Tag Archives: Common Core development team

How Common Standards & Data Collection Became Our Common Problem

Posted on by
Reply

Our common problem with test-based reforms began long ago.

Sold on the idea that common standards will benefit the nation economically, the public — not most teachers, not most parents — the public assisted in the adoption of Common Core National Standards. Together, we created a common problem.

Does the public know who owns them? Do we understand how much data is collected, where that data goes, and what it is and will be used for? And, is it vulnerable to abuse and misuse?

Please look closely at the who, what, and why of Common Core. The safety of children’s data demands we get answers. The answers —the truth— are why The Common Core “State” Initiative must be dismantled.

Who was at the Common Core development table?

On the official Common Core development team, there were numerous people associated with corporate information systems specialists. Information systems companies that already manage our national energy and defense information, data collection, and data mining were represented. That should give us pause.

Does the public approve of private industry holding student information AND being such an integral part of developing “THE” standards upon which the WHOLE public education system will function?

What are the plans for student and teacher data?

Many of the people at the Common Core table also sat on board of directors for Morgan Stanley, Smith Barney, Lehman Brothers, and were associated with Goldman Sachs Foundation. Remember the “too-big-to-fail” financiers? Recall – THEY DID FAIL!

Their failures wreaked havoc on our economy. Then, they ended up sitting on the Core standards development team along with testing, tech, and curriculum development specialists. And we trust them with our children’s data?

The data will be swapped just like real estate. It will be bundled and packaged. It will be traded and sold. It will be used to develop new education fads and products. Sales will line the pockets of those in the industries of testing, technology, and curriculum materials (yup, same industries that pushed “higher, common” standards). We know this is true because it is happening.

In the end, our public education system is to be but a cog in the business of “human capital development.”

That’s their terminology. Students are being seen as products. And teachers will be evaluated and sorted just like the students — based on data.

How much of this data is really necessary for use in our schools? Thus far, no one is demanding an answer. So the threat of standardization through the Common Core assessments and common data collection system has been allowed to become a common problem.

Despite objections and protests, why has Common Core (under a variety of names) continued to direct the education of our nation’s children?

We know why it was pushed; the pushers made money. And there is no doubt; the data being collected is to facilitate a complete P-20W (early learning through postsecondary workforce) system. Common Core is the heart of that system.

Why did we comply?

Beginning with the 1994 Clinton reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), “challenging” content standards and testing were federalized —cemented into federal law. Standards and assessments became the education (pretense of) reform rule of the land without question and, to date, without open debate of the truth. Then the 2001 Bush ESEA reauthorization, No Child Left Behind, took the concept further by federalizing national test-based accountability.

The sell job of test-based accountability was in the wording. Want “better student outcomes,” “higher achievement,” to “leave no child behind”? PLUS, you like the idea of “accountability, flexibility, and choice”? …Yes, yes, yes, and yes…. Thus, the public was duped. The nation’s schools complied.

Enter the Common Core “State” Initiative.

Billed as “new” and “unique,” the Core is neither. Promising to bring “success” and make students “college and career ready,” there has never been any proof of that. The truth is that standards alone —“just standards” — don’t improve student achievement. Learning is a much more complex process.

What the Core is certain to do is sell new curriculum materials, new tests, and new remedial materials and programs when students “fail” the tests… The pattern of deception continues.

And the Obama ESEA reauthorization (ESSA – Every Student Succeeds Act) has given the Secretary of Education a new federal tool — the ESSA State Plans approval process — to further our national movement towards The Common Core Workforce Development System.

PURPOSE OF PEER REVIEW.—The peer-review process shall be designed to—

‘‘(ii) promote effective implementation of the challenging State academic standards through State and local innovation…(page 22, PLAW-114publ95 – ESSA)

“Challenging State academic standards” is the tagline for Common Core as is the terminology “college or career ready.” It’s nothing new. Some congressional representatives have been pushing this for decades — ask Senator Alexander et. al.

The Common Core backlash took the developers by surprise so they had to change the name of this 2013 bill to pass it through in 2015 as ESSA.

This is the 2013 bill. Their plan never changed – just the title of the law and some words.

 

The hope now is that the public will see that at the core of this issue is not our agreed need for some commonality of knowledge; at The Core is conformity to a totalitarian workforce development system.

So how do we stop what has thus far appeared to be unstoppable? 

We must challenge the authorities that put “challenging State standards” into federal law where it does not belong.

On the federal level, the challenge begins with the demand to stop implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

At your state level, that challenge begins with the demand to see what proof authorities have that the last 30 years of setting “higher standards” and using test-based accountability systems improved schools. Show us the proof.

In your schools, demand to know what data is being collected, where that data is going, what contracts with providers have been signed, and what steps you can take to refuse or opt your child out of testing.

Corporate interests pushed the federal overreach of our laws in order to profit from public education, not to benefit public school children. Their control of our laws is our common problem.

Is Common Core a Tool or Weapon?

Posted on by
Reply

Will Common Core Standards be a good thing for America? Maybe, but only if we understand the proper use and potential abuse that could easily occur if we aren’t watching closely. After all, WE are the ultimate check-and-balance. WE had better understand the circles of influence because influence is power that can turn to control.

Many think as Bill Gates expressed in the September 23, 2007 Parade Magazine, “It’s incredible that we have no national standards.” And there is some soundness to the idea, but, standards-based “reform” has only been proven NOT to work in America with No Child Left Behind being the most current example.

So, is Common Core a “national” standard? Not yet, but only because some states said “no thank you,” at this time.

So the argument goes:

Common Core is a state initiative. That “fact” you will have to decide for yourself. Is it state-led or Gates-led?

Standards are not curriculum. True. Standards are a teaching guide to help ensure all children are taught what we judge to be most important. But as the sequence of events goes; we develop standards, we develop tests to match those standards, and then what we teach and how (the curriculum) is aligned with the tests. Standards will direct curriculum so that makes it important to see how promoters of Common Core see the role of the federal government as compared to former lawmakers.

Back in 1965, Congress was influential in putting federal education law into place and clearly expressing within it the federal role as investment in children from low-income families whose needs were not being addressed by localities. And the testing of these children was to ensure the extra funds were serving the children’s learning needs. This law carefully explained the federal limits. Section 604 of The Elementary and Secondary Education Act read:

“Federal Control of Education Prohibited

Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other print or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system.”

Things have changed. By 2006, three circles of influence were explained through the Editorial Projects in Education Research Center in a paper titled – INFLUENCE (see chart page 21). Those organizations most influential were the United States Congress, the U.S. Department of Education, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In this same report, Mr. Gates was declared the most influential person in education reform — ahead of President George W. Bush.

Since then, the Gates’ tentacles of influence expanded to include not only the National Governors Association and Achieve (a Gate’s supported “standards-setting” service) but also the Council of Chief State School Officers as one of its many corporate partners.

Please note as you read the following that the first line is why “they” call it Common Core “State” Standards

The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and The National Governors Association (NGA) state in their Common Core Standards Memorandum of Agreement:

 “Federal Role. The parties support a state-led effort and not a federal effort to develop a common core of state standards; there is, however, an appropriate federal role in supporting this state-led effort. In particular, the federal government can provide key financial support for this effort in developing a common core of state standards and in moving toward common assessments, such as through the Race to the Top Fund authorized in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Further, the federal government can incentivize this effort through a range of tiered incentives, such as providing states with greater flexibility in the use of existing federal funds, supporting a revised state accountability structure, and offering financial support for states to effectively implement the standards. Additionally, the federal government can provide additional long-term financial support for the development of common assessments, teacher and principal professional development, other related common core standards supports, and a research agenda that can help continually improve the common core over time. Finally, the federal government can revise and align existing federal education laws with the lessons learned from states’ international benchmarking efforts and from federal research.”

“They” redefined the federal role for us, told the federal government what to do, how to spend our federal recovery dollars, and what “they” said was done by the Department of Education; under the influence?

We should probably know who “they” really is. The original 135 member Common Core development group was heavily stacked with people associated with Gates-funded organizations and many members with connections that read like a list of Wall Street financial corporations in addition to global research & development, and technology companies already heavily invested in our defense, security, and energy information.

The two “consortiums” in the country that will offer the “Next Generation Tests” both have associations with Gates and received federal Recovery Act funds. “They” will be directing the show and we are told that “they” are the states; this is “state-led.”

Outside the circle of influence, there is talk about another way to use standards. We can probably all relate to this. A lesson is taught, quizzes are given, an opportunity to self-correct or re-learn is provided and, eventually, a larger test is given —and the student is given a grade. Add periodic standardized tests (4th, 8th, and 12th grade) where the only “test-prep” is reminding kids to make sure they do their best. This is honest testing with honest results and you have an “assessment system” without high costs and with less danger of inappropriate use of data. Back when we were kids, standardized tests were used properly — as a snap-shot for systemic guidance and some comparisons. We can adopt standards without adopting the testing and centralized data collection that is currently planned for us.

With the Department of Education under Gates wing, and federal education law (No Child Left Behind – NCLB) due to be re-written, we should pay attention to the “new deal” CCSSO and NGA have for the last circle of influence — Congress. Their plan for NCLB is to use our federal dollars to improve data systems, assessments, and consolidation of “reporting to a single office in the U.S. Department of Education [ED] that manages all data requests and collections…”(with good intentions, of course – page 9,#10 ). Plus, “they” suggest some new power be given to the Secretary to approve “new policy models” in our states in the name of “innovation.”

Are we setting up a system that is vulnerable to the further corruption of power?

The good and bad of it — Common Core can be one powerful tool for improvement of instruction, or, one ultra-powerful weapon to be used at will.

The last instrument of influence over public education that we the People have – as a nation – is Congress through No Child Left Behind. What is the will of the People?

(Originally posted as an article in April of 2013 on the Federalist Papers Project site under current events. More recently, I found time to go back and look at the origin of Common Core and have had a personal encounter that prompted me to look closer at the Common Core story. )

Research Made Me Do It

Posted on by
8

“Research” can be defined as a careful investigation to discover facts…and so my Common Core saga began.

Asked if I would write an article about the Common Core standards, I hesitated because, already having boxes full of “standards,” I had purposely avoided stepping into that pile of manure again. But, I agreed to look at the topic closer and if I felt comfortable about my knowledge of the issue, I’d write something.

I began with the original “development team.” I looked deeply at the people deciding who to focus on based on their current title and place of employment. I looked into individuals that obviously worked for the education industry versus those working for public institutions. With 135 members, I had to narrow my search and this is about PUBLIC education, which is based on a public trust.

Six hours after beginning, I stood up from my desk with dry burning eyes and shaky knees.

It is not alright in my mind to have data collection, mining, and information systems specialists that already hold (therefore control) our information for national energy and defense systems to also hold student information and be part of developing “THE” standards upon which the WHOLE public education system will evolve.

AND, too many of these people also sat on boards of directors for the too-big-to-fail financiers. Recall – THEY DID FAIL! These people’s failures wreaked havoc on our lives and they ended up sitting on this “education reform” development team?

I can’t give you the full six hours of findings but here is a sampling.

YOU DECIDE: Developed by a coalition of state governments? NOTE: Those not familiar with the influential in education “reform” might want to follow a map!

The Original Development Team included:
David Coleman – president of Student Achievement Partners (see also Jason Zimba for connections) president of the College Board and McKinsey & Co. consultant

Phil Daro of America’s Choice (acquired by Pearson book publisher) & Strategic Education Research Partnership (SERP) – supplier of Core Curriculum & associated with Goldman Sachs Foundation.

Susan Eddins – Illinois & Science Academy Educational Consultant as well as Fortune 500 consultant.

Sol Garfunkel executive director of COMAP – supplying curriculum materials – with advisers from Decision Systems Inc. ( specializing in “business intelligence” and data mining for IBM & Microsoft, Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Inst., Proctor Houston & Assoc., Ferrio Assoc. – ed tech marketing firm who work with Dana Center and Istron Group….funding…a long list but includes Exxon, Department of Ed, IBM, Intel…you get the idea.

Jason Zimba – private college professor with association to Student Achievement Partners whose board of advisers include Phil Daro and Jim Rosenthal – associated with Morgan Stanley, Smith Barney, Lehman Brothers & McKinsey & Co.

Andrew Chen president of EduTron Corporation – interactive course ware 6-12.

Uri Treisman executive director of Charles A. Dana Center – associated with the National Governors Assoc., CCSSO – Council of Chief State School Officers, Agile Mind – “internet tools at a fraction of the costs” & the Gates Foundation.

Matthew Davis director of reading program at Core Knowledge Foundation…E.D. Hirsch writer of Core Curriculum Jr.

Both David and Meredith Liben (who they know?) of Liben Education Consulting, L.L.C. – Student Achievement Partner.

Louisa Moats – Moats Associates Consulting, Inc.

Laura Mongello – VP Product Development, The Quarasan Group Inc. – private publishing & content development whose clientele includes Pearson.

Gates funded Achieve members – William McCallum, Laura McGiffert Slover, Douglas Sovde, JoAnne T. Eresh, Susan Pimentel

ACT associations – Ken Mullen, Nina Metzner, Jim Patterson

Private Colleges – you want to trace the funding? – 11 represented.

SO, my mild little article was about the power and control of THE Common Core while deep in my core – based on where my own research took me – the only right thing to do is to help #StopCommonCore

OUR country; OUR schools.

OUR country; OUR schools, too important to let fail.

We never needed THE Common Core to bring back the fostering of critical thinking, better writing, and teaching children how to show their work. We used to do those things before we began marching in the wrong direction.