Monday, June 17, 2013

Timeline of Key Events in Common Core Standards Adoption in Arkansas

My continuous research into the CC controversy has reiterated the importance of checking and double-checking my facts. I've often caught myself making assumptions only to be proven wrong when I searched for supporting evidence. Finding the dates of the implementation of CC in Arkansas has refined my understanding of the power of a few (NGO, CCSSO, Governor Beebe) in dictating what happens in each Arkansas classroom.
A timeline that shows how little input we teachers, much less taxpayers, had in the process, and how little time was allowed for anyone to debate the wisdom of these standards:
 

1. June 1, 2009: Governor Beebe signed a Memorandum of Agreement committing to the process of creating Common Standards, which would allow only 15% of the curriculum to be added by the state. The NGA and CCSSO were given the authority to choose the "experts" who would craft the standards. http://recovery.arkansas.gov/ade/pdf/race_appendixb_011610.pdf


2. By December 2009, Arkansas had already submitted its letter of intent to apply for RttT phase one. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/intent-to-apply.html As part of RttT, states had to agree to four conditions, including to adopt standards and assessments that had not yet been released and build data systems that measure student growth and success. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html

 
3. The problem here is that the final Common Core Standards were not even released until June 2, 2010 

 
4. Arkansas officially adopted the standards on July 12, 2010, and many districts immediately required English and math teachers to start using these standards. Full implementation begins this upcoming 2013-14 school year, and testing begins 2014-2015.

It's also important to understand that in our district, as in many other districts and states, we are using the Gates Foundation Common Core Curriculum Maps. http://commoncore.org/maps/ to create lesson plans and assessments. This creates a host of problems, among them, that parents are not privy to these maps unless they pay $25--and parents don't know about these maps, thinking we're just using the seemingly innocuous standards. As a Conservative, I can see the agenda in the CCCMaps that advocates a liberal worldview. See my previous post for more details.  
 





 

Saturday, June 15, 2013

Common Core Standards Are Not the Real Issue

Read any Common Core advocate's opinion piece, and you'll find a defense of the rigorous, politically neutral standards that will prepare your child for post-secondary success in college and career, that were carefully crafted by teachers and educational experts. While many opponents of Common Core take issue with the true rigor of the standards, in all honesty, I must tell you, parents, that you'll find little in the ELA (English Language Arts) standards that will keep you up at night. Even the list of exemplary texts will elicit little protest from most conservatives--despite Glenn Beck and other pundits' warning that classrooms will replace classic literature with instructional manuals and EPA regulations. This is only partly true, by the way, as I'll explain in a future post.
Even former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee is bucking the conservative trend by voicing his support of these much-maligned standards. I can only hope his ignorance can be attributed to a lack of invested time in researching the behind-the-scenes story of the Common Core creation and funding that he most certainly would not defend.
As a public school teacher in a state that "raced to the top" by accepting the Common Core mandates in exchange for a few million dollars, I'm in the unique position to tell you what is happening in the trenches. I'm part of a team assigned the task of writing lesson plans in accordance with Common Core standards. Here's the secret: when we're writing these lessons, we rarely refer to the actual standards. We're taking orders from the mandates of the Gates Foundation via the Common Core Curriculum Maps. You haven't seen these. That's because they are protected by copyright, and only those with a username and password may open them. For reasons I can't understand, our district isn't even listed on the Maps page "Who's Using the Maps?", an obfuscation that leads me to believe all states must be using them in some capacity.
I have a username and password, so I'll let you in on the secrets, copyrighted or not. As I see it, the public has a legal right to this information--are your tax dollars not purchasing these CC Maps? What percentage of your income is pilfered by our tax system to fund your school district? Ask your local school board why you're not allowed to access the Maps.
Perhaps you don't view Bill and Melinda Gates through the lens of suspicion that I see them. For this post, I'll temporarily set aside my well-founded bias against their motives and just present the facts.
Because my experience with the Maps is with the 8th and 9th grade curriculum, that will be my focus for now. As I delve into the other grade levels, I expect to cull more ammunition for my position.
A common motif you will find in the objective of Common Core is educating children about the "common good." Whether the "Common" in Common Core hints at this objective is accidental, I'm not sure. This objective is not overt in the Map lessons, but it's there. In Unit 6 of the 8th grade curriculum "The Road not Taken," the essential question is "Can literature help us to define the greater good?" I include this screen shot as evidence--please note the sections I highlighted with the yellow boxes.

