Talking Common Core with Rod Arquette

Speaking Back to Common Core

I came across an excellent article tonight written by a Thomas Newkirk.   

A former teacher of at-risk high school students in Boston, Tom is Professor of English at the University of New Hampshire, the former director of its freshman English program, and the director and founder of its New Hampshire Literacy Institutes. He has studied literacy learning at a variety of educational levels—from preschool to college. Heinemann.com

The full text to the article can be found here: Speaking Back to Common Core 

You must read but in case you don't follow the link I'll post a few key phrases.

The Common Core initiative is a triumph of branding. The standards are portrayed as so consensual, so universally endorsed, so thoroughly researched and vetted, so self-evidently necessary to economic progress, so broadly representative of beliefs in the educational community—that they cease to be even debatable. They are held in common; they penetrate to the core of our educational aspirations, uniting even those who might usually disagree. We can be freed from noisy disagreement, and should get on with the work of reform.
     This deft rollout may account for the absence of vigorous debate about the Common Core State Standards. If they represent a common core—a center—critics are by definition on the fringe or margins, whiners and complainers obstructing progress. And given the fact that states have already adopted them—before they were completely formulated—what is the point in opposition? We should get on with the task of implementation, and, of course, alignment.
     But as the great rhetorician Kenneth Burke continually reminds us, all arguments are from a debatable perspective—there is no all-encompassing position, no argument from everywhere. The arguments that hide their controversial edges, their perspective, are the most suspect. “When in Rome act as the Greeks” (1931/1968, 119), he advises us. So in that spirit I would like to raise a series of concerns.

Professor Newkirk lays out 7 arguments against the standards focusing on the English Language Arts.

1. Conflict of interest.

It is a fundamental principle of governance that those who establish the guidelines do not benefit financially from those guidelines. We don’t, for example, let representatives of pharmaceutical companies set health guidelines, for fairly obvious reasons. But in the case of the CCSS, the two major college testing agencies, the College Board and ACT, were engaged to write the standards, when it was obvious that they would create products (or had created products) to test them. The College Board, for example, almost immediately claimed that “The SAT demonstrates strong agreement to the Common Core Writing Standards and there is very strong agreement between the skills required on the SAT essay and the Common Core State Standards” (Vasavada et al. 2011, 5). In fact, the College Board claims that there is also a strong alignment between other products, the PSAT/NMSQT and Redistep, which starts in eighth grade.  Clearly, there is a conflict of interest here.

2. Misdiagnosis of the problem.

A central premise of the CCSS is that students are not reading difficult enough texts and that we need to ramp up the complexity of the texts they encounter. I would argue that the more serious problem is that students cease to read voluntarily, generally around middle school—and fail to develop the stamina for difficult texts (Newkirk 2008).

3. Developmental inappropriateness.

It is clear now that the designers of the CCSS took a top-down approach, beginning with expectations for eleventh and twelfth graders and then working down to the earlier grades. The process, it seems to me, is one of downshifting; early college expectations (at least what I do in my college classes) are downshifted to eleventh or twelfth grade, and the process continues right into kindergarten.

Given the experience with the unrealism of the No Child Left Behind demand for 100 percent proficiency, it seems to me unwise to move to a new set of unrealistic expectations. 

4. A sterile view of reading.

So the model of reading seems to have two stages—first a close reading in which the reader withholds judgment or comparison with other texts, focusing solely on what is happening within “the four corners of the text.” And only then are prior knowledge, personal association, and appraisal allowed in.
This seems to me an inhuman, even impossible, and certainly unwise prescription.

5. Underplaying role of narrative.

The CCSS present us with a “map” of writing types that is fundamentally flawed—because it treats “narrative” as a type of discourse, distinguished from “informational” and “argumentative” writing. In doing so (and the CCSS are not alone in this), they fail to acknowledge the central role narrative plays in all writing, indeed in human understanding.

6. A reform that gives extraordinary power to standardized tests.

It all comes down to the parable of the drunk and his keys, an old joke that goes like this: A drunk is fumbling along under a streetlight when a policeman comes up and asks him what he doing. The drunk explains he is looking for his keys. “Do you think you lost them there?” the policeman asks.

“No. But the light is better here.”

We have here a parable of standardized assessment. There is the learning we hope to evaluate (the keys) and the instruments we have to assess that learning (the streetlight). The central question of assessment is whether our instruments help us see what we should be looking for—or are we like the drunk, simply looking where the light is better?

