Common Core - Page 1
These pages are intended to help inform parents and school officials about the dangers of Common Core:
Rather than teaching American history and promoting Patriotism it teaches progressive ideology and suppresses Religion
 

--
-- Talking “Common Core” with Patricia Levesque - 8/3/13
-- Talking “Common Core” with Emmett McGroarty - 8/3/13
-- Jeb Bush on the “Common Core”  - 7/31/13
-- If this is in Florida schools it must be forbidden - 5/4/13
-- No Student Led Prayer at Graduation Allowed - 4/10/13
-- http://www.spokane7.com/movies/movie-guide/7151/wont-back-down/ - WEB LINK - check it out
-- Parents nationwide are expressing shock and outrage 10/09/12
--
Home      Back

 Talking “Common Core” with Patricia Levesque (Attachment Four)

Saturday, August 3, 2013


HH: Welcome back, America. It’s Hugh Hewitt. Thank you for listening today. Joined now by the CEO of the Foundation for Excellence in Education Patricia Levesque. Ms. Levesque, welcome. It’s great to have you on the Hugh Hewitt Show.

PL: Thank you, Hugh, for having me.


HH: I have been spending a great deal time this week diving into the Common Core with a whole bunch of different voices those who are enthusiasts, those who are opponents and I am at the end of the week or getting close to the end of the week, confused over where its headed. What do you think is the situation right now concerning the Common Core controversy?

PL: Well, I think states the 40 something states that are still participating in Common Core are moving ahead with implementation which means teachers are being trained in how to teach certain standards more deeply like spending more time on getting fractions right and so that process of implementation in getting ready to go back to school is what’s going on right now.


HH: Now, yesterday, Michael McShane of AIE was on. He’d been testifying in Michigan about a pause up there. I got a note last night on an email from an Indiana legislature who said that Indiana is taking a pause. What, in your opinion, is driving the reticence in places like Michigan and Indiana and various districts and certainly in tea party grassroots among some teachers unions?

PL: Sure. Well, I think one of the things that is going on in the states is not really a pause on the standards but states are taking a look at what type of assessments and what process they are going to use to assess the standards. Not really that many states are going through a pause on actual implementation of the standards, and certainly school districts are moving ahead even in Indiana if the state legislature is not. Teachers have to teach two certain standards. They have to know what they are going – what they are expected to teach students and, I think, most across the country it’s still moving forward.


HH: All right. Patricia, I’m so glad you came on today. I’m up in Sacramento for an event tonight and I walk into my studio which is AM 13 The Answer and one of the Senior Exec’s handed me a piece of paper from his spouse who’s been listening all week and it says the following: Common Core is coming to your child’s school in 2014 and you’re not going to like it and here are some of the bold points: Common Core is the latest national federal one-size fits all educational program for all K-12 school children; When did you vote for this new mandatory school regime?; A federal takeover of all the schools and hardly anyone knew?; Algebra has been pushed from the 8th to the 9th grade; California costs is estimated at 1.6 billion. That’s just a few lines of what was handed to me. What are you are guys doing to respond to critiques or concerns?

PL: Sure. I think if you talk to most parents what’s still most parents have not heard about is Common Core and so a responsibility that we have and others who do support the higher standards is to make sure parents and teachers really do know what’s coming. And what is coming is a set of state adopted, because states individually adopted through their constitutional or legislative or executive branch process, these academically standards and they have been adopted in most states for a couple of years. Parents needs to understand how fantastic these standards are going to be for their children, because for the first time we actually started by looking at college and career readiness. Where do we want students to be when they exit high school and then let’s work backward. What does that mean then that kids needs to know in kindergarten to be prepared for first grade? I talk to parents and one of examples that I give them of old standards vs. new is in kindergarten math. In many states across the country, including mine, the old kindergarten math standard was students needed to be able to count from 1-10. And the new math standard is kids need to count from 1 to 100 starting at any number and from 36-0 backwards. That puts my child on a better playing field so that when he graduates in the future, he will be able to be competitive with kids with China and Hong Kong and it finally gives us a standard where we will not have, 25% of the students right now in our country who earn a high school diploma, only 25% are ready for college course work. Every year families and taxpayers spend 3 billion dollars on remediation. Basically, we re-teaching high school level course work to college students and these standards are not going to solve every row in the public education system, but they put us—it’s one tool in the tool box that will get our students better prepared so that we’re not remediating, spending 3 billion dollars on remediation on kids who actually achieved a high school diploma


HH: I’m a—

PL: it’s a great first start.


