You have probably read many times that the Common Core standards are not related in any way to the federal Department of Education. Don’t believe it.
Reader Laura H. Chapman investigated the marketing campaign paid for by the U.S. Department of Education:
“Federal policies are so alien to the educational thought and practice that USDE has funded a full-scale marketing program in an effort to secure compliance with these measures.
“For compliance with Race to the Top, for example, USDE’s offered a $43 million grant to IFC International, a for-profit consulting and public relations firm. The grant was for two purposes: (a) to create the Reform Support Network (RSN) enabling Race to the Top grantees to learn from each other, and (b) to promote promising practices for comparable reforms nation-wide. The grant included $13 million for nine subcontractors, each with specialized skills for RSN’s marketing campaign.
“The sophistication of the marketing campaign is suggested by one of the largest subcontracts— $6.3 million to Education First. The founding partner is Jennifer Vranek, a former advocacy expert with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. She and others working for Education First helped a number of states apply for the RttT competition. They have fashioned PR campaigns for the Common Core State Standards in many states. The firm’s website includes a sample of the firm’s communication and advocacy services: “Outreach and public-engagement strategies and activities; strategic communications planning; reports, white papers and articles designed to synthesize, explain and persuade; development of communications tools, including marketing materials, web copy, press releases, and social media content.” (Education First, website 2014).
“Here is one example of RSNs work. In December 2012, anonymous contract writers for RSN published a portfolio of suggestions for marketing key policies in RttT. “Engaging Educators, A Reform Support Network Guide for States and Districts: Toward a New Grammar and Framework for Educator Engagement” is addressed to state and district officials. It offers guidance on how to persuade teachers and principals to comply with federal policies
“Engaging Educators then packs about 30 communication strategies, all portrayed as “knowledge development,” into four paragraphs about “message delivery options.” These include “op-eds, letters to the editor, blast messages, social media, press releases,” and regular in-house techniques (p. 4). RSN writers emphasize the need to “Get the Language Right,” meaning that messaging should focus on improving student learning (p. 6).
“Among the other suggested techniques for messaging are teacher surveys, focus groups, websites with rapid response to frequently asked questions, graphic organizers placed into professional development, websites, podcasts, webinars, teacher-made videos of their instruction (vetted for SLO compliance), and a catalog of evocative phrases tested in surveys and focus groups. These rhetorical devices help to maintain a consistent system of messaging. RSN writers also suggest that districts offer released time or pay for message delivery by “teacher SWAT teams that can be deployed at key junctures of the…redesign of evaluation systems” (p. 9).
“The marketing campaign calls for the use of “teacher voice groups” as advocates for reforms. A “teacher voice group” is RSNs name for a non-union advocacy collective funded by private foundations favoring pay-for-performance. Five voice groups are mentioned by name. All have received major funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: Teach Plus ($9.5 million), Center for Teacher Quality ($6.3 million), Hope Street Group ($4.7 million), Educators for Excellence ($3.9 million), and Teachers United ($942, 000). Other foundations are supporting these groups. For example, Teach Plus receives “partner” grants from eight other foundations including the Broad, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Joyce, and several investment firms.
“Of course, the marketing campaign for the Common Core is not limited to this paper trail to federal funds. Another marketing program can be seen this USDE website, that just assumes teachers should be implementing the CCSS… http://www.ed.gov/blog/tag/respect/
“Foundation money is also keeping the marketing campaign in place. For example, a website operated by Student Achievement Partners—key players in writing and first stage marketing of the CCSS— is made possible with funds from the GE and Helmsley Foundations see http://achievethecore.org/get-involved.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“A “teacher voice group” is RSNs name for a non-union advocacy collective funded by private foundations favoring pay-for-performance. Five voice groups are mentioned by name. All have received major funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: Teach Plus ($9.5 million), Center for Teacher Quality ($6.3 million), Hope Street Group ($4.7 million), Educators for Excellence ($3.9 million), and Teachers United ($942, 000). Other foundations are supporting these groups. For example, Teach Plus receives “partner” grants from eight other foundations including the Broad, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Joyce, and several investment firms.”
Employee “voice” as a substitute for actual power or leverage has a long history in the US private sector. It’s really fascinating that foundations along with their government “partners” have adopted that same frame (with better marketing). It’s not new at all.
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/herman/reports/futurework/conference/relations/nonunion.htm
LikeLike
All that money could have been better spent actually funding libraries, nurses, librarians, wrap around services, counselors, smaller class rooms, etc. What a waste of cash.
LikeLike
Teachers United is the one here in WA State that always gets called in to testify when the legislators and ed deform groups need a (fake) “teacher voice” to say what they want it to say, so that they can claim “teachers” had a “say”. Gates funds them well. We also have LEV – the ironically named League of Education Voters – which can always be counted on to be anti-public schools/pro-charters, or whatever Gates and Co want them to be. Sadly, our Gates-supported media (Seattle Times and their Gates-funded Ed Lab) never reveals conflicts of interest, and dutifully repeats whatever their rich masters tell them.
LikeLike
Unfortunately media bias is not limited to the Seattle press. It’s pervasive, from Time’s failure to disclose the ranking of their reporters, by benefit to advertisers (Gawker) to the publication of AP’s puff pieces on Gates’ overseas spending but, none about the $2 bil. spent to corporatize public education.
And, to find out about the Gates’ children attending schools that reject standardized curriculum and testing, don’t look for it in city newspapers.
