Once adopted by the NH Legislature, there is Opting Out of Common Core becomes very difficult. The Legislature needs to give careful consideration and review to Common Core before adopting it. 

Education in NH should not be reduced to optimizing the receipt of federal  dollars.

Jefferson said that "liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves," yet Common Core proposes to federal ize our public school system and administer it from the top.  The purpose of general education is to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom.  Jefferson recommended that we "divide every county into hundreds of such size that all the children of each will be within reach of a central school in it."   Jefferson was not advocating Centralized federal instruction that removes parents and communities from controlling what children are taught.

Rep. Gile promised on the House floor that S.B. 48 had nothing whatsoever to do with Common Core.  Yet, at the Committee of Conference for this same bill Sen. Stiles indicated that the U.S. Dept. of Education has made our No Child Left Behind Waiver contingent upon the successful passage of both SB 48 (establishing priority and focus schools) and HB 142 (establishing teacher evaluations).

In other words, the Waiver for the failed NCLB federal program ushers in the new federal  program, Common Core.  The U.S. Dept. of Education wants proof that the Common Core infrastruction is being implemented. 

Common Core does not improve education in NH.  Common Core is expensive and completely untested.  It comes in invasive data-mining and sharing of private student information.  It transforms education from a straight forward acquisition of "knowledge and skills" to a performance based system, demonstrating "behaviors" and "being cooperative" with new workforce training. 

Remember, the purpose of general education is to enable every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his freedom, not to facilitate a State-managed work force.

The U.S. Dept. of Education wants the inclusion of language in S.B. 48, making Title 1a funds  contingent upon the implementation of their Common Core infastructure:

IV. “Focus school” means a low performing school THAT ACCEPTS FEDERAL FUNDS FROM TITLE IA OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT that has the largest within-school gaps between the highest achieving subgroup or subgroups of students and the lowest-achieving subgroup or subgroups of students or, for a high school, has the largest within-school gaps in graduation rates.

V. “Priority school” means:

(a) A school THAT ACCEPTS FEDERAL FUNDS FROM TITLE IA OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT that is among the lowest performing 5 percent of schools in the state based on the achievement of all students on the statewide assessment pursuant to RSA 193-C and which, when measuring the achievement of all students, has demonstrated a lack of progress on the statewide assessment over 3 years; or

(b) A high school with a graduation rate of less than 60 percent over 3 consecutive years.
 

Establishing "Focus" and "Priority" Schools will allow and require State remediation, further undermining Local control.  Do parents and communities want Education without any Representation?  Where's the transparency?  Do parents understand the significance of these changes to Local control?

A Committee of Conference also changed language in HB 142:

III. School boards shall adopt a teacher performance evaluation [policy] SYSTEM, with the involvement of teachers and principals, for use in the school district. A school board may consider any resources it deems reasonable and appropriate, including any resources that may be provided by the state department of education. In this paragraph, “teacher” shall have the same meaning as in RSA 189:14-a, V.

A "system" is interactive and more complicated than just written "policy."  The goal is to ensure that districts accept a Statewide teacher evaluation system, removing Local control over the election of public school teachers.  Electing teachers and contracting with them is our right under P1A6 of the NH Constitution.  Where's the transparency?  Do parents understand the significance of these changes to Local control?

Proponents deceptively insist that Common Core is:

----- "voluntary," yet alll public school students are expected to take these nationally aligned assessments whether their district "voluntarily" implements Common Core or not.

----- "state-led,"  yet two Washington DC trade organizations own the copyright for the standards.

----- "rigorous," yet it is not internationally benchmarked.

Please EMAIL your State Senators, asking them to defeat Common Core by NOT passing SB 48 and HB 142. 

Do NOT to implement Common Core without a FISCAL analysis of the costs that are being downshifted to districts. There's no fiscal note on SB 48.  Examine the cost of Common Core aligned textbooks, computers, wifi, teacher retraining, etc.


