I read an article in the paper last week about the Fort Zumwalt school board’s support for Common Core. Only one board member expressed opposition to Common Core. While addressing the board, a person in charge of curriculum for the district explained how bad it would be for district teachers who have been working to implement these standards if their board didn’t support them.
Does it seem strange to you that a purported feeling would be used as reason to continue supporting Common Core Standards?
Some educators don’t seem to understand that they are public servants. Local school board members are representatives of the people in their districts. Their positions to support or oppose something should come from their constituents. The problem with the Common Core Standards issue is that few board members and district patrons have had time to research this Initiative. Citizens are just now becoming informed and school boards must respond accordingly.
I’m writing this to urge citizens to research the Common Core Standards Initiative. Don’t play into the hegemony created by the education “experts” to silence your voice, remind local school board members that they represent you, demand that state legislature’s reign in all state entities that knowingly signed away state rights in joining the Common Core Standards Initiative.
Pioneer Institute: The Road to a National Curriculum
I’m a teacher whose respect for individual liberty far outweighs my desire to go along and get along. . .
Support MO SB210 and HB616
Sunday, May 12, 2013
Monday, April 15, 2013
Contact YOUR US House Representative to sign onto this letter #stopcommoncore #tcot #tlot #liberty
Dear Secretary Duncan,
As you know, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) allows Congress to authorize and allocate funding for public K-12 education and, most importantly, is the primary vehicle in which we implement education policy reform. Most recently reauthorized through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the ESEA’s authorization expired on September 30, 2008, and has yet to be reauthorized. Since the ESEA’s expiration, the Department of Education (Department) has moved forward with education policy reform without Congressional input. Such action is, at best, in contravention with precedent.
In addition to expressing our concern with the Department’s circumvention of Congress to reform education policy, we are writing you to express our concerns with the implementation of Common Core standards and changes to federal data collection and disbursement policies.
In 2009, forty-six governors signed a memorandum of understanding with the National Governor’s Association committing their states to the development and adoption of new education standards within three years. As we understand it, states then had the option of adopting Common Core standards or creating their own equivalent standards. At the time, Common Core standards were simply an idea where states would collaborate to create uniformed education standards. Details about Common Core were not only unknown to the states, they did not exist. From there, your department offered Race To The Top
(RTTT) grants and NCLB waivers to states under the condition that each state would implement “college and career ready” standards. At the time, the only “college and career ready” standards with the Department’s approval were Common Core.
In addition to serious concerns we have regarding the Department’s aforementioned coercion of states to opt-in to Common Core standards, many of which were and continue to have serious budgetary issues and specific issues with existing education policies, we have become increasingly concerned over the development of the Common Core standards themselves. Though initially promoted as state-based education standards, Common Core standards, as they have been developed over the last few years, are nothing of the sort. In just one very troubling instance, Common Core standards will replace state-based
standardized testing with nationally-based standardized testing, the creation and initial implementation of which will be funded in full by the federal government. The long-term, annual administering of the exams, the cost of which has not been specified by the Department, is to be funded by the states.
As representatives from states across the nation, we understand the diverse cultures and state-specific education needs that exist in America. We believe that state-driven education policy is vital to the success of our children and that Members of Congress can best demonstrate the specific needs of their constituents. As with most one-size-fits-all policies, Common Core standards fail to address these needs.
As you know, because states opted-in to Common Core standards, there is little Congress can do to provide any relief from these burdensome and misguided standards. Instead, the ability to opt-out of these standards lies with the state. With that in mind, we will be working with our respective state legislatures and governors to provide relief to our education systems. In the meantime, we urge you to work with Members of Congress to reauthorize the ESEA in a manner that allows state-specific education needs to be addressed.
Separate from reauthorization, we are extremely concerned over recent changes your department has made to the manner in which the federal government collects and distributes student data.
As you know, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) was signed into law in 1974, guaranteeing parental access to student education records and limiting their disclosure to third parties. FERPA was intended to address parents’ growing privacy concerns and grant parental access to the information schools use to make decisions that impact their children.
