Massachusetts Legislators Raise Concern about Common Core Standards Adoption

The Massachusetts Legislature is the latest state legislative body, along with Utah and New Hampshire, to question the wisdom of signing onto to Common Core standards. Here is the article from The Beverly Citizen:

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

For a stretch during the gubernatorial campaign last summer, the decision by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to adopt a new set of national Common Core school curriculum standards sparked a heated back and forth between the candidates over whether the state was retreating from MCAS.

That debate, which fizzled with the election, could be reignited on Beacon Hill this session with a bill filed by Rep. Todd Smola that would override the board’s vote through legislation and retain the MCAS assessment system based on the state’s current curricula.

Smola, a Palmer Republican, did not take a strong position for or against the bill Tuesday, saying he filed it at the request of the Tantasqua Regional School Committee.

“I certainly think it’s something that needs review,” Smola told the News Service. “The general concerns are still there and still very vaild whether or not we made the right decision here in Massachusetts to adopt Common Core standards. I think it would be different if Massachusetts were at the bottom of the pack, but we’re at the top.”

Smola said he had less than 48 hours to review the bill before he filed it, and admitted he did not have a chance to have lawyers review the language to determine whether the Legislature had the authority to overturn a BESE vote.

“We will work that out as time progresses, and at the very least if it can call attention to this issue then all the better,” Smola said.

The implementation of the national Common Core standards will ultimately force Massachusetts education officials to realign its MCAS testing to the new curriculum.

Critics, including Baker, former gubernatorial candidate and state Treasurer Tim Cahill, and officials from the Pioneer Institute question why state education leaders would move away from the gains made under MCAS and the 1993 education reform law that propelled Massachusetts students to the top ranking on many national scorecards.

Gov. Deval Patrick announced Tuesday that Massachusetts 4th graders tied for first nationally in science performance and 8th graders tied for second on the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress.

The vote to sign on to the Common Core initiative, encouraged by the Obama administration, played a role in the state’s successful application for $250 million in federal Race to the Top education funding.

“Are we doing it for the money or are we doing it because it puts Massachusetts’ best foot forward. I think a lot of people are still asking that question and it deserves a stem-to-stern review,” Smola said.

The Department of Education could not immediately be reached for comment.

Most states have adopted the Common Core standards and the state standards initiative says the goal is to “provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy.”

The state Board of Education last December voted to incorporate the national standards into the state's public education curricula, with plans to fully weave the standards into English and math testing by 2013.

Gov. Deval Patrick has said he would not have supported the standards if they were not at least as rigorous as the state’s current curriculum frameworks.

State Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester has called the standards "strong, comprehensive, and rigorous, reflecting the best thinking of educators in Massachusetts as well as nationally." He called the standards "the foundation upon which the primary work of our schools - curriculum and instruction - is based."

Department of Elementary and Secondary Education officials say schools will first be asked to emphasize the standards that overlap with Massachusetts's existing curriculum and to begin phasing out standards that will eventually be eliminated. By 2012, school districts will be asked to fold in new standards into their framework, and by 2013 or 2014, those standards would be reflected on the MCAS, Massachusetts primary standardized test.

Copyright 2011 Beverly Citizen. Some rights reserved

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

EduWeek comments on this move by the Massachusetts Legislature and notes some Democrats are also concerned about the loss of state control.

Where do Missouri legislators stand on this issue?

Is the Acceptance of Common Core Standards All About Money? It Isn't about Preserving State Sovereignty.

We recently gave a talk about education, common core standards adopted in Missouri, and the ramifications of this decision. We received a comment from someone in attendance and wanted to share his point of view:

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

By now, we should all know that there really is no such thing as a free lunch, even at a public school. However, have you ever wondered what we really give up for all that “free” stuff from the federal government?

The real deal is that we agree to exchange our sovereignty for their dollars. If you have never been forced to read the “Other Certifications and Assurances” that state and local governments cede when they sign off on federal grants, you might be surprised by what we agree to do for money ( or maybe not ). Here are a few examples directly from page 5 of Missouri’s unsuccessful Race to the Top application:

Other Assurances and Certifications

The Governor or his/her authorized representative assures or certifies the following:

The State will comply with all applicable assurances in OMB Standard Forms 424B (Assurances for Non-Construction Programs) and to the extent consistent with the State’s application, OMB Standard Form 424D (Assurances for Construction Programs), including the assurances relating to the legal authority to apply for assistance; access to records; conflict of interest; merit systems; nondiscrimination; Hatch Act provisions; labor standards; flood hazards; historic preservation; protection of human subjects; animal welfare; lead-based paint; Single Audit Act; and the general agreement to comply with all applicable Federal laws, executive orders and regulations.

.

Most of these additional “Other Certifications and Assurances” also have little to do with the original purpose of the grant application. The Feds insert this type of language into all federal grants. This contractual language provides a fail-safe way to twist our arms into “voluntary” compliance with un-Constitutional federal initiatives. Failing to comply with these provisions simultaneously jeopardizes funding for many federally-sponsored activities.