District 01          Jeff Woodburn (d)      Jeff.Woodburn@leg.state.nh.us
District 02         Jeanie Forrester (r)     jeanie.forrester@leg.state.nh.us
District 03         Jeb Bradley (r)            jeb.bradley@leg.state.nh.us
District 04         David Watters (d)        david.watters@leg.state.nh.us
District 05         David Pierce (d)          david.pierce@leg.state.nh.us
District 06         Sam Cataldo (r)          casac@worldpath.net
District 07         Andrew Hosmer (d)     andrew.hosmer@leg.state.nh.us
District 08          Bob Odell (r)              bob.odell@leg.state.nh.us
District 09          Andy Sanborn (r)       andy.sanborn@leg.state.nh.us
District 10          Molly Kelly (d)            molly.kelly@leg.state.nh.us
District 11          Peter Bragdon (r)      peter.bragdon@leg.state.nh.us
District 12          Peggy Gilmour (d)     peggy.gilmour@leg.state.nh.us
District 13          Bette Lasky (d)          bette.lasky@leg.state.nh.us
District 14          Sharon Carson (r)     sharon.carson@leg.state.nh.us
District 15          Sylvia Larsen (d)       sylvia.larsen@leg.state.nh.us
District 16          David Boutin (r)         dboutin1465@comcast.net
District 17          John Reagan (r)        john.reagan111@gmail.com
District 18          Donna Soucy (d)       donna.soucy@leg.state.nh.us
District 19          Jim Rausch (r)           james.rausch@leg.state.nh.us
District 20          Lou D'Allesandro (d)  dalas@leg.state.nh.us
District 21          Martha Fuller Clark (d)  martha.fullerclark@leg.state.nh.us                                                               
District 22          Chuck Morse (r)       chuck.morse@leg.state.nh.us
District 23           Russell Prescott (r)  represcott@represcott.com
District 24           Nancy Stiles (r)        nancy.stiles@leg.state.nh.us



 

Friday, April 12, 2013

LOS ANGELES - The concerns about the federal Common Core curriculum and the national standards it would impose on local schools reached the level of the Republican National Committee Friday and was passed unanimously.

RESOLUTION CONCERNING COMMON CORE EDUCATION STANDARDS

WHEREAS, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are a set of academic standards, promoted and supported by two private membership organizations, the National Governor’s Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) as a method for conforming American students to uniform (“one size fits all”) achievement goals to make them more competitive in a global marketplace, (1.) and

WHEREAS, the NGA and the CCSSO, received tens of millions of dollars from private third parties to advocate for and develop the CCSS strategy, subsequently created the CCSS through a process that was not subject to any freedom of information acts or other sunshine laws, and never piloted the CCSS, and

WHEREAS, even though Federal Law prohibits the federalizing of curriculum (2.), the Obama Administration accepted the CCSS plan and used 2009 Stimulus Bill money to reward the states that were most committed to the president’s CCSS agenda; but, they failed to give states, their legislatures and their citizens time to evaluate the CCSS before having to commit to them, and

WHEREAS, the NGA and CCSSO in concert with the same corporations developing the CCSS ‘assessments’ have created new textbooks, digital media and other teaching materials aligned to the standards which must be purchased and adopted by local school districts in order that students may effectively compete on CCSS ‘assessments’, and

WHEREAS, the CCSS program includes federally funded testing and the collection and sharing of massive amounts of personal student and teacher data, and

WHEREAS, the CCSS effectively removes educational choice and competition since all schools and all districts must use Common Core ‘assessments’ based on the Common Core standards to allow all students to advance in the school system and to advance to higher education pursuits; therefore be it

RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee, as stated in the 2012 Republican Party Platform, “do not believe in a one size fits all approach to education and support providing broad education choices to parents and children at the State and local level,” (p35)(3.), which is best based on a free market approach to education for students to achieve individual excellence; and, be it further

RESOLVED, the Republican National Committee recognizes the CCSS for what it is– an inappropriate overreach to standardize and control the education of our children so they will conform to a preconceived “normal,” and, be it further

RESOLVED, That the Republican National Committee rejects thecollection of personal student data for any non-educational purpose without the prior written consent of an adult student or a child student’s parent and that it rejects the sharing of such personal data, without the prior written consent of an adult student or a child student’s parent, with any person or entity other than schools or education agencies within the state, and be it finally

RESOLVED, the 2012 Republican Party Platform specifically states the need to repeal the numerous federal regulations which interfere with State and local control of public schools, (p36) (3.); and therefore, the Republican National Committee rejects this CCSS plan which creates and fits the country with a nationwide straitjacket on academic freedom and achievement.  

References:

1. www.corestandards.org

2.  Federal Law 20 USC 1232a-Sec. 1232a. and The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Pub.L. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27, 20 US.C. ch. 70.

http://us-code.vlex.com/vid/prohibition-against-federal-control-191...

3.  http://www.gop.com/rnc_counsel/

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; THEY MAY APPOINT TEACHERS IN EVERY STATE, COUNTY, AND PARISH, AND PAY THEM OUT OF THEIR PUBLIC TREASURY; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. ... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

James Madison, On the Cod Fishery Bill, granting Bounties.
House of Representatives, February 3, 1792.

