Are Missouri Legislators Paying Attention to What South Carolina Legislators Figured Out?

Arne Duncan is a bit testy with South Carolina's push back against the nationalized standards Duncan contends really aren't national.  He called the SC Legislature attempting to rescind common core standards “a conspiracy theory in search of a conspiracy.” 

Peter Wood details the history of the takeover of education from the Federal level since 1965 when ESEA was created and federal money began funding state and local budgets.  When funding is expected from the Federal government, states and local districts became subject to federal mandates.  If states and districts did not agree to implement the Federal mandates, that flow of money could get cut off, so the Federal government's policies became paramount in school operations.

States and districts are now are the strangulation point.  They are broke and don't have the money for these underfunded mandates from Arne Duncan.  In the midst of the "worst recession of our time", if states did not adopt common core, Title I funding was in danger of disappearing.  The dangling of money was too good to pass up, even though it required the destruction of states being able to set their own educational standards.  What governor wants to explain to his/her constituents no more money would be "granted" to the states for education?  You know what happens:  "But....but....but....it's for the KIDS!"

Is it really?  Why is it for every state dollar sent to the Department of Education, Missouri receives back 80 cents?  And why is it those 80 cents come with strings and mandates?  Doesn't a district know where money needs to be spent in their schools?  It doesn't matter.  The schools and states are told where and how to spend the money.

That's common core standards aka nationalized standards implementation history in a nutshell. The government in the past could tell states how to spend it on programs but could not control WHAT the states taught.  With common core standards, however, the Federal government is attempting to make public schools FEDERAL schools....schools controlled by private industries funded by the federal government, not your local community.  How has this illegal activity occurred?  From Innovation:

The Obama administration, facing the same legal obstacles as all its predecessors, chose a novel tactic. It orchestrated a program under the auspices of National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) which proposed standards that the states would be free to adopt. But “free” came with some sweeteners. The Race to the Top dangled hundreds of millions of dollars among those states that chose to adopt the Common Core. As for those states that chose not to…they face some interesting consequences too. I wrote about this last year in “The Core Between the States.”

Eitel and Talbert’s nineteen-page analysis of the legal standing of the Common Core State Standards mounts a powerful case that the Obama administration has overstepped itself. The Road to a National Curriculum does its most devastating work by quoting from Department of Education documents that lay out in plain language the effort to use federal resources to achieve results prohibited by statute. One such document, for example, explains, “The goal of common K-12 standard is to replace the existing patchwork of State standards that results in unequal expectations based on geography.”

One of the most important issues in this excellent article is the call to other state legislators to follow SC's lead in pushing back against this illegal federal intrusion into state's rights and refusing to acquiesce to the thuggery of Arne Duncan.

But setting that aside, the Pioneer Institute in releasing the Road to a National Curriculum has fanned the flames of growing resistance. The immediate case, which provoked Secretary Duncan’s reflections on conspiracy theories, is legislation (S 604) pending in South Carolina that would block further implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Duncan presumably wants to scotch this idea before other states start to think that “voluntary” actually means voluntary.

The South Carolina legislators seem a bit upset that the Race to the Top adoption process bypassed them, even though they are expected to pay 90 percent of the costs of the Common Core State Standards. Hearings in other states could stumble over the same stone. It isn’t as if South Carolina is trying to protect an especially slothful approach to public education against the imposition of a more demanding federal regimen. As in Massachusetts, the opposite seems true. The Fordham Institute (generally pro-Common Core) last year ranked South Carolina’s history standards as best in the country. If South Carolina could elevate its state standards for U.S. history, it could, as Texas has done, also craft English language arts and math standards that are much higher than Common Core’s.
 
If Commissioner Chris Nicastro was concerned about Missouri's standards, then she should have boarded a plane to a state with excellent test results, met with their educational state experts, reviewed that state's standards, then adopted and adapted what would work for Missouri.  She should have done her job, instead of becoming a cog in the bureaucratic machine, waiting for orders from the NGA or CCSSI or the Federal government on how to run a state commission for education.