Some Missourians may think that ceding sovereignty is a small price to pay for education reform. Perhaps, but I cannot understand the motivation of any liberty-inclined conservative who would willingly relinquish sovereignty at the state, local, or personal level to accept national standards, the so-called Common Core Standards, for education. I can only assume the motivation to accept these Common Core Standards has some relation to these “Other Certifications and Assurances” made in exchange for federal funding for education or other purposes.

I understand Missouri’s acceptance of these Common Core Standards in math and was made by members of the State Board of Education and was not made directly by our political leadership. But the Board’s actions still require the consent of the governed. Do liberty-inclined conservatives consent to this? Do we really think this national, metric-centric approach to education reform will enhance liberty and its companion, innovation?

If there is some liberty-inclined-conservative reason, other than money, to relinquish sovereignty and to accept these standards, I’d sure like to hear it.

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

We echo our guest editor's last sentence. Why is our State Legislature willing to relinquish sovereignty by accepting these standards? We didn't like the Federal Government directing our health care; why is our Legislature making no effort to block this takeover of the educational sector? Why won't our legislators address these questions?

"School Choice Week " Kickoff in the Missouri Legislature and Education Bill Updates

Here is a report on the conversation about school choice with the legislators on Monday from OzarksFirst.com:

Bills tying teacher tenure to student performance and expanding educational options for students with developmental disabilities outside of the public school system, as well as those addressing open enrollment, social promotion, (and) charter school expansion were announced in a news conference today at the Capitol. The group tied its announcement to National School Choice Week, sponsored locally by the Children's Education Council of Missouri.

Rep. Tishaura Jones, D-St. Louis, will sponsor legislation that will allow charter schools to be established outside the St. Louis and Kansas City school districts.

According to a recent DESE study, charter school performance has been mixed, but Jones believes the concept can help students all around the state.

This bill will give superintendents and school boards another tool in their tool box to help their students," Jones said, noting schools could be set up with a specific focus, such as the arts, agriculture or drop-out recovery.

Representative Tishaura Jones may have a great idea for charters, but I see no language in any proposed bill exempting charters from common core standards. Charters focusing on arts, agriculture or drop-out recovery wouldn't seem as if they should be structured to the public school common core mandates, and as schools using public money fall under these mandates, charters would fall under these standards. This is an important issue legislators need to address before expanding charters. I also wonder why legislators are promoting charters to the extent they are when they themselves use a DESE study stating charters have mixed performance.


In the meantime, here are the educational bills currently listed via Homeschool United so you can see additional bills not addressed in today's press conference:

As you are reviewing these bills, ask yourself: Do these bills promote local and parental control AND do they reduce spending?

SB13 - Requires the Joint Committee on Education to oversee a task force on teacher compensation and effectiveness.

Status: Hearing scheduled for 1/26/2011 – Education Committee

SB14 - Requires the State Board of Education to establish criteria for the transfer of students from an unaccredited school district to an accredited district in the same or an adjoining county.

Status: Received its second reading on 1/12/2011 and advanced to the Education Committee

SB20 - Modifies the compulsory attendance age for the St. Louis City School District so that students must attend school from five years of age to eighteen years of age

Status: Received its second reading on 1/12/2011 and advanced to the Education Committee

SB21 - Requires kindergarten attendance at the start of the school year for children who turn age five at any time during the calendar year

Status: Received its second reading on 1/12/2011 and advanced to the Education Committee

HJR10 - Proposes a constitutional amendment removing the current ban on providing state funding to educational facilities controlled by religious organizations

Status: Introduced and read on 1/18/2011. Received its second reading on 1/19/2011.

Watch SB13, SB14 and HJR10. They are crucial to teacher compensation, addressing open enrollment issues and advancing Educated Citizenry 2020. HJR10 may also invoke vouchers in Missouri.

SB 129 --- Sponsor: Lembke, Jim

Exempts the St. Louis City School District from the requirement that it pay tuition and transportation for students who attend an accredited school under certain circumstances

SB 128 --- Sponsor: Lembke, Jim

Allows the mayor of the City of St. Louis to be a charter school sponsor

SB 124 --- Sponsor: Keaveny, Joseph

Requires children in the St. Louis City School District to attend school at age five

SB 123 --- Sponsor: Keaveny, Joseph

Allows foreign language immersion charter schools to enroll four-year-old children

SB 99 --- Sponsor: Chappelle-Nadal, Maria

Modifies provisions relating to elementary and secondary education

HB179 Raised compulsory school age to 18

http://house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB%20179&year=2011&code=R

Republican Utah Senators Understand Common Core Standards are Akin to Health Care Mandates: They Take Away State Control

Some legislators in Utah are having second thoughts about the common core standards that State Board of Education signed onto according to the Salt-Lake Tribune:

State education leaders decided last year to adopt new academic standards in an effort to better prepare students for college and the work force.

But now some lawmakers want State Board of Education members to reconsider adopting those standards out of concern that Utah might be losing some local control over education by doing so.

