Monday, September 15, 2014

CLAIM: CHRISTIANS SIN BY PUTTING KIDS IN PUBLIC SCHOOL

CLAIM: CHRISTIANS SIN BY PUTTING KIDS IN PUBLIC SCHOOL

Christian parents, do you wish to obey God and reclaim America from a godless culture?

Then remove your children from the nation’s public schools.

That’s the plea from E. Ray Moore, who has been taking his message public during his campaign for lieutenant governor in South Carolina.

“If the evangelical community would step up and obey God in educating their own children, we could collapse the state model,” Moore told WND. “We’re feeding the monster by keeping our children there.”

Moore, who has served as a pastor, an Army chaplain and director of a Christian ministry for more than 35 years, co-founded Frontline Ministries Inc., a Christian ministry, and currently serves as president of the board. He also founded Exodus Mandate, a ministry to encourage and assist Christian families in leaving government school systems.

Moore is also executive producer of the award-winning film, “IndoctriNation: Public Schools and the Decline of Christianity in America.”

“When I see a family in public schools or a pastor in public schools, I know there’s a great blindness or an area of disobedience in their lives in that particular area,” he said. “I think Christians are ignorantly doing this. There’s no Bible verse that gives you permission – as a Christian family – to put your children under false doctrine and in harm’s way.”

Ready to take a hard look at the true state of public education? Then don’t miss this unflinching and totally captivating documentary, “IndoctriNation: Public Schools and the Decline of Christianity in America.”

The public school system has become the domain of the Democratic left, Moore argues, and it has fundamentally changed American culture because it successfully indoctrinated five or six generations of U.S. children.

“We estimate 70-80 percent of evangelical Christian children who are in public school for their entire educational career are abandoning the church and the Christian faith in their early adult years,” he said. “About 20 percent return after they get married and start having their own kids.

“It’s a holocaust going on in our churches, and we’re trying to fight a culture war while our resources are being depleted.”

Moore said children in public schools “do not hold a traditional view on family issues,” especially with regard to the sanctity of marriage. He also said students aren’t being taught the originalist view of the U.S. Constitution, and public schools are indoctrinating children with a “Marxist view of American history,” environmentalism, evolution and other “bizarre radical agendas.”

As evidence of a major cultural shift, he pointed to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center indicating a full 70 percent of Millennials (born in 1981 or later) support same-sex marriage. By contrast, 49 percent of those in Generation X, 38 percent of Baby Boomers and just 21 percent from the Silent Generation support homosexual marriage.

“It’s incredible,” Moore said of the cultural shift. “We’re losing the culture right in our homes and in our churches, and it’s because of government education.”

Another Pew Research Center analysis in 2011 showed mothers now spend an average of 13.5 hours a week with their children and fathers only 7.3 hours per week. Moore said if a family attends church, children may spend one to two hours a week there.

Meanwhile, U.S. public schools have their children for about 35 hours a week.

“Families don’t have family worship anymore,” he said. “Parents don’t instruct their children in the Christian faith much anymore at home. So we’re just losing the culture because we’re losing the youth.”

Anti-Christian trends in education

In January, a California-based legal organization reported a spike in hostility toward Christian students in public schools.

Attorney Bob Tyler of Advocates for Faith and Freedom told Christian News Network, “We have seen a dramatic increase of phone calls nationwide as it pertains to kids in public schools who are facing hostility because of their faith.”

According to the report, Tyler said the reports aren’t a result of student bullying.

“[The reports all surround] hostility from teachers and school administrators who are curtailing the students’ free speech rights simply because they’re Christians and they might express a Christian worldview,” he said.

In recent years, WND has reported the following attacks on Christians in the public school systems:

Escaping the public school system

Churches have failed their congregations on this issue, according to Moore, who says they should be focused on forming Christian alternatives to public schools.

But he said pastors address the public versus Christian education issue.

“I’m going to let you in on a dirty little secret of the evangelical pastors,” he said. “I’ve been in the ministry for 40 years, and I can tell you this is true because they tell me this when we talk privately. They are afraid to tackle this because they have so many public school addicts in their churches. If they address it strongly, they’ll lose their jobs.”

Moore added, “They’d rather hold onto their jobs, thinking they can do some good and win people to Christ, and not tackle the big gorilla in the room, which is public education. We think it’s the responsibility of the churches to meet this need.”

The ideal model, according to Moore, would be if churches would provide financial assistance to their tithing families who couldn’t otherwise afford the cost of a private education. Families who could afford the tuition would pay for it themselves.

“In South Carolina, it costs $11,500 to educate child in public schools,” he said. “If the system operated on the free market, if it were all private, just based on the cost of private education, we could do it at half the cost.”

But Moore admits that convincing churches to accommodate families’ educational needs is a major task.

“Getting them to do that is the tough part because they’re not even taking care of their affluent members right now,” he said. “Part of our problem is we’ve got to sell this to the churches and pastors.

“We would take charge of our children’s education, and in doing that, we would take charge of the country and our culture. This would be a reformation or a revolution.”

E. Ray Moore and former U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

Left’s reaction to Ray Moore’s challenge

Moore has faced some criticism from the left over his view of public education. At an April 12 rally, he addressed a crowd in Charleston, telling the gathering:

“It is our hope and prayer that a fresh obedience by Christian families in educating their children according to biblical commands will prove to be a key for the revival of our families, our churches and our nation. We cannot win this war we’re in as long as we keep handing our children over to the enemy to educate. All of the symptoms and the things that we’re fighting and complaining about today have been caused because the culture has changed. The culture has turned against God, against our Constitution and against traditional values. Why is that happening? It’s fundamentally and largely [because] of the public school system. We’ve had six or seven generations where most of us have put our children in the godless, pagan school systems. It cannot be fixed. It’s a socialistic model, and we need to abandon that. As conservatives and Christians, if you think you’re going to win this war you’re in, and leave your children in those schools, it will not happen.”