Battles in South Carolina have been known to start larger conflicts. This could just be the Fort Sumter of the Core Between the States.

It's time for the state legislators to join the battle against the nationalization of education.  It IS illegal, you know, regardless of what Arne Duncan says.  State legislators need to follow the law instead of promises of money for unfunded, unproven, untested and unconstitutional mandates.  

Senator Cunningham Joining the Ranks of the Dispossessed

In an ironic twist, the Missouri Senator at the center of fixing the schooless children in KC and STL, finds herself without a home district.  Senator Cunningham's seventh district has been moved across the state in the latest (and probably last) redistricting map leaving her with the same unhappy choice the students in the St. Louis school district have: transfer (run in) an adjacent district (which pits her against either Brian Nieves or Eric Schmitt), or apply (move) somewhere else (like a charter school) and hope she gets in (gets elected).  That's the (senate) district choice plan. Probably doesn't feel as good to her as she imagined the school choice plan would feel to St. Louis residents.

In examining the parallels even more closely it could be said that her culpability in this outcome is the same as the parents responsibility for the failure of their district. Those parents were busy leading their lives, not paying much attention to the school or their children's academic performance.  They were making the decisions they had to make to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. Meanwhile their children's test scores were slipping while the school was dropping their standards and giving the impression that everything was fine. Finally an appointed board came from the outside and told them their schools were no longer accredited and they might have to look for some place else to send their kids for an education. When they had control they didn't exercise it and now they have lost control and are faced with choice, that isn't really choice.

Senator Cunningham was busy leading her life, being a senator, making decisions, but maybe not considering the full ramifications of those decisions. The reason the redistricting was even necessary was because St. Louis City and County had seen a significant loss in population.  This was due in great part to the loss of businesses who fled the state because of our economic policies which Senator Cunningham had a large hand in creating while in the state legislature for so many years.  When you're focused on slicing up the pie for the special interest groups at the table, you may not remember to look around at all the other businesses that would like to come to the party but haven't been invited. They eventually take their appetite elsewhere which was clear in the census which showed the states surrounding Missouri all picking up population and business.

In the end some board from the outside came in and told Senator Cunningham she would have to find some other district to run in if she wanted to stay in Missouri politics. A short term problem, no doubt, for Jane. Some have hinted she has aspirations for higher office than senate in the state. But perhaps she will now have even greater empathy for those who will be affected by the school choice bill she is currently working on (SB451).

In Ten Years, Maybe the Food Police in Schools will be Arrested for their Actions Which Led to...Eating Disorders

The government obsession of obesity and controlling student food choices may result in unintended consequences.

Producing fit workers for the society might just boomerang into producing a generation of children with increasing emotional problems.  While the food police is obsessing about regulating calorie and nutritional intake, these nanny platoons may be creating needless anxiety in students.


From Education News:


A new report released this week by the C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital has suggested that the numerous programs implemented by schools across the country designed to tackle childhood obesity could be going too far — and could potentially cause eating disorders.

It's Time for Parents to Unite Against the Educational Nanny State. Enough.

School administrators and staff are fast becoming the authorities in students' lives.  They are policing what your child is eating, how their social interactions take place, and even providing medical care unbeknownst to parents. Policing what your children eat at school is a minor issue compared to what this mother discovered Marcus Garvey Academy in Detroit medically provided to her daughter without the mother's permission:

From wxyz.com in Detroit:

Sighle Kinney is fuming after her 14-year-old daughter was given four shots by the school nurse at Marcus Garvey Academy without her permission.

The daughter says she was called out of class by the school nurse back on January 30th and sent to the school’s clinic, which is operated by St. John’s medical.  While there she was given four vaccinations, including the one for HPV. It was the shot for HPV really touched a nerve.

Sighle was furious. She says she never gave consent for the shots to the school or St. John’s – Sighle says she even signed a document indicating never to administer medical treatment to her daughter.

In the video, Kinney says, "I'm her mother.  That's my call.  That's not their call".  