HH: I’m talking with Patricia Levesque who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, big proponent of the Common Core. So, Ms. Levesque, again, if we go back I don’t think anyone would disagree that American public education in many places in the country is in deep, deep, deep, trouble and that something has to happen, but the Common Core has elicited a great deal of opposition based upon the fear that the federal government is taking over. In fact, I’m holding again the opposition piece that was given to me when I arrived at my Sacramento studio today and it says, that if your state is not enrolled in Common Core, no federal money, some of which, some would call that blackmail money in exchange for your child’s mind. The fed’s no longer think we need to read the traditional classics for the values that they have taught. How are you responding to parents who get this information, this opposition and say, hey, the feds are taking over?

PL: Well, you know, that’s the fear of federal government take over is a justified fear, and let’s face it, in light recent events [laughing] in Washington and things that the federal government has completely been wrong in their actions, from my opinion, it’s good and it’s important for parents to have a very healthy skepticism of federal government takeover. We should, we—the price of liberty is eternal vigilance and parents we don’t want the federal government to tell teachers what textbooks to use and how to teach. Those are good and honest and justified fears. They happened to be completely incorrect when it comes to these state adopted standards.


HH: And, so –

PL: Go ahead—


HH: So, in terms of well, stick with me after the break if you will because I wanted to ask, not only about where parents go to find good information, is there a website you recommend that they go to?

PL: We would recommend highercorestandards.org which is a place where parents can find out accurate information, where they can see why conservatives really do support these higher standards and we’re happy to answer their questions directly from that website as well.


HH: Highercorestandards.org and when we come break, we’re going to talk about data mining with Patricia Levesque who is the CEO of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, a true, true, conservative reformer who served 6 years in the Florida legislature in the Speaker’s Office as the Staff Director for Education Policy. She knows of which she speaks.

——–


HH: I’m finishing up this half-hour with Patricia Levesque who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Foundation for Excellence in Education and we told you where to go for more information on the Common Core from the conservative reformers perspective. Patricia Lesvesque, one of the arguments that I’ve discovered this week is that many conservative activists are afraid that the Department of Education is going to be using the Common Core enrollment process to data mine local district information on students. What do you say to that?

PL: Well, I say parents need to be the joint now and they need to be diligent in the future to make sure that that doesn’t happen. The federal government should not be taking students private personal information and using it for any reason as far as I’m concerned, but Common Core, the data still stays at the state level. It’s the states that run accountability systems now. It’s the states that will be responsible for controlling and reflect—protecting that data in the future.


HH: But has it happened? I know over at Higher Core Standards, for example, it says fighting federal overreach. There’s a whole line there and debunking against the whole line, but is the federal government trying to get a hold of that data?

PL: Not, not through Common Core. I mean, Common Core is a set of standards. I think there are other research pieces of things—this particular notion of data mining came from a research report that was done completely not associated with Common Core by some researchers in the U.S. Department of Education with consensual, you know, approval from parents to study certain aspects about student learning. And so, but unfortunately, that, you know, those urban myths kind of get spread and that’s what happened in this case.


HH: Yeah. I got sent that report many times last night. Page 41, I think, it has all the references to data mining the local district data and I was a little bit stunned that these researchers put into that thing. What does, for example, higher core say to parents about that? That they should go to go their school board and say not now, not ever, never?

PL: What they should be very active locally. They should pay attention to what their school boards are doing and parents should want to have reports on who has access to my child’s data and those are healthy skepticisms and we have to remain vigilant over it. You know, the thing that I would want every parent to understand and know about Common Core standards is that the standards are going to better prepare your child in the future to be college and career ready. They are hopefully going to save you money because you won’t be paying remediation costs out of your pocket when your child goes to higher ed and really wasn’t prepared in high school. The standards are going to be better in that teachers now, especially with mobility, with our military across different state lines, with our students who are mobile. We will now have, it’s almost like having a common electrical grid. Now you have innovation that can be tied to the actual high standard that we want to make sure that students learn.


HH: Patricia Levesque of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, thank you for joining me. I’ll be right back, America. Stay tuned.
 

 Talking “Common Core” with Emmett McGroarty (Attachment three)

Saturday, August 3, 2013

HH: As you know, all week I’ve been covering the Common Core controversy and I’ve done so trying to match one voice in favor with one voice against. In the first hour today, you heard Patricia Levesque talking up the Common Core. I’m so pleased to welcome Emmett McGroarty with the American Principles Project who is a critic of the Common Core State Standards. Emmett thanks for joining me. I very much appreciate your doing so.

EM: Hugh, it’s an honor. Common Core is a bad idea that just keeps getting worse.

HH: Well that’s, I want you to lay out, you know, Patricia last hour said exactly the opposite and good conservatives are on both issues of this issue so I am betwixed in between. Lay out the case out against ‘em.