Reacting to Moore’s speech, Huffington Post senior political reporter Jon Ward said, “This guy is of an age when protestant Christians were the moral majority. So he’s talking about these issues in a very outdated, outmoded, out-of-touch way.”

While Ward affirmed parents’ rights to provide religious education for their children, he added, “I don’t think most people think about it the way this guy does. Most people are much more, I think, reasonable in their approach and much less martial.”

But Moore says he’s “getting a very positive response from Christians and conservatives” across the country.

He recalled a speech he gave in 1999 while serving on a panel for the First Amendment Center in Nashville, Tennessee. Moore said many of the leftists on the panel expected him to say his group was planning to take over the public schools, run the school boards and fight to teach creationism once again.

“But I shocked them,” he said. “I came in, I threw my hands up and I said, ‘We give up! You all can have the schools. I’m taking the Christians and the churches out. We’re going to the promised land of Christian schooling and homeschooling. We’re going to take charge of our own education.’”

Moore said there was real concern in the crowd because the leftists didn’t like his idea.

“They were trying to tell me I couldn’t do that and I shouldn’t do that,” he said.

After the meeting ended, Moore said he began talking with a National Education Agency union leader from Tennessee in the lobby.

“She said to me, ‘Please don’t do that. That is a terrible idea. We need Christians in public schools. You bring so much to public education. Please don’t do that,’” Moore said.

But he added, “I thought to myself, ‘Wow, this must really be a good idea!’”

Moore isn’t concerned about preserving the public model, and he believes leftists and Americans with different belief systems should form their own private schools.

“Let them have their own schools,” he said. “Let the homosexuals have schools for their children. Let the atheists have schools for their children. They’re free to do it. Let the evolutionists have schools for their children.

“But stop indoctrinating our children and taxing us – it’s an obscene and coercive tax. Let them voluntarily pay for their schools, and we’ll have our schools. Don’t use the coercion of the state to coerce the population.”

South Carolina lieutenant governor race

Moore has taken a leave of absence from his position as executive director of Exodus Mandate so he could enter the race for the office of lieutenant governor in South Carolina. His slogan is, “What once was can be again.”

“Now why I’m running for lieutenant governor is, I had this ministry and I was unhappy with the Republican Party and the conservative movement and the churches and how slowly they are moving toward an education freedom model – or some people sometimes say school choice,” he said. “It’s moving so gradually. We’ve got to hurry that process up because our time is getting short where we can save the children because the culture is descending into the moral abyss very rapidly now because of public education.

“I saw a chance to run and elevate the debate in my state.”

E. Ray Moore

In January, South Carolina Lt. Gov. Glenn McConnell said he won’t seek re-election. Instead, he’ll serve as president of the College of Charleston.

The date of the primary is June 10. Other GOP candidates seeking the Republican nomination in the primary include retired developer Pat McKinney, business consultant Mike Campbell and former South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster. Campbell, the son of former Gov. Caroll Campbell, served as state chairman for Mike Huckabee’s 2008 presidential campaign in the state. McKinney is a member of Gov. Nikki Haley’s re-election finance team.

The Democrat candidate, running unopposed in his party, is former state House Rep. Bakari Sellers a former member of the South Carolina steering committee of Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.

If Haley is re-elected this year, she will face term limits and cannot run again in 2018, a situation that may position the next lieutenant governor to seek the governorship in four years.

While Moore said the office of lieutenant governor in South Carolina is primarily tasked with presiding over the state Senate and managing the Office of Aging and Disability, he said, “All the lieutenant governors have their projects that they work on.”

“I’m going to concern myself and my special projects with the reforming of our family lives, cultural development and moral and spiritual renewal,” he said. “One way that I would do that is to be a strong advocate for marriage and for private, Christian and home education. I think we can renew our culture. That would be one of my projects.”




SIX THINGS THE US DEPT OF EDUCATION DID TO DEPRIVE YOUR CHILD OF PRIVACY

SIX THINGS THE US DEPT OF EDUCATION DID TO DEPRIVE YOUR CHILD OF PRIVACY

The story of Common Core and data mining begins as most stories do, with a huge, unmet need.

Self-appointed “stakeholder” know-it-alls at the federal level (also at state, corporate, and even university levels) determined that they had the right, and the need, for open access to personal student data– more so than they already had.

They needed state school systems to voluntarily agree to common data core standards AND to common learning standards to make data comparisons easy. They didn’t care what the standards were, as teachers and parents and students do; they only cared that the standards would be the same across the nation.

So, without waiting around for a proper vote, they did it. The CEDS (Common Education Data Standards) were created by the same people who created and copyrighted Common Core: the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). No surprise.

CEDS common elements

Because the federal “need” to control schools and data was and is illegal and unconstitutional –the federal government “needed” to do (and did) at least six sneaky things.

SIX SNEAKY THINGS THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DID TO DEPRIVE YOUR CHILD OF PRIVACY:

1. Sneaky Thing Number One: It bribed the states with ARRA Stimulus monies to build 50 linkable, twinlike State Longitudinal Database Systems (SLDS). This act created a virtual national database.

These SLDS’s had to be interoperable within states and outside states with a State Interoperability FrameworkUtah, for example, accepted $9.6 million to create Utah’s SLDS. Think about it. All states have an SLDS, and they are built to be interoperable. How is this not a de facto national database?

2. Sneaky Thing Number Two: It altered the (previously privacy-protective) federal FERPA (Family Educational Rights Privacy Act) law to make access to personally identifiable student data –including biological and behavioral data– “legal”.

So now, the act of requiring parental consent (to share personally identifiable information) has been reduced from a requirement to just a “best practice” according to the altered federal FERPA regulations.

Best practice FERPA

For more information on this, study the lawsuit against the Department of Education by the Electronic Information Privacy Center (EPIC).

