PTA Receives More Money to Push Common Core Standards

From Marketwatch.com and GE Foundation Grant Helps National PTA Expand Common Core Work:

ALEXANDRIA, VA, Feb 15, 2013 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- National PTA announced today that it received a one-year $240,000 grant from the GE Foundation to further its efforts on the Common Core State Standards. 

National PTA will expand its Common Core work by creating state-specific assessment guides for every state that has adopted the Common Core State Standards. The resource will be a key supplement to National PTA's popular Parent's Guide to Student Success which has been used throughout the nation by community partners, school districts and departments of education.

 "As the largest child advocacy organization in the country, National PTA has played a leading role in educating families and communities about the Common Core State Standards for years, creating a groundswell of support for this historic reform," said Betsy Landers, National PTA President. "The need for creating awareness of the standards remains a high priority. We believe that new resources focused on assessments and accountability systems must be included in the public dialogue to ensure that parents are knowledgeable about the standards and remain supportive during the transition phase in each state." 

 Since parents and taxpayers were largely left out of the Common Core process (as well as legislators), maybe the GE Foundation needs to try and gain support for these standards from the parents of the students who are having to learn what their schools are mandated to teach.  Maybe the PTA wants to do some damage control and explain why parents can't figure out the type of math their children are now learning.  Read more here.

The PTA previously received $1 Million from the Gates Foundation to support the standards even before they were written.

Head Start and Universal Preschool: No Great ROI?

From Reason.com and Failing Head Start Needs No More Funding:

On Wednesday, The Center for American Progress released their proposal to increase funding for the already failing Head Start Project. The progessive thinktank is lobbying to increase funding from 7,200 dollars per student to 10,000 dollars per student. That’s nearly 40 percent more than what we're spending now.

What are the facts and data about Head Start?

Key findings:

In summary, there were initial positive impacts from having access to Head Start, but by the end of 3rd grade there were very few impacts found for either cohort in any of the four domains of cognitive, social-emotional, health and parenting practices.

Impact on Children’s Cognitive Development:

There is clear evidence that Head Start had a statistically significant impact on children’s language and literacy development while children were in Head Start... However, these early effects dissipated in elementary school, with only a single impact remaining at the end of 3rd grade for children in each age cohort: a favorable impact for the 4-year-old cohort (ECLS-K Reading) and an unfavorable impact for the 3-yearold cohort (grade promotion).

Conclusion?

That means spending almost 40 percent more per participant to leave our children’s circumstances unchanged or even worse than when they when they first entered school.

You can read more of the article here and the complete Head Start study here.  

We wrote about Head Start and the push for universal preschool previously and it is worth an reread.  Taxpayers need to be ready for their school boards when the preschool plan is unveiled in the next bond issue and the cry goes out, once again, that it's "for the children" and "educational equity".  Ask your board members and superintendents to show you the research that district kindergarten children have outperformed those students not attending kindergarten.

Ask them to read the Head Start report and provide data for their proposals.  If these education reformers are so keen on being data driven and require 50% of teacher evaluations be based on student data, then they should be more than happy and provide the data you request so you can make an informed decision to fund a seemingly failing blueprint for education.

For more reading on the universal preschool plans, read David Frum's The Potential Pitfalls of Universal Pre-K in the Daily Beast.  The readers have quite a lively discussion about the need/wisdom on universal preschool, just as the writers quoted in the article express.  One issue I did not see in the article or in the comment section is the question: who is primarily responsible for the caretaking/education of the young child, the parent or the state?  If universal preschool shows no long term benefit educationally and in fact, may be harmful to the child, then why is the government asking for more funding to increase it to a wider audience?  From the Frum article:

Megan McArdle of the Daily Beast expands upon this issue of quality and also proposes that universal Pre-K should be aimed only at those who are considered 'at-risk.'

There's no evidence that I'm aware of that pre-school helps middle class kids; it helps poor kids because it makes up for the stuff that middle class parents do (reading readiness, for example), and poor parents can't or don't. So if we're going to pass a big expensive new program aimed at helping poor kids with serious deficiencies in their home environment, I want to target it on those kids, to make sure that they get as much benefit as possible.

Taking a completely different approach to question the effectiveness of Pre-K, Rachel Ryan of the Huffington Post describes the effect of children who are prematurely separated from their mothers.

