Source-Focused Analysis of Common Core Starts Here: An Updated Syllabus   8 comments

Original source documents arm honest people who want to know the truth about Common Core to take back the reins of control.

This is important because proponents are increasing false advertisements about Common Core.  They’re also hiding the Common Core Inititative under different names, such as “Utah Core” or  “Indiana Core“.  Unfortunately, well intentioned people whom we trust to tell us the truth often simply don’t know the whole story.  It is up to us to find out for ourselves.

Please go go directly to source documents to fact-check claims being made by proponents of Common Core.

(This slightly updated syllabus was shared in a previous  post.  It is republished today because Alisa, Renee and I are speaking in Vernal tonight and we want to point our Vernal friends to solid information.  If anyone wants to come to the meeting tonight, you are welcome.  There is, of course, no charge and the event begins at 7:00.)

Link to tonight’s Vernal, Utah, meeting:   204 E 100 N, Vernal, UT 84078  (435) 789-0091

 

 

image cc

 A Source-Focused Analysis of the Common Core Initiative

  1. The General Educational Provisions Act – This law prohibits the federal government from directing or supervising education:  “No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system…” The Dept. of Education, by forming multiple  official partnerships with corporate America, has gotten away with breaking this law.
  2. U.S. Constitution – Amendment 10 – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The disregard by the Dept. of Education for the authority and diversity of individual states’ educational pathways must be stopped.
  3. Utah’s Race to the Top Grant Application– Utah got points from the federal government for having a SLDS database system. (This tracks children without parental consent or knowledge.  There’s no legal opt-out for SLDS child inventorying.  Corporations, in partnership with state SLDS systems, collect millions of data points on children, without parental consent. ) Also in the Race to the Top Grant Application document, see that Utah got more points for having adopted Common Core. This was how we got in. Despite not winning the grant money, we remained in these systems.
  4. The No Child Left Behind Waiver– This shows the 15% cap the federal government put on top of the copyrighted, unamendable (by states) common standards.  So states are allowed to add frosting and sprinkles to state standards, but they have no say in what goes into the cake itself.
  5. The State Longitudinal Database System (SLDS) Grant– All states have one. This is a federally paid-for database that every state in the US now has. It tracks students within the state. Aggregated data ion students is sent from this system to the federal EdFacts Exchange. Parents can not opt their children out. (They can and probably should opt out of Common Core tests, however.)
  6. The lawsuit against the Department of Education– The Electronic Privacy Information Center has sued the DOE for destroying the previously data-privacy protective federal FERPA. The lawsuit explains that parental consent is a best practice, not a mandate, prior to data sharing; it shows that terms were redefined, that personally identifiable information, including biometrics, can be shared, and that agencies have legal access to private data of students.
  7. The copyright on Common Core held by CCSSO/NGA – The fact that there are “terms of use” and a copyright shows that we have no real control over the standards which are written behind closed doors in D.C. Notice that no one outside CCSSO/NGA may claim to have helped write the standards.
  8. The report entitled “For Each And Every Child” from the Equity and Excellence Commission – This report was commissioned by Obama. It reveals that forced redistribution of wealth is a main reason for the national education system.
  9. The Cooperative Agreement between the Dept. of Education and the testing consortia – Even though Utah escaped the SBAC and is not bound by the Cooperative Agreement directly, Utah’s current testing group, A.I.R., is partnered with SBAC. This document shows clearly the mandates for synchronizing tests and sharing student data to mesh testing companies with federal aims and agents.  Its only claim to binding authority is money.
  10. The speeches of Secretary Arne Duncan on education – He states that Common Standards were Obama’s idea and that the federal government is moving to play a larger role in education.  Also, the speeches of President Obama on education – Obama’s top 4 education goals: control data, common standards, teachers, and to take over low-performing schools.
  1. The speeches of the CEA of Pearson Ed, Sir Michael Barber – Barber wants every school on the globe to have the exact same academic standards and to underpin every standard with environmental propaganda. He also pushes for global data and stresses the term “sustainable reform” which he calls “irreversible reform”.
  2. The speeches and actions of the main funder of Common Core, Bill Gates – He’s funded Common Core almost completely on his own; he’s partnered with Pearson; he says “we won’t know it works until all the tests and curriculum aligns with the standards” and he’s writing curriculum for his “uniform customer base” –all children and all schools.
  3. The speeches of David Coleman, a noneducator, the architect of the Common Core ELA standards and now promoted to College Board President -He mocks narrative writing, he’s diminished the percentage of classic literature that’s allowable in the standards. He’s not been elected, he’s never taught school, yet he’s almost singlehandedly altered the quality and liberty of classrooms. As he’s now the College Board President, he’s aligning the SAT to his version of standards.
  4. The Dept. of Ed report: Promoting Grit, Tenacity and Perserverance– behavioral indicators are sought by the federal government. They may include monitoring children using cameras, posture chairs, and bracelets. (see graphic, mid-report.)
  5. Federal data collection websites such as the EdFacts Exchange, the Common Education Data Standards, the National Data Collection Model, and the Data Quality Campaign, sites because three of these four ask us to give personally identifiable information on students, from our state database. -The first link shows what we already give to the federal government; the others show what the federal government is requesting that we share, which includes intimate, personally identifiable information. See Common Core creators’ data management branch, EIMAC of CCSSO, with its stated mission to disaggregate student data.  The EIMAC/CCSSO link also shows the official partnership of the federal government with corporate Common Core.
  1. The Official Common Core Standards – English and Math standards. Here you will see Common Core calling itself a “living work” meaning that what Common Core is today, will not remain. There is no amendment process for states to have a voice in altering the commonly held standards because they’re under private copyright. See a recommended reading list in Appendix B that includes “The Bluest Eye,” a pornographic novel.
  2. See academic testimonies of the official Common Core validation committee members who refused to sign off on the legitimacy of the standards; other professors have also testified that Common Core hurts legitimate college readiness.  See in contrast the motive of Common Core promoters such as Marc Tucker of the Center for American Progress who report that “the United States will have to largely abandon the beloved emblem of American education: local control.  …[N]ew authority will have to come at the expense of local control.”
  3. Federal Definition of College and Career Ready Standards – the federal government hides the phrase “common core” from public view by using the term “college and career ready standards” in its documents.  Know that they are the same thing.
  4. Common Educational Data Standards – The same private groups (NGA/CCSSO) that created Common Core have also created Common Educational Data Standards, so that student data mining and citizen tracking is interoperable and easy.  Coupled with the breakdown of family privacy law (federal FERPA, altered by the Dept. of Education) we see that children’s data lacks proper protections, and that students are being used as compulsory, unpaid  research objects.
  5. Follow the money trails – Study what advocacy and development of common standards Bill Gates has paid for; see how his unelected philanthropy affects education and its governance, and see how his partnerships with Pearson, with the United Nations and others monopolize the U.S. and global education markets, excluding voters as public-private partnerships make decisions, instead of voters or elected representatives such as school boards or legislators making decisions.

