Skip to comments.Common Core State Standards: FRC Position
Posted on 04/22/2014 11:20:42 AM PDT by xzins
1. The children of this nation belong first to their parents and families, not to their communities or governments. The primary authority over and direction of a child's education lies with that child's parent or guardian.
2. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were created without benefit of transparency, by a non-profit organization, with the involvement of very few educators, and majority funded and influenced by corporate interests. Democratic participation, educator input, and opportunity for revision during the "closed door" development of the Standards were utterly lacking. The Standards were introduced and later adopted without benefit of field testing, and multiple members of the Standards validation committee refused to approve them.
3. The CCSS "dumb down" the teaching of America's students by emphasizing "perspectives" and "critical thinking" over content and facts. The CCSS utilize uniform standards that not only eliminate more advanced material from previous teaching curriculums, but also prohibit teachers from teaching students individually and instead promotes a "one size fits all" approach to teaching. CCSS also lower the standards of higher-performing states in order to align educational content and testing to the CCSS.
4. The CCSS Initiative represents a massive and dangerous overreach on the part of the Federal government. The principle of states' rights is outlined in the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that any powers not delegated to the federal government are granted to the states. Education is best accomplished when it is left to local communities, parents, teachers, and states. 
5. The CCSS Initiative has resulted in, and will continue to result in, an exodus and demoralization of the nation's experienced educators. With the elimination of teacher creativity in content and approach, the CCSS shifted the delivery of education from teachers to technology, with test scores serving as the ultimate standard of educational success. 
6. The CCSS will push low-income, minority, and disabled children onto vocational tracks, and will establish a test-based meritocracy. Without the opportunity for individualization of education, and a national disparity of resources from child to child, disadvantaged children will not benefit from either the uniformity of the CCSS, or the renewed emphasis on standardized testing as research shows test scores are heavily influenced by socioeconomic status. 
7. The CCSS are costing billions to implement, and the costs will be borne by local school districts. New technology, new teaching materials, increased bandwidth for testing, and teacher training have and will cost taxpayers approximately $15 billion dollars over an anticipated implementation timeline of seven years, and will necessarily defer other education expenditures. 
8. The CCSS are developmentally inappropriate for young children. No one with experience in the field of early childhood development was involved in the drafting of the standards, and more than 500 early childhood educators have signed a statement saying the CCSS emphasize academic skills and testing over imaginative play, while requiring children to make sophisticated leaps in reasoning that they are not capable of at young ages.  , 
9. The CCSS promote an equivalence of worldviews and moral ambiguity that may disrespect the faith, traditions, or upbringing of students. The CCSS promote a progressive, liberal narrative of the world, not only as a result of their being the creation of a massive and centralized educational approach, but also by way of the materials deemed "core-approved," and which are, in the words of the Standards drafters themselves, designed to "broaden worldviews."  , 
10. The CCSS lack a system of oversight or correction. The CCSS do not answer questions about what to do with students who fail standardized assessments, give no direction as to how to police the division of informational and fictional texts in high school, and make no provision for how to fix problems or revise the standards.
Sarah Perry is an attorney with a degree from the University of Virginia School of Law, where she was on the editorial board of the Virginia Journal of International Law. After six years in private practice where she focused on business litigation, commercial document drafting, and business development, Sarah took on an adjunct professorship, teaching Business Ethics at the Community College of Baltimore County. After the birth of her first child, she transitioned full time to writing. She currently serves as the Common Core Coalition Manager for the Family Research Council.
 Three federal laws are clear that the federal government is to resist involvement in matters of education, such as curriculum, student testing, and the creation of a national student database. The conformity of copyrighted "core approved" materials already distributed by corporations like Pearson Education and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt will necessarily lead to uniformity of curriculum. Uniformity in testing managed by federally-funded consortia Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) ensures sameness in assessments as well.
 Arne Duncan, "Beyond the Bubble Tests: The Next Generation of Assessments -- Secretary Arne Duncan's Remarks to State Leaders at Achieve's American Diploma Project Leadership Team Meeting," U.S. Department of Education, September 2, 2010, accessed April 22, 2014, http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/beyond-bubble-tests-next-generation-assessments-secretary-arne-duncans-remarks-state-l .
 Valerie Strauss, "Everything You Need to Know About Common Core - Ravitch," Washington Post, January 18, 2011, accessed April 22, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/01/18/everything-you-need-to-know-about-common-core-ravitch/?tid=pm_local_pop .
 Perry Chiaramonte, "High Costs of Common Core Has States Rethinking the National Education Standards," Fox News, February 5, 2014, accessed April 22, 2014, http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/05/number-states-backing-out-common-core-testing-maryland-schools-low-on-funding/ .
 Barry Garelick, "A New Kind of Problem: The Common Core Math Standards," November 20, 2012, accessed April 22, 2014, http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/a-new-kind-of-problem-the-common-core-math-standards/265444/ .
 Rick Santorum, "The Troubles with Common Core," Townhall.com, April 21, 2014, accessed April 22, 2014, http://townhall.com/columnists/ricksantorum/2014/04/21/the-troubles-with-common-core-n1826204 .
 Correlation of Scholastic R.E.A.L. to the Common Core State Standard Initiatives for English Language Arts, Scholastic, accessed April 22, 2014, http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/face-new/pdf/real/realccss.pdf .
 English Language Arts Programs, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, accessed April 22, 2014, http://www.hmhco.com/educators/education-topics/by-topic/common-core/ela-programs .
