Addressing Common Core - From a Worldview Perspective
Dick Pence - BSWF Coordinator
"I don't mind that you're not a reader, as long as you're not a voter."
(The Founding Fathers said something like this... ?)
Do you often wonder why America's youth can't spell, don't know their multiplication
tables, can't write cursive, don't seem to be able to think critically and so forth? Or... as a
believer, does it shock you when you hear that: over 60% or our Christian youth are just
fine with same-sex marriage, they have a disdain for doctrine or any form of absolutes?
And, they do not want to hear bible arguments against pop-culture's norms? Maybe it's
just your church - not doing it's job?
Well, meet the century-old agenda of 'John Dewey and Friends' - it's largely the
Progressive Education System and that ain't no accident. They are committed to
programming our youth's minds. I am sympathetic to the fact that when some hear us
talk about what has transpired with Education in America, it has the ring of a conspiracy
theory. But as you research this issue, you will discover that it is a real conspiracy at the
highest levels. Now, we are dueling with Common Core but that is just a skirmish in a
war we didn't know existed. Please hear what a respected lady has to say about this shift,
most of you know Michelle Malkin.
"Thanks to the 'Common Core' regime, funded with President Obama's
stimulus dollars... deconstructionism is back in style. Traditional
literature is under fire. Moral relativism is increasingly the norm.
'Standards' is Orwell-Speak for subjectivity and lowest common
denominator pedagogy.... Deconstructionism is the leftwing school of
thought popularized by French philosopher Jacques Derrida in the 1970s.
Writer Robert Locke described the nihilistic movement best: 'It is based on
the proposition that the apparently real world is in fact a vast social
construct and that the way to knowledge lies in taking apart in one's mind
this thing society has built. Taken to its logical conclusion, it supposes that
there is at the end of the day no actual reality, just a series of appearances
stitched together by social constructs into what we all agree to call reality.
'Literature and history are all about competing ideological narratives, in
other words. One story or 'text' is no better than another.' Common Core's
literature-lite literacy standards are aimed not at increasing 'college
readiness' or raising academic expectations. Just the opposite. They help
pave the way for more creeping political indoctrination under the guise of
increasing access to 'information.'" ([Emphases ours] Michelle Malkin at;
http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2013/01/25/rotten-to-thecore-part-2-readin-writin-and-deconstructionism-n1497018/) (Michelle
has written four articles that you can find here - or write to me)
What Michelle does not say is that both Bush presidencies were involved in this plot as is
brother Jeb. All three are Globalists, CFR members, and strong backers of change
1
through education. My point? When you see a Progressive Agenda, don't just think
Democrat! But this agenda goes back beyond them as well.
Piggybacking on Michelle's comments, we see that Common Core caries a religiousworldview component. While I respect that many opponents do not use this type of
language in their arguments, I would like to suggest that they do - so you can too. But,
we have to be ready to quote their worldview rants specifically, so that we can deliver
ours effectively and whimsically. Clearly, the language above suggests that these
proponents are in the New Age or Secular Humanist camp that supports 'naturalism' or
other views that would reject the idea of absolutes with regard to authority, values, or
moral-cultural issues. As you discover what the proponents are dishing up, you will see a
healthy helping of Postmodernism. This construct is dedicated to the ideas that; there are
no absolutes, no one can know truth, and what students should focus on is not what the
author/teacher's intent was, but their own interpretation. Go back and re-read Malkin's
comments.
One of my favorite writers is Berit Kjos, (http://www.crossroad.to/) author of Brave New
Schools. While her book does not address Common Core directly, it brings a wealth of
understanding of its roots to the table. I highly recommend this book to anyone serious
about knowing what is really going on in our education system. I do because of her
knowledge of the U.N and it's philosophy partner General Systems Theory from which
Total Quality Management, Outcome Based Education etc. were derived - but I digress.
