Category Archives: Communism

KNOW THE LAW! Required Academic Standards

Rear view of class raising hands

Minnesota Statute 120B.021  REQUIRED ACADEMIC STANDARDS   

Part 2: How do “objective”, “measurable” and “grade-appropriate standards” written at a federal level and without a “specific teaching methodology or curriculum” consistently work within the sovereign legalities of our Minnesota and US Constitutions?

by Linda Bell

 We’re back with another in the series of knowing education law in the state of Minnesota.

Subdivision 2 governs academic standards development, including standards adoption by the state.   Here’s how the law reads. 

(b) “Academic standards must:

(1) be clear, concise, objective, measurable, and grade-level appropriate;

(2) not require a specific teaching methodology or curriculum; and

(3) be consistent with the Constitutions of the United States and the state of Minnesota.”

The standards appear to be clear and concise but that’s where it ends.  “Clear and concise” standards are not enough to lay a foundation for an entire state’s education system.  Let’s start with “measureable” and “objective”.  Are the standards measurable?  Are they objective?

But first, a commercial break! What state standards are found in Minnesota?

Minnesota’s ESEA Flexibility Waiver (No Child Left Behind) clearly states that, “Minnesota has formally adopted College-and-Career Ready Standards” in both English Language Arts and Math as well as the Common Core Standards for English Language Arts as a result of the Race to the Top grant.   Additionally the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge, adopted by Minnesota in 2011, outlines Common Core Standards for pre-natal to age 5 children.  Thus, Minnesota has both Common Core (ELA & Birth to 5) and College & Career Ready Standards (ELA+Math).    These standards were rebranded and titled, “Minnesota State Standards”.  Phew!

 Now, back to measurable and objective.  We’ll deal with both standards and curriculum, since the large majority of the curriculum has been bought out by Gates and Pearson, offering a majority of Common Core-aligned materials.

Yes, the standards can be measured. They are measured through standardized tests and the curriculum utilized to achieve a test score.  The tests must be “multiple-choice” and “fully computer adaptive”.  (We’ll deal with multiple-choice and fully computer adaptive,  under the Statewide Test and Reporting statute; excellent link to how tests are created below. )    Measurement is indeed an important factor within standards.  The standards must be measurable.  But this is the question?  What are they measuring? 

The curriculum and testing is far from “objective”.       According to the Merriam-Webster Free Dictionary:


adjective \əb-ˈjek-tiv, äb-\

: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings

The antonym is, you guessed it; subjective!   Did you realize that all of the C&CRS/Common Core curriculum and testing is heavily infused with feelings, attitudes and values?  In fact, the Common Core standards and tests are written for the affective domain.  Remember those college psych classes?  The cognitive domain includes synthesis, recollection, comprehension, evaluation and analysis.  Conversely, the affective domain  includes values, motivation, attitudes, perceptions and feelings.   So who’s values are we teaching?  And which values do we want retained?  Seems like we’re treading on very thin ice!

Not only do we see a daily barrage of Common Core worksheets, texts and surveys that teach values and political opinion over fact, we actually have some schools with “character training” programs.  My own school district superintendent in Robbinsdale ISD 281, proclaimed at his World’s Best Workforce public hearing that the primary function of the Robbinsdale schools is “to teach values and character-based education”.   Bye, academics!

One program used in Robbinsdale and many other districts, Response to Intervention (RtI) is used to supplant values and behaviors.   Teachers are checking off behaviors and then uploading that data.   RtI is based on a B.F. Skinner model.  Remember operant conditioning?   This is a whole lot of psychoanalysis and something that only psychoanalysts should be involved or not?  Do principals, superintendents and teachers all have advanced psychology degrees to implement and analyze such a bunch of mumbo-jumbo?   We must rescue the children before any further damage is done!   According to the state law above,  the Minnesota Department of Education and districts are flaunting their non-compliance with this statute.

Carleton College has a great visual of the affective and cognitive domains.  Here, even Carleton promotes using the affective domain to teach values and behaviors.  You can read it for yourself.  Evidently, removing certain “affective domain challenges” is part of the new “academics”!

What do Linda Darling-Hammond and David Coleman, two of the biggest names in the Common Core movement have to say about social and emotional learning?  According to Linda Darling-Hammond, campaign education advisor to President Obama, longtime advocate of nationalized standards (see numerous youtube speeches before UNESCO),   RAND employee and author, senior research advisor and assessment author of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (one of the two national consortias created to test the common core standards and curriculum) as well as author of CSCOPE in Texas, in a Nov. 2010 speech to NCATE (National Council for Accreditation/Teacher Edition) stated, Social and emotional learning are to be PRIMARY classroom implementation practices in the Common Core National Standards.”  In essence the Common Core Standards were never meant to be “objective”.  What does another leader in the Common Core Standards have to say?

In October 2012, David Coleman, the so-called “architect of the Common Core Standards” and lead writer of the CCSS English/Language Arts standards was appointed to President of the College Board, which administers the ACT test among others.  Coleman immediately went to work to align all of the College Board tests, now complete.   He said in 2012, We have a crisis in education…  The main thing on the College Boards’s agenda is to deliver its social mission.   “Social missions” have nothing to do with objective academics/curriculum or objective standards… except if your attending school in the state of Minnesota!

