David Coleman - A Wolf In Sheep's Clothing

David Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) had a conversation recently with Common Core architect David Coleman and supplied HSDLA members with a review of that conversation. He said that in the end they agreed to disagree, but he praised Coleman for being polite, professional and helpful. He believed Coleman was honest in his statements and was acting in good faith in promoting common core standards.

Many in the battle against centralized control of education through common standards and assessments have thrown up the red flag on this conversation. CC Proponents, feigning an interest in working cooperatively, in being well intentioned and willing to compromise, pay lip service to anti-common core points. From the Farris piece,

To his credit, Mr. Coleman noted that he was not acting in a vacuum. There are centralized mandates for education in play virtually everywhere. And many of them have very marginal educational utility. I agreed with his assessment of many current centralized standards.

But a closer examination of this conversation compared with other known facts about, and speeches by, Coleman proves once again that the opposition will say anything they think will make them look good and make common core opponents feel foolish for questioning them.

A 'revelation' from that conversation was the Coleman supposedly does not support the data collection associated with Common Core.

"I indicated that one of my chief concerns was the creation of the database that would track students throughout their educational career.
His (Coleman's) answer surprised me. He didn’t like the database all that well. It was not originally part of the Common Core, but other people have seized the opportunity to make a centralized data collection effort through the implementation of the Common Core."

A closer inspection of this statement and previous statements on the subject by Coleman reveal that he in fact embraces data collection and usage. This video of Coleman shows him positively gushing about the value of data collection.


Just last month, MEW wrote about Coleman and his complete openness to gathering and using data for educational purposes. He salivated over the work of many in the field of data collection and analysis whose work "represents an untapped national resource, that holds the promise of breaking longstanding stalemates in the education policy debate."

In a speech to data analysts in Boston he called out and praised some of the most noted names in data collection and analysis including the Strategic Data Project (supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) which "partners with school districts, charter school networks, and state education agencies to bring high quality research methods and data analysis to bear on strategic management and policy decisions."

What is most intriguing in Coleman's conversation with Farris is his claim that data collection was not originally part of the plan for Common Core.  Coleman admitted that CCSS was repurposed to be the vehicle for data collection. We'll have to take his word for the fact that it was not part of the original intent. Considering the contradictions in his words we may not want to trust that claim either. That notwithstanding, this comment is worthy of note because proponents of common core have tried to place the tinfoil hat on opponents by claiming that our linkage of the standards and data collection is completely false.

DESE, who repeatedly chastises common core opponents for linking data collection to common core, should read how CCSS's own developer knows that they are linked.

Given the players in the original plan for common core, it is hard to imagine that data collection was not a part, if not the driver, of the plan for common standards and assessments. The P-20 data system stems from a national data quality campaign that calls for specific fields, coded consistently across states. The ultimate goal is to be able to combine databases and compare student A with student N across states. If they are not being taught the same thing and assessed exactly the same way it is almost impossible to provided a valid comparison. The desire for data, for whatever purpose, necessitated common standards and assessments.

The lesson in all this for homeschoolers is, be careful not to confuse polite tone or professional demeanor with honesty. From Matt Gerwit's blog talking about practicing appeasement,

During the early days of Hitler’s campaign of domination most of Europe refused to take a stand against him because they were war weary. They chose to believe that appeasement would bring “peace in our time” as Neville Chamberlain so eloquently stated. They did not view Hitler as an enemy, he was merely an inconvenience that threatened to disrupt the peace once again.

Similarly, the conservative leadership in America does not view its progressive and liberal counterparts as the enemy. Instead, progressives and liberals are viewed as a mere inconvenience preventing us from winning a couple political victories here and there....  The reason progressivism and liberalism is flourishing in America with very little resistance is because we conservatives refuse to treat our enemies as enemies. Instead we prefer to treat them as simply misguided individuals who have good intentions. That’s not good enough.

UN Trying to Take Away Parental Authority of Parents of Disabled Kids - Maybe Even Denying the Right To Homeschool

The US Senate is being pressured to take action this month on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In addition to making the government (in this case the UN), not the parent, the final decision maker on the rights for persons with disabilities, the UNCRPD removes any final impediments to a government prohibition on homeschooling, as is the case in Germany and Sweden. Senator Roy Blunt has, in the past, been willing to support this Convention. He needs to hear from parents about why he should change his position and oppose ratification of the Convention.