The Department of Ed also altered FERPA’s definitions of terms, including what would be defined as “personally identifiable information”.

Biometric Definition FEDERAL

So personally identifiable, shareable information now includes biometric information, (which is behavioral and biological information) collected via testing, palm scanning or iris scanning, or any other means. Schools have not been told that the information they submit to the state SLDS systems are vulnerable to federal and corporate perusal. Legislators write bills that call for the testing of behavioral indicators– but have they considered how this can damage a student’s lifelong need for, and right to, privacy?

The Department of Education openly promotes schools collecting data about students’ personalities and beliefs in the report called “Promoting Grit, Tenacity and Perserverance.” This document promotes the use of facial expression cameras, posture analysis seats, wireless skin conductance sensors and other measures of students’ beliefs and emotions. See page 44.

3. Sneaky Thing Number Three: The US Department of Education partnered with private groups, including the CCSSO (that’s the Council of Chief State School Officers –copyright holders on Common Core–) to collect student data nationally.

The CCSSO, or “Superintendents’ Club” as I like to call it, is a private group with no accountability to voters. This makes it in-valid and un-American, as far as governance goes. The CCSSO has a stated mission: to disaggregate student data. Disaggregate means to take away anonymity.

CCSSO disaggregation

The CCSSO states that it has a mission to collect data nationally in partnership with the US Dept of Ed: “The Education Information Management Advisory Consortium (EIMAC) is CCSSO’s network of state education agency officials tasked with data collection and reporting; information system management and design; and assessment coordination. EIMAC advocates on behalf of states to reduce data collection burden and improve the overall quality of the data collected at the national level.

The CCSSO site states that its data collection effort is a USDOE partnership: “The Common Education Data Standards Initiative is a joint effort by CCSSO and the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO) in partnership with the United Staes Department of Education.”

(Do you recall voting for this arrangement, anyone? Anyone? –Me neither! )

4. Sneaky Thing Number Four: It used private-public partnerships to promote data linking among agencies. The Data Quality Campaign is one example. The National Data Collection Model is another example. The Common Educational Data Standards is another example.

What do these “models” really model?

Example one: from the Data Quality Campaign: “as states build and enhance K12 longitudinal data systems they continue building linkages to exchange and use information across early childhood, postsecondary and the workforce and with other critical agencies such as health, social services and criminal justice systems.”

Let that sink in: linking data from schools, medical clinics, and criminal justice systems is the goal of the Federal-to-CCSSO partnership. So nothing will be kept from any governmental agency; nothing is to be sacred or private if it is known by an SLDS serving entity (any state-funded, state-accountable school).

Example two: from the National Data Collection Model:

your child’s name
nickname
religious affiliation
birthdate
ability grouping
GPA
physical characteristics
IEP
attendance
telephone number
bus stop times
allergies
diseases
languages and dialects spoken
number of attempts at a given assignment
delinquent status
referral date
nonschool activity involvement
meal type
screen name
maternal last name
voting status
martial status
– and even cause of death.

Proponents point out that this is not mandatory federal data collection. True; not yet. But it’s a federally partnered data model and many states are following it.

5. Sneaky Thing Number Five: The Department of Ed created grants for Common Core testing and then mandated that those testing groups synchronize their tests, report fully and often to the U.S. Department of Education, share student-level data, and produce “all student-level data in a manner consistent with an industry-recognized open-licensed interoperability standard that is approved by the Department”.

So federally funded Common Core tests require Common data interoperability standards.

Check out that Cooperative Agreement document here.

But, do you think this “Agreement” information does not apply to you because your state dropped its SBAC or PARCC membership –as several states have? Think again. There is an incestuous, horrific pool of private and public organizations, all of which are VOLUNTARILY agreeing to Common Core based, technological interoperability and data collection standards!

The Data Quality Campaign lists as its partners dozens of groups– not only the CCSSO and NGA (Common Core creators), not only the College Board –which is now run by the lead architect of Common Core, David Coleman; –not only Achieve, Inc., the group that contracted with CCSSO/NGO to write the Common Core, but even the School Interoperability Framework Association, the Pell Institute (Pell Grants), Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education, American Institutes for Research (Utah’s Common Core testing provider) and many other Common Core product-providing organizations.

So virtually everyone’s doing data the same way whether they’re privately or publically funded. This should freak anybody out. It really should. We the People, individuals, are losing personal power to these public-private partnerships that cannot be un-elected and that are not subject to the transparency laws of elected offices.

6. Sneaky Thing Number Six: The Department of Education directly lied to the American Society of News Editors. In a June 2013 speech given to the American Society of News Editors, Secretary Duncan mocked the concerns of parents and educators who are fighting Common Core and its related student data mining:

A new set of standards — rigorous, high-quality learning standards, developed and led by a group of governors and state education chiefs — are under attack as a federal takeover of the schools. And your role in sorting out truth from nonsense is really important… They make.. outlandish claims. They say that the Common Core calls for federal collection of student data. For the record, we are not allowed to, and we won’t. And let’s not even get into the really wacky stuff: mind control, robots, and biometric brain mapping. This work is interesting, but frankly, not that interesting.”

Despite what the state school board and the federal Department of Education claim, corporations do know that Common Core and student data mining are interdependent.

CEO of Escholar Shawn Bay spoke at a recent White House event called “Datapalooza.” He said (see his speech on this video, at about minute 9:15) that Common Core “is the glue that actually ties everything together” for student data collection.

And President Obama himself has called his educational and data related reforms so huge that they are cradle to career” -affecting reforms. Secretary Duncan now refers to the reforms not as “K-12″ but as “p-12″ meaning preschool/prenatal. These reforms affect the most vulnerable, but not in a positive way, and certainly not with voters’ knowledge and consent.

The sneakiness and the privacy invasion isn’t just a federal wrong; there’s state-level invasion of local control, too: to be specific, our state’s robbing parents of the right to fully govern their own children.