A study released by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development found that the "more time children spent in child care from birth to age four-and-a-half... the less likely [they were] to get along with others, as more assertive, as disobedient, and as aggressive."

Excellent Observation from a Reader on Common Core Standards

We previously wrote asking why Common Core Standards were copyrighted by the NGA and CCSSO.  After all, if they were state led and state standards currently aren't copyrighted, why would copyrighting occur with these standards?

The disclaimers might be even a more important aspect of the NGA/CCSSO public license.

A reader responded:

Basically, if your student completes 12 years of CCSS and is NOT college ready, the controlling organizations cannot be sued for this outcome even though these are the claims being made to sell it to uninformed legislators and taxpayers. 

Stunning.

If Common Core Standards REALLY Were State Led...

...would the standards then need to be copyrighted?

Look at this language from the Common Core State Standards Initiative website on who developed and owns the standards:

Attribution; Copyright Notice:

NGA Center/CCSSO shall be acknowledged as the sole owners and developers of the Common Core State Standards, and no claims to the contrary shall be made.

Any publication or public display shall include the following notice: “© Copyright 2010. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers. All rights reserved.”

States and territories of the United States as well as the District of Columbia that have adopted the Common Core State Standards in whole are exempt from this provision of the License.

Standards written by state agencies are not currently copyrighted.  Why would these standards need to be copyrighted?  Doesn't that seem odd to you?  If the NGA Center/CCSSO are indeed the sole owners and developers of the CCSS, then how can they make the claim these standards were state led?  Is it because the Education Commissioners are the State Chiefs?  Is "state led" really an accurate label to keep repeating to legislators and the public to assuage their concern about a consortia now directing state educational standards/assessments....and these states cannot alter them in any way?

Below is a blog post with a skeptical eye on this process and promises by the CCSSI.  From Blogush.edublogs.org and Common Core Copyright:

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

If the United States Department of Education had created the next set of standards that the country would follow everyone would own the “copyright” to the standards.  States could pick and choose, use it as a reference, make their own prep material.

ANY USE OF THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED.

Because the Common Core Standards were written by private groups they own the copyright and determine how they are to be used.  For example, if your state agrees to use the standards you may not eliminate even one, but you may add up to 15%.

ANY PERSON WHO EXERCISES ANY RIGHTS TO THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS THEREBY ACCEPTS AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE GRANTED IN CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

The NGA Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) was kind enough to let states use them after they created them.  I mean geez, a few people spent an entire year on them, it was nice of them to share without any strings attached.  I must say they are great, because I think it is against their copyright  to say anything bad about them.

The NGA Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) hereby grant a limited, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to copy, publish, distribute, and display the Common Core State Standards for purposes that support the Common Core State Standards Initiative. 

It does strike me as odd that someone “owns” the standards that all kids will get drilled in.  I guess that means they could sell the rights to them at anytime.  I am wondering if every kid and teacher could put up $1 and maybe make an offer, buy them, and then decide to do something else that doesn’t mean weeks of standardized testing.

NGA Center/CCSSO shall be acknowledged as the sole owners and developers of the Common Core State Standards, and no claims to the contrary shall be made.

The CCSS folks do provide some material for teachers to use to get acclimated, and I know McGraw-Hill is making the questions and providing some sources for one of the two testing consortiums.   Luckily for us McGrw-Hill is a trustworthy company that will stand behind what they produce for teachers and students CCSS needs.

McGraw-Hill makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy of any information contained in the McGraw-Hill Material, including any warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. In no event shall McGraw-Hill have any liability to any party for special, incidental, tort, or consequential damages arising out of or in connection with the McGraw-Hill Material, even if McGraw-Hill has been advised of the possibility of such damages.

 I know that many teachers are excited about moving to a set of standards that are sure to work and improve students’ abilities.  The folks who worked on them are willing to stick their neck out publicly and guarantee that these standards will move America forward back to our place as world leaders in test score.

THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS ARE PROVIDED AS-IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, AND NGA CENTER/CCSSO MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND…

We should also be thankful that just in case the CCSS end up destroying the lives of our children and making them test prep zombies that we can always rely on our strong judicial system to have our back.