Once again circumventing Congress, in 2011 your agency took regulatory action to alter definitions within FERPA. With the technological advances that have occurred in recent years, changes to FERPA deserve the full scrutiny of the legislative process more so than ever before.
In addition, we understand that as a condition of applying for RTTT grant funding, states obligated themselves to implement a State Longitudinal Database System (SLDS) used to track students by obtaining personally identifiable information.
Regarding these two very concerning changes to the manner in which government collects and distributes student data, we formally request a detailed description of each change to student privacy policy that has been made under your leadership, including the need and intended purpose for such changes. We also request that you submit to us the authority under which the Department has implemented Common Core,FERPA and SLDS.
It is our sincere hope that the Department works with the Legislative Branch to implement any changes to education standards and student privacy policy. We look forward to your response and welcome the opportunity to address these issues in the future.
Sincerely,
__________________________
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-03)
As you know, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) allows Congress to authorize and allocate funding for public K-12 education and, most importantly, is the primary vehicle in which we implement education policy reform. Most recently reauthorized through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the ESEA’s authorization expired on September 30, 2008, and has yet to be reauthorized. Since the ESEA’s expiration, the Department of Education (Department) has moved forward with education policy reform without Congressional input. Such action is, at best, in contravention with precedent.
In addition to expressing our concern with the Department’s circumvention of Congress to reform education policy, we are writing you to express our concerns with the implementation of Common Core standards and changes to federal data collection and disbursement policies.
In 2009, forty-six governors signed a memorandum of understanding with the National Governor’s Association committing their states to the development and adoption of new education standards within three years. As we understand it, states then had the option of adopting Common Core standards or creating their own equivalent standards. At the time, Common Core standards were simply an idea where states would collaborate to create uniformed education standards. Details about Common Core were not only unknown to the states, they did not exist. From there, your department offered Race To The Top
(RTTT) grants and NCLB waivers to states under the condition that each state would implement “college and career ready” standards. At the time, the only “college and career ready” standards with the Department’s approval were Common Core.
In addition to serious concerns we have regarding the Department’s aforementioned coercion of states to opt-in to Common Core standards, many of which were and continue to have serious budgetary issues and specific issues with existing education policies, we have become increasingly concerned over the development of the Common Core standards themselves. Though initially promoted as state-based education standards, Common Core standards, as they have been developed over the last few years, are nothing of the sort. In just one very troubling instance, Common Core standards will replace state-based
standardized testing with nationally-based standardized testing, the creation and initial implementation of which will be funded in full by the federal government. The long-term, annual administering of the exams, the cost of which has not been specified by the Department, is to be funded by the states.
As representatives from states across the nation, we understand the diverse cultures and state-specific education needs that exist in America. We believe that state-driven education policy is vital to the success of our children and that Members of Congress can best demonstrate the specific needs of their constituents. As with most one-size-fits-all policies, Common Core standards fail to address these needs.
As you know, because states opted-in to Common Core standards, there is little Congress can do to provide any relief from these burdensome and misguided standards. Instead, the ability to opt-out of these standards lies with the state. With that in mind, we will be working with our respective state legislatures and governors to provide relief to our education systems. In the meantime, we urge you to work with Members of Congress to reauthorize the ESEA in a manner that allows state-specific education needs to be addressed.
Separate from reauthorization, we are extremely concerned over recent changes your department has made to the manner in which the federal government collects and distributes student data.
As you know, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) was signed into law in 1974, guaranteeing parental access to student education records and limiting their disclosure to third parties. FERPA was intended to address parents’ growing privacy concerns and grant parental access to the information schools use to make decisions that impact their children.
Once again circumventing Congress, in 2011 your agency took regulatory action to alter definitions within FERPA. With the technological advances that have occurred in recent years, changes to FERPA deserve the full scrutiny of the legislative process more so than ever before.
In addition, we understand that as a condition of applying for RTTT grant funding, states obligated themselves to implement a State Longitudinal Database System (SLDS) used to track students by obtaining personally identifiable information.
