The Joke's On Us: 20 U.S.C. § 3403 : US Code - Section 3403: Relationship with States

Neal McCluskey writes how the Federal Government seems to be directing testing in the Common Core consortia.  From Saying Common Core Not Federal a Joke, but Joke’s on Us:

Last week I posted video from an American Enterprise Institute conference featuring supporters of national curriculum standards—the Common Core—dismissing concerns that implementing the standards might cost lots of taxpayer arms and legs, and laughingly brushing aside concerns that the Common Core might lead to federal control of school curricula. The latter emanated largely from Chester “Checker” Finn, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, whose organization is a leading national standards supporter.

Yesterday news came out that made clear just how serious—and unfunny—concerns about a federal takeover are. According to Education Week, the U.S. Department of Education will start a “technical review process” for the Department-selected consortia creating the national tests to go with the standards. And what will that review look at? Not compliance with accounting standards or something administrative, but test “item design and validation.” That means, most likely (in-depth information from the Department was off-line as of this writing) reviewing the specific questions that will go on the tests. And what is tested, of course, ultimately dictates what is taught, at least if the test results are to have any concrete impact, ranging from whether students advance to the next grade, to whether schools gain or lose funding. Since the ultimate point of uniform standards is to have essentially uniform accountability from state to state, they will have to have some concrete impact, rendering this a clear next step in a major Federal incursion into curricula. (MEW bolded)

Now, maybe Finn wasn’t aware of any of this last week when he blew me off with knee-slapping zingers about the U.N. taking over the Common Core, but I doubt it: according to Education Week, one of Fordham’s employees, Kathleen Porter-Magee, will be on the federal review team, as will frequent Fordham collaborator William Schmidt of Michigan State University. So either Finn is an extremely hands-off manager, or as he summoned his inner Don Rickles last week he knew very well that federal tentacles were inching even deeper into America’s schools.

Ha, ha, America. Joke’s on you.

 
 What does the law state about the Federal Government's involvement in education?  From findlaw.com:

20 U.S.C. § 3403 : US Code - Section 3403: Relationship with States

(a) Rights of local governments and educational institutions
It is the intention of the Congress in the establishment of the
Department to protect the rights of State and local governments and
public and private educational institutions in the areas of
educational policies and administration of programs and to
strengthen and improve the control of such governments and
institutions over their own educational programs and policies. The
establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the
authority of the Federal Government over education or diminish the
responsibility for education which is reserved to the States and
the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States.
(b) Curriculum, administration, and personnel; library resources
No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any
other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the
Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction,
supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of
instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational
institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency
or association, or over the selection or content of library
resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any
educational institution or school system, except to the extent
authorized by law.
(c) Funding under pre-existing programs
The Secretary shall not, during the period within eight months
after May 4, 1980, take any action to withhold, suspend, or
terminate funds under any program transferred by this chapter by
reason of the failure of any State to comply with any applicable
law requiring the administration of such a program through a single
organizational unit.

Do you remember of know of any law passed granting the Federal Government powers pertaining to those programs highlighted in yellow?  No? Then why is this "technical review process" allowed to go forward and exist?

Common Core Proponent & Foundation for Excellence Member Mitchell Chester: Let Them Eat Cake?

A nonprofit group released thousands of e-mails today and said they show how a foundation begun by Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor and national education reform leader, is working with public officials in states to write education laws that could benefit some of its corporate funders.  from washingtonpost.com

Neal McCluskey writes a most revealing article on how Common Core proponents view growing citizen questioning of the legality of Common Core standards.  From Only the Little People Oppose Common Core:

With the Common Core – national curricular standards in English and math – having been adopted by 45 states, it seems Core supporters’ heads might be getting a bit big. Or, at least, they are starting to more openly express their feelings that Core opponents are very small. Like “little people” who pay taxes small.