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL NGA CENTER OR CCSSO, INDIVIDUALLY OR JOINTLY, BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY LEGAL THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER FOR CONTRACT, TORT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR A COMBINATION THEREOF (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH RISK AND POTENTIAL DAMAGE. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, LICENSEE WAIVES THE RIGHT TO SEEK LEGAL REDRESS AGAINST, AND RELEASES FROM ALL LIABILITY AND COVENANTS NOT TO SUE, NGA CENTER AND CCSSO.

 Long live the CCSS…

Source for all quotes

*****************************************************8

Missouri Files Anti-Common Core House Bill

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 616

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

---

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES BAHR (Sponsor), JONES (110), KOENIG, FUNDERBURK, SPENCER, LANT, SCHARNHORST, CURTMAN, BRATTIN, PARKINSON, FRAKER, MARSHALL, CRAWFORD, FITZWATER, JONES (50) AND DIEHL (Co-sponsors).

0394L.01I                                                                                                                                                  D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

---

AN ACT

To amend chapter 161, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the Common Core Standards Initiative.

---

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

            Section A. Chapter 161, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 161.855, to read as follows:

            161.855. Notwithstanding any other law, the state board of education shall not adopt, and the department of elementary and secondary education shall not implement, the Common Core State Standards developed by the Common Core Standards Initiative. Any actions taken to adopt or implement the Common Core State Standards as of the effective date of this section are void. Common Core State Standards or any other statewide education standards shall not be adopted or implemented without the approval of the general assembly.

So Says Michelle Malkin: My child’s Common Core-aligned Algebra book is crap

Michelle Malkin exposes many errors in Common Core Math book and informs Houghton Mifflin.

Fascinating read and you've got to love the company's stock answer.

Wouldn't you think a textbook editor would know when it's correct to use "principle" and when to use "principal"?

Common Core is a disaster on so many levels.  Look at the math problems.

Data Mining: A "Kindler, Gentler Surveillance"?

Your human capital is important to Silicon Valley

Data issues and invasion of privacy concerns crop up constantly these days.  We hear reports of Anonymous hacking into government websites, credit card information compromised and people are upset their Facebook information gets posted in places unknown to the Facebook user.  

Quartz (qz.com) asked this question:  Analysis: Is big data to Barack Obama what big oil was to George W. Bush? and informs the reader how this administration is allowing private business freedom to use personal data for corporate gain.  This data sharing of personal information, however, is eroding individual privacy and has privacy experts concerned about the manner in which this bill of rights was developed and lack of legal protection for individuals:

When the White House unveiled its new privacy bill of rights, almost exactly one year ago, the event was heralded by one consumer advocate as “the clearest articulation of the right to privacy by a US president in history.” But attention quickly shifted to the the bill’s limitations. Users could opt out of targeted ads, but this alone wouldn’t end ad tracking. The bill relied too heavily on voluntary commitments by advertisers like Google and Facebook. And though the bill was strong on “rights,” it lacked details on implementation and enforcement. Critics also pointed out that the American Commerce Department, which represents American businesses—not consumers—had spearheaded the bill and was in charge of developing the policies meant to enforce it.

Reread that last sentence and compare it to the education reform spearheaded by special interests,  Common Core Standards in particular.  Consumers (taxpayers) did not spearhead this initiative.  It was formulated by private trade organizations (the National Governors Association and the Chief Council of State School Officers) and the public was largely unaware of this takeover of state/local control of education.  Like the American Commerce Department, the NGA and CCSSO are in charge (with funding from the Federal Government) of developing the policies meant to enforce it.  And like the privacy bill of rights for consumers designed by this administration, FERPA lacks details on implementation and enforcement and expands the transmission of personal data to third parties.

The article states the EU is concerned about this data sharing:

Now, one year later, as Europe reviews its own wide-ranging privacy legislation for implementation, Silicon Valley is sending hordes of lobbyists across the Atlantic. And the Commerce Department is at it again, leading the charge in Brussels.

Two requirements in the proposed EU laws stick like thorns in the side of the American data collection industry: one, that tech firms receive prior approval (i.e., informed consent) from users before collecting their personal data, and two, that the refusal of data tracking be an accessible and irreversible option. Silicon Valley, which has built a thriving global business around targeted ads and data brokering, is understandably antsy.