My struggle is to explain to you why it's nefarious for teachers to employ a unit whose objective is to force students to see literature through a worldview that celebrates the "greater good," the sacrifice of individual rights for an imagined utopic outcome.
The first problem with this theme should be obvious to anyone familiar with two of the suggested stories in this unit: Gulliver's Travels and The Lord of the Flies. How could objective teachers possibly twist the authors' words against tyrannical government that are clearly evident in these works into a message promoting sacrifice for the common good? I also fail to see how two recommended poems, Frost's "Nothing Gold Can Stay" and "The Road not Taken" [whose title was ripped off for this unit] lend themselves to supporting this theme. Maybe there's an esoteric message in those poems I missed.
After six weeks of reading and discussing literature that purportedly helps them define the greater good, students must write an essay responding to the essential question. I would assume teachers wouldn't expect an independent-minded student's response, such as "Yes, I suppose some literature exits that can help us define the greater good, but since the literature we read for this unit does not support that theme, a philosophy which I do not wholly embrace, I can not offer supporting evidence from the texts." That one-sentence essay would adequately answer the weak and poorly worded essential question, however.
The "common good" sounds so warm and fuzzy. It's an idea that deserves definition and discussion. It can be misused, however, to advocate a surrender of individual rights in the name of any number of agenda. I don't agree with the unit's objective to artificially force the discussion of priceless literature to center on this theme. I don't agree that the unit should culminate in a mandatory essay assignment with a restrictive and narrow focus. I question the motives of the authors of this unit because not all the suggested texts naturally lend themselves to the definition of this term.
A few facts about the Common Core Curriculum Maps to consider:
1. Eighteen classroom teachers are part of the Maps Project Team. While I applaud the inclusion of actual teachers in this effort and the transparency of their biographies, I would like to know how these teachers were chosen, and by whom.
2. The site's word cloud includes some curious names and terms.



I understand why names such as Shakespeare, Langston Hughes, and Emily Dickinson appear in the cloud, but some words have potential political connotations that make me wonder what importance the Maps have given to them in the units: atomic bomb, weather, Navajo, Middle East, Mali. I also wonder why "slavery" is given greater importance than "freedom," a word whose font is smaller than "seasons." I don't understand why such importance is given to van Gogh, whose name appears as large as Emily Dickinson's and larger than the names of several other prolific authors of the cannon of classic Western literature. I don't remember ever studying van Gogh's contribution to literature.
I am also baffled at the appearance of such words as "seasons," "maps," and "animals." They are fine topics, I'm sure, but why do they appear as frequently in the content of the Curriculum Maps as literary topics?
Finally, what is conspicuously absent in this cloud is any mention of literary elements. I understand the cloud is of content knowledge, but why would essential elements such as theme, figurative language, irony, and characterization not even appear?
3. The taxpaying public must pay $25 to view the Maps. Your tax dollars are already paying for your school district's use of the Maps, but you are not privy to them. If you have a financial hardship, however, you may access them for free. http://commoncore.org/maps/membership
The Maps are the true driving force behind Common Core, not the innocuous standards. CC advocates have done nothing but muddle the discussion about the existence of this curriculum which holds more importance than the standards.
4. The CC Maps project was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
http://commoncore.org/maps/faqs#how_is_the_common_core_curriculum_mapping_project_funded
I know, I promised to remain objective about the Gates, but their hands are in every Common Core-related project. Without their funding, it would not be possible for such a behemoth as CC to even get off the ground. I know the movement was not actually initiated by teachers and states, as CC advocates will tell you, and the Gates' conspicuous funding is more than a little suspect.
5. The Maps do not indicate how they will prepare students for the required assessments. Teachers do not know what will be on the tests. This curriculum does not explain how it is correlated with the assessments.
Parents, I hope you will make the effort to ask your district about the curriculum and texts that are being used to comply with Common Core. Do not be satisfied if school officials point you to the standards themselves. Ask them how teachers in your district will apply these standards in their lesson plans.