When I asked my state school board how to opt out of having my children tracked by the State Longitudinal Database System, I was told that the answer was no. There was no way to opt out, they said: all children registered in any state school system (charters, online schools, homeschool-state hybrid programs) are tracked by the SLDS. Here’s that letter.

The Answer is No

Despite Constitutional and G.E.P.A.-law prohibitions, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan admitted that “The Obama administration has sought to fundamentally shift the federal role, so that the Department is doing much more”. Duncan also said, “America is now in the midst of a “quiet revolution” in school reform.” (Yes, it’s been so quiet that the people governed by it weren’t asked about this revolution.)

Yet, federal speeches, and scholarly research conferences and corporate marketers now openly push for common standards and common data systems. From the official White House website to federal educational grant applications to federally partnered corporate sites, to Secretary Duncan’s speeches, there are countless examples to show that the priorities of the federal government are these four things1) standards 2) staff 3) “robust” national data systems 4) labeling certain schools as low-achieving.

And the data product sales companies couldn’t agree more.

Common Core proponents insist that Common Core has nothing to do with data mining. But the federal government always bundles the common standards and the data systems, always. This federal push for common data standards and common education standards ought to be household knowledge. That is step number one, seeing the federal patterns and federal pushes for what they are.

EDFACTS

So, what difference does it make? I hear people say that since they have nothing to hide, they’re unconcerned about who’s tracking their children or their families without consent.

I say our founding fathers didn’t write the Constitution without inspiration.

The Constitution describes the God-given right to privacy:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

How easy will it be for those with access to the national databases to label a person as behaviorally unstable and therefore, unworthy of passing a background check for a job or for a gun purchase? How easy will it be for those with access to the databases to search and seize anything at all that they deem inappropriate, that they deem threatening, that they deem theirs?

Privacy is not properly protected by our state school systems and those who ought to know this, don’t. It’s not their fault; the truth has been carefully, quietly hidden. But widespread knowledge of the facts can –and must-- alter these facts.

Please share.

———————————————————-

Postscript: About Control

State school boards tell citizens to give them feedback on the Common Core Standards, and not to discuss anything else related to Common Core or its governance structures.

But citizens have the right to determine what will be discussed; this is America. And any discussion of the standards themselves can only be very temporarily relevant.

Why is academic argument about Common Core only temporarily relevant?

Because two private D.C. trade groups, the NGA (Governors’ club) and the CCSSO (Superintendents’ club) own the standards and have copyrighted them. They alone control the standards. The states do not; nor do the voters in the states.

Inside the state: We can alter the standards only by 15%, according to federal mandates and the writings of the private trade groups that created the standards.

Outside the state: We have no voice in future alterations to the standards. There is no written amendment process outlined for states to have a voice in “their” standards. There is no representative process. That’s why Common Core is unAmerican.

This is why we call Common Core education without representation. It is also accurate to call the education reform package citizen surveillance without warrant, as detailed above.

—————-

For a 15-minute crash-course on the connection between Common Core and student data mining, watch this video by Jane Robbins of the American Principles Project:



Sent from my iPhone

WHAT THE COMMON CORE WILL DO TO COLLEGES

WHAT THE COMMON CORE WILL DO TO COLLEGES

common_core_blog.jpg

Changes in the SAT, announced on March 5 by the College Board, adjust the test to the ongoing decline in the nation’s public schools. The new test lightens vocabulary and math and eliminates the penalty for bad guessing. The new SAT grows out of and accommodates the Common Core State Standards, the controversial set of K-12 standards adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia.

The Common Core’s standards amount to an assault on the college curriculum. That’s because colleges will have to adapt to what the Common Core teaches–and what it fails to teach. It teaches a mechanical way of reading that is poorly suited to literature, philosophy, history, and the rest of the liberal arts.  It also fails to teach the math students need to begin a college-level curriculum in the sciences.

Complaints

The Common Core has aroused a broad-based and sometimes furious reaction among Americans across the political spectrum. The furor, however, isn’t yet focused on what the Common Core does to a college education. Rather, the complaints focus on the immediate harm to students and to schools. The arguments against Common Core have proliferated almost beyond counting, but the short version is something like this:

The Race to the Middle.  The Common Core promises higher academic standards in the nation’s schools.  In some cases it will deliver on that promise, but in other cases, the Common Core actually lowers standards.  The whole thing is an experiment in social leveling.

Goodbye Local Control.  The Common Core transfers a lot of power over the nation’s schools from local districts and state governments to the federal government.  The transfer is deceptive and probably illegal. The deception comes from the Common Core being sold as “voluntarily” adopted by the states. The illegality comes from statutory law that prohibits the federal government’s involvement in creating school curricula.

Big Brother. The Common Core is designed to collect and aggregate an immense amount of data on individual students’ academic performance. Critics worry that this will eventuate in detailed federal files on everyone who attends school.

Other objections focus on the Common Core’s utilitarian goals.  Common Core emphasizes “informational texts” at the expense of literature, promotes out-of-context reading, and significantly lowers expectations for students in math. The Common Core is designed to expedite the way students work, and it minimizes just about everything else schools might be expected to do, such as develop creativity, foster a fullness of mind, and strengthen character.

Common Core was sold to the states as a way to make students “college ready.”  The sales pitch was that our nation’s schools do a mediocre to poor job prepping students for the next leg of the journey to adulthood–the leg that will take them through Chem 101, English Lit, or whatever college “first years” now take.

Like all good sales pitches, this one was grounded in truth. Our schools don’t do an especially good job at preparing students for college.  As anyone (including me) who has taught freshmen at a “selective” college or university can attest, a great many students arrive at college with no capacity to write a short essay.  Many cannot reliably compose even a grammatical sentence.  Their knowledge of history and literature is generally many steps below what students twenty years ago brought with them, and twenty years ago was a big step down from twenty years before that. Preparation in mathematics and basic science has plummeted even further.