I hope Kinney has legal recourse against the school and St. John's.  The school's statement disavows knowledge of procedures in the clinic and the clinic states it will work with the family.  After hearing Ms. Kinney's version of what happened to her daughter and apparent circumvention of parental authority, the school and clinic have a lot of explaining to do to this distraught mother. 


Here's a bit of history on Marcus Garvey from  Ex-Patriots and Expatriates: 10 Black Americans Who Denounced America.

 

Notice to DESE: SHOCKER! Apparently Common Core Standards Will Cost Missouri Money.

In February 2011 Missouri Commissioner of Education Chris Nicastro published a document stating Common Core standards wouldn't cost the state of  Missouri any significant money.  DESE published a document online entitled: COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS What implications do the Common Core State Standards have for Missouri? The Department has prepared a frequently asked questions document to address recent questions about the Common Core State Standards. • FAQ – Common Core State Standards Don't try to find the link now online, it's not there any longer.  It's a good thing we highlighted in the previous article what DESE contended about Common Core cost.  Here are some snippets from the DESE document sent to legislators by Commissioner Nicastro: No additional costs are anticipated for revising and maintaining the standards in Missouri.  In states where curriculum development is centralized and textbooks or programs are chosen by the state, there probably would be a significant cost. However, that is not the case in Missouri. It is also true that states, where there are numerous differences between former state standards and the Common Core, may see a need to support a statewide initiative for professional development; however, the gap analysis conducted shows close alignment between the ShowMe Standards and the Common Core. The work to implement the 3rd edition of the ShowMe Standards will be part of the ongoing curriculum revision process that districts routinely conduct as part of business. There is no cost to Missouri associated with the SMARTER‐development assessment system.   No additional state funding for this system has been requested....Additional funds for further developing Missouri’s comprehensive data system will be met through various state, federal and foundation programs as they become available. As stated earlier, the Department has not requested additional or new funding for the implementation or professional development associated with revised standards and assessments...Districts also should not have additional costs over and above their current investments in ongoing curriculum and professional development. These costs are built into current budgets and devoted to current activities related to instructional improvement.   (Link to the MEW article questioning the validity and accuracy of these statements by DESE).   Read the Pioneer white paper and think about DESE's contention that common core won't cost Missouri any significant amount. Which group do you believe?  How can the standards cost states at least $16 Billion and Missouri doesn't incur any implementation cost?  Are we in some bubble that the other states don't know about?  Are we the favored state out of 45 states that will skate through the implementation of national standards and they will be...at no additional cost in the educational budget?  I certainly hope that's the fairy tale ending for DESE.  Last year a spokesperson for the agency thought DESE would be looking at a minimum budget shortfall of $900 Million. Is it time for our legislature to demand from DESE some additional facts and figures other than a FAQ sheet that can't be found on the Internet any longer?  How much debt has our Commissioner, State Board of Education and Governor saddled taxpayers with that is unsustainable?   The Pioneer Study gives estimates for individual states implementing these unproven, untested and unconstitutional standards.  Will DESE revise its previous statements from February 2011 based on Pioneer's research? ******************************************************************** STUDY ESTIMATES COST OF TRANSITION TO NATIONAL EDUCATION STANDARDS AT $16 BILLION   Cost far exceeds sums doled out in federal grants used to persuade states to adopt The press release from the Pioneer Institute on cost estimates of national education standards: STUDY ESTIMATES COST OF TRANSITION TO NATIONAL EDUCATION STANDARDS AT $16 BILLION Cost far exceeds sums doled out in federal grants used to persuade states to adopt. BOSTON/WASHINGTON, D.C./SAN FRANCISCO – Aligning state and local educational systems to the Common Core State Standards in English language arts and math will cost the 45 states plus the District of Columbia that have adopted them nearly $16 billion over seven years according to a new study published by Pioneer Institute, the American Principles Project, and the Pacific Research Institute of California. This does not include additional spending for reforms to help students meet the new standards. “Very few of the states that adopted Common Core vetted the costs and benefits beforehand,” said Theodor Rebarber, lead contributor to the analysis, National Cost of Aligning States and Localities to the Common Core Standards. “While test-development costs will be covered by federal grants, these states are also likely to see their overall expenditures increase significantly.”; The study, which only calculates expenses directly associated with the transition, finds that states are likely to incur $10.5 billion in one-time costs. These