9/9/13 National Experts in Opposition to Common Core met at Notre Dame Conference.  

Here is Dr Sandra Stotsky on ELA standards of Common Core

and Dr James Milgram on Math standards:  


  • University of Notre Dame Conference Address of Dr. Sandra Stotsky: Common Core’s Invalid Validation Committee   Posted September 7, 2013 by Christel Swasey On Monday, at the University of Notre Dame, Dr. Sandra Stotsky will present a white paper about Common Core’s validation committee at a conference entitled “The Changing Role of Education in America: Consequences of the Common Core.” It is posted below. A few of powerful points from Dr. Stotsky’s paper: 1. “One aspect of the ELA standards that remained untouchable despite the consistent criticisms I sent to the standards writers… was David Coleman’s idea that nonfiction or informational texts should occupy at least half of the readings in every English class, to the detriment of classic literature… Even though all the historical and empirical evidence weighed against this concept, his idea was apparently set in stone.” 2. “The standards were created by people who wanted a “Validation Committee” in name only. An invalid process, endorsed by an invalid Validation Committee, resulted not surprisingly in invalid standards.” 3. “Because the Work Group labored in secret, without open meetings, sunshine-law minutes of meetings, or accessible public comment, its reasons for making the decisions it did are lost to history.” 4.“There has been no validation of Common Core’s standards by a public process, nor any validation of its college-readiness level in either mathematics or English language arts by the relevant higher education faculty in this country… It is possible to consider the original vote by state boards of education to adopt Common Core’s standards null and void, regardless of whether a state board of education now chooses to recall its earlier vote. Any tests based on these invalid standards are also invalid, by definition.” Dr. Stotsky has permitted widespread publication of her paper, and it is posted here. ————————————————————————————————————————————————- Common Core’s Invalid Validation Committee   Sandra Stotsky   Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas Paper prepared for a conference at University of Notre Dame September 9, 2013 Common Core’s K-12 standards, it is regularly claimed, emerged from a state-led process in which experts and educators were well represented. 
    But the people who wrote the standards did not represent the relevant stakeholders. Nor were they qualified to draft standards intended to “transform instruction for every child.” And the Validation Committee (VC) that was created to put the seal of approval on the drafters’ work was useless if not misleading, both in its membership and in the procedures they had to follow. I served as the English language arts (ELA) standards expert on that committee and will describe today some of the deficiencies in its make-up, procedures, and outcome. The lack of an authentic validation of Common Core’s so-called college-readiness standards (by a committee consisting largely of discipline based higher education experts who actually teach freshmen and other undergraduates mathematics or English/humanities courses) before state boards of education voted to adopt these standards suggests their votes had no legal basis. In this paper, I set forth a case for declaring the votes by state boards of education to adopt Common Core’s standards null and void—and any tests based on them. For many months after the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) was launched in early 2009, the identities of the people drafting the “college- and career-readiness standards” were unknown to the public. CCSSI eventually (in July) revealed the names of the 24 members of the “Standards Development Work Group” (designated as developing these standards) in response to complaints from parent groups and others about the lack of transparency. What did this Work Group look like?
    Focusing only on ELA, the make-up of the Work Group was quite astonishing: It included no English professors or high-school English teachers. How could legitimate ELA standards be created without the very two groups of educators who know the most about what students should and could be learning in secondary English classes? CCSSI also released the names of individuals in a larger “Feedback Group.” This group included one English professor and one high-school English teacher. But it was made clear that these people would have only an advisory role – final decisions would be made by the English-teacher-bereft Work Group. Indeed, Feedback
    Group members’ suggestions were frequently ignored, according to the one English professor on this group, without explanation. Because the Work Group labored in secret, without open meetings, sunshine-law minutes of meetings, or accessible public comment, its reasons for making the decisions it did are lost to history. The lead ELA writers were David Coleman and Susan Pimentel, neither of whom had experience teaching English either in K-12 or at the college level. Nor had either of them ever published serious work on K-12 curriculum and instruction. Neither had a reputation for scholarship or research; they were virtually unknown to the field of English language arts. But they had been chosen to transform ELA education in the US.

    Who recommended them and why, we still do not know. In theory, the Validation Committee (VC) should have been the fail-safe mechanism for the standards. The VC consisted of about 29 members during 2009-2010. Some were ex officio, others were recommended by the governor or commissioner of education of an individual state. No more is known officially about the rationale for the individuals chosen for the VC. Tellingly, the VC contained almost no experts on ELA standards; most were education professors and representatives of testing companies, from here and abroad.

    There was only one mathematician on the VC—R. James Milgram (there were several mathematics educators—people with doctorates in mathematics education and, in most cases, appointments in an education school). I was the only nationally acknowledged expert on English language arts standards by virtue of my work in Massachusetts and for Achieve, Inc.’s American Diploma Project high school exit standards for ELA and subsequent backmapped standards for earlier grade levels. As a condition of membership, all VC members had to agree to 10 conditions, among which were the following: Ownership of the Common Core State Standards, including all drafts, copies, reviews, comments, and nonfinal versions (collectively, Common Core State Standards), shall reside solely and exclusively with the Council of Chief State School Officers (“CCSSO”) and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (“NGA Center”). I agree to maintain the deliberations, discussions, and work of the Validation Committee, including the content of any draft or final documents, on a strictly confidential basis and shall not disclose or communicate any information related to the same, including in summary form, except within the membership of the Validation Committee and to CCSSO and the NGA Center. As can be seen in the second condition listed above, members of the VC could never, then or in the future, discuss whether or not the VC discussed the meaning of college readiness or had any recommendations to offer on the matter. The charge to the VC spelled out in the summer of 2009, before the grade-level mathematics standards were developed, was as follows: 1. Review the process used to develop the college- and career-readiness standards and recommend improvements in that process. These recommendations will be used to inform the K-12 development process. 2. Validate the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each college- and career-readiness standard. Each member is asked to determine whether each standard has sufficient evidence to warrant its inclusion. 3. Add any standard that is not now included in the common core state standards that they feel should be included and provide the following evidence to support its inclusion:
    1) evidence that the standard is essential to college and career success; and
    2) evidence that the standard is internationally comparable.” It quickly became clear that the VC existed as window-dressing; it was there to rubber-stamp, not improve, the standards. As all members of the VC were requested to do, I wrote up a detailed critique of the College and Career Readiness Standards in English language arts in the September 2009 draft and critiques of drafts of the grade-level standards as they were made available in subsequent months. I sent my comments to the three lead standards writers as well as to Common Core’s staff, to other members of the VC (until the VC was directed by the staff to send comments only to them for distribution), and to Commissioner Chester and the members of the Massachusetts Board of Education (as a fellow member). At no time did I receive replies to my comments or even queries from the CCSSI staff, the standards writers, or Commissioner Chester and fellow board members. In a private conversation at the end of November, 2009, I was asked by Chris Minnich, a CCSSI staff member, if I would be willing to work on the standards during December with Susan Pimentel, described to me as the lead ELA standards writer. I had worked with her (working for StandardsWork) on the 2008 Texas English language arts standards and, earlier, on other standards projects. I was told that Pimentel made the final decisions on the ELA standards. I agreed to spend about two weeks in Washington, DC working on the ELA standards pro bono with Pimentel if it was made clear that agreed-upon revisions would not be changed by unknown others before going out for comment to other members of the VC and, eventually, the public. A week after sending to Minnich and Pimentel a list of the kind of changes I thought needed to be made to the November 2009 draft before we began to work together, I received a “Dear John” letter from Chris Minnich. He thanked me for my comments and indicated that my suggestions would be considered along with those from 50 states and that I would hear from the staff sometime in January. In the second week of January 2010, a “confidential draft” was sent out to state departments of education in advance of their submitting an application on January 19 for Race to the Top (RttT) funds. (About 18 state applications, including the Bay State’s, were prepared by professional grant writers chosen and paid for by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—at roughly $250,000 each.) A few states included the watermarked confidential draft in their application material and posted the whole application on their department of education’s website (in some cases required by law), so it was no longer confidential. This draft contained none of the kinds of revisions I had suggested in my December e-mail to Minnich and Pimentel. Over the next six months, the Pioneer Institute published my analyses of that January draft and succeeding drafts, including the final June 2 version. I repeatedly pointed out serious flaws in the document, but at no time did the lead ELA standards writers communicate with me (despite requests for a private discussion) or provide an explanation of the organizing categories for the standards and the focus on skills, not literary/historical content. One aspect of the ELA standards that remained untouchable despite the consistent criticisms I sent to the standards writers, to those in charge of the VC, to the Massachusetts board of education, to the Massachusetts commissioner of education, to the media, and to the public at large was David Coleman’s idea that nonfiction or informational texts should occupy at least half of the readings in every English class, to the detriment of classic literature and of literary study more broadly speaking. Even though all the historical and empirical evidence weighed against this concept, his idea was apparently set in stone. The deadline for producing a good draft of the college-readiness and grade-level ELA (and mathematics) standards was before January 19, 2010, the date the U.S. Department of Education had set for state applications to indicate a commitment to adopting the standards to qualify for Race to the Top grants. But the draft sent to state departments of education in early January was so poorly written and content deficient that CCSSI had to delay releasing a public comment draft until March. The language in the March version had been cleaned up somewhat, but the draft was not much better in organization or substance – the result of unqualified drafters working with undue haste and untouchable premises. None of the public feedback to the March draft has ever been made available. The final version released in June 2010 contained most of the problems apparent in the first draft: lack of rigor (especially in the secondary standards), minimal content, lack of international benchmarking, lack of research support. In February 2010, I and presumably all other members of the VC received a “letter of certification” from the CCSSI staff for signing off on Common Core’s standards (even though the public comment draft wasn’t released until March 2010 and the final version wasn’t released until June). The original charge to the VC had been reduced in an unclear manner by unidentified individuals to just the first two and least important of the three bullets mentioned above. Culmination of participation on the committee was reduced to signing or not signing a letter by the end of May 2010 asserting that the standards were: 1 Reflective of the core knowledge and skills in ELA and mathematics that students need to be college- and career ready. 2. Appropriate in terms of their level of clarity and specificity. 3. Comparable to the expectations of other leading nations. 4. Informed by available research or evidence. 5. The result of processes that reflect best practices for standards development. 6. A solid starting point for adoption of cross-state common core standards. 7. A sound basis for eventual development of standards-based assessments. The VC members who signed the letter were listed in the brief official report on the VC (since committee work was confidential, there was little the rapporteur could report), while the five members who did not sign off were not listed as such, nor their reasons mentioned. Stotsky’s letter explaining why she could not sign off can be viewed here (and below), and Milgram’s letter can be viewed here (and below). This was the“transparent, state-led” process that resulted in the Common Core standards. The standards were created by people who wanted a “Validation Committee” in name only. An invalid process, endorsed by an invalid Validation Committee, resulted not surprisingly in invalid standards. States need to reconsider their hasty decisions to adopt this pig in an academic poke for more than substantive reasons. There has been no validation of Common Core’s standards by a public process, nor any validation of its college-readiness level in either mathematics or English language arts by the relevant higher education faculty in this country. And there is nothing in the history and membership of the VC to suggest that the public should place confidence in the CCSSI or the U.S. Department of Education to convene committees of experts from the relevant disciplines in higher education in this country and elsewhere to validate Common Core’s college-readiness level. It is possible to consider the original vote by state boards of education to adopt Common Core’s standards null and void, regardless of whether a state board of education now chooses to recall its earlier vote. Any tests based on these invalid standards are also invalid, by definition. Sandra Stotsky, Ed.D. Professor Emerita 246 Clark Road Brookline, MA 02445 Home Office:  (617)-734-1584  sstotsky@uark.edu Sstotsky@aol.com         Download CV Sandra Stotsky is credited with developing one of the country’s strongest sets of academic standards for K-12 students as well as the strongest academic standards and licensure tests for prospective teachers while serving as Senior Associate Commissioner in the Massachusetts Department of Education from 1999-2003. She is also known nation-wide for her in-depth analyses of the problems in Common Core’s English language arts standards. Her current research ranges from the deficiencies in teacher preparation programs and teacher licensure tests to the deficiencies in the K-12 reading curriculum and the question of gender bias in the curriculum. She is regularly invited to testify or submit testimony to state boards of education and state legislators on bills addressing licensure tests, licensure standards, and Common Core’s standards (e.g., Utah, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, South Carolina, and Texas).  She currently serves on several committees for the International Dyslexia Association and on the advisory board for Pioneer Institute’s Center for School Reform. She served on the National Validation Committee for the Common Core State Systemic Initiative (2009-2010), on the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2006-2008), co-authoring its final report as well as two of its task group reports, on the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (2006-2010), and on the Steering Committee in 2003-2004 for the framework for the National Assessment of Educational Progress reading assessments for 2009 onward.  Her major publications include The Death and Resurrection of a Coherent Literature Curriculum (Rowman & Littlefield, 2012); Literary Study in Grades 9, 10, and 11: A National Survey (Association of Literary Scholars, Critics, and Writers, 2010); What’s at Stake in the K-12 Standards Wars: A Primer for Educational Policy Makers (Peter Lang, 2000); and Losing Our Language (Free Press, 1999, reprinted by Encounter Books, 2002). Recent Professional Activities James Milgram and Sandra Stotsky.