The following information is from Jill Johnson, MO Coordinator of ParentalRights.org.

Parental Rights Supporters,

After meeting with Senator Roy Blunt this past week, we learned that he is likely (or at least more willing) to change his mind if he gets a LOT of phone calls.  So, since the UNCRPD (United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) is the biggest threat right now to parental rights, we need to start calling and telling him to oppose it.  Right now he does NOT oppose it.  His number in DC is 202-224-5721.  If you would like to contact the local office closest to you, the numbers are above.  Below are some talking points (pick a different one each time you call) that are based on a piece that Michael Farris wrote.

► I would suggest starting with the point about abortion.  The staff member we spoke to was shocked that this treaty opens the door to federally funded abortions and Planned Parenthood-style education.  She stated that the senator is pro-life and would never support any legislation that would fund abortions.
 ►The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution ensures that ratified treaties are equal in status to federal law and the U.S. Constitution and supersede state laws and constitutions.
 ►The UNCRPD never defines what is meant by “disability.”  Without defining this, it cannot be known how broadly the treaty will apply.
 ►Article 7, Section 2 of the treaty states:  “In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”  (Emphasis added.)  This language is also found in the UNCRC, which you already oppose, and underscores the necessity of a Parental Rights Amendment, which you already support.  If a government’s assessment of the child’s best interests differs from that of the parents, the government gets to make the decision, not the parents. 
 ►Article 24 specifically tasks states with the responsibility to make sure that disabled children are educated in environments “which maximize academic and social development.”  This, along with Article 7, Section 2, means that nothing could prevent government officials from overriding parental wishes to homeschool their disabled child.
 ►Government-funded abortion:  Article 23 of the treaty states, “The right of all persons with disabilities … to have access to…reproductive and family planning education are recognized, and the means necessary to enable them to exercise these rights are provided.”  (Emphasis added.)
 ►Article 46 states “Reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted.”  So this treaty is all or none.  Any Reservations, Understandings, or Declarations (RUDs) attempting to declare that this treaty does not change U.S. Law are simply unenforceable.

To read Michael Farris's comments in their entirety, please visit

HSLD Response to Senator Rockefeller.pdf

Some additional points about US Ratification of this Convention that you should know.

• Under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, the CRPD will become the “supreme law of the land,” overriding anything to the contrary in local, state, or federal law.
• The Reservations, Understandings, and Declarations (RUDs) adopted by the Senate are poorly worded and do not have the legal effect proponents claim they will. The so-called “private action” understanding, for instance, does not uphold “current” U.S. law. Omission of the word “current” means the U.S. will be obligated to make changes in our law in order to fulfill our commitment under the treaty.
• Ratifying the CRPD would be the first time we have obligated our nation to recognize social, economic, and cultural entitlements and privileges as “rights” under domestic law.

Immediate calls are needed to Senator Roy Blunt opposing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

Senator Roy Blunt
Washington, DC Office—(202) 224-5721
Kansas City, MO Office--(816) 471-7141
Springfield, MO Office--(417) 877-7814
St. Louis/Clayton, MO Office--(314) 725-4484
Jefferson City, MO Office--(573) 634-2488
Columbia, MO Office--(573) 442-8151


Read more here.

Your Most Valuable Asset? It's Not Gold.

Hilary Rosen's comment about Ann Romney never holding a job, completely discounting the years she has invested in raising her children, may have actually shed some light on the left's tactic. Though Ms. Rosen's comments caused them some temporary backlash, they were in fact consistent with the left's official message about children. They are a mere inconvenience to a woman's primary purpose, holding a paying job. This is a message they are proud to convey. But, as with so many messages from the left, it is a cover for a message they do not want to state publicly. We should be looking more closely at that message.

The left is all about choice, but it is carefully orchestrated choice. Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar,  believes we are all too stupid to make good choices, so it is up to the government to limit our choices to help us make the right ones. So if they offer you a choice, you should be looking for the choices they haven't offered you (e.g. charter school - different building, same defective curriculum; medicaid or insurance exchange, but not your existing policy). If they offer you your choice of jobs while making day care or preschool available for free, are they not offering you the option to stay home with your children?