That said, each semester a handful of students would turn out to be capable and disciplined writers who were pretty well-informed on the things we college teachers used to be able to take for granted.  Some are from elite academies or exceptional public schools.  But a growing number are homeschooled.

So when Common Core’s proponents announced that they were serious about remaking our public schools into places where students would graduate “college ready,” the American public was primed to say, “It’s about time.”

Ready or Not

But a good sales pitch isn’t the same as a good product.  As we have gotten to see the Common Core up close, it looks less and less likely to yield “college ready students” in the way we hoped.

The Common Core will in all likelihood improve education for some students.  How many, what percentage, where, at what cost, and with what drawbacks?  The whole thing has been rushed into place so quickly that no one really knows. But a few things have become clear:

Locking In Mediocrity.  The Obama administration’s way of fast-tracking the Common Core through state approval was the $4.35 billion “Race to the Top.” To qualify to get into the competition for these funds, states had to agree in advance that students who complete a Common Core curriculum would be admitted to public colleges and universities as full-fledged students. Such students will be exempt from having to take remedial courses because, after all, the state has pre-certified them as “college ready.”  What part of “college ready” do those professors not understand?  If the students aren’t “ready” to write college essays, so much the worse for college essays.

I doubt that the bureaucrats and state legislators who approved this stipulation gave a moment’s thought to what this arrangement really means. Thanks to various “preference” programs in college admissions–for racial minorities principally but also for athletes and other “special interests”–colleges admit many students who are mismatched to the prevailing level of academic rigor. The usual recourse for these students has been an effort to repair the gaps in their learning through remedial courses, which are usually non-credit courses, i.e. they don’t count towards graduation. They are on-ramps for students who are not yet ready for freshman courses.

The Common Core, in a stroke, abolishes this option. If a college admits students who are mismatched, it will have no choice but to mainstream those students into regular courses.

Colleges could decide not to admit such students at all or admit them and watch them fail. But given higher education’s steely commitment to using college admissions to advance its ideas of “social justice,” most colleges will simply lower academic standards across the board.  Note that this cannot stop with freshman year.  Once a college injects “underprepared” (i.e. incompetent) students into mainstream introductory courses and adjusts those courses to avoid embarrassingly high failure rates, the consequences will propagate through all the subsequent courses.

Subterfuges will necessarily evolve.  Colleges will create or expand “honors” programs for students who meet what were formerly the basic standards.  Remedial courses will be relabeled as regular courses, even though everyone will know they are remedial. Untalented students will be shunted even more than they are now to soft majors in fields such as African-American studies, sociology, and women’s studies.

But such subterfuges will be targets for severe criticism by the academic left on the grounds that they discriminate. The emergence too conspicuously of a two-tier system would be denounced as racist, classist, anti-immigrant, and so on. The only viable choice for most colleges and universities will be to dilute the curriculum.  The Common Core is thus set to become a bulldozer aimed at leveling what remains of intellectual excellence in American higher education.

Remedial courses, I might add, have themselves become a blight in American higher education, but that’s a topic for another day.

Locking Out Liberal Learning.  The Common Core emphasizes how to glean information from the written word–and other media as well. The catchphrase that the Common Core uses for the written words that students will mine for information is “informational texts.”  Think of the recipe on the back of the soup can for turning soup into a tasty casserole. But not all “informational texts” present themselves as instructions. “Information” can be gleaned from all sorts of texts, including picture books, novels, poems, YouTube videos, works of history, and speeches by notables such as Abraham Lincoln.

The trouble is that if you see the written word as mainly a device for conveying information, you miss many other things that writing can do. It stirs emotions; it points to truths beyond itself; alternatively, it conveys lies; it may possess beauty or it may be ugly; it can cause us to ask questions that the text itself does not ask; it possesses implications; it belongs to and participates in a larger context; it taps into secret memories; it rallies us to public causes.

The Common Core slights all of these purposes.  That is not to say it ignores them entirely. It gives some small space to mythology and literature–a space that retracts year by year as students progress through the Common Core.

Why should this matter?  We should surely want students to be able to read recipes on soup cans and to extract important information from “texts.”  That’s a useful skill.  But it is a skill that, cultivated at the expense of a more well-rounded form of literacy, cuts students off from the foundation of a liberal education. Students who know how to read “informational texts,” and to read every piece of writing as though it is an “informational text,” are ill-prepared for Plato’s Republic or Shakespeare’s King Lear. Indeed, they are ill-prepared for Goodnight Moon.

This gap between how the Common Core teaches students to read and the kind of reading required in a liberal education is especially worrisome at a time when colleges have to a great extent abandoned their old core curricula.  Students these days are lulled with the illusion that they can become “critical thinkers” by studying whatever catches their interest, rather than what their colleges have deemed the most important works. That whole do-it-yourself approach puts a premium on the capacity of college students to read with their eyes wide open and to get to places well beyond the “information” that a “text” lays out.

With the Common Core, we will have the worst of both worlds: students who come equipped to read mainly for information and college curricula designed for students equipped mainly for independent intellectual synthesis.

Watering Down Math.  Common Core defers the teaching of algebra to the 9th grade.  As a consequence, it will be difficult for schools to offer pre-calculus to students before they finish high school. There simply isn’t enough time left in the curriculum to reach that level, and the Common Core poses other obstacles as well. Trigonometry is barely broached. Geometry follows an eccentric path. The result is that students who go to college hoping to study the physical sciences, computing, engineering, economics, and other math-heavy fields will be handicapped.  Or they will have to scramble before they get to college to supplement what their high schools offer.

Some students will find their ways around these obstacles, but many won’t, and that will leave colleges and universities with few good choices.  The likeliest path will be to reduce the rigor of their science programs to accommodate students who have to spend their first year catching up on mathematics that used to be taught in high school.

