The Kids Sitting in the Education Reform Cheap Seats

With Michelle Moore

A Tale of Two Schools

I’ll be returning to the highest poverty school in Spokane in less than a week. Highest Homeless. Highest Refugee. Highest ESL.
Please. Please. Grit is not the answer.

Please, let these children experience art, music, movement, projects, building, exploration, curiosity, fun … DAILY … Not push push push … Not test test test … Not sit sit sit … Not listen listen listen …

– Raschelle Holland

I know this lady … and teachers like her. I know her soul. And now you know about the hole in her heart.

So this exquisite woman must walk out of that Twilight Zone school … and into a completely different dimension … one occupied by her very own son.

I toured my son’s remodeled public school … It’s gorgeous … art every week in a beautiful art room … science every week in a beautiful science room … [few] qualify for free and reduced lunch. Test scores are high. It’s considered an “A” rated school by OSPI in Olympia.

And she’s torn that her son is so advantaged  … and the “other’ children … back in the cheap seats … are not.

But she’s not to blame.

That belongs to some far away big-shots who don’t care about her reality. People who don’t give a damn about the kids in the cheap seats. They can’t care … because they don’t know how.

The federal government has finally admitted what we all knew … that this dreadful reform is a multi-billion dollar ruse. Actually … seven billion dollars worth of ruse.

It was a reform that was never real. Never genuine. Just a wordy gimmick that wasted money …  lots and lots of money that could’ve saved the kids in the cheap seats.

Just a concoction of cellophaned premises and orphaned promises gilded in educratic junk-speak. Lies actually. Piled high … year after year.

A reform farce championed by rich cultural-tinkerers and frauds at the Department of Education who wasted billions … and never bothered with the kids in the cheap seats.

Seven billion dollars that should have fixed Raschelle Holland’s school … and spackled that hole in her heart. Big bucks that could’ve given kids better seats … and better futures.

Instead … it been a decade-long mess.

It was too timid and spineless … and insincere. Never facing up to racial and  economic realities. Never fixing what needed to be fixed.

The building I’ll walk into has 94% of children qualifying for FREE lunch … The students I work with … Will not have art consistently each week … Or science. Rather they go to a class on “Grit” and learning to push through and try harder.

Yeah. Buck up! You shirking 8 and 9 year olds!

Grit … that’s a helluva reform. Unmask the genius who imagined that a good idea. Give his kid a cheap seat … and see if the child blossoms on a steady diet of grit.

The most struggling schools are almost always found in inner city circumstances … and they are overwhelmingly schools of color … and disadvantage.

But reformers ignored that … ’cause that would require speaking some hard, racial truths … and the race card would surely show up somewhere. And you shouldn’t ever shake that tree. No, no, no. That would cause discomfort.

But what about the discomfort of those kids in the cheap seats? Weren’t they worth it?

Apparently not.

So, the reformers whimped. And took the easy way out.

The scores in my school will remain low … And reform curriculums will keep coming … to ‘cure’ the academic achievement gap … And it won’t be cured. In fact, it continues to widen.

And so will the hole in Raschelle Holland’s heart.

Here’s the sick irony.

These reforms were applied across the board. To every single school. In a grand display of meaningless equality. A one-size-fits-all reform extravaganza.

And it didn’t much matter if a school was successful or not. Everyone was gonna sip the same scholastic hemlock … even if it poisoned good schools and made bad schools worse.

It was government idiocy in search of perfect equality … and it screwed everyone. Equally.

But … it didn’t have to be this way. And this teacher shouldn’t have wind whistling through her heart. And those kids shouldn’t be glued to those cheap seats.

This is a mess that cannot be unmessed. It’s time to begin again … and time to get it right.

Everyone knew certain schools were short-changed … poisoned by self-absorbed politicians and callous unionists. But instead of a cure … we got a $7 billion travesty. And some grit.

Raschelle Holland? She just holds on to her heart.

h/t Lala Burger


​What Data Is Your Child’s School-Issued Google Drive Account Collecting?

Springfield Public Schools, the school district for the third largest city in Missouri, are at the center of a frightening breach of data privacy.  Any student or staff member with a district-issued Google Drive account could have personal data compromised.

Cheri Kiesecker at Missouri Education Watchdog reported earlier this month:

What is reportedly happening with Springfield Missouri Public School’s use of Google Drive offers a rare glimpse into Google’s potential to collect data.  School-issued student Google accounts connect to Google Drive which can allow for the ability to Auto-Sync devices to Auto-Save passwords, browsing history and other digital data points from numerous devices used by a single user. For students in SPS this could include digital data from non-school related accounts. 

