AP Confirms What We Already Knew

The Associated Press last week confirmed what we already knew most of the Common Core “repeals” states have done have been a complete sham.

An excerpt:

Of the states that opted in after the standards were introduced in 2010 — 45 plus the District of Columbia — only eight have moved to repeal the standards, largely due to political pressure from those who saw Common Core as infringing on local control, according to Abt, a research and consulting firm. In Oklahoma, Gov. Mary Fallin signed a bill to repeal the standards in 2014 less than six months after defending them in a speech. She said Common Core had become too divisive.

Twenty-one other states have made or are making revisions — mostly minor ones — to the guidelines. Illinois kept the wording while changing the name. In April, North Dakota approved new guidelines “written by North Dakotans, for North Dakotans,” but some educators said they were quite similar to Common Core. Earlier this month, New York moved to revise the standards after parents protested new tests aligned to Common Core, but much of the structure has been kept.

“The core of the Common Core remains in almost every state that adopted them,” said Mike Petrilli, president of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Then they note Common Core has not lived up to its promise.

Measuring the direct impact of Common Core is difficult. A study last year by the Brown Center on Education Policy with the Brookings Institution showed that adopters of Common Core initially outperformed their peers, but those effects faded. It’s also unclear if the gains were caused specifically by Common Core.

“I think it was much ado about nothing,” said Tom Loveless, the author of the report. “It has some good elements, some bad elements. Common Core nets out to be a non-event in terms of raising student achievement.”

Petrilli, who advocated for Common Core, is convinced the standards resulted in more rigor and better tests.

“We are now following a much better recipe for student achievement, but the cake is still being baked, so we don’t yet know if it’s going to taste as good as we hope,” Petrilli said.

In my opinion, Tom Loveless has more credibility than Michael Petrilli on this subject. Common Core has certainly been “a non-event in terms of raising student achievement” and an expensive one at that.

Bill Gates has said that we won’t know for at least ten years whether or not the reforms he has championed will work. That’s a long time to bake a cake and too much is at stake to get it wrong.

U.S. Department of Education Will Become A Sleepy Agency?

Michael Petrilli painted a serene, but false, picture of where federal involvement in education will be in the next few years. Last week at Education Next, he wrote:

But peek around the corner, and the picture looks much different. ESSA plans will be approved, and states will go on their merry ways. The Trump Choice proposal will almost surely be DOA in Congress. The Office for Civil Rights will take a new tack, and that will be that. The Department of Education will go back to being a sleepy little agency. And at the state level? There will be perennial fights over funding, charter expansion, and the teacher pipeline, but what’s the next big issue to captivate lawmakers on the education front? There isn’t one.

This sounds nice, but I have not seen any education that Congress or the Trump Administration has any inclination to truly roll back a federal role in education. While there is a U.S. Department of Education there will be the potential to meddle.

There is still a hunger for student data. There is still accountability by the Feds over states. ESSA has still codified Common Core.

While ESSA is still the law there will be no true control for states in education. Unlike Petrilli, we shouldn’t be lulled into an alternate reality.

NaughtyBots Part 2: Twittertards, TwitterBotsandNaughts, and Analog Man

This is the second part in a four part NaughtyBots series about the #commoncore Project: How Social Media is Changing the Politics of Education.


coverThe #commoncore Project is about the use of Twitter in the ongoing debate about the Common Core. The project focus was on Twitter, tweeters, and tweets. There are people who don’t use Twitter who are very involved. I am one of those. While I am not exactly an Analog Man or a technotard, I am what I consider a Twittertard. Like many other advocates, by choice, I do not use Twitter.

file000202230960Even though I am a Twittertard, I have some idea how Twitter works and understand its importance and that of other social media in getting the message out. I have heard comments from others that the people who did this project don’t have a clue about how Twitter works. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that myself, but have no problem saying others have said it.

Here is one example of how Twitter has been used in the Common Core debate. This use falls outside that examined by the project undertakers. In September 2014, Jenni White, a chaosmom and president of Restore Oklahoma Public Education, heard Fordham Institute’s Michael Petrilli make a comment she didn’t agree with. She used Twitter to challenge him to a debate. He accepted the challenge and a live debate was held. Michael appeared to have done his homework in preparation, but in my eyes, Jenni was the clear victor, stealing the show with grace and style. There was a human element behind the challenging tweet that led to a great in-person respectful debate about the Common Core. Is that same human element involved in the Twitter debate or is it just a robotic element?