EM: Well, first of all, the proponents and the developers of the Common Core say that this is a state led process and that’s not true. This is a process that was engineered and funded by private interests, most notably the Gates Foundation, and it’s something that was developed and pushed by private trade associations, particularly the National Governor’s Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Those sound like state entities, but they’re not. They are privately incorporated and they receive private money to push certain agenda. They don’t have a grant of authority from any state legislature. Governor’s participating them as individuals, um, so they own the Common Core.

HH: Okay so—

EM: Copyright on it.

HH: Okay. And so that makes it bad, why?

EM: Well, because the states in agreeing to entering the Common Core System, they’ve pledged to implement the Common Core 100%. They can’t change the standards at all. They can add 15% but they can’t change any of it. Uh, and then tied to the Common Core are federally funded and really federally managed or overseen high stakes standardized tests. So, in entering the system the states have given up large swaths of education policy decision making.

HH: Are the Core Standards any good?

EM: No. The Common Core is highly defective. In short, with English Language Arts what you have is a greater emphasis on dry informational text in place of classic literature. In math it ushers in fuzzy math which delays the learning progression, causes the Common Core to jettison important concepts like prime factorization and conversions among fractions, decimals and percents. It delays the learning progression so that by 8th grade, according to Professor James Milgram of Stanford, Common Core students would be about 2 years behind their piers in high performing countries. He says it only gets worst after that

HH: Now, Emmett McGroarty, I’m on the board

EM: almost a joke.

HH: of the Great Hearts Academies in Phoenix, Arizona, private – a public charter system, very, very successful, traditional, classical learning. There isn’t any one on the country, there isn’t a conservative or liberal who could quarrel with the results of our Academy so that I have no doubt that our thousands of students can meet and match any Common Core anywhere. But I know there are lots of school systems cause I covered the Los Angles Unified School District for 10 years for PBS out in LA that are absolutely shattered in large part. There will be some great performing schools in any district, but for the most part, just absolutely shattered. Does the Common Core help the devastated district? Are we at a situation where what we’re really talking about here is what you see depends on where you stand and if you’re looking at a devastated district this helps them rebuild but if you’re looking at a good district it brings you down?

EM: No, no. It’s a dumb down curriculum. This is not a matter of where do we set the bar here or there. This is a radical shift in curriculum and I would say, we have in America, we have kind of the gold standard on educational achievement and that gold standard is really Massachusetts. And Massachusetts in 1993 formed a bipartisan committee—

HH: I’ve got to sit down, Emmett [laughing]. You just told me something good came out of Massachusetts? Tell me about it.

EM: Well, it was a bipartisan commission. They sat down and decided what do we need to do to have a high achieving school system and the decision was that we need to go back to putting a heavy emphasis on classic literature and direct instruction math and, then after that the AST rose, the last 4 renditions of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, Massachusetts scored at the top in every category. They entered the International Tim’s competition as if they were a separate country and scored up at the top with the likes of Singapore.

HH: Now, would it be – what would your reaction be if a state “A” came along and said we’re adopting the Massachusetts standards, not the Common Core Standards. What would Emmett McGroarty say?

EM: I would say look, first of all, when we say “we” I hope that it’s something that respects the input of the people, unlike how the Common Core was foisted on the states. You know, the people and the legislators have notice as to what’s happening and an opportunity to be heard and a full briefing on the issue, but I would say that this is what the Founders intended is kind of a competition between the states. We don’t need a monopoly of, a monopoly of mediocre of standards. We need, we need states to say, heh, this is working in Massachusetts we’re going to look at that and we’re going to implement standards like that, and maybe we’ll try to make them better than Massachusetts.

HH: Okay. Okay, that’s a good federalism argument, but there’s also the counter-argument. If the Core is, in fact, a floor and not a ceiling, and I hear you saying one of the problems is that it might be a ceiling, but if it’s a floor, and the states did actually adopt that floor of their own volition, a federalist couldn’t argue with the state’s adopting the best experiment out of the laboratory, right? Emmett, we have another segment coming up, so you have 30 second until the break.

EM: Okay, yes the federalist could be because the states are giving up control.

HH: Okay. When we come back you’re gong to have to explain that because if the state legislature, and I might agree or disagree with that, but as a federalist if the state legislature embraced the Common Core and, they did so without coercing from the federal government, I don’t know how the federalists argue with it. I’ll be right back, America. It’s the Hugh Hewitt Show. ——–

HH: Welcome back, America. It’s Hugh Hewitt with Emmett McGroarty with the American Principle Project. Last hour you heard me giving me Patricia Levesque a hard time over the Common Core and now I’m giving Emmett a hard time over opposition of the Common Core because in opposition and dialectic there is progress. So, Emmett, if the states actually adopted this, and if local districts adopted the Common Core Standard, we might want to try and persuade them that there is a better option, like the Massachusetts option, but it’s not anti-federalist who have exercised the choice power is it?

