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.  
 

 

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.