7. A bonanza for commercialism.

We are already seeing at work a process I call “mystification”—taking a practice that was once viewed as within the normal competence of a teacher and making it seem so technical and advanced that a new commercial product (or form of consultation) is necessary.

Blogger note:  You may be thinking so what?  This is Capitalizim at work.  Not true - see #1 Conflict of Interest.  There are many conflicts involving those that have a product to sell and were in on the development of the standards.  When businesses influence government without going through the proper channels, namely the voice of the people, that is not Capitalism.


8. Standards directing instruction.

The creators of the CCSS were clearly aware of the delicate political situation they were working in—specifically finessing the opposition to any form of national curriculum. That is why they are called “state” standards when they are clearly intended as national standards (another nice branding touch). They are replacing diverse state standards. Another way in which they walk a fine line is the claim that they are not dictating curriculum or teaching methods; promoters claim these decisions should be made at the local level, by teachers and curriculum directors. The mantra is that the standards indicate where students are going but not how they are to get there.

But can this line hold?

Can goals be so clearly distinguished from methods? It would seem that this line has already been breached by the writers of the standards, Coleman and Pimentel in particular, when they prescribe percentage of “text dependent” questions that should appear in basal readers. Or when they dictate the proper proportion of nonfiction to fiction texts that should be taught. Although the CCSS don’t dictate particular texts (though they suggest them), these “guidelines” are clearly curricular decisions, pedagogical decisions; they deal with means as well as the goals. As the standards become operational in standardized tests, this line will be even fuzzier; testing strategies will be transformed into classroom tasks. I realize that this may not bother some, who would argue that if the tests are innovative it will be useful to teach toward them. But the claims of pedagogical freedom obscure the invasive role the standards are already playing.

9. Drowning out other conversations.

In economic theory there is the concept of “opportunity cost”—in any choice, the consumer is foregoing other choices, other opportunities that cannot be pursued. In schools, if all of the discussion is about A, we pay an opportunity cost of not discussing B, C, D, and other topics. 

The principle of opportunity costs prompts us to ask: “What conversations won’t we be having?” Since the CCSS virtually ignore poetry, will we cease to speak about it? What about character education, service learning? What about fiction writing in the upper high school grades? What about the arts that are not amenable to standardized testing? What about collaborative learning, an obvious twenty-first-century skill? We lose opportunities when we cease to discuss these issues and allow the CCSS to completely set the agenda, when the only map is the one it creates. 

I don't pretend to be a scholar and my problem with the Standards has to do with the loss of local control and  the expansion of centralized government but I found this article to be very interesting and thought provoking.  Newkirk closes with the following:

But I’m left with the question: Who watches the watcher? Who assesses the assessor? That’s our job. We’ve come too far, learned too much, invented too much to diminish our practice by one iota to accommodate the Common Core. When and if we see it impeding our best work, it is not too late to speak up.

Take a minute and read the entire piece.  It's only 7 pages...
Speaking Back to Common Core

Which statement encapsulates Wasatch County's values better?

TODAY

MEETING OF THE WASATCH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION

Wasatch Education Center, 101 East 200 North, Heber, Utah

Thursday, February 21, 2013, 6:30 p.m.

After my last post regarding Wasatch School District's strategic plan, I was sent a copy of Nebo school districts mission statement.

Mission Statement
Our mission is to provide each student with quality instruction, learning opportunities and educational environments which inspire classroom success, personal excellence, and responsible citizenship.
Belief Statements
We Believe That:

• Each person is unique and has individual worth.

• Each person is capable of learning and progressing.

• Each person has rights with accompanying responsibilities and accountability.

• The family is the foundation of our society.

• Education is a shared responsibility of the individual, family, school, and community.

• Optimal learning takes place in a climate of love, caring, respect, trust, and acceptance.

• A safe environment is best achieved when school, home and community work together.

• Learning is enhanced when education becomes meaningful.

• Healthy self-esteem enhances the quality of life.

• Performing meaningful work and service contributes to the quality of life.

• Individual integrity, tolerance, and respect for others contribute to a better society.

• A successful democracy is dependent upon an educated and responsible citizenry.

Strategic Parameters

• After considering the needs of students and others involved, decisions will be made at the lowest appropriate level of accountability.

• We will not tolerate behavior or programs which demean the dignity or compromise the safety and well-being of individuals.

• We will continually evaluate and seek to improve.