The reputed Leona Helmsley quote is, actually, highly apropos for the view expressed by Mitchell Chester, education commissioner for the state of Massachusetts, at a recent AEI conference on implementation and governance of the Common Core. At the end of a session in which, alas, there was a fair amount of contempt expressed for supposedly conspiracy-theorizing Core opponents, Chester gratuitously threw in a small diatribe excoriating anyone who would object to the Core based on its cost. Keep in mind, reasonable estimates of the cost of fully bringing on Common Core hit as high as $16 billion.

Start at the 1:10:00 mark to hear Chester say, essentially, if it will help kids, people simply have no “right” to object to the Common Core based on costs.

See the video and read more here. 



Who is Mitchell Chester who doesn't think taxpayers have a right to object to Common Core, even as the same taxpayers are mandated to pay for it?  He's education commissioner for Massachusetts but his connections to the education reform community run deep.  He's also a member of the Foundation for Excellence.  From excelined.org:

Dr. Chester began his career as an elementary school teacher in Connecticut.  He was a middle school assistant principal and a district curriculum coordinator.  He has served in multiple leadership roles, including Chief of the Bureau of Curriculum and Instructional Programs for the Connecticut State Department of Education, Executive Director for Accountability and Assessment for the School District of Philadelphia and Senior Associate Superintendent for Policy and Accountability for the Ohio Department of Education.  Dr. Chester holds a doctorate in Administration, Planning, and Social Policy from Harvard University, as well as advanced degrees from the University of Connecticut and the University of Hartford.

It's no wonder Dr. Chester would make such remarks to Neal McCluskey.  Foundation for Excellence is Jeb Bush's organization pushing various education reforms that take away state/local decisions for the educational development/delivery for students.  Think of it as one big elite think tank developing reforms for us little people.

The Washington Post uncovered emails between the Foundation for Excellence and education officials clearly showing a run around of legislative process for state educational reforms.  Now you know why Dr. Chester would show such disdain for the taxpayers who pay for these programs.  They are necessary for funding but for planning and implementation purposes they should be invisible:

The e-mails are between the Foundation for Excellence in Education (FEE) and a group Bush set up called Chiefs for Change, whose members are current and former state education commissioners who support Bush’s agenda of school reform, which includes school choice, online education, retention of third-graders who can’t read and school accountability systems based on standardized tests. That includes evaluating teachers based on student test scores and grading schools A-F based on test scores. John White of Louisiana is a current member, as is Tony Bennett, the new commissioner of Florida who got the job after Indiana voters rejected his Bush-style reforms last November and tossed him out of office.

Donald Cohen, chair of the nonprofit In the Public Interest, a resource center on privatization and responsible for contracting in the public sector, said the e-mails show how education companies that have been known to contribute to the foundation are using the organization “to move an education agenda that may or not be  in our interests but are in theirs.”

He said companies ask the foundation to help state officials pass laws and regulations that make it easier to expand charter schools, require students to take online education courses, and do other things that could result in business and profits for them. The e-mails show, Cohen said, that Bush’s foundation would often do this with the help of Chiefs for Change and other affiliated groups.

 
 

Another Article on the Fallacy of Parent Trigger being Considered School "Choice"

Neal McCluskey of Cato eloquently states why the parent trigger option the ed reformers tout as school "choice" falls short.  From "Power Yes, Trigger No":

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

Posted by Neal McCluskey

 

There is little question that parents have too little power in elementary and secondary education. In fact, they have almost no power: they can vote, but are otherwise usually relegated to being class moms, or holding bake sales, or some other fluffy “involvement” that gives them no real say over how their children are educated. Adding insult to injury, that doesn’t often stop professional educators from blaming parents when students don’t do so well.

To remedy the problem, the trendy thing seems to be “parent trigger” laws that would, generally speaking, allow a majority of parents at a school declare that they want to fire the staff, or bring in a private management company, or some other transformation. It’s been the spark behind some especially heated conflicts in California, as unions and parents of different stripes have been doing battle with each other. It is also the subject of a New York Times “Room for Debate” exchange today.

