Common Core Conundrum:  Part 2 – Cheat for Success

By Debra Rae  ~  June 26, 2013

 

United by a common agenda,
non-governmental special-interest groups have contributed to financing,
writing, evaluating, and promoting new, national [and global] Common Core educational
standards. Behind Common Core is big money from private philanthropies
and companies, many of which stand to rake in billions off the Common
Core boondoggle. The e-learning market alone is estimated to grow to
$6.8 billion by 2015, up from $2.9 billion in 2010.

 

Having received millions in Gates’ grant money, the Thomas B. Fordham
Institute gets the picture. In the Puget Sound Business Journal
(2009), the institute’s vice president Michael B. Petrilli conceded, “It
is not unfair to say that the Gates Foundation’s agenda has become the
country’s agenda in education.”[1]

Follow the Money

Of course, neither Bill nor Melinda Gates is a trained educator. Of
instructional goals, Bill Gates agrees, “At the end of the day, some of
those trade-offs will be made politically [Emphasis added.].” “If
you can’t make it good,” Gates famously mused, “at least make it look
good.”[2]

 

Enter, Obama’s brainchild, Race to the Top—more accurately, “Race to the
Trough” of “free” grant moneys for educators who, by the way, aren’t its
only beneficiaries. Industry giants who champion Common Core will no
doubt profit handsomely. By mandating a computer for every child, Race
to the Top generously “seeds the ed-tech ecosystem.”

 

Talk about a sweet deal. Promoting worldwide collaboration, the Gates
have partnered with the Pearson Foundation. Having taken over one
hundred of the world’s textbook publishing companies, Pearson is the
biggest publishing company in the world and will supply required e-books
in tandem with compulsory computers.
[3]

Follow the Global Education Ecosystem


Professor of Renaissance English Literature at Providence College in
Rhode Island, Anthony Esolen characterizes Common Core standards as
“mind-stunting, strictly utilitarian miss-education.” World class, they
aren’t. Nor are these standards robust; yet advocates conveniently
insist that standards cannot be changed, or errors corrected. After all,
they are already printed and copyrighted.[4]



Problem is, by the eighth grade, standards fall two years behind
international expectations. They fall even more behind by twelfth grade.
Remember, the only authentic mathematician on the validation committee
rightly refused to sign off on math standards. Where math has been
tried, test scores were no better (as in Utah) or lowered (as in
Massachusetts). Among the standards’ flaws is an untried, experimental
approach to geometry. Moreover, standards postpone algebra to grade nine
and fluency in division to grade six.[5]




English standards are equally troubling.[6]


Cursive writing and phonics apparently are deemed passé. Plus,
there are only nine literature standards; and contemporary texts (often
multicultural) are generally shorter, easier reads. In contrast, ten
standards have students reading informational materials like computer
manuals and, even more disquieting, advocacy journalism. Books, poems,
and informational reading suggested in “text exemplar” sections of
appendices feature skewed, highly politicized perspectives on Obama Care
and Agenda 21, to name two, the likes of which unduly influence
students.

Temptation to Cheat for Success


The Obama Core program will be fully in place by 2014, when assessments
start. Then, state-based testing will defer to national standardized
testing developed by private companies who, in turn, are awarded big
money for their efforts.




While there are no hard and fast rules for using Common Core standards,
“teaching to the test” is advantageous with respect to teachers’ job
security and income since 20-40% of salaries are tied to student
performance. Professional teacher organizations have “a vested interest
in lowering the accountability bar for their members” (Dr. Ze’ev Wurman,
former U.S. Department of Education official); and high-stakes, one shot
testing tempt some to cheat for their bonuses.



Recall that a shining star of the school reform movement, former
district superintendent Beverly L. Hall, was indicted in Atlanta along
with 35 of her fellows for cheating on standardized tests. Charges
included racketeering, theft, influencing witnesses, and making false
statements.[7]



Even for non-cheaters, it pays to be on board. In 2012, the Obama
Administration announced a plan for creating a national STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering and Math) Master Teacher
Corps to be launched with $1 billion from Obama’s 2013 budget request
with 50 exceptional teachers in 50 sites. Over a four-year period, the
numbers will expand to 10,000 master teachers who, for their multi-year
commitment, answer directly to Obama (not to state or local districts)
and receive annual stipends of some $20 thousand above their base
salaries.[8]

Surveillance Society Friendly


The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) of 1974 provided
protection from Orwellian surveillance, data collection, and its storage
that watchdog organizations like ParentalRights.org [9]
vehemently oppose. In 2011, the Federal Department of Education amended
FERPA to align with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child.[10]



This allows unprecedented access to personal information by schools and
third parties—i.e., researchers and private companies, authorized by
executive order to track and collect invasive data on students, even on
teachers and administrators. For states to be awarded grants and waivers
on their “race to the top,” they must initiate state longitudinal
database systems that log personally identifiable student data.

InBloom

Seeding the ed-tech ecosystem
purportedly helps students and teachers around the globe. So says Gates.
Developed and funded by the Gates Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation,
and Rupert Murdoch of News Corp, the nonprofit corporation called
InBloom facilitates the logging of personally identifiable, individual
student data. InBloom even has fields for tracking homeschoolers.[11]



Add security risks involved in collecting and storing data—e.g.,
biometrics, religious/political persuasions, test scores, learning
disabilities, social security numbers—and “Houston, we have a problem.”
Health records are certain to follow. In response, and rightly so, the
Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, DC is suing the
U.S. Education Department to stop illegal collection, storage, and
sharing of student information.  

Carrot and Stick Methodology


“The stick” for noncompliance accompanies “carrots” of promised federal
money, coupled with exemption from rigid requirements of No Child Left
Behind. You see, prizes are conditional on implementing Common Core
standards and tracking student data, as directed. Given the 2009
Blueprint for Education Reform, even Title 1 dollars earmarked for
low-income schools are at risk in this either-or-else scheme.[12]




Keep in mind that, although relatively few applicants actually receive
grant moneys, all commit to implementing standards. Despite grants
awarded to the lucky few, the over-all estimated cost per state will
likely hit the $16 billion mark. Initial funding for national
assessments may well come from the federal government, but states must
carry the burden of their long-term funding.[13]



Should a state decline participation, districts within that state may
apply independently. Of the nearing one thousand districts that have
already applied, only fifteen or twenty of them will receive moneys. For
new textbooks, mandatory computers and e-books, cost of time for teacher
training, and the like, local school districts will be saddled with an
additional  $165.5 million that they simply can’t afford.


Race to
the Top is yet another Trojan Horse we best not mount.[14]

Just say “no” to federal control of education, and some day your
grateful children will thank you for it.

1.
Alyson Williams. “Focus: Children for Sale: A Mother Speaks Out
Against Common Core.” Education Reporter Number

328
(May 2013): 3.

2.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/billgates382270.html.

3.
The Newspaper of Education Rights. “Why Parents Object to Common
Core Standards.” Education Reporter Number 329 (June
2013):

5.
Professor R. James Milgram of Stanford University declined to
sign off.

6.
Dr. Sandra Stotsky, architect of Massachusetts’ excellent
education standards, refused to sign off, describing CC
standards as “empty skill sets that won’t prepare students for
authentic college course work.”

7.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/03/former-atlanta-schools-superintendent-beverly-hall-leaves-jail-after-posting/.

9.
WorldNetDaily.com, 04-25-13.

11.
Alyson Williams. “Focus: Children for Sale: A Mother Speaks Out
Against Common Core.” Education Reporter Number 328  (May
2013): 4.

12.
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf.

13.
Estimates to implement the standards and testing range from
$12-$16 billion.