Missouri Judge Blocks Payment to Common Core Connsortium

9 Comments Post your own or leave a trackback: Trackback URL

1. Steve Cohen says:

   February 25, 2015 at 11:12 am

   Smarter Balance…isn’t that also a phony butter substitute? George Orwell didn’t know that half of it when he penned Politics and the English Language. Are people beginning to wake up to the “reform” scam? Let’s hope so.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. SF says:

   February 25, 2015 at 12:10 pm

   Just opted my children (grades 6 and 3) out of SB in Wisconsin. I would characterize the reply to my letter from the superintendent as something less than warm and receptive. I don’t believe the detailed rationale for our decision was appreciated.

   LikeLike

   Reply
   • Duane Swacker says:

     February 25, 2015 at 1:01 pm

     What is SB?

     What was your rationale?

     LikeLike

     Reply
3. Laura H. Chapman says:

   February 25, 2015 at 1:01 pm

   Below is the Constitutional basis for the Missouri ruling.

   No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,
   enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,
   or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

   Line three is the most relevant, together with “lay any Duty of Tonnage” in line one,
   The judge interprets as unconstitutional the fees that Missourt must pay to SBAC for the tests.

   Not a lawyer, but curious to know how this works on thousands of interstate agreements many called “partnerships” not obviously authorized by Congress.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. khomfeld says:

   February 25, 2015 at 3:12 pm

   I received the following communication from Missouri Dept of Elementary and Secondary Education regarding Smarter Balanced Membership Ruling–

   http://dese.mo.gov/communications/news-releases/statement-smarter-balanced-membership-ruling

   Wednesday, February 25, 2015

   This lawsuit deals with our membership in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium of states that are working together to create common tests. It does not impact the use of the tests themselves. We do not expect this to impact the administration of statewide tests this spring.

   The Department’s General Counsel is reviewing the ruling and considering our legal options.
   Editorial Section:
   Communications

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. Laura H. Chapman says:

   February 25, 2015 at 3:41 pm

   Thanks. Keep us posted. Curious that the opinion disconnects the use fof the tests from the fee (tax) for memberships that (presumably) gives Missouri the right to use the tests.

   The same reasonng could be used in multiple states and for PARCC. Will try to find some of the language in these contracts.

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. M says:

   February 25, 2015 at 4:51 pm

   So….now you have a situation where if they don’t “pay up” and can’t, but proceed, then other states will necessarily be covering “Missouri’s share” unless private money comes about and covers costs for the organization.

   I wonder if someone in another state could sue on that basis if a member organization receives duplicate services but one needs to pay and the other doesn’t, and the argument that their tax money is being forced to pay for another state’s services.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. Stiles says:

   February 25, 2015 at 7:16 pm

   I’ll defer to the lawyers, but as an old social studies teacher I don’t think think the judge’s ruling will be upheld on appeal.

   Perhaps I was wrong, but when I covered interstate compacts in my Constitution unit I presented it as a two part test. In earlier history, it wasn’t viewed this way but there were very few compacts. In modern times as there has been more interstate cooperation and a two part test emerged in constitutional law. First, was there an interstate agreement? Second, did it violate federal supremacy?

   Education is an area reserved to the states, so I think it would be very hard to show that the assessment consortia intrude upon federal supremacy or powers. I don’t think the old New England Common Assessment Project or the American Diploma Project were congressionally approved compacts, but I do not know for sure.

   If the view is that student assessment is a federal power, Congress authorized the assessment consortia when it approved ARRA.

   It’s also possible that the assessment consortia do not rise to the level of agreement or collaboration that meets the standard of an interstate compact as I don’t think there is a formal interstate contract that is ratified into the statutes of participating states.

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. Duane Swacker says:

   February 26, 2015 at 2:05 pm

   From one of the plaintiffs blog:

   http://www.fredsauermatrix.com/fred-sauer-prevails-in-common-core-suit-against-gov-nixon/

   Fred Sauer Prevails in Common Core Suit Against Gov. Nixon

   Date February 25, 2015

   Posted by molly

   FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
   Tuesday, February 24, 2015
   Contact: (314) 854-1305
   Missouri Court Rules That the “Interstate Consortium” Implementing Common Core Assessments Is Unconstitutional

   Jefferson City, Missouri. On February 24, 2015, the Circuit Court for Cole County, Missouri ruled in favor of Missouri taxpayer plaintiffs Fred N. Sauer, Anne Gassel, and Gretchen Logue in their constitutional challenge to one of two interstate entities charged with implementing Common Core.

   The Court blocked the payment of $4.3 million of Missouri taxpayer funds as membership fees to the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, an interstate organization that is implementing tests aligned to the Common Core State Standards (“Common Core”).

   The Court’s Judgment states: “The Court finds that the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium . . . is an unlawful interstate compact to which the U.S. Congress has never consented, whose existence and operation violate the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 10, cl. 3, as well as numerous federal statutes; and that Missouri’s participation in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium as a member is unlawful under state and federal law.”

   Plaintiff Fred N. Sauer stated: “The Court’s judgment recognizes the reality that the interstate ‘consortia’ charged with writing and implementing the tests aligned with Common Core are, and have always been, unconstitutional interstate compacts. Missouri should not be a member of such an illegal entity.”

   The Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that “No State shall, without the consent of Congress … enter into any Agreement or Compact with any other State.” In their lawsuit, Sauer, Gassel, and Logue contended that the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium is an unconstitutional compact because (1) it undermines the authority of the U.S. Congress, which has passed numerous federal statutes forbidding the establishment of a national curriculum; (2) it threatens the sovereignty of member States by forcing them to cede some of their control over educational policy within their borders to an interstate entity; and (3) it threatens the sovereignty of non-member States by seeking to create an educational “cartel” aligned with Common Core.

   LikeLike

   Reply