Archives for the month of: November, 2013

An insider at the NYC Department of Education defends Mayor-Elect Bill de Blasio’s plan to support schools instead of closing them.

For nearly the past dozen years, Mayor Bloomberg has followed an agenda of closing schools and opening schools.

This insider, anonymous for obvious reasons, says de Blasio is right:

“The New York Post has already begun its propaganda campaign against Mayor-elect de Blasio’s plans to improve New York City’s schools. An honest assessment of the data demonstrates that under Mike Bloomberg’s 12 years of leadership student outcomes in New York City remained flat. Of course, the DOE has run an intense PR campaign designed to conceal this fact, but the data are clear. The NY Post wants those failed policies to continue. De Blasio has promised a new approach.

Today’s NY Post has an article claiming that PS 114, a “school de Blasio saved is back on the fail list.” The NY Post regrets that while under Bloomberg’s policies the school “would normally face the threat of closing” under de Blasio the school will now be supported on a path to improvement. Which approach makes sense?

Let’s begin with the evidence used to claim the school is failing. The solitary data point mentioned by the NY Post is the report card grade of “C” the school received this week. 85% of this grade is based on test scores. The report cards compare student performance across years in a manner the tests were not designed to do. The reports cards also do not account for the statistical noise in test results, meaning that schools whose test scores are statistically indistinguishable nonetheless receive very different grades. The very premise the report card grade is based on is false.

PS 114 has a “peer index” in the lowest 4% of all city schools. Peer indexes are supposed to compare only similar schools to each other, as everyone agrees it would be unfair to compare schools that work with disadvantaged and struggling students to schools that work with only selected students. But the data show that the report cards fail to make fair comparisons. Schools with lower peer indexes receive lower average grades. Schools that receive “F” grades have a peer index 24% lower on average than schools that receive “A” grades. Peer indexes lump together very dissimilar schools and peer indexes do not really control for incoming student characteristics. The grades are bogus and penalize schools that work with disadvantaged students.

Test scores are a very narrow part of what makes a great school. Other data show that this school has many strengths. The students who graduate PS 114 are more successful than the average in passing core courses in middle school. A review of the school by educational experts conducted less than a year ago noted that:

the school’s focus on citywide instructional expectations is evident in literacy, math, teacher effectiveness, and parental involvement action plans…This purposeful drive toward improvement leads to relevant modifications that elevate learning for all students such as embedding specific literacy skills in instructional tasks and prolonged units of study to build confidence and capacity for overcoming the challenge of solving complex math problems… The entire school community contributes to the direction of the school and supports the principal’s vision for improved student outcomes…Parents interviewed expressed knowledge of the school’s annual goals and espouse, “The school is empowering”. Hence, parents state that they work alongside teachers as dedicated volunteers and help set policy for school improvement… The school engages parents in a variety of activities and informational meetings therefore, parents have a good understanding of school-level data and are highly informed as to their role in supporting the academic as well as social-emotional well-being of their children. Ongoing dialogue and established partnerships among stakeholders center on student learning and individual success. Concerted efforts to engage parents in the educational process lead to parents viewing themselves as important partners in the progress of the school as such they perpetuate high academic and social-emotional learning expectations for their children.

Despite attempts by the New York Post and the DOE to obfuscate reality, it is evident that the letter grade is a poor measure of school success. Thankfully, Mr. de Balsio has said he will stop the practice of assigning meaningless letter grades to schools and would create a “war room” of experienced educators to work collaboratively with schools on improvements. Happily for the student and parents of PS 114, there is a bright future for the school community.

We now have the opportunity to discard failed policies and to implement better ones, ones that will help schools improve. How should we go about doing this?

We must do a better job of sharing information about school with parents and students. Stop giving schools meaningless letter grades and made-up report cards. Share a broad array of information about schools transparently and clearly. This should include, in addition to how students do on tests as compared to similarly situated students, such information as arts offerings, clubs, years of teacher experience, suspension rates, % of students leaving the school prior to natural transition point, and videos of classes for parents and students to view. Develop a website and apps that allow parents and students to weigh this information at the level of priority important to them. Websites like this already exist, such as this one that allows the user to rank graduate programs based on individual priorities. Publish test score data using ranges to account for levels of statistical significance and include multiple years of data to account for meaningless year-to-year fluctuations. Create a system so that parents and students can write reviews of schools and publish that information on the website after a peer vetting and review process.

