE DIRECT QUOTATIONS, with minor
edits, excerpted from an article by Sandra Stotsky
first published by the Pioneer Institute in 2013
http://pioneerinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/Common-Core-Fact-Sheet_new.pdf
Three private organizations in Washington, D.C.: the
National Governors Association (NGA), the Council for
Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), and Achieve,
Inc.—all funded for this purpose by a fourth private
organization, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
In the absence of official information, it seems that
Achieve, Inc., and the Gates Foundation selected most
of the key personnel to write the high school–level
college-readiness standards.
Chiefly test and curriculum developers from ACT, the
College Board, Achieve, and the National Center on
Education and the Economy (Marc Tucker’s group!).
High school English and mathematics teachers,
English professors, scientists, engineers, parents,
state legislators, early childhood educators, and
state or local school board members [were not
represented in the Standard Development Work
Groups].
No. These groups had no open meetings and have
never provided access to any public comment or
critiques they received.
The two “lead” writers never taught reading or English
or majored in English or had a doctorate in English.
Neither has published serious work on K–12 curriculum
and instruction.
They were unknown to English and reading educators
and to higher education faculty in rhetoric, speech,
composition, or literary study.
The only member of the three-person team with
K–12 teaching experience, Phil Daro, was an
English major. He was also on the staff of the
National Center on Education and the Economy.
None had ever developed K–12 mathematics
standards before.
The organizations that funded and developed
the standards will not tell the public.
NGA and CCSSO created their own Validation
Committee ostensibly to evaluate the soundness,
rigor, and validity of the standards they were
developing.
They have never provided a rationale for those they
chose to serve on the Validation Committee.
One high school English teacher, one mathematician,
no high school mathematics teachers, some testing
experts and school administrators, and many
mathematics educators (people with doctorates in
mathematics education, or in an education school, or
who work chiefly in teacher education, and who
usually do NOT teach college mathematics courses).
The one mathematician (James Milgram) and the one
ELA standards expert (Sandra Stotsky) on the
committee declined to sign off on the standards.
To have members sign a letter by the end of May
2010 asserting that the not-yet-finalized standards were
(1) reflective of the core knowledge and skills in ELA and
mathematics that students need in order to be collegeand career-ready;
(2) appropriate in terms of their level of specificity and
clarity;
(3) comparable to the expectations of other leading
nations; and
(4) informed by available research or evidence.










They are not internationally benchmarked.
They are not research-based.
They are not rigorous.
They omit mathematics standards leading to STEM careers.
They stress writing over reading.
They reduce literary study in grades 6–12.
They use an unproven approach to teaching geometry.
They defer completion of Algebra I to grade 9 or 10.
They are developmentally inappropriate in the primary grades.
Half of teaching time in English is to be spent on “informational
texts” (Obama Executive Order).
 They reduce opportunities for development of critical thinking
skills.
HSLDA believes that:

Children—whether homeschooled, private schooled, or public
schooled—do best when parents are fully engaged.

Top-down, centralized education policy does not encourage parents
to be engaged.

The Common Core State Standards Initiative moves education
standards from the purview of state and local control to being
controlled by unaccountable education policy experts sitting in a
boardroom far removed from the parents and teachers—who are the
most critical to a student’s educational success.

CCSS do not apply to private schools or homeschools, unless they
receive government dollars (online charter school programs have no
such protection).

Powerful amendment in No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. HSLDA
worked with Congress in 2001 to include powerful protections in
federal law ensuring that homeschools are not controlled by the
federal, state, or local governments.
Section 9506 [20 U.S.C. 7886]: Protection of home schools
SEC. 9506. PRIVATE, RELIGIOUS, AND HOME SCHOOLS.
(a) APPLICABILITY TO NONRECIPIENT PRIVATE SCHOOLS.—
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect any private school that does not receive
funds or services under this Act, nor shall any student who attends a private school that
does not receive funds or services under this Act be required to participate in any
assessment referenced in this Act.
(b) APPLICABILITY TO HOME SCHOOLS.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
affect a home school, whether or not a home school is treated as a home school or a private
school under State law, nor shall any student schooled at home be required to participate
in any assessment referenced in this Act.
(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION ON PROHIBITION OF FEDERAL CONTROL OVER
NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit, allow,
encourage, or authorize any Federal control over any aspect of any private, religious, or
home school . . .
(d) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION ON STATE AND LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY
MANDATES.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require any State educational
agency or local educational agency that receives funds under this Act to mandate,
direct, or control the curriculum of a private or home school, regardless or
whether or not a home school is treated as a private school under state law, nor
shall any funds under this Act be used for this purpose.”