20 U.S.C. § 3403 : US Code - Section 3403: Relationship with States

(a) Rights of local governments and educational institutions
It is the intention of the Congress in the establishment of the Department to 
protect the rights of State and local governments and public and private 
educational institutions in the areas of educational policies and administration 
of programs and to strengthen and improve the control of such governments 
and institutions over their own educational programs and policies. The 
establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the authority 
of the Federal Government over education or diminish the responsibility for 
education which is reserved to the States and the local school systems and 
other instrumentalities of the States.

(b) Curriculum, administration, and personnel; library resources
No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer 
of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such 
officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, 
program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational 
institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, 
or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other 
instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, 
except to the extent authorized by law.

(c) Funding under pre-existing programs
The Secretary shall not, during the period within eight months after May 4, 1980, 
take any action to withhold, suspend, or terminate funds under any program 
transferred by this chapter by reason of the failure of any State to comply with 
any applicable law requiring the administration of such a program through a 
single organizational unit.

What is the Common Core?

The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) is a set of national K-12 standards developed primarily by a nonprofit called Achieve, Inc., in Washington, D.D. ostensibly under the auspices of the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).  The Common Core was developed without state legislative authority.

Common Core:

Centralized Educational Control Destroys Federalism

By hooking states into the Common Core with Race-to-the-Top grant funds and linking the Common Core to No Child Left Behind waivers, the federal government is acting as the enforcer to herd states into the one-size-fits-all Common Core – in spite of the fact that three federal laws prohibit the federal government from guiding the educational curriculum of the states. Not only the U.S. Constitution, but state constitutions maintain that education is a power reserved to the states and their citizens.  Yet, the Common Core can not be changed by state legislature or state school boards.

Common Core:

Education Without Representation or Parental Input

Taxpayers pay hundreds of billions in state and local taxes per year for K-12 education. Yet, the Common Core guarantees taxpayers and parents NO VOICE in math and English content standards of their states and thus no control over what children will learn in these subjects. In fact, most states agreed to implement the Common Core before the standards were even released, all without state legislative approval or even public hearings. 

Common Core:

Intrusive Data Tracking

The Common Core ensures that the states build expensive high-tech systems that will track student performance and other personal data and provide that information to the federal government. “Hopefully, some day, we can track children from preschool to high school and from high school to college and college to career.” – U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, from a June 8, 2009 speech

Common Core:

Exorbitant Price Tag

The unfunded mandates associated with the Common Core are open-ened in areas such as professional development, new textbooks and instructional materials, testing, and data-tracking systems. A recent study shows implementation will cost $16 billion or more nationwide, with about 90 percent of this paid for by states and local districts, despite the $4.35 billion Race to the Top grants. The Common Core fuels a money pot of tax dollars going to pre-selected vendors.

Where Things Stand

In the Nation– Only a few states have turned a cold shoulder to the federal grants and waivers requiring Common Core.

·      Texas, Nebraska, Alaska refused to participate.

·      Virginia pulled out of the Common Core and Minnesota has refused to sign on to the math standards.

·      Utah has withdrawn from the assessment consotium aligned with the Common Core and is holding legislative hearing on withdrawal from the Common Core itself.

·      South Dakota has slowed down the implementation of the Common Core with the passage of a bill that requires pubic hearings around the state.

·      Indiana’s Senate Education Committee voted to delay implementation of the Common Core until after it was reviewed by a study committee.

Pushing Back– Activists, as they discover the truth about Common Core, are ramping up efforts to reclaim local control over education.  Movements are afoot in Colorado, Georgia, Maine, Missouri and New Hampshire.  The issue received extensive attention in prominent author Stanley Kurtz’s new book, Spreading the Wealth: How Obama is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities, and national education commentators are beginning to marvel a the Common Core pushback. The undercover effort to impose the Common Core is beginning to wither in the light of day.

Sub-standard Standards of the Common Core

English Language Arts (ELA) Standards– Dr. Sandra Stotsky of the University of Arkansas served on the Common Core Validation Committee but refused to sign off on the ELA standards because of poor quality, empty skill sets, the de-emphasis on literature, and low reading levels, such as 8^th grade levels for 12^th grade students.  Even the Forham Institute – a Common Core proponent – admitted that some states already had better standards than the Common Core.

Math Standards– Dr. James Milgram of Stanford University, the only mathematician on the Common Core Validation Committee, refused to sign off, stating, “It’s almost a joke to think students [who master the common standards] would be ready for math at a university.”

Next on the Common Core Agenda– Expect the feds to aggressively push adoption of national standards in science and social studies, just as they have in English and math.

Take Action

Tell your legislators and school board to stop the Common Core.