We must do a better job of analyzing school data and working to improve New York City schools. Instead of using data for political and ideological ends let’s start using data, only the statistically significant and meaningful data that is, to support and improve schools.

Analyze the data to see if some schools have large gaps between course pass rates and Regents exam performance (including students who took a course but did not sit for the Regents exam).

Support such schools in clarifying grading practices. Analyze the data to see if some schools have large gaps between graduation rate and student persistence in college.

Support such schools in increasing the rigor of their academics and in building life-skills of students. Analyze the data to see if some schools lose, perhaps as a deliberate strategy to make their numbers look good, a large proportion of their students from each cohort.

Support such schools in working with the every student who enters their doors and in lowering their attrition rate. Provide every school community with a data narrative identifying the long-term, multi-year trends and support each school in working to shift practices if necessary.

Analyze the data on student characteristics to ensure that each school has a student body representative of the diversity of New York City. The Office of Student Enrollment should be held accountable for preventing the clustering of specific sorts of students in specific schools.

Provide schools with continuous feedback on how they are doing throughout the course of the year. Do not grade schools with a single letter, months after the school year ends. No teacher would ever use such a grading practice in the classroom. Use data in positive ways to identify specific teachers and departments that have outstanding results year after year. Use technology platforms to have those teachers and departments share their practices and lessons across the city. Advocate with the State Department of Education to allow students flexible options, in addition to standardized exams, to meet graduation requirements. This should include portfolios, demonstrations, and presentations. Let’s leave behind the zero-sum competitive game that has characterized the last dozen years in the DOE. We need to leverage the outstanding professionals and phenomenal practices that exist in every school in the city to collaboratively provide every student with a great education.

The Federal GAO released a report sharply criticizing the D.C. voucher program.

According to Stephanie Simon in Politico.com:

“The voucher program in Washington D.C. is riddled with failings and does not maintain adequate controls to ensure that participating private schools are physically safe or academically accredited, according to an investigation by the U.S. General Accounting Office.”

The GAO recommended closer monitoring of the voucher program by Secretary Arne Duncan.

“The GAO report, which was completed earlier this fall but released only today, found that the D.C. Children and Youth Investment Trust Corporation gave “incomplete and untimely information about participating schools” to low-income families using the vouchers to enroll in private schools. The directory of participating schools, which the Trust publishes, “lacks key information about tuition, fees, and accreditation,” so parents “cannot make fully informed school choices,” investigators wrote.

“The report also found an incomplete vetting of participating schools, so that federal scholarship dollars might be going to pay for “students to attend schools that do not meet standards required by law.” It noted that the Trust was failing to conduct mandatory health, safety and building inspections of the schools. It found flaws in the lottery used to award the vouchers to students. And it found that the Trust consistently failed to file financial reports on time….

“The Education Department responded with an eight-page letter.” it said it takes the issues raised by the report “very seriously”….

According to Simon, “the Trust is working on a system to verify that teachers of core academic subjects in the private schools have bachelor’s degrees. The Trust is also moving to require evidence of financial stability and sound fiscal practices before a private school is cleared to accept federal dollars through the voucher program.”

Amid massive parent protests against Common Core testing in grades 3-8, NY Commissioner John King announced the state’s opposition to K-2 testing, which was never mandated.

He said, “”We support the drive to prohibit standardized testing of pre K through 2nd grade students.”

That’s a step forward. Now let’s hope that he takes the next logical step and eliminates the dysfunctional educator evaluation program and throws out the state’s disastrous Common Core tests for grades 3-8. Any testing program that declares 70% of the children of the state to be failures is on its face absurd. If educators are declared “ineffective” when their students fail, then Commissioner King must be held accountable for this massive failure.

But let’s be glad for the end of the indefensible K-2 bubble tests.

Charles Parrish of Wayne State University submitted the following proposal:

 

 

Surgeons United who Care for America (SUCA*)

 

This is to announce the establishment of a new approach to surgery in the United States: Surgeons for America (SUCA). Following in the high-heeled footprints of Michelle Rhee and Wendy Kopp, we will employ the model of Teach for America (TFA). That model involves the recruiting bright young graduates of our best colleges and universities, providing them with 5 or 6 weeks of training, and then sending them out to provide high-value surgical operations for patients at low cost. They will replace older surgeons who have become set in their ways and have lost the ignorant, enthusiastic arrogance of youth. We prefer to recruit young people with bachelor degrees in the sciences or business, but we will consider candidates from the humanities on a case-by-case basis. Our particular concern in the selection process for candidates from the humanities is whether they have, or can quickly develop, a callous sense of indifference to patient pain and outcomes.