While I sympathize—obviously—with those who advocate giving parents more power, I cannot help but conclude that the parent trigger is a very poor way to do this. For one thing, it is inherently divisive: what about the 49 percent, or 30 percent, or whatever percent of parents who don’t want the changes the majority demands? They’ve got no choice but to fight it out with their neighbors. It is also inefficient: individual children need all sorts of options to best meet their unique needs and abilities, but the trigger would just exchange one monolithic school model for another.

The trigger, quite simply, is no substitute for real educational freedom: giving parents control of education funds, giving educators freedom to establish myriad options, and letting freedom, competition and specialization rein. (emphasis added by MEW)

There is, however, one gratifying thing about the parent trigger: it has made historian Diane Ravitch—who constantly decries the destruction of “democracy” were we to have educational freedom—express outrage about ”51 percent of people using a public service hav[ing] the power to privatize it.”

Um, isn’t majority rule what democracy is all about? Or do government schooling defenders really just invoke the term because it sounds so nice and is such a potent rhetorical club?

The answer, it seems, is getting more clear.

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

A MEW thought: substitute the word "charters" for the bolded sentences above.  Charters don't offer the education freedoms the triggers don't offer either.  Charters and triggers are still public schools under public school mandates.  What choice is that?

Common Core Standards, ALEC, Jeb Bush and the "Frozen People" (American Taxpayers and Citizens)

At the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) meeting in New Orleans this past week, Jeb Bush's "progressive conservative" organization squashed effective discussion between legislators who wanted to discuss slowing down/stopping implementation of common core standards. Neal McCluskey writes:

In this space, we’ve been telling you about a few efforts in state legislatures to complicate adoption or implementation of common standards … A move that had the potential to involve many states unfolded last week in New Orleans, but was stopped in its tracks. And none other than former Fla. Gov. Jeb Bush, revered by many conservatives, was involved in stopping it.

The Education Week report links to a letter that Mr. Bush sent to a subcommittee of the American Legislative Exchange Council that was slated to simply take up discussion of model legislation opposing national standards. Mr. Bush urged members to table the proposal. In other words, he urged them to not even talk about it, because apparently even considering that the Common Core might have dangerous downsides should be avoided, even among people who believe in individualism and liberty. (emphasis added)


McCluskey posted a follow-up article ("School Snatchers Invasion Confirmed!") about what happened in the meeting:

Yesterday, I blogged about a letter from Jeb Bush reportedly causing a subcommittee of the American Legislative Exchange Council to table model legislation opposing national standards. Subsequent to my writing that, a follow-up Education Week post reported that debate wasn’t, in fact, quashed by Bush’s letter. Unfortunately, it appears consideration was postponed for another reason: Most state legislators have no idea what’s going on with national standards:

“Legislators have heard of it, but not a whole lot of states engage legislators in discussion of the common core,” said [John Locke Foundation education analyst Terry] Stoops, who describes himself as a common-core opponent. “Some wanted to know more about it, because state education agencies or state boards of education didn’t give them much information, if any, on the common core.”

If this is accurate, it confirms exactly what I’ve been saying for months: Despite being told that the national standards drive is “state-led,” the people’s representatives have been frozen out of it. Worse, it suggests that national-standardizers’ strategy of sneaking standards in is working. (emphasis added)

After I reposted McCluskey's article, a reader asked me what could we do in our state to get rid of these common core standards? Based on McCluskey's report, here is what needs to be done. The legislators need to be educated on what these standards entail, how they have been left out of the process by their state education boards, and the enormous amount of debt this will cost their state:

• Determine which legislators are members of ALEC and contact them with your concerns.
• Provide them with information on common core standards from this non-partisan (and non-corporate sponsored) website: www.truthinamericaneducation.com
  
• Ask the ALEC legislators why he/she would support such progressive and centralized mandates as common core standards. They do not allow local control and are being pushed through via federal funding enticements and are the plans of Arne Duncan and the Obama administration.
• Ask the ALEC legislators why Jeb Bush is supporting the Obama administration's vision for education?
• Ask the ALEC legislators why Jeb Bush doesn't want a debate on the standards?
  