american mom

8 responses to “Source-Focused Analysis of Common Core Starts Here: An Updated Syllabus

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. One might also keep in mind that the fellow originally hired to be the Chair for the CCSS Mathematics portion, one Phil Daro, doesn’t even have a degree in mathematics. Just a BA in English from UC Berkeley. He remained Chairman of the CCSSM until 2011 when, in a wider review, mathematicians revolted upon hearing the chair was a “mathematical nothing”; he then became a “co-chair” and the only mathematician among the three lead authors was given the chairman title.

    The Common Core math content standards themselves aren’t bad; all of the crazy lessons that have bounced from coast to coast are inspired by the CCSS “Standards for Mathematical Practice”. which read like they were pulled right out of one of the founding Whole Math documents, the 1992 Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools, that ignited California’s Math Wars of the ’90’s. This shouldn’t be too surprising, as the director of that ’92 Framework project was the very same CCSSM chair and lead author, Phil Daro.. It’s the Practice Standards, not the CCSSM content standards, that are the source of all the mischief.

    http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice/

    Math education standards are one area of human endeavor where past failures by the annointed are conveniently ignored.

  2. Common Core is very damaging to a humans mind

  3. Pingback: Source-Focused Analysis of Common Core Starts Here: An Updated Syllabus | Through their eyes

  4. I just found out they are starting Common Core English in my daughters special needs class, beginning in April, she is a junior in high school, what do I do?

  5. Libertybelle56, is there any way that you can home school your daughter at least for the English class time? If not, I would talk with the principal and the teacher, letting them know that your daughter’s accommodation needs will include: opting out of tests, reading mostly imaginative literature rather than mostly informational texts, and doing creative writing rather than mostly report-based writing. Not killing students’ love of learning may depend on these kinds of accomodations. Carve out some space for her happiness so that she can enjoy English. That is my attempt at giving advice although I do not know your daughter, your state, or your school. Good luck.

  6. You may wish to add the APA (American Psychological Association) Code of Ethics link to your original source documents:

    http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/

    One can only read about half way through them and realize that public schools have zero intention of following any type of code of ethics as such relates to informed parental consent, ethics on experimenting and gathering data on kids, and ethics in testing.

    What sick, sick, system we have allowed to come into our country.

  7. My issue with the common core is not that we have learning objectives or that I think parts of the objectives should be changed. Or who wrote them. Because we MUST have learning objectives. You cannot teach without them.

    The problem I see is that it removes all local control of determining what those standards are. The standards are copyrighted by a private company.

    How can I get a private company to change their product? I don’t have the money or influence.

    They might say, well, get our other customers to agree. But that raises the second issue. For that to happen, I would have to mount a 48 state campaign. Getting agreement among 48 states isn’t going to happen.

    Which means we’ve lost control. And only those who have influence with the copyright owners will be able to provide input.

  8. BTW, the Common Core started back in 1998, not 2009. What happened in 2009 was a simple review and repackaging. The real origins are with Achieve’s first two projects: (1) American Assessments & Standards Benchmarking project started in 1998 and (2) the American Diploma Project started in 2002, published 2004.

    See Achieve’s timeline here: http://www.achieve.org/history-achieve

    Report 1: http://www.achieve.org/files/Michigan-Benchmarking12-1998.pdf
    Report 2: http://www.achieve.org/files/ReadyorNot.pdf

    If your read their 2004 publication, you will see not only the term “common core”, but an early version of all the standards. You can also read, starting on page 105, the methodology for how they developed the standards.

    There is a lot of information in both documents that will help folks understand what their goals are and how they worked.

    States have been involved with the projects since the beginning. Of course, being “involved” and writing the objectives are different things. But again, the issue is not having objectives (sometimes called standards or benchmarks). The issue is in who gets to decide what they are and how easy it is to revise them.

    This is why the common core is the wrong direction–it removes all local control.

Comments are welcome here.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: