CoreCougars.com
  • CoreCougars.com
    • The Origins of Education and Mandatory Schooling
  • Research
    • Attorney Nathan MacPherson and MORE
    • Common Core is iLLEGAL - Your Proof
    • Comments
    • Conspiracy Plot by Anita Hoge >
      • Common Core Face-Off: Hiding the Truth About Choice and Charter Schools
      • Anita Hoge & Charlotte Iserbyt
    • Data Collection
    • Educational >
      • Don Allen - Common Core Condensed
      • Samuel L. Blumenfeld
      • Chinese Multiplication
      • James Clavell
      • Common Core Developmentally Inappropriate >
        • Childhood Development
        • Common Core Standards Are NOT Developmentally Appropriate
        • Dr. Megan Koschnick Child Clinical Psychologist - Common Core is Developmentally Inappropriate
        • Jean Piaget on Cognitive Stages of Development >
          • The origins of intelligence in children .pdf by Jean Piaget
          • Jean Piaget Books
          • Jean Piaget’s Theory
          • Piaget's stages of cognitive development
      • John Denver
      • Norman Dodds
      • Karen R. Effrem, MD
      • Michael P. Farris, Esq.
      • Dr. Rudolf Flesch
      • John Taylor Gatto
      • G Edward Griffin
      • Anita Hoge
      • Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt
      • Heide Marvin Janshon‎
      • Dr. James Milgram
      • Dr. Alison Rampersad
      • Clint Richardson >
        • Clint Richardson
        • Banks: Are they really the bad guys?
        • The Organic Laws of The United States of America
        • United States of America, U.S. Incorporated
        • George Washington Jailer And Tax Collector
      • Dr. Ed Rivera
      • Dr. Sandra Stotsky
      • JaKell Sullivan
      • Dr. Gary Thompson
      • Kitty Werthman
      • Lily Tang Williams
      • WiFi in School KILLING Children?
    • FLORIDA DOE School District Superintendents LIST
    • Homeschooling >
      • Global Support - Freedom Project Education FPEUSA.org
      • Homeschooling vs Public School
      • Homeschool Laws & Legalities
      • Learning Resources >
        • Learning Resources Store
      • Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act of 95 H.R. 1946 S. 984
      • The Blumenfeld Education Letter
      • The Christian Homeschool Oasis
    • Gates Notes >
      • Gates Notes 2015
    • Know Your Rights
    • NEA
    • NewsWithViews.com >
      • Anita Hoge
      • Kelleigh Nelson
      • Dr. Laurie Roth Ph.D.
    • Other >
      • Alice Linahan and Bethany Blankley
      • Boycott Supporters of Common Core
      • Common Core - A Message to the Orange County Board of Education
      • Common Core ties to Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia
      • FL Parents R.I.S.E. >
        • FL’S COMMON CORE POLITICAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
      • Richard Andrew Grove >
        • Freedom Force International
        • Richard Andrew Grove
        • Our World in Balance
        • Tragedy and Hope
      • How To Win Friends And Influence People - Dale Carnegie - Audiobook Full
      • Muckety
      • Parent Advocate Central NY Board of Ed Meeting
      • States >
        • Florida >
          • Florida Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Education
          • Dixie County, FL
          • Lee County, FL
        • New York >
          • Ichabod Crane Central School District
        • Oklahoma >
          • Oklahoma Repealing Common Core
    • Washington Times Column Claims Common Core Is Islamic Infiltration Of America
    • What is RTI a/k/a MTSS
  • Common Core
    • Article Archives
    • Randy E. Barnett
    • Common Core Public License
    • Bloggers - Common Core >
      • EDUCATIONALCHEMY
      • Freedom Project
      • Missouri Education Watchdog
    • Common Core FACTS
    • Common Core Standards for Mathematics
    • Cscope >
      • 2013-14 Texas Curriculum Management Program Cooperative – TEKS Resource System
      • Texax Curriculum Management Program Cooperative
      • Texas Drops “Anti-American” CSCOPE Lessons; Battle Continues
      • Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills Website
    • Data Collection - FLORIDA >
      • AIR - American Institutes for Research
      • Articles on Data Collections
      • Common Core means the government is collecting 300 data elements about students, says anti-Common Core activist
      • Hillsborough County Schools Student Data Collection
      • University of Florida Information Privacy Policies and Procedures 2012
      • What are the 400 Data Points Questions?
    • EDUCATIONALCHEMY
    • FACEBOOK - Common Core Groups >
      • Facebook Groups Regarding Common Core
      • Common Core
      • Common Core Books
      • Common Core Classes 3 and 4
      • Common Core Community Meeting
      • Common Core Content
      • Common Core Forum for Teachers
      • Common Core is Child Abuse
      • Common Core Meeting
      • Common Core Task-Based Middle Grades Math
      • COMMON CORE TRAINING
      • Concerned Parents against Common Core (CPACC)
      • CURE-Citizens United for Responsible Education
      • Deer Park Parents Against Common Core!
      • Eastern WA Parents and Taxpayers Against Common Core
      • Freedom From Educational Tyranny
      • Freeman Parents Investigating Common Core
      • Georgia wants Common Core OUT!!
      • Hicksville Parents Against Common Core
      • Iron County Against Common Core
      • MAD - Moms Against Duncan
      • New Jersey Against Common Core
      • No More Common Core
      • Parents Against Common Core
      • Stop Common Core
      • Stop Common Core in New Milford CT
      • Stop Common Core in Rochester
      • Stop Sen. Lehner & Common Core
      • Texans AGAINST COMMON CORE
      • Video Blast! Tell Your Common Core Story!
      • Webster County Against Common Core- WCACC
      • What is common core? Why STOP IT at all cost?
    • Flow Charts Following the Common Core Money
    • Recommended Reading >
      • 3 must-read books on the Constitution: recommendations from chief architect of the Obamacare challenge Randy Barnett
    • Schools >
      • American Education with Common Core Documentation
      • Charters Schools USA
      • HERITAGE FOUNDATION, NAFTA, SCHOOL CHOICE AND THE DESTRUCTION OF TRADITIONAL EDUCATION
      • IB programmes
      • International Baccalaureate (IB) Unraveled
      • International Baccalaureate (IB) Schools
      • International Baccalaureate is Anti-American & Anti-Christian?
      • International Baccalaureate (IB) Programs Are being Adopted In K-12 Public Schools Throughout The U.S.
      • Charlotte Iserbyt "Common Core" a trojan horse. Project exposes the educ fraud
      • The Global Road To Ruin Through Education – Iserbyt
    • School Choice
    • Special Ed Advocates to Stop Common Core >
      • Special Ed Advocates to Stop Common Core
    • Florida >
      • Central Florida "Florida Parents Against Common Core" (FPACC) Facebook Group
      • Florida Parents Against Common Core and Race to the Top Website
      • Florida Stop Common Core Coalition Website
      • Floridians Against Common Core Education Website
      • Northeast Florida Parents Against Common Core Facebook Page
      • Stop Common Core in Florida NOW Website
    • Idaho >
      • Idahoans Against Common Core Facebook Page
      • Idahoans for Local Education Website
      • Stop Common Core in Idaho Facebook Page
    • Indiana >
      • Hoosiers Against Common Core Facebook Page
      • Hoosiers Against Common Core Website
    • Stop Common Core in Washington State
    • TESTS
    • The Federal Hand Behind Common Core
    • Videos - Common Core >
      • A teacher describes why she left teaching in public schools... Common Core
      • Afterburner with Bill Whittle: The Cookie Cutter Curriculum by PJ Media
      • Agenda 21 EXPLAINED, full version
      • Arkansas Mother Obliterates Common Core in 4 Minutes!
      • BUILDING THE MACHINE - The Common Core Documentary
      • Classical Education vs. Common Core by Kevin Ritter
      • George Carlin They Don't Give a Fu@k About You
      • Common Core: Based on UN Agenda 21, UNESCO Standards
      • Common Core: Dangers And Threats To American Liberty And Education
      • CPS Teacher Professional Development from CEO's Network by ChiEd Justice
      • Faces of Common Core
      • FiscalRangersFlorida >
        • David Barton - Why Common Core is a Failure - March 22, 2014 Orlando, FL
        • Laura Caruso - opposition to Florida Common Core
        • Common Core Opposition Panel Discussion - Operation Education March 22, 2014
        • Common Core Presentation by Laura Caruso at Women Impacting the Nation meeting Nov. 11, 2013
        • Florida Sen Alan Hays on Common Core after CC Presentation
        • Stephen D. Guschov, Esq.
      • Indoctrination in Public Schools - The Call to Dunkirk
      • “Listen: The Movie” challenging the culture of standardized testing
      • Planned Illiteracy
      • Public "Education" has become indoctrination and distraction
      • Andrew Pudewa - Oklahoma Common Core Interim Study November 5, 2013
      • Something Is Rotten in the Denver Airport
      • Teachers Bash Common Core at Forum.. WAVE 3
      • Teachers Want Common Core Standards Gone Too
      • The Dark Intentions of Public Schooling
      • The Origins of the American Public Education System: Horace Mann & the Prussian Model of Obedience
      • The Shocking Truth About Public Schools
      • The War on Kids: The Definitive Documentary on the Failure of the Public Education System
      • Walking the Labyrinth of the Corporate-Owned-Common Core by Morna McDermott
      • York912 April 4, 2013
    • Websites - Common Core >
      • EDUCATIONALCHEMY
      • Florida Parents Against Common Core and Race to the Top
      • Patriot Journalist
    • What are RP Tests or Reading Practice Tests? by Renaissance Learning, Inc.
  • Take Action
    • What Can YOU Do?
    • Government >
      • Legislative Process
      • Senators >
        • Lamar Alexander
      • Senators on Twitter
  • HCPS BLOG
  • More...
    • A News Reporter >
      • a News Reporter
      • Agenda 21 EXPOSED
      • Buses
      • Money Mafia and the UFO Cabal - Major Revelations! Former Defense Minister Paul Hellyer
      • New World Order
      • Plant City School Lockdown
      • pvc chicken tractor
    • William Baer's Story
    • Charter Schools >
      • Florida charter schools: big money, little oversight
      • National Conference of State Legislatures NCSL
      • Trinity School for Children
    • Cork Cougars
    • FERPA
    • Hillsborough County, FL >
      • Auditors Hillsborough County School Board
      • Hillsborough County, Florida School List in
      • Hillsborough County Public Schools Telephone Directory
      • Hillsborough County SPECIAL TEACHERS ARE REWARDED STAR Teacher Performance Assessment Evaluation Information
      • Hillsborough County Student Incidents
      • Alberto Carvalho
      • April Griffin
      • Jeb Bush
      • MaryEllen Elia
      • Sally Harris
      • Susan L. Valdes Resignation
      • Susan Valdes
      • Valerie Chuchman
    • How School Came to Be
    • Knowledgeworks
    • Measurement Inc.
    • Carlos Morales
    • OPT OUT >
      • 2014 Florida Statutes
      • OPT OUT ORLANDO
      • Student Privacy Matters
    • PEARSON - PARCC
    • Pearson Center for Applied Psychometric Research
    • Reading Instructions >
      • A Systematic, Multisensory Phonics Reading Program with K-2 Language Arts
      • Florida Center for Reading Research Orton-Gillingham Approach Dyslexia
      • Multisensory Structured Language Programs: Content and Principles of Instruction
      • Orton-Gillingham Power Point Presentation
      • Orton Gillingham Approach on Pinterest
      • ORTON-GILLINGHAM-BASED AND/OR MULTISENSORY STRUCTURED LANGUAGE APPROACHES
      • Orton-Gillingham Resource Catalog
      • Reading Assessment for Orton Gillingham and Phonics Based Programs
      • Peds to Pinterest
      • The Gillingham Manual
      • Word Families Flip Chart
      • Writing with Orton-Gillingham Pinterest
    • FreeMen Burt >
      • Only FreeMen
      • ARMS NOT FIREARMS
      • Matt Damon on Civil Disobedience
      • First video how to become Free updated_0001.wmv
      • Florida Charter School Alliance Program
      • Freedom Basics #1
      • GET OUT OF JAIL CARD Part 1_0001.wmv
      • GET OUT OF JAIL CARD Part 2_0001.wmv
      • Gnostic Media – Interview with Freeman Burt and Kim
      • GPO - America's Authentic Government Information
      • JAIL CARD part 3.wmv
      • LEARNING INFORMATION AND TOOLS
      • PREPARING TO BE HELPED
      • Reading Lists
      • The Art of War Sun Tsu Full Documentary
      • The Greatest Speech Ever - Charlie Chaplin - The Great Dictator
      • The public school arithmetic
      • The Truth About Slavery: Past, Present and Future
      • Two-Thirds of Americans Live in the 4th Amendment “Exemption Zone”
      • Howard Zinn
      • 6th video_0001.wmv Jurisdiction
      • 7th video-JURISDICTION- Part 2-14TH AMENDMENT
The Federal Hand Behind Common Core  (Pulling the data on the Article updated 5/26/2014)

In January 2010 William McCallum, one of the authors of the Common Core Math Standards, spoke at a national mathematics conference in San Francisco. In response to questions and concerns about the compressed schedule for developing the math standards, a schedule that did not allow for pilot testing or normal editing, Mr. McCallum told his audience that his “bosses,” the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, were being “pressed by U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan who was using the possibility of getting Race to the Top money as leverage to force states to commit now to adopting uniform standards.” He told his audience that states were committing to the adoption of the standards “sight unseen.” Credit: Suzette... Thank you.

NOVEMBER 5, 2013
The Federal Hand Behind Common Core
by Peg Luksik
Credit Source: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/the-federal-hand-behind-common-core
“Common Core is a state-led initiative.”

This sentence is among the most repeated pitch lines of those selling Common Core.  It is an effective sales pitch, but is it true?

The answer lies in the maze of money and regulation tying federal and state departments of education together.

Let’s start with the money.  The money is always the carrot that the federal government offers the states.

The money trail for Common Core begins in 2009, with the passage of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, commonly called the Stimulus Bill.  
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) a/k/a the Stimulus or The Recovery Act

Quoted from Article, "$4.35 billion was set aside for the Race to the Top initiative".............Refer to Title XIV State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, SEC. 14001. ALLOCATIONS. section (c) RESERVATION FOR ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS.—After reserving funds under subsections (a) and (b), the Secretary shall reserve $5,000,000,000 for grants under sections 14006 and 14007.

Links:
  • American Recover and Reinvestment Act of "2009" - HR "1"
  • H.R.1 - Bill Summary & Status 111th Congress (2009 - 2010) 
    Latest Title: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
    Sponsor: Rep Obey, David R. [WI-7] (introduced 1/26/2009)      Cosponsors (9) 
    Related Bills: H.RES.88, H.RES.92, H.RES.168, H.R.290, H.R.291, H.R.598, H.R.629, H.R.679, H.R.861, 
    S.336, S.350 
    Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 111-5 [GPO: Text, PDF] 
    Latest Conference Report: 111-16 (in Congressional Record H1307-1516) 
  • H.R.1 -- American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)

Picture
American Recover and Reinvestment Act of "2009"
HR "1"
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Among the bill’s many provisions was a $53.6 billion appropriation to the U.S. Department of Education, called the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund.  Of that amount, $4.35 billion was set aside for the Race to the Top initiative.

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
March 7, 2009

Picture
Picture
Continue Reading
States had to access the funds in a prescribed order.  First was the Stabilization fund program.
STATE GRANTS UNDER THE STATE FISCAL STABILIZATION FUND 
Applicant Information


  • If you have any questions or concerns, please e-mail them to:State.Fiscal.Fund@ed.gov.
Picture
Picture
In order to receive these funds, states had to assure the federal government that they would adopt “rigorous college and career ready standards.”
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund
March 7, 2009

Picture
Picture
Continue Reading
The elements of the standards were dictated by the federal government in the America COMPETES Act,
America COMPETES Act
  • H.R. 2272 (110th): America COMPETES Act
  • Status & Summary
  • pdf
  • GPO



Picture
The America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act of 2007 or America COMPETES Act was authored by Bart Gordon and signed by President Bush; it became law on 9 August 2007. This was an Act, "To invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States."

On 29 May 2010, the U.S. House passed a measure to reauthorize the America COMPETES Act. On 22 July 2010, the U.S. Senate's Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation approved the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and sent it to the Senate for a vote.

On 4 January 2011, President Obama signed into law the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358).
and as part of their application for Stabilization funds the states had to sign an assurance page that specifically required them to align their state programs to the language of that federal law.

The Stabilization funds were awarded in two phases, with states submitting an application outlining their plans to adopt the standards to receive the first phase, 
Florida Application for Initial Funding under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program pdf
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
STATE GRANTS UNDER THE STATE FISCAL STABILIZATION FUND
  • Florida Initial application
  • Approved application
  • Amendments to application
  • (February 25, 2010) Updated uses of government services funds
  • Amended SFSF Application—March 2011
  • Approved MOE Waiver, FY 2009 and 2010


Educational Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - A Report Issued by the Domestic Policy Council Executive Office of the President - In cooperation with the U.S. Department of Education 10/19/2009

ARRA Funds: Fueling Education Reform in Florida

STATE FISCAL STABILIZATION FUND STATE ALLOCATION DATA

Florida
_______________________________________________
FY 2009 State Fiscal Total Stabilization Allocation
2,700,292,474

Education Stabilization 81.8%
2,208,839,244

Government Services 18.2% 
491,453,230
  • How States Plan to Spend Their State Fiscal Stabilization Funds
  • Florida College System 2009‐10 State Fiscal Stabilization Funds
  • Florida Atlantic University Board of Governors ARRA 2009 SFSF Program  - Edcuation Stabilization and Discretionary Funds Program-Specific Assurances
  • FL Hillsborough County, Fla., funds by Education, Department of
  • Florida
  • Hillsborough County, FL
  • Education Stabilization funds made available to LEAs for obligation from October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011
  • Florida U.S. Government Accountability Office 7/8/2009
  • MaryEllen Elia, Superintendent - SFSF Funding - Tuesday, February 09, 2010 Approve Amendment #1
  • MaryEllen Elia, Superintendent - SFSF Funding - Tuesday, Tuesday, June 15, 2010 Approve Amendment #3

Recommended Budget Transparency Website Components 
and then submitting a progress report showing that they were actually completing those plans in order to receive the second phase of their Stabilization grant.  The U.S. Department of Education had to approve each state’s plan before Phase Two funds were awarded, effectively giving the federal government control over each state’s education programs.
Florida - Fiscal Analysis in Brief
  • 2009
  • 2010
  • 2011
  • 2012
  • 2013
Florida's Race to the Top MOU = Memorandum of Understanding Website
Florida's Race to the Top MOU = Memorandum of Understanding Phase 1
Florida's Race to the Top MOU = Memorandum of Understanding Phase 2
States who had successfully completed the Stabilization grant process could then compete for Race to the Top funds.
  • What is Race to the Top abbreviated R2T, RTTT or RTT?  
  • Race to the Top by Wikipedia
  • RACE TO THE TOP FUND by ED.gov
  • RTTT Winning Applications
  • RTTT Finalist Applications
  • RTTT All Applications
  • RTTT Program
  • U.S. Secretary of Education Duncan Announces Winners of Competition to Improve Student AssessmentsTwo winning applications composed of 44 States and D.C. Win Grants to Fund Assessments Based on Common Core Standards SEPTEMBER 2, 2010
  • U.S. Department of Education Names Five Winners of $120 Million from Race to the Top-District Grant Competition DECEMBER 17, 2013
  • Articles Related to RTTT

This requirement was explained in question A-4 of Race to the Top Guidance and Frequently Asked Questions, published by the U.S. Department of Education on May 27, 2010.
Picture
Picture
Picture
  • RACE TO THE TOP FUND 
  • RACE TO THE TOP ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
  • RACE TO THE TOP DISTRICT (RTT-D)  
  • Race to the Top Resources

  • RACE TO THE TOP -- EARLY LEARNING CHALLENGE - Purpose
  • RACE TO THE TOP -- EARLY LEARNING CHALLENGE - Eligibility
  • RACE TO THE TOP -- EARLY LEARNING CHALLENGE - Applicant Information
  • RACE TO THE TOP -- EARLY LEARNING CHALLENGE - Awards
  • RACE TO THE TOP -- EARLY LEARNING CHALLENGE - Performance
  • RACE TO THE TOP -- EARLY LEARNING CHALLENGE - Funding Status
  • RACE TO THE TOP -- EARLY LEARNING CHALLENGE - Legislation, Regulations, and Guidance
  • RACE TO THE TOP -- EARLY LEARNING CHALLENGE - Resources
  • RACE TO THE TOP -- EARLY LEARNING CHALLENGE - Frequently Asked Questions
  • RACE TO THE TOP -- EARLY LEARNING CHALLENGE - Contacts
  • The Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge FY 2013 Competition Guidance and Frequently Asked Questions for Applicants
Race to the Top was a competition grant process. States were awarded points based on how closely they conformed to the desires of the federal Department of Education.  In the case of the Common Core State Standards, Section (B)(1)(ii) of the Race to the Top grant application clearly outlined the federal requirements.  States would be awarded up to 40 points depending on their commitment to adopting a common set of standards by the federal deadline of August 2, 2010.

Under Race to the Top, states could add to the common standards, provided that the additions were not more than 15 percent of the total, but they could not subtract or change any of the standards.

The Race to the Top grant applications had to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Education BEFORE the standards were actually available to the states.  In January 2010 William McCallum, one of the authors of the Common Core Math Standards, spoke at a national mathematics conference in San Francisco.  In response to questions and concerns about the compressed schedule for developing the math standards, a schedule that did not allow for pilot testing or normal editing, Mr. McCallum told his audience that his “bosses,” the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, were being “pressed by U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan who was using the possibility of getting Race to the Top money as leverage to force states to commit now to adopting uniform standards.”  He told his audience that states were committing to the adoption of the standards “sight unseen.”

In Pennsylvania’s Race to the Top Phase Two grant application, submitted in May 2010, the State Board of Education told the federal government that if they received the standards by June 2, 2010, they would adopt them by July 1, 2010.  They kept that promise, tying every public and charter school student in the Commonwealth to standards that they had not even seen when they made the commitment.

A visit to the web site for the Common Core State Standards, reveals that the standards are the copyrighted property of the NGA Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, and may only be used if a public license is obtained.  The same web site states that every user of the standards must acknowledge this ownership, except states.  States are exempted from sharing this information with their citizens.

So the money in the federal State Fiscal Stabilization Fund and Race to the Top were the carrots.

What was the stick?  The stick was federal regulation. And it was a big one.

Federal regulations implementing No Child Left Behind required every state to prove that 100 percent of its students were proficient in reading and math by the end of the 2013-2014 school year, with substantial penalties for failure to demonstrate that it had attained this impossible goal.

The U.S. Department of Education has allowed states to apply for flexibility from these requirements.  Section C of ESEA Flexibility Frequently Asked Questions, dated August 3, 2012, tells the states that to receive this flexibility, the state must prove to the federal government that it has formally adopted college and career ready standards.  The federal Department of Education is the sole judge of whether or not the state has adopted adequate college and career ready standards.

An examination of ESEA flexibility requests from across the country reveals that even states that did not apply for Race to the Top money, such as Texas and Virginia, were required to show how their state’s educational programs were aligned with the Common Core State Standards in order to be granted flexibility.  So even the states that did not take the carrot found themselves confronting the federal stick.

“State-led initiative” may be a wonderful sales pitch for those promoting Common Core, but an examination of the facts reveals that the reality does not match the marketing.

NGA - National Governors Association
  • Governors
  • The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center)
  • Federal Relations
  • Sitemap
Muckety.com
National Governors' Association
Picture
Picture
CCSSO - The Council of Chief State School Officers


Meet the Chiefs 
FLORIDA - State Education Agency
OFFICE ADDRESS
__________________________________
Florida Department of Education
Turlington Building
Suite 1514
Tallahassee, FL 32399 WEBSITE http://www.fldoe.org
FEDERAL LIAISON Tanya Cooper COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR Joe Follick DEPUTY Kathy Hebda, Juan Copa


Board of Directors

  • President Terry Holliday, Kentucky
  • President-elect June Atkinson, North Carolina
  • Past-President Mitchell Chester, Massachusetts
Directors
  • John Barge, Georgia
  • Brenda Cassellius, Minnesota
  • Michael Flanagan, Michigan
  • Deborah Gist, Rhode Island
  • Kevin Huffman, Tennessee
  • Lillian Lowery, Maryland
Leadership Team
  • CCSSO Executive Director Chris Minnich
  • Bruce Buterbaugh, Chief Financial Officer
  • Kate Dando, Director of Communications
  • Michael DiMaggio, Director of Strategic Partnerships
  • Melissa Zack Johnston, Deputy Executive Director
  • Carissa Miller, Deputy Executive Director
  • Scott Norton, Strategic Initiative Director for Standards, Assessment, and Accountability
  • Tressa Oliver, Director of Human Resources
  • Janice Poda, Strategic Initiative Director, Education Workforce
Staff Directory
Education Workforce
Innovation Lab Network
Legislation & Advocacy
Standards, Assessment & Accountability
Resources Listing

Picture

Muckety.com
Mary-Dean Barringer
CCSSO
Mary-Dean Barringer
Program Director
Education Workforce
(919)923-5662
Picture
Muckety.com
Mary-Dean Barringer
All Kinds of Minds
Picture
Achieve
Board of Directors
  • Chair
    Craig R. Barrett
    Former CEO/Chairman of the Board
    Intel Corporation
    Watch Craig R. Barrett's Views on American Education and Achieve
  • Board Members
    Mark B. Grier
    Vice Chairman
    Prudential Financial, Inc.
    Watch Mark B. Grier's Views on American Education and Achieve
  • Governor Bill Haslam
    State of Tennessee
    Watch Governor Haslam's Views on American Education and Achieve
  • Governor Jay Nixon
    State of Missouri
  • Governor Deval Patrick
    Commonwealth of Massachusetts
    Watch Governor Patrick's Views on American Education and Achieve
  • Chairman Emeritus
    Louis V. Gerstner, Jr.
    Former Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
    IBM Corporation
  • President
    Michael Cohen
    President
    Achieve
  • Treasurer
    Peter Sayre
    Controller
    Prudential Financial, Inc.
Contributors
  • Alcoa Foundation
  • AT&T Foundation
  • The Battelle Foundation
  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • The Boeing Company
  • Brookhill Foundation
  • Carnegie Corporation of New York
  • Chevron
  • The Cisco Foundation
  • DuPont
  • ExxonMobil
  • The GE Foundation
  • GSK
  • IBM Corporation
  • Intel Foundation
  • JP Morgan Chase Foundation
  • The Joyce Foundation
  • The Leona & Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust
  • Lumina Foundation
  • MetLife Foundation
  • Microsoft
  • Nationwide
  • Noyce Foundation
  • The Prudential Foundation
  • S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation
  • Sandler Foundation
  • State Farm Insurance Companies
  • Travelers Foundation
  • The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Our Staff
Our Ageda
  • P-20 Data Systems
The States
  • Florida
  • Florida’s College- and Career-Ready Commitment
Muckety.com
Achieve Inc.
Picture
Picture

Ze'ev Worman - Oklahoma House Interim Study on Common Core September 24, 2013
  • The Common Core Math Standards
  • Truth in Education - Common Core’s Validation: A Weak Foundation for a Crooked House
Picture
SAMPLE FORM TO "OPT-OUT" FROM ALL FEDERALLY ALIGNED TESTS

Truth in American Education Opt-Out of Common Core Now for the 2014-2015 School Year

Truth in American Education What States Have Pulled Out of their Common Core Assessment Consortium?

Florida Is Latest State To Opt Out Of Common Core Testing Consortium PARCC

Picture
Race to the Top Fund
Michelle Malkin Blog
AIR - American Institutes for Research
ALEX - American Legislative Exchange Council
Harry Reid
Louis V. Gerstner Jr.
  • Professional Engineer
    Chairman and Chief Executive IBM


OBAMA'S EDUCATION DEPT. PARTNERS WITH SOROS
About AskIt! for IB
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY 
DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Financial, Operational, and Federal Single Audit For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011 



Common Core FACTS
SOURCE CREDIT: http://commoncorefacts.blogspot.com/2012/03/not-federally-led.html?m=1
Not Federally Led?

Think Common Core State Standards are State led? Get the facts:(Click here to get a 2 page flier you can print or email to share with others)
  • 1988: Marc Tucker became the president of the National Center for Education and the Economy (NCEE) where he joined up with Hillary Clinton, Mario Cuomo, and Ira Magaziner to get states to move away from local control of their schools and migrate to national standards. (link)
  • 990: George H. W. Bush signed an international agreement entitled, “World Education for All (EFA), the result of a United Nations “World Conference on Education for All” summit. (link)
  • 1991: Tucker and Lauren Resnick created New Standards that pushed standards-based reform. (link)
  • 1992: Tucker writes “Dear Hillary Letter.” This letter, written to Hillary Clinton, addressed Tucker’s ideas for radical education reform after Bill Clinton’s presidential win. The goal is “to remold the entire American system” into “a seamless web that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same systems for everyone,” coordinated by “a system of labor market boards at the local, state and federal levels” where curriculum and “job matching” will be handled by counselors “accessing the integrated computer-based program.” (link)
  • 1994: Tucker’s ambitious plan was implemented in three laws passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton: the Goals 2000 Act, the School-to-Work Act Opportunities Act, and the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) called “Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994.” (link)
  • 1996: An organization called ACHIEVE, Inc. was formed by the nation’s governors and corporate leaders. (Many of them tied to Marc Tucker and the NCEE). The goals from an Education Summit in Palisades, NY were to ACHIEVE the goals of the 1994 school reform bills. (link)
  • 1998: Tucker and Judy Codding created America’s Choice, a comprehensive school reform program, that made sure the national standards were further implemented into schools. (link)
  • 2001: George W. Bush renames ESEA “The No Child Left Behind Act” and signed it into law. (link)
  • 2004: Microsoft (Bill Gates) contracts with UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) to fulfill part of UNESCO’S Millennium Campaign Goals—universal education and educating for a global economy. A “master curriculum” for teacher training in information technologies based standards, guidelines, benchmarks, and assessment techniques is to be developed. (link)  (UNESCO / Gates Foundation Agreement)
  • 2005: Bill Gates funds the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce—created by Tucker. States begin adopting its education reform initiative, “Tough Choices or Tough Times.” In 2008, Utah’s Governor Huntsman touts it (see video in link below) and joins with 5 others states (Massachusetts, Delaware, Arizona, New Mexico, and New Hampshire) who adopt it in order to “reinvent their educational systems.” (link)
  • 2008: Gates Foundation, along with two other foundations, created Strong American Schools (a successor to the STAND UP campaign launched in 2006, which was an outgrowth of UNESCO’s Millennium Campaign Goals for Universal Education). It calls for American education standards. (link 1) (link 2)
  • 2008: Gates Foundation funds the International Benchmarking Advisory Group report for Common Core Standards on behalf of the National Governors Association,Council of Chief State School Officers, and ACHIEVE, Inc. titled, “Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-Class Education.” This report shows the United Nations is a member of the International Benchmarking Advisory Group for Common Core Standards. The member of mention is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) which developed UNESCO’s Millennium Declaration—partnering with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. (link)  The report states: While states must take the lead, the federal government can help. And the federal government can do that best by playing an enabling role grounded in a new vision for the historic state-federal partnership in education. (link)
  • 2009:  Marc Tucker writes a chapter in the book “Change Wars: The Inspiring Future for Educational Change.” One chapter is called International Benchmarking as a Lever for Policy Reform. The book says the UN’s OECD launched Programme for International Student Assessment in 2000 to monitor the outcomes of education. Linda Darling-Hammond also contributes a chapter. Darling-Hammond heads the SBAC (see 2009, December below) (link)
  • 2009, April: Gates Foundation members, along with a few dozen others, participate in a Washington conference and produce “Smart Options: Investing the Recovery Funds for Student Success.” These ideas were funded by the 2008 Stimulus (ARRA-American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) and supported Race to the Top. Priority 1: Develop Common American Standards—also called Career-Ready Standards—in most states by January 2012. (link)
  • 2009 (summer): Council of Chief State School Officers, National Governors Association, and ACHIEVE, Inc. agree to partner on a common core standards project. (link)
  • 2009 (fall): The U.S. Dept. of Ed signals it will fund $360M for summative assessments aligned to Common Core Standards and begins planning meetings. Two consortia begin competing for this funding: Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. States begin adopting Common Core Standards and join one of the consortia in order to receive No Child Left Behind waivers from the U.S. Department of Education Secretary, Arne Duncan. (link)
  • 2009 (December): Utah becomes a governing member state of Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and is obligated to use the online assessments created by the SBAC which is led by Bill Ayers’ friend, Linda Darling-Hammond. Judy Park, Associate Superintendent, Utah State Office of Ed, eventually co-chairs the Consortia. (link 1)(link 2)
  • 2009 (December): Gates Foundation gives the National PTA a $1 million grant to mobilize parents for Common Core Standards. (link 1)(link 2)
  • June, 2010: National Governors Association and State Education Chiefs launch Common State Academic Standards. (link)
  • April 2011: The SBAC Overview Curriculum and Assessment Conference issues a report stating that CCSS member states must adopt their assessments by Dec. 31, 2011. Further, they must develop tests to be administered in 2014-2015. (link)
  • 2011: The American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) education task force calls for the demise of the Common Core Standards, but puts it on hold after receiving a$376,635 grant from the Gates Foundation. (link)
  • 2011: Bill Gates speaks at the November G20 Summit in Cannes and issues his report, “Innovation With Impact: Financing 21st Century Development” stating, “My report will address the financing needed to achieve maximum progress on the Millennium Development Goals, and to make faster progress on development over the next decade.” (link)
  • 2011: Obama Education Secretary Arne Duncan announces “Today, I promise you that [the Department of Education] will be a committed partner in the national effort to build a more environmentally literate and responsible society… We must advance the sustainability movement through education… Education and sustainability are the keys to our economic future-and our ecological future.” (link)
  • 2012: States begin to recognize the loss of local control and enormous cost of implementation of the Common Core Standards. Many states begin pushing back. The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute call the standards unconstitutional per federal education law.
  • 2012: States not on Common Core and not meeting the Annual Yearly Progress requirements of NCLB petition congress for relief. Lawmakers working on options are undercut when the Obama White House circumvents congress to grant waivers from NCLB if states adopt Common Core. (link)
  • Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott stated that the common standards movement amounted to a “desire for a federal takeover of public education.” Now, additional states (who originally signed on), including Massachusetts, Iowa, Kansas, and Virginia, are expressing concerns about the common standards initiative. (link)
  • Gov. Nikki Haley just signed a letter supporting legislation in South Carolina to block CCSS implementation stating, “South Carolina shouldn’t relinquish control to a consensus of states any more than the federal government.” (link)
  • Larry Shumway, Utah state superintendent, a member of the CCSSO Board of Directors, a member of the Board of Directors at West Ed which is the project management partner for SBAC assessments, recommends Utah retain its relationship as a governing member of the SBAC (thus forcing Utah to use their tests).
  • “I am personally opposed to any changes in Utah’s public education governance, either by constitutional amendment or by statutory revision, that would have the effect of centralizing power and decreasing representation.  I oppose changes that would decrease the ability of local boards of education, elected by the citizens of that district, to guide their own schools to meet the needs of their communities as they see it, or that would diminish the ability of 104 elected legislators and 15 elected State Board members to fulfill their responsibilities to lead Utah public education as they represent their constituencies.” -Larry Shumway–State of Education Address October 11, 2011
  • This seems to me a clear conflict of interest for Mr. Shumway to testify to the Utah legislature on anything related to Common Core or the SBAC.
  • Gates’ Foundation other contributions during the time frame of consideration and development of the Common Core initiative.  Counsel of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO): 2009–$9,961,842, 2009–$3,185,750, 2010–$743,331, 2011–$9,388,911  National Governor’s Association (NGA): 2008–$2,259,780  Mark Tucker’s NCEE: 2009–$1,500,000  Total: $27,000,000
  • To any who still harbor the illusion that Common Core State Standards were the product of the states simply coming together, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.
  • Special thanks to the many people involved in digging this information up. Much work has been done by people all around the country to put this information together and help follow the money trail. Please do your part now in passing this information on to everyone you know so they can be educated about what the Common Core Initiative is really all about.
Picture
  • Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-class Education
  • Bill Gates Teams Up With UNESCO
  • Controversial author Marc Tucker to speak at MS Dept. of Education Statewide Forum Sept. 14, 2011
  • The Marc Tucker "Dear Hillary" Letter
  • The U.S. Partnership for Education for Sustainable Development
  • Education for Sustainable Development, United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO
  • Agenda 21 For Dummies

Picture
Evidence

1.        The Governor of Utah has signed Utah on as a governing member of Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)( http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/appendixes/utah.pdf - see page 301) whose assessments include psychometric attribute testing of our children.
·         Psychometric testing is “any test used to quantify a particular aspect of a person's mental abilities or mindset–eg, aptitude, intelligence, mental abilities and personality. See IQ test, Personality testing, Psychological testing.”( http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/psychometric+test)
EVIDENCE:  Psychometric testing is a violation of Utah law per code section 53A-302. (http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE53A/htm/53A13_030200.htm)
EVIDENCE:  Utah is “committed to implement a plan to identify any existing barriers in state law, statute, regulation, or policy to implementing the proposed assessment system and to addressing any such barriers prior to full implementation of the summative assessment components of the system” – (http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Smarter-Balanced-Governance.pdf)

2.        Membership in SBAC obligates us to work in consensus with 30 other states thus eliminating local control of Utah education.
EVIDENCE:   (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/rtta2010smarterbalanced.pdf - pg. 26)
3.       There are only two organizations, SBAC and PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers), creating assessments for the standards and those groups were funded by the Federal Government.
EVIDENCE:  (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/awards.html)
4.       Utah, along with other states didn’t officially adopt Common Core until being incentivized through the Federal Race to the Top (RTTT) grant process. 
EVIDENCE:  The Whiteboard advisors said, “…the effort gained a great deal of momentum when the Obama Administration included participation in the Common Core as an eligibility criterion for many of the programs created out of the $110 billion stimulus funds. Programs such as Race to the Top rewarded states that not only participated in developing the Common Core, but also adopted them.” (From Education Insider: Common Core Standards and Assessment Coalitions: Whiteboard Advisors)(http://www.commoncoresolutions.com/PDF/education_brief.pdf - pg. 7)
EVIDENCE:  States were given more points for “raising standards” and also for joining a group of states to create assessments.
·         Membership in the assessment groups then required states to adopt Common Core Standards (http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Smarter-Balanced-Governance.pdf) – pg. 3
5.        Nearly at the same time as the above RTTT, the Federal Government announced additional incentives with the Race to the Top for Assessments (RTTTA) Funds requiring states to join with other states and create common assessments and standards to receive the prize.
EVIDENCE:  “To be eligible to receive the award an eligible applicant must include a minimum of 15 states.”  (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/rtta2010smarterbalanced.pdf - pg.12)
EVIDENCE:  “…an eligible applicant must submit assurances from each State that the State will adopt a common set of … standards” (pg. 15)
6.        The Utah State School Board was given a weekend  to sign an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which;
a.        Authorized the creation of Common Core Sate Standards
b.      Gave the Federal Government permission to “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. (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase1-applications/appendixes/utah.pdf- pg. 90)
EVIDENCE:  Dr. Hales presented the information about developing Common Standards to the Board on May 1, 2009 and “Indicated that they would like us to sign a MOU on Monday [May 4th] if we are going to participate.”
(http://www.schools.utah.gov/board/Minutes/2009/090501.aspx - pg. -18068-)

7.       The Utah State School Board recognized Common Core Standards as National Standards from the beginning as is noted in the State School Board Minutes from April 2009.
EVIDENCE:   “WestEd which is an arm of the US Department of Education has askedfor some that are in that [American Diploma Project ADP] to come together to create some common standards.   All is coming to a peak moment with the stimulus package for national common standards. 
On April 17 Board Leadership has approved her [Superintendent Harrington] travel to visit with CCSSO and the expectation is that Utah might sign a Memorandum of Understanding that we might begin the dialogue.  It will not commit her [Superintendent Harrington] or the Board but would add Utah to the states that are interested in understanding on how we might develop common standards. 
It was clarified that the national standards would focus around language arts and math.”
(http://www.schools.utah.gov/board/Minutes/2009/090403.aspx - pg. -18048-)
8.        The Utah State School Board hastily and negligently signed our state up for the Common Core Initiative which included SBAC in an effort to receive money from a Federal grant.
EVIDENCE:  “Part of our Race to the Top Application was participation in a Common Assessment Consortium - Associate Superintendent Judy Park reported that states are scrambling to see who they want to align themselves with or partner with.  Because the federal government required we declare what consortium you were in we were under an impossible deadline.  To make it work we all agreed we would do a Non-binding MOU’s into a Consortium.  Utah along with many other states signed on to multiple consortiums.”  State School Board Meeting Feb. 2010
(http://www.schools.utah.gov/board/Minutes/2010/02-05-10.aspx  - pg. -18257-)
·          Three of the consortiums joined together forming SBAC and we later signed a binding MOU
(http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/rtta2010smarterbalanced.pdfpg. ut-16)

More Evidence
This was written by a friend of mine:


Evidence and Concerns

A rising number of teachers, parents and taxpayers are expressing concerns about Utah's adoption of the Common Core Initiative (CCI), its accompanying federal standards for states (CCSS) and its federally overseen and controlled testing arm (SBAC). Why?
1.   Utah did not seek out CCI; the initiative was presented as an eligibility enhancement by the U.S. Department of Education in its The Race To The Top grant. Joining the SBAC, too,  improved eligibility in the grant application. When Utah agreed to join the CCI and SBAC in 2009, the standards had not yet been written. 
EVIDENCE:    http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/faq.pdf
Utah joined both the CCI and the SBAC to win points toward getting the grant, and although Utah won no money, the extremely expensive and educationally restricting consequences of having agreed to sign up for CCI and SBAC remain.
2.  Utah has two new, conflicting sets of educational standards to juggle-- the Utah Common Core, to which we currently teach, and the CCSS, to which our tests are being written. Utah is not likely to stick with the Utah Common Core when testing begins based on the federal CCSS in 2014. The appendix to the SBAC states that the tests will be based on the CCSS (federal) standards, and the SBAC project manager, WestEd, has affirmed:
EVIDENCE:   “In order for this [testing] system to have a real impact within a state, the state will need to adopt the Common Core State Standards (i.e., not have two sets of standards.)” -April 2012 statement from WestEd Assessments and Standards Senior Research Associate
3.  There is no amendment process for the CCSS (federal standards) and withdrawing from the SBAC requires federal approval.
Right now there is now a window of opportunity for Utah to sever the ties that bind us to CCI and SBAC; if we wait, the state will be too financially invested and legally entangled to withdraw. Withdrawing from the SBAC requires not only Utah's, but also the consortium's, and also federal, approval.
EVIDENCE:  http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Smarter-Balanced-Governance.pdf
4. There has been no cost analysis, legal analysis, legislative input or public input regarding CCI/SBAC.  Implementation of CCI has already begun in Utah schools; full implementation of the initiative and its tests will be completed in the 2014-2015 school year. 
An independent think tank in Massachusetts states that the cost over the first 7 years to states will be 16 billion dollars, or over 200 million per state, on top of regular educational needs. The Congressional Budget Office was not asked to do a cost analysis because asking would have pointed out that this was not a state-led initiative, contrary to the claims of its proponents. States' commitments to CCI require billions of dollars in implementation and maintenance spending, money that competes with already-stretched educational budgets.
EVIDENCE: http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/120222_CCSSICost.pdf 
5. The Common Core initiative represents an overreach of federal power into personal privacy as well as into state educational autonomy. There will be personal student information collected via the centralized testing-data collection, accessible to the Executive Branch.  This individualized data collection includes both academic and psychometric data about children, which is illegal in Utah.

EVIDENCE:   SBAC assessments' inclusion of  psychometric testing is a violation of Utah law per code section 53A-13-302.
Both of the CCI's testing arms (SBAC and PARCC) must coordinate tests and share information "across consortia" as well as giving the U.S. Department of Education phone responses, written status updates and access to information "on an ongoing basis." Data will be triangulated with control, oversight and centralization by the Executive Branch (U.S. Dept. of Education). 

EVIDENCE:  "Cooperative Agreement between the U.S. DOE and the SBAC" http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/sbac-cooperative-agreement.pdf

The U.S. Department of Education (through the America COMPETES Act, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the Race to the Top competition) has required the states to develop massive databases about school children.
The Department has eviscerated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) by issuing new regulations that allow nonconsensual tracking and sharing of this personal data with other federal agencies, with government agencies in other states, and with private entities.
EVIDENCE: ____

6. Utah has ceded her voice and educational sovereigntybecause Utah's top educational leaders are persuaded that having standards and testing in common with other states matters more than holding onto the state's right to raise standards sky-high. To Utah education leaders, the right to soar seems a freedom not worth fighting for, and maintaining state educational sovereignty is not a priority.

EVIDENCE:  " The whole point is to get to a place where there is a 'common core' - that would mean the same standards for all the states that adopt it.  If the states had the freedom to 'disagree' and 'change' them, I guess they would no longer be 'common'." -April 2012 statement from USOE legal department

7.  The effort to nationalize and centralize education results in severe loss of state control of education and pushes states into a minimalist, common set of standards.  Dr. Sandra Stotsky, an official member of the CCSS Validation Committee, refused to sign off on the adequacy of the standards and testified that "Common Core has yet to provide a solid evidentiary base for its minimalist conceptualization of college readiness--and for equating college readiness with career readiness. Moreover… it had no evidence on both issues."
The Common Core standards are experimental, expensive, controversial, and have not been piloted.
EVIDENCE: http://pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/100520_emperors_new_clothes.pdf)
Common Core standards are not considered among the best standards in the nation, and there are clearly superior standards.  Additionally, the CCI robs states of the sovereign right to raise state standards in the future. There's no provision for  amending the CCSS federal standards, were we to choose to still remain bound by them.
The Common Core English standards reduce the study of literature in favor of informational texts designed to train children in a school-to-work agenda. The unsophisticated composition of those selected to write the Common Core Standards and the lack of transparency about the standards-writing process also raises concerns.
CCSS states a goal to promote “career and college ready standards,” a euphemism for “school-to-work” programs, diluting individual choice by directing children where to go and what to learn. They make no distinction between 2-year, 4-year or vocational standards.
8. Common Core has not proven to be state-led nor strictly voluntary; the U.S. Department of Education Secretary rages against states who reject the Common Core Initiative. 
When South Carolina Governor Haley backed away from the “voluntary” CCSS, she drew a sharp response from Arne Duncan, the federal Secretary of Education.  Duncan also publicly insulted all Texas students on television, saying "I feel very badly for Texas school children," following Texas Governor Perry's refusal to join the CC initiative. (Yet Texas math standards are higher than Common Core standards.)  Messages in public letters from Duncan to Utah leaders conflict with multiple, legally binding documents signed by his team at the U.S. Department of Education.
EVIDENCE:  Utah's State School Superintendent admits that theU.S. Dept. of Education is already putting requirements on the state of Utah associated with the Common Core standards.
9.  The Common Core Initiative, far from being state-designed, is the product of the U.S. Department of Education funding and directing special interest groups (NGA, CCSSO, NCEE, Achieve, Inc., WestEd, and others) via federal grants.
EVIDENCE: http://www.wested.org/cs/we/print/docs/we/fund.htm
http://www.edweek.org/media/nga.pdf

10.  The Common Core Initiative violates fundamental laws that protect states' independence.  Several national laws state that the federal government may not exercise any control of educational decisions.
But the Federal Government’s creation of national curricular materials, through contractors, and its control and oversight of testing and data collection, and its tests written to federal, nationalized standards, are in violation of three existing laws: NCLB, the Department of Education Organization Act, and the General Education Provisions Act; States have a responsibility to protect the balance of powers granted in the Constitution.
Utah has the responsibility to protect its rights to make educational decisions without federal input or control.

 11.  Transparency and  public debate about Common Core are lacking.  Utah educational leaders have a responsibility to encourage public discussion and lively debate about Common Core, because the initiative will impact children, taxpayers and teachers for a long time to come.

A spiral of silence has descended upon Utah educators, many of whom fear losing their jobs if they speak up against Common Core.  There is intense pressure to agree with Common Core Initiative at the State School Board level as well. Applicants for School Board membership must take a survey before the Board selects its pool of potential candidates. The survey asks: "Do you support Common Core?"

How could one with a differing view ever be elected? 
What is Common Core?
ACHIEVE's Implementation Guide
MOU = Memorandum of Understanding This is Utah specific but is the same for all states.
Federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION34 CFR Part 99RIN 1855–AA05[Docket ID ED–2008–OPEPD–0002]
CCSSI Timeline by Florida's own Alina Ramirez
CCSSI Did You Know... THIS SAYS IT ALL! by Sally Absher - TN
Picture
FL  Bureau of Standards and Instructional Support  
Florida’s Common Core State 
Standards Implementation Timeline
Picture
Picture
The Common Core State Standards Initiative is a state-led effort that established a single set of clear educational standards for kindergarten through 12th grade in English language arts and mathematics that states voluntarily adopt.

Picture
FLDOE - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act  - Race to the Top Grant
Bradley County News
Common Core FACTS
TOTAL Source Credit: http://commoncorefacts.blogspot.com/2012/03/not-federally-led.html?m=1

How States and School Districts Can Opt Out of Common Core
MARCH 10, 2014 | DIANE MARIE
By Dr. Sandra Stotsky March 8, 2014
SOURCE CREDIT: https://truthabouteducation.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/how-states-and-school-districts-can-opt-out-of-common-core/
Additional Source: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/06/How-States-And-School-Districts-Can-Opt-Out-of-the-Common-Core-Standards

States that want to opt out of the Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) and/or the tests aligned to or based on its standards are being threatened by a toothless tiger that doesn’t want the states to know the tiger has no claws.

States are hearing, “It’s too late to back out”; “You’ll waste all the money you’ve spent on implementing the [low-level Common Core] standards your state board of education adopted three years ago”; “You’ll waste all the money you’ve spent on [self-described] Common Core consultants who have given [very costly] professional development to your teachers and told them what to change in their classroom curriculum to address Common Core”; “You will have to pay back all the money you got under Race to the Top (RttT)”; or, “You will lose your waiver and not get your Title I money.”

Can the U.S. Department of Education (USED) demand repayment from states that got RttT funds? Can it withhold Title I money from a state that loses its waiver? It is important to recall that Congress didn’t pass legislation requiring Common Core’s standards or tests. All it authorized in 2001 was a re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) called No Child Left Behind (NCLB). ESEA hasn’t been re-authorized since then, so there are no new or different education policies passed by Congress. A variety of conditions have been attached to the recent waivers issued by USED, but they may have no constitutional legitimacy since Congress didn’t approve them. States can certainly raise that objection.

At the national level:

If a state received RttT money and spent it, it most likely doesn’t have to pay it back if it now seeks to opt out of using Common Core’s standards (by any name) and any tests aligned to or based on these standards. Neither the RttT application nor the grant award from USED contained a repayment penalty for withdrawing from a commitment. Moreover, the Grant Award Notification from USED implied withholding of future RttT funds, not repayment of RttT funds already expended.

In other words, there seem to be no likely penalties if a state accepted a USED award of RttT funds and now chooses to withdraw from the agreement. States can justify their withdrawal on the grounds that the Common Core standards do not meet the original requirements of “common standards” outlined in the RttT application. These standards were supposed to be “supported by evidence that they are internationally benchmarked.” But they are not. The Common Core Validation Committee never received any evidence.

Nor has evidence been provided by two post hoc attempts to provide such evidence: the 2011 report by David Conley at the University of Oregon and the 2012 report by William Schmidt and a colleague at Michigan State University, Richard Houang. Conley’s report, funded by the Gates Foundation, contradicted the findings in his 2003 pre-Common Core report on college-readiness standards, while Schmidt and Houang’s report has been severely criticized on methodological grounds. It is unclear who funded it.

Moreover, RttT was a three-year program extended to last four years. It expires in the fall of 2014. Whatever changes states make after 2014 cannot affect the grant. In addition, no state committed itself explicitly to maintain forever the new policies required by RttT. Once RttT grants expire, it is unclear how the USED could demand repayment for an expired program.

If a state obtained a waiver from some aspects of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and now seeks to opt out of using Common Core’s standards and tests aligned to or based on them, it is highly unlikely to lose Title I money. Title I is implicated in the Common Core issue only because the state committed to the CCLS to obtain the waiver.

If the state applies for an extension of the waiver through the 2015-2016 school year, it would need to replace its commitment to implement the Common Core with a commitment to implement alternative standards approved by its institutions of higher education (IHEs). IHE approval of more demanding “college- and career-ready” standards would allow the state to retain the waiver, without penalty. Legislators need to ask their public IHEs to approve standards that enable mathematically and scientifically ambitious high school students to take STEM-preparatory coursework while in high school, not in transition courses elsewhere after high school graduation or after passing a GED test.

If the US Department of Education (USED) decided to be punitive, it could withhold at most only 5%-10% of the 1% of Title I funds set aside for state administrative functions. For example, if a state received $200 million under Title I, the administrative set-aside is $2 million. The most severe federal punishment would be 5-10% of that, or a maximum of $200K.

If the state chose to give up its waiver, the state would be under the NCLB mandate again to get all students to proficiency by 2014. NCLB has a range of sanctions for persistently failing schools and districts, ranging from conversion to charter schools, closing the school down altogether, replacing a large percentage of the school’s staff, to carrying out turnaround plans. If states give up their USED waivers from NCLB requirements, they would still have to assess their state’s standards annually with tests that, by law, must be based on these standards, and NCLB’s sanctions would again apply for failing schools and districts. It is not clear what the sanction would be for failing to get all students to proficiency by 2014, that is, if most schools failed to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for all subgroups.

The primary financial consequence of relinquishing the waiver would involve flexibility, not amount, of funding. Under NCLB, failing schools must allocate 20% of their Title I funding to Supplemental Education Services, typically outside tutoring. The waiver doesn’t change the amount of funding those schools receive but allows them to redirect 20% of it to other Title I uses. These districts would lose flexibility, not money.

USED would find it politically difficult to impose financial penalties on waiver cancellation when Common Core is not, in theory, a federal program. Or so we are regularly told.

At the state level:

Districts can select their own curricula and, in some states, their own standards. What they cannot do easily is avoid state testing. State tests operate under state laws which force all districts to participate, although sanctions vary by state. Typically, the results of these tests are used to rank or grade schools publicly, and they serve to label the schools as meeting or not meeting NCLB’s requirement of proficiency.

A district with a stronger curriculum than one addressing Common Core’s standards is betting implicitly that its results will be better on the state test. If schools choosing to address more demanding standards than Common Core’s are ranked low on a Common Core-aligned test for several years, they may face state department of education sanctions, which can range from the state managing the district to reshuffling school administrators. Legislators can address this power play by withholding funding of the state’s department of education if it seeks to prevent schools with low scores on a Common Core-aligned test from addressing more demanding standards than Common Core’s. All the district should be required to do is produce evidence of evaluations showing that its standards are more demanding than Common Core’s.

A future post will further address districts that want better standards and tests than their state board and department of education are imposing on them.

Sandra Stotsky, Ed.D. is Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas.

Published by Jimmy Kilpatrick
Education News

How States and School Districts Can Opt Out of Common CoreMARCH 10, 2014 | DIANE MARIE
By Dr. Sandra Stotsky March 8, 2014
SOURCE CREDIT: https://truthabouteducation.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/how-states-and-school-districts-can-opt-out-of-common-core/

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture

PLEASE Check Out These Website . . .
Picture
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.