Take those two EU requirements for data collection and expand it to the data collection envisioned for children tracked from "cradle to career": 

• One, that educational institutions receive prior approval (i.e., informed consent) from parents before collecting children's personal data
• Two, that the refusal of data tracking be an accessible and irreversible option.

These options have not been given to parents regarding the massive upcoming data collection on their children and most parents are probably not even aware what data is being gathered and where this data is being sent and for what purposes.

Big business does not like these privacy safeguards in the educational or non-educational realm:

To the growing indignation of European officials (paywall), lawmakers in Brussels are lobbied by five or six different American law firms every single day. And the American government is adding fuel to fire. A recent statement from the US Mission to the EU urges Europe to be “more flexible” about issues such as consent from internet users. “Interoperability of our respective privacy regimes is critical to maintaining our extraordinary economic relationship,” it said. For its part, the American Chamber of Commerce has been organizing events in Brussels and Strasbourg, leading one European official to tell the New York Times that, “My impression is that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Commerce Department are mostly just following the interests of Silicon Valley.”  (MEW note: See letter of 72 businesses signing on to the support of CCSS here).

Why are business interests superseding the rights of the individual?

This lobbying highlights a relationship between technology companies and the American government that echoes the close ties between the energy sector and the previous administration of George W. Bush. Silicon Valley was an important source of campaign finance for the Obama presidential campaign: Employees of tech firms donated seven times as much to the Democratic candidate as to his opponent, Mitt Romney. (Big Oil, by contrast, gave eight times as much to Romney as to Obama.) Obama’s election victories in 2008 and 2012 hinged at least to some degree on his campaign’s groundbreaking use of technology and social media. And the president’s second-term agenda, such as his proposal to ease immigration requirements for high-skilled workers, has drawn applause from technology executives.

Data mining your human capital to educational reform companies is no different than accessing your Facebook information, your credit card scores and your shopping habits.  The educational reforms require massive Silicon Valley technologies and the CCSS are important to drive this implementation.  Think how handy it will be for companies to hire employees based on their data sets and the issues of human personalities won't have to figure into the equation.  The data is measurable and scientific.  The hunt for data is too much to resist (and creates more jobs ) and the vision of data solving the world's problems is guiding many of these companies:

....Tien, the EFF lawyer, also suggests that the American government isn’t putting pressure on Europe solely for the sake of American business. “You have to think about the phenomenon of Big Data, how enthralling that vision is,” he says. “The way people in Silicon Valley talk about harnessing Big Data isn’t just about economic incentives, it’s about solving problems, curing cancer, solving the world’s ills. It’s ultimately quite different from railing against the Patriot Act. It’s a kinder, gentler surveillance.”  But still, Tien said, the American government, and Silicon Valley lobbyists, “should own up to the real privacy issues Big Data raises.”

Why do your children require a "kinder, gentler surveillance" from "cradle to career"? Do you really believe the American government and lobbyists are concerned about privacy issues?  With all the furor over the privacy issues raised post Patriot Act, where is the outrage of the data gathering/sharing of children's personal data to government agencies and private firms?
     

   

Common Core Claims Aren't Factual and Questions Remain Unanswered

Diane Ravitch makes some valid points and raises serious questions about Common Core standards and why the business community is so keen on seeing them implemented. The claims are bolded; the questions are highlighted. From 15153:
 

Yesterday, 72 business corporations published a full-page advertisement in the New York Times supporting the Common Core State Standards.

 

The ad asserts that the CCSS will prepare all children "to be successful in a competitive global economy." How do they know that since the standards are only now being implemented and have never been demonstrated to be successful?

 

The ad says that "the need for a strong employer voice is greater than ever." Why would that be? Is it because so many educators are concerned that the Common Core standards will bust the budgets of their district?

 

The ad says that the big corporations support "these new, tougher academic standards that are currently being rolled out in classrooms across the country." Are they concerned that tougher standards might widen the achievement gap?

 

The ad gives no indication that any of its signatories has ever read the CCSS.

 

This ad is very curious.

 

Why would business leaders take out a full-page ad to urge support for something that 46 states and the District of Columbia have already agreed to do?