Everybody acknowledges how important the STEM fields are for America’s future–and few are more vocal about this than Bill Gates. One of the ironies of the Common Core is that its most lavish-spending advocate is contributing to the further erosion of our nation’s strength in this area.  Perhaps it is no wonder that Mr. Gates is also a major supporter of increasing the number of H-1B visas for foreign nationals who have expertise in science and engineering.

What Else?

The Common Core will not make an appreciable number of students more “college ready.” It may smooth the way, however, for more students to be admitted to college. President Obama and Michelle Obama have recently ratcheted up the campaign that Obama announced back in his first address to Congress in February 2009–to make America the nation with the highest percentage of college graduates. The pitch that “everyone should go to college” has been a favorite of American politicians for a long time. It is, on its face, silly. To achieve anything like it would require obliterating academic standards and wasting untold trillions of dollars. But the phrase somehow strokes the national ego.

The Common Core feeds this fantasy and the illusions buried within, namely, that a college degree is a ticket to personal prosperity and that having lots of people who have college degrees necessarily makes the nation more competitive in the global economy. For reference: the nation that currently has the greatest percentage of college degrees in its population is that economic powerhouse, Russia. Moreover, the nation with the strongest economy in Europe–Germany–has about half the percentage of college-degreed people as the United States does.

So the effort to grease the skids from public school to college is founded on a mistake.  But it is a mistake that Americans somehow cherish and won’t easily relinquish.  We would go a lot further towards both a greater degree of personal prosperity and national competitiveness if we really did improve K-12 education–not with the idea of making our schools operate better as conveyor belts to our languishing higher education institutions, but with the idea of fostering a true spirit of educational achievement among students, parents, and teachers. I know.  Easier said than done.

The task at hand, however, is to stop the Common Core before it can inflict more harm.  The battle will probably be waged over the issues I listed earlier–the race to the middle, goodbye local control, big brother–during the races for public office in which the Common Core becomes an issue.  But the Common Core is also an assault on higher education and as that becomes clear perhaps the strange coalition of opponents will grow stranger still.  I await the rallies where Tea Party activists unite in uncommon cause with English and History profs.

(Photo Credit: IEW.)

 

 8  0  0  65  0




BILL BENNETT SCHOOLED ON COMMIN CORE


BILL, YOU’RE WRONG ABOUT COMMON CORE’

For years, Bill Bennett, former U.S. Secretary of Education, has avoided taking a position on the Common Core K-12 State Standards.  But yesterday he declared himself in favor. His essay in The Wall Street Journal, under the headline “The Conservative Case for Common Core,” dwells on the idea that conservatives generally favor good books, shared truths, and education that equips students with basic math and the ability to “read and distill complex sentences Bennett drives the point that “certain abilities” ought to be “common knowledge of all.” Just so. But then he proceeds as though “common knowledge” and “The Common Core™” are one and the same. They’re not.

He writes that “the fundamental idea behind a core curriculum” is “preserving and emphasizing what’s essential.” A true core curriculum does preserve and emphasize the “essential” in contrast to the merely trendy, the happenstance, the contingent, the experimental, and the trivial.  That doesn’t mean that everything that hoists the flag of “core curriculum” really is “core curriculum.”  Look around American higher education today and you can barely help crashing into “core curricula” that are barely distinguishable from swarms of intellectual gnats.  Bill Bennett knows that about as well as anyone.

Related: What the Common Core Will Do to Colleges

The Common Core K-12 Curriculum isn’t a congregation of gnats, but it is astonishingly experimental.  It does not build on “essential” knowledge. Rather it ventures out on the thin, thin ice of conjectural innovation, as its highly unusual approaches to elementary instruction in math and its novel approach to geometry.  This isn’t the place to go into details, but the weirdness of the Common Core’s approach to math has been widely remarked by parents and roundly excoriated by mathematicians.  It actively hinders students from learning mathematical shortcuts, and tried and true techniques in favor immersing them in number theory.

I expect a certain kind of mathematical pedant likes the Common Core approach:  mathematicians of this sort don’t want students merely to learn how to do math; they want each and every student to contemplate the deep why of math.  My own view is that in most cases, learning how precedes learning why.  We don’t need to teach children the laws of physics to teach them how to ride bikes.

Related: Common Core Mandates Will Harm Critical Thinking

Bennett offers more of this sort of misdirection and then turns to another bad argument—the idea that the Common Core really is, despite the Obama administration’s attempt to hijack it, deep down a state-level initiative.   The supposed evidence for this is that the Common Core was in play before Obama made it his own and 45 states “signed up originally.”  What actually happened is that the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, backed by a boatload of Gates Foundation money, drew expressions of preliminary interest from all those states.  It was an idea in development, and there were no standards even in draft form for the states to see.  What was in play was a lot of loose rhetoric.

Or you could go back and read some of the original writings by David Coleman, the primary architect of the Common Core, and his colleagues.  But if you did, you would have a hard time saying that the Common Core was ever a “conservative idea.”  It began as a proposal for lowering academic standards in the hope that simpler and easier benchmarks would permit larger numbers of students to move ahead, undiscouraged by anything like actual difficulty.  One of Coleman’s brilliant rhetorical innovations was his decision to call this dumbing down “higher standards” on the grounds that they would permit higher numbers of students to pass.

Bennett assures us that the federal usurpation of the Common Core is a temporary thing and can, in the fullness of time, be undone.  The state-level voluntary character of the Common Core can be restored.  That’s a fantasy.  The Common Core was meant from the get-go to replace state and local autonomy with national control.  It was designed that way and federal control is intrinsic to it.  Of course, if you like the federal educrats running the curriculum with the aid of a couple of privately held testing consortia and the enthusiastic support of some textbook mega-publishers, the Common Core may be your thing.  But to imagine it as a “conservative” undertaking is to imagine what never was and will never be.