EM: Well, the issue depends on who has control. It depends on where does accountability flow? So does accountability flow into the people to the citizens to the parents? Um, or is it like in the Common Core System all the states have pledged to adopt the, the Common Core 100% and not to change it? And they’ve entered into these federally funded testing consortia so they’ve given up the control.

HH: But a legislature can always revoke, a legislature can’t bind a future legislature it’s –

EM: They have to reclaim their resovernigity in say that from here on out, we’re going to exercise complete control over the standards. We’re going to change what we don’t want and we’re not going to participate in this federal testing consortia.

HH: Well I would support any, no state should ever give up the right to control its own destiny on education. You and I both know that is a core principle of constitutional.

EM: Governor Haley of South Carolina said about the Common Core, she said just as we should not – we should relinquish control of education to the federal government, neither should we cede it to the consciences of other states. So, that’s what you have with the Common Core. You have, first of all you have the 2 associations of privately funded associations that own the Common Core. Then you have all the states that are all participating in it—pledged to implement it 100%, then you have the federal government.

HH: And that’s the big – and we got that and as Bill Bennett said as Jeb Bush said if they take over, then all bets are off. Let me close make sure I get in – where’s the best source of information, in your opinion, Emmett McGroarty, on the Common Core and opposition around it?

EM: Well, you can look at our website http://fightcommoncore.com/.

HH: Apprightcommoncore.com?

EM: Yeah. There is an aggregator site that’s a participant run called Truthinamericaeducation.com.

HH: Okay, truthinamericaeducation.com and appproject@ –

EM: Fightcommoncore.com

HH: Fightcommoncore.com. Emmett McGroarty, thank you, I’ll check back with you. This is just getting started isn’t it?

EM: This is just getting started. This is foisted on the states so it’s in reverse. Now the debate is occurring not on the front end.

HH: Emmett, thank you. We look forward to having you back America. Stay tuned. Follow me @HughHewittontwitter. Go for all of these transcripts, all of them are posted on the transcripts page from the whole Common Core series of conversations this week on the Hugh Hewitt Show and more today and tomorrow. They are all available at the transcripts page as soon as Lynne the magnificent get’s them typed up.

 Jeb Bush on the “Common Core” (Attachment two)

July 31, 2013

Posted by Hugh Hewitt Print This:

HH: I’m pleased to welcome now former Florida Governor Jeb Bush to the program. Governor, welcome. Good to talk to you today.
JB: Great to talk to you.

HH: I have been spending a lot of yesterday and today talking with people about the Common Core and as I explained yesterday with Bill Bennett and Jay Mathews and others today, all of a sudden, a couple of months ago people started approaching me at forums and asking my opinion about this and voicing criticism and some support, as Bill Bennett explained yesterday, what’s your connection to it, what’s the origin of Common Core, Governor Bush?
JB: Common Core state standards were standards that were developed by Governors and state school officers, those folks that are either Commissioners of Education or Secretaries of Education in 2006-2007. Forty-five states agreed to those standards. The intent was to create standards so that when a young person reached 12th grade and graduated from 12th grade they would be college and/or career ready, because right now about a 1/3 of our kids are college or career ready, even if they get a diploma. So, the idea was to benchmark these standards to the best in the world, make fewer of them, require critical thinking skills, make them higher standards and make it voluntary. And, from that effort; amazingly, really, if you think about it, 45 states have signed up.

HH: And so, was the genius of the idea yours? Where did it come from?

JB: No, the genius, the genius came, I think, really came from the National Governor’s Association business, military, a lot of people are concerned about higher standards, and I am as well. I think our standards are way too low. If you think about it, if we spend more per student than any country in the world other than Luxembourg apparently, and we did a third of our kids, even though a lot them get a piece of paper that say they’ve graduated, but they take, they take remedial courses in college or they – they can’t, they don’t have the skills to get a job. That’s a failed system. There’s a huge cap so raising the standards I’ve always been for them, but this effort was initiated after I left as Governor with the National Governor’s Association.

HH: Where does, does it impose curriculum?
JB: The curriculum, this is why people get all riled up and legitimately so. They are told that this, this will be a national curriculum. In fact, standards are different than curriculum, and that where I think the biggest misnomer is where people legitimately get concerned. I would be concerned if we had a national curriculum influenced by the federal government. My God, I’d break out in a rash.

HH: [laughing]
JB: You know, these are standards that are common that have been embraced from the bottom up, not from the top down, and the curriculum will be created just as it always has been. And by the way, the curriculum we have today for those that are concerned about Common Core state standards, I’m glad they are interested in the subject because the curriculum we have today is, in many places, is politically correct. It is horrendous. And so it’s totally how you teach to those standards is still something as it should be driven by state and local school districts and by policy makers at the state level.