Is PJNET misportrayed in the project report? Is PJNET a bot or naught? Is it a robo-tweeter? Oh, robo-tweeter doesn’t seem to be defined. Mark Prasek heads up PJNET and on page 32 of the project’s pdf report it says:

Prasek’s robo-tweeter is an apparatus that can be granted unlimited access to a Twitter user’s account by its owner. By signing up as a member of #PJNET “Team,” Twitter users allow the Patriot Journalist Network to tweet from their accounts at regulated or random intervals even when they are not online.

Wow! Unlimited access to a Twitter user’s account. Really? Is this for real or is this information the result of fake research? It is stated as fact. Is this a false fact as opposed to a true fact? I can’t imagine granting some apparatus unlimited access to any of myfile2481239550651 online accounts. If Twitter users really grant unlimited access, I am glad I plan to remain a Twittertard. I could be wrong, but I find no evidence this apparatus is being given unlimited access to anyone’s account. It may be given access, but only to the extent of following the user’s specific directions, which seems impossible to be unlimited. Of course, I could be wrong after all, there have been many months my child has tried to exceed the allotted unlimited texts available. I guess we all have our limits or unlimits.

PJNET coordinates or hosts live hashtag rallies. I must admit, I have participated in a West Coast Rally 002variety of rallies but never a hashtag rally. I do get the concept. It is hard to say with certainty, but I think the Stop Common Core Twitter rallies would take place whether PJNET existed or not. There was a #StopCommonCore rally in May 2013 that did not involve PJNET and fell outside the time frame the project undertakers examined.

I am told by a number of naught bot or naught bought real people that #StopHR5 was a major hashtag used by Common Core opponents and people have questioned why it was not included in this project. By the hashtag it doesn’t appear to address the Common Core. It didn’t take much searching to find evidence that it did address the Common Core big time. The project report gives no indication it considered #StopHR5. It was possibly overlooked as the project undertakers gave some attention to #ccss for the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social in Costa Rica.

So, what does this PJNET robo-tweeting apparatus do? Simply put, real people use it to schedule tweets. Twitter users, not the apparatus, create tweets that become featured file2491277420286tweets that people can select and schedule to have tweeted. Sounds to me like a featured tweet scheduler. PJNET does nothing but follow the instructions of human users. A person has individually selected every tweet that goes out. If a person wants twenty tweets to go out, they have to select twenty tweets one at time. There is no select all feature and nothing is selected by default. It doesn’t appear anything is done anonymously or by robots. The success of rallies working with PJNET is a result of the human element involved in a fascinating grassroots effort.

file2271249695010The project report and some articles seem to portray PJNET’s system as being a sinister Twitterbot with undertones that its use is morally and ethically askew. How different is selecting and scheduling tweets from, file0001995487432say, setting the timer on your lawn sprinkler system or a blogger scheduling when a post will be released or setting your alarm? Using PJNET, each individual has to write or select the tweets they want to send and then schedule when they are to be sent. A blog author has to write an article and schedule when it will be posted. Neither is done by a robot or bot, naughty or naught.

mf693Anyone who wants to “tour” PJNET’s facilities can do so by video. These videos are available to the public and I have been given indication they were provided to at least one of the project undertakers. Both videos are of short duration and may help you determine in your mind if this PJNET apparatus is being portrayed accurately, or naught, in the project report and related articles.

Video 1. #PJNET Twitter Boot Camp | Featured Tweet Scheduler 4:58

Video 2. #PJNET Twitter Boot Camp | RT Scheduler 3:53

Analog Man

Video—Analog Man by Joe Walsh

Welcome to cyberspace, I’m lost in the fog
Everything’s digital I’m still analog
When something goes wrong
I don’t have a clue
Some ten year old smart a** has to show me what to do
Sign on with high speed you don’t have to wait
Sit there for days and vegetate
I access my email, read all my spam, I’m an analog man.