In Sweden, they're not.

Sweden used to be synonymous with freedom and safety. The nation was a haven for political refugees from around the world.

But today, Sweden is creating new political refugees: the home-schooler.

One of the escape routes for home-schoolers from Sweden is by ship, two hours across the Baltic sea to the Åland Islands. It's a part of Finland where the locals speak Swedish and where parents can home school in freedom.

Sweden's home-school movement has been crushed by a state apparatus that wants children as young as one year old in daycare, and all children in a classroom with a state-approved curriculum.

"One mother told me when she went with her 18 month son to his medical checkup, and he was not in daycare. They said, 'Oh, your son is not in daycare? But he has to go to daycare. He needs that and you need to work,'" Himmselstrand told CBN News.     [emphasis added]  http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews

Sweden also has compulsory daycare.  Homeschool Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) translates from this link (which is in Swedish) the following argument for compulsory three-year-old daycare:
“We cannot allow parents to deny their children the right to go to pre-school.” Look how a woman's choice to work, became her child's right to daycare.

Ready to dismiss that as just Europe's problem? The Bureau of Labor Statistics just released their employment projections for the next decade.  Guess which categories had the highest projected growth?  Number 1 was obviously health care with a 29% increase in jobs projected. Number 2 was Personal Care and Service which is projected to add 1.3 million jobs.  This was defined as:

"...cosmetic and health spas will rise, causing an increase in demand for workers in this group. The personal care and service group contains a wide variety of occupations; however, two of them—personal care aides and childcare workers—will account for nearly two-thirds of the group’s new jobs. Personal and home care aides will experience increased demand as a growing number of elderly people require assistance with daily tasks. Childcare workers will add jobs as the population of children continues to grow and emphasis is increasingly placed on the importance of early childhood education, resulting in more formal preschool programs. These programs will increase demand for both childcare workers and preschool teachers."

In this year's state of the state speeches, the National Women's Law Center found 22 governors mentioning early child care and education, up from 17 last year.  From John Hickenlooper (D), Colorado they heard,

“Currently, there are 23 separate funding streams administered through five different state agencies, each playing a role in early childhood support and services. Together, we are proposing a state-local strategy that integrates prevention and intervention, quality early learning and family support and engagement. Our plan will consolidate early childhood services in a new office in the Department of Human Services.”

That's an awful lot of work and cost for the state to take on just to make women happy, to fulfill their desire to hold a paying job.  Is there any other example of the state being so benevolent or thoughtful? The state is always in the business of perpetuating itself which means they WANT to be taking care of kids. They WANT you to turn them over at an early age, and it is time people start asking, "Why?"

Many women will complain that they had no choice but to go back to work. They could not afford to live on just one salary. But what must be recognized is that this choice, too, has been orchestrated and is not a real choice.  For every two women who hold this position, there is one woman who has found a way to stay at home with her children on one salary.  She made choices about the things her family really needed and decided that a lot of the products pushed by our consumer economy were not necessary.  Is it too hard to believe, if you are the government looking to boost your own revenues and further grow your economy, this woman's choices do not work in your favor? Having her work, pay taxes and use the extra income to buy things is what the government/state really needs.

The reality is, your children are the most valuable thing on the planet. What they are taught can be the most powerful weapon. Those who choose to stay home and raise and/or educate their children are taking an incredibly valuable asset away from the state and the state doesn't like that.  You may not teach them the value of the state, as the state sees it. You may not teach from the state propaganda. The state will not be able to count on those citizens to continue to support its existence, so they must demean the practice in an attempt to embarrass women out of making that choice.  Rest assured, however, if they can't shame you into going to work (for them), they will ultimately require you to turn your child over to them and do so. It's a win-win for them.

Here's An Option to Try When You are Fed Up with Public Education.

They don't know it's not cool to learn.

The caption from the photo:

Margaret Murray, left, likens home-schooling her children to four pots on a stovetop. The trick is paying attention to what each one needs.

That sounds like a common sense approach to education, doesn't it? Why, then, are states adopting common core standards? Are four pots on a stovetop going to cook at the same time and at the same temperature? That will only work if the pots, burners and contents are identical. Common core standards don't take into consideration that pots on a stovetop might just take different cooking times and techniques.