Fox 5 KRBK originally broke the story reported on what one family, the Elys, found:

Springfield residents Norman and Diane Ely went before the school board earlier this year and asked that the district check into safety concerns regarding private information that was being stored on SPS’s Google Drive. They claimed that since that meeting, nothing has changed.
Tuesday, the Ely’s addressed the board again with more alarming discoveries.

The Elys claim that the SPS Google Drive, given to all SPS employees and students, automatically begins to store information from any device the drive is accessed on. This includes browser history, but also personal information such as files and passwords. They add that even if you log out of the drive, it stays running and recording in the background.
After bringing their concerns forward this past May, they say that despite the evidence presented, no serious action has been taken on behalf of the district.

“They have a lot of evidence and have had it since December, and we have not heard one word from any of them, said Dianne Ely.

With more searching, the Elys have now found even more sensitive information that’s been stored to their daughter’s Google Drive, including 139 passwords to both her and her husband’s different accounts and also voice recordings of both her and her children. 

“My voice to text was being stored as well as any search my kids did, and I could say ‘sure my daughter was searching on Google,’ but my phone uses Safari. When I used my texting app on my iPhone, it recorded my voice, as well as typing out the words and saving it on my Google Drive,” said Brette Hay, the Ely’s daughter and a teacher at Pershing Middle School.

Cheri raised a pertinent question: “Why is Auto-Syncing of devices and Auto-Saving of passwords allowed on any school-issued Google account?”

It shouldn’t be allowed. Cheri notes this breach represents potential problems of several federal laws including Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule. Read Cheri’s piece as she addresses different questions related to each law.

There’s more to this story at, a privacy news website,  they reported what is even scarier than the data collection, but the accessibility of that data.

To their horror, Henderson and Hay (school district employees) could see what they estimate as the school and personal account credentials of more than 25,000 students and employees in the district. The credentials could be viewed in plaintext and made accessible to anyone with a SPS google account.

So this information was being collected without their consent, but it was accessible by others with district-issued Google Drive accounts and one employee was dealing with identity theft as a result.

The data collection wasn’t limited to school-owned devices, but parents’ personal and work devices as well if they logged into their student’s Google Drive account.

Parents if your student has a school-issued Google Drive account you need to start asking questions. Here are three pertinent ones to ask:

  • Can the school district disable Google Auto-Sync and Auto-Save? 
  • Did the school district inform parents and students about the types of data collected by Google Drive?
  • Who in the school district, as well as, Google can access that information?

I would also encourage parents and students to only log into a district-issued Google Drive account on a school-owned device and only allow your student to do schoolwork on it. At least maintain this practice until your school district can explain to you exactly what data is being collected, who has access to it, and how they are protecting it.

Ill-advised Opposition to Rescindment of Fed School Discipline Guidance

Tom Perez rolled out a disparate impact analysis for school disciple cases.

On August 24, 2018, eleven state attorneys general (AGs) sent a letter to Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and U.S. Attorney General Jeff  Sessions on the letterhead of California’s Office of the Attorney General. The letter was sent via e-mail to the School Safety Commission regarding “States opposition to withdrawal of School Discipline Guidance Package.” Clearly, the AGs were acting in their capacity as officials elected to execute the duties of the “People’s Lawyers.” One would think that the AGs should be concerned about officials in the federal government complying with the rule of law. Sadly, however, the eleven signatories, (all Democrat, and ten whose states did not support the current administration in the 2016 presidential election) are likely politicizing their offices – making a tacit threat of filing a lawsuit should the January 2014 School Discipline Guidance Package be rescinded. After all, filing lawsuits is what AGs do.

Their letter should be interpreted in the context of former U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Tom Perez’s roll-out of disparate impact analysis as described in the January 8, 2014 “Dear Colleague” letter which is one of the four components of the package. Perez, current Chair of the Democratic National Committee, rolled out his new interpretation of the Civil Rights Act in an invitation-only conference of civil rights lawyers hosted by the ED and DOJ in Washington, DC on September 27 and 28, 2010. The conference was entitled, “Civil Rights and School Discipline, Addressing Disparities to Ensure Educational Opportunity.” Readers should question how many of the AGs signing the letter to DeVos and Sessions had received special invitations to attend that conference.