The Senate Majority Caucus passed a motion Tuesday asking the House Majority to join it in sending a letter to the state board asking it to reconsider adopting the new standards in place of Utah’s current ones, said Senate Majority Whip Wayne Niederhauser. The standards outline the concepts students should learn in each grade in math and language arts.

A State Board member who signed onto the standards said:

“I think there’s a misunderstanding that somehow the Common Core are federal standards,” Thomas said. “They’re not federal standards.”

I imagine this might be the same response from one of our Board members. Technically, they are not federal standards at this time, however, the standard writing funding process is partially federally funded and states take a risk by not signing onto the standards as Title 1 money will be withheld. The Federal Government has its hooks into the states with these standards.

The Utah senators are trying to slow down the process to determine:

• exactly what are in the standards the Board agreed to for the students and school districts
• how much these standards are going to cost when implemented
• if the Federal Government mandates are binding
• determining if Utah has any control over these new standards, i.e., "local control"

Maybe the Utah senators want to know exactly what's in the standards before they are implemented. Does that sound familiar? Regardless of your stance on the Health Care legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president, legislators should have known what was in the bill before they signed it. The Utah legislators apparently are in the same boat in as Missouri legislators. Signing on to the common core standards was decided by the appointed State Board members. It is no excuse, however, for Missouri legislators to tell voters they can't do anything about that decision.

They can do plenty to stop common core standards becoming the law in Missouri:

• They can refuse to fund the unfunded costs (probably in the millions) incurred in implementing the standards;
• They can write detailed legislation exempting public schools, charters, virtual, private and home schools from any current and future common core mandates;
• They can amend the Constitution and give the power back to the Legislature for educational decisions.

The Missouri Legislature needs to take a play card from the Utah Legislature. Here are the quotes from the article that sum up the arguments of the 10th Amendment and the constitutional responsibility of the state:

“We’ve got a pig in a poke,” Buttars said. “We don’t know what we’ve got a hold of, yet we’ve been committed to it.”

Niederhauser, R-Sandy, said the caucus mostly was concerned about making sure Utah has control over its standards.

“We want to be able to reflect in our core standards what we teach in Utah, what Utah wants to teach and not what people from other places want to teach,” Niederhauser said. “That might match up in a lot of ways, but we want to be able to have control over that.”

Haven't we learned enough from the Health Care debacle (we need to pass it so we can know what is in it) to say "NO" to this educational decision giving away our right to teach our own state curriculum? Our legislators were tenacious in crafting state health care legislation exempting Missouri citizens from federal health care mandates. It is time for them to step up to the plate and do the same on these educational mandates that take away state choice of curriculum.

Who Controls Education? Missouri Education Watchdog is roadtripping to Jefferson City to ask the legislators.

Missouri Education Watchdog supporters are driving to Jefferson City on Wednesday, September 15. We'll be meeting at the Capitol at 9:00 AM and will deliver a "talking points" memo to the legislators prior to their veto session about the educational reform burning its way through our state.

We want to inform our legislators about the insidious control the Federal government is wielding in Missouri. Watch this excellent video from Kansas Watchdog, and the conversation by the State Board of Kansas members regarding Race to the Top and federal mandates:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOQaTMvsyuY

Did you hear the phrases from these board members? They don't want to become enslaved to the Federal Government; they were concerned about common core standards; these issues were never brought to the voters; these mandates are not sustainable and once the money is spent, it is gone; they did not want to lost local control; parents should help control the student's education; the Federal Government supports 6.4% of the state's budget, yet it controls almost everything the State Board does; the State Board ought to be driving the education process and the State Board is the elected body to perform that duty.



The amount of state control the Missouri State Board of Education has turned over to the Federal government in the last few months is unprecedented. Our Commissioner proudly touts the "Vision for Missouri Public Education", a pseudonym for Race to the Top, which cedes control of state education to the Federal government. She already successfully supported the signing of the common core standards, one of the primary objectives of Race to the Top:

http://www.visionformopublicschools.org/

The state legislature currently has no control in appropriating the Federal funding given to the state for teacher bailouts and common core assessments. Do we even want to accept this money? There is serious concern that by accepting it, the state will incur even more unfunded debt. Additionally, the money is given for mandates from the Federal government, and decisions on education funding is determined by the Department of Education, NOT your elected state officials. And by the way, our State Board is appointed by the governor, and it apparently feels no reason to answer to citizen concerns as the Kansas State Board of Education deems necessary.



We will visit every senator and representative next Wednesday to alert them to the current state of affairs in Missouri education land. We will be urging them to override Governor Nixon's veto of the bill which stated all federal funding would be subject to the Legislature's appropriations process.



Why did Governor Nixon veto this bill? Why doesn't he want our legislators to have say in how the funds are to be spent? The lack of financial transparency and power grabbing by Governor Nixon, the State Board of Education, and the Department of Education is absolutely stunning.



Come join us. Make a difference. Drop me a line at stlgretchen-at-gmail-dOt-com. We'll give directions to our meeting place and we'll plan to see you next Wednesday.