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.  
 

 

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.