Here’s a great series of five short videos that will help you get a better grasp on the Common Core / College and Career Ready Standards in Minnesota.
Here’s a great series of five short videos that will help you get a better grasp on the Common Core / College and Career Ready Standards in Minnesota.
It’s well known that David Coleman authored the Common Core Standards in English Language Arts in 2010. He was not an educator nor had he ever written standards. A year and a half later, Coleman was appointed president of College Board and has been fast at work in dismantling the College Board tests to align with the Common Core Standards. Tests like ACT, SAT, GED, CLEP and AP (Advanced Placement) are taken by every student at some point in their academic career.
What’s new? APUSH! Advanced Placement U.S. History Framework. Texan Donna Garner describes the shocking components of the new APUSH (AP Frameworks) and how it will effect “550,000 of the U.S.’s best and brightest students”.
Does your Minnesota school district offer Advanced Placement classes? Parents have a right to review their child’s textbooks or online curriculum. Tell your principals, superintendents and school board members that you do not want your children taught outright lies and falacies! Then join your school’s curriculum committee that meets 5 to 6 times a year. And join with a friend!
“David Coleman Attacks Students’ Love of America”
By Donna Garner 6.24.14
David Coleman is the architect of the Common Core Standards. When he finished his disastrous work there, he became the president of The College Board where he has publicly stated that the College Board products will now be aligned with the Common Core Standards.
The College Board produces the SAT, the GED, and all the Advanced Placement (AP) tests.
Some 550,000 of our country’s brightest and best students take AP U. S. History.
The new AP U. S. History Framework (APUSH) consistently emphasizes the negative events of U. S. history while ignoring the positive achievements of the U. S.
“The new College Board Framework will replace the traditional 5-page topical outline with a 98-page document that dictates how teachers should cover the required topics…”
Larry Krieger, an experienced, widely acclaimed Advanced Placement teacher, says that the new Advanced Placement U. S. History Framework, “defines, discusses, and interprets ‘the required knowledge of each period.’”
The College Board’s own website confirms that the AP exam will focus exclusively on content specified in the Framework. In short, what is not tested will not be taught.
DAVID COLEMAN’S NEW ADVANCED PLACEMENT U. S. HISTORY FRAMEWORK EXCLUDES:
George Washington (reduced to a 1 sentence fragment about Farewell Address)
Lost Generation authors (Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Lewis)
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
HISTORICAL EVENTS EXCLUDED BY DAVID COLEMAN:
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
America’s Lend-Lease program (provided over $50 billion in military equipment to help our allies defeat Hitler)
The heroism and sacrifices of American servicemen and women
DAVID COLEMAN’S OBVIOUSLY BIASED FRAMEWORK REQUIREMENTS:
Dominant theme – “European exploitation led to native decline and black bondage”
Discusses architecture of Spanish missions rather than the merits of our 1776 heroes
Stresses colonial America as having “rigid racial hierarchy” and a “strong belief in British racial and cultural superiority” — ignores U. S. founding principles that inspired the movement to abolish slavery
Reinterprets Manifest Destiny by not emphasizing the spreading of democracy and new technologies – instead dwells on white racial superiority
Reduces study of Declaration of Independence to one phrase in one sentence — ignores sacrifices signers made who pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to the cause of freedom
Ignores efforts of U. S. civilians and armed forces to defeat fascism — instead dwells upon internment of Japanese Americans, dropping of atomic bombs, race and segregation
WORKS OMITTED BY DAVID COLEMAN:
Winthrop’s” City on a Hill” sermon
Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address
Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address
Excerpts from de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America
Frederick Jackson Turner’s essay on “The Significance of the Frontier in American History”
Excerpts from John Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath
Excerpts from Dr. King’s writings
Barbara Jordan’s speech on the Constitution before the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment hearings
Jane Robbins and Larry Krieger stated on 6.19.14:
“The redesigned Framework is best described as a curricular coup. The College Board now imposes detailed ‘required knowledge’ that is very different from the curriculum mandated by state curriculum guides. For example, the College Board commissioned a group of Texas teachers to determine how well the mandated Texas state curriculum (TEKS) correlates with the new APUSH Framework. They found a shocking lack of correlation. In Units 6 – 9 alone of the APUSH framework, the teachers found 181 TEKS elements omitted from the APUSH. And the Texas situation is repeated in many other states that will see their mandated history curriculum displaced by the radical new APUSH Framework.”
RESOURCES USED IN THIS ARTICLE:
This is a good read and puts in clear perspective how Common Core is dumbing down our education system — I thought the idea was to be competitive with other nations?