At the conference, Perez announced that the DOJ would use a disparate impact analysis on school discipline cases to determine whether school districts’ policies were racially discriminatory. In other words, Perez introduced a policy derived from Critical Race Theory taught at Harvard Law School, Perez’s alma mater. Disparate impact analysis presumes districts are guilty of racism until proven innocent, even without an actual complaint filed. That presumption is inconsistent with America’s legal tradition and aligned with and UCLA’s School of Law, not with the U.S. Constitution the AGs have sworn to support and defend. Readers should ask why the AGs invoked civil rights as justification for their concerns when Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not address discrepancies data reported for racial groups, such as that reported in the CRDC; instead, it addresses intentional racial discrimination against “persons.”

The March GAO report prominently discussed in the AGs’ letter stated explicitly in Appendix I that parent education or household type (single-versus multiple-headed household) could be related to student behaviors resulting in disciplinary actions analyzed. The report also stated,  “Results of our analyses are associational and do not imply a causal relationship because, for example, CRDC data were not gathered by a randomized controlled trial, where students would be randomized to attend schools with certain characteristics.”

The AGs do not consider that ED and DOJ’s joint “significant guidance” on its face violates the Final Bulletin for Agency Good Guidance Practices § IV, OMB Memorandum M-07-07. “Section II(2)(h) clarifies that, given their legally non-binding nature, significant guidance documents should not include mandatory language such as ‘‘shall,’’ ‘‘must,’’ ‘‘required’’ or ‘‘requirement,’’ unless the agency is using these words to describe a statutory or regulatory requirement, or the language is addressed to agency staff and will not foreclose consideration by the agency of positions advanced by affected private parties.” Despite the OMB’s prohibition, the January 2014 “Dear Colleague” letter employs the prohibited language. While purporting not to impose legal requirements, ED-DOJ used their administrative powers to rewrite Title VI and embedded the new policy in the January 2014 “Dear Colleague” letter. This type of overreach by Departments in the executive branch is not new as the D.C. Circuit observed in Appalachian Power v EPA.

If the AGs really understood the effects of disparate impact analysis on school discipline in minority-majority school districts, they may better understand how the School Discipline Guidance Package actually endangers all students regardless of race, color, religion, or national origin – but perhaps they interpret endangerment for victimization by peers as equal opportunity. It is difficult to justify the content and tenor of the AGs letter in light of the history of the January 2014 “Dear Colleague” letter and the weak evidence the AGs used to defend it. It is inexplicable how they could defend the letter in their official capacity as AGs; but easily explained in the context of their political affiliation.

Common Core Collaborators

Photo Credit: J. Sanna (CC-By-2.0)

Richard P. Phelps at the Nonpartisan Education Review provides an excellent resource. They offer five articles that provide a historical, financial and media analyses of the organization that spawned the Common Core State Standards, the two copyright holders, two of the paid proselytizers, and the delivery vehicle, where the reputed Common Core architect, David Coleman, now runs things where Phelps says he earns an annual salary of well over million dollars.

Here are the links to each article:

A Back To School Check-List

U.S. Parents Involved in Education had a back-to-school checklist that is comprehensive. In a nutshell: parents take time to KNOW what is going on at your student’s school and in their classrooms. Be persistent in getting this information. Don’t take no for an answer. After all, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Here are their tips:

  • Check if your state is using the original Common Core Standards or a rebranded version.
  • Find out if your state assessments are under PARCC, SBAC, Pearson, and/or AIR Helpful article:
  • Ask to see all lesson plans outlined on a syllabus. Find out everything that they read in class, including digital books. This is your supreme court-protected right and you can opt them out of any material you feel is inappropriate. Things to look for include materials that favor international and globalism over American sovereignty, revisionist history, social justice issues as early as kindergarten, religious bias like Access Islam, sexually charged materials, and sustainable development.
  • Learn about the truth regarding Social and Emotional Learning.
  • Instruct your child to decline any and all surveys given in class. Refuse all behavioral and psychological profiles. Put this in writing. This is protected under the Hatch Amendment.
  • Read the fine print on everything before you sign it. Do not disclose any information that you do not want shared. Protect your child’s data from unnecessary collection.
  • Volunteer to see what is happening in the classroom and on the playground. Go observe for yourself and know what curriculum is being used. Also determine what is happening at your school regarding bullying.
  • Go to and find out which colleges no longer require the SAT/ACT.

Update: A reader, Audrey Buffington, sent the following tip which is great so I wanted to add it: “See if the teacher will return tests and quizzes to the student to be brought home so that you can see them.”