Regarding these two very concerning changes to the manner in which government collects and distributes student data, we formally request a detailed description of each change to student privacy policy that has been made under your leadership, including the need and intended purpose for such changes. We also request that you submit to us the authority under which the Department has implemented Common Core,FERPA and SLDS.
It is our sincere hope that the Department works with the Legislative Branch to implement any changes to education standards and student privacy policy. We look forward to your response and welcome the opportunity to address these issues in the future.
Sincerely,
__________________________
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-03)
Saturday, March 30, 2013
SB210 Wording Has Changed ~ Support HB616 #stopcommoncore #MOLeg #MOSen #tctot #tcot #tlot
SB 210 (January 24, 2013)
This act prohibits the State Board of Education and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education from implementing the Common Core State Standards for public schools developed by the Common Core Standards Initiative or any other statewide education standards without the approval of the General Assembly.
SCS/SB 210 (March 27, 2013) (SCS Voted Do Pass S Education Committee)
This act requires the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to conduct at least one public hearing in each Missouri congressional district prior to the full implementation of the Common Core State Standards. The Department must notify school districts and parents of public school students of the hearings at least two weeks in advance.
At least two weeks prior to the first of the public hearings, the Department must perform a fiscal analysis of the projected cost to the state and school districts of the implementation of the Common Core State Standards. The Department must also prepare, at least two weeks prior to the first of the public hearings, a report identifying any data that will be collected as a result of the Common Core State Standards and any governmental or quasi-governmental entities or consortium that collects or receives any data. These reports must be published on the Department's website and must be provided to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Joint Committee on Education.
All public hearings must be completed by December 31, 2013. This act contains an emergency clause.
HB616 Information HERE Sign Petition to StopCommonCore implementation in Missouri!
This act prohibits the State Board of Education and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education from implementing the Common Core State Standards for public schools developed by the Common Core Standards Initiative or any other statewide education standards without the approval of the General Assembly.
SCS/SB 210 (March 27, 2013) (SCS Voted Do Pass S Education Committee)
This act requires the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to conduct at least one public hearing in each Missouri congressional district prior to the full implementation of the Common Core State Standards. The Department must notify school districts and parents of public school students of the hearings at least two weeks in advance.
At least two weeks prior to the first of the public hearings, the Department must perform a fiscal analysis of the projected cost to the state and school districts of the implementation of the Common Core State Standards. The Department must also prepare, at least two weeks prior to the first of the public hearings, a report identifying any data that will be collected as a result of the Common Core State Standards and any governmental or quasi-governmental entities or consortium that collects or receives any data. These reports must be published on the Department's website and must be provided to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Joint Committee on Education.
All public hearings must be completed by December 31, 2013. This act contains an emergency clause.
HB616 Information HERE Sign Petition to StopCommonCore implementation in Missouri!
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Observations/Questions
When I graduated from high school in the 80s, I remember commenting to the local newspaper in an interview that the curriculum was lacking and that I could have learned more. I greatly appreciate my small town upbringing now, there were many aspects other than the curriculum that were beneficial, but I knew I wasn't prepared for college. I had a very steep hill to climb.
I struggled throughout college, academically and financially; balancing family time, studies and many hours of work was tough. My math professors were demanding and encouraging...my husband was my cheerleader... they all saw me through...
I worked as a research assistant for 18 months, when I couldn't find a teaching job, it was a God-send that opened my eyes in so many ways. I took dictation for a beautifully brilliant female math professor for part of the day. We corresponded with mathematicians from all over the world. I imagined how empowering that technology could be in teaching children to realize their individual potential. We also corresponded with many influential people that were concerned about mathematics education in the U.S. We often took breaks for tea and discussed the issues at hand that day. I grew to love tea time...
In her writing, she coined a phrase that "school mathematics should be a pump, not a filter" this is a concept that has stayed close to my heart for many years. Students with "latent abilities" in mathematics must be supported in a learning environment that keeps opportunities open to them.