Objectives

• 100% of our students will graduate or successfully complete their Individual Educational Plans.

• All students will be prepared with community values, appropriate education, and necessary skills to be responsible and contributing members of society as measured by the perception of students, parents, school staff and community.

• Each year Nebo School District's average will exceed the national and state norms or standards on standarized and criterion referenced tests.

• All students will attend school or approved alternatives 100% of the time.

• All students will experience and contribute to a safe and secure learning environment as perceived by students, parents, school staff, and community.

 Now compare that mission statement to Wasatch County's plan:

In my opinion Nebo District's plan is much more in line with the values of our community.  If I could change just one statement it would be to assert that the United States of America is a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy.

I can't help myself - If I could change two 

Please let your voice be heard.  

MEETING OF THE WASATCH SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION

Wasatch Education Center, 101 East 200 North, Heber, Utah
Thursday, February 21, 2013, 6:30 p.m.

Here are the emails of all the principals in the valley, the policy director, the school board members, and the Superintendent:  

shawn.kelly@wasatch.edu, deanna.lloyd@wasatch.edu, RYAN BROWN <ryan.brown@wasatch.edu>, "Kraig Powell" <kraigpowell@le.utah.gov>,  blaik.baird@wasatch.edu, debbie.jones@wasatch.edu, ann.horner@wasatch.edu, shad.sorenson@wasatch.edu, mark.davis@wasatch.edu, terry.shoemaker@wasatch.edu, keith.johansen@wasatch.edu, james.judd@wasatch.edu, jacki.burnham@wasatch.edu, "Brian Thorne" <brian.thorne@wasatch.edu>, justin.kelly@wasatch.edu, adam.hagan@wasatch.edu, 

Enculturate the young into a social and political Democracy? What does that even mean?

(Make sure you read the quotes at the bottom)

Look - I don't have time to write a research paper.  Life is crazy busy!  But I feel continually compelled to let people know what I see, so that if they have a problem with it or maybe feel compelled to do something about it; they will.

Tomorrow is our local school board meeting.  Before last February I had NEVER, EVER been to one.  Have you?  I didn't really care.  I live in a very strong community with tremendous people and that was good enough for me.  But life doesn't always go as we imagined it would.  Life has a way of throwing us a curve ball.  I didn't go looking to be an activist, activism found me.

So what's my point?

You need to understand what our District's Strategic plan is and then decide if that represents the values of our community.

Why does it matter now when I've known about this for a year?  It matters because it is up for review at tomorrow's meeting.

Here's the Agenda and the Board packet.

Now back to the Strategic Plan -

What's the problem?

So what?  What does that even mean?

en·cul·tu·rate

 [en-kuhl-chuh-reyt]  

verb (used with object), en·cul·tu·rat·ed, en·cul·tu·rat·ing.

to change, modify, or adapt (behavior, ideas, etc.) by enculturation.

social democracy

n.A political theory advocating the use of democratic means to achieve a gradual transition from capitalism to socialism.

de·moc·ra·cy  (d-mkr-s)

n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

4. Majority rule.

5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

I couldn't find an official definition for a political Democracy in my quick search but will update with an official definition if I can find one.

So what?  Isn't America a Democracy?

When Benjamin Franklin was asked this question his response was,

If you don't know the difference between a Republic and a Democracy watch this video:

It's okay - most of us don't.  I'm still learning too.

Where did this even come from?  

Wasatch School District is in a 5 district partnership with BYU.  Yes, I love BYU too.  

I thought the school was near perfect too, but now I question some of the employees.  If that makes you uncomfortable, as it did me, read this talk by Pres. Packer to BYU faculty, staff and administrators:  Snow White Birds. 

Like I said, I don't have time for a research paper right now as it is already 3 in the morning but here is the short answer. 

BYU partnered with an organization NNER:  http://education.byu.edu/news/2003/01/01/hosts-nner/

BYU’s School of Education was one of NNER’s 10 initial settings when it was launched in 1986. The NNER was founded by John I. Goodlad, Kenneth Sirotnick, and Roger Soder with emphasis on Goodlad’s Moral Dimensions theory. Goodlad’s four moral dimensions include enculturating youth in democratic living, providing access to knowledge, practicing a nurturing pedagogy, and ensuring responsible stewardship of schools. The NNER was established on the premise that good schools are not possible without good teacher education programs, and good teacher education programs should immerse students in good schools as a part of their induction into teaching.