include the price of familiarizing educators with the new standards, obtaining textbooks and instructional materials aligned with the standards, and necessary technology infrastructure upgrades. An estimated $503 million will be incurred in first-year operational costs like technology training and support and higher assessment costs for some states. AccountabilityWorks (AW), which developed the analysis, estimates that an additional $801 million will be incurred annually in years two through seven for ongoing support of the enhanced technology infrastructure and the introduction of new assessments that are currently under development. “The nearly $16 billion in additional costs is nearly four times the federal government's Race to the Top grant awards,” said Pioneer Institute Executive Director Jim Stergios. “With state and local taxpayers footing 90 percent of the bill for K-12 public education, the federal government's push to get states to adopt national standards and tests amounts to one big unfunded mandate.”; The study uses California, whose current academic standards are among the nation’s best but has adopted Common Core, as an example. AccountabilityWorks estimates the Golden State will incur additional costs of over $1 billion for technology and support, $606 million for professional development and $374 million for textbooks and materials over seven years. The additional costs would exacerbate California’s recent budget woes, which have been even worse than what most other states have endured. “In coercing states to adopt the Common Core State Standards program, the US DOE and various private trade groups have denied the American people and their elected state legislators any meaningful chance to study either its academic quality or cost implications,” said Emmett McGroarty of the American Principles Project. “;Sadly, now state and local taxpayers will have to pay for Common Core’s distortion of the democratic process.”; The study includes several recommendations. The first is that the 45 states and the District of Columbia that have adopted Common Core and joined one of the two federally-sponsored testing consortia should engage in a public discussion about the costs and benefits of adoption and whether it represents the best investment of scarce education resources. "The cruel irony is that in their chase for elusive federal grant dollars states have largely ignored the cost of implementing the national education standards that the US DOE and DC special interests are foisting on them,” said Lance Izumi, Koret Senior Fellow in Education Studies at the Pacific Research Institute. “Especially in deficit-plagued states like California, it was simply fiscal madness to agree to the national-standards regime and its massive future costs." AccountabilityWorks also recommends that states conduct a technology feasibility assessment to determine their readiness to implement the standards, ensure that thorough professional development is available to all teachers so students have an adequate opportunity to learn the material they will be tested on, identify the resources needed to fully align instructional resources and materials with Common Core, and analyze the future annual costs associated with national standards-based assessments that are currently under development. AccountabilityWorks is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the dual goals of research that supports sound educational policy as well as supporting states and schools in implementing high quality assessment and accountability systems. Among its initiatives, AW has conducted cost studies on the implementation of federal education initiatives, developed paper and online assessments, and conducted research on state standards. Theodor Rebarber is chief executive officer of AW. Previously he was chief education officer of a system of charter schools, served as staff in Congress and at the U.S. Department of Education, and researched state education reform at the Vanderbilt Institute of Public Policy Studies. Rebarber has testified to Congress on state costs of implementing federal education initiatives. Pioneer Institute led a campaign in 2010 to oppose the adoption of national standards, producing a four-part series reviewing evolving drafts. The reports compared them with existing Massachusetts and California standards, and found that the federal versions contained weaker content in both ELA and math. The reports, listed below, were authored by curriculum experts R. James Milgram, emeritus professor of mathematics at Stanford University; Sandra Stotsky, former Massachusetts Board of Education member and University of Arkansas Professor; and Ze’ev Wurman, a Silicon Valley executive who helped develop California's education standards and assessments. In addition, along with the Federalist Society, the American Principles Project, and the Pacific Research Institute, Pioneer recently released a research paper co-authored by former general counsel and former deputy general counsel of the United States Department of Education, Robert S. Eitel and Kent D. Talbert, on the legal concerns about national standards and assessments.  Why Race to the Middle: First-Class State Standards Are Better than Third Class National Standards  Fair to Middling: A National Standards Progress Report  The Emperor’s New Clothes: National Assessments Based on Weak ‘College and Career Readiness Standards  Common Core’s Standards Still Don’t Make the Grade: Why Massachusetts and California Must Retain Control Over Their Academic Destinies  The Road to a National Curriculum: The Legal Aspects of the Common Core Standards, Race to the Top, and Conditional Waivers