Mrs. Murray might have a better idea on educating children than Arne Duncan, the National Governor's Association, the CCSSO, Bill Gates, and other philanthropists.

Warning to Parents: The State Knows Your Child's Educational Needs Better than You.

This story about parents being forced to place their homeschooled children into public school comes from Canada but don't get too complacent if you are in Missouri. This type of ruling may be coming to a school district near you:

Four children ages 9, 7, 5 and 3 from a homeschooling Catholic family in Notre-Dame-des-Bois in Québec, Canada have been ordered into public school for socialization and non-phonics reading instruction. The judge had previously ruled the oldest children must be placed into the public education system for "socialization" and this most recent ruling included the younger children be placed in state run care. (Judge) Bernier also criticized the mother's teaching style, saying the use of phonics to teach reading is out-dated.

Apparently there have been no allegations of abuse; the judge believes the children are not socialized enough and are being taught to read in an "old-fashioned manner".

Why should this concern you if you are in the United States? Here is Missouri, we had a bill introduced this year lowering the compulsory age for school and mandatory kindergarten. This bill did not pass, but homeschoolers have been fighting the same battles for many years. From Culture Vigilante:

The past several years have seen a movement in the legislature to instill cradle to grave control of your children via the educational system. In 2009 SB 291 (go to page 62 and read the changes marked in boldface) forced a rise in compulsory attendance age from 16 to 17, and very restrictive mandates that revised the law outlining graduation requirements. These changes were a devastating blow to the homeschool community who suffered the side effects from this unnecessary educational regulation. In 2010 Sara Lampe introduced legislation that would lower the compulsory school age from age 7 to age 6, and require full day kindergarten in public schools.

You are seeing the attempt of the erosion of parents' authority to educate their children in the way they see fit in Missouri. You can see it in action in Canada and also in New Hampshire where a Christian homeschooled student was ordered into public school. No abuse was discovered by social service agencies for the Canadian children or the American student. The courts apparently believe the students are learning in the way the state deems appropriate.

One of the younger Canadian children had either a mild or severe hearing loss; this fact is not clear from the news reports. The judge found the older children "demonstrated difficulty" getting along with other children after being ordered to start public schooling. The judge made the finding the family failed to act quickly to correct learning disabilities, despite their doctor’s testimony to the contrary.

I found one blogger who supported the government ruling. The rest of the news accounts are incredulous parents cannot educate their children in the way they see fit. Having a child who is hearing impaired (as I do) is like walking through a mine-field. There are numerous conflicting studies on the appropriate way to educate hearing impaired students. If we had stayed in the school district and used the one method offered to my child (which was not appropriate to his needs), I doubt he would be the student and person he is today. The lone blogger supporting the state writes:

Although given few facts in this media maelstrom, I would bet that given a chance to fully analyze the children’s situation, I would be more likely to agree with the judge than with the home-schooling parents. The nut of it is this: We should protect children from “bad teachers,” whether in schools or at home.

Why would he agree with the state rather than the parents? What makes these parents (as he implies) "bad teachers"? Is it because they were not educating the children in the manner deemed appropriate by the state? Why should we as parents believe the state or a school district knows better how to educate our children than the parents do?

Looking at the educational success of hearing impaired students over the last two decades from our previous school district in Kansas leads me to believe we made a better decision for our child than any IEP team could have crafted or a judge could have ordered. Imagine that. We knew our child's needs better than governmental employees and bureaucrats.

As one commenter wrote in response to the Canadian ruling:

That’s really the part that makes this whole thing insane. To order a child who would not, in the ordinary way of things, be compelled by law to attend school, into compulsory *daycare* — even if the rest of the ruling made sense, that would undo any “child’s-best-interest” rationale driving the judge’s decision. Is this a precedent for potentially requiring any family, including families whose older children do attend school, to enroll their preschool-aged children in –not just preschool, mind you, but daycare facilities, because not to do so is to neglect, criminally, a small child’s supposed social needs? This element of the case makes it not about homeschooling at all, really, but about the role parents should play in the lives of their own children. Welcome to “Supporting Cast,” Mom and Dad.
cation of a child, wanting to protect children from the external environment they perceive as bad. They have deprived the children of a proper education."