LikeLike
You do know that the billionaire own all the media in this nation, which is why the truth about the schools in the 15,880 districts is n where t b found.
Go to Bill Moyers and listen to this Big money /BIg Media
http://billmoyers.com/segment/john-nichols-and-robert-mcchesney-on-big-money-big-media/
LikeLike
Cross-posted at http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Laura-Chapman-The-Federal-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Diane-Ravitch_Foundation_Media_Message-150313-155.html#comment537119
with the comment taken from other posts here (embedded links in the commentate OEN)
Want to know more about the Common Core?
At the Diane Ravitch blog: In a guest post for Jonathan Pelto’s blog, veteran educator Ann Policelli Cronin explainswhy the Common Core standards are a waste of time. For one thing, they were never tested on real students in real classroom, and no one can honestly say that they will prepare students for college or careers. That is sheer speculation or wishful thinking. What’s more, she writes, there is much in the Common Core ELA standards that is just plain wrong and/or incomprehensible.
“First of all, the Common Core standards have never been tested in the real world for accuracy or effectiveness. No one has any idea if a high score on a Common Core-aligned standardized test will result in a student being successful in college or in a career. No work has been done to determine if those tests actually measure the capabilities and skills that professors in higher education and people successful in a wide variety of careers want college students and professionals to have. Those people were never asked. The standards were simply decided by employees of testing companies. All that we know for sure is that the Common Core standards are skills that testing companies can measure on their tests.
“The Common Core standards are also neither “high” nor “clear”. The Connecticut State Standards for English Language Arts are much more rigorous than the Common Core Standards for English Language Arts and have a strong and deep research base that is totally lacking with the Common Core. The Common Core standards require a way of teaching students to read and to write that has long been discredited. Not only will the Common Core approach severely restrict students’ development as readers and writers, it will discourage students from even wanting to become readers and writers. The Common Core standards are definitely not rigorous, as teachers who have required rigor of their students know.
“As for the Common Core standards being “clear”, they are not. There are 42 English Language Arts standards crammed with almost 200 different skills to be taught in each academic year. They are a mishmash of skills without a plan of developmental appropriateness and devoid of logic as to why some of them are in one grade and others in another grade. In a recent article in Education Week (September 23, 2014), Mike Schmoker reports that Gerald Graff, the former president of the professional organization of college English professors (Modern Language Association) said that most of the Common Core standards are unnecessary and nonsensical. For curriculum expert Robert Shepherd, the Common Core standards are “just another set of blithering, poorly thought-out abstractions.” Schmoker challenges any of us to make sense out of this 8th grade Common Core standard: ‘It’s gobbeldy gook.’ ”
And there is this:
Daniel McGraw tells the sad story of what happened to the GED after Pearson took it over and aligned it with the Common Core: Passing rates plummeted.
“The Common Core standards are a waste of time. For one thing, they were never tested on real students in real classroom, and no one can honestly say that they will prepare students for college or careers. That is sheer speculation or wishful thinking.
LikeLike
Opps… here is the inter I wrote for the cross post comment. it is boldface at the site, and cottons an embedded link to this blog.
“Some posts, below from the Diane Ravitch blog, where you can put in the SEARCH FIELD ‘Common Core’, and find a plethora of info…. know the truth about the biggest scam to end the autonomy of the professional educator in the classroom practice, and replace it with mandates from the businessmen and oligarchs that are privatizing Education.
LikeLike
I also worry about the near-universal promotion of Common Core among powerful people in foundations, business and government. We just don’t have a great track record in this country with really powerful people admitting error or changing course, particularly if doing so involves political, reputation or career risk.
They didn’t leave themselves a whole lot of room for modification/course adjustment when they sold it so hard. I think that leads to a natural human tendency to “double down” where we’ll end with “the Common Core can’t fail, it can only BE failed!”
Duncan said yesterday in Chicago that there was no problem because “millions” of kids are taking these tests. Mission Accomplished!
“Millions of kids” could be mandated to do all sorts of things. That has absolutely nothing to do with whether what they’re doing is worthwhile or a good value for public schools.
LikeLike
I’ve said this from the very beginning of the CCSS and high-stakes testing. WHO FUNDS POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS? Answer: YOU ALREADY KNOW.
LikeLike
Thanks, Laura for the info!
LikeLike
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/state-senate-oks-bill-to-include-test-scores-in-teacher-evaluations/
Last year, Washington refused to link test scores to teacher evaluations and we lost the NCLB waiver.
This year, 3 Senate Democrats- Jeanne Kohl-Welles, David Frocket and Jamie Pederson- allowed a bill to tie test scores to teacher evaluations out of the Senate. Shame on them. The excuse: Fear of loosing federal funding and language was changed to allow local unions decide percentage of test scores to be used in teacher evaluations.
Stand for Children is touting this bill as funding education.
We will see what happens with the Governor and House, but I’m afraid loss of federal funding will be used as a fear tactic. Meanwhile, the legislature has failed to meet their paramount duty to fund education and are under a court order to do so.
LikeLike
Thanks, Laura.
Educators for Excellence claims they limit donations, from 1 donor, to 10% of their budget. Gates has given them $3 mil., which tells you the size of the total budget.
Do the teachers who join (described by N.Y. blogger, Assailed Teacher, as social climbers) get paid?
At least one teacher of another organization facilitating Common Core, the Ohio Educator Leader Cadre, claims she gets paid nothing, which seems inconsistent with the oft-touted entrepreneurial spirit that is behind the corporatization and privatization of education.
LikeLike