Common Core Literature Standards Provide Less Common Understanding

You would think that with the word "common" in its title, Common Core standards would be concerned with providing students across the country education on common (meaning -shared) resources.  But a look at the Common Core Standards for language arts reveals that they actually move students away from classic literature that has been studied for generations and provides commonality to our experience, if not our lexicon, and towards informational texts in things like science and politics. I suppose you could make a case that "Of Mice And Men" is antiquated, but if you drop reading this, what will this mean to our shared understanding as a culture?

American Principles in Action South Carolina Director Joe Mack and South Carolina State Education Board Member Michael Brenan wrote an op/ed in The State this month that said,

The Pioneer Institute finds that by grade 8, the math standards will put students “a year or two behind” students in leading states and our international competitors and facing “large holes” in the Common Core high school program. The English language arts standards are even worse.

After serving on the Common Core Validation Committee, researcher and scholar Sandra Stotsky concluded that the reading standards weaken the base of literary and cultural knowledge needed for authentic college coursework. (South Carolina’s own literature standards are much better, as the Thomas B. Fordham Institute has found.) Common Core also locks high school English teachers into a rigid instructional scheme different from anything they’ve been trained for, and created by people who have no academic training in English literature, composition or rhetoric.

As Dr. Stotsky explains, Common Core expects English teachers to spend more than 50 percent of their reading instructional time on nonfiction and informational texts, such as science and technology texts, political documents and Supreme Court decisions. This is not what English teachers are trained to do. They engage in the study of literature (and composition and rhetoric) and teach students how to read literary works (including speeches, biographies and literary essays), not computer manuals or science textbooks.

The standards not only provide no intellectual base or structure for a curriculum, they actually prevent one from emerging. The academic content of the typical secondary literature curriculum consists of concepts and works that guide literary study through the grades (e.g., genres, subgenres, rhetorical and literary techniques and elements, literary periods and traditions).

 A writing professor at Hiram college,  had this to say about the classics:

The entire video consisted of interviews of high school students confessing to the camera how they have never read a book assigned in English class, and instead relied on class discussions and SparkNotes to get the basic idea of the book in order to write the required essay at the end.  Sad, but not completely unknown.  I’ve known this happens for years, however, here is my philosophy regarding this phenomenon:  Not all kids do not read the books and I can tell who has not, so I will not stop assigning classic literature which does not “appeal” to high school students.  I will not change my philosophy just because some do not read.  The students on the video seemed, in my eyes, a bit bashful about admitting such a travesty.  However, the part that irritated me was the underlying message (from assumingly well-meaning educators) that the kids are not reading because the teacher is “making” them read books they do not like.  If we would just let them read books they want to read, this whole problem would be solved.  

No, problem not solved.  Cultural literacy is necessary as a basis of understanding for all subjects; without it, there is a notable hole in a student’s knowledge.  To quote E.D. Hirsch, proponent for cultural literacy in education, “We have ignored cultural literacy in thinking about education. We ignore the air we breathe until it is thin or foul. Cultural literacy is the oxygen of social intercourse.”  It’s what binds us together as a society and is the reason why I “make” my kids read “The Great Gatsby” and “Of Mice and Men“.  I feel I need to expose the kids to literature they would never have read otherwise; it is my job as their teacher.