Common Core is a liberal indoctrination scheme designed to prepare those students who make it for success in liberal universities.
It is not designed to have them successful in life.
Basic skills take a back seat to so-called “critical thinking”
If you can discuss the need for a bridge that’s better than knowing the math behind the bridge.
It’s unconscionable that so many states have bought into this Trojan horse of socialism. I guess fed $$ talks.
My wife, a kindergarten teacher hates it.
My wife, a math teacher hates it
How has it affected her teaching of kindergarteners?
Mandatory Common Core tests in New York just happen to be full of corporate brand names
Across the state of New York, this years Common Core English tests have reportedly featured a slew of brand-name products including iPod, Barbie, Mug Root Beer and Life Savers. For Nike, the tests even conveniently included the shoe companys ubiquitous slogan: Just Do It.
The brands and apparently even some of their familiar trademark symbols appeared in tests questions for students ranging from third to eighth grades, reports The Post-Standard of Syracuse.
Over one million students were required to take the tests.
Parents, teachers and school administrators have speculated that the kid-friendly brand names are a new form of product placement.
Education materials behemoth Pearson, which has a $32 million five-year contract to develop New Yorks Common Core-related tests, has barred teachers and school officials from disclosing the contents of the tests.
Students and parents are not so barred, though, and many have complained.
Why are they trying to sell me something during the test? Long Island mother Deborah Poppe quoted her son as saying, according to Fox News. Hes bright enough to realize that it was almost like a commercial.
Poppe said her eighth-grade son was talking about a question about a busboy who didnt clean up a root beer spill. It wasnt just any root beer, though. No sir! It was Mug Root Beer, a registered trademark of PepsiCo (current market cap: $129.7 billion).
Another question about the value of taking risks featured the now-hackneyed Nike slogan Just Do It.
Im sure they could have used a historical figure who took risks and invented things, observed displeased dad Sam Pirozzolo, also of Staten Island, according to the Daily Mail. Im sure they could have found something other than Nike to express their point.
Pirozzolo has a child in fifth grade.
Nike, one of Americas best known and most heavily advertised companies, boasts a current market cap of $65.01 billion.
A number of baffled and angry New York teachers have anonymously complained about the branding and much else on blogs and websites. (RELATED: Think Common Core class material is bad? Check out the unbelievably AWFUL standardized tests)
Representatives from the New York State Education Department have flatly denied involvement in any novel marketing agreements.
There are no product placement deals between us, Pearson or anyone else, Tom Dunn, an Education Department spokesman, told Fox News. No deals. No money. We use authentic texts. If the author chose to use a brand name in the original, we dont edit.
To the credit of Pearson and the named ccompanies, it does seem like an unusually stupid moveeven for greedy brand managers.
If any brand did try to place there, what they would lose from the outrage would surely trump any exposure they got, Michal Ann Strahilevitz, a marketing professor at Golden Gate University, told Fox.
At the same, some people are perfectly happy about idea of mixing for-profit merchandising and mandatory Common Core tests.
Brands are part of our lives, Allen Adamson, managing director of the New York brand consulting firm Landor Associates, told Fox. To say they dont belong in academia is unrealistic.
There are no testing standards associated with the history, founding or culture of this nation.
We have quit trying to teach our children how we are suppose to govern ourselves. I think most Seniors in high school have to take at least one semester of “government”. Otherwise there are some social studies classes through our educational system but only as an afterthought to math and science (which we are also failing to teach apparently).
And we wonder why our voting public is so ignorant.
I too live in Mississippi. Last week a local teacher told me she is putting her kids in private school next year because of Common Core. We homeschool or we would do the same.
My understanding is that the soft subjects get to both design their own tests and grade them.
Based on approved materials, of course.
My son’s private school started to incorporate it. They changed the grading system so there were no more A’s, B’s and C’s. It was horrible.
Luckily, Indiana dumped it.
Soros is going to be pissed. Looks like the FRC is using common sense on Common Core which oesn’t make any sense unless indoctrinating and brainwashing students is the goal. I have yet to meet one mother or teacher that likes it. They know it has evil ulterior motives.
Our private school has adopted it this year. Next year, they are changing the SAT and the ACT to allign with.
I don’t like what I see.
And it's a lousy decision to educate for success in university.
University is its own little world where art history has relevance.
Art history is a hobby, a pastime, a diversion. Very few make a living at it.
An education should be based on making that child able to support himself/herself throughout life.
Large corporations, "non-profit" organizations, and state departments of education are full of the same people and their spouses and in-laws and old classmates, all hand-in-glove and both gloved hands in our pockets.
“Luckily, Indiana dumped it.”
Not really. The same stupid ideas are part of the new curriculum too. They just call it something else to keep the pitchforks and torches away.
Our private school board of trustees voted 7-0 to not adopt CC.
Diversity is a grand idea for liberals unless it is Diveristy in education amongst the states, then it is Verboten....
Funny how “Liberal Diveristy” is ntohgin but Doublethink for “Statist Conformity”
[ Large corporations, “non-profit” organizations, and state departments of education are full of the same people and their spouses and in-laws and old classmates, all hand-in-glove and both gloved hands in our pockets. ]
The “Large Corporations” who love it are the ones that have their head stuck up the Government’s ass (sorry to use fould language) because they are supposedly “Too big to fail” and are the prime beneficiaries of Big Government laws and subsidies...
Let me get some specifics and I will post them tonight
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.