The whole world’s living in a digital dream
It’s not really there
It’s all on the screen
Makes me forget who I am
I’m an analog man

Yeah I’m an analog man in a digital world
I’m gonna get me an analog girl
Who loves me for what I am
I’m an analog man

What’s wrong with vinyl, I think it sounds great
L-Ps, forty-fives, seventy-eights but that’s just the way I am
I’m an analog man

Turn on the tube, watch until dawn
One hundred channels, nothing is on
Endless commercials, endless commercials, endless commercials

The whole world’s glued to the cable TV
It looks so real on the big L-C-D
Murder and violence are rated P-G, too bad for the children
They are what they see

The whole world’s living in a digital dream
It’s not really there
It’s all on the screen
Makes me forget who I am
I’m an analog man

Yeah I’m an analog man in a digital world
I’m gonna get me an analog girl
Who loves me for what I am
I’m an analog man

Yeah I’m an analog man in a digital world

Analog Man lyrics from MetroLyrics

Beware of Educrats Peddling “Evidence-Based” Solutions

Photo credit: World Economic Forum (CC-By-SA 2.0)

Photo credit: World Economic Forum (CC-By-SA 2.0)

In an unguarded moment in 2009, Michael Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute admitted that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is running U.S. public education: “It’s not unfair to say that the Gates Foundation’s agenda has become the country’s agenda in education.” A new book reveals how right he was.

Policy Patrons: Philanthropy, Education Reform, and the Politics of Influence was written by Megan Tompkins-Stange from the Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. To examine the influence of private foundations on U.S. education policy, Tompkins-Stange spent several years interviewing officials from four philanthropies that are deeply involved in education issues – Gates, and the Eli and Edythe Broad, Ford, and W.K. Kellogg foundations. She notes that “[a]rguably, no social sector in the United States is more heavily impacted by foundations than K-12 education,” and no foundation is more influential than Gates.

The problem she examines was brought into stark relief early in the Obama administration, with its Gates-financed Common Core national standards and other “reforms”: that powerful, wealthy private groups are using their influence to bypass democratic processes and impose their preferred policies on public schools. Not only are parents and other citizens shut out of education policy, they don’t realize the strings are being pulled by organizations they never heard of.

As former U.S. Department of Education (USED) official – and trenchant Common Core critic – Ze’ev Wurman once asked about how parents could register a complaint, “Will Bill Gates have an 800 number?”

Bill doesn’t have an 800 number, but he probably has every top USED official on his speed dial. One reason, as Tompkins-Stange reports, is that former Education Secretary Arne Duncan awarded top USED staff appointments to officials of either the Gates Foundation (such as Jim Shelton, formerly program director for education at Gates) or grantees of the Gates Foundation (such as Joanne Weiss, formerly of the Gates-funded NewSchools Venture Fund). So when USED was – unconstitutionally — crafting federal education mandates, Gates policy preferences had the inside track from the beginning.

Valerie Strauss at the Washington Post recently published an interview with Tompkins-Stange conducted by Jennifer Berkshire of the EduShyster website. In that interview Tompkins-Stange drew two inferences from an Obama administration staffer’s verbal slip in referring to “the Gates administration.” “The source is acknowledging,” Tompkins-Stange said, “that the close coupling between Gates and [USED] under Arne Duncan was great because it pushed their agenda forward. But on the other hand, they’re acknowledging that it’s somewhat problematic in terms of democratic legitimacy.”

Not that the Gates/USED mandarins were particularly concerned about usurping democracy:

It was my sense [Tompkins-Stange said] that most of the people I talked to hadn’t engaged – at an organizational level – with the larger question of “What’s our role in a liberal democracy?” or “Is this the right thing for us to do as a foundation?” . . . The democracy part of it was not really a part of the equation in  terms of their day-to-day discussions. It was more about, “How do we get the elites who can really move this policy on board?”

But her contacts slid past the philosophical and constitutional problems by emphasizing the supposed benefits of the technical approach advocated by Gates and the other foundations (remember Bill’s famous comparison of education to electrical outlets). The predominant mindset was that evidence-based policy is more important than democratic structures and citizen participation. Trains must run on time, you know.

But Tompkins-Stange pointed out practical problems with this worldview. One is that schemes created and imposed by elites historically don’t work when their development excludes the people expected to live under them. Human beings are not machines, and they stubbornly refuse to operate according to the Gates manual.

Another drawback – as admitted by some of the officials she interviewed – is that the cited “evidence” is often weak or non-existent:

There was a real cognitive dissonance that people reflected on in interviews. In one breath they’d say that what the foundations were doing was evidence-based. But in the next breath they’d note that the evidence isn’t all that great, or acknowledge the fragility of the evidence’s underlying assumptions. Another Gates source said, “I don’t know anyone in philanthropy who can chart a logic model. All these people just put arrows between boxes and think it means something.”

Think of that the next time you hear an educrat or foundation official touting “evidence-based” education solutions.