 

Part of both our 5 and 6 week courses in surgery, is a one-week course in the finances of Charter Surgery Urgent Care Clinics. All our trainees learn how to do such things as purchase a building through a newly formed for-profit firm and then to lease it back to the Charter Surgery Urgent Care Clinic, which is of course as 501(c) 3 non-profit organization. The SUCA surgeons should be officers of both the for-profit and non-profit organization in order to maximize their income and get the maximum tax advantages. All materials for use by the clinic (furniture, tables, computer, stirrups for gynecological exams, operating instruments, etc.) can be leased or bought outright from the for-profit firm.

 

As a small concession to experience (of which we are usually contemptuous), there will be a different between the training in the two tracks. Those who enroll in the 5-week program will be only qualified to perform certain simpler operations (vasectomies, D&Cs, appendix, Gall bladder and similar organ removals, skin and other simple cancer operations, penile and breast implants, etc.). Those who go through the 6-week course will be qualified for all operations, from brain cancer to hangnails. Those in the 5-week course will use the textbook Surgery for Dummies. The 6-week course will use Advanced Surgery for Dummies.

 

After three years as a Surgeon for America, a SUCA graduate will be encouraged to move on into their life career with warm memories of their youthful experience as a surgeon and with a dandy new citation in their curriculum vitae. We do not want these young surgeons to become stale (as so many of the older, experienced surgeons they are replacing are). Many of these young surgeons will go into hedge fund management or other Wall Street professions. Their experience as a surgeon trained to develop moral ambiguity and indifference to the to the pain they inflict through their novice approach to surgical procedures prepares them particularly for such professions.

 

SUCA was initiated by a grant from the Gates Foundation from funds freed up when Bill finally grew bored with funding charter schools and getting no results and being excoriated by Diane Ravich.

 

*Pronounced “Suck-A”, as in: “You are a suckaa.”

 

 

When I returned from the hospital, I had a large stack of mail.

Among my mail was a tiny illustrated book, the kind you usually buy for 8-year-olds, called “From Once There Was a School to A School Was Once There.” It was written by Michael Mugits and illustrated by Anna Liu-Gorman.

The book tells what happens to a beloved neighborhood school after cuts in the budget, increased enrollment in charter/private/parochial/home schools, a tax cap levy, mandated teacher evaluation by test scores, Race to the Top mandates, layoffs and school closures. This little book contains this sad and terrible story of what is deceptively called “school reform” in only 25 illustrated pages.

On the cover is Longshore Elementary School, surrounded by swings and a sliding board and trees. On the back cover is the same building, now called Senior Center of Longshore. The swings and slide are gone. So is the school.

It is a very touching, very moving book. It tells the story of the destructive policies that have destroyed schools in community after community. In the back is a helpful list of acronyms.

If you want anyone to quickly understand the war against public schools, send them this little book. It is $8.95.

Here is a quote, the one that ends the book:

“Years ago as a boy

I recall with great joy

Everything I had learned

And the future I had yearned.

All of the hopes and dreams,

teachers, classmates and teams.

I looked at the building and lawn.

The playground was long gone.

So were the echoes of laughter,

The big sign above the front door

read Senior Center of Longshore.

I muttered in despair…

A School Was Once There.”

You can get copies by contacting the author, Michael Mugits, at mmugits@hotmail.com.

He is a school district administrator in upstate New York. The illustrator is an art teacher and a Nationally Board Certified Teacher.

Things have gone badly for New York state officials at each of their community forums. Parents and educators have turned out in large numbers, and have overwhelmingly opposed the state’s mandates about Common Core and testing. Frustrated locals have booed and jeered in anger and gotten nothing but bland assurances that the state is listening.

The next meeting on Long Island will be held on November 26 at Eastport-South Manor High School and will be live-streamed.

State officials listen to the outrage but continue to insist that nothing of consequence will change. That makes parents and educators even angrier. Public officials are public servants, and they should not only listen but respond positively to their constituents. They should remember that they were appointed to serve the public, not to coerce them to follow orders.

The number of suburban districts in New York State dropping out of the state’s Race to the Top program continues to grow, largely because of parent concern about the data-mining of their children’s private records. These districts received relatively small amounts of money in exchange for accepting many mandates.

This article sums up the current situation:

Twenty-eight school districts in the Lower Hudson Valley have dropped out of the Race to the Top program in recent weeks, largely due to state plans to share student records with a privately run database, a survey has found.

Four more districts will consider the move within a week, and several others may do so in time.

The Lower Hudson Council of School Superintendents surveyed 76 districts, including special act districts, in Westchester, Rockland, Putnam and Dutchess counties. Of the 53 districts that responded, more than half have pulled out of Race to the Top since last month — forfeiting mostly small federal grants. Another 10 districts never took part in the program.

“Our concerns have to do with how the state can guarantee thedata will be secure in the future,” said South Orangetown Superintendent Kenneth Mitchell, president of the superintendents group.

The state Board of Regents wants to send about 400 categories of student records, starting with names, to inBloom, a nonprofit group, so that educators can better analyze student needs. But local school officials and parents have expressed grave concerns over how the encrypted data — from disciplinary to health to income records — could be used down the line.

In addition, the following information comes from the Lower Hudson Council of School Superintendents:

Opting out

Districts that dropped out of Race to the Top: Bedford, Brewster, Byram Hills, Carmel, Croton-Harmon, Dobbs Ferry, Eastchester, Elmsford, Garrison, Greenburgh Graham, Hastings, Hendrick Hudson, Hyde Park, Irvington, Lakeland, Mahopac, Mamaroneck, Mount Pleasant, Pearl River, Pelham, Pleasantville, Pocantico Hills, Rye Neck, Somers, South Orangetown, Spackenkill, Tuckahoe and Yorktown.
Districts that never joined RTTT: Ardsley, Blind Brook, Briarcliff Manor, Bronxville, Chappaqua, Edgemont, Harrison, Putnam Valley, Rye City and Scarsdale. 
Source: Lower Hudson Council of School Superintendents

Twenty-eight school districts in the Lower Hudson Valley have dropped out of the Race to the Top program in recent weeks, largely due to state plans to share student records with a privately run database, a survey has found.

Four more districts will consider the move within a week, and several others may do so in time.

The Lower Hudson Council of School Superintendents surveyed 76 districts, including special act districts, in Westchester, Rockland, Putnam and Dutchess counties. Of the 53 districts that responded, more than half have pulled out of Race to the Top since last month — forfeiting mostly small federal grants. Another 10 districts never took part in the program.

“Our concerns have to do with how the state can guarantee the data will be secure in the future,” said South Orangetown Superintendent Kenneth Mitchell, president of the superintendents group.

The state Board of Regents wants to send about 400 categories of student records, starting with names, to inBloom, a nonprofit group, so that educators can better analyze student needs. But local school officials and parents have expressed grave concerns over how the encrypted data — from disciplinary to health to income records — could be used down the line.

“We haven’t gotten real clear answers,” said Hendrick Hudson Superintendent Joseph Hochreiter, whose district opted out Wednesday night. “In the absence of certainty, districts are opting out and losing trust.”

On Wednesday, lawyers representing a dozen New York City parents filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the state from shipping records to the inBloom.

Illinois is the only other state fully committed to inBloom, which is struggling to find support for a national database of student records.

Districts have dropped out of Race to the Top to avoid having to choose a state-sponsored data “portal” that will connect to inBloom’s database. But state officials insist that districts have to contribute much of the same data.

“There is a sense that the student privacy issue has awoken a sleeping giant in parents, even more so than testing,” said Susan Elion Wollin, president of the Bedford school board, which withdrew Wednesday, and president of the Westchester-Putnam School Boards Association. “We all want what’s best for the kids, but people need to hear what the state is doing to accommodate concerns.”

Districts that dropped out of Race to the Top still have to use the Common Core learning standards and tests.

Source: Lower Hudson Council of School Superintendents

 

Marc Epstein, a career educator in the New York City school system, wrote an earlier post on Mayor de Blasio’s task of “cleaning the stables.” He refers to the Herculean task of cleaning the Augean stables. This was a dirty job, thought to be impossible, but Hercules succeeded. We hope that Mayor de Blasio will as well.

Marc Epstein writes:

Cleaning The Stables – Part II

Now you tell us?

After 12 years of subjecting the nation’s largest school system to a series of extreme makeovers, Merryl Tisch, Chancellor of the Board of Regents, the body charged with oversight of the public schools, informed us that the third major reorganization of the New York City public schools engineered by Mayor Bloomberg was an abject failure. “Me, if I were going to take over the school system, I would look heavily to change the networks,” she opined.