HH: Now, I have been through, I’ve been through some of them. For example, the first grade core requires students to count to 100 and to count 10 in either direction from any given number. Very elementary obvious standards, but I wasn’t able to find online history standards and English standards. I actually think science and math standards are not going to be very controversial. Do you think the controversy comes out of what will be required to be known on history and on English?
JB: Well, there are history standards and there, the science standards has just come out. We don’t, the foundation that I had doesn’t have an opinion on the science standards. There are mixed feelings about that. The standards that are developed today at their fullest are, and the ones that will be driving its excellence, are language arts, reading in effect and math. And I think in both those cases, given the fact that curriculum is established, developed at the local level, um, that having these higher standards is really critical. If you can’t read intelligently and you can’t calculate math, it’s hard to take it to the next level and all the other courses.

HH: Okay. Now, let me run through some of off stated criticisms I’ve found in the really couple of weeks that I’ve been looking at this. Number one, very facial but our friends on the left like to say that your friend, and some would say your protégé Senator Marco Rubio, is opposed to the Common Core, Jeb Bush is favoring the Common Core, that must mean great controversy. What’s the story there?
JB: [laughing] I’ve not talked to Marco about it. I read a letter that was partially published in the St Peat Times and in that he expressed concern about national curriculum. I have the exact same concern. I also have concern about the federal government coercing states to embrace this. Florida has embraced it ,and has a Florida Senator he should be happy with the fact that this has been vetted by the legislature, and may have been vetted when he was speaker of the house. The Governor of the state supports it and it’s a state driven initiative along with the other states. So, I don’t think there’s big differences. I’ve not talked to him about it, but a lot of people, as I said including President Obama for some odd reason, who should know better in his State of the Union address, brought the fact that this was a national curriculum. It isn’t. There will be all sorts of meetings by which teachers will be able to teach towards those standards.

HH: I just want to repeat because that is, I hear, you know, people like Bill Larkin will be in charge of our national curriculum and. . . .
JB: God forbid.

HH: God forbid [laughing]. Yes, so, we’re clear on that. Number two, Michelle Malkin and others, I think, I think it’s Michelle, worry about federal data mining, part of this giant accumulation of data on kids and parents and families. What’s your reaction to that criticism, Governor Bush?
JB: You know, it’s, I can see why people get riled up if opinion leaders like Michelle Malkin or, I don’t know if she said that, but other people like that, have made that case. The data that exists will continue to be where it exists right now in each state. The State of Florida has a state data bank. Every state has one. Ours is pretty advanced and we have used it to be able to help teachers develop strategies to make sure that struggling readers learn how to read and kids understand, or don’t understand math concepts, get the remedial help they need. So, there’s not going to be any change in that. There’s no federal data base in the sky somewhere that we’re these people are going to be mining information that jeopardizes the American families.

HH: Alright, let me get to the core objection. Okay. Let me get to the core objection, the one that I think has the most meat to it. Yesterday, I had on Bill Bennett and Bill said, hey, trust but verify, probably could be a kind thing, it’s not the solution. Then Jay Mathews and I don’t know if you’re familiar with Jay’s work at the Washington Post, but he’s a very fine education writer and he does a lot of good work and following reform, says look there are more important things out there that, that especially in the area of teacher training and recruitment we have to emphasize. So, the concern becomes does the debate over Common Core drain away energy from Ed reform? Does it block pre-empt or in any way supplant other educational reform that is at least as important as is Common Core standards?
JB: That’s a very interesting question. I’ve not thought about that as maybe as much as I should be thinking about that, but the simple fact is, for example, I’m huge supporter of school choice, both public and private. There’s nothing in this that jeopardizes school choice programs in the country or jeopardizes, frankly, the advocacy which I’d love to see a lot of this energy be placed and further reformed. High expectations, high standards is only one step towards a significantly better system that is less monopolized, less politicized, less unionized, more focused, more student centered. You have to start with the basic facts which is that we’re dumbing down our expectations for young people and there is a complacency because of that. Everybody thinks their children are doing fine, and we’re getting our lunch eaten by global competitors that make education a higher, higher priority. So, yes, maybe it takes away some interestness but all the critics of Common Core states, they—I’ve not seen them show up in the education reform fight

HH: I, ah,
JB: maybe focus energy in a positive way to bring about those changes state by state.

