Category archives: Common Core

Action #17 - Rescind Common Core Requirements

by Family Research Council

January 12, 2017

We are highlighting the top 20 ways that the Trump administration can address values issues in the first 100 days through administrative and agency actions in order to repair some of the damage that the Obama administration has inflicted on the dignity of life, natural marriage, and religious liberty.

Action #17 - Rescind Common Core Requirements

The administration should rescind, in part, the letter regarding ESEA Flexibility, issued September 22, 2011, that allows for states to receive an exemption from key standards of No Child Left Behind. The letter added ambiguous requirements for states to receive a waiver, and used this waiver authority to allow the Department of Education to pressure states over educational standards related to curricula, such as with Common Core.

Conservatives Should Resolutely Oppose Common Core — And so Should Liberals

by Robert Morrison

October 15, 2014

Conservatives and liberals should oppose federal usurpation of power that is known as Common Core State Standards.

The entire history of this education “reform” effort has been one of stealth and deception. In this Townhall column, FRC Senior Fellow Bob Morrison, an official of the federal education department under Ronald Reagan, argues for returning education policymaking to state lawmakers, locally elected school boards, and parents. That’s where the Founders and President Reagan thought decisions about education should be made. That’s where the Constitution placed education.

When a liberal Republican Congressman asked to meet President Reagan to discuss the “future of the education department,” the Gipper noted in the margin of his daily schedule: “I hope it doesn’t have one.” President Reagan’s note was written in his own handwriting, in cursive script. Common Core educrats want to dispense with teaching cursive writing — yet another reason to oppose it!

Data Mining” Core or Common Core?

by Krystle Gabele

September 12, 2014

On Tuesday, FRC hosted a webcast, “Common Core: The Government’s Classroom,” which featured several government officials and education experts discussing the flaws behind the Obama Administration’s program designed to improve testing and curriculum. Common Core has experienced quite a bit of backlash from both educators and parents alike, as the standards for this program were not fully developed prior to implementation at the state level.

Jane Robbins, J.D., with the American Principles Project, was one of the experts who appeared on our webcast. Robbins discussed how data mining is being used to collect information on students, thus violating their privacy and threatening parental rights. Watch Jane Robbins’s interview below.

No Thanks, Common Core

by Sarah Perry

August 25, 2014

Too often, conservatives engaging in critical analysis of a federal policy presenting smart, salient critiques to hopefully fair-minded opponents, find themselves thrown into that category of the “lunatic fringe.” Case in point, the straw-man bonfire Family Research Council endured in the Washington Post recently.

The Post’s “Answer Sheet” took a Family Research Council fundraising letter regarding “Common Core” (in which I am named) to the level of circus fare. The author, Valerie Strauss, made reference to the derisive Twitter hashtag, “ThanksCommonCore,” equating the rhetoric in the letter with “garbage.”

It appears as if Ms. Strauss was at a loss for what to write about, and so chose to mock a fundraising letter directed toward FRC’s constituency, utterly ignoring what she calls the “legitimate criticism” we’ve offered to the CCSS Initiative in the past (I would direct her to watch our recent webcast forum, or read some of my white papers, or op-eds at TownHall.com or DailyCaller.com). Rather than moving the ball, she decided to foul another player. On her own team.

#ThanksCommonCore.

What Ms. Strauss also fails to recognize is that language employed by FRC in its letter to constituents about CCSS does not change the fact that the components of CCSS themselves are still problematic.

Everyone from the National Education Association to the Socialist Worker to the Heritage Foundation to the American Enterprise Institute have recognized the Standards as a failed experiment in test-heavy, sub-par, bureaucratic academics.

I set wholly aside the avowed directive of the CCSS (to, among other things, “broaden worldviews“). I’ll leave out of this discussion the fact that the Core’s development was steeped in secrecy, or that’s its architect, David Coleman, is now replacing the AP U.S. History Exam with a creation that shifts the landscape of American history “sharply to the left.” It is clear that the Common Core engineers had a worldview, and one they didn’t want open to discussion, which to my mind is the epitome of closed minded “nonsense.”

But from whence Common Core’s divergent critics draw our conclusions should not matter if we are all energized to the same end: its ultimate and swift repeal.

Tragically, Ms. Strauss quotes the “report” of the Southern Poverty Law Center, “Public Schools in the Crosshairs: Far-Right Propaganda and the Common Core State Standards.” That self-same “report” which lacks a single footnote or citation, that “report” which is as much propaganda itself as that which it claims to expose, that “report” which notes that “this far-right campaign is really a proxy for a broader assault on public education itself.”

As a citizen of blue-state Maryland who sends three children to public school, I speak for both myself and my organization in saying I have no interest in assaulting public education; only in making it better. I think Ms. Strauss and I agree — perhaps for different reasons — that the Common Core Standards are not the way to do so.

If we both see the initiative as riddled with problems, what good is served in criticizing the Family Research Council, aside from ingratiating Ms. Strauss to the left? Particularly in using the left’s own arguments against us? It is no secret that the Southern Poverty Law Center is no friend of the Family Research Council.

But, Ms. Strauss. I thought we were friends.

#ThanksCommonCore.

Crunching Common Core’s Numbers

by Sarah Perry

August 8, 2014

It’s now an easy to thing to say the much-publicized Common Core State Standards Initiative lacks educational exactingness. Once upon a time, Americans were led to believe that the standards were deeper, more rigorous, and internationally benchmarked. But if the implementation of the Common Core — its concrete use with actual students, in actual classrooms, actually subjected to the standards — has demonstrated anything, it’s that the failings of the Standards are myriad.