This is what happens when unaccountable elites evade the Constitution to impose centralized control. Tompkins-Stange’s book confirms the wisdom of the Founders and spotlights a problem that must be fixed if we are to remain a self-governing republic.

Common Core’s Commonality a Failure

Photo credit: Jan Jacobsen (CC-By-3.0)

Photo credit: Jan Jacobsen (CC-By-3.0)

Common Core advocates, at least a handful of them, seem to be admitting they failed to meet one of the primary goals of the Common Core State Standards Initiative – that there would be commonality among all 50 states.

From US News & World Report:

After spending millions of dollars adopting and implementing the Common Core State Standards and aligned assessments, states are finally beginning to release preliminary results from the first round of tests administered to students last spring.

But it’s unclear whether the results will have any meaningful impact, as a growing number of states across the country are walking back their commitments to the tests and even to the standards themselves, a set of rigorous academic benchmarks adopted by 42 states and the District of Columbia,

“One of the selling points of Common Core is that when families saw this new data that was more honest, they could do something about it,” says Chad Aldeman, associate partner at Bellwether Education Partners, an education policy consulting group. “It’s just not coming to fruition like we would have hoped.”

…”This was always supposed to be a partnership among states, and the fact that they can’t come to an agreement … is a bad signal for this whole undertaking of commonality,” Bellwether’s Aldeman says. “And it shows that even despite all this money, the political problems are just too challenging.”

Fordham Institute Micheal Petrilli does try to hold onto some hope.

“I will definitely concede that we have lost the commonality of the Common Core, and that is only likely to get worse,” Petrilli says. “But I think the testing ecosystem is going to continue to evolve. Every state will eventually review the Common Core standards, and states will make tweaks and changes. Over time the Common Core will be less common, but I still think there will be a core there that will be recognizable.”

Read the rest.

White vs. Petrilli

Jenni White, President of Restore Oklahoma Public Education debated Michael Petrilli, President of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute at an event entitled, “Common Core Chaos?”  The debate was held on November 11th at the Oklahoma Wesleyan University campus in Bartlesville.  If you missed it you can watch the video below, you can read Jenni’s opening remarks here.


Gates-Funded Duo Pitches Common Core Misinformation


Curt Clawson

Below is a guest article written submitted by Judi Caler.  Her post complements the one I wrote on Wednesday.

Doing What They’re Paid To Do: Gates-funded Duo Pitches Common Core Misinformation

By Judi Caler

It is no surprise that the latest attempt by pro-Common Core advocates to keep Republican candidates from speaking out against Common Core has come from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute’s damage-control team, Michael Brickman and Michael Petrilli. In a recent article posted on Townhall.com entitled “Opposing Common Core: A Losing Issue, Even in GOP Primaries,” they claim that election results nationwide largely prove that “Republican candidates cannot win over conservative voters by bashing Common Core.”

Tell that to vocal Common Core opponent and political outsider Curt Clawson who handily won the Republican nomination in Florida’s 19th Congressional District against Lizbeth Benacquisto, the choice of GOP establishment and Common Core proponent Jeb Bush! And tell that to Christopher Judy and Curt Nisly who made their rivals’ refusal to end Common Core in Indiana a central issue and won the Republican nominations for Indiana House seats after trouncing entrenched incumbents.

And in Ohio, Brickman and Petrilli got their facts wrong in labeling defeated contender Kelly Kohls as a candidate from “Ohioans against Common Core” (OACC); she was not. They couldn’t even spell Kelly’s first or last name correctly. In fact, according to OACC founder Heidi Huber, “Common Core opponents achieved a huge victory for Tom Brinkman in the 27th Ohio House District against incumbent Peter Stautberg where Common Core was the number one issue. The tipping point in Brinkman’s winning the Republic nomination was the use of hundreds of “GO Brinkman –STOP Common Core” signs throughout the district. That stuck with voters; it was the first time in 18 years that a Republican incumbent had been defeated in a primary. At least three other Ohio House Republican candidates in Districts #54, #79 and #85 won their primaries with a heavy focus on and commitment to repealing Common Core.”

The Brickman and Petrilli article, just like the recent McLaughlin poll, wasn’t about information—it was about trying to silence candidates so they won’t create even more doubts about Common Core in voters’ minds than they already have. McLaughlin’s poll featured questions worded to generate responses in agreement with the positions of paid sponsors (among them the Gates Foundation) and selective reporting of poll results.