HH: Let’s talk about Ed reform generally for a second. By the way, I’m on the Great Hearts Arizona Public Charter Board so I know about public charter schools. I know what you did on public charters and you’re a big proponent of public charters. Bobby Jindal was on the program last week. I asked him about Detroit given his experience in help New Orleans rebuild. He said the most important thing was that they were able to post-Katrina start from scratch and rebuild a charter based public school system. Is that, is that what has to happen basically in every or in most urban education systems in America?

JB: I completely agree with that. I think this is a great opportunity for Detroit just as in post-Katrina it was in Louisiana. The Bush Administration liberated the schools and Bobby Jindal, to his credit, in the Louisiana legislature embraced that opportunity, and fully embraced it, and today new—kids in New Orleans have a far better chance of being successful in life because of it. Detroit has a similar kind of circumstance; declining student population, heavily unionized, all the focuses on the economic interests of the people inside the system. This is a great opportunity and they also have the model that was passed in the Michigan legislature to Governor Synder’s credit and the legislature there. So, this is a great opportunity. You are absolutely right.

HH: Now, I also don’t know if you’ve read the book, Word Hard. Be Nice. by Jay, but it’s about the KIPP program and where they get their teachers from. And it turns out, and Mitt Romney said this throughout the campaign, frequently on this show, when they studied it in Massachusetts, and maybe you found the same thing in Florida, it’s all about the teachers. If you get great teachers with energy and commitment to every student, who love being in the classroom, it works. What, what did you discover about recruiting teachers in Florida that is part of the education reform movement?
JB: So we found that the old idea of certification, meaning that you go to 4-year education—become an ed major and you get your 4-year degree that that’s the means by which you’re going to find the best teachers wasn’t true. The best teachers in Florida and I think across the country come from every walk of life and so we opened up our system. The so-called alternative certified teachers that, I’m not quite sure why we used that term other than it was not the traditional name, there are more teachers certified in that method which is all sorts of means than it is the traditional schools of education which haven’t delivered enough teachers, certainly enough quality teachers into the classroom. So, good training, high expectations, a culture of—a culture of where kids—people believe that kids can learn. The KIPP model and many other models show that this can work. I think, rewarding teachers for serving in the underserved areas and for teaching in the classes and in the math and sciences classes where there are big shortages and having greater learning games for like-kind students, all those things when you’re rewarding high performance and you’re paying for that and rewarding it and holding it up high as a great example of the kind of things that can happen will yield more positive results. That’s the lesson across the country for sure.

HH: Let me wrap this up former Governor Jeb Bush by talking about education reform in the context of politics. It’s not a trick question about 2016, because I’m asking it about 2014 and 2016. How much should Republicans be talking about education reform and to what degree, sort of a percentage of importance on the issue set does ed reform seem to you to be in 2014 and 2016?
JB: Well, it’s, it’s not a federal government issue so on the one hand it’s a difficult issue because Republicans will legitimately, should be, for local control and state efforts driving this change, But, on the other hand, if we’re going to be successful becoming the majority party, we have to embrace the idea that a lot of people aspire to a better life. And, today in America, particularly for younger people that aspiration requires a quality education, and today in America, too many kids don’t get it. If we want to connect with the aspirational class irrespective of color of one’s skin, level of income, family structure, people that aspire to a better life, then we better be on the side of tearing down the walls of resistance that make it harder for those kids in those families to succeed. So, my mission –if I had a mission statement for our success going forward it is to get beyond being legitimately critically of the Obama Administration’s policies and have a positive agenda for sustained economic growth where everybody can benefit, which means they have t have the tools to do it and education is by far the most important thing that we should focus on in that regard.

HH: Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, I know the new website is highercorestandards.org. Thanks for spending time with me and helping me unravel this. I appreciate it very much.
JB: I appreciate your interest in it.
 

 If this is in Florida schools it must be forbidden and burned, and the people that support it fired.

We are under continuous attack from the far left, who I call the Communist block. You might use milder terms such as Fascist, Progressive or Liberal - but the facts are very clear the path leads to a Communist takeover of our schools, our children and then our nation.  To view this item online, visit http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/parents-told-to-pay-to-see-school-curriculum/   Parents told to pay to see school curriculum Controversy over Texas program that described Tea Party as terrorist escalates.

May 4, 2013 by John Griffing

John Griffing is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and is published across an array of conservative media, both in the realm of commentary and research.

A controversial school curriculum management system in Texas that once included a description of the Boston Tea Party as terror, and has referenced Islamic terrorists as freedom fighters, now has been found to be trying to charge parents hundreds of dollars to see the instructional materials being used by their own children, officials said.

However, under Texas Education Code Chapter 26, all parents have the undisputed right to see any and all instructional materials used in state classrooms.

The program is CSCOPE, and Amy Zimmerman, a mother in the Collinsville Independent School District, asked to see the 7th grade CSCOPE science lessons used between September 2012 and May 2013, citing her “parental right” under state law.

