This is the first in a countdown series of introductions, a list of the Top Ten Scariest People Leading American Education.
It’s so troubling to see local and state leaders put their trust –and our childrens’ minds– in the hands of people who openly work to destroy the great American tradition.
It’s been said –and I agree– that American liberties are being lost because of the strange coalition of three unlikely groups: the well-intentioned, the slothful, and the subversive.
This series will focus on the third group, the subversive.
Watch the antics of the people who lead the educational philosophies of our nation. Topping my list of educational subversives: Common Core architect/College Board President David Coleman; Common Core testing advisor /Obama campaign advisor Linda Darling-Hammond; Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Sir Michael Barber, who is CEA of Pearson Education; and Dept. of Education consultant Bill Ayers.
Today I will introduce Michelle Rhee, President of StudentsFirst. She is a self-proclaimed radical left wing progressive “change agent”. This Harvard graduate, former chancellor of D.C. schools and White House darling is rumored to be the logical replacement for Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.
Her book, “Radical,” was published last month.
It is troubling to read about the scandal in which Rhee was accused and partially acknowledged the erasing by adults of wrong answers and correcting student tests dishonestly to make the scores appear higher than they really were.
And it is very troubling to see how little student learning really means to her. From American Thinker:
“Michelle Rhee, founder of StudentsFirst, had gotten into a discussion with former teacher Robert Pondiscio, of the website Core Knowledge, about curriculum. Pondiscio had just finished listening to a speech Rhee gave at the Manhattan Institute on December 16, 2010, when he asked her if she could comment on the importance of curriculum.
Here’s the exchange:
Pondisco: “I had the opportunity to talk briefly with Rhee about my reform game -curriculum, teaching and learning…
“I know you have a lot on your plate,” I concluded. “But I’d urge you to at least keep curriculum in mind.”
“The last thing we’re going to do,” she replied with a chuckle, “is get wrapped up in curriculum battles.”
A stunning reply if you think about it.
The poster child for bare-knuckle reform, who moments earlier was urging her listeners to “embrace conflict,” has no stomach for a debate about what kids should learn in school.
So, Obama “applauds” the non-governmental organizations (NGA and CCSSO) for the supposedly “state-led” program, while announcing his own Obama Administration’s “efforts to promote college- and career-ready standards” via ESEA. So who is really behind it? Obama or the states?
Actually, both. –But only because the states never had a chance to vote on it. The whole thing was done using non-governmental groups. Very sneaky. Very.
Some of you are thinking: ” I didn’t see the word “common core” in the announcement.” –So why am I using “Common Core” as a synonymn with “College-and-career ready standards”?
Because that’s what the White House does.
If you go to the U.S. Department of Education’s own “Definitions Page” you will find this definition:
College- and career-ready standards: Content standards for kindergarten through 12th grade that build towards college- and career-ready graduation requirements (as defined in this document) by the time of high school graduation. A State’s college- and career-ready standards must be either (1) standards that are common to a significant number of States; or (2) standards that are approved by a State network of institutions of higher education, which must certify that students who meet the standards will not need remedial course work at the postsecondary level. http://www.ed.gov/race-top/district-competition/definitions
Common with a significant number of states?! There is no other set of common standards that many states share. It’s only Common Core.
And it’s totally unAmerican because it’s education without representation. We didn’t vote for nor can we repeal the members of the CCSSO/NGA, who hold the common core copyright.
We can’t amend the standards like we can a legitimate American law; they’re under CCSSO/NGA copyright. And we can’t adjust Common Core to suit us, more than the mandated 15% maximum. So if we want to teach our high school seniors using 100% classic literature, we may not do it. The Common Core says they can only have 30% classic literature. The rest has to be info-text. Our state can add 15%, bringing it to 45% max. See how we are bound? Where is the liberty in that? Where is the feeling of American innovation and freedom in our educational system?
I beg you, if you don’t know much about Common Core yet, to read the following and do the research for yourself.
1. Look at the dates we adopted Common Core. Then look at the dates the Common Core was written– we never saw it before we signed up!
2. Look at the copyright page for NGA/CCSSO on the common standards. It says “no claims to the contrary shall be made” right after it claims to be the sole developer and owner of the standards. Yet proponents say teachers and states came up with them.
3. Look at the 15% cap set on innovation in the waiver application for ESEA (No Child Left Behind waiver).
4. Look at the U.S. Constitution. Where does it say that the President has authority to promote Common education?
5. Look at G.E.P.A. law. (General Educational Provisions Act.) It specifically excludes the federal government from supervising, directing or ruling over educational systems in any way. ALL THEY CAN DO IS PAY FOR IT. States run it. Period.
6. Look at the online “Cooperative Agreement between the Dept. of Education and SBAC”. It uses mandatory language that forces both testing consortia to synchronize testing. It uses mandatory language that forces the consortia to share data with the federal government “on an ongoing basis.” Triangulating educational consortia under the feds’ direction and supervision is ILLEGAL. It takes away local control.
7. Look at the official Common Core Validation Committee Members’ reviews of Common Core. Google Sandra Stotsky and James Milgram. They refused to call the standards adequate for education.
COMMON CORE 