Brickman and Petrilli repeat the big lie that Common Core is “state-led,” repeat the misleading findings of the McLaughlin poll, and claim that more conservative Republican primary voters would vote for a candidate who supports Common Core over a candidate who fights against it.

Since Brickman and Petrilli are likely doing what they are being paid to do, it is incumbent upon the media to ferret out truth from propaganda, especially when they find a Gates Foundation-supported organization advising Republicans to be silent on Common Core in order to win elections!

Judi Caler is a member of Common Core Concerns of Nevada County, CA and holds a California teaching credential.

Problems with Brickman & Petrilli’s Analysis of Common Core as an Election Issue

polling-booth_thumb.jpgMichael Brickman and Michael Petrilli of the Fordham Institute wrote an article at Townhall.com asserting that those who advocate for the Common Core have an advantage over those who oppose the Common Core in Republican primaries.

There are some problems with this article.  First it is poorly sourced.  Go figure.  We *never* expect that from Common Core advocates.

Second,  it is a logical fallacy to state that incumbents won re-election based on their advocacy for the Common Core while at the same time stating that Common Core opponents in Indiana who knocked off incumbents didn’t do so on their Common Core opposition alone.  They need to be consistent.  When I addressed the Indiana races I did recognize that it wasn’t the only issue.  I certainly didn’t deny that social issues were at play.  At least I provided an honest analysis; we can’t say the same about Brickman and Petrilli.

Third, they made some false statements regarding the Ohio Republican primary.

Heidi Huber from Ohioans Against Common Core shared with me in an email:

The Ohio Citizens PAC candidate losses are a broad brush being used to marginalize the role that Common Core played in our primary. It is also important to point out the blatant error that Kelly Kohls was an Ohioans Against Common Core candidate. We are not a PAC, thus we are prohibited from endorsing candidates. Nor did OACC distribute campaign materials on her behalf. We put our focus and resources to a viable and critical challenge to incumbent Stautberg, based on the principle that his support of Common Core violated basic Party tenet. Nonetheless, he was heavily protected and funded by the Ohio Republican Party. We beat the ORP hacks the old fashioned way, knocking on every door of primary super-voters in the district, precinct by precinct, distributing anti-Common Core literature. The materials included a handout with the RNC Resolution rejecting Common Core contrasted alongside Stautberg’s Candidacy Petition, where he declares he will support and abide by the Party platform. The tipping point was the use of non-traditional candidate signs. We placed hundreds of “GO Brinkman – STOP Common Core” signs throughout the district. That stuck with voters and we enjoyed a decisive win. It was the first time in 18 years that a Republican incumbent has been defeated in a primary. Four other OH House Republican candidates, running to replace termed out members, took their District with a heavy focus and commitment to repealing Common Core.

The Ohio Senate President, Keith Faber, addressed a pre-primary poll that showed Common Core was the number one issue with Republican voters, 65% desiring repeal. He warned his caucus to be careful to message an “I’m for local control” stance or it may costs them their election. Governor Kasich joined the choir the day before the primary, stating on WTAM 1100 radio that Common Core was “written by local school districts”.

The real story is that “we” were not OACC grassroots, but rather Hamilton County Republican Central Committee members. We supported the Republican candidate who stood true to Party principle and we succeeded in a quintessential “truth to power” victory. The Jeb Bush crowd can’t afford for that detail to get out. Hamilton County is known as “the county, in the state” and we affect national election outcomes. Did someone say, 2016?

Fourth there was at least one Congressional primary where Common Core was an issue, and the Common Core opponent won.  Why did they neglect to mention that?

Fifth, Brickman and Petrilli only list incumbents who won primary challenges.  They don’t seem to understand how hard it is to knock off incumbents who typically have better organization, more funding, party backing, earned media attention, etc.  This makes sense since they are educrats and not political/grassroots activists.  So perhaps they should stick to what is in their wheelhouse.  It takes more than being opposed to the Common Core to win a primary election.  Common Core opponents need to field quality candidates in order to beat incumbents and primary voters rarely are one-issue voters.

Sixth, there are plenty of states that haven’t had their primary yet so we’ll likely see some Common Core opponents win while others won’t and those wins and losses won’t entirely hinge on one issue.

Update: Karen Effrem pointed out to me two more instances where Common Core opposition has traction in Republican primary races in Florida.