Thursday, June 13, 2013

Collection of Metadata: Pre-K through Age 20

Update: HJ Heistand of NEA hates this post.

HJ Heistand's thoughtless response to me on Twitter now increases my resistance to Common Core. He had a chance to try answering my question and present the positive aspects of this education reform, which I will concede, has some benefits. Instead, he told me I don't have any credibility, so he doesn't have to answer my question.
My mission is to ask CC advocates valid questions so they might see another side of the debate and at least understand the concerns of teachers and parents. I responded to Heistand's tweet assuring us that since Mike Huckabee likes Common Core, it "can't be all bad." I wasn't sure if he meant this sarcastically or not, so I read the linked article, which offered no supporting evidence that CC is better than our previous standards. So I tweeted a link to this post and politely asked him what he thought about data mining of children's private information and the necessary expenditure states would have to carry to comply with assessment requirements. I was truly hoping for an educated response, but I guess I'm a bit naïve because I have never contradicted anyone on Twitter. He only noted my solitary reference to Beck and Malkin, which in context you will notice does not advocate believing what Beck and Malkin say about Common Core. So Heistand proceeded to use an ad hominem attack instead of respecting me, a concerned teacher who has found a LOT of troubling information from dot gov and dot org sites. ALL of my evidence comes from official sites. I do not cite anything from Beck or Malkin or anyone else as evidence for my position.
 
Heistand hypocritically cited Huckabee's approval as his evidence, however. That's okay. He and his ilk can continue making weak arguments for their beliefs, and I will continue making well-documented posts that will actually bolster our side of the issue. I guess the other side should be pitied because they don't have much evidence to back up their claims.
 

Ahh...the sweet symphony of metadata!



http://www.pesc.org/library/docs/Common%20Data%20Standards/State%20Core%20Model%2011-17.pdf

"The State Core Model is a common technical reference model for states implementing state longitudinal data systems (SLDS). It was developed by CCSSO as part of the Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) adoption work with funding from the Gates Foundation.
The Model includes early childhood (EC), elementary and secondary (K12), post-secondary (PS), and workforce (WF) elements, known collectively as “P20,” and establishes comparability between sectors and between states. The State Core Model will do for State Longitudinal Data Systems what the Common Core is doing for Curriculum Frameworks and the two assessment consortia" (The State Core Model page 2).
PESC.org (Postsecondary Electronic Standards Council)


"These initial findings are promising evidence of the cognitive plasticity and malleability of brain functioning for processes related to grit" (Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance page 62). ed.gov

IRS, NSA, FBI, FEMA: Acronyms that now trigger feelings of anger, repulsion and distrust. In light of today's FBI hearing, in which Director Mueller protested repeatedly, "I don't know. I'll have to get back to you on that," and Rand Paul's valiant effort to hold our government accountable for its violation of the 4th amendment, the Common Core objective of collecting and storing personal metadata on every child seems all the more insidious.
I realize not everyone has time to excavate the Internet for the truth about Common Core. It's easier to listen to Glenn Beck's interpretations and read Michelle Malkin's warnings about this mysterious curriculum. These and other conservative commentators are aiding the effort to pull back the curtain of obscurity that the government has used to separate parents from their children. But hearing it from the horse's mouth is even better, because no one can accuse you of being a hysterical, paranoid conspiracy theorist. When you present Common Core advocates with facts, they will still call you nasty words like "Tea Partier/Bagger" and say you are anti-education and "on the fringe," but they cannot deny what the Department of Education and official Common Core sites have posted.
I want every parent with school-age children to know this about Common Core, if nothing else, because the collection of data of students should be enough to concern even the most staunch liberal.
My sources are not from conspiracy sites; I strongly urge you to at least skim over these to realize how authentic is the threat to your child's privacy:
1. Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/research/
2. The State Core Model http://www.pesc.org/library/docs/Common%20Data%20Standards/State%20Core%20Model%2011-17.pdf
Parents, you should be aware that data about your children has long been collected and disseminated via data systems in your school district. In my district, we have what is termed a "data dashboard" where we can quickly look at a summary of our students' scores on the state Benchmark tests and English language level (if applicable). Each teacher is privy to her students' data exclusively. We use this data to place students in remedial math and reading programs, design lesson plans for specific students, and organize collaborative groups. In my experience, it's an invaluable tool that doesn't raise my concerns about violating a student's privacy.
When Common Core is implemented and students begin the assessments in 2015, your child's data will be stored in a nationally accessible data base. And it will not include just test scores.
Again, from PESC.org:

"[The State Core Model] is designed to support dropout early warning intervention systems (DEWIS), positive behavior intervention systems (PBIS) and response to intervention (RTI), balanced scorecard performance management, and provide and extensible model capable of accommodating future needs."

 

In plain English, teachers and other observers will not only collect data from your child's tests, but will interpret your child's behavior and impose interventions. Skeptical?

I urge you to look at this Department of Education draft: Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance.

This brief defines grit, tenacity, and perseverance as non-academic characteristics that students must possess to be successful. Schools will now assess your child's character and implement strategies to change him/her. (Pages in parenthesis refer to the location in the Adobe document, not the page numbers on the document.)

 

"It is the responsibility of the educational community to design learning environments that promote these factors [grit, tenacity, and perseverance] so that students are prepared to meet 21st-century challenges" (page 7).

 

"This brief explores the possibility that grit, tenacity, and perseverance can be malleable and teachable, and discusses the potential of these factors to significantly increase success for all students" (page 8).

 

What would an assessment of your child's character look like? The draft provides a model for a character report card (page 57):
 



Teachers will observe students' behavior to complete charts like the example above.
The draft suggests various methods to collect this data: self report, informant reports, school records, and behavioral task performance (pages 11, 12). Self report and school records seem pretty innocuous, but what about informant reports and behavioral task performance?
"Informant reports," a label with connotations that evoke the practices of the KGB and Hitler Youth, are conducted by parents, teachers, and outside observers using observations, video and field notes.
Far more mysterious and unsettling are the methods used in "behavioral task performance." Brace yourself. Glenn Beck warned parents that schools will use advanced technology to collect biofeedback on your child. Here's the proof (page 62):




"The field of neuroscience also offers methods for insight into some of the psychological
resources associated with grit, especially effortful control. Using neuroimaging techniques, such as fMRI, it is possible to examine which parts of the brain are active during times of anxiety or stress and the effects of some interventions" (pages 62, 63).
Using these sensors in schools is not sensible, the draft concedes, not because of privacy violation, but because of the cost of such devices (as if cost has been a consideration).
But don't despair; technology offers other means of collecting your child's biofeedback (page 63):

 

"While it is impractical to use fMRI in the classroom (i.e., it is a prohibitively expensive, room-sized machine), Ed Dieterle and Ash Vasudeva of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation point out that researchers such as Jon Gabrieli and Richard Davidson are beginning to use multiple methods to explore how specific brain activity is correlated with other cognitive and affective indicators that are practical to measure in school settings."

 

Assessment of your child will continue into adulthood, effectively violating his/her right to privacy. Of all the assessment and intervention plans, this one chills me the most. Note the Age Level column(page 69).


 

Post-secondary assessment and interventions will include such non-cognitive outcomes as "mindset interventions," "resiliency programs," and "character education." Again, I want to emphasize, this is after students have graduated high school, at which point they are adults with rights as U.S. citizens. The purpose of these interventions is to take advantage of  the "malleability" of young minds and reshape them according to a worldview promoted by the Gates Foundation and the other corporations that provide funding. If you think this worldview will be secular and neutral, consider their recommended approaches to "improving executive functions for children in the early school years" including

"Martial arts and mindfulness practices. An increasing number of studies suggest that
martial arts, which traditionally emphasize self-control and character development, can
significantly improve executive functions for 5- to 11-year-olds. Mindfulness training,
emphasizing regulating attention to focus in a nonjudgmental way on experiences in the
present moment, can significantly improve executive functions. There is some evidence that yoga may also have potential to increase these skills" (page 71).