That her remarks received scant coverage from the vaunted New York press should come as no surprise to those of us who have lived through this nightmare. That’s because in the eyes of New York’s power elite, Michael Bloomberg was simply “too big to fail.”

Just what are those “Networks” Tisch referred to? For New Yorkers who exited the public school system long ago to educate their children in private and parochial schools, or to the new immigrants who find this discussion indecipherable, here is an explanation.

When the state legislature gave the mayor control over the schools over a decade ago, it was unconditional. There was no oversight from Albany, no strings attached to his powers. There was still a board of education, but he appointed the majority, who served at his pleasure and renamed “the Panel on Education Policy,” to signal its strictly advisory nature. If any of his appointees dared to disagree with his orders, he fired them immediately. When he doubled the operating budget and instituted a series of radical reorganizations, those on the sidelines either cheered or remained silent. As far as New York’s political class was concerned, when it came to the nation’s largest school system, it was a case of “I don’t want her, you can have her, she’s too fat for me,”

Bloomberg entered office as one of the wealthiest men in America. So, cloaked with an aura of invincibility unparalleled for a mayor, he crafted a “teachers and their union vs. our kids” narrative that was part of a nationwide campaign instigated by a handful of philanthropists with very, very, deep pockets and the desire to turn public education on its head.

He could proceed with his agenda with the knowledge that there’s nothing more soporific than stories recounting administrative failures and the destruction of a bureaucracy, especially when the bureaucracy had been twisted into a pretzel by five decades of political manipulation.

He began his assault on public education by cleverly disarming the teachers union with a seemingly exorbitant pay raise that increased entry-level salaries dramatically. It ensured a bumper crop of young teacher recruits, while granting a modest raise for senior teachers.

The dismantling of the school system rested on a few simple principles. First, declare as many schools, especially high schools, as failed institutions and posit that it was the fault of the faculty and administration.

An incessant drumbeat aided by his own news media company and the tabloids owned by his fellow billionaires Rupert Murdoch and Mortimer Zuckerman hammered away at the teachers as a parasitic class who needed to be held responsible for the failure of inner city minorities, and at their union for protecting them from deserved termination by manipulating convoluted contracts and obsolete civil service law.

Second, he refused to place those allegedly “failed” employees who numbered in the thousands, in his reconstituted “new” schools, or in other schools with vacancies. He supposedly “empowered ” principals to manage their operating budgets by changing the formula for hiring faculty, so the practice of charging a principal the average salary price for a teacher regardless of seniority was eliminated.

The result has been a cohort of headless horsemen teachers roaming the system as they rotate schools week to week collecting full salaries and acting as substitutes in order to make their lives as demeaning as possible.

My school has been without a librarian for 6 years because the principal can’t “afford” to hire a librarian. So a well-appointed library can’t circulate books or be open for students to do research or study, while well-qualified librarians from “failed” closed schools wander the system as substitutes!

Instead of covering classes with substitutes who cost the city $150 per day, he opted for regular teachers without permanent assignments who cost the city about $500 per day, while continuing to hire new teachers!

This “business” practice was extended to include guidance counselors and assistant principals as well. It may well be the first time the largest city bureaucracy in the 50 states was staffed like a satrap in the Medo-Persian style of the 5th century BCE.

Don’t go looking for editorials of outrage or news stories documenting this madness. After all, it’s impossible that Bloomberg accumulated close to $30 billion dollars by being an inept administrator or a particularly malevolent individual, is it?

The editorialists would rather condone this policy than scrutinize it. After all, if Bloomberg ran his business in this manner, why shouldn’t he be allowed to fire whomever he wants whenever he wants to?

The third leg of the strategy was to create a new managerial class of principals and assistant principals who had as little classroom experience as possible and no attachment to the school “culture.” Marketed as the “best and the brightest,” many of them were little more than hatchet men who were given orders to bring back as many teacher scalps as possible. Mayor De Blasio will find that they represent one of the many “poison pills” Mayor Bloomberg has bequeathed him.

Traditionally, the principal was the principal educator in the schoolhouse. Today, the new principal charged with weeding out as many teachers as possible simply had to be a bully. I spent over a month in a small school that experienced a staff turnover of 90% in just four years under this kind of management.

If you work in the system and have been around schools run with this sort of thuggishness, you’re not surprised when you encounter supervisors with little more than a 6th grade reading and writing level. I recall a heavily tattooed female assistant principal who was crude beyond measure and the last person you would want overseeing the education of your child. I doubt that she could compose a cogent essay of 500 words.