They have since dropped this association after citizens in Alpine School District questioned the philosophies of John Goodlad and his organization.

 BYU has partially amended their vision statement, it's time Wasatch County followed suit.  Let your voice be heard.

Here are some philosophies John Goodlad holds:

Read about Alpine's fight here:

http://www.utahsrepublic.org/tag/john-goodlad/

BYU drops NNER

http://www.saveasd.com/asd%E2%80%99s-moral-dimensions-expert-socialist-john-goodlad-terrorist-bill-ayers/

8th Grade History Teacher: Stop the Common Core

I think it's a shame that teachers are given so much propaganda and fear for their jobs if they speak out against this education reform.  I came across this article from a history teacher and think it is really telling.  I was told by a teacher in Jordan School District that the school has monitors that stop by the classroom to ensure they are teaching the Common Core and not deviating.  

I like the quote this teacher mentions by Lincoln, "the philosophy of the classroom today, will be the philosophy of government tomorrow.”

 

Posted on January 21, 2013 by truthed @  Truth in American Education

By C.E. White

This week, President Obama will be sworn into office as the 45th President of the United States of America.  As a history teacher, I was elated to learn he would be placing his hand on two Bibles, one belonging to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the other belonging to President Abraham Lincoln, when he takes the oath of office to lead our great nation.   Dr. King and President Lincoln helped define civil rights for America…historical heroes who transformed the idea of justice and equality. 

As jubilant as I am that President Obama is symbolically using the bibles of two of the greatest Americans in our nation’s history, I am saddened that this administration seems to have forgotten what Dr. King and President Lincoln promoted regarding education.  

In Dr. King’s “Letter from the Birmingham Jail,” he stated “the goal of America is freedom.”  As a teacher, it is such an honor to teach America’s children about freedom and patriotism.  However,  over the past few years, I began to learn about a new education reform initiative called Common Core Standards.  A few years ago, when I first heard of Common Core, I began doing my own research.   My students represent the future of the United States of America, and what they learn is of utmost importance to me.  I care about their future, and the future of our country. 

My research of Common Core Standards kept me awake at night, because what I discovered was so shocking.  I discovered that Common Core Standards is about so much more than educational standards.  I wanted so badly to believe these changes would be good for our children.  How can “common” standards be a bad thing?  After all, isn’t it nice to have students learning the same exceptional standards from Alabama to Alaska, from Minnesota to Massachusetts? 

As a teacher, I began to spend nights, weekends, summers, even Christmas Day researching Common Core, because these reforms were so massive and were happening so quickly, it was hard to keep up with how American education was being transformed.  I quickly began to realize that the American education system under Common Core goes against everything great Americans like Dr. King and President Lincoln ever taught.  The very freedoms we celebrate and hold dear are in question when I think of what Common Core means for the United States.

One of my favorite writings about education from Dr. King is a paper entitled “The Purpose of Education.”  In it, he wrote “To save man from the morass of propaganda, in my opinion, is one of the chief aims of education. Education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction.”

When I sit in faculty meetings about Common Core, I hear “curriculum specialists” tell me that Common Core is here to stay and I must “embrace change.”    I am forced to drink the kool-aid.  These specialists don’t tell us to search for facts about Common Core on our own, they simply tell us what the people paid to promote Common Core want us to know.  Didn’t Dr. King want us to separate facts from fiction?  Why are we only given information from sources paid to say Common Core is a good thing? Isn’t that the exact same type of propaganda Dr. King discussed in his writings about education?  Shouldn’t we discuss why thousands of Americans are calling for a repeal of the standards?

I am told that I must embrace Common Core and I infer that resisting the changes associated with Common Core will label me “resistant to change.”  As a teacher, I definitely believe our classrooms are changing with the times and I am not afraid of change.  Teachers across America are hearing similar stories about how they should “feel” about Common Core.  This is a brainwashing bully tactic.  It reminds me of my 8th graders’ lesson on bullying, when I teach them to have an opinion of their own.  Just because “everyone’s doing it,” doesn’t make it right.  In regards to Common Core, I am not afraid of change.  I am just not going to sell-out my students’ education so that Pearson, the Gates Foundation, David Coleman, Sir Michael Barber, Marc Tucker and others can experiment on our children.

I agree with Dr. King, which is why I am so saddened at how propaganda from an elite few is literally changing the face of America’s future with nothing more than a grand experiment called Common Core Standards.  Our children deserve more.  Our teachers deserve more.  Our country deserves more.  Education reform is the civil rights issue of our generation, and sadly, parents, teachers, and students have been left out of the process.  