The proponents of Common Core sell their program by telling us…
…about the children of our military who often must transfer from one school to another. These children, we are told, need every school to be the same so they won’t ever move to a new school that is behind their old one. At the same time, the proponents tell us that no school is limited to the standards as they are written, and they fully expect that some schools will go beyond the mandated performance levels.
But doesn’t that mean that some schools will be ahead of others? And doesn’t that negate the “all the schools need to be the same so children can seamlessly transfer” marketing claim?
It can’t be both ways. Either all the schools will be the same or they won’t. If they are, no school will be going beyond the written standards. If they are not, then for the children of our military, the current situation will remain the same.
It’s a great marketing ploy, as long as no one notices that the claim is that Common Core will result in schools that are simultaneously the same and different from each other.
Now let’s look at the language of the Common Core sales pitch itself.
Common Core’s salesmen have stated that 40% of our children require remediation when they get to college so we need to have a system of standards that mandate what all children will know and be able to do upon graduation. The standards must be accompanied by high stakes tests so we can hold students, teachers, and schools accountable for how well they meet the standards. This, they tell us, will solve the problem.
But didn’t we already have mandatory achievement standards with high stakes tests to measure performance?
Most states have had standards-based education for nearly 20 years, and the sales pitch that was used to introduce it then is exactly the same as the sales pitch that we are hearing today. If it was such an abysmal failure that 40% of the students exposed to it require remedial courses before they can begin actual college work, why are we continuing the approach at all?
Why are we getting a new version of an old, failed, product?
And what would a Consumer Reports analysis reveal? What is the actual performance level behind the sales pitch language of “rigorous” standards?
In the Pennsylvania regulations recently passed by the State Board of Education, for example, students will need to pass Algebra I in order to graduate from high school. Nothing higher than Algebra I is required. And they do not need to pass the mandatory state Algebra I exam until they are in the 11th grade.
In a recent debate, the proponents of Common Core told the audience that the students would learn less, but still be able to take advanced courses in math like AP Algebra II.
In pre-Common Core high schools, students take Algebra II in either 10th or 11th grade so they can take Calculus before graduation. Algebra II is not considered college level math – students who need to take it in college do so in a remedial setting. The AP level math is Calculus. But in a recent interview, the Vice-President of the College Board stated that Calculus is not part of the Common Core sequence. He said that in Common Core, educators are asked to slow the math progression down.
Well, if we slow the math progression down, then Algebra II would, in fact, move to the AP level. We didn’t move student achievement up, we moved the level for success down.
Does anyone believe that the students in Singapore or Germany or Japan are having the math progression in their schools slowed down?
Now let’s analyze the tests themselves. According to the Common Core sales team, the tests are critical for holding students, teachers, and schools accountable. We will know how well the program is working through the tests.
The promotional language says that the tests are valid and reliable. But the same state Departments of Education that are mandating and implementing Common Core are creating and scoring the tests, and then reporting on the performance of their own system. Such a structure is like allowing a drug company to evaluate its own medicine, declare it a success, and then put it on the market. It’s called an internal audit – and it is never considered either valid or reliable.
In fact, the state Departments of Education have been doing this kind of high-stakes testing since the inception of the standards-based system. And in that time, we have seen states change their passing scoring criteria retroactively. We have seen states lower the level of achievement necessary to receive a passing score. Some states use computers to change the questions to match the student’s achievement level – moving the test to the student instead of measuring the student against the test. And some states set the passing level as low as 33%. In every case, parents only received notice that their students had passed – not the actual level of achievement necessary for passing.
And then, when those same students got to college, where they received their first non-internal audit of achievement, 40% of them required remediation.
Sometimes, reading the fine print is the most important thing that a potential consumer can do. And in the case of Common Core, failure to read, and act upon, that fine print will result in an academic disaster for an entire generation of America’s children.
Dr. Peg Luksik has taught both special education and regular education students from pre-school to college for over 30 years. She has written and evaluated curriculum, and worked as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Education, reviewing education reform initiatives.
Disturbing Testimonies Reveal Workforce Career Pathway Agenda
You may have heard that Minnesota has a new educational initiative called the Minnesota World’s Best Workforce. This initiative was passed into legislation last spring 2013 as a part of the Omnibus K-12 bill. What is this “workforce” and the accompanying “career pathways”? Largely, parents and the public have been left out of the picture.
According to the Minnesota Department of Education website, “public hearings” should have accompanied all open “discussions of the World’s Best Workforce”. Many Minnesota school boards have already voted to adopt this WBW, without any parental input! Minnesota parents had a choice to make here and once again were left out of the decision-making process!
This informative article demonstrates not only the role of the Chambers of Commerce in our local schools, but also a disturbing trend that is coming to fruition by Winter 2014. Clarity is presented regarding the not-so-distant timeline which this workforce initiative is fully implemented in Minnesota.