The new managerial class, purportedly trained in the best of Jack Welch’s managerial strategies, is suffused with uneducated barbarians who were elevated to positions of great responsibility. But incapable of educating, they simply pillage the teacher cohort.

Part four called for decoupling the neighborhood school from the community. He used the bait and switch tactic. Parental “choice” was the marketing technique to give parents the illusion that they had hundreds of choices instead of the stale neighborhood school for their child’s education.

With hundred of new small schools with the name “preparatory” or “academy” attached to it, how was a parent to know one from the other? To call these schools by the names we associate with fancy private prep schools was nothing but a cruel joke. To further add to the illusion that they were being heard, a new paid position of parent coordinator was added to the school system.

While there are parent coordinators who put in a full day’s work, their purpose was to make the PTA irrelevant and allow the coordinator to act as the flak-catcher for an unhappy parent. With 250,000 kids now traveling all over the city in the name of “school choice,” what are the odds that a PTA will have a real voice in the average school far from home?

The fifth and final tactic was to create parallel institutions that obfuscated and duplicated duties in order to hide responsibility for administrative actions.

State law requires superintendants run schools, but it’s the Networks that Chancellor Tisch alluded to that have been telling principals how to run their schools, which is really quite odd because the Networks were supposed to be providers of educational services to the schools, not direct them. In fact the schools were given the choice to pick the Network they wanted to work with.

Opaque, parallel institutions are not the hallmark of a democracy. But as any student of history knows, they define the worst sorts of totalitarian enterprises. So there you have it, the destruction of what was once one of the finest education systems in the country in five easy pieces, pulled off with the assent or abdication of duty by the movers and shakers of New York.

Received as a comment:

 

As a 1st grade teacher with 28 students, I can empathize with the parents concerns;
however, we have been forced to become managers rather than teachers. The class is too large, there is little room to move around, the students must be kept working at all times in order to maintain control, and most of the work is repetitive and boring for them.
We do our best with what we have to work with. It is a challenge just to get up and go to work every day. This is my second year as a teacher which is long enough for me to see this is not my career of choice. I have creative and artistic talent that I cannot use and I am becoming desensitized to this job. I love working with children and I am sad to see how they are also being neglected by the system. I have just completed my online application for the Peace Corps.

When I worked in the U.S. Department of Education in the early 1990s, I was frequently reminded by colleagues and counsel that the Department was forbidden by law from interfering into what was taught in the schools. When the Department made grants to professional groups of teachers and scholars to create “voluntary national standards,” I made a point of never interfering in their work. I extolled the value of having standards that states, districts, and schools might find useful but made clear that the decision to use or not to use the standards was strictly voluntary. There was no thought that the Department could advocate for the standards or use money to bribe states to adopt them. That would have been illegal.

This is what the law says:

Public Law 103-33, General Education Provisions Act, sec 432,reads as follows:
“No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, [or] administration…of any educational institution…or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials…”
**********************************************************
But consider this: in 2009, the federal Department of Education used billions of dollars as part of its “Race to the Top” to lure states to adopt the Common Core standards. That is the reason that 45 or 46 states adopted them. According to Robert Scott, former commissioner of education in Texas, his state was asked to adopt the CCSS before they were finished. Since the Department of Education could not pay for the creation of the standards, the Gates Foundation stepped in and provided the necessary millions. In order to win a waiver from the absurd demands of NCLB, states had to agree to adopt the Common Core standards.
The role of the federal government in offering money to states to adopt the standards may well have been illegal. Secretary Duncan’s fervent advocacy for the standards at every opportunity may well be illegal. His denunciation and ridiculing of critics of the standards as Tea Party extremists belies his insistence that the federal government had nothing to do with the Common Core standards. If he had nothing to do with them, why is he their number one salesman? Why does he so stridently belittle their critics and mischaracterize their motives?
This is dangerous territory. These are questions that should be carefully considered by Congressional committees, not brushed aside as unimportant. No matter how frequently the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and major corporations publish ads to support the CCSS, there remains the question of whether the federal government acted legally and properly.
And we might ask those major corporations why they care so much about the Common Core and so little about the scandalous growth of child poverty in the United States. And we might ask whether they will pledge to stop outsourcing jobs to low-wage countries so that our high school graduates and college graduates are not only “career-ready” but have careers that exist for them once they graduate.