The Common Core Curriculum State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) was previously examined in “Education in America – Part III – Common Core State Standards – Educational excellence or secular cultural conformity?” [See Archives – August 9, 2013] This article takes a more in-depth look at the concerns about Common Core and the nationalization of education.
Initially, the CCSSI was a state-led effort that established a single set of educational standards for kindergarten through 12th grade in English language arts and mathematics. In that initiative, states were to voluntarily adopt Common Core standards to unify and strengthen educational standards and expectations. However, the seemingly voluntary adoption of standards by the states has evolved through the power of the federal purse strings into mandated standards under various federal programs.
The nation’s governors and education commissioners, through their representative organizations, the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), led the development of the Common Core State Standards which were published in December 2008. However, the federal government under the Obama administration effectively hijacked the program in February 2009 through a $4.35 billion stimulus money “executive earmark” (meaning no-strings-attached) transfer to the Department of Education to create and fund a program that became known as the Race to the Top (RTT), a federal grant competition that allowed cash-strapped states to compete for federal stimulus money. [Race to the Top]
Strings!
But the federal purse had strings attached. To receive stimulus money, the states had to “commit” to the adoption of common education standards. The state commitments had to be made within two months of publication of the standards. State consent came from gubernatorial and bureaucratic offices without any consent of the people or their elected representatives as most of the state legislatures were not in session. The short time frame did not allow for thoughtful review and deliberation of the federal standards by citizens and their representatives. Forty-two states made the commitment (under a federally-imposed definition of commitment) without a single state legislature approving the commitment to adopt common educational standards.
And More Strings!
On May 22, 2012, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) announced another “strings-attached” $400 million federal grant program whose funds would go directly to qualifying local school districts. The program effectively bypasses state governments and undermines state sovereignty. The program is called Race to the Top-District (RTT-D) and includes the following elements. [District-Level Race to the Top]
To qualify, a district must serve at least 2,500 students of whom 40% or more must qualify for a free or reduced-price lunch program.
Each district must create plans for “individualized classroom instruction aimed at closing achievement gaps and preparing each student for college and career.” [One would think that the experts at the DOE would know the average child spends about six and one-half hours per day in the classroom. Using a typical elementary school classroom with twenty-five students as an example, each child would be allotted about sixteen minutes in which to receive “individualized classroom instruction.” And from the allotted sixteen minutes we must subtract the time necessary for lunches and other activities, the time needed for general group classroom instruction by the teacher, and all of the other daily interruptions. One wonders if any of these so-called DOE experts have ever taught in a real-world classroom.]
Districts must demonstrate commitment to RTT’s four core reform areas which include adopting standards acceptable to the DOE and building massive student-data tracking systems. [Standards are not voluntary if the standards must be acceptable to the DOE, and this requirement debunks the supposed voluntary nature of Common Core Standards.]
Districts must show they can track students from pre-K though college and tie the outcomes back to individual teachers. [One wonders how a local school district will obtain the outcomes of a student’s college career. Perhaps the task of accumulating that information will be assigned to the National Security Agency due to its vast stores of information on the private lives of American citizens.]
Applying districts must promise to implement evaluation systems that consider student outcomes – not just for teacher and principal performance, but also for district superintendents and school boards. [Does this mean that the DOE will have the power to fire school superintendents and locally-elected school boards? If the DOE’s power is not direct, perhaps federal funds will be withheld should the local officials not comply with DOE suggestions as to needed personnel changes.]
Applicant school districts must form partnerships with public and private organizations to . . . offer services that help meet students’ academic, social, and emotional needs . . . .” [Thus, it appears that local school districts are answerable to the DOE as to whether students are socially and emotionally well-adjusted. In effect, school teachers will now be responsible for providing time and services for their students’ social and emotional needs in addition to the individualized educational instruction as previously mentioned, all in a six-and-a-half-hour school day.]
RTT-D is a power-grab through which the federal government will skirt citizens’ elected legislative bodies and negotiate directly with school districts in implementation of federal educational policies. RTT-D will also undermine the state governmental structure by grouping school districts together on policy decisions and thereby making it more difficult for the group to disengage from federal programming.