• Ask the ALEC legislators how common core standards are constitutional?
• Ask the ALEC legislators how common core standards involve parents, taxpayers and communities?
• And perhaps most importantly: ask the ALEC legislators how these educational mandates are different from the Obamacare mandates? Both create centralized control and power and diminish state and individual rights.
  

In in fact ALEC is dedicated to Jeffersonian principles, Common Core standards are antithetical to those principles and the members of this organization should call for action to dismantle adoption and implementation in December. And perhaps members such as Jeb Bush and the education reform organizations should be schooled in the Constitution they hold up as a guide.

Aren't you weary of being frozen out of the process of educating your children, paying your taxes, and having no voice? It's time to expose progressive conservatives for what they are: elitists who have no interest in a representative republic.

Why Is a Debate on Common Core Standards being Quashed and Delayed by Jeb Bush?

From Neal McCluskey at Cato:

A primer on lack of educational transparency and the unconstitutionality of common core standards.

Debate on common core standards has been tabled at this time.

Aren't you becoming weary of your tax money being spent and providing your children for governmental programs....and you have no voice? Is this an example of a totalitarian democracy?

I Love Neal McCluskey's Observations on Twitter

As seen on Twitter:

@NealMcCluskey Neal McCluskey

When's my "off-the-record chat" with Arne Duncan? http://t.co/Klp4oii I blog, and I'm interested in "clever" waivers:http://t.co/O2oSXnB

McCluskey's remarks remind me of the Educational Roundtable Talks this year with Claire McCaskill.

I guess parents and taxpayers shouldn't take it personally. It's our totalitarian democracy at its finest.

When Up is Down, Down is Up, and Laws Don't Mean a Thing...

I chuckled when I read Neal McCluskey's latest piece "Not in This Dimension". He questions The Fordham Institute's logic on how national curriculum really doesn't encroach on state and local authority:

Contrary to popular belief (especially in some Tea Party circles), a national curriculum, done properly, does not threaten local control. As we learn in this story, plenty of folks, including Randi Weingarten and our own Checker Finn, have signed on to a “common curriculum,” which its proponents say will constitute only about half of a school’s “academic time.”

McCluskey rightly notes that by definition forcing local districts to use national standards must threaten local control. Indeed, it must not only threaten it, it must actually defeat it. And this is in no way changed by the curriculum having to account for "only about half" of a school's time: Hours formerly controlled locally are now controlled nationally, which is inescapably a major incursion on local control.

I chuckled when McCluskey describes the twisted logic put forth by Fordham as:

Maybe in some dimension white is black, black is white, and ants are really walruses. But in this dimension, as far as I know, the laws of reality and logic must still apply -- even to national curriculum standards.

His description of the definition of when national control "really" isn't national control shows the absurdity of Fordham's statement. Not only do the laws of reality and logic NOT apply in the world of Fordham thought, it doesn't apply when Federal law specifically states the Federal Government cannot set national curriculum. This 1979 document, Department of Education Organization Act, Public Law 96-98, Section 103(b) states:

No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law.

Has the law been overturned regarding curriculum control? Did we miss that overturning of that particular law? When Race to the Top and common core standards were touted by the administration, the National Governor's Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, states were assured the standards were state led initiatives and assessments and would not lead to a national curriculum. Curriculum was never to be a Federal responsibility. From the myths and facts subset on the CCSSI website:

Myth: These Standards amount to a national curriculum for our schools.

Fact: The Standards are not a curriculum. They are a clear set of shared goals and expectations for what knowledge and skills will help our students succeed. Local teachers, principals, superintendents and others will decide how the standards are to be met. Teachers will continue to devise lesson plans and tailor instruction to the individual needs of the students in their classrooms. (pg 4)

Based on the comments from Fordham advocating national curriculum and the blatant disregard of existing federal law, the laws of reality and logic no longer apply. Perhaps the CCSSI website needs to be amended. Or then again, maybe not. We have truly entered an alternate universe: white is black, black is white, and ants are really walruses.