I am reminded of the wacky report from a task force of the Council on Foreign Relations a year ago (co-chaired by Joel Klein and Condoleeza Rice), which claimed that the public schools posed a "very grave threat to national security." Its three recommendations: 1) open more charters and vouchers; 2) adopt the Common Core standards; and 3) create a "national security readiness audit" for every school. Thus: privatization and the Common Core are necessary for our survival as a nation.

All very puzzling. How will the Common Core standards protect our national security?

 

Why are 72 corporations lined up to pledge support for standards that are already adopted but never field-tested?

 

Do they sell products that have never had a trial?

 

What gives?

 

It would be nice if these 72 companies would truthfully and transparently answer these questions Ravitch (and others) have posed about the standards.  Why won't they answer them? 

An aside:  The article states, The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative, led by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, has produced Kñ12 standards in the foundational subjects of math and English that meet the business community's expectations: they are college- and career-ready, grounded in evidence and internationally benchmarked.   

Why is education geared toward the business community's expectations?  Schools are supposed to be state/locally controlled with taxpayer money and input, not education  becoming the vehicle to create a managed workforce and private corporations directing public education.  The standards are NOT grounded in evidence (they were never field tested before they were adopted and they were adopted before they were even written) and the educational reformers/ business communities have never produced evidence of the standards being internationally benchmarked.   

And one more tidbit these companies didn't bother to mention: The NGA and the CCSSO are private trade organizations who have created standards/assessments that are privately copyrighted and held unaccountable to the taxpayers who have paid for them.

Bill Gates, Education Reform and Philanthrocapitalism. .

Joy Pullman of the Heartland Institute wrote an article Education Policies Led by Gates, Not States questioning the intent and outcome of Bill Gates' investment in education reform:

The world’s largest philanthropy has targeted education policymaking, sparking debate among education wonks and watchdogs over whether some of its activities cloak government actions and amount to lobbying.

An article written by  RiShawn Biddle Common Core Foes’ Laughable Gates Foundation Conspiracy-Theorizing in Dropout Nation dismissed Ms. Pullman's research and chalked it up to a conspiracy by conservatives:

Covering the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s efforts on the school reform front — along with the usual angst among traditionalists and even some conservative reformers about its influence on education policy — is old hat for yours truly as well as for nearly any education reporter and commentator on the scene. So the piece by otherwise-stellar Heartlander Editor Joy Pullman on the foundation’s role behind the effort by 45 states and the District of Columbia to enact Common Core reading and math standards was a bit ho-hum. Except for the fact that so many Common Core foes quoted in the piece were spinning the philanthropy’s efforts as some sort of conspiracy against the American democracy.

The Heartland article echoes much of what Susan Ohanian, Seattle Education and here on MEW have been writing about Bill Gates' educational reform for years.  Regardless of party affiliation or political leanings, writers and researchers see an ominous trend of private companies setting public policy and what that means for the democratic process.

Here are some of the comments on Mr. Biddle's site:

First of all, lest people think I am a John Bircher, or a right wing conspiracy theorist, or Republican, or a policy wonk, let me state at the outset what I am: I am a mathematics teacher and a lifelong Democrat.

I was intrigued with the following in the above article: “Meanwhile the argument advanced in the piece (insinuated by the otherwise-sensible Jay P. Greene declaration that the Gates Foundation “orchestrated” the adoption of Common Core) that the standards were enacted without any sort of democratic input fails to consider the actual process involved. This included a lengthy comment period conducted by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, the outfits that represent elected state chief executives and the state school chiefs who are often elected or appointed by state boards of education. ”

I am very familiar with the public comment process. I am a co-founder of the U.S. Coalition for World Class Math, and I and others prepared a set of comments on both the draft and final versions of the standards. It is true that the NGA and CCSSO opened up the drafts for public comments to anyone who wished to submit them.

The Coalition submitted comments. Our comments on the final draft can be at our website. 

Since the consortium (NGA and CCSSO) were not bound by any federal laws such as the Administrative Procedures Act, they could do with the comments as they pleased. Having worked for the federal government for many years, I happen to know that when we solicited public comments on regulations that my agency drafted, we had to read every one, and make the comments available to the public to read (on the web) and publish a document responding to the various comments. If we disagreed, we had to say why. These folks did not do that. They did not make the comments publicly available, (we asked if they would do so and they said “no”). They did write a summary document but it provided a summary of only some of the comments. They did not give reasons why they disagreed with various comments.