She went on to tell about a student in her class that got a visual joke on a tv show because they had read The Great Gatsby in class.  Without this shared cultural heritage and a focus on reading what you want and only what's new, you get knee jerk reactions like ESPN firing a writer for using the phrase "A chink in the Nick's armor" to describe a weakness found in the performance of Asian American player Jeremey Lin. Their apparent limited exposure to only postmodern slang caused them to interpret this as a racial slur. (Or maybe they're just confirming the dumb jock stereotype.)

South Carolina looks to be taking a stand against Common Core Standards with the introduction of a bill (S604) by Senator Mike Fair which would prohibit the state from implementing CCSS.  Governor Haley supports this stance, Haley Letter to S.C. State Senator Mike Fair Let's hope more states can recognize they are being shuttled into a box of mediocrity and limitations and begin standing up against Common Core.

Without the classics in our language arts classes, how will future generations being able to understand the comic genius of Looney Tunes when the Abominable Snowman, in an homage to Of Mice and Men's Lennie, cradles Daffy Duck and says,

"Just what I always wanted.  My own little bunny rabbit. I will name him George, and I will hug him, and pet him, and squeeze him."

An Education in how the Nanny State Operates

 

Guest commentary: Will my child be allowed to work on my farm?

This is a sad and alarming guest commentary from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on the control the American government wants over your children.  It doesn't stop at the school door.  It's in your home, on your farm,  in the packing of your child's school lunch.

 

What is the belief of the elitists in the government?  The American parent is incompetent.  Leave it to the government to dictate to you how to raise your children.

More News from the North Carolina School Food Police

Would you send your child to this North Carolina school involved in a food fight between parents and students?

If you support the "Let's Move" program designed by Michelle Obama and the current administration, your sympathies are with this principal.  He's trying to abide by the mandates set by the Federal government.  All children will be served certain food groups from the cafeteria or their lunch from home will be supplemented with certain groups if all food components are not included.

This second story (from the same school) was published last week about another mother confirming her experience was similar to the first tale of the food police superseding parental lunch choice for children.  Included in the story was a screen shot of the memo to parents explaining the food policy:

Laurie Cockrell, a parent posting in a forum about this push back from West Hoke Elementary administration to parental authority, had an interesting perspective about the food police:

Did you read the letter from the principal? My home schooled first graders (who ate green beans and a pbj yesterday - oops, no dairy!) can place commas more accurately than those in the 4th paragraph. These are the people dictating what food groups must be included in a lunchbox? What a mess. 

Cockrell makes a valid and interesting observation.  If this memo is indicative of the actual teaching of academic subjects in this school, these students are in trouble.  It's easy to police food selections coming from home, dictate to parents what they must send to school in lunches, and inform parents the school must meet mandates to receive an "Excellent" rating. The actual teaching of academic material is not as easy and the teachers and administration must possess mastery of the subject to provide competent instruction.

The last sentence of the memo reads "Let's continue to make our program a quality place where all students are healthy while they learn."  I hope the kids, once they get healthy food from the food police (because their parents are not capable of feeding them adequately according to governmental mandates) learn proper grammatical structure and the correct use of commas and semi-colons from the teachers and not the principal.

I wouldn't trust this principal to teach students grammatical structure.  The students would fail the assessments.

 

The FTC is Worried About Child Privacy. The Department of Education, Not so Much.

Government urges more info on kids' apps

From eSchool News: 

“There is almost no information on what data is being collected and how it is being shared,” said David Jacobs of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.


The government DOES want to protect its citizens from privacy breaches!  It is protecting our right to privacy!  Yes!  Just like Facebook, the government is concerned about your children being tracked by private companies and wants to put a stop to the practice.  

What's missing from the last sentence?  Did you think the above quote was for all data gathered in the private AND public arena?  The FTC doesn't want Google to track your children via personal data gathered, but it's okay for the Department of Education to have access to even more invasive personal data to share with the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and private research companies to supply the workforce. 

Where's the disconnect here?  Is anyone else concerned why our information should belong to the government? Why is it permissible for ANY entity, private or governmental, to have access to personal data not voluntarily provided? Why is the FTC worried about kids' apps and privacy data, but the DOEd is willing and mandating private information be shared?