Call Us Crazy. ..but the Words and the Intentions are Clear. A Nationalized Curriculum Coming Soon to a School Near You?

Last night we wrote about disappearing local school district curricula. Where is the local control of curriculum going? It is being aligned along the P20 spectrum into the postsecondary education level per the "P20 Curriculum Alignment Steering Committee" from the Missouri Department of Higher Education.

Tonight let's look at another step down the road toward the takeover of education by the Federal government. Neal McCluskey from Cato has a terrific article about the national standards coming soon to a school near you:


Hey, National Curriculum Standardizers: Stop Lying to Us!
Posted by Neal McCluskey

Today, a group of seventy-five national-standards crusaders released a manifesto calling for "shared curriculum guidelines" to accompany the Common Core State Standards. But don't worry, the petitioners assure us, "use of the kinds of curriculum guidelines that we advocate in the core academic subjects would be purely voluntary."

Oh please, please -- stop lying to us!

Here's the only absolutely clear thing that we've learned so far from the national standards push: Leading national standardizers do not want adoption of their plans to be truly voluntary.

Sure, they talk about creating mere "guidelines," and states being free to choose what they'll use, but they know reality full well: Whatever Washington connects to federal money becomes de facto mandatory, and they most certainly want their guidelines riveted to federal bucks.

Don't believe me? Look no further than the federal Race to the Top program, which required that states adopt what for much of the time were unpublished national standards in order to meaningfully compete for part of $4.35 billion in federal dough.

"But wait", standards mavens assert. "We didn't ask for that and we really regret that the administration federalized our warm-and-fuzzy voluntary effort."

Sorry, no dice. Many of these same people had been calling for federal funds to push national standards before there ever was a Race to the Top, or even an official Obama administration. In December 2008, national standards advocates put out Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring Students Receive a World-class Education, which among other things called for Washington to "offer a range of tiered incentives to make the next stage of the journey [toward national standards] easier."

In this latest assault on honesty, the national standards crowd has done it again. You have to read their entire statement, but at the bottom you'll find words that make it clear that "the undersigned" have no intention of having adoption of their guidelines be truly voluntary. They want Washington forcing states to eat the new curricula if states want back some of the money that came involuntarily from their citizens. The last of their "recommendations" calls for:

7. Increasing federal investments in implementation support, in comparative international studies related to curriculum and instruction, and in evaluations aimed at finding the most effective curriculum sequences, curriculum materials, curricular designs, and instructional strategies.

You want this to be truly voluntary? Then you'd better keep federal money, especially for such things as "implementation support," out of it. But by all indications national standardizers don't want this to be truly voluntary. They just want us thinking they do.

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

Remember the "recommendation" McCluskey refers to above...just wait until you see what is in the Memorandum of Understanding Jay Nixon (Governor) and Chris Nicastro (Commissioner of Education) signed in August 2009 for acceptance of the Common Core Standards. It truly is a federal takeover of education based on the memorandum. We'll be posting on exactly what Missouri signed away to the Federal Government in a couple of days.

Stranger than Fiction: "I Know Better than You" Education Crowd (Choice Architects) vs the Right...AND the Left?

When you've even lost the liberals supporting the direction and intent of a left leaning governmental program, it might be wise to dismantle it and start over. Or just dismantle the whole department...such as the Department of Education. The right has consistently been clamoring for the abolishment of this department as it has not instituted mandates or programs that have made any difference in students' achievement scores in four decades. Move over and make room on this abolishment bandwagon for additional educational advocates...from the left.

Here's an excellent article by Neal McCluskey of Cato in which he gives us information on the left's disillusionment with Race to the Top and other mandates:

What’s not nearly so well known is that there are also people on the left who dislike ED. Now, they don’t dislike it because it and the programs it administers clearly exist in contravention of the Constitution, or because its massive dollar-redistribution programs have done no discernable good. They dislike it because, especially since the advent of No Child Left Behind, it strong-arms schools into doing things left-wing educators often disagree with or resent, like pushing phonics over whole language, or imposing standardized testing. Many also truly believe in local control of schools, though often with power consolidated in the hands of teachers.