Diane Ravitch: “No one will escape [the Common Core’s] reach,
whether they attend public or private school.”

National standards lead to national curriculum and national tests, which
subsequently pressures homeschool students to use the same curricula.

Big Brother is growing: the expansion and connection of statewide
longitudinal databases.

College entrance examinations are being aligned to the Common Core,
and new nationalized assessments are being implemented.

Postsecondary conceptions of college-readiness are changing.
CCSSO
Conference,
June 19–22,
2011:
At least some education
officials are looking to
include homeschoolers in
these expanded databases.

The SAT, ACT, GED, and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills have all been
rewritten or modified to implement the approaches to learning
emphasized by the Common Core State Standards.

Right now, the tests have basically been dumbed down. But in the future,
could test makers try to grade students on their responses to progressive
ideologies including social engineering and alternative lifestyles?

According to research up to this point, homeschool students on average
tend to score much higher on standardized assessments than public school
students.

Institutions of higher education are being pressured to align their
undergraduate classes with the Common Core standards.

The National Governors Association, one of the authors of the Common
Core, emphasizes that the Common Core standards for college
readiness will be used by institutions of higher learning to determine
whether a student is ready to enroll in a postsecondary course.

The public pushback against the Common Core is definitely helping to
make institutions of higher education leery of the new standards.

Alaska, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia never adopted the Common Core. Minnesota
only adopted the ELA standards.

Furthermore, Texas has taken the significant step of nearly unanimously passing
legislation saying that Texas will “never” adopt the Common Core.

Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Indiana “paused” the Common Core. It was
temporary, but shows it can be done.

Indiana just became the first state to officially withdraw from the Common Core,
and has now released its own standards.

Oklahoma’s governor recently signed H.B. 3399 into law, rejecting Common Core.

Many states have withdrawn from the testing and database consortia.

Nearly every state has held legislative hearings on the Common Core.
Many states have “tweaked” the Common Core. People are rising up!

H.R. 5, an official rewrite of the ESEA and NCLB reauthorization, ends any federal
funding for the Common Core. It passed the U.S. House of Representatives in 2013.

Members of the House and Senate are pushing appropriators to stop any current or
future funds from going to advance the Common Core.

Resolutions have been introduced in both the House and Senate condemning the
Common Core and arguing for the return of local and state control over education
decisions.

Look at history. Goals 2000 took years to defeat, was only finally defeated in 2001
when President Bush and the Republican Party took control of the White House,
Senate, and House of Representatives.

On Monday, April 21, 2014, inBloom, the national database company started with a $100
million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, shut its doors.

This database would have included over 400 points of data on every student, including all
behavioral history/discipline issues, ethnicity, any disability including any special needs,
family situation, health issues, whether they left public school to be homeschooled, etc.
1. Contact your state legislators immediately.
State legislatures can defund the implementation of the Common Core. State legislatures can also
prohibit school districts from basing curricula or tests on the standards.
2. Contact your federal representatives.
Let them know about your opposition to the Common Core. Urge them to defund it!
3. Spread the word.
As the dangers of the Common Core and its corresponding databases and national testing are exposed, it
is vital that you inform your friends and ask them to join you
in speaking out against the Common Core.
4. Stay in touch with HSLDA.
We will alert you to important legislation pending in your state.
5. Join a local group.
Visit CommonCoreMovie.com to find anti-common core Facebook groups in your state.

Analysis


Frequently updated news and analysis





Breaking News
State-by-state Common Core status pages
Research
In-depth examination of the issues
Resources


Research on the Common Core and related efforts, such as national databases and Race to the
Top.
Download and print 35-page analysis. Read online or order FAQ booklets.
Action


Talking points and sample letters for contacting your state officials.
Downloadable infographics and Facebook images to get people talking and thinking.
To host a screening of Building the Machine, go to:
CommonCoreMovie.com/be_involved