I know some teachers are concerned about having tests and quizzes floating around that students can pass around to cheat, but the way around that is to develop multiple tests that you rotate through every year. I hand back tests to the students in my government class that I teach (and give them the opportunity to correct the test for extra credit). Handing back tests and quizzes is a no-brainer for me, but that probably is not the case in every classroom. 

A Peek at a “Mastery-Based Classroom”

As part of their “Future of Learning” newsletter, The Hechinger Report‘s Tara Garcia Mathewson gives us a peek inside a “mastery-based classroom” of fourth-graders learning math at Piney Grove Elementary School in Charlotte, NC.

“Mastery-Based” is just another phrase for “standards-based learning” and both rely upon “personalized learning.”  This trend is all about students working at their own pace with teachers providing support. A student does not move on until they have “mastered” the content which is determined, in this case, through a quarterly assessment.

Mathewson writes:

Every 12 weeks during the school year, students here take assessments to gauge their progress toward mastering all of the standards in the fourth-grade curriculum. While all students take these tests, Nealeigh’s pay more attention to the results than average. For her fourth graders, the test results offer a picture of their strengths and weaknesses, revealing specific skills they need to sharpen.

(Molly) Nealeigh (their teacher) helps them glean this understanding. She makes a chart, listing each test question under the standard it relates to (like “use place value understanding to round multi-digit whole numbers to any place”). Students calculate a percentage for each standard based on how many related questions they got right or wrong. When students get 80 to 100 percent of questions related to a given standard correct, Nealeigh considers that mastery, and the students don’t have to do any review. Less than that and students either have to work on the skills by themselves or, if they got fewer than 60 percent of the questions correct, with a teacher.

“The mindset is ‘Give students their own data and let them choose what to work on themselves,’” Nealeigh said.

We’ve written about (or pointed out articles about) where this trend is headed. The future looks disturbing. Teachers become facilitators of learning instead of teaching.  Much of personalized learning is not actually personal

Jane Robbins, when writing about what is wrong with the personalized learning approach, hit the nail on the head:

In her valuable book Seven Myths About Education, Daisy Christodoulou makes the same point about the necessity of committing knowledge to long-term memory. Everything the progressive educators say they want – including education as “problem-solving” – depends on deeply embedded knowledge: “When we try to solve any problem,” Christodoulou writes, “we draw on all the knowledge that we have committed to long-term memory. The more knowledge we have, the more types of problems we are able to solve.” And the stubborn fact is that (personalized learning) makes it much harder for students to increase their long-term knowledge.

In short, cognitive science confirms what all veteran teachers know: True learning requires structure, repetition, and work, not just ability to mimic something that pops up once on a screen before moving on to the next.

Just because students scored 80-100 percent on one assessment does not mean they don’t need review. As far as letting students choose what they want to work on, gee, what could possibly go wrong there? 

Pushing Parents Around

With Michelle Moore as co-contributor. 

It’s all too clear that there are some schools that think they must save your children … from you.

Yes. You.

Doctrinaire teachers, administrators, and boards of education have become presumptuous and smug.  And their contempt for parents is grounded in their surety that …  in all matters, not just academics. … parents fall short. Way short.

And the new, modern mission of public education … and those extra-enlightened educators …  is to provide the right wisdoms and morals and ideals for the children who arrive lacking.

Lacking because you’re lacking. Because you’re parental dummies.

So they have no qualms … no reluctance whatsoever … remodeling your child’s quaint moralities and passé decencies so that they can be fine-tuned for the new tomorrow that’s already assaulting us today.  A tomorrow that doesn’t feature parents like you.

Some school leaders bully parents outright. 

They argue that lots of parents are socially antiquated … and that it’s necessary to bypass them altogether. That it’s best if culturally-savvy teachers and cutting-edge school leaders simply impose the new realities on the school community because involving parents would only turn the transformation into a slog.

So they lay down new guidelines, issue new edicts, and institute new commandments. Then they sermonize and preachify. And too often, parents are the last to know that there’s a more vivid sex ed program … or a new co-ed bathroom policy … or a reconsidered approach to the Pledge or the National Anthem. Or that this holiday has been renovated or that tradition abandoned because they don’t meet the new expectations of some noisy fussers.

They learn head-shaking stuff through a newsletter … or the grapevine … usually after-the fact.  Perhaps it’s a menu redesign by the school’s vegan vigilantes. Or that some age-old playground favorites are suddenly too-too touchy. And touchy is bad stuff. Even in a game of tag. For first graders.

Other school leaders … in more toney communities … actually nanny parents.