Dr. Allan Carlson is a noted author and lecturer and former Reagan appointee who served five years on the National Commission on Children. In a recent lecture he succinctly described the problems of the Common Core Standards program: more testing, more centralization, more experts, less creativity, and more money for a failing system. [Common Core: The Dangers of Federal Power in Education]
School systems attempting to withstand the assault on their autonomy by rejecting the Common Core Standards, a national curriculum, and national testing will be financially starved into submission. Even faith-based private schools will feel the pressure to conform to Common Core standards. Because Common Core standards are leading to a national curriculum and national testing, ACT, SAT, GED, and other testing programs are being aligned to the Common Core standards. Yet, private school students take those same tests. Inevitably private schools will be pressured to teach to the Common Core standards even if that which is taught is contrary to what they believe. Otherwise, their students will not do well on the Common Core aligned tests. Also, credit transfers from a faith-based school not in alignment with the Common Core may not be accepted by other Common Core aligned schools. And accreditation agencies that require accredited schools to be aligned with the Common Core may not accredit non-complying faith-based schools. [Common Core: The Dangers of Federal Power in Education]
The DOE website disingenuously states that, “Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation.” [The Federal Role in Education] But, the Obama administration and a rapacious federal bureaucracy have seized control over America’s educational system which makes a mockery of the DOE assertion that education is primarily a state and local responsibility.
The federal government is developing a national curriculum under the guise of the Common Core Standards Initiative. Not only is a national curriculum being established but for the first time ever the participating local school must certify that its curriculum complies with federal standards. Federal bureaucrats will determine what children all across America will read and be taught and for how long. Local school administrators are becoming mere toadies answerable only to faceless bureaucrats in Washington. Locally elected school boards would be virtually powerless if not obsolete. And if parents have questions, objections, or concerns about their child’s education, to whom would they turn? With local education in the grasp of a nationalized educational system, the local school board, their local state representative and state government, and even their national representatives will be powerless to address a parent’s concerns. And this massive accumulation of power without accountability is occurring in the absence of any explicit Constitutional authority.
President Woodrow Wilson warned against the concentration of federal powers, and his warning is applicable one hundred years later with regard to the transfer of control of America’s educational system to the federal government.
The history of Liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it. When we resist, therefore, the concentration of power, we are resisting the powers of death, because concentration of power is what always precedes the destruction of human liberties. [Quoted by William J. Federer.]
Parents, local school officials, and state legislators should be extremely concerned about the destruction of local control of America’s educational system and should strongly resist attempts to do so through the Common Core standards.
George Will summarized the progressive education establishment’s defense of the voluntary nature of Common Core. “If you like your local curriculum, you can keep it. Period.” [George Will] Hmmm. That has a familiar ring to it. I wonder where I’ve heard that before…
Larry G. Johnson
Sources:
Larry G. Johnson, “Education in America – Part III – Common Core State Standards – Educational excellence or secular cultural conformity?” culturewarrior.net, August 9, 2013. https://www.culturewarrior.net/2013/08/09/education-in-america-part-iii-common-core-state-standards-educational-excellence-or-secular-cultural-conformity/ (accessed October 30, 2013).
“Race to the Top,” Truth in American Education, http://truthinamericaneducation.com/race-to-the-top/ (accessed October 30, 2013).
U.S. Department of Education, “District-Level Race to the Top to Focus on the Classroom, Provide Tools to Enhance Learning and Serve the Needs of Every Student,” ED.gov, May 22, 2012. ww.ed.gov/news/press-releases/district-level-race-top-focus-classroom-provide-tools-enhance-learning-and-serve (accessed October 30, 2013).
“District-Level Race to the Top–Race to the Top IV,” Truth in American Education, http://truthinamericaneducation.com/race-to-the-top/district-level-race-to-the-toprace-to-the-top-iv/ (accessed October 30, 2013).
“Common Core: The Dangers of Federal Power in Education,” Video Lecture, Family Research Council, September 25, 2013. http://www.frc.org/eventregistration/common-core-the-dangers-of-federal-power-in-education (accessed October 30, 2013).
U.S. Department of Education, “The Federal Role in Education,” ED.gov., http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html (accessed October 30, 2013).
William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, (Coppell, Texas: FAME Publishing, Inc., 1994, 1996), p. 698.
George Will, “Clunker progressivism: Present, too, is prologue,” Tulsa World, November 7, 2013, A-14.