Many adults find relief for joints and muscles using yoga stretches, and some choose to practice the Eastern meditation element of the exercise. Should children ages 5-11 be subjected to "mindfulness practices" i.e. meditation?
All of this brings me back to my initial statement, that the collected data about your children is entered into a national database accessible to an untold number of people. I did not choose the word "metadata" to refer to the information that will be collected about your child just because it now has a negative connotation. Here it is, a veritable celebration of metadata collection (The State Core Model page 4):



The Department of Education concedes that collecting this data may cause concerns about ethics but assures us the advantages gained with this data model far outweigh potential violations of privacy:

 

"Of course, privacy is always a concern, especially when leveraging data available in the 'cloud' that users may or may not be aware is being mined. However, another emergent concern is the consequences of using new types of personal data in new ways. Learners and educators have the potential to get forms of feedback about their behaviors, emotions, physiological responses, and cognitive processes that have never been available before. Measurement developers must carefully consider the impacts of releasing such data, sometimes of a sensitive nature, and incorporate feedback mechanisms that are valuable, respectful, and serve to support productive mindsets" (Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance page 66).


Nothing about this concession lowers my anxiety about how this personal information will be exploited; in fact this confirms that privacy and ethics will be violated, and the violators will demand that we sacrifice our rights for the common good. (The "common good" is a motif teachers are expected to inculcate into the minds of their malleable pupils according to the Common Core Curriculum Map lesson plans--but that's the topic for a future post.)
P20 is a "longitudinal data system" that aims to make student data accessible to "parents, students, teachers, principals, LEA leaders, community members, unions, researchers, and policymakers" ("Race to the Top" page 4). FERPA does not apply, regardless of their assurance that data collection will be legal--FERPA has been modified to allow all stakeholders, now including LEA leaders, community members, unions, researchers, and policymakers, unbridled access. Accepting the conditions of this system was one of the Race to the Top requirements. Use this government site to see whether your state accepted the grant in exchange for selling students' privacy rights: http://nces.ed.gov/Programs/SLDS/stateinfo.asp .

I implore you to continue researching Common Core by visiting these and other dot gov and dot org sites--please cull information directly from the source because such efforts will enhance your understanding of the ultimate agenda and bolster your case when you educate others about this Orwellian takeover of education.


 

 
 






Thursday, June 6, 2013

The Rotten Corps of Common Core Advocates

The controversy of Common Core should itself make teachers very skeptical. The fact that its advocates are pushing to convince us CC is being unfairly attacked by right-wing nut jobs is a red flag. I came across this gem on SAS voices. The author, Caroline McCullen, distinguished educator and CC apologist, attempts to dispel seven common myths about the maligned curriculum. To do this, she blatantly lies.
Since my comment is still awaiting moderation, and I don't expect its being approved, I'll post my replies here.

This "distinguished corps of advocates" is either purposely deceitful or unconscionably stupid.
1. They are national standards. Playing word games to mollify our justifiable fears about a federal takeover of state rights will not work for those of us who can think for ourselves.
2. CCSSO and NGA are trade organizations who deliberately chose the words "state" and "governors" for their titles to allay fears so we teachers would assume CC was state and educator initiated--which CC was not.
3. Scoring for Race to the Top was artificially skewed so that states who signed up first to accept standards THAT HAD NOT YET BEEN WRITTEN and agreed to share personal data about students in a nationally accessible database would be given much higher scores than other states. Money talks.
4. ELA educator, Dr. Sandra Stotsky of the University of Arkansas asked repeatedly for research evidence supporting the CC ELA standards. She was ignored, as was her refusal to approve the standards. Who are the teachers that were involved in this process? Who selected them, and how were they vetted? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K4URgulWhk
5. CC math standards are NOT internationally benchmarked. Dr. James Milgram, "the only content expert on the validation committee" heartily argues against these standards. http://parentsacrossamerica.org/james-milgram-on-the-new-core-curriculum-standards-in-math/
6. By high school, students will read 70% non-fiction; exemplary texts include the thrilling classic "Recommended Levels of Insulation" by best-selling authors at the US EPA. http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_B.pdf
7. Our states have the Constitutional prerogative to write their educational standards. Why should we bow to trade organizations, Bill Gates, and the US Dept of Ed?
Teachers like me have become increasingly keen to deceivers like you and your ilk. I refuse to swallow the swill you are dispensing. I won't drink the Kool-Aid.