(More reading on the FTC's move to protect privacy may be found here.)

Will the Government Mandate Marriage so Childrens' Educational Outcomes are Enhanced?

For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage...

Does it Matter for the Children?

From the NY Times: Reviewing the academic literature, Susan L. Brown of Bowling Green State University recently found that children born to married couples, on average, “experience better education, social, cognitive and behavioral outcomes.” 

Can and/or should the government mandate that children born must be to married couples, then, for better educational outcomes? 

If there  are mandates on student personal behavior taught in school (healthy eating stressed and food controlled by adults, physical activity data tracked, sexual education introduced in kindergarten) then why not mandate parental behavior to help ensure a child's outcome in society?  Would it be labeled "Character Education for Adults"?  

Then again, that might involve a judgment in adult choices...but don't we make that judgment when smoking legislation is adopted for private businesses?  "No Smoking" is for the "good for society" and those affected by second hand smoke.  Aren't children educated for the "good for society" and affected by poor choices of their parents as well? 

Want to Add Your Anti-Common Core Comment on The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Site?

Here's your chance to tell the Gates Foundation what you think about the institution of the common core.  The Gates Foundation has spent millions of dollars in various states and organizations to ensure they will be implemented in states....by taxpayer dollars....without taxpayer input.

Impatient Optimists, a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation blog, has an article on why Tom Loveless was wrong on his criticism of common core standards.  The citizens commenting on this site seem to be a bit underwhelmed and quite angry about this circumvention of legislative approval and the majority do not agree with the Gates Foundation's opinion.  This common core standards plan pushed along is costing the American taxpayers BILLIONS of dollars.  And have we mentioned the standards are unproven, untested and have come under increasing scrutiny?

Add your voice to the Gates Foundation article and tell Bill Gates what you think about his plan to add taxes and mandates onto taxpayers, schools, students and teachers.  Let your state legislature know you are demanding it take action so any more standards are not adopted.  The power must be taken away from the State School Boards, the educational state agencies and the governors making educational decisions.  Change state constitutions.  At least in Missouri, these appointed officials are not held accountable for these decisions.   

A "one size fits all" program worse than No Child Left Behind is about to be instituted on your children.  Arne Duncan insists a "one size fits all" mentality is disastrous in NCLB...and he's supportive of a more restrictive educational blueprint? 

The Sunday Education Weekly Reader: Visual Soundbites for 02.19.2012

Welcome to the Sunday Education Weekly Reader for 02.19.12.  Our visual soundbites start out with lists and end with a glimpse into utopia:

• Thinking about homeschooling?  You might want to read these ideas on the positives of teaching your own children.....Homeschooling... 54 Benefits Enjoyed by Parents and Children http://www.knowthelies.com/node/7038

• Maybe the reason Arne Duncan wants 100% of students to attend college is so everyone can share the misery of debt?.....35 Shocking Facts That Prove That College Education Has Become A Giant Money Making Scam http://is.gd/1rK0va 

• A teachable moment becomes a politically incorrect firestorm.  Another "Brown vs School Board" lawsuit......Teacher suspended for discussing racial epithet in class http://ow.ly/1hsGjR

• Can this carbon footprint be reduced?  We can't afford these mandates...and have the feds overstepped any authority they may not have in the first place?.........Federal K-12 Footprint at Core of ESEA Hearing http://bit.ly/wGmWzG

• Maybe America should guarantee this right to her citizens in this era of endless data tracking......The free speech and constitutional concerns with the "right to be forgotten": http://bit.ly/xSHFQe

**************************************************************

The educational thought of the week is on why robots are the best teachers for children from "What if Robots Taught Kids?"  Does this take away the heated debate on teacher tenure?

There’s a little bit of shame involved in being wrong or being behind,” Schultze says. “Robots can get that out of the way, because they’re not judgmental. There’s a sense that technology is almost coequal, as opposed to a sort of master-servant relationship.”

With all the move toward educational equity, it's a wrap.  No more master-servant relationships in the classroom!  No judgments!  It's education utopia.