However, instead of the materials, what she got was a letter from an attorney for the district requiring the payment of $770 so see the materials.

Gerry Miller, an attorney with expertise in education law, said that doesn’t appear to align with the law.

“Suffice it to say the statute is mandatory because of the use of the word ‘shall,’ it is therefore incumbent on the school to comply with the parent’s request. No provision is made for payment by a parent as a ‘condition precedent’ to obtaining the teaching material,” Miller said.

“If a school district demands fees, especially exorbitant fees, to review teaching material, such action has the effect of invalidating the statute’s intent,” he said. “I would fully expect a judge to apply the statute as written and order the school to provide the information without charge.”

Miller also explained an added complication would be that property taxes have been used to support CSCOPE, which has faced heavy criticism by parents, teachers and legislators, culminating in hearings that revealed serious academic deficiencies in the areas of math, science and English, as well as what many critics believe is an agenda-driven bias in social studies content that promotes a negative view of America.

WND has reported on lessons claiming the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act, and lessons requiring students to design flags for a new communist country.

Teachers also have told WND:

•Lessons are not matched to grade level; a ninth-grade lesson asks students to circle capital letters in a sentence.
•One social studies lesson teaches that capitalism is obsolete and communism is the best economic system, using a diagram that shows a man climbing a ladder towards communism.
•A third-grade lesson defines American “equality” as “fair share.” Competing definitions that include “equality under the law” or “equal opportunity” are not discussed.
•Muhammad is portrayed as a social justice crusader. There is no mention of his marriage to a young girl or his beheading of indigenous population groups.
•Political parties are taught from what critics claim is a subjective and left-leaning perspective, e.g. Democrats “benefit each individual” while Republicans “favor big business.”
WND has also recently acquired lessons covering the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, teaching students that “medicine” and “food” are “rights,” and not a matter of personal responsibility.

Students who do not answer that “medicine” and “food” are “rights” have their answers marked as incorrect, sources report.

Other controversial lesson content includes a science lesson that instructs students to set things on fire in the middle of class and also lessons that promote anorexia and mercy death, according to Mary Bowen, a curriculum expert and teacher of 30 years who corresponds with WND.

CSCOPE also has come under fire for its secrecy and lack of transparency, forcing teachers and districts to sign “user agreements” – what whistleblowers say amount to “gag orders.” Teachers are exposed to legal liability if they share lesson content or other class materials with the general public, and threats of termination have been reported by teachers who attempt to engage parents about controversial CSCOPE content.

One result of legislative hearings was the suggestion for changes in user agreements, but sources have told WND that existing users are not included in any changes; they are only for new groups who want to sign up.

A CSCOPE program advising on the privacy requirements for the content notes users are required to not allow “unauthorized users to have online access … or gain permanent possession of … content.”

© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.
Click here to print.
 
, and the people that support it fired.

We are under continuous attack from the far left, who I call the Communist block. You might use milder terms such as Fascist, Progressive or Liberal - but the facts are very clear the path leads to a Communist takeover of our schools, our children and then our nation.

To view this item online, visit http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/parents-told-to-pay-to-see-school-curriculum/

Parents told to pay to see school curriculum

Controversy over Texas program that described Tea Party as terrorist escalates

May 4, 2013 by John Griffing

John Griffing is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and is published across an array of conservative media, both in the realm of commentary and research.

A controversial school curriculum management system in Texas that once included a description of the Boston Tea Party as terror, and has referenced Islamic terrorists as freedom fighters, now has been found to be trying to charge parents hundreds of dollars to see the instructional materials being used by their own children, officials said.

However, under Texas Education Code Chapter 26, all parents have the undisputed right to see any and all instructional materials used in state classrooms.

The program is CSCOPE, and Amy Zimmerman, a mother in the Collinsville Independent School District, asked to see the 7th grade CSCOPE science lessons used between September 2012 and May 2013, citing her “parental right” under state law.

However, instead of the materials, what she got was a letter from an attorney for the district requiring the payment of $770 so see the materials.

Gerry Miller, an attorney with expertise in education law, said that doesn’t appear to align with the law.

“Suffice it to say the statute is mandatory because of the use of the word ‘shall,’ it is therefore incumbent on the school to comply with the parent’s request. No provision is made for payment by a parent as a ‘condition precedent’ to obtaining the teaching material,” Miller said.

“If a school district demands fees, especially exorbitant fees, to review teaching material, such action has the effect of invalidating the statute’s intent,” he said. “I would fully expect a judge to apply the statute as written and order the school to provide the information without charge.”