Coax them. Induce them to embrace itchy changes that, at the same time, make them uneasy.

Teachers and school leaders appeal to a certain sophistication that is, in truth, a sloppy tactic to usher in disturbing changes under the flimsy guise of global awareness. Whatever that is.

It’s lookism at its worst.  The whispered warning that to oppose this or that might make the community appear less metropolitan or less secular. And that would reflect very badly.

So parents are smoothly duped with fraudy bullspit.  Principals and superintendents insist that  “progressive”schools must embrace the most startling changes of even the smallest minorities.  That to do otherwise would exhibit an embarrassing parochialism in a world gone cosmopolitan.

And that’s all followed by the cheesy urgency that it’s imperative for parents to sign on with the new educationalists lest their own children become global stragglers.

In other words, they’d look cornfed. Like social bumpkins. Or hicks. So parents nod each other … and go along with the new weirdnesses. Or just go silent.  

Either choice is a form of surrender.

Then they’re shocked when their own children become enthusiastic evangelicals of principles and ethics at odds with the family culture. Stunned to learn … even with all of the curriculum rewrites … and millions spent …  that their children lag behind in every measure of educational growth.

But then they reason away their convictions … and their shock … by convincing themselves that they cannot ignore the new realities even if they’re personally disturbed by it all because …  after all …  schools of excellence must be at their inclusive and multicultural best, right?

And dopey parents then nod each other because who can argue with that sort of brain soot.

And, no, these are not imaginings.

This great upheaval is not confined to our schools. It’s transformed our politics, crept into our religions, and even oozed into our sports and entertainment.

But there’s no doubt about it … classrooms are the new societal petri dishes that will grow the future of this nation because  … what we see in the classrooms of today, will take root in the America of tomorrow.

So we’d better be careful of what seeds are sown there. And who does the sowing.

That should be easy enough for hayseeds like us, right?


The Impact of Reading Digitally

Photo Credit: Lexie Flickinger (CC-By-2.0)

I loved reading on my iPad (before it went kaput) and I enjoy reading on my Kindle. I’ve made the switch to digital because, frankly, I don’t have much more room to store books. I appreciate the convenience of being able to have a library at my fingertips without the issues of storage (and to have to carry them around).

My book reading habit was set at an early age. I don’t skip around a book. I sit down and read from start to finish. Articles I tend to skim initially and then go back to read in-depth primarily because of the glut of information I attempt to consume on a daily basis.

How about young readers? How will the digital age impact their reading habits? Holly Korbey writing at MindShift asked how digital text is changing how kids read and reports that it is making an impact:

According to San Jose State University researcher Ziming Lu, this is typical “screen-based reading behavior,” with more time spent browsing, scanning and skimming than in-depth reading. As reading experiences move online, experts have been exploring how reading from a screen may be changing our brains. Reading expert Maryanne Wolf, author of Proust and the Squid, has voiced concerns that digital reading will negatively affect the brain’s ability to read deeply for sophisticated understanding, something that Nicholas Carr also explored in his book, The Shallows. Teachers are trying to steer students toward digital reading strategies that practice deep reading, and nine out of ten parents say that having their children read paper books is important to them.

But since digital reading is still in its infancy, for many adults it’s hard to know exactly what the issues are—what’s happening to a young brain when reading online? Should kids be reading more paper books, and why? Do other digital activities, like video games and social media apps, affect kids’ ability to reach deep understanding when reading longer content, like books? And how do today’s kids learn to toggle between paper and the screen?

The digital revolution and all of our personal devices have produced a sort of reading paradox: because of the time spent with digital tech, kids are reading more now, in literal words, than ever. Yet the relationship between reading and digital tech is complicated.

I encourage you to read her whole piece.

As schools push toward increasing the education tech that students use this is something that they will have to consider. 

USPIE: Merger Will Compound Harmful Federal Education Mandates

Education Secretary Betsy DeVoss and President Donald Trump at St. Andrew Catholic School in Orlando, FL

Last week, U.S. Parents Involved in Education (USPIE) released a statement critical of the Trump Administration’s proposed merger of the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Labor to create the U.S. Department of Education and the Workforce. 

Read the statement below:

USPIE opposes all efforts to convert American education into a workforce development system and opposes enabling massive data collection of citizens, especially children, facilitated and coordinated by the Federal government. USPIE believes the effort to make this dramatic conversion through government schools is misunderstood by most Americans and nearly all elected officials.