While it is laudable that they opened up the drafts for comments, please be aware that the process could have been a bit more transparent and “democratic”, for lack of a better word.

and

I can take criticism, and appreciate it especially from a friend, and I think you’re right the accusations lean against Gates. But as you see from the article, Gates refused to comment and have its say, which I would have treated fairly and printed.

I do not think anyone was or is into a conspiracy. As you’ll note from the article, folks agreed Gates was both more transparent than other nonprofits and staffed with intelligent, well-meaning people. It also clearly does some good in the world (think the polio campaign).

And I agree with Greene that Gates has a right to fund whatever it wants. I am not against big money. Bill Gates earned those billions. But when a nonprofit gets awfully close to actual policymaking outside the public eye, that is troublesome to someone with a reporting bent who is big into transparency. If nonprofits are going to make policy, or “catalyze” policy, their transparency should be the same as that required of governments. I mean public hearings, public votes, public access to documents and staffers, a responsibility to respond to criticism, and so forth. So far, nothing. We’ve got a bunch of bureaucrats, facilitated by Gates, working undercover for several years inside a big black box.

Quality of the Common Core aside (and that policy was one of several the article mentions), this sort of activity does threaten the democratic process, and I’m surprised you, who take such nuanced positions on policies and are a big vote for the little guy, do not at least partly agree. (from Joy Pullman)

and

As a mother who served 12 years on a public school board and now grandmother of 6 who will be starting school in the next few years, I want to say that this offer is ignoring the fact that local control is important to parents and to the children they love. What happens when parents find problems with a standard or the curriculum that will be forced upon every district to comply to those standards? (and problems will be found, believe me….but don’t worry, they’ve written disclaimers so it can’t come back on them–see below*) Those parents will be told, “sorry, we can’t do anything about this…go to the federal government”. Good luck with that one! Also, I would like to point out that the tests that are also going to be required by CCS will require schools to have certain hardware and software that many schools don’t have at this point. And surprise, surprise…these tests seem to require Microsoft computer products. Also, the Gates Foundation gave a significant amount of money to the National Chamber of Commerce (that they distributed to state CC’s) to promote Common Core standards. It’s not a conspiracy when it’s a fact. As they say, “follow the money”.

 *Warranties and Disclaimer:
THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS ARE PROVIDED AS-IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS, AND NGA CENTER/CCSSO MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTIBILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NONINFRINGEMENT, ACCURACY, OR THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF ERRORS, WHETHER OR NOT DISCOVERABLE.

Limitation on Liability:
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL NGA CENTER OR CCSSO, INDIVIDUALLY OR JOINTLY, BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY LEGAL THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER FOR CONTRACT, TORT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR A COMBINATION THEREOF (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH RISK AND POTENTIAL DAMAGE. WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, LICENSEE WAIVES THE RIGHT TO SEEK LEGAL REDRESS AGAINST, AND RELEASES FROM ALL LIABILITY AND COVENANTS NOT TO SUE, NGA CENTER AND CCSSO.

and

Bill Gates is not only a “philanthropist” in education, he also is one in health care. He has come under scrutiny not only for his educational programs, but also for his influence in vaccination, population control and food genetic modification efforts.

Below is an interesting article from New Internationalist Magazine, asking the same questions as Joy Pullman, except these questions concern Gates’ involvement in global health programs. This magazine hardly appears as if it is conservative and the writer details how Gates’ resources and influence are shaping governmental actions. From the article:

“For critics, then, the way ‘venture philanthropy’ focuses on measurable impact may obscure the less tangible, but equally important, goals of democracy and empowerment. As the philanthropy analyst Michael Edwards has asked: ‘Would philanthrocapitalism have helped fund the civil rights movement in the US? I hope so, but it wasn’t “data driven”, it didn’t operate through competition, it couldn’t generate much revenue, and it didn’t measure its impact in terms of the numbers of people who were served each day. Yet it changed the world forever.’ ”

The article is aptly entitled “The flip side to Bill Gates’ charity billions”: http://newint.org/features/2012/04/01/bill-gates-charitable-giving-ethics/

Now substitute the word “education” for “healthcare” in the following reader’s comment and you will understand the reason the Heartland article and various other articles by others (including Susan Ohanian and Seattle Education) questioning Gates’ involvement is not laughable in the least, but should cause great concern and worry about private entities setting public policy:

“The article suggests that people are dying because capitalism provides excess rewards to a small number of individuals,
It does? Whilst I have some sympathy with that point of view I don’t see where is is stated or implied in the article.