 64  24  0  100  3




Thursday, September 11, 2014

Condemning the Teaching of Common Core Math Concepts


IFI Condemns the Teaching of Math Concepts? Say It Ain’t So | Illinois Family Institute
IFI Condemns the Teaching of Math Concepts? Say It Ain’t So

Last Saturday, IFI posted a video from a news program that purported to demonstrate teaching math the Common Core way. This video had been and continues to be widely circulated on conservative websites like Daily Caller and shown on television programs like John Stossel’s program Stossel and Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld.

We received a few critical email messages from IFI subscribers who either misunderstood our motives for posting it or perhaps are unamused by satire (including inadvertent satire). So, I would like to clarify why we posted it, what the video demonstrates about Common Core that we believe warrants criticism, and what we are not criticizing:

1.  The reason we posted it is the same reason it is circulating: It is—to many viewers—funny. It is funny because it is (inadvertently) satirical. Satire mocks phenomenon—not because the phenomenon is wholly flawed—but because some aspect of it is flawed.

2.  The video is funny because it draws attention to two common criticisms of Common Core. It draws attention to the criticism that Common Core de-emphasizes memorization and that it overcomplicates the teaching of subject matter through confusing explanations and education jargon. While the method demonstrated in the video is touted as making addition problems easier, the way the teacher explained it in this particular video would be confusing to young children—and many adults.

Perhaps the teacher’s poor explanation derived from the limited time she had available or perhaps from the Common Core language (i.e., “anchoring” and “decomposing”), but nonetheless, many people find the demonstration amusing.

Two of our critics, while agreeing that the teacher’s explanation was inadequate and the language inappropriate, found nothing funny about it. I would agree that if the funny parts were taken out, it wouldn’t be funny.

Many viewers who are amused by the video are also troubled by it. They’re troubled by Common Core’s apparent de-emphasis on memorization of facts (and not just in math), which this video reinforces. Even the interviewer’s introduction reinforces the public’s concern with Common Core’s de-emphasis on memorization.

Click here to see an even funnier video of a Grayslake, Illinois math teacher making that point explicitly. Just to be clear, my posting of this video should not be interpreted as a criticism of requiring students to explain their reasoning. It is a criticism of an apparent de-emphasis on math facts—which many students learn, develop facility with, and retain through memorization.

3.  The reason IFI posted the video on Saturday is not that we find the strategy the teacher is using inherently problematic. Nor do we oppose the teaching of base 10, or the teaching of  mathematical concepts, principles, and strategies that facilitate both comprehension and computation. IFI heartily and unequivocally endorses the teaching of math concepts, principles, strategies, facts—and satire (including inadvertent satire).

Those of you who enjoy a dollop of lighthearted satire following a more substantive meal of propositional argumentation (heavy on nutritional evidence), pick up your dessert spoon and taste this: “Ten Dumbest Common Core Problems.”




Wednesday, September 10, 2014

WHAT IS A CHARTER SYSTEM PUBLIC SCHOOL

Barrow County Ga PDF
WHAT IS A CHARTER SCHOOL SYSTEM


FAQ's by UnCommonSchools.org
http://www.uncommonschools.org/faq-what-is-charter-school
Frequently Asked Questions About Public, Charter Schools

What is a charter school?

A charter school is an independently run public school granted greater flexibility in its operations, in return for greater accountability for performance. The "charter" establishing each school is a performance contract detailing the school's mission, program, students served, performance goals, and methods of assessment.

What is the difference between charter schools and other public schools?

Charter schools are public schools of choice, meaning that families choose them for their children. They operate with freedom from some of the regulations that are imposed upon district schools. Charter schools are accountable for academic results and for upholding the promises made in their charters. They must demonstrate performance in the areas of academic achievement, financial management, and organizational stability. If a charter school does not meet performance goals, it may be closed.

Are charter schools all the same?

No. Charter schools can vary a great deal in their design and in their results. Uncommon Schools creates schools based on the principles and practices that have proven successful in producing significant academic gains at high-performing urban charter public schools across the country.

Who authorizes charter schools?

This varies from state to state, depending on the state's charter law. In New York, there are three authorizers: the New York State Board of Regents, the State University of New York Board of Trustees, and local boards of education. In New Jersey, there is one authorizer, the state Commissioner of Education. In Massachusetts, the authorizer is the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Who can start a charter school?

Parents, community leaders, social entrepreneurs, businesses, teachers, school districts, and municipalities can submit a charter school proposal to their state's charter authorizing entity.

Who attends charter schools? Whom do they serve?

Nationwide, students in charter schools have similar demographic characteristics to students in the local public schools. In some states, charter schools serve significantly higher percentages of minority or low-income students than the traditional public schools. Charter schools accept students by random, public lottery.

How are charter schools funded?

As public schools, charter schools are tuition-free. They are funded according to enrollment levels and receive public funds on a per pupil basis. In some states, such as Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, and New Jersey, they receive less than 100% of the funds allocated to their traditional counterparts for school operations. In other states, such as California, additional funds or loans are made available to them. In most states, charters do not receive capital funds to support facility expenses. Charter schools are entitled to federal categorical funding for which their students are eligible, such as Title I and Special Education monies. Federal legislation provides grants to help charters to manage start-up costs.

What is a charter management organization?

Charter management organizations (CMOs), generally speaking, are organizations that contract with an individual school or schools to deliver management services. These services typically include curriculum development, assessment design, professional development, systems implementation, back-office services, teacher recruitment, and facility services. Uncommon Schools is a nonprofit CMO that contracts with individual charter school boards of trustees. Uncommon's "bottom line" is that each school achieves at the highest level. All decisions are made in the context of what is best for the individual school to ensure student achievement and outstanding academic results.

What makes the schools in Uncommon different from other schools?