Testimonies from a small Wisconsin town, gets to the root of Common Core, Wisconsin Daily Independent, Oct. 2013
Disturbing testimony from small town America, confirming the fears of many people who are against nationalized adoption of Common Core standards. Link to entire article
This article deserves a complete and through read. Below are several excerpts.
The beginning of this article focuses on a testimony from Superintendent Nick Madison from the Brillion school district in Wisconsin. The area is typical of small towns across America.
In one flash of anger, Madison summed up what drives too many supporters of Common Core: the belief that the unexceptional children of the United States are nothing more than servants of industry to be educated only to the extent that industry requires.
Basically this small town is saying they resent that children will not be encouraged to reach for their potential, instead they would be be encouraged to go to trade schools, should Common Core be implemented.
However, it was when Madison lashed out at Representative Michael Schraa that he revealed what is at the core of Common Core. Schraa began his questioning by noting, “American Exceptionalism was present before Common Core, and you are kind of insinuating that we need Common Core standards….” Madison aggressively interrupted, “You bet. That exceptionalism has come and gone with all due respect, Representative.” Madison continued, “We have to be willing to innovate faster than the Chinese can copy us or our industry is going to go away. You talk about what country standards did you look at, here’s what country I look at when I go down to Home Depot and see snow blowers made in China. That’s a real problem for Brillion, that’s our standard. That is who we are competing with.”
Here Madison is insinuating that America will no longer be able to be innovators worldwide because students will be held back by Common Core.
Testimony continued with Jody Lueck, an Appleton business woman and CPA.
The testimony, which seemed to make the legislators most uncomfortable was offered by Appleton businesswoman and CPA, Jody Lueck, who related her experience with the promoters of Common Core. Lueck described a meeting of the Appleton Chamber of Commerce in which a Common Core promotional presentation was made this year.
The Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership’s promotional program began with an explanation that Common Core was the centerpiece of their effort to “match up the American educational system with the European educational system of work-ready.”
Lueck advised the legislators that when the group referred to career and college ready, they did not mean college “the way we think about it. They’re discussing technical colleges.” Lueck said that while she valued technical colleges, she became concerned when the group was told, “We need to change to meet the job market demands in Wisconsin and discourage our children from seeking a college degree.” She told legislators that the intent of the proponents is to change the model from one in which we promote thinking to one in which children are trained solely for careers to meet the needs of industry. The chamber members were told that “only 27% of jobs in Wisconsin required a college education, and we are doing our kids a disservice, they said, we needed to change to meet the job market demands in Wisconsin and discourage our children from seeking a college degree.”
Attendees were told this would be a shift in mindset.
When the attendees asked about the role of parents, they were told, “We did not include them because we did not know how this would work.” When the attendees persisted and asked again what the parents’ role would be, the presenters said, ‘We are not telling the parents; their children will bring them along.’
Lueck described a system in which kindergartners will be given information about careers, and by the 8th grade, children will be funneled into 16 career tracks.
Lueck said, “There’s no parental involvement at all. The child will be tested, and the educators will offer them three tracks from which a child can choose based upon the needs of business in Wisconsin.” Students will then be placed in a track that best suits the student’s skill and will feed the industry in need.
“We are going to restructure the educational system so that all schools will work in tandem, and because you can’t have 16 career academies in one school. Different high schools will be assigned different academies,” Lueck testified. Under the new system a child might likely attend one high school one day, and spend other days at another school.
Lueck told the legislators that schools will essentially take over the role of HR departments. Teachers will determine which student is qualified to interview for which apprenticeship. “This is not far-off,” she warned the legislators.
“They didn’t know people were sitting in that audience who would not necessarily agree with what they were doing,” said Lueck. She did not to see “them hijack what education is supposed to be about. We want thinking children who can really critically think and look at things. How did I become a CPA before if our education system was so bad before Common Core?”
Lueck concluded, “If you thought our education system was so bad, why on earth did we wait for a group of east coast foundations to tell us what we should we doing here in Wisconsin?”
There is so much important information here. Lueck’s testimony highlights how business has been coerced into supporting common core, while simultaneously disregarding parent rights and involvement.
At what point, do we as parents realize Common Core is taking away our rights to educate our children? How much more information do we need to become involved in the fight against Common Core? If you believe your children should have the right to choose those own career path, you need to speak out. Common Core is an insidious, lurking, spreading beast that will slowly erode parents rights, educational choice and the traditional family.
Please join the fight against Common Core. Become involved in your local area and spread the word. Pass the link to this article around. Explore this blog and share what speaks to you. Our children’s future choices depend on us. If we don’t fight Common Core, and beat it now, I am afraid of what will become of our future grandchildren and their choices. We are not only fighting for our children but for future generations of American children.