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Blueways: Agenda 21 is Coming to a River Near You!

UPDATE!: The Washington County quorum court approved this issue to move to the full quorum court on June 20, 2013. This is a victory, but we need everyone to attend--expect opposition this time.
Here's another informational video that will help you understand the ultimate plan:

The Great Outdoors Initiative. The National Blueways Initiative. Once again our nefarious politicians are crafting innocuous or even cute names for Agenda 21 projects to fleece the majority of Americans.
Tomorrow I'll attend my first quorum court to hear the pros and cons of the White River's designation as a Blueway.
If you live in Missouri or Arkansas, this concerns you. All of you. Because everyone who owns property on the White River watershed will be subject to regulations instated from powers on high, without your consent or input. Please check out Secure Arkansas' posts on this important issue.
Devote just a moment to educating yourself about the Blueways, and at the very least, you'll not be a fan, even if you think Agenda 21 is a right-wing conspiracy theory.
Skip quickly through this first snooze-fest of a video documenting the first designation of the Connecticut River as a Blueway. Pay particular attention to Ken Salazar and "Rock" Salt, the muscle behind this Obama-UN initiative. The self-congratulatory remarks and fawning over then-Secretary of the Interior Salazar make this 23 minutes a waste of your time. But notice what is conspicuously absent: any explanation of why the river necessarily needs "restoration" and why the river needs Blueway designation to be a "job creator." How many times within 23 minutes is Obama cited and praised?

Now spend a little more time watching this short video. Its soothing soundtrack and footage of urban children kayaking a river is syrupy sweet propaganda.

Think for a moment about two key quotes from Matthew Rice of American Rivers:
1. "You know, just like hiking trails are ways to help people explore the land, Blueways are water trails [that] help people discover rivers."
Discover rivers? Private property has already been carved up and paved for public access in the form of walking trails in Northwest Arkansas. What are we to expect will happen to make the White River a "water trail"? The public can already canoe or float down such waterways as the White River, Buffalo River, and Mulberry River. Increasing foot traffic on riverside trails and on the rivers will not make kayaking or canoeing more enjoyable; in fact most people complain the rivers are already too crowded.
2.  "Lots of folks have rivers that go right through their backyard....virtually everybody lives within half a mile of a river. You know, so the opportunities for these types of projects are endless."
I believe he literally means YOUR BACKYARD may be used as a trail and access point to water. What "types of projects" is he referring to? The video shows trails, water access, and free kayak lessons for urban children. You should fully expect that if you own property next to a designated Blueway river, the public will have access to your yard.
American Rivers posted these videos to obfuscate the real objective: restoration. The USDA has already seized private farmland for "afforestation" of the Arkansas Bottomlands (http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/sustain/conf/ppr/stanturf/). It's a dry article but here's the essential passage: 
"The benefits of restoration are usually identified in terms of government priorities or social benefits; seldom are the diverse objectives of landowners recognized. In most market economies where rights and obligations of ownership rest with private landowners, what is appropriate for public land may not be the most attractive restoration option for private landowners. Nevertheless, there can be considerable overlap in the expected benefits to society and the affected landowner."
How might the "affected landowner," stripped of his property rights, find government takeover of his farmland beneficial? Wait for it...
"Other income can be realized by some landowners from hunting leases and potentially from carbon sequestration payments." Yes, by leasing land to the public for hunting on their property, and by getting involved in the super-hip carbon credit trade, landowners can expect record profits that will mollify their disappointment over losing land that has been passed down for generations. 
Now are you interested? If you find this as fascinating as the IRS scandal, don't miss this video from America's Voice Now.

If you're a praying Christian, please pray that tomorrow Arkansas will begin the pushback against this unconstitutional initiative that was speedily instated without much ado.