    Can this country survive Common Core’s college readiness level? September 2013.Sandra Stotsky. 

    Common Core’s Invalid Validation Committee. Paper presented for a conference at University of Notre Dame. September 9, 2013.Sandra Stotsky.

    “Invited Testimony for a Hearing in Michigan on Common Core.” August 14, 2013.Sandra Stotsky. 

    “New York State Test Results: Uninterpretable But a Portent of the Future,” August 12, 2013.  Pioneeer Institute Rock the Schoolhouse blog.Sandra Stotsky. 

    Invited Testimony for a Hearing on Common Core in Indiana. August 5, 2013.Sandra Stotsky.

    My View: This is Why I Oppose Common Core. Desert News. July 24, 2013.Sandra Stotsky. 

    Kentucky Needs Higher Expectations for its Students: Testimony Submitted to the Kentucky Board of Education, July 2013Sandra Stotsky.
    Invited Testimony for a Hearing on the Implementation of Common Core’s Standards in Arkansas, July 22, 2013Sandra Stotsky.

    “4 Steps to Upgrade Teacher & Administrator Prep Programs.” Pioneer Institute. July 18, 2013.Sandra Stotsky.

    “How Long Before Duncan and the Media Speak Out Honestly?” Pioneer Institute. July, 10, 2013.Sandra Stotsky.

    “Revise or Reject: The Common Core’s Serious Flaws.” National Association of Scholars. July 3, 2013.Sandra Stotsky. 

    ”Common Core’s Cloudy Vision of College Readiness in Math.” Pioneer Institute. July 1, 2013.Sandra Stotsky.

    “More Than One Fatal Flaw in Common Core’s ELA Standards.” Pioneer Institute. June 26, 2013.Sandra Stotsky and Jane Robbins.

    Pulling Back the Curtain on Common Core. The Blaze. June 27, 2013.Sandra Stotsky.

    What To Do Once Common Core Is Halted. Pioneer Institute. June 20, 2013.Sandra Stotsky. 

    Why Do They Lie? And Why Do Others Believe Them? Pioneer Institute. June 18, 2013.

    Panel Discussion on Common Core at Thousand Oaks, California, June 10, 2013

    Forum on Common Core at the Worcester, Massachusetts Public Library, June 5, 2013Sandra Stotksy. 

    Wanted:  Internationally Benchmarked Standards in Mathematics, Science, and English Language Arts. May 2013.Interview with Sandra Stotsky.  

    Education Views. April 2013. Robert Pondiscio, Gilbert T. Sewall, and Sandra Stotsky.  Foreward by Walter A. McDougall.  

    Shortchanging the Future: The Crisis of History and Civics in American Schools. Pioneer Institute White Paper 100, April 2013.Sandra Stotsky, “Sandra
    Stotsky Discusses the Common Core (Video).” The Pioneer Institute. April 9, 2013.Sandra Stotsky,
    Testimony for a Hearing in Arkansas for HB1590. March 28, 2013. (Appendix A and Appendix B)Sandra Stotsky, 

    Invited Testimony for a Hearing in Michigan on House Bill 4276. March 20, 2013.Sandra Stotsky, 

    Testimony for a Hearing on House Bill #616 and Senate Bill #210: Bills to prohibit the State Board of Education from adopting and implementing Common Core’s Standards and Tests.  March 6, 2013.Sandra Stotsky, 

    Invited Testimony for a Hearing on SB 167: A bill on Common Core’s Standards and Tests.  February 28, 2013.Sandra Stotsky, 

    Invited Testimony for Kansas on Common Core. February 14, 2013.Sandra Stotsky, 

    An English Language Arts Curriculum Framework for American Public Schools: A Model, February 2013Sandra Stotsky. 2013. 

    Why Do Education Schools Have Such Low Standards? Essay written for Minding the Campus.Anders Lewis and Sandra Stotsky. 2013.

    The Rise and Fall of the Study of American History in Massachusetts. Pioneer Institute White Paper No. 97.Sandra Stotsky. 2013.

    Literature or Technical Manuals: Who Should Be Teaching What, Where, and Why? Paper presented at The Constitutional Coalition’s Educational PolicyConference.Sandra Stotsky. 2013.

    Why We Must Raise the Bar for Admission to an Education School. Paper given at the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.Sandra Stotsky.

    Testimony before the Indiana Senate Committee on Education and Career Development. January16, 2013 Sandra Stotsky and George Denny. 2012. 

    Single-sex classrooms and reading achievement: An exploratory study. Journal of School Choice: Research, Theory, and Reform, 6 (4), 439-464.Sandra Stotsky. 

    Common Core Standards’ Devastating Impact on Literary Study and Analytical Thinking. The Heritage Foundation Issue Brief #3800, December 11, 2012. Sandra Stotsky.

    Invited Testimony on the Low Quailty of the Common Core Standards. Testimony Submitted to Colorado’s State Board of Education, December 6, 2012 Stotsky, Sandra.

    “Lessons to Learn: Teachers’ teachers responsible, too.” Arkansas Democrat Gazette, October 6, 2012.Stotsky, Sandra et al.

     ”Good Citizenship: To Preserve Republic, Teach Civics.” Arkansas Democrat Gazette, September 19, 2012. Mark Bauerlein and Sandra Stotsky. (September 2012).   

    How Common Core’s ELA Standards Place College Readiness at Risk.  Pioneer Institute White Paper No. 89.Stotsky, Sandra. 2012.

    “How Common Core Standards Have Begun to Damage the School Curriculum,” Heritage Foundation, April 17, 2012. Stotsky, Sandra. 2012.

    “Invited Comments on the Common Core Standards to the House Committee on Education in South Carolina,” South Carolina, April 18, 2012. Stotsky, Sandra. 2012.

    “The Serpent in Finland’s Garden of Equity,” Journal of School Choice: Research, Theory, and Reform, 6(2), 295-300.Stotsky, Sandra. 2012.

    “Invited Testimony for a Hearing on a South Carolina Bill to Amend 1976 Code,” February 16, 2012.Stotsky, Sandra. 2012.

    “Invited Testimony for a Hearing on Wisconsin Bill AB 558,” February 15, 2012. Stotsky, Sandra. 2012.

    “Invited Testimony for a hearing on Indiana Senate Bill No. 373,” January 25, 2012. Stotsky, Sandra. 2012.

    “Competition and Choice Bring Reform, but there’s a Problem,” February 9, 2012. Stotsky, Sandra. 2012.

    “The Last Word: An Interview with Sandra Stotsky–A Call for Challenge and Coherence (May 2011). Joe Helbling and Catherine A. Little. ”Stotsky, Sandra. 2011.

    “The Stealth Curriculum,” in Sarah Stern (Ed.)Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, 65-80. Stotsky, Sandra. 2011.

    “Tailoring to Students’ Interests”. Room for Debate, New York Times, August 23, 2011.Stotsky, Sandra. 2011.

    “Ten Steps to a Better ESEA (with apologies to the Fordham Institute): How to reauthorize ESEA so that it might actually upgrade K-12 education. April 23, 2011.”Stotsky, Sandra. 2012.

    “Invited Testimony for a Hearing on Indiana Senate Bill No. 373 to Void Any Action Taken by the State Board of Education to Adopt the Common Core standards as the state’s standards,” January 25, 2012.Sandra Stotsky.

    How to Implement Common Core’s Literacy Standards to Enhance Civic Literacy in Arkansas. Presentation to Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators: August 2, 2011Sandra Stotsky,

    Heritage Foundation Event, July 27, 2011.Sandra Stotsky.

    “Testimony in Favor of Bill on Texas State Sovereignty over Curriculum Standards, Assessements, and Student Information,

    ”Testimony for a Hearing on House Bill No. 2923, April 14, 2011 Video of Event Prepared Remarks in Writing Sandra Stotsky.

    “Literary Study in Grades 9,10, and 11: A National Survey” A Publication of the ALSCW, Number 4, Fall 2010.Sandra Stotsky and Ze’ev Wurman.

    “Common Core’s Standards Still Don’t Make the Grade,” A Pioneer Institute White Paper, No. 65, July 2010.Sandra Stotsky.

    “Literary Study in Grades 9, 10, and 11 in Arkansas,” March 22, 2010. Sandra Stotsky.

    “National Academic Standards: The First Test,” September 22, 2009. Sandra Stotsky.

    “Teachers’ Pet,” The Weekly Standard, Volume 015, Issue 01, September 12, 2009. Sandra Stotsky.

    “New Guidelines for Teacher Training,” September 1, 2009. Sandra Stotsky.

    “The Academic Quality of Teachers: A Civil Rights Issue,” Commentary, Education Week, June 26, 2009. Sandra Stotsky.

    “Licensure Tests for Special Education Teachers: How Well They Assess Knowledge of Reading Instruction and Mathematics,” June 26, 2009.

    Invited written statement submitted to the New Jersey State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    “Teacher Licensing Standards, Teacher Quality, and Student Achievement in Urban Schools,” May 2009 Sandra Stotsky.

    “Suggested Indices of Teacher Quality for Arkansas: A Position Paper,” Presented at the Office for Education Policy’s Conference

    “Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers for Arkansas”, April 2009 Sandra Stotsky.

    “The Bitter Fruit of School Reform,” The New York Times, April 28, 2009 Sandra Stotsky.

    “The global achievement muddle,” Northwest Arkansas Times, March 17th, 2009 Sandra Stotsky.

    “What boys are reading,” L. Sax (Ed.), Gender Differences in Learning and School; an Online Special Edition, January 15th, 2009 Sandra Stotsky.

    “Licensure Tests for Special Education Teachers: How Well They Assess Knowledge of Reading Instruction and Mathematics,” Education Working Paper Archive, November 7, 2008 Sandra Stotsky.

    “Out of one, many,” Arkansas Democrat Gazette, June 21st, 2008Sandra Stotsky.

    “Teacher Licensure Tests: Their Relationship to Mathematics Teachers’ Academic Competence and Student Achievement in Mathematics,” Education Working Paper Archive, September 5, 2007 Sandra Stotsky University of Arkansas - Department of Education Reform (DER) Milgram's Testimony Before Texas Legislature    May, 2011 Testimony on the CCSSI Core Standards and the new draft TX math standards R. James Milgram Professor of Mathematics Emeritus Stanford University I would like to testify in support of the bill Rep. Huberty filed, HB 2923, to prevent the so called Core Standards, and the related curricula and tests from being adopted in Texas. My Qualifications. I was one of the national reviewers of both the first and second drafts of the new TX math standards. I was also one of the 25 members of the CCSSO/ NGA Validation Committee, and the only content expert in mathematics. The Validation Committee oversaw the development of the new National Core Standards, and as a result, I had considerable influence on the mathematics standards in the document. However, as is often the case, there was input from many other sources - including State Departments of Education - that had to be incorporated into the standards. A number of these sources were mainly focused on things like making the standards as non-challenging as possible. Others were focused on making sure their favorite topics were present, and handled in the way they liked. As a result, there are a number of extremely serious failings in Core Standards that make it premature for any state with serious hopes for improving the quality of the mathematical education of their children to adopt them. This remains true in spite of the fact that more than 35 states have already adopted them. For example, by the end of fifth grade the material being covered in arithmetic and algebra in Core Standards is more than a year behind the early grade expectations in most high achieving countries. By the end of seventh grade Core Standards are roughly two years behind. Typically, in those countries, much of the material in Algebra I and the first semester of Geometry is covered in grades 6, 7, or 8, and by the end of ninth grade, students will have finished all of our Algebra I, almost all of our Algebra II content, and our Geometry expectations, including proofs, all at a more sophisticated level than we expect.Consequently, in many of the high achieving countries, students are either expected to complete a standard Calculus course, or are required to finish such a course to graduate from High School (and over 90% of the populations typically are high school graduates). Besides the issue mentioned above, Core Standards in Mathematics have very low expectations. When we compare the expectations in Core Standards with international expectations at the highschool level we find, besides the slow pacing, that Core Standards only cover Algebra I, much but not all of the expected contents of Geometry, and about half of the expectations in Algebra II. Also, there is no discussion at all of topics more advanced than these. Problems with the actual mathematics in Core Math Standards As a result of all the political pressure to make Core Standards acceptable to the special interest groups involved, there are a number of extremely problematic mathematical decisions that were made in writing them. Chief among them are 1. The Core Mathematics Standards are written to reflect very low expectations. More exactly, the explicitly stated objective is to prepare students not to have to take remedial mathematics courses at a typical community college. They do not even cover all the topics that are required for admission to any of the state universities around the country, except possibly those in Arizona, since the minimal expectations at these schools are three years of mathematics including at least two years of algebra and one of geometry. Currently, about 40% of entering college freshmen have to take remedial mathematics.For such students there is less than a 2% chance they will ever successfully take a college calculus course.Calculus is required to major in essentially all of the most critical areas: engineering, economics, medicine, computer science, the sciences, to name just a few. 2. An extremely unusual approach to geometry from grade 7 on, focusing on rigid transformations. It was argued by members of the writing committee that this approach is rigorous (true), and is, in fact, the most complete and accurate development of the foundations of geometry that is possible at the high school level (also probably true). But it focuses on sophisticated structures teachers have not studied or even seen before. As a result, maybe one in several hundred teachers will be capable of teaching the new material as intended. However, there is an easier thing that teachers can do – focus on student play with rigid transformations, and the typical curriculum that results would be a very superficial discussion of geometry, and one where there are no proofs at all. Realistically, the most likely outcome of The Core Mathematics geometry standards is the complete suppression of the key topics in Euclidean geometry including proofs and deductive reasoning. The new Texas Mathematics Standards As I am sure you are aware, Texas has spent the past year constructing new draft mathematics standards, and I was one of the national reviewers of both the first and second drafts. The original draft did a better job of pacing than Core Standards, being about one year ahead of them by the end of eighth grade, so not nearly as far behind international expectations. Additionally, they contained a reasonable set of standards for a pre-calculus course, and overall a much more reasonable set of high school standards. There were a large number of problems as well - normal for a first draft. However, the second draft had fixed almost all of these issues, and the majority of my comments on the second draft were to suggest fixes for imprecise language and some clarifications of what the differences are between the previous approaches to the lower grade material in this country and the approaches in the high achieving countries. It is also worth noting that the new Texas lower grade standards are closer to international approaches to the subject than those of any other state.  I think it is safe to say that the new Texas Math Standards that are finally approved by the Texas Board of Education will be among the best, if not the best, in the country. (I cannot say this with complete certainty until I have seen the final draft. But since I am, again, one of the national reviewers, this should be very soon.) So it seems to me that you have a clear choice between Core Standards - in large measure a political document that, in spite of a number of real strengths, is written at a very low level and does not adequately reflect our current understanding of why the math programs in the high achieving countries give dramatically better results; The new Texas Standards that show every indication of being among the best, if not the best, state standards in the country. They are written to prepare students to both enter the workforce after graduation, and to take calculus in college if not earlier. They also reflect very well, the approaches to mathematics education that underlie the results in the high achieving countries. For me, at least, this would not be a difficult choice. So for these many reasons I strongly support HR 2923, and hope the distinguished members of this committee will support it as well.  Respectfully, R. James Milgram

Letters to the editor are a great way to spread the word.  Use these points to create your own:


The Common Core Standards (CCS) were developed by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Chief Council of State School Officers (CCSSO) and written by a Washington, DC non-profit called Achieve.  The new standards dictate what will be taught in English and math for grades K-12.  States cannot change or delete any of the standards because they are copyrighted by the developers.  They MUST BE incorporated into the schools word for word 100%.  An additional 15% may be added by individual states, but this curriculum will not be included in tests.  The NGA & CCSSO are trade associations, NOT government entities.  Florida Education Commissioner, Tony Bennett, sits on the Board of CCSSO and PARCC, the testing organization Florida has engaged.  This creates a conflict of interest.

Nationalized Education is Contrary to States Rights and the U.S. Const
itution: A national education program, top-down, centrally controlled is not what our Founding Fathers ever wanted. They realized that controlling all the information going into the minds of the people enables despotic governments and dictators take over a nation. Education becomes indoctrination and propaganda. Our Founding Fathers purposely left the word education out of the Constitution; everything not delegated as a duty to the Federal government was to be left up to the states and to local and parental control.


Education Laws Against National Standards, Curriculum and Control:   1)The Department of Education Organizational Act (1979),  2) The General Education Provisions Act and    3) The Elementary and Secondary Act (1965) and most recently amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (2002). Each of these says the same thing that “The Federal Department of Education shall not be involved in developing, supervising or controlling instructional materials or curriculum.”

Parents and Local School Boards are to be in Charge of Education:   Bill Evers, a Research Fellow of the Hoover Institute located at Stanford, stated the following about the importance of local control: “The insight of competitive federalism is that the 51 state school boards are better than a single federal executive branch office, and 15,000 local school boards are better than either 51 state school boards or a single federal office.  States and localities should be allowed to innovate and figure out what works best for their students. When Florida adopted the most favorable climate for charter schools in the country, allowing for innovation from school to school, student test scores increased dramatically. Even Indiana’s newly elected state Superintendent Glenda Ritz, a Democrat & former teachers’ union president, agrees with conservative critics that the Core constitutes “removal of local control”.  She wishes to withdraw Indiana from C C tests because she is against high-stakes testing.  We must require our state not to relinquish the right of Representation of state sovereignty over education!  When teachers are forced to sign Gag Orders, not to tell parents what they are teaching, you know something definitely is wrong!

No Vote by Congress:   Since Obama had his “cart blanche” stimulus money, he did not go to Congress for permission or funding to institute a new education program.  He went straight to the governors, enticing them with funding to sign on to Common Core.

Bribes and Enticements for the State Governors:  State governors and State education boards signed onto Common Core because of promised grants and competitions to get those grants, but with strings attached. Governors had to apply and sign on the dotted line “sight unseen”.  Florida received $700 million. Unfortunately, the cost of implementation will be in the billions(16), not millions, for each state.  The balance will come out of the tax payers’ pockets, est. appx. 90%.   Waivers to get out of the rigid requirements/ accountability of No Child Left Behind (According to NCLB, all students  are to reach a certain proficiency level by 2014, which is .almost impossible to achieve.) were rewarded to states along with being threatened with the loss of Title 1 Funds, if they didn’t sign on.  Bill Gates funded the writing of many states’ applications for ‘Race to the Top’ funds by hiring consultants to write the applications for them!


Common Core Amasses Large Amounts of Personal Information About Students: Michelle Malkin cites research by Joy Pullmann of the Heartland Institute, who discovered a report by the Department of Education revealing that Common Core's data mining includes "using cameras to judge facial expressions, an electronic seat that judges posture, a pressure-sensitive computer mouse and a biometric wrap on kids' wrists." Not only test scores, but additional personal information (over 400 DATA POINTS) about our 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 to “align” them with the workforce.  These systems will aggregate massive amounts of personal data — health-care histories, income information, religious affiliations, voting status and even blood types and homework completion. Other examples include:  fingerprints, retina & iris patterns, voiceprints, DNA sequence, facial characteristics and handwriting.

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?  The 2009 porkulus package included a “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund” to bribe states into constructing “Longitudinal Data Systems (LDS) to collect data on public-school students.  And despite federal student-privacy protections (FERPA) guaranteed by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the Obama administration is paving the way for private entities to buy their way into the data boondoggle. Home-schoolers that reject traditional government education would be tracked also. Your parental rights to deny the collection of this data, or restrict who has access to it, have been negated at the federal level through executive regulation, not legislative process.


Follow the Money: School teacher Chasidy Miroff notes the corrupt part about Common Core, "The creators of the Common Core standards have now taken jobs with testing companies which stand to make millions of dollars developing tests based on the standards they created."  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 financing, writing, evaluation, and promotion of the standards had all been done by non-governmental special interest groups with a common agenda, also known as “stake holders”.   Could it be that the new standards had more to do with profit than what is best for our students?

The centralized database is a strange-bedfellows alliance between the liberal Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (which largely underwrote with massive funding and promoted the Common Core curricular scheme) and a division of conservative Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. (which built the database infrastructure).  The Gates Foundation and other partners provided $100 million in seed money.  Dr. Karen R. Effrem asks, “How do you expect the national PTA to be objective about Common Core when they have received large donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation?”

The e-learning market in the U.S. is expected to grow to $6.8 billion by 2015, up from $2.9 billion in 2010:  The U.S. market for education is one of the most lucrative – bigger than energy or technology – 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 have is suddenly outdated.


Private Schools Should Be Concerned About the Common Core:  Gov. Rick Scott has said students who receive tax dollars should be held to the same standards that apply to public schools.   Parents can only access school tuition money if they are sending their child to an accredited non-public school.  Non-public schools don’t have to be accredited, but their parents can’t receive the tuition assistance without it, so notes Shane Vander Hart, the founder and editor-in-chief of the blog ‘Caffeinated Thoughts’.  He continues saying, “I think it’s important that people understand that even private schools will no longer enjoy the freedoms they have enjoyed previously if they accept federal monies in the form of school choice vouchers, because they will then be forced to obey the mandates and curricular guidance of the Common Core Initiative.”  All national tests (SAT, ACT, GED) now will be tied to Common Core.


The Bloated Program Is Underfunded:  Local school administrators have already started complaining that the grants aren't enough to cover the requirementsbehind them. "We were spending a disproportionate amount of time following all the requirements," said Mike Johnson, superintendent of Bexley schools in Ohio, which turned down the last half of a $100,000, four-year grant this school year. "It was costing us far more than that to implement all of the mandates."


No one seems to know the answers to, or wants to talk about how the decision was made, the COST, or how it influences our ability as parents to advocate for our children regarding curriculum.  Not only the U.S. Constitution, but state constitutions maintain that education is a power reserved to the states and their citizens.  Yet, CC CANNOT be changed by state legislatures or state school boardsState-level decision makers had very little time themselves and had to agree to them in principle as the actual standards were not yet complete:  the standards were state accepted, but definitely not “state led.”  There was NO public input before the standards were adopted.  If it is really about the best standards, why did we adopt them before they were even written? Why hadn’t we ever heard about Common Core before?  


The only content experts(5) to review the standards have refused to sign off on them: According to Dr. Sandra Stotsky, an expert in English, the CC reading standards deemed sufficient for high school graduation will be at about the 7th Grade level”- resulting in “fewer opportunities for students to acquire the general academic vocabulary needed for college work.”  CC is designed to prepare students for a 2yr community college, not a 4yr university.  CC has been described as a race to the middle.  Dr. J. Milgram, Stanford, world re-known math expert, says that by 8th grade our students will be two years behind other countries in math skills.

 

In this land of the free, who has ultimate authority over decisions that directly affect our children’s  intellectual development, privacy, and future opportunities?  If we give up local control of our children’s education, we lose the very essence of the Constitution and, thereby, the loss of our individual liberty.  KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OUR EDUCATION AND OUR CHILDREN!

 

“Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished ... The social psychologist of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.” –   Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) German philosopher   by Kathleen Rae Doan




NEws


Opposing Resolutions have been written from many organizations.  These are a few:.

Republican National Committee: http://truthinamericaneducation.com/common-core-state-standards/rnc-passes-anti-common-core-resolution-at-their-spring-meeting/
Republican Women Federated: http://truthinamericaneducation.com/common-core-state-standards/national-federation-republican-women-resolution/  ::
Lee County Republican Party, Sarasota County Republican Party, Marion County Republican Party and many others.

List of Organization helping to stop Common Core::

Freedom Works * Campaign for Liberty *Advance America * Americans for Prosperity *Indiana Family Institute * Indiana RepublicanAssembly * Empower Indiana * American, Association of Christian Schools * American Principles Project * Cato Institute * EagleForum * Heartland Institute * HeritageFoundation * Home School Legal Defense, Association * Former Atty. Gen. Ed Meese *Grover Norquist * Pacific Research Institute *Public Policy Institute * Gov. Sarah Palin * Gov.Rick Perry * Phyllis Schlafly * WashingtonPolicy Center * John Locke Foundation *American Values * We The People * The National Federation of Republican Women *Public Interest Institute * Concerned Women for America * Sutherland Institute*Frederick Douglass Foundation

Article by Heritage Foundation on our progress

9/9/13 National Experts in Opposition to Common Core met at Notre Dame Conference. 

Here is Dr Sandra Stotsky on ELA standards of Common Core

and Dr James Milgram on Math standards:  


  • University of Notre Dame Conference Address of Dr. Sandra Stotsky: Common Core’s Invalid Validation Committee   Posted September 7, 2013 by Christel Swasey On Monday, at the University of Notre Dame, Dr. Sandra Stotsky will present a white paper about Common Core’s validation committee at a conference entitled “The Changing Role of Education in America: Consequences of the Common Core.” It is posted below. A few of powerful points from Dr. Stotsky’s paper: 1. “One aspect of the ELA standards that remained untouchable despite the consistent criticisms I sent to the standards writers… was David Coleman’s idea that nonfiction or informational texts should occupy at least half of the readings in every English class, to the detriment of classic literature… Even though all the historical and empirical evidence weighed against this concept, his idea was apparently set in stone.” 2. “The standards were created by people who wanted a “Validation Committee” in name only. An invalid process, endorsed by an invalid Validation Committee, resulted not surprisingly in invalid standards.” 3. “Because the Work Group labored in secret, without open meetings, sunshine-law minutes of meetings, or accessible public comment, its reasons for making the decisions it did are lost to history.” 4.“There has been no validation of Common Core’s standards by a public process, nor any validation of its college-readiness level in either mathematics or English language arts by the relevant higher education faculty in this country… It is possible to consider the original vote by state boards of education to adopt Common Core’s standards null and void, regardless of whether a state board of education now chooses to recall its earlier vote. Any tests based on these invalid standards are also invalid, by definition.” Dr. Stotsky has permitted widespread publication of her paper, and it is posted here. ————————————————————————————————————————————————- Common Core’s Invalid Validation Committee   Sandra Stotsky   Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas Paper prepared for a conference at University of Notre Dame September 9, 2013 Common Core’s K-12 standards, it is regularly claimed, emerged from a state-led process in which experts and educators were well represented. 
    But the people who wrote the standards did not represent the relevant stakeholders. Nor were they qualified to draft standards intended to “transform instruction for every child.” And the Validation Committee (VC) that was created to put the seal of approval on the drafters’ work was useless if not misleading, both in its membership and in the procedures they had to follow. I served as the English language arts (ELA) standards expert on that committee and will describe today some of the deficiencies in its make-up, procedures, and outcome. The lack of an authentic validation of Common Core’s so-called college-readiness standards (by a committee consisting largely of discipline based higher education experts who actually teach freshmen and other undergraduates mathematics or English/humanities courses) before state boards of education voted to adopt these standards suggests their votes had no legal basis. In this paper, I set forth a case for declaring the votes by state boards of education to adopt Common Core’s standards null and void—and any tests based on them. For many months after the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) was launched in early 2009, the identities of the people drafting the “college- and career-readiness standards” were unknown to the public. CCSSI eventually (in July) revealed the names of the 24 members of the “Standards Development Work Group” (designated as developing these standards) in response to complaints from parent groups and others about the lack of transparency. What did this Work Group look like?
    Focusing only on ELA, the make-up of the Work Group was quite astonishing: It included no English professors or high-school English teachers. How could legitimate ELA standards be created without the very two groups of educators who know the most about what students should and could be learning in secondary English classes? CCSSI also released the names of individuals in a larger “Feedback Group.” This group included one English professor and one high-school English teacher. But it was made clear that these people would have only an advisory role – final decisions would be made by the English-teacher-bereft Work Group. Indeed, Feedback
    Group members’ suggestions were frequently ignored, according to the one English professor on this group, without explanation. Because the Work Group labored in secret, without open meetings, sunshine-law minutes of meetings, or accessible public comment, its reasons for making the decisions it did are lost to history. The lead ELA writers were David Coleman and Susan Pimentel, neither of whom had experience teaching English either in K-12 or at the college level. Nor had either of them ever published serious work on K-12 curriculum and instruction. Neither had a reputation for scholarship or research; they were virtually unknown to the field of English language arts. But they had been chosen to transform ELA education in the US.

    Who recommended them and why, we still do not know. In theory, the Validation Committee (VC) should have been the fail-safe mechanism for the standards. The VC consisted of about 29 members during 2009-2010. Some were ex officio, others were recommended by the governor or commissioner of education of an individual state. No more is known officially about the rationale for the individuals chosen for the VC. Tellingly, the VC contained almost no experts on ELA standards; most were education professors and representatives of testing companies, from here and abroad.

    There was only one mathematician on the VC—R. James Milgram (there were several mathematics educators—people with doctorates in mathematics education and, in most cases, appointments in an education school). I was the only nationally acknowledged expert on English language arts standards by virtue of my work in Massachusetts and for Achieve, Inc.’s American Diploma Project high school exit standards for ELA and subsequent backmapped standards for earlier grade levels. As a condition of membership, all VC members had to agree to 10 conditions, among which were the following: Ownership of the Common Core State Standards, including all drafts, copies, reviews, comments, and nonfinal versions (collectively, Common Core State Standards), shall reside solely and exclusively with the Council of Chief State School Officers (“CCSSO”) and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (“NGA Center”). I agree to maintain the deliberations, discussions, and work of the Validation Committee, including the content of any draft or final documents, on a strictly confidential basis and shall not disclose or communicate any information related to the same, including in summary form, except within the membership of the Validation Committee and to CCSSO and the NGA Center. As can be seen in the second condition listed above, members of the VC could never, then or in the future, discuss whether or not the VC discussed the meaning of college readiness or had any recommendations to offer on the matter. The charge to the VC spelled out in the summer of 2009, before the grade-level mathematics standards were developed, was as follows: 1. Review the process used to develop the college- and career-readiness standards and recommend improvements in that process. These recommendations will be used to inform the K-12 development process. 2. Validate the sufficiency of the evidence supporting each college- and career-readiness standard. Each member is asked to determine whether each standard has sufficient evidence to warrant its inclusion. 3. Add any standard that is not now included in the common core state standards that they feel should be included and provide the following evidence to support its inclusion:
    1) evidence that the standard is essential to college and career success; and
    2) evidence that the standard is internationally comparable.” It quickly became clear that the VC existed as window-dressing; it was there to rubber-stamp, not improve, the standards. As all members of the VC were requested to do, I wrote up a detailed critique of the College and Career Readiness Standards in English language arts in the September 2009 draft and critiques of drafts of the grade-level standards as they were made available in subsequent months. I sent my comments to the three lead standards writers as well as to Common Core’s staff, to other members of the VC (until the VC was directed by the staff to send comments only to them for distribution), and to Commissioner Chester and the members of the Massachusetts Board of Education (as a fellow member). At no time did I receive replies to my comments or even queries from the CCSSI staff, the standards writers, or Commissioner Chester and fellow board members. In a private conversation at the end of November, 2009, I was asked by Chris Minnich, a CCSSI staff member, if I would be willing to work on the standards during December with Susan Pimentel, described to me as the lead ELA standards writer. I had worked with her (working for StandardsWork) on the 2008 Texas English language arts standards and, earlier, on other standards projects. I was told that Pimentel made the final decisions on the ELA standards. I agreed to spend about two weeks in Washington, DC working on the ELA standards pro bono with Pimentel if it was made clear that agreed-upon revisions would not be changed by unknown others before going out for comment to other members of the VC and, eventually, the public. A week after sending to Minnich and Pimentel a list of the kind of changes I thought needed to be made to the November 2009 draft before we began to work together, I received a “Dear John” letter from Chris Minnich. He thanked me for my comments and indicated that my suggestions would be considered along with those from 50 states and that I would hear from the staff sometime in January. In the second week of January 2010, a “confidential draft” was sent out to state departments of education in advance of their submitting an application on January 19 for Race to the Top (RttT) funds. (About 18 state applications, including the Bay State’s, were prepared by professional grant writers chosen and paid for by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—at roughly $250,000 each.) A few states included the watermarked confidential draft in their application material and posted the whole application on their department of education’s website (in some cases required by law), so it was no longer confidential. This draft contained none of the kinds of revisions I had suggested in my December e-mail to Minnich and Pimentel. Over the next six months, the Pioneer Institute published my analyses of that January draft and succeeding drafts, including the final June 2 version. I repeatedly pointed out serious flaws in the document, but at no time did the lead ELA standards writers communicate with me (despite requests for a private discussion) or provide an explanation of the organizing categories for the standards and the focus on skills, not literary/historical content. One aspect of the ELA standards that remained untouchable despite the consistent criticisms I sent to the standards writers, to those in charge of the VC, to the Massachusetts board of education, to the Massachusetts commissioner of education, to the media, and to the public at large was David Coleman’s idea that nonfiction or informational texts should occupy at least half of the readings in every English class, to the detriment of classic literature and of literary study more broadly speaking. Even though all the historical and empirical evidence weighed against this concept, his idea was apparently set in stone. The deadline for producing a good draft of the college-readiness and grade-level ELA (and mathematics) standards was before January 19, 2010, the date the U.S. Department of Education had set for state applications to indicate a commitment to adopting the standards to qualify for Race to the Top grants. But the draft sent to state departments of education in early January was so poorly written and content deficient that CCSSI had to delay releasing a public comment draft until March. The language in the March version had been cleaned up somewhat, but the draft was not much better in organization or substance – the result of unqualified drafters working with undue haste and untouchable premises. None of the public feedback to the March draft has ever been made available. The final version released in June 2010 contained most of the problems apparent in the first draft: lack of rigor (especially in the secondary standards), minimal content, lack of international benchmarking, lack of research support. In February 2010, I and presumably all other members of the VC received a “letter of certification” from the CCSSI staff for signing off on Common Core’s standards (even though the public comment draft wasn’t released until March 2010 and the final version wasn’t released until June). The original charge to the VC had been reduced in an unclear manner by unidentified individuals to just the first two and least important of the three bullets mentioned above. Culmination of participation on the committee was reduced to signing or not signing a letter by the end of May 2010 asserting that the standards were: 1 Reflective of the core knowledge and skills in ELA and mathematics that students need to be college- and career ready. 2. Appropriate in terms of their level of clarity and specificity. 3. Comparable to the expectations of other leading nations. 4. Informed by available research or evidence. 5. The result of processes that reflect best practices for standards development. 6. A solid starting point for adoption of cross-state common core standards. 7. A sound basis for eventual development of standards-based assessments. The VC members who signed the letter were listed in the brief official report on the VC (since committee work was confidential, there was little the rapporteur could report), while the five members who did not sign off were not listed as such, nor their reasons mentioned. Stotsky’s letter explaining why she could not sign off can be viewed here (and below), and Milgram’s letter can be viewed here (and below). This was the“transparent, state-led” process that resulted in the Common Core standards. The standards were created by people who wanted a “Validation Committee” in name only. An invalid process, endorsed by an invalid Validation Committee, resulted not surprisingly in invalid standards. States need to reconsider their hasty decisions to adopt this pig in an academic poke for more than substantive reasons. There has been no validation of Common Core’s standards by a public process, nor any validation of its college-readiness level in either mathematics or English language arts by the relevant higher education faculty in this country. And there is nothing in the history and membership of the VC to suggest that the public should place confidence in the CCSSI or the U.S. Department of Education to convene committees of experts from the relevant disciplines in higher education in this country and elsewhere to validate Common Core’s college-readiness level. It is possible to consider the original vote by state boards of education to adopt Common Core’s standards null and void, regardless of whether a state board of education now chooses to recall its earlier vote. Any tests based on these invalid standards are also invalid, by definition. Sandra Stotsky, Ed.D. Professor Emerita 246 Clark Road Brookline, MA 02445 Home Office:  (617)-734-1584  sstotsky@uark.edu Sstotsky@aol.com         Download CV Sandra Stotsky is credited with developing one of the country’s strongest sets of academic standards for K-12 students as well as the strongest academic standards and licensure tests for prospective teachers while serving as Senior Associate Commissioner in the Massachusetts Department of Education from 1999-2003. She is also known nation-wide for her in-depth analyses of the problems in Common Core’s English language arts standards. Her current research ranges from the deficiencies in teacher preparation programs and teacher licensure tests to the deficiencies in the K-12 reading curriculum and the question of gender bias in the curriculum. She is regularly invited to testify or submit testimony to state boards of education and state legislators on bills addressing licensure tests, licensure standards, and Common Core’s standards (e.g., Utah, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, South Carolina, and Texas).  She currently serves on several committees for the International Dyslexia Association and on the advisory board for Pioneer Institute’s Center for School Reform. She served on the National Validation Committee for the Common Core State Systemic Initiative (2009-2010), on the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (2006-2008), co-authoring its final report as well as two of its task group reports, on the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (2006-2010), and on the Steering Committee in 2003-2004 for the framework for the National Assessment of Educational Progress reading assessments for 2009 onward.  Her major publications include The Death and Resurrection of a Coherent Literature Curriculum (Rowman & Littlefield, 2012); Literary Study in Grades 9, 10, and 11: A National Survey (Association of Literary Scholars, Critics, and Writers, 2010); What’s at Stake in the K-12 Standards Wars: A Primer for Educational Policy Makers (Peter Lang, 2000); and Losing Our Language (Free Press, 1999, reprinted by Encounter Books, 2002). Recent Professional Activities James Milgram and Sandra Stotsky.

    Can this country survive Common Core’s college readiness level? September 2013.Sandra Stotsky. 

    Common Core’s Invalid Validation Committee. Paper presented for a conference at University of Notre Dame. September 9, 2013.Sandra Stotsky.

    “Invited Testimony for a Hearing in Michigan on Common Core.” August 14, 2013.Sandra Stotsky. 

    “New York State Test Results: Uninterpretable But a Portent of the Future,” August 12, 2013.  Pioneeer Institute Rock the Schoolhouse blog.Sandra Stotsky. 

    Invited Testimony for a Hearing on Common Core in Indiana. August 5, 2013.Sandra Stotsky.

    My View: This is Why I Oppose Common Core. Desert News. July 24, 2013.Sandra Stotsky. 

    Kentucky Needs Higher Expectations for its Students: Testimony Submitted to the Kentucky Board of Education, July 2013Sandra Stotsky.
    Invited Testimony for a Hearing on the Implementation of Common Core’s Standards in Arkansas, July 22, 2013Sandra Stotsky.

    “4 Steps to Upgrade Teacher & Administrator Prep Programs.” Pioneer Institute. July 18, 2013.Sandra Stotsky.

    “How Long Before Duncan and the Media Speak Out Honestly?” Pioneer Institute. July, 10, 2013.Sandra Stotsky.

    “Revise or Reject: The Common Core’s Serious Flaws.” National Association of Scholars. July 3, 2013.Sandra Stotsky. 

    ”Common Core’s Cloudy Vision of College Readiness in Math.” Pioneer Institute. July 1, 2013.Sandra Stotsky.

    “More Than One Fatal Flaw in Common Core’s ELA Standards.” Pioneer Institute. June 26, 2013.Sandra Stotsky and Jane Robbins.

    Pulling Back the Curtain on Common Core. The Blaze. June 27, 2013.Sandra Stotsky.

    What To Do Once Common Core Is Halted. Pioneer Institute. June 20, 2013.Sandra Stotsky. 

    Why Do They Lie? And Why Do Others Believe Them? Pioneer Institute. June 18, 2013.

    Panel Discussion on Common Core at Thousand Oaks, California, June 10, 2013

    Forum on Common Core at the Worcester, Massachusetts Public Library, June 5, 2013Sandra Stotksy. 

    Wanted:  Internationally Benchmarked Standards in Mathematics, Science, and English Language Arts. May 2013.Interview with Sandra Stotsky.  

    Education Views. April 2013. Robert Pondiscio, Gilbert T. Sewall, and Sandra Stotsky.  Foreward by Walter A. McDougall.  

    Shortchanging the Future: The Crisis of History and Civics in American Schools. Pioneer Institute White Paper 100, April 2013.Sandra Stotsky, “Sandra
    Stotsky Discusses the Common Core (Video).” The Pioneer Institute. April 9, 2013.Sandra Stotsky,
    Testimony for a Hearing in Arkansas for HB1590. March 28, 2013. (Appendix A and Appendix B)Sandra Stotsky, 

    Invited Testimony for a Hearing in Michigan on House Bill 4276. March 20, 2013.Sandra Stotsky, 

    Testimony for a Hearing on House Bill #616 and Senate Bill #210: Bills to prohibit the State Board of Education from adopting and implementing Common Core’s Standards and Tests.  March 6, 2013.Sandra Stotsky, 

    Invited Testimony for a Hearing on SB 167: A bill on Common Core’s Standards and Tests.  February 28, 2013.Sandra Stotsky, 

    Invited Testimony for Kansas on Common Core. February 14, 2013.Sandra Stotsky, 

    An English Language Arts Curriculum Framework for American Public Schools: A Model, February 2013Sandra Stotsky. 2013. 

    Why Do Education Schools Have Such Low Standards? Essay written for Minding the Campus.Anders Lewis and Sandra Stotsky. 2013.

    The Rise and Fall of the Study of American History in Massachusetts. Pioneer Institute White Paper No. 97.Sandra Stotsky. 2013.

    Literature or Technical Manuals: Who Should Be Teaching What, Where, and Why? Paper presented at The Constitutional Coalition’s Educational PolicyConference.Sandra Stotsky. 2013.

    Why We Must Raise the Bar for Admission to an Education School. Paper given at the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.Sandra Stotsky.

    Testimony before the Indiana Senate Committee on Education and Career Development. January16, 2013 Sandra Stotsky and George Denny. 2012. 

    Single-sex classrooms and reading achievement: An exploratory study. Journal of School Choice: Research, Theory, and Reform, 6 (4), 439-464.Sandra Stotsky. 

    Common Core Standards’ Devastating Impact on Literary Study and Analytical Thinking. The Heritage Foundation Issue Brief #3800, December 11, 2012. Sandra Stotsky.

    Invited Testimony on the Low Quailty of the Common Core Standards. Testimony Submitted to Colorado’s State Board of Education, December 6, 2012 Stotsky, Sandra.

    “Lessons to Learn: Teachers’ teachers responsible, too.” Arkansas Democrat Gazette, October 6, 2012.Stotsky, Sandra et al.

     ”Good Citizenship: To Preserve Republic, Teach Civics.” Arkansas Democrat Gazette, September 19, 2012. Mark Bauerlein and Sandra Stotsky. (September 2012).   

    How Common Core’s ELA Standards Place College Readiness at Risk.  Pioneer Institute White Paper No. 89.Stotsky, Sandra. 2012.

    “How Common Core Standards Have Begun to Damage the School Curriculum,” Heritage Foundation, April 17, 2012. Stotsky, Sandra. 2012.

    “Invited Comments on the Common Core Standards to the House Committee on Education in South Carolina,” South Carolina, April 18, 2012. Stotsky, Sandra. 2012.

    “The Serpent in Finland’s Garden of Equity,” Journal of School Choice: Research, Theory, and Reform, 6(2), 295-300.Stotsky, Sandra. 2012.

    “Invited Testimony for a Hearing on a South Carolina Bill to Amend 1976 Code,” February 16, 2012.Stotsky, Sandra. 2012.

    “Invited Testimony for a Hearing on Wisconsin Bill AB 558,” February 15, 2012. Stotsky, Sandra. 2012.

    “Invited Testimony for a hearing on Indiana Senate Bill No. 373,” January 25, 2012. Stotsky, Sandra. 2012.

    “Competition and Choice Bring Reform, but there’s a Problem,” February 9, 2012. Stotsky, Sandra. 2012.

    “The Last Word: An Interview with Sandra Stotsky–A Call for Challenge and Coherence (May 2011). Joe Helbling and Catherine A. Little. ”Stotsky, Sandra. 2011.

    “The Stealth Curriculum,” in Sarah Stern (Ed.)Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, 65-80. Stotsky, Sandra. 2011.

    “Tailoring to Students’ Interests”. Room for Debate, New York Times, August 23, 2011.Stotsky, Sandra. 2011.

    “Ten Steps to a Better ESEA (with apologies to the Fordham Institute): How to reauthorize ESEA so that it might actually upgrade K-12 education. April 23, 2011.”Stotsky, Sandra. 2012.

    “Invited Testimony for a Hearing on Indiana Senate Bill No. 373 to Void Any Action Taken by the State Board of Education to Adopt the Common Core standards as the state’s standards,” January 25, 2012.Sandra Stotsky.

    How to Implement Common Core’s Literacy Standards to Enhance Civic Literacy in Arkansas. Presentation to Arkansas Association of Educational Administrators: August 2, 2011Sandra Stotsky,

    Heritage Foundation Event, July 27, 2011.Sandra Stotsky.

    “Testimony in Favor of Bill on Texas State Sovereignty over Curriculum Standards, Assessements, and Student Information,

    ”Testimony for a Hearing on House Bill No. 2923, April 14, 2011 Video of Event Prepared Remarks in Writing Sandra Stotsky.

    “Literary Study in Grades 9,10, and 11: A National Survey” A Publication of the ALSCW, Number 4, Fall 2010.Sandra Stotsky and Ze’ev Wurman.

    “Common Core’s Standards Still Don’t Make the Grade,” A Pioneer Institute White Paper, No. 65, July 2010.Sandra Stotsky.

    “Literary Study in Grades 9, 10, and 11 in Arkansas,” March 22, 2010. Sandra Stotsky.

    “National Academic Standards: The First Test,” September 22, 2009. Sandra Stotsky.

    “Teachers’ Pet,” The Weekly Standard, Volume 015, Issue 01, September 12, 2009. Sandra Stotsky.

    “New Guidelines for Teacher Training,” September 1, 2009. Sandra Stotsky.

    “The Academic Quality of Teachers: A Civil Rights Issue,” Commentary, Education Week, June 26, 2009. Sandra Stotsky.

    “Licensure Tests for Special Education Teachers: How Well They Assess Knowledge of Reading Instruction and Mathematics,” June 26, 2009.

    Invited written statement submitted to the New Jersey State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    “Teacher Licensing Standards, Teacher Quality, and Student Achievement in Urban Schools,” May 2009 Sandra Stotsky.

    “Suggested Indices of Teacher Quality for Arkansas: A Position Paper,” Presented at the Office for Education Policy’s Conference

    “Preparing Highly Qualified Teachers for Arkansas”, April 2009 Sandra Stotsky.

    “The Bitter Fruit of School Reform,” The New York Times, April 28, 2009 Sandra Stotsky.

    “The global achievement muddle,” Northwest Arkansas Times, March 17th, 2009 Sandra Stotsky.

    “What boys are reading,” L. Sax (Ed.), Gender Differences in Learning and School; an Online Special Edition, January 15th, 2009 Sandra Stotsky.

    “Licensure Tests for Special Education Teachers: How Well They Assess Knowledge of Reading Instruction and Mathematics,” Education Working Paper Archive, November 7, 2008 Sandra Stotsky.

    “Out of one, many,” Arkansas Democrat Gazette, June 21st, 2008Sandra Stotsky.

    “Teacher Licensure Tests: Their Relationship to Mathematics Teachers’ Academic Competence and Student Achievement in Mathematics,” Education Working Paper Archive, September 5, 2007 Sandra Stotsky University of Arkansas - Department of Education Reform (DER) Milgram's Testimony Before Texas Legislature    May, 2011 Testimony on the CCSSI Core Standards and the new draft TX math standards R. James Milgram Professor of Mathematics Emeritus Stanford University I would like to testify in support of the bill Rep. Huberty filed, HB 2923, to prevent the so called Core Standards, and the related curricula and tests from being adopted in Texas. My Qualifications. I was one of the national reviewers of both the first and second drafts of the new TX math standards. I was also one of the 25 members of the CCSSO/ NGA Validation Committee, and the only content expert in mathematics. The Validation Committee oversaw the development of the new National Core Standards, and as a result, I had considerable influence on the mathematics standards in the document. However, as is often the case, there was input from many other sources - including State Departments of Education - that had to be incorporated into the standards. A number of these sources were mainly focused on things like making the standards as non-challenging as possible. Others were focused on making sure their favorite topics were present, and handled in the way they liked. As a result, there are a number of extremely serious failings in Core Standards that make it premature for any state with serious hopes for improving the quality of the mathematical education of their children to adopt them. This remains true in spite of the fact that more than 35 states have already adopted them. For example, by the end of fifth grade the material being covered in arithmetic and algebra in Core Standards is more than a year behind the early grade expectations in most high achieving countries. By the end of seventh grade Core Standards are roughly two years behind. Typically, in those countries, much of the material in Algebra I and the first semester of Geometry is covered in grades 6, 7, or 8, and by the end of ninth grade, students will have finished all of our Algebra I, almost all of our Algebra II content, and our Geometry expectations, including proofs, all at a more sophisticated level than we expect.Consequently, in many of the high achieving countries, students are either expected to complete a standard Calculus course, or are required to finish such a course to graduate from High School (and over 90% of the populations typically are high school graduates). Besides the issue mentioned above, Core Standards in Mathematics have very low expectations. When we compare the expectations in Core Standards with international expectations at the highschool level we find, besides the slow pacing, that Core Standards only cover Algebra I, much but not all of the expected contents of Geometry, and about half of the expectations in Algebra II. Also, there is no discussion at all of topics more advanced than these. Problems with the actual mathematics in Core Math Standards As a result of all the political pressure to make Core Standards acceptable to the special interest groups involved, there are a number of extremely problematic mathematical decisions that were made in writing them. Chief among them are 1. The Core Mathematics Standards are written to reflect very low expectations. More exactly, the explicitly stated objective is to prepare students not to have to take remedial mathematics courses at a typical community college. They do not even cover all the topics that are required for admission to any of the state universities around the country, except possibly those in Arizona, since the minimal expectations at these schools are three years of mathematics including at least two years of algebra and one of geometry. Currently, about 40% of entering college freshmen have to take remedial mathematics.For such students there is less than a 2% chance they will ever successfully take a college calculus course.Calculus is required to major in essentially all of the most critical areas: engineering, economics, medicine, computer science, the sciences, to name just a few. 2. An extremely unusual approach to geometry from grade 7 on, focusing on rigid transformations. It was argued by members of the writing committee that this approach is rigorous (true), and is, in fact, the most complete and accurate development of the foundations of geometry that is possible at the high school level (also probably true). But it focuses on sophisticated structures teachers have not studied or even seen before. As a result, maybe one in several hundred teachers will be capable of teaching the new material as intended. However, there is an easier thing that teachers can do – focus on student play with rigid transformations, and the typical curriculum that results would be a very superficial discussion of geometry, and one where there are no proofs at all. Realistically, the most likely outcome of The Core Mathematics geometry standards is the complete suppression of the key topics in Euclidean geometry including proofs and deductive reasoning. The new Texas Mathematics Standards As I am sure you are aware, Texas has spent the past year constructing new draft mathematics standards, and I was one of the national reviewers of both the first and second drafts. The original draft did a better job of pacing than Core Standards, being about one year ahead of them by the end of eighth grade, so not nearly as far behind international expectations. Additionally, they contained a reasonable set of standards for a pre-calculus course, and overall a much more reasonable set of high school standards. There were a large number of problems as well - normal for a first draft. However, the second draft had fixed almost all of these issues, and the majority of my comments on the second draft were to suggest fixes for imprecise language and some clarifications of what the differences are between the previous approaches to the lower grade material in this country and the approaches in the high achieving countries. It is also worth noting that the new Texas lower grade standards are closer to international approaches to the subject than those of any other state.  I think it is safe to say that the new Texas Math Standards that are finally approved by the Texas Board of Education will be among the best, if not the best, in the country. (I cannot say this with complete certainty until I have seen the final draft. But since I am, again, one of the national reviewers, this should be very soon.) So it seems to me that you have a clear choice between Core Standards - in large measure a political document that, in spite of a number of real strengths, is written at a very low level and does not adequately reflect our current understanding of why the math programs in the high achieving countries give dramatically better results; The new Texas Standards that show every indication of being among the best, if not the best, state standards in the country. They are written to prepare students to both enter the workforce after graduation, and to take calculus in college if not earlier. They also reflect very well, the approaches to mathematics education that underlie the results in the high achieving countries. For me, at least, this would not be a difficult choice. So for these many reasons I strongly support HR 2923, and hope the distinguished members of this committee will support it as well.  Respectfully, R. James Milgram