As the reality of the initiative reaches its zenith, school districts nationwide are watching their scores plummet. In my home county in Maryland — the highest performing in the state — a year of implementation resulted in the lowest math scores in seven years. And maybe that’s just how it was designed: as an effort to prove that we parents are “misguided” as to how much our children know, and that they have to fail against these (mediocre) standards before actual learning can take place, thereby promoting the U.S. to the level of global competitiveness that will ensure the salvation of our flagging economy.

We know the English standards promote informational and technical texts over the study of literary classics — up to a 70% preference by grade 12. We know there is more of a stress on writing, and not reading. There is no list of literary movements, no standards on British literature (aside from Shakespeare), and no standard on authors from the ancient world. We know handwriting is lost in the English standards, and that the standards themselves are unclear and poorly written.

But math standards are their own hornet’s nest of awful. It seems lost on the Common Core’s proponents that Jason Zimba, one of the leading drafters of the Math Standards, openly avowed before the Massachusetts State Board of Education that the standards do not prepare students for STEM careers, nor do they prepare children to attend the kinds of colleges that “most parents aspire to.” Because that, it would seem, is reason enough to re-visit the standards.

Not even Stanford University’s Dr. James Milgram and his passionate criticism of the standards he was retained to validate (and could not), not even his remarks that Common Core math is a “huge and risky experiment” on K-12 students has proven the definitive conclusion to the debate.

Now, some of the most credentialed mathematicians in the nation are witnessing the failings of the Core’s math as it comes home to roost. Marina Ratner, professor emerita of mathematics at the University of California Berkeley and recipient of both the international Ostrowski Prize and the John J. Carty Award from the National Academy of Sciences, is the latest to view the Core’s math standards for what they really are: sub-par.

A few days ago, Dr. Ratner wrote in the Wall Street Journal that she discovered the Common Core standards were several years behind California’s old standards, and that they are clearly not internationally benchmarked. She stated that “Common Core’s ‘deeper’ and ‘more rigorous’ standards mean replacing math with some kind of illustrative counting saturated with pictures, diagrams and elaborate word problems. Simple concepts are made artificially intricate and complex with the pretense of being deeper — while the actual content taught [is] primitive.” She went on to write that the Common Core standards “are lower in the total scope of learned material, in the depth and rigor of the treatment of mathematical subjects, and in the delayed and often inconsistent and incoherent introductions of mathematical concepts and skills.”

Her critique makes perfect sense. Even curriculum directors and Common Core cheerleaders are admitting the standards’ failings (whether wittingly or unwittingly). Just take the comments of Amanda August, Grayslake, Illinois D46 Curriculum Director explaining the focus of Common Core Math:

But even under the new common core if even if they [the students] said 3 x 4 was 11, if they were able to explain their reasoning and explain how they came up with their answer … Really in words and oral explanation and they showed it in a picture but they just got the final answer wrong, we’re more focused on the how and the why.”

Common Core, Creative History

by Sarah Perry

May 8, 2014

Mere days ago, the Rialto Unified School District was defending an eighth-grade writing assignment that asked students to debate whether the Holocaust was merely a political scheme created to influence public emotion and gain.

California is a “Common Core State,” so it follows that the assignment was part of the newly Core-aligned curriculum issued to teachers in Rialto Unified classrooms. The school board so affirmed. According to school board member Joe Martinez, the Common Core Standards “emphasize critical thinking in students, which is what the assignment is intended to teach.”[i] School district spokeswoman Syeda Jafri added that the assignment was simply designed to engage the students in just such a process.

A portion of the contested middle school assignment reads:

When tragic events occur in history, there is often debate about their actual existence…For example, some people claim the Holocaust is not an actual historical event, but instead is a propaganda tool that was used for political and monetary gain.”[ii]

This subversive assignment was distributed to a portion of the 26,000 students in the San Bernardino County school district until a correspondent from the Los Angeles chapter of the Anti-Defamation League raised the flag on what might otherwise have been the quiet and tragic indoctrination of fertile minds on a myth that’s been fully debunked, and by using inferior textual material from http://About.com, and http://biblebelievers.org.au/holohoax.htm, no less. Is this the elevation of English Language Arts education through the analysis of “complex” or credible texts that the Standards promised to deliver? Perhaps future Core-aligned textual sources will include http://Yelp.com and http://MySpace.com.

Notably, none of the parents whose children received the assignment made complaints themselves, perhaps due to their ignorance of it. Unlikely? New York parents and teachers took to protesting Core exams after it was revealed that the parents were not allowed to see the tests, the teachers were not allowed to review the graded tests, and the tests themselves were riddled with ambiguous questions.[iii] The Common Core Initiative has been met with widespread criticism, but its lack of transparency in particular continues to astound the populous. As the Standards are instituted state-by-state, with full implementation anticipated by 2015, the interpretation of Common Core’s goal to “broaden worldviews” appears to be making its calamitous entrance.

Under the glaring spotlight of public criticism, interim Superintendent Mohammad Z. Islam is now set to talk with administrators (its “CORE team”) to “assure that any references to the holocaust ‘not occurring’ will be stricken on any current or future Argumentative Research assignments.”[iv]

Common Core supporters have claimed that despite the Standards’ uniformity and a copyright held jointly by the NGA and the CCSSO (preventing an opportunity for even modest modification of the Standards), that there yet exists a forum for ground-level creativity. Proponents allege that teachers are indeed provided with a blank canvas onto which they might paint lessons adhering to the grand, inflexible agenda of a bureaucratic regime. Perhaps this creativity has debuted first in the arena of historical accuracy.

Perhaps we have reason to shudder thinking of what comes next.

Archives