Let's fast forward to the present... Rather than developing and utilizing technology to support individuals in realizing their cognitive potential, we have the Common Core Standards Initiative. We are expected to passively embrace a centralized initiative that will limit the content taught in schools, undermine individual liberty of students, parents, teachers and administrators, limit the power of our locally elected school boards, and limit choice of educational materials available in the market place because of the huge rush to implement Common Core. The whole "initiative" is antithetical to true freedom.
Twenty or so years ago, when I first began teaching, I honestly expected to see the day when technology would break open great opportunities for students and teachers. I'm not talking about technology for technology's sake, I mean huge strides in cognitive development. Here are some questions that I had hoped would be answered by now...
Why do students still carry books and notebooks when we claim to spend thousands a year per pupil?
Why are school districts still investing tax dollars in copy machines and paper, teacher time in standing at the copier and grading paper and pencil assessments, rather than designing content specific learning opportunities?
Why don't we use technology to teach students how to create their own individual concept maps in a secure environment?
I have to say...these seem like issues that Bill Gates has the power and resources to address, if he really cared about individuals reaching their fullest potential. Instead he has invested heavily in creating a system of centralization, uniformity, and a captive market... yes, he's a very smart business man... but is it right?
Please don't respond to this in the comment section...I don't check them often enough...
You can reach me @proudmomom on twitter.
Thank you, Lisa
Saturday, March 2, 2013
#HB631 #HB616 #SB210 #MOLeg #MOSen #edreform #liberty #statesovereignty
The school district where I teach has always dismissed ineffective teachers. Our administrators are very thorough and follow through on the procedures required to document unprofessional behavior and ineffective teaching practices. Additional legislation may be needed to assist some districts and school boards in achieving this task, but I maintain that the procedures have always been in place, even under our current tenure rules.
I'm a little concerned about the Value-Added-Model being employed in HB 631 because honestly, my evaluators haven't always been knowledgeable in my subject matter. It's impossible for administrators/evaluators to know all of the upper level content courses in our schools. To use VAM in the future, they will be reliant on individual student assessments from current and previous years.
I teach upper-level math to classes of 20-30 students who naturally have widely varying ability levels - yes, even in calculus. Students at the upper end of the spectrum unfortunately don't progress as far as students at the lower end, over the course of the year, because instructional techniques must remediate for struggling students in order for the entire class to move forward. I haven't seen a VAM that accommodates for that fact, but it the model exists, we don't have assessments to address this mathematics, and if we did, our state does not have the technological infrastructure to administer the model fairly and accurately across disciplines.
My concern is that the VAM "ideology" precedes the reality of implementation - which is often the case... and the assessments utilized will soon to be associated with mediocre Common Core standards, unless our legislators pass HB616 and SB 210.
The Common Core standards movement has gained ground only on ideology from the onset. When the idea was first discussed four or five years ago, I was like most conservatives in thinking it could be good to have "common" baseline standards for public schools. Two things changed my mind almost from the onset: 1) they really weren't "baseline" standards because they introduced the 85% cap in the first draft and it remained in the final draft, and 2) there is no virtuous reason that these standards need a copyright, in this day of open source educational materials available from reputable colleges and universities everywhere, unless there was alterior motive.
Those were the things that induced my personal questioning of the CCSS "initiative", but since that time, much substantive research has been conducted by questioning minds through the US. Although I can't attend the upcoming hearing on SB210, I urge Missouri's legislators to represent their constituents by thoroughly researching the memorandum of agreement that signed away our state's sovereignty in education.
MO SB 210 has a hearing scheduled for March 6, 2012 in the Senate Education Committee
MO HB 616 has been referred to the Downsizing State Government Committee
[Shouldn't that be Downsizing the FEDERAL Government?]
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Active Links for #MidRiversNewsmagazine LTE on #CCSS
I didn't know this would be published, but since it was...here are the active links.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I read the cover title “Changing Curriculum for better or worse” I thought this would be a balanced article, but nothing could be further from the truth.