Uncommon schools share the following key attributes: a college preparatory mission; high standards for academics and character; a highly structured learning environment; a longer school day and a longer school year; a focus on accountability and data-driven instruction; and a faculty of committed and talented leaders and teachers. Schools within the Uncommon network are modeled on some of the highest-performing urban public charter schools in the country.

How can I enroll my child at an Uncommon School?

Each school admits students through a random lottery. Based on legislation passed in 2007, all New York City charter schools, beginning in the 2008-9 school year, must give preference to students resident in the Community School District (CSD) in which the charter school is located. However, students who reside outside the CSD are eligible to apply and may be admitted if space permits. Please visit the individual school pages to learn more about the enrollment processes for Boston, New York City, Newark, Rochester, and Troy.

Do teachers need to be certified to work at an Uncommon school?

Certification requirements vary on a state-by-state basis. In New Jersey, all teachers must be certified, and Uncommon Schools helps teachers navigate the alternate route process to secure their teaching credentials. In New York, while the state does not require that 100% of teachers be certified at each charter school, the rules under the "No Child Left Behind" Law mean that teachers need to get their licenses with reasonable speed; Uncommon New York City is able to ensure that its teachers are enrolled in a Master's program that provides provisional certification and, more importantly, high quality training. In Massachusetts, charter school teachers must attain Highly Qualified teacher status as dictated by the "No Child Left Behind" Law by possessing a bachelor’s degree and demonstrating subject matter competence in the subjects they teach; Uncommon Boston encourages teachers to get certified and assists them in this process.

Links to More Information on Charter Schools in Massachusetts:

 

Links to More Information on Charter Schools in New Jersey:

 

Links to More Information on Charter Schools in New York:

 

Links to More Information on Charter Schools in the U.S.:


PARCC and SBAC States Agree to Deliver Student-level Data to USDOE

PARCC and SBAC States Agree to Deliver Student-level Data to USDOE

In September 2010, two assessment consortia “won” federal Race to the Top (RTTT) money for the “design, development, and evaluation of the assessment system” known as Race to the Top Assessment (RTTA): The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC).

PARCC received $170 million, and SBAC, $160 million, plus an additional $16 million to each consortium to “support efforts to help participating States successfully transition to common standards and assessments.”

Their award letters can be found here for PARCC and here for SBAC.

In the award letters, both PARCC and SBAC were expected by January 7, 2011, to “negotiate and complete a final cooperative agreement” with the federal government regarding the usage of the “common standards” assessments.

The fine print for taking college-and-career-ready dough from the feds.

Both cooperative agreements can be found here for PARCC and here for SBAC.

I have heard individuals ask about whether one of the requirements of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) is the release of student-level data to the federal government. I have heard pro-CCSS officials dismiss this idea as unfounded.

Not so.

PARCC and SBAC are the federally-funded, CCSS-assessment consortia. In order to receive those federal millions for CCSS assessment development, both consortia had to agree to deliver student-level data to USDOE.

Data is control, and USDOE wants control over state education affairs. (If you doubt USDOE’s desire for control over states, google “Arne Duncan NCLB waivers” and do a bit of reading.)

Don’t let the pro-CCSS crowd corner you with semantics: CCSS is wed to the USDOE-funded, consortia-developed CCSS assessments, and both federally-funded consortia have agreed to deliver student-level data to USDOE. So, yes indeed, CCSS is a vehicle for USDOE’s student-level data gathering ambitions.

Consider Appendix F (RTTA Program Requirements), Item 3:

An eligible applicant awarded a grant under this category must—  

Work with the Department to develop a strategy to make student-level data that result from the assessment system available on an ongoing basis for research, including for prospective linking, validity, and program improvement studies. [Emphasis added.]

Of course, there is also a footnote about “complying with FERPA”– whatever that means these days. FERPA appears to be an ever-loosening “security.”

So. There you have it: Both consortia agree to deliver “student level data” to USDOE– and not only for the four years of the RTTA grant– but “ongoing” delivery.

The RTTA money will be long gone, and the states that took it will continue to be indebted to USDOE to shuttle endless student-level data to the feds. What a deal.

Allow me to offer a smidge more from that *cooperative* agreement.

There is also Item 6, the stipulation about making “assessment content (i.e., assessments and assessment items) developed with funds from this grant category freely available to States, technology platform providers, and others that request it for purposes of administering assessments….”

That explains Louisiana’s “free” PARCC test items– free items paid for by the federal government.

You read it right.

No controlling intentions attached to those “free” items, I am sure. USDOE is just being nice.

One more item for this post:

As education historian Diane Ravitch noted in her September 8, 2014, interview with Tavis Smiley, USDOE is using the CCSS assessment consortia it has funded as vehicles to push school districts into pouring money into technology (Item 7):

An eligible applicant awarded a grant under this category must—

Use technology to the maximum extent appropriate to develop, administer, and score assessments and report assessment results. [Emphasis added.]

What is baffling is that those who complain about the amount of money spent on American education in the wake of dissatisfying international test results are now pushing a test-driven reform that requires additional billions in technology expenditures (see also here and here and here) but that is expected to flunk more kids.

When the dropout rate increases under CCSS despite the billions pumped into technology prepping for the CCSS assessments, that’ll show us overpaid teachers just how bad we really are.

After all, USDOE will have the “ongoing,” student-level data to prove it– data that it also requires PARCC and SBAC states to use “to inform determinations of school effectiveness [and] determinations of individual principal and teacher effectiveness for purposes of evaluation” among other nifty test-score-centered, classroom-controlling ends. (Article I.B., “Results Expected.”)

We can be failures anew, and privatizing reform (and, of course, USDOE) can be *right* about us once again from its deluded perch.

balancing act

_________________________________________________________________

Like my writing? Read my newly-released ed “reform” whistle blower, A Chronicle of Echoes: Who’s Who in the Implosion of American Public Education

NOW AVAILABLE ON KINDLE.