2nd Update: Jane Robbins, a senior fellow with American Principles in Action who lives in Georgia, emailed me this afternoon the following observation about the Georgia races that Brickman and Petrilli mention:

In Georgia, the primary outcomes said little or nothing about Common Core. In the first place, dislodging an incumbent here is practically impossible. Beyond that, Common Core wasn’t a big issue in the governor’s race since the challenger, who had no money vs. Nathan Deal’s millions, didn’t emphasize it as he should – he ran almost exclusively on economic issues. Of course, the words “Common Core” never passed Deal’s lips. Re the primary to unseat House Education Committee Chairman Brooks Coleman, Petrilli is correct that Coleman has been a staunch supporter of Common Core. But, Coleman spent his entire well-funded campaign denying that he ever supported CC and accusing his opponent of lying when he said otherwise. Even so, the percentage of votes he got this year dropped to 56% — compared with 70.4% in 2012. http://ballotpedia.org/Brooks_Coleman,_Jr..

Fight Common Core and Send Your Kids to School


I’ve been debating whether or not I would write on an event called Don’t Send Your Child to School Day which is set to take place on November 18th as a protest against the Common Core State Standards.  After a Huffington Post article came out today on it I thought I would since it was giving Michael Petrilli of The Fordham Institute another opportunity to paint the Common Core opposition.

“Of course it’s legitimate for people to oppose the Common Core Standards and voice their concerns, but I don’t see how pulling kids out of school and losing learning time is going to help anybody,” Michael Petrilli, executive vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a right-leaning think tank, told HuffPost. “This seems to be punishing students and using them as toys in a political debate.”

Petrilli, who has come out in favor of the standards, said that in his experience some of the most vocal Common Core opponents do not have their children in public schools. Notably, Wilson said that she is going to home-school her child, who is not yet school-aged.

It is unfortunate that the author of the article, Rebecca Klein, neglected to contact other members of the opposition to see if they agree with this tactic because what I’ve been hearing from those of us who administer Facebook groups, etc. is that we don’t.

I wanted to share a few thoughts about this event (speaking only for myself).

  • I appreciate the zeal Janet Wilson and others promoting this event have in fighting the Common Core State Standards.  We need people who are fired up to speak out against unprecedented centralization of education.
  • I want to affirm that parents absolutely have the right to take their children out of school for whatever reason.
  • While I don’t quite agree with Petrilli that this is akin to “punishing the students.”  I don’t think it’s a good idea to use our kids to fight Common Core in this manner.  I’m all for boycotting assessments where it is legal to do so, but this event could have unintended consequences.  We have the right to take our kids out of school for the day, but that doesn’t mean it is always wise to do so.
  • It doesn’t seem take into consideration the nuances of different state laws and/or school district policies concerning student attendance and truancy that could possibly have a negative impact on individual students.
  • It gives Common Core advocates another opportunity to label us as extreme.
  • It gives the perception that we are all anti-public school.

I’ve talked with several parents who are considering homeschooling as a result of Common Core and that is a legitimate option (I’m biased of course).  That said if your child is currently in public school I belief there are better ways to fight this such as the action plan that Anne Gassel of Missouri Coalition Against Common Core developed or change your Facebook profile picture.

Photo credit: Woodley Wonder Works via Flickr (CC-By 2.0)

Petrilli Misses the Point

Reading Michael Petrilli’s inane post for Education Next I had to roll my eyes… it was titled, “Common Core critics want ALEC to tell states what to do.”  I think Mr. Petrilli has missed the point of the resolution offered by American Principles Project, the Goldwater Institute and Washington Policy Center.  The resolution which ALEC delayed voting on reads:

The State Board of Education may not adopt, and the State Department of Education may not implement, the Common Core State Standards developed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Any actions taken to adopt or implement the Common Core State Standards as of the effective date of this section are void ab initio. Neither this nor any other statewide education standards may be adopted or implemented without the approval of the Legislature.

First off, to say ALEC will tell states what to do is ridiculous.  This is a model resolution.  It can be adopted, changed or ignored by the states.  The Feds however through Race to the Top and the No Child Left Behind waiver are cocersing states to adopt the Common Core State Standards, and in many states this decision is not being brought to the state legislature which brings up the second point.  The thrust of the resolution is to provide a remedy (and rebuke) for states whose education bureaucracy has signed off on these standards without a legislative review and vote.  This protects the voice of the people.  A state legislature even after passing this resolution can still vote to adopt the Common Core State Standards.  Then at least the people’s elected body has waived in and they can either be praised or held accountable as a result.