President Lincoln once said “the philosophy of the classroom today, will be the philosophy of government tomorrow.”  With Common Core, new standardized tests have inundated classrooms with problems of their own.  Teachers find themselves “teaching to the test” more and more.  These tests violate our states’ rights.  I wonder if parents realized that all states aren’t created equal in Common Core tests?  Shouldn’t all states, under “common” standards for everyone have everyone’s equal input on how students are tested? 

What about privacy under Common Core?  Why didn’t local boards of education tell parents about the changes to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act?  Do parents realize their child’s data, including biometric data such as fingerprints and retinal scans, is being placed in a state longitudinal data system and shared with others? 

If our philosophy of the classroom is to violate states’ rights, use children and teachers as guinea pigs, and hide from parents the fact that their child’s data is no longer private, it can only be inferred that the philosophy of government tomorrow will do the same.  What is America becoming? 

As I watched President Obama place his hand on the bibles of Dr. King and President Lincoln, the history teacher in me was overjoyed to watch such a patriotic moment in U.S. history.  And yet, I was crushed at the realization that if we do not stop Common Core and preserve the United States educational system, the philosophy of our government tomorrow will not be the America we know and love.

Children for Sale

Alyson's story is my story.  No I'm not Alyson and I didn't write it but as I read her article I was amazed at the similarities.  I had the priviledge of meeting Alyson last Saturday and was so impressed with the amount of research Alyson has done.  Please take a minute to read...

Children for Sale

By Alyson Williams

 

No more decisions behind closed doors! Let’s get everyone talking about Common Core.

 

In the spring of 2011 I received a receipt for the sale of my children. It came in the form of a flyer that simply notified me that my state and thereby my children’s school would comply with the Common Core. No other details of the transaction were included. The transaction was complete, and I had no say. In fact, it was the very first time I’d heard about it.

I know what you’re thinking. That’s outrageous! Common Core has nothing to do with selling things, especially not children!

Okay, so the idea that the State School Board and Governor who’d made this decision could be described as “selling” my children is hyperbole. It is an exaggeration intended to convey an emotion regarding who, in this land of the free, has ultimate authority over decisions that directly affect my children’s intellectual development, privacy, and future opportunities. It is not even an accurate representation of my initial reaction to the flyer. I say it to make a point that I didn’t realize until much, much later… this isn’t just an issue of education, but of money and control. Please allow me to explain.

That first day my husband picked up the flyer and asked me, “What is Common Core?” To be honest, I had no idea. We looked it up online. We read that they were standards for each grade that would be consistent across a number of states. They were described as higher standards, internationally benchmarked, state-led, and inclusive of parent and teacher in-put. It didn’t sound like a bad thing, but why hadn’t we ever heard about it before? Again, did I miss the parent in-put meeting or questionnaire… the vote in our legislature? Who from my state had helped to write the standards? In consideration of the decades of disagreement on education trends that I’ve observed regarding education, how in the world did that many states settle all their differences enough to agree on the same standards? It must have taken years, right? How could I have missed it?

At first it was really difficult to get answers to all my questions. I started by asking the people who were in charge of implementing the standards at the school district office, and later talked with my representative on the local school board. I made phone calls and I went to public meetings. We talked a lot about the standards themselves. No one seemed to know the answers to, or wanted to talk about my questions about how the decision was made, the cost, or how it influenced my ability as a parent to advocate for my children regarding curriculum. I even had the chance to ask the Governor himself at a couple of local political meetings. I was always given a similar response. It usually went something like this:

Question: “How much will this cost?”

Answer: “These are really good standards.”

Question: “I read that the Algebra that was offered in 8^th grade, will now not be offered until 9^th grade. How is this a higher standard?”

Answer: “These are better standards. They go deeper into concepts.”

Question: “Was there a public meeting that I missed?”

Answer: “You should really read the standards. This is a good thing.”

Question: “Isn’t it against the Constitution and the law of the land to have a national curriculum under the control of the federal government?’

Answer: “Don’t you want your kids to have the best curriculum?”

It got to the point where I felt like I was talking to Jedi masters who, instead of actually answering my questions, would wave their hand in my face and say, “You will like these standards.”

I stopped asking. I started reading.