George Wood, director of the Forum for Education and Democracy makes some excellent points on why the Federal Government's intrusion into mandating 100% of policy is disastrous:

Everybody dislikes bureaucracies, but for different reasons. The “right” complains they are unresponsive, full of “feather-bedders,” and a waste of taxpayer money. The “left” complains they are unresponsive, full of people who are too busy pushing paper to see the real work, and too intrusive into local, democratic decision-making. Maybe we should unite all this new energy for making government more responsive and efficient around the idea of eliminating a bureaucracy that was probably a bad idea in the first place.

Mr. Wood is correct in his many of his observations in the original Washington Post piece. Even the left is getting tired of the "choice architects" behind these educational policies:

It might be viewed as peculiar for someone who values education to be arguing for what has often been a very conservative position. I know I will hear responses that education is a national issue and is too important to be left to states and locales. But this has always been the argument of the “I know better than you” crowd, and it’s time we stop buying into that logic. The fact is that the federal government has demonstrated time and time again it does not know better when it comes to our schools.

Question: When you've lost the right and the left and both agree it doesn't help the children it's allegedly trying to help, why continue such a flawed and unconstitutional mandate? Perhaps this is the time to launch real pushbacks in our state and federal legislatures against the total control of the Department of Education. McCluskey writes:

...now is the time to launch a serious offensive against the U.S. Department of Education. I have largely concluded that because of the wave of generally conservative and libertarian legislators heading toward Washington, as well as the powerful tea-party spirit powering the tide. But this is a battle I have always thought could be fought with a temporary alliance of the libertarian right and educators of the progressive left who truly despise top-down, one-size-fits-all, dictates from Washington.

It's time to share this information with your Republican AND Democratic representatives and senators, on the state and national level. The people detest it. The system loves it.

This is a lesson I learned a long time ago: the system protects the system. It doesn't protect the individual. It's time to garner our forces from the left and right and dismantle this monstrosity of legislation and centralized federal power grab.

Calls for Abolishment of the Department of Education Continue

You may have read one of our latest blogs about a teacher in the trenches and Neal McCluskey, Cato Education writer, agreeing the Department of Education should be abolished:

http://missourieducationwatchdog.blogspot.com/2010/08/teacher-and-cato-institute-hit-bullseye.html

Here we have another viewpoint from New York state and the National Review Online:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/244804/race-nowhere-john-derbyshire

Some of Derbyshire's ideas are tongue-in-cheek, but he raises good points. The same points our teacher and McCluskey made in their statements. Not all students are college material, mandating standards is not wise, more funding does not guarantee success, and we don't have the money to implement these programs. Oh, one more tiny problem...it's not constitutional.

Is anybody in Washington listening? The chatter is becoming increasingly louder and more strident.

A Teacher and Cato Institute Hit the Bullseye Dissecting the Department of Education

I came across this article from Cato, originally published in October 2009. We are witnessing the largest power grab attempt by the Federal Government in state education through RTTT, common core standards, and federal teacher bailouts. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Let's look at what Neal McCluskey, Cato education writer has to say about the Federal Government's foray into education in 2009 and where we are today:





http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/federal-education-results-prove-the-framers-right/





The basic question McCluskey asks is "what is the proper Federal in education"? His answer: "The proper federal role is no role, because the Constitution gives the feds no authority over American education". This gives constitutionalists a thrill up their legs. It should. He's right.



Read and think about what he is saying...study the graph he provides and just let it soak into your brain...the TREMENDOUS amount of spending the Federal Government has poured into schools for FLAT learning results.





So, what does a teacher in the classroom have to do with Neal McCluskey and his theories?





Below is an excerpt from a teacher in a public school setting responding to questions on what was not working at the public schools. I won't tell you where this teacher is located, he/she could be anywhere in the United States. This scenario is what the Department of Education wants for the teachers and students? These mandates will not help our students excel in the "global environment" or increase test scores. Neal McCluskey believes it; the teacher lives it.

