Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care Sets Precedent for Common Core Stds

Interesting opinion on Education Next .

They state:

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act included a ruling on Medicaid that may have serious implications for education policymaking. The Court ruled that Congress went too far when it told states they would lose existing Medicaid funding if they did not comply with the law’s requirement that Medicaid be expanded. The decision raises questions about the power of Congress to attach coercive conditions to money it gives to states for education, among other things. In the Summer 2008 issue of Ed Next, Martha Derthick and Josh Dunn wrote about litigation related to NCLB in which states similarly challenged the ability of Congress to withhold large amounts of aid if states do not comply with new federal mandates.

HAS ARNE DUNCAN JUNKED THE COMMON CORE?

Or is he just jerking us around?

This week the state senate of Utah joined the gathering protest against the federally coerced Common Core State Standards by passing a bill asserting state sovereignty to withdraw from the Common Core.  Kudos to the state’s legislature for passing the bill and to Governor Herbert for his support of it.

Utah’s effort comes on the heels of similar efforts in Indiana, South Carolina and elsewhere.  Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, fresh off his temper tantrum against dissident South Carolina, weighed in on the Utah effort with a letter supposedly affirming Utah’s right to change the Common Core standards at will.  Specifically, he stated, “States have the sole right to set learning standards.”

If Duncan meant what he seemed to say, then the Common Core Initiative falls apart.  So could this be what he meant, given his consistent cheerleading and arm-twisting for Common Core?  Unlikely.  More likely is that he was choosing his words carefully (or shall we say deceptively) to tamp down the rebellion in Utah before it spreads to other states.

Duncan was responding to a letter in which Utah State Superintendent of Education Larry Shumway asserted “the Board’s right to make changes to, and to add or subtract from, the Utah Core Standards at its discretion.”  Shumway continued, “On behalf of the Board, I assert its right to complete control of Utah’s learning standards in all areas of our public education curriculum.”  By the way, if there is no federal control over common core, it is puzzling why Shumway would feel the need to run this by Duncan.  In response, Duncan quoted the second sentence and said he agreed with it.  He did not reference the part about Utah’s right to add to, subtract from, or otherwise change the Common Core standards.

The problem with the idea that Utah can alter the Common Core standards however it wants is that the federal Race to the Top (RTTT) application, through which the feds imposed Common Core on Utah in the first place, clearly states the opposite. That application requires the applicant to adopt “a set of content standards . . . that are substantially identical across all States in a consortium.” If the states can change the Common Core standards at will, the standards will no longer be “substantially identical” across the consortium of states. They will become “un-Common” rather than “Common.”

The RTTT application further specifies that the only changes an applicant may make to Common Core is the addition of supplemental standards, “provided that the additional standards do not exceed 15 percent of the State’s total standards for that content area.”  There is no provision for subtracting from the Common Core.  Indeed, Achieve, Inc., the Washington, DC interest group that actually created the standards (with special interest money), warned that “states who adopt [the Common Core standards] are expected to adopt them in their entirety.”  Achieve further discouraged the states from adding even the paltry 15 percent allowed under RTTT, noting that excessive state independence “would dilute the overall focus of the standards” and would threaten “the use of common assessments and instructional materials.”

Indeed.  The whole point of this national-standards campaign is to have students across the nation studying the same subjects with the same textbooks, and taking the same tests. Without this uniformity, the entire structure collapses in a heap.  So . . . what did Arne Duncan mean when he affirmed that Utah has “complete control of Utah’s learning standards in all areas of [its] public education curriculum”?

The only reasonable conclusion is that Duncan was parsing the Shumway letter to find something he could agree with and therefore derail the anti-Common Core effort.  What he found that he could affirm was that Utah controls its standards – if “controls” is interpreted to mean that Utah can choose either to adopt Common Core or to stick with its own standards. Given that the Obama Administration has not yet completely obliterated the Constitution, this is certainly true.  But once Utah chooses Common Core, Duncan and the feds have made it manifestly clear that Utah – and every Common Core state — must play by their rules.  No other interpretation of the Duncan letter makes sense.

Iowa Governor Branstad’s Unfortunate Praise of Common Core Standards

imageThose who have read my writing long enough know how I feel about the Iowa Core Curriculum.  I think it stinks.  It has huge problems.  Its history curriculum, in particular, stinks to high heaven.  It centralizes education and further removes educational decisions from parents.

There is nothing good about it.  Iowa Governor Terry Branstad today in his speech at the Iowa Education Summit said that the way to improve the Iowa Core was to in my estimation replace it with something worse.  He said, “The State Board of Education’s decision to add the new, voluntary Common Core State Standards in math and literacy strengthens the Iowa Core.”

How does it do that?

Consider some facts about the common core standards

  • They were not field tested.
  • They teach math skills two years later than it is taught in high performing countries.
  • It uses a geometry program that is outdated; discarded by the former Soviet Union 25 years ago.
  • In literature arts it replaces American literature curriculum which is rich in requiring students to read excellent literary works with a curriculum that is consists of 70% “informational texts.”  A perfect vehicle for driving indoctrination in our schools.

So again how does it improve things?  How will these standards make Iowa a world leader in education?  The simple fact is that they won’t.  The common core standards do not collectively raise the bar for education, instead it lowers it.

Not to mention, what public input has there been in implementing the Common Core Standards?  Has there been a legislative vote to amend the Iowa Core Curriculum?  No.  What authority do they have to do this?  None from what I can see in the Iowa Constitution.

It’s too bad that our Governor who has a worthy goal of wanting to improve education in our state has been convinced by the education lobby that centralization is the answer.

Cross-posted at Caffeinated Thoughts

A Tale of Two Minnesotans

Below is a side by side contrast between the two prospective 2012 presidential candidates from Minnesota: Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and former Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) on education. There is a similarity in their positions on parental choice in education, but with their positions regarding federal involvement in education… not so much.

Michele Bachmann

  • Is against federal control in education.
  • Wants to abolish the Federal Department of Education.
  • Thinks dollars should remain at home instead of ending tied up in Federal education bureaucracy.
  • Opposes No Child Left Behind.

Source: Interview 3-24-11 Bachmann also homeschooled and she and her husband Marcus started the first charter school in Minnesota.

Tim Pawlenty

While I appreciate Governor Pawlenty’s support of parental choice in education, I am concerned by his lack of support for local control in education demonstrated by his support of the International Baccalaureate program, common core standards and Race to the Trough Top. He still has an opportunity to explain his position on education and his support of these programs, I would welcome it.

HT: New Hampshire Tea Party Coalition for the Pawlenty info

Cross-posted from Caffeinated Thoughts