The Common Core Standards Initiative was NOT “State-Led”
The Heritage Foundation and The Pioneer Institute have chronicled the progression of Common Core over the last few years. It was not state-led as they claim because our locally elected officials were not involved in signing off on the adoptions and public hearings were not held. Our Governor and State Board of Education signed away our state sovereignty in education and ceded local control of our elected school boards.
Please read:
States Must Reject National Education Standards While There Is Still Time
The Road to a National Curriculum: The Legal Aspects of the Common Core Standards, Race to the Top, and Conditional Waivers
http://pioneerinstitute.org/download/the-road-to-a-national-curriculum/
Common Core Standards are not rigorous or internationally bench-marked
Sandra Stotsky in “Common Core Standards’ Devastating Impact on Literary Study and Analytical Thinking” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/12/questionable-quality-of-the-common-core-english-language-arts-standards
Common Core’s standards not only present a serious threat to state and local education authority, but also put academic quality at risk. Pushing fatally flawed education standards into America’s schools is not the way to improve education for America’s students.
Math Professor Jim Milgram served on the Validation Committee for Common Core and did not sign-off on them. His testimony to the Indiana Senate Education Panel for Hearing on Senate Bill 373 is available here: http://hoosiersagainstcommoncore.com/math/mathematics-professor-james-milgrams-testimony/
Important information from Utahn’s Against Common Core
Stotsky served on the official Common Core Validation Committee and was among those who refused to sign off that the Common Core standards were, in fact, adequate.
Commenting on “A Complete Resource Guide On Utah’s Core Standards,”
Stotsky states, “lies and unsupported claims” abound in the document. She also writes:
“the writers didn’t even get the committee I was on right. I was appointed to the Validation Committee, not the Standards Development Committee, and along with the one mathematician on the Validation Committee (and 3 others) eclined to sign off on the final version of Common Core’s standards.
The writers keep repeating ad nauseam that Common Core was a state-led effort. Everyone knows most of the effort was financed by the Gates Foundation and that Gates chose the standards writers who had no qualifications for writing K-12 standards in either ELA or math (David Coleman and Jason Zimba).
… I frankly can’t spend time on people who can’t document with citations their claims. What country was used for international benchmarking? Where’s the evidence?
The document simply repeats the false claims made by CCSSO from the beginning.” -----------------------------------
This was in the email correspondence, but left out of the printed comment:
More Expert Testimony available at What Is Common Core? Education without Representation
http://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/expert-testimony-about-common-core/
Michelle Malking has recently written about Common Core Standards here:
Rotten to the Core (Part 1): Obama’s War on Academic Standards
http://michellemalkin.com/2013/01/23/rotten-to-the-core-obamas-war-on-academic-standards-part-1/
Rotten to the Core (Part 2): Readin’, Writin’ and Deconstructionism
http://michellemalkin.com/2013/01/25/rotten-to-the-core-part-2-readin-writin-and-deconstructionism/
Rotten to the Core: Reader feedback from the frontlines
http://michellemalkin.com/2013/01/31/rotten-to-the-core-reader-feedback-from-the-frontlines/
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Chamber of Commerce is Wrong about #CommonCore
There is absolutely NO WAY that IN's previous "highly-rated standards were adopted through the same process as was conducted when Indiana adopted the Common Core" because NEVER BEFORE, in US history have state's relinquished control of their educational standards to the Fed DOE. How could it possibly have been the "same process" - that's clearly FALSE.
State legislature's typically approve the standards developed within their states by appointed state officials. In this case the legislature MUST step-in and stop the agreement signed by those appointed officials because they had NO authority under state constitutions or the US constitution to do so in the first place.
State standards are usually considered minimum competency levels (at least they are in my district). One has to wonder WHY would Common Core insist on making up 85% of all the standards. Did officials not understand what they were signing? If so, how could they agree?
Remember - COMMON CORE has a copywrite. It WILL be 85% of your entire state curriculum (Read the agreement)
Chamber of Commerce leaders need to conduct some independent research, rather than relying on soundbites provided by their state's ed establishment.
Legislators - Constituents are depending on YOU to restore local control of education.
Education WITH Representation!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)