If anything the OP is talking about the danger of handing control to private business rather than states, especially in a context of state healthcare provision having been largely dismantled as a result of structural adjustment policies. Private mega philanthropy provides large subsidies to selective parts of the healthcare establishment. With no state presence to counteract that market distortion — thus destabilizing an already volatile situation. I think that that is what the ’flip-side’ in the title is referring to.”

Translation from healthcare concerns into educational concerns:  Bill Gates and other education reformers have had the control of education handed to them (away from the states), and educational provisions giving control to local school boards and state agencies have been restructured toward federal/private company control.  Private mega philanthropy provides large subsidies to selective parts of the educational establishment.  There is no state/local presence or authority to counteract that market distortion.

I can't figure out why this appears laughable and a conspiracy theory when, in fact, this is what is occurring in education.

IB Officially Supports Common Core

From http://www.ibo.org/iba/commoncore/:

 IB and the Common Core State Standards

Position Statement: IB position paper on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
The IB is pleased to announce the release of a position paper in support of the Common Core State Standards(CCSS) initiative in the United States. You, our stakeholders, will benefit from the IB’s pro-active approach as you work to implement the new standards in your schools and districts.

Common Core resources from IB Americas annual regional conference 2012

The Common Core State Standards (CCSS): Preparing for a new paradigm

More information on the Common Core State Standards:

CCSS Fast facts

Lining up (EPIC study)

CCSS standards for mathematics

CCSS standards for English language arts 

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

So where's that local/state control of education?  It's been swallowed up by IB and private trade organizations.

Why Does Your School District Have to Take Orders from a Private Trade Organization?

The Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) is "offering guidance" to school districts toward the implementation of Common Core standards. 

Question:  Why is a private organization telling local school districts how they must direct their educational delivery and what requirements they must meet?  

From edweek.com:

One of the two consortia designing tests for the Common Core State Standards recently released new guidance on the minimum technology standards states will need to meet to give those tests, beginning in 2014-15.

The Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, or PARCC, says the guidance is meant to provide direction to states and districts on the extent to which current technology meets testing standards, or whether upgrades will be required.

The document offers both "minimum specifications," which would satisfy the consortium's tech guidelines at least through 2014-15, and "recommended" ones, which would be expected to meet the group's standards through the 2018-19 school year.

The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortia has released its "assistance" to local districts:

Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium Guide

The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium has released an updated guide to technology requirements and recommendations for member states planning to implement the common-core assessment system the consortium is developing for the 2014-15 school year.

Under the framework, most schools should be able to implement the assessments, the organization says.

1. Move away from Windows XP (which is used by more than half of schools today) to Windows 7. Windows 8 might be acceptable, but further testing is needed. However, the assessments will work with Windows XP.

2. Upgrade computers to at least 1 gigabyte of internal memory. Most schools have already implemented this recommendation (63 percent, to be exact).

3. Ensure that all screens being used for the assessments have a visual display of no less than 9.5 inches, with at least a 1024 x 768 resolution. About 88 percent of schools have already met this recommendation. The assessments could work with an 8-inch screen, but 9.5 inches is the recommended width, the document says.

4. Student testing sites must operate on secure browsers. While data reports from the assessments can be accessed through Google Chrome, Safari on iOS, Firefox, and Internet Explorer 8, the organization will identify secure browsers each year that will be required for the actual test-taking. Those browsers will prevent students from being able to access anything except the exam.

5. The assessment requires about 5 to 10 kilobytes per second of bandwidth per student. The amount of bandwidth needed will depend on the specific assessments, some of which include animations, recorded audio, and other technology-enhanced items. Schools should estimate about 1 megabyte per second for every 100 students taking the assessment.

Again, the questions must be asked:  Why is a private organization telling local school districts how they must direct their educational delivery and what requirements they must meet?   Where is the local control in these directives?  What is exactly the role of school boards in this matter  and the fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer?  