I read the standards. I read about who wrote the standards. I read about the timeline of how we adopted the standards (before the standards were written.) I read my state’s Race to the Top grant application, in which we said we were going to adopt the standards. I read the rejection of that grant application and why we wouldn’t be given additional funding to pay for this commitment. I read how standardized national test scores are measured and how states are ranked. I read news articles, blogs, technical documents, legislation, speeches given by the US Education Secretary and other principle players, and even a few international resolutions regarding education.

I learned a lot.

I learned that most other parents didn’t know what the Common Core was either.

I learned that the standards were state accepted, but definitely not “state led.”

I learned that the international benchmark claim is a pretty shaky one and doesn’t mean they are better than or even equal to international standards that are considered high.

I learned that there was NO public input before the standards were adopted. State-level decision makers had very little time themselves and had to agree to them in principle as the actual standards were not yet complete.

I learned that the only content experts on the panel to review the standards had refused to sign off on them, and why they thought the standards were flawed.

I learned that much of the specific standards are not supported by research but are considered experimental.

I learned that in addition to national standards we agreed to new national tests that are funded and controlled by the federal government.

I learned that in my state, a portion of teacher pay is dependent on student test performance.

I learned that not only test scores, but additional personal information about my children and our family would be tracked in a state-wide data collection project for the express purpose of making decisions about their educational path and “aligning” them with the workforce.

I learned that there are fields for tracking home-schooled children in this database too.

I learned that the first step toward getting pre-school age children into this data project is currently underway with new legislation that would start a new state preschool program.

I learned that this data project was federally funded with a stipulation that it be compatible with other state’s data projects. Wouldn’t this feature create a de facto national database of children?

I learned that my parental rights to deny the collection of this data or restrict who has access to it have been changed at the federal level through executive regulation, not the legislative process.

I learned that these rights as protected under state law are currently under review and could also be changed.

I learned that the financing, writing, evaluation, and promotion of the standards had all been done by non-governmental special interest groups with a common agenda.

I learned that their agenda was in direct conflict with what I consider to be the best interests of my children, my family, and even my country.

Yes, I had concerns about the standards themselves, but suddenly that issue seemed small in comparison to the legal, financial, constitutional and representative issues hiding behind the standards and any good intentions to improve the educational experience of my children.

If it was really about the best standards, why did we adopt them before they were even written?

If they are so wonderful that all, or even a majority of parents would jump for joy to have them implemented, why wasn’t there any forum for parental input?

What about the part where I said I felt my children had been sold? I learned that the U.S. market for education is one of the most lucrative – bigger than energy or technology by one account – especially in light of these new national standards that not only create economy of scale for education vendors, but require schools to purchase all new materials, tests and related technology. Almost everything the schools had was suddenly outdated.

When I discovered that the vendors with the biggest market share and in the position to profit the most from this new regulation had actually helped write or finance the standards, the mama bear inside me ROARED!

Could it be that the new standards had more to do with profit than what was best for students? Good thing for their shareholders they were able to avoid a messy process involving parents or their legislative representatives.

As I kept note of the vast sums of money exchanging hands in connection with these standards with none of it going to address the critical needs of my local school – I felt cheated.

When I was told that the end would justify the means, that it was for the common good of our children and our society, and to sit back and trust that they had my children’s best interests at heart – they lost my trust.

As I listened to the Governor and education policy makers on a state and national level speak about my children and their education in terms of tracking, alignment, workforce, and human capital – I was offended.

When I was told that this is a done deal, and there was nothing as a parent or citizen that I could do about it – I was motivated.

Finally, I learned one more very important thing. I am not the only one who feels this way. Across the nation parents grandparents and other concerned citizens are educating themselves, sharing what they have learned and coming together. The problem is, it is not happening fast enough. Digging through all the evidence, as I have done, takes a lot of time – far more time than the most people are able to spend. In order to help, I summarized what I thought was some of the most important information into a flowchart so that others could see at a glance what I was talking about.

I am not asking you to take my word for it. I want people to check the references and question the sources. I am not asking for a vote or for money. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. I do believe with all my heart that a decision that affects the children of almost every state in the country should not be made without a much broader discussion, validated research, and much greater input from parents and citizens than it was originally afforded.

If you agree I encourage you to share this information. Post it, pin it, email it, tweet it.

No more decisions behind closed doors! Let’s get everyone talking about Common Core.

(Click to enlarge)

Flowchart Sources

Thanks to Alyson Williams for permission to publish her story.

This was first posted at Common Core: Education Without Representation.