This teacher has been operating under "No Child Left Behind" standards. Teachers generally don't like these standards, as you will read below. NCLB is about to be replaced with even more mandates from the Obama administration which will cost more millions, create new testing protocol, and will throw the educational system into even more chaos.


Words from a teacher in the trenches:
*********************************************************************************************************************************



Let me first say I am for abolishing the federal Department of Education. According to the 10th Amendment, education is a state issue. Nearly every single federal program handed down to me by politicians who know extremely little of education not only harms teachers, but more importantly harms kids.


Bush's No Child Left Behind is a perfect example. According to this law, every child has to read on-grade level. This mandate points out the fact politicians know nothing of education. I am an extremely optimistic person, but it is simply a fact that you cannot possibly get every child to read on grade level. Some kids simply cannot do it. Some kids are not intellectually ready for it. Some kids have an extremely difficult home life and are more worried about their daily survival than learning how to read. However, it sounds so good coming from the president and our heroic legislators, doesn't it? They're requiring teachers to get every child on grade-level.


This is my single biggest frustration as a teacher. Here's why: Two and a half hours are taken out of my instruction time a week so that I can teach 5 to 6 elementary students out of a total of about 60 how to read. All other students are given low-quality instruction. This is not completely the fault of the teachers. We are given NO time during contract hours to prepare lessons for the low achieving students OR the other 55 students. I work with our low students and because I accept nothing less than my best, I spend additional non-contracts hours making lessons for the low achieving students. However, most teachers will not do that. As a result, the rest of the 55 kids receive substandard instruction that oftentimes includes a worksheet.



So, does Bush's NCLB plan work? After working with my 5 students last year, they did improve; baby steps I would say. But, they will never read on grade level. So, their baby steps were at the expense of the 55 other students. Sounds like liberalism, eh? Nobody is allowed to achieve and we have to devote all energies to our low kids. Don't get me wrong, we SHOULD help ALL of our students, but, if I was given that 2 and a half hours back, I could MUCH more effectively help every SINGLE student in my classroom.

Common Core Standards --- I oppose these mostly because they are federally mandated. (Yes, states can choose to adopt them, but the fed are dangling money in front of the states who are cash strapped. Unfortunately the dollar signs win out over values (except in states like Texas and Alaska). We already have standards in my state. They're called Grade-Level Expectations and Course Level Expectations. Our standards in my state are among the very best. Many states model their standards after ours….so we adopted the standards and here's what going to happen. Our standards will be thrown out, we spends MILLIONS of dollars re-writing standardized tests, re-educating teachers on new standards that are not needed. Districts have to spend MILLIONS Of dollars re-writing curriculum and districts tests that were based on the old standards…ETC…the list goes on and on. Common Core Standards have absolutely nothing to do with accountability. We are already held accountable at the state level where, constitutionally speaking, it should be. Common Core Standards are, in my opinion, unconstitutional and a colossal waste of tax-payer money.



***********************************************************************************
You've heard from Neal McCluskey and a teacher. This teacher is living the reality McCluskey writes about. They have the same message.

What do you think? Do you have faith in more mandates and more programming from the Department of Education? If "No Child Left Behind" did not succeed, why should this new plan be any different? Who is benefiting financially from the rewritten tests, curriculum, and the need for synchronized data systems? Do you believe this is for the benefit of the students or could it be for other interests?



If you study the FACTS of the Department of Education's directing of curriculum, you have to come to the conclusion this intrusion into states' rights has been an abject failure. Again, study the graph. That graph provides stark answers to the questions above. Come ask Neal McCluskey on September 10, 2010 YOUR education questions in St. Louis:

http://guest.cvent.com/EVENTS/Info/Agenda.aspx?e=f86d0fb0-351c-4bb5-a23a-100ad569f2d9

Missouri Education Watchdog will be there. We hope Neal can give us some advice on how to stem this disaster known as the Department of Education.