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
Showing posts with label standards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label standards. Show all posts
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)
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, May 15, 2010
Do You Believe Us Now?
Can you say CONFLICT OF INTEREST??
BTW - My local school board voted NOT to support MO's RttT application.
WHAT WILL THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DO?
BTW - My local school board voted NOT to support MO's RttT application.
WHAT WILL THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION DO?
Monday, May 10, 2010
Saturday, November 15, 2008
The Show Me State
What's happening with Missouri's K-12 Math Standards?
Check out: missourimath.org
The Sept 20 entry is especially disturbing:
"Since I had already pointed out these issues in my original invited review of these standards, I can only assume that the authors are consciously determined to deprive Missouri students of the opportunity to learn this more and more vital part of elementary mathematics well enough to be able to realistically major in technical areas at the university level."
Check out: Missouri's Algebra I End of Course Exam
Does this look like Algebra I to you?
If you're not sure, ask an Algebra II teacher.
Is this really a problem? Ask a college math professor how many in-coming freshmen are placing into remedial math courses. Ask their opinion of our math standards.
Check out: missourimath.org
The Sept 20 entry is especially disturbing:
"Since I had already pointed out these issues in my original invited review of these standards, I can only assume that the authors are consciously determined to deprive Missouri students of the opportunity to learn this more and more vital part of elementary mathematics well enough to be able to realistically major in technical areas at the university level."
Check out: Missouri's Algebra I End of Course Exam
Does this look like Algebra I to you?
If you're not sure, ask an Algebra II teacher.
Is this really a problem? Ask a college math professor how many in-coming freshmen are placing into remedial math courses. Ask their opinion of our math standards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)