Miller also explained an added complication would be that property taxes have been used to support CSCOPE, which has faced heavy criticism by parents, teachers and legislators, culminating in hearings that revealed serious academic deficiencies in the areas of math, science and English, as well as what many critics believe is an agenda-driven bias in social studies content that promotes a negative view of America.

WND has reported on lessons claiming the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act, and lessons requiring students to design flags for a new communist country.

Teachers also have told WND:

•Lessons are not matched to grade level; a ninth-grade lesson asks students to circle capital letters in a sentence.
•One social studies lesson teaches that capitalism is obsolete and communism is the best economic system, using a diagram that shows a man climbing a ladder towards communism.
•A third-grade lesson defines American “equality” as “fair share.” Competing definitions that include “equality under the law” or “equal opportunity” are not discussed.
•Muhammad is portrayed as a social justice crusader. There is no mention of his marriage to a young girl or his beheading of indigenous population groups.
•Political parties are taught from what critics claim is a subjective and left-leaning perspective, e.g. Democrats “benefit each individual” while Republicans “favor big business.”
WND has also recently acquired lessons covering the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, teaching students that “medicine” and “food” are “rights,” and not a matter of personal responsibility.

Students who do not answer that “medicine” and “food” are “rights” have their answers marked as incorrect, sources report.

Other controversial lesson content includes a science lesson that instructs students to set things on fire in the middle of class and also lessons that promote anorexia and mercy death, according to Mary Bowen, a curriculum expert and teacher of 30 years who corresponds with WND.

CSCOPE also has come under fire for its secrecy and lack of transparency, forcing teachers and districts to sign “user agreements” – what whistleblowers say amount to “gag orders.” Teachers are exposed to legal liability if they share lesson content or other class materials with the general public, and threats of termination have been reported by teachers who attempt to engage parents about controversial CSCOPE content.

One result of legislative hearings was the suggestion for changes in user agreements, but sources have told WND that existing users are not included in any changes; they are only for new groups who want to sign up.

A CSCOPE program advising on the privacy requirements for the content notes users are required to not allow “unauthorized users to have online access … or gain permanent possession of … content.”

© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.
Click here to print.
 

 St. Johns County, FL School Attorney Upchurch to Board: No Student Led Prayer at Graduation Allowed!

10 April 2013

By Bill Korach www.thereportcard.org Kim Kendall, a St Johns County Mom with children in schools is supporting students and their parents in the St. Johns County School system who have requested that the students lead the class in prayer at graduation. This is their right according to the First Amendment of the Constitution.

[Editors note: This looks like another attack on Christianity and the moral fiber of our nation.   I fear this is the intent of Common Core, that is to influence the destruction of the nations moral fiber, as well as encouraging our kids to worship government and making them stupid enough to not know better. I see that New York is about to ban Charter schools, because government can’t dictate what the kids are taught.

I find it curious that the families of St. Johns county would allow an overturn of Christian values held since the founding of the area, The name St. John is explicitly Christian given the name by the Spanish in late 1680 or thereabouts, the original area name being “San Juan del Puerto”, a Christian mission at the mouth of the “St Johns” river.

I suggest that St. Johns county and school board restore the legacy of their name sake, and find a new attorney, the one you have is not worthy.]
 

 Parents nationwide are expressing shock and outrage:

10/09/12      From a friend - original unk

Parents nationwide are expressing shock and outrage over a "partnership" between the ACLU, its allies who advocate homosexual behavior, and a growing numberof public school officials that aims to conditionchildren—starting in kindergarten—to embrace homosexual behavior.

Bolstered by powerful allies like theNational Education Association (NEA),advocates of homosexual behavior seek an endto parents' traditional rights to raise theirchildren with their own values. Many publicschool classrooms have become "ground zero"in the battle. For example, some elementaryschools now present:

A lesson plan and school assembly forchildren as young as seven, titled "CootieShots," which depicts a young boy in hismother's high heels, declaring he will beheadanyone who laughs when he is "queen."Mandatory "diversity" assemblies thatoften include presentations by advocates ofhomosexual behavior and even clergy, whoclaim that the Bible strongly supportssame-sex relationships.

"Family life education" and "respectingdifferences" workstrp_ps which include havenchildren participate in role play depictingsame-sex families.

A Gay, Lesbian and Straight EducationNetwork (GLSEN) video, titled It's Elementary,which trains elementary school teachers how toadvance the homosexual agenda in class. Inone scene, a fifth grader says, "Some Christiansbelieve that if you're gay, you'll go to hell, sothey want to torture them and stuff." In anotherscene, an eight-year-old girl states that thosewho believe what the Bible says abouthomosexual behavior are "stupid"; then shereceives lavish praise from her teacher"You can't know you'regay unless you try!"

Homosexual indoctrination accelerates in highschool, where normal, healthy heterosexual
 

Home     Top