(We have the book if you want a copy)
This 'stuff' came over on the boat with John Dewey and he and his friends have been
working tirelessly since the early 20th Century to win the day. If you read Berit's book,
you will see much about the United Nations infiltration of our education system as they
strive to produce the 'Global Citizen-Worker' that is compliant to orders from above (and
I don't mean the Lord.) I am going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that
Common Core is rooted in the whole Outcome Based Education type stuff that has an
agenda of Global Government and Global Citizenship. Radical - or right? Do your
research and by the way, notice the tons of documentation: that Berit uses in her book and
articles on her web page and in the superb article below. Why do I mention that?
Because if you have been paying attention lately, the Progressives don't bother
documenting their ideas. And, why should they if Truth is in the eye of the beholder?
Did you happen to hear (4.10.13) President Obama say that he wanted four-year-olds in
the public school system. Another home work assignment and you will discover that the
NEA has long pushed to get them in the system as young as possible before parents can
indoctrinate them with traditional values. Do you remember Al Gore saying that kids
should not listen to their parents ideas but get their ideas at school (my paraphrase)?
Listen to the prophetic words of Raymond Houghton, Professor of Secondary Education
and Special Assistant to the President for Urban affairs at Rhode Island College.
"...absolute behavior control is imminent... The critical point of behavior
control, in effect, is sneaking up on mankind without his self-conscious
2
realization that a crisis is at hand. Man will... never self-consciously know
that it has happened." (Brave New Schools, p. 78)
Again, some will argue that we should not invoke religion into this debate. Fine, then
let's use the systems of competing worldviews. If you "do your research" you will
discover that they are not bashful about invoking their beliefs. Oh, you won't read it on
their front page but that is why we do research - to find out what they really are pushing!
For all of you qualified voters, keep reading - this woman's article is brilliant. Notice the
little blue words? Each of those is a link - that means she has done a ton of research - just
for you. She has invested hours to make your investment only minutes. These ladies
are not stupid and our stupidity is what the Progressives depend upon. Read on, she
saves the best till last. It's not short, no apologies - this is about the children.
(See also stopcommoncore.com/)
HOGWASH ALERT TO NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE -BY CHRISTEL SWASEY -- 4.4.13
[4.4.13 – I have never read a more thorough and well-documented discrediting of
Common Core Standards than what Christel has presented below. This article is a keeper
because she has undoubtedly spent hours gathering and inputting the links to her sources
so that all who read this article can verify its accuracy. Our sincere thanks goes out to
Christel for providing this elucidating rebuttal to the National Review’s “hogwash.” –
Donna Garner] Posted by Donna Garner Wgarner1@hot.rr.com at http://nocompromisepac.ning.com/profiles/blogs/hogwash-alert-to-national-reviewonline-by-christel-swasey-4-4-13?xg_source=activity]
I'm calling for a hogwash alert on today's National Review article about Common Core.
The ironically titled The Truth About Common Core article cannot be taken seriously. It's
written without any links or references for its Common Core-promoting claims, and it's
written by two authors whose employers are largely funded by the main funder of all
things Common Core.
Can anyone take seriously those who praise Common Core while being paid to do so?
The article makes "truth" claims that include the notion that Common Core is "more
rigorous," (where's the proof?) and that the standards allow policymaking to happen
locally. How can that be? The standards are written behind closed doors in D.C. The
standards are copyrighted and are unamendable by locals. There is a 15% cap on adding
to them, written into the ESEA Flexibility Waiver Request. And there is no amendment
process; thus, no local control.
For anyone who has been living under an education reform rock, know this: Gates is the
single biggest promoter and funder of Common Core, bar none.) So, Fordham's and
Manhattan Institute's writers should not be expected to be objective about Common Core.
If it seems like practically everyone supports Common Core, Gates' money is why. Bill
Gates has said he's spent $5 BILLION pushing (his version of) education reform. He's
bribed the national PTA to advocate for Common Core to parents; he's paid the CCSSO
to develop Common Core; and he owns opinion maker Education Week magazine.
There's a near-endless list of Gates' attempts (very successful, I might add) to foist his
vision of education without voter input.
3
The National Review writes that it is a "right-of-center" organization, as if that claim is a
"trust-me" pass. This is meaningless in Common Core land because, as Emmett
McGroarty of the American Principles Project, has said, "Opposition to Common Core
cuts across the left-right spectrum. It gets back to who should control our children's
education -- people in Indiana or people in Washington?"
But we should clarify that oodles of Democrats and Republicans sell or benefit from
Common Core implementation. That is the top reason for the gold rush anxiety to
promote the national standards. A secondary reason is lemminghood (misplaced and
unproven trust).
Republican Jeb Bush is behind the Foundation for Excellence in Education, a
nongovernmental group which pushes Common Core and is, of course, funded by Gates.
Republican Rupert Murdoch owns not only Fox News, but also the common core
implementation company Wireless Generation that's creating common core testing
technology. Republican Senator Todd Huston of Indiana got his largest campaign
donation from David Coleman, common core ELA architect; then, after Huston was
elected to the Indiana Senate and placed on its education committee, Coleman hired
Huston to be on the College Board. They are profiting from the alignment of the SAT to
Common Core. And of course, Huston is on Jeb Bush's Foundation for Excellence in
Education, too. Even my own Republican Governor Herbert of Utah serves on the elite
executive committee of NGA, the Common Core founding group. He doesn't make
money this way, but he does make lots of corporations happy.
I could go on and on about the Common Core gold-and-glory rush. I haven't even
touched on all the Democrats who promote Common Core for gain. But I don't want to be
up all night.
So, on to the liberals and/or not-right wing radicals who oppose Common Core:
California Democrat/author Rosa Koire and respected educator like Diane Ravitch
oppose Common Core as an untested academic and political experiment that increases the
high-stakes of standardized testing. They see that Common Core is promoting
unrepresentative formations of public-private-partnerships, and promotes teachermicromanagement. Chicago history teacher Paul Horton says Common Core turns
teacher-artisans into teacher-widgets; he also sees it as a Pearson anti-trust issue. Teacher
Kris Nielsen has written "Children of the Core" and teacher Paul Bogush calls teaching
Common Core sleeping with the enemy. Math teacher Stephanie Sawyer predicts that
with Common Core, there will be an increase in remedial math instruction and an
increase in the clientele of tutoring centers. Writing teacher Laura Gibbs calls the writing
standards an inspid brew of gobbledygook. Anonymously, many teachers have published
other concerns in a survey produced by Utahns Against Common Core.
Still, political funders of the standards and corporations selling its implementation try to
get away with marginalizing the opposition. But it can't be done honestly. Because it's not
a fight between left and right.
This battle is between the collusion of corporate greed and political muscle versus the
individual voter.
It's a battle between the individual student, teacher, or parent-- versus huge public/private
partnerships. That's the David and Goliath here.
The Common Core movement is not about what's best for children. It's about greed and
political control. A simple test: if Common Core was about helping students achieve
4
legitimate classical education, wouldn't the Common Core experiment have been based
on empirical study and solid educator backing?
Did the authors of the Hogwash article really not know that Common Core wasn't based
on anything like empirical data but simply fluffed up on empty promises and rhetoric,
from the beginning.
Where's the basis for what proponents call "rigorous," "internationally competitive," and
"research-based?" Why won't the proponents point to proof of "increased rigor" the way
the opponents point to proof of increased dumbing down? We know they are fibbing
because we know there is no empirical evidence for imposing this experiment on students
in America. The emperor of Common Core is wearing no clothes.
Many educators are crying out --even testifying to legislatures-- that Common Core is an
academic disaster. I'm thinking of Professors Christopher Tienken, Sandra Stotsky,
Thomas Newkirk, Ze'ev Wurman, James Milgram, William Mathis, Susan Ohanian,
Charlotte Iserbyt, Alan Manning, and others.
The National Review authors insist that Common Core is not a stealth “leftist
indoctrination” plot by the Obama administration. But that's what it looks like when you
study the reformers and what they create.
First, let's look at the Common Core textbooks. Virtually every textbook company in
America is aligning now with Common Core. (So even the states who rejected Common
Core, and even private schools and home schools are in trouble; how will they find new
textbooks that reflect Massachusetts-high standards?)
Pearson's latest textbooks show extreme environmentalism and a global citizen creating
agenda that marginalizes national constitutions and individual rights in favor of global
collectivism. The biggest education sales company of all the Common Core textbook and
technology sales monsters on the planet is Pearson, which is led by mad "Deliverology"
globalist Sir Michael Barber. Watch his speeches.
He doesn't just lead Pearson, the company that is so huge it's becoming an anti-trust issue.
Sir Michael Barber also speaks glowingly of public private partnerships, of political
"revolution," "global citizenship" and a need for having global data collection and one
set of educational standards for the entire planet. He's a political machine. Under his
global common core, diversity, freedom and local control of education need not apply.
Along with some of the gold-rushing colluders chasing Common Core-alignment product
sales, there are political individuals calling educational shots, and these are without
exception on the far, far left. [Bill Ayers, must see] And of these, the National Review is
correct in saying that their goal to nationalize U.S. education has been happening since
long before Obama came to power.
But they are wrong in saying that Common Core isn't a road map to indoctrinating
students into far left philosophy. Power players like Linda Darling-Hammond and
Congressman Chaka Fattah ram socialism and redistribution down America's throat in
education policy, while Pearson pushes it in the curriculum.
It's safe to say that Linda Darling-Hammond has as much say as anyone in this country
when it comes to education policy. She focuses on "equity" and "social justice" --that is,
redistribution of wealth using schools. Reread that last sentence.
Darling-Hammond has worked for CCSSO (Common Core developer) since long before
the standards were even written. She served on the standards validation committee. She
now works for SBAC (the Common Core test writer); she also consults with AIR (Utah's
5
Common Core test producer) and advises Obama's administration; she promotes the
secretive CSCOPE curriculum and more.
Study her further here to learn the groups she works for, what's in the books she writes,
how many times she quoted herself in her report for the U.S. equity commission, and
what she said in last summer's speech to UNESCO about the need to take swimming
pools away from students.
So yes, there is an undeniable socialism push in Common Core textbooks and in the
Department of Education.
Next.
The National Review's authors claim Common Core won't “eliminate American
children’s core knowledge base in English, language arts and history.” By cutting classic
literature by 70% for high school seniors, they are absolutely doing exactly that. The
article says that Common Core doesn't mandate the slashing of literature. Maybe not. But
the tests sure will.
What teacher, constricted by the knowledge that her job is on the line, will risk lowering
the high stakes student scores by teaching beyond what is recommended in the model
curriculum of the national test writers?
And that's the tragic part for me as an English teacher.
Classic literature is sacred. Its removal from American schools is an affront to our
humanity.
Common Core doesn't mandate which books to cut; the National Review is correct on
that point; but it does pressure English teachers to cut out large selections of great
literature, somewhere. And not just a little bit. Tons.
Informational text belongs in other classes, not in English. To read boring, non-literary
articles even if they are not all required to be Executive Orders, insulation manuals, or
environmental studies (as the major portion of the English language curriculum) is to kill
the love of reading.
What will the slashing do to the students' appreciation for the beauty of the language, to
the acquisition of rich vocabulary, to the appreciation for the battle between good and
evil?
We become compassionate humans by receiving and passing on classic stories. Souls are
enlarged by exposure to the characters, the imagery, the rich vocabulary, the poetic
language and the endless forms of the battle between good and evil, that live in classic
literature.
Classic stories create a love for books that cannot be acquired in any other way. Dickens,
Shakespeare, Hugo, Orwell, Dostoevsky, Rand, Marquez, Cisneros, Faulkner, Fitzgerald–
where would we be without the gifts of these great writers and their writings? Which ones
will English teachers cut away first to make room for informational text?
The sly and subtle change will have the same effect on our children as if Common Core
had mandated the destruction of a certain percentage of all classic literature.
How does it differ from book burning in its ultimate effects?
Cutting out basic math skills, such as being able to convert fractions to decimals, is
criminal. Proponents call this learning "fewer but deeper" concepts. I call it a sin.
Common Core also delays the age at which students should be able to work with certain
algorithms, putting students years behind our mathematical competitors in Asia.
6
For specific curricular reviews of Common Core standards, read Dr. Sandra Stotsky's and
Dr. Ze'ev Wurman's math and literature reviews in the appendix of the white paper by
Pioneer Institute. (See exhibit A and exhibit B, page 24.)
Next.
The National Review claims that the standards "simply delineate what children should
know at each grade level and describe the skills that they must acquire to stay on course
toward college or career readiness" and claim they are not a ceiling but a floor. This is a
lie. The standards are bound by a 15% rule; there's no adding to them beyond 15%. That's
not a ceiling?
The article claims that "college and career readiness" doesn't necessarily mean Common
Core. Well, it does, actually. The phrase has been defined on the ed. gov website as
meaning sameness of standards to a significant number of states. I would give you a link
but this week, so oddly, the Department of Education has removed most of its previous
pages. You can see it reposted here:
The article insists that Common Core is not a curriculum; it’s up to school districts to
choose curricula that comply with the standards. Sure. But as previously noted: 1) all the
big textbook companies have aligned to Common Core. Where are the options? 2)
Common core tests and the new accountability measures put on teachers who will lose
their jobs if students don't score well on Common Core tests will ensure that teachers will
only teach Common Core standards. 3) Test writers are making model curriculum and it's
going to be for sale, for sure.
The article falsely claims that "curriculum experts began to devise" the standards. Not so:
the architect of Common Core ELA standards (and current College Board president) is
not, nor ever has been, an educator. In fact, that architect made the list of Top Ten
Scariest People in Education Reform. A top curriculum professor has pointed out that the
developers of Common Core never consulted with top curricular universities at all.
The article claims that states who have adopted Common Core could opt out, "and they
shouldn’t lose a dime if they do" --but Title I monies have been threatened, and the No
Child Left Behind waiver is temporary on conditions of following Common Core, and for
those states who did get Race to the Top money (not my state, thank goodness) the
money would have to be returned. Additionally, every state got ARRA stimulus money to
build a federally interoperable State Longitudinal Database System. Do we want to give
back millions and millions to ensure that we aren't part of the de facto national database
of children's longitudinal school-collected, personally identifiable information?
The article states that the goal is to have children read challenging texts that will build
their vocabulary and background knowledge. So then why not read more --not less-actual literature?
The article also leaves out any analysis of the illegality of Common Core. The
arrangement appears to be illegal. Under the Constitution and under the General
Educational Provisions Act (GEPA) the federal government is restricted from even
supervising education.
GEPA states: “No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize
any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any
direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction,
administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or
7
over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published
instructional materials by any educational institution or school system…”
And for those still believing the federal government isn't "exercising direction,
supervision or control" of the school system, look at two things.
1. The federal technical review of tests being mandated by the Department of Education.
2. The federal mandate that testing consoria must synchronize “across consortia,” that
status updates and phone conferences must be made available to the Dept. of Education
regularly, and that data collected must be shared with the federal government “on an
ongoing basis”
3. The recent federal alteration of privacy laws that have taken away parental consent
over student data collection.
Finally: the "most annoying manipulation tactic" award for the National Review Article
is a tie between the last two sentences of the National Review article, which, combined,
say, "Conservatives used to be in favor of holding students to high standards... aren't they
still?" Please.
Let's rephrase it:
Americans used to be in favor of legitimate, nonexperimental standards for children that
were unattached to corporate greed and that were constitutionally legal... Aren't we still?
Donna Garner
Wgarner1@hot.rr.com
8