A US News and World Report article provides some details of Common Core State Standards past. 2010 is when CCSS started, but there was some effort to get it started back in 2008. 

Given we have been slapping reform after reform on our educational system for decades now, the years here can hardly be considered slow and methodical.

Still, that is kinda the point the USNews article is trying to make. I don’t buy it.

Supposedly Janet Napolitano started it. She released an August 2006 initiative statement as chair of the Governors Association (a position held at the moment by my governor, Mary Fallin). Here is the statement:

The National Governors Association’s Innovation America initiative focused on strengthening our nation’s competitive position in the global economy by improving our capacity to innovate. The goal was to give governors the tools they need to improve math and science education, better align post secondary education systems with state economies, and develop regional innovation strategies.
To guide the Innovation America initiative, we assembled a bipartisan task force of governors, corporate CEOs and university presidents. Working with the NGA Center for Best Practices, this task force provided valuable advice on innovation strategies in general and assisted in the development of the initiative’s reports and forums. Through a variety of events and publications, we collected and shared best practice information to ensure that every state—and the nation—is equipped to excel in the global economy.

There is a 75 page paper that goes with it:  http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/0707INNOVATIONINVEST.PDF

Governor Fallin is a conservative, but left leaning in some areas, including education. She and our State Superintendent have pushed, and continue to push, for the CCSS. The Governor’s position seems to be shifting, perhaps. It is hard for me to believe that a Republican Governor and Republican State Superintendent of Education can support something started by the likes of Napolitano. I should think anyone who asserts personally conservative political views would recognize the CCSS as left leaning from inception to implementation. Close examination shows it is progressivist. I find progressivism in all its forms entirely against the human soul. 

The Napolitano statement has carried through to the final version of the CCSS now adopted by most states. The tone I find so alarming, like lifter noise in an engine, like the rattle the doctor listens for with the stethoscope to your back, is the perverted, or at least corrupted, nationalism in the statement. It is collectivist. There is no consideration for the individual, only the state. 

That is wrong. It is the cancerous core of the Common Core.

The USNews article, by , is here http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/articles/2014/02/27/the-history-of-common-core-state-standards

There is mention of a December 2008 report that kicked it all off, but I wonder if anyone involved now ever read that report. (I haven’t. If someone does, please post a summary in comments. Thanks.)

It further points to roots in GW’s No Child Left Behind law. I’d think the vehemence against NCLB and GW in general would almost eliminate support for CCSS, but I suppose people compartmentalize. 

Ms. Bidwell wrote, “…the idea of federal intrusion into the public education system has become a rallying cry for opponents of common standards.

“That’s why proponents of the Common Core say they had to tread lightly and ensure that the effort was an absolutely state-led initiative.”, which I interpret as admission that the effort is an end-around effort to circumvent the law and the express will of the people. It makes me suspicious when the aforementioned report thought it necessary to stipulate the participation of States in the effort were voluntary. 

Ms. Bidwell indicates groups came together to advance the agenda by STARTING with the standards. (Perhaps I should read that original report to see what they hope to impose on us next.) It seems clear these groups establishing the standards have higher objectives than just providing a uniform set of education standards. They saw standards as only the start. 

My practical definition of liberal progressives:

15The leech has two daughters:
Give and Give.
Three things are never satisfied;
four never say, “Enough”:
16Sheol, the barren womb,
the land never satisfied with water,
and the fire that never says, “Enough.”

Never will the progressives be satisfied. Their ways are utterly destructive. Of course, Proverbs 27:20 applies too, but it is entirely universal. 

Ms. Bidwell asserts efforts on the CCSS included input from the teachers unions. However, I note the teachers unions are backing off, and one or two are now standing against the CCSS implementation as it is occurring. That is, the teachers and school administrators implementing the CCSS are finding it is broke and it does not address what was broke in what they were doing.

Ms. Bidwell’s article seems to be primarily based on an interview with the VP of the Business Roundtable, Dane Linn. (Where are the anticoropratists in this debate?) While I’ll accept Mr. Linn as a firsthand witness and participant, I cannot consider him impartial. He also engages in hyperbole

Two links included in the article:

http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/a-guide-to-common-core/articles/2014/02/27/who-is-fighting-for-common-core From my perspective, the write-up at the link includes lots of rhetoric and empty promises, good ideas, but no substance for attainment. It includes a rudimentary review of the vested interests, including the NGA. I honestly think Jeb Bush’s support for CCSS will cost him the Presidency. The article asserts at least 70% of working teachers embrace CCSS. That is not what I’m hearing from teachers. The study link, http://www.edutopia.org/blog/recent-polls-common-core-teachers-in-favor-anne-obrien, stipulates there is a difference between general support for the standards and what is happening on the ground. I don’t honestly think it can be implemented effectively. It will simply end up being a focus on testing results and teaching to the test. 

http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/a-guide-to-common-core/articles/2014/02/27/who-is-fighting-against-common-core Wow. This page is overtly biased against the opposition. (I’m trying not to let it be personal, but perhaps my own bias is involved.) Honestly, these days, seeing “Koch brothers” just about throws firebombs of emotionalism and vitriol. This statement, “Like their allies on the right, liberals broadly agree that American students need to catch up with education leaders in the rest of the world. But in Common Core they see a rigid, one-size-fits-all approach, drafted in private, that ignores how teachers teach and how children learn.” is about the only statement I see without an obvious tint against the CCSS opposition. I accept his assertions about teacher complaints as relatively uncolored as well. 

Links from the side bar:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/03/17/how-common-core-standards-kill-creative-teaching

http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/a-guide-to-common-core/articles/2014/03/06/the-politics-of-common-core

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/03/03/how-technology-can-save-american-education

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/02/25/the-common-core-standards-debate-is-off-the-mark

http://www.usnews.com/news/special-reports/articles/2014/02/27/the-history-of-common-core-state-standards

In high school, in late 1980 or early 1981, answering a question in the social studies class, I refereed to the 1979 conflict between Vietnam and China as recent. My statement was interrupted by some of my classmates scoffing at the event as recent. Well, to me, even then, significant world events are recent if they’ve occurred within some years. I’m sure there are people who refer to the world wars as recent, at least in context of major wars in history. Anyway, just pointing out how divergent views of history can be in all sorts of ways. In this light, I consider the CCSS efforts to be a surprise attack, a bum rush. It was pushed through with strong-arm politics and hefty federal bribes months before it was even available for review in final form. 

A final thought, referring to Proverbs 30:15, we give for secular reasons, to support efforts we wish to see furthered, and for charitable reasons, which are religious reasons, as James reminds us. Truly we must be giving and of a generous spirit to call ourselves good and unselfish, but doesn’t the two gives point to the abuses so common among both sorts of organizations? A word to the wise is sufficient. 

Advertisements