The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were developed by lobbyist organizations located in Washington, D.C. with significant funding from private interest groups, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation1. These organizations and donors collaborated to publish a joint report entitled, “Benchmarking for Success” in December 2008, which laid out education policy goals at the federal, state, and local level to ensure students were prepared for “Global Competitiveness”, “College and Career Readiness”, and “21