The mission of USPIE is to close the US Department of Education (USED) and end all Federal education mandates. The merger proposed by President Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to combine the Federal Education and Labor Departments directly contradicts USPIE’s primary goal.

USPIE recognizes the intended goals of the merger — smaller government, streamlining, and saving taxpayers’ money — are all positive efforts. However, USPIE cannot support the merger because it moves the ball in the wrong direction for ending workforce development-based education and the collection of data from children. In fact, the proposed streamlining could make these troubling Federal education mandates more entrenched, more powerful and more destructive. Despite departmental staffing and cost reduction efforts, USED continues to usurp local and parental control in the heavy-handed oversight of ESSA State Plans, and by over-ruling State laws protecting parental rights. Likewise, State ESSA Plans impose Common Core-aligned standards and tests on all schools without local school board approval.

The Executive Order initiating the OMB Reform Plan, which recommends the merger, says the plan; “shall include, as appropriate, recommendations to eliminate unnecessary agencies, components of agencies, and agency programs, and merge functions;” and
“shall consider… whether some or all the functions of an agency, a component, or a program are appropriate for the Federal Government or would be better left to State or local governments or to the private sector through free enterprise…” 

USPIE firmly believes education is best left to States, local communities and parents. 

OMB utterly neglected the opportunity provided by the Executive Order to at least begin this process.

Moreover, the OMB Reform Plan itself says:
               “It is no longer appropriate to avoid having foundational discussions about services that might be better served by direct State, local, or even private-sector stewardship.” 

USPIE welcomes the opportunity presented by the merger proposal to engage elected officials and the American public in a discussion about workforce development education and massive data collection of children mandated by the Federal government through both USED and the Department of Labor. 

If the goal of President Trump’s merger is to save tax payers money, and if President Trump is still interested in ending Common Core and returning control of education to parents and communities, following the USPIE Blueprint to close the Department of Education is a much better plan and one that has the support of many American parents who want to make American education great again!

Education Policy: Where the Florida Gubernatorial Primary Candidates Stand

These guides are NOT endorsements, but layout and rate the Common Core, federal education, preschool and related issues records of the Republican and Democrat candidates for governor of Florida, listed as officially qualified by the Florida Department of State to be on the ballot for the 2018 election, based on reviews of the candidates’ statements on their websites, in the media, at debates, polling data, endorsements, and voting records where available. PDF versions of these tables are available for the Democrats and the Republicans. The Florida Primary will be held on Tuesday, August 28.

Democrat Primary:

Mayor Andrew Gillum

  • Expanded/Supported Federal Intrusion in Education: N/A
  • Supports Common Core: Not mentioned – His supporters oppose CCSS 40%-27%.
  • Opposes High Stakes Testing: Yes
  • Supports Expanded Pre-K: Yes, he wants an expansion of pre-K despite overall research of ineffectiveness and harm.

Former Congresswoman Gwen Graham

Businessman Jeff Greene

  • Expanded/Supported Federal Intrusion in Education: N/A
  • Supports Common Core: Not mentioned, but his supporters oppose CCSS 46%-33%.
  • Opposes High Stakes Testing: Yes
  • Supports Expanded Pre-K: Yes, he wants two years “mandatory preschool” despite overall research of ineffectiveness and harm.

Former Mayor Phil Levine

  • Expanded/Supported Federal Intrusion in Education: N/A
  • Supports Common Core: Not mentioned, there is no CCSS polling data available.
  • Opposes High Stakes Testing: Yes
  • Supports Expanded Pre-K: Yes, he wants an expansion of pre-K despite overall research of ineffectiveness and harm.

Alex “Lundy” Lundmark

Chris King and Jon Wetherbee had little to no information on their views and plans for these pre-K through 12 education issues and received grades of “Incomplete.”

Republican Primary

Congressman Ron DeSantis

Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam

Businessman and Activist Bob White

  • Opposes Federal Intrusion in Education: Yes, he clearly understands the lack of constitutionality of the federal role in education and cost to states.
  • Opposes Common Core: Yes, and has led many grassroots efforts against Common Core throughout the state and at the legislature.
  • Opposes Expansion of Government Pre-K: Not discussed.
  • Pro-Common Core Endorsement or Rating: No
  • Anti-Common Core Endorsement or Rating: Former Congressman Ron Paul.

The remaining qualified Republican candidates  Don Baldauf, Timothy DeVine, Bob Langford, John Mercadante, and Bruce Nathan either do not have campaign websites, have no record, or discuss pre-K through 12 education issues minimally, if at all. These five candidates received grades of “Incomplete.”