Letters to the editor are a great way to spread the word.  Use these points to create your own:


The Common Core Standards (CCS) were developed by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Chief Council of State School Officers (CCSSO) and written by a Washington, DC non-profit called Achieve.  The new standards dictate what will be taught in English and math for grades K-12.  States cannot change or delete any of the standards because they are copyrighted by the developers.  They MUST BE incorporated into the schools word for word 100%.  An additional 15% may be added by individual states, but this curriculum will not be included in tests.  The NGA & CCSSO are trade associations, NOT government entities.  Florida Education Commissioner, Tony Bennett, sits on the Board of CCSSO and PARCC, the testing organization Florida has engaged.  This creates a conflict of interest.

Nationalized Educationis Contrary to States Rights and the U.S. Constitution: A national education program, top-down, centrally controlled is not what our Founding Fathers ever wanted. They realized that controlling all the information going into the minds of the people enables despotic governments and dictators take over a nation. Education becomes indoctrination and propaganda. Our Founding Fathers purposely left the word education out of the Constitution; everything not delegated as a duty to the Federal government was to be left up to the states and to local and parental control.


Education Laws Against National Standards, Curriculum and Control:   1)The Department of Education Organizational Act (1979),  2) The General Education Provisions Act and    3) The Elementary and Secondary Act (1965) and most recently amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (2002). Each of these says the same thing that “The Federal Department of Education shall not be involved in developing, supervising or controlling instructional materials or curriculum.”

Parents and Local School Boards are to be in Charge of Education:   Bill Evers, a Research Fellow of the Hoover Institute located at Stanford, stated the following about the importance of local control: “The insight of competitive federalism is that the 51 state school boards are better than a single federal executive branch office, and 15,000 local school boards are better than either 51 state school boards or a single federal office.  States and localities should be allowed to innovate and figure out what works best for their students. When Florida adopted the most favorable climate for charter schools in the country, allowing for innovation from school to school, student test scores increased dramatically. Even Indiana’s newly elected state Superintendent Glenda Ritz, a Democrat & former teachers’ union president, agrees with conservative critics that the Core constitutes “removal of local control”.  She wishes to withdraw Indiana from C C tests because she is against high-stakes testing.  We must require our state not to relinquish the right of Representation of state sovereignty over education!  When teachers are forced to sign Gag Orders, not to tell parents what they are teaching, you know something definitely is wrong!

No Vote by Congress:   Since Obama had his “cart blanche” stimulus money, he did not go to Congress for permission or funding to institute a new education program.  He went straight to the governors, enticing them with funding to sign on to Common Core.

Bribes and Enticements for the State Governors:  State governors and State education boards signed onto Common Core because of promised grants and competitions to get those grants, but with strings attached. Governors had to apply and sign on the dotted line “sight unseen”.  Florida received $700 million. Unfortunately, the cost of implementation will be in the billions(16), not millions, for each state.  The balance will come out of the tax payers’ pockets, est. appx. 90%.   Waivers to get out of the rigid requirements/ accountability of No Child Left Behind (According to NCLB, all students  are to reach a certain proficiency level by 2014, which is .almost impossible to achieve.) were rewarded to states along with being threatened with the loss of Title 1 Funds, if they didn’t sign on.  Bill Gates funded the writing of many states’ applications for ‘Race to the Top’ funds by hiring consultants to write the applications for them!


Common Core Amasses Large Amounts of Personal Information About Students: Michelle Malkin cites research by Joy Pullmann of the Heartland Institute, who discovered a report by the Department of Education revealing that Common Core's data mining includes "using cameras to judge facial expressions, an electronic seat that judges posture, a pressure-sensitive computer mouse and a biometric wrap on kids' wrists." Not only test scores, but additional personal information (over 400 DATA POINTS) about our 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 to “align” them with the workforce.  These systems will aggregate massive amounts of personal data — health-care histories, income information, religious affiliations, voting status and even blood types and homework completion. Other examples include:  fingerprints, retina & iris patterns, voiceprints, DNA sequence, facial characteristics and handwriting.

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?  The 2009 porkulus package included a “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund” to bribe states into constructing “Longitudinal Data Systems (LDS) to collect data on public-school students.  And despite federal student-privacy protections (FERPA) guaranteed by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the Obama administration is paving the way for private entities to buy their way into the data boondoggle. Home-schoolers that reject traditional government education would be tracked also. Your parental rights to deny the collection of this data, or restrict who has access to it, have been negated at the federal level through executive regulation, not legislative process.


Follow the Money: School teacher Chasidy Miroff notes the corrupt part about Common Core, "The creators of the Common Core standards have now taken jobs with testing companies which stand to make millions of dollars developing tests based on the standards they created."  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 financing, writing, evaluation, and promotion of the standards had all been done by non-governmental special interest groups with a common agenda, also known as “stake holders”.   Could it be that the new standards had more to do with profit than what is best for our students?

The centralized database is a strange-bedfellows alliance between the liberal Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (which largely underwrote with massive funding and promoted the Common Core curricular scheme) and a division of conservative Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. (which built the database infrastructure).  The Gates Foundation and other partners provided $100 million in seed money.  Dr. Karen R. Effrem asks, “How do you expect the national PTA to be objective about Common Core when they have received large donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation?”

The e-learning market in the U.S. is expected to grow to $6.8 billion by 2015, up from $2.9 billion in 2010:  The U.S. market for education is one of the most lucrative – bigger than energy or technology – 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 have is suddenly outdated.


Private Schools Should Be Concerned About the Common Core:  Gov. Rick Scott has said students who receive tax dollars should be held to the same standards that apply to public schools.   Parents can only access school tuition money if they are sending their child to an accredited non-public school.  Non-public schools don’t have to be accredited, but their parents can’t receive the tuition assistance without it, so notes Shane Vander Hart, the founder and editor-in-chief of the blog ‘Caffeinated Thoughts’.  He continues saying, “I think it’s important that people understand that even private schools will no longer enjoy the freedoms they have enjoyed previously if they accept federal monies in the form of school choice vouchers, because they will then be forced to obey the mandates and curricular guidance of the Common Core Initiative.”  All national tests (SAT, ACT, GED) now will be tied to Common Core.


The Bloated Program Is Underfunded:  Local school administrators have already started complaining that the grants aren't enough to cover the requirements behind them. "We were spending a disproportionate amount of time following all the requirements," said Mike Johnson, superintendent of Bexley schools in Ohio, which turned down the last half of a $100,000, four-year grant this school year. "It was costing us far more than that to implement all of the mandates."


No one seems to know the answers to, or wants to talk about how the decision was made, the COST, or how it influences our ability as parents to advocate for our children regarding curriculum.  Not only the U.S. Constitution, but state constitutions maintain that education is a power reserved to the states and their citizens.  Yet, CC CANNOT be changed by state legislatures or state school boards.  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:  the standards were state accepted, but definitely not “state led.”  There was NO public input before the standards were adopted.  If it is really about the best standards, why did we adopt them before they were even written? Why hadn’t we ever heard about Common Core before?  


The only content experts(5) to review the standards have refused to sign off on them: According to Dr. Sandra Stotsky, an expert in English, the CC reading standards deemed sufficient for high school graduation will be at about the 7th Grade level” - resulting in “fewer opportunities for students to acquire the general academic vocabulary needed for college work.”  CC is designed to prepare students for a 2yr community college, not a 4yr university.  CC has been described as a race to the middle.  Dr. J. Milgram, Stanford, world re-known math expert, says that by 8th grade our students will be two years behind other countries in math skills.

 

In this land of the free, who has ultimate authority over decisions that directly affect our children’s  intellectual development, privacy, and future opportunities?  If we give up local control of our children’s education, we lose the very essence of the Constitution and, thereby, the loss of our individual liberty.  KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF OUR EDUCATION AND OUR CHILDREN!

 

“Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished ... The social psychologist of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.” –   Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) German philosopher   by Kathleen Rae Doan

NEws




.

TAKE ACTION NOW



Stop Common Core FL

.

6/5/14 Exciting NEWS!!! Oklahoma has passed a sweeping removal of Common Core from their state.  ~~http://www.koco.com/news/gov-mary-fallin-signs-bill-repealing-common-core/26351374#!U91RE

Tell your legislators this is what we need to do here.  The support for Common Core is crumbling at last!