For children and parents, another big issue of the standards is that of inappropriate grade-level curriculum.  We see these examples publicized on a daily basis.   The problem of inappropriate grade-level standards and curriculum is a function of the propagation in a top-down method.   For the first time in the history of standards, standards were written starting at college-entrance level and written down to kindergarten instead of the other way around.  This is what happens when the lead authors of the Common Core Standards (and aligning curriculum and tests) are not educators, as was the case.  Again, our state DOE is not following state law.  The standards are inappropriate.  The curriculum is certainly inappropriate.

  • [Academic standards must] not require a specific teaching methodology or curriculum;

While the “state” (and we know this never come from the state) is responsible for the development and adoption of standards in key subject areas such as language arts, math, science, etc., school districts are supposed to maintain control and authority over curriculum… theoretically.   Stated, the academic standards (Common Core and College/Career Ready Standards) are not to employ a specific teaching methodology or curriculum upon teachers or students.  But in practice, this is exactly what is happening! 

Take Focused Instruction, for example, used in the school districts of Minneapolis, Brooklyn Center and Robbinsdale and no doubt, countless others.  This curriculum is scripted.  Teachers are required to read scripted lesson plans.  Focused Instruction is requiring both a specific methodology and curriculum!   So when districts are out of compliance with the law, who is supposed to police?  

What other curriculum or methodology is required as a consequence of the adoption of Common Core/College & Career Ready Standards?  What is the effect?

The great monopoly and takeover of school curriculum via Pearson, NCS Pearson and Pearson Vue (read history of Pearson here)

And some of their subsidiaries here.  (

(3)   [Academic standards must] be consistent with the Constitutions of the United States and the state of Minnesota.”

“Can of worms” alert!  First of all, educational standards are left to the states and not the federal government or “friends of the government”.  The formation of nationalized standards written by lobbyist groups, well connected within the US Department of Education and state government, is well… unconstitutional.   The entire standards movement is, you guessed it, unconstitutional.  The US Constitution has no mention of education and thus the Tenth Amendment is invoked.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

I particularly like how this amendment is written.  “The powers” when not mentioned by the US Constitution, “Are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  “The states” do not mean the “state government” or more specifically, the state executive branch (governor and commissioner grant signatories).  It means you and me… THE PEOPLE.

 The propagation of federal (and international) standards are incompatible with the US Constitution.  What are we going to do about that?  Do we have any state leaders willing to address this issue?

What about Minnesota’s Constitution?

  • Section 1 of Article XIII of the Minnesota Constitution provides as follows:

    ” Uniform system of public schools.  The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it is the duty of the legislature to establish a general and uniform system of public schoolsThe legislature shall make such provisions by taxation or otherwise as will secure a thorough and efficient system of public schools throughout the state.

Did our state’s early founders define “uniform system” as in nationalized standards… cookie-cutter… one-size fits all, as with the Common Core?  Doubtful.   “Uniform” is used within the same paragraph as “republican form of government” and thus refers to a free society.  And this is the rub, we cannot have nationalized standards and freedom.  The two cannot coexist!

Secondly, the legislature has a duty to the citizens of Minnesota to protect the stability of the state in regards to “the intelligence of the people”.   We would not want the future generations of Minnesotans to be less intelligent and yet that is exactly the outcome of the standards and curriculum.

And lastly, our legislature should be in the “driver’s seat” but somehow is not!  Our Minnesota legislature has spoken very little about “Common Core” or “nationalized standards”.  It is high time to have a full and open discourse on this matter and for the legislature to act on behalf of those who elect them as well as protect our US and Minnesota Constitutions.    Our state has a considerable number of constituents, be they liberal, conservative, libertarian, independent, green or otherwise who are involved in the lives of their children and their schools and want the Common Core, No Child Left Behind waiver, Race to the Top and especially a topic we will visit soon, the Minnesota World’s Best Workforce, repealed!

Our next statute is the Minnesota World’s Best Workforce.

Statute 120B.11


David Coleman Attacks Students’ Love of America

High School Students Sitting in Bleachers

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.




James Madison

Benjamin Franklin

George Washington (reduced to a 1 sentence fragment about Farewell Address)

Roger Williams

Thomas Jefferson

Andrew Jackson

Henry Clay

Jane Addams

Theodore Roosevelt

Lost Generation authors (Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Lewis)

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Sinclair Lewis

Dorothea Dix




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




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




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.”





Disturbing Testimonies Reveal Workforce Career Pathway Agenda

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.


The Value of a College Education

What is the value of a college education when the ideology of “superior race” is being taught and tested in Minnesota?
I received an interesting e-mail from an Augsburg college student. We all know that college texts ought to stretch one’s mind. However in this case, the student is questioning inclusion.   The student finds himself in a rather lonely position, as none of the other students speak up either out of fear or ignorance.  The book in question is “Essentials of Sociology” published by Pearson. Essentials of Sociology “advocates human cloning to advance “superior” traits and suggests that the only problem may be socially constructed familial relationships to the cloned individuals.”
“You might have heard people object that cloning is immoral. But have you heard the opposite, that cloning should be our moral choice? Let’s suppose that mass cloning becomes possible. Let’s also assume that geneticists trace great creative ability, high intelligence, compassion, and a propensity for peace to specific genes. They also identify a genetic base for the ability to create beautiful poetry, music, and architecture; to excel in mathematics, science, and other intellectual pursuits; even to be successful in love. Why then, should we leave human reproduction to people who have inferior traits — genetic diseases, low IQs perhaps even the propensity to be violent? Shouldn’t we select people with the finer characteristics to reproduce — and to clone?” (Essentials of Sociology, page 105)
Historically, does this remind you of another time and place?