The districts cannot choose whether or not to abide by these "suggestions".  Look at the directives for the districts from SBAC: 

• they must operate on secure browsers
• the assessment requires a certain amount of bandwith
• move away from the operating system (which half the districts operate) to Windows 7
• upgrade computer memory
• replace screens that are too small.

What is not listed in the technology requirements and "recommendations" is how districts are to pay for these updates/mandates in this revenue strapped economy.  How's that for local control?

A reader at Edweek had some of the same concerns:

Common Core is just another push by big business to suck public funds from our school system. There are so many urban poor and rural areas that would never have funds, nor means to have the computer access/internet platforms available to take the publishing industrial complex's "tests" in the time frame suggested. Many schools don't have full-time teachers (or properly credentialed teachers in the case of many Charter schools that are allowed less oversight under the ridiculous law). How can a student be ready for a test if teachers aren't available? How are students with moderate to severe disabilities considered in the plan?
While larger districts like LAUSD have the means to create plans and provide training, many smaller, underfunded school districts don't have enough computers for staff. Access to functioning computers for all students is a pipe dream mandate in the current hostile funding environment teachers and regular public schools face.
School Districts across the nation have had budgets cut to the bone in the last 6-8 years already and in the last 3-4 we've seen excessive layoffs and firings just to keep things from falling into ruin.
Now these cash-strapped districts are given yet, another unfunded mandate to utilize another "reform" program AND do the testing online without being provided funding for equipment or training. As there are fewer staff available - it creates a bigger burden on those already performing two, three and even four full time jobs due to the deep cuts.
I'm absolutely sick of federal education dictates being given by business and legislators who refuse to listen to academics, child development specialists and parents. We know what our children need to learn. And it isn't more interference by outside business organizations that see our education funding as the next big poaching frontier.
We need trained teachers. We need nurses and librarians. We need safe neighborhoods with accessible health clinics, child care and a community that is able to send a child to school healthy, well-fed and ready to learn.
Until our legislators start addressing the needs of parents and families, these plans will just frustrate and disappoint us.

  

Another State Legislative Hearing on the Common Core Standards

From politicalchips.org:

Time: February 14, 2013 from 1:30pm to 2:30pm
Location: State Capital
City/Town: Topeka, KS
Event Type: hearing

The legislators in various states are finally waking up to the enormous costs of the unfunded Federal mandate which leave local and state school boards with no authority over what and how our K-12 students are taught.  This hearing on the 14th is an important step forward to putting a stop to this Federal takeover of our schools in Kansas.

It should be an interesting hearing if Commissioner DeBacker still contests the auditor's estimate that it will cost the state at least $63 Million:

State auditors say schools will pay plenty to get out from under the controversial No Child Left Behind Act, but Diane Debacker isn’t buying it.

Debacker, Kansas education commissioner, said she doubted estimates from state auditors that it would cost public school districts $34 million to $63 million over the next five years to adjust to the Common Core State Standards, a new set of educational guidelines aimed at standardizing math and English education across the country.

Joe Lawhon, principal auditor for the Legislative Division of Post Audit, presented the report to lawmakers Thursday afternoon. The audit estimates school districts would probably incur the bulk of the cost —  $30 million to $50 million — replacing textbooks and other instructional materials over the next two years. Staff training could cost an additional $2 million to $10 million.

The Kansas State Department of Education, on the other hand, could save as much as $3 million annually by using the common core system. Savings would come because KSDE could skip the process of developing student assessment tests.

“Nearly all of these costs will be incurred by school districts, however, school districts will have options to avoid out-of-pocket expenditures,” Lawhon said.

An interesting question is how the school districts can avoid out-of-pocket expenditures as these costs are mandated and never voted on by taxpayers.  If the state isn't paying these costs, then it will fall on local districts already strapped for revenue.  State legislators might want to ask Mr. Lawhon how the districts can exercise these options and identify exactly what they are.

The study National Cost of Aligning States and Localities to the Common Core Standards written by Pioneer Institute and the American Principles Project sets the estimated CCSS cost to Kansas closer to $170 Million.

Why do state education commissioners in Kansas and Missouri still contend CCSS won't cost the state any additional money?  Even California states CCSS may cost that state up to $1.6 Billion.  We hope the Kansas legislators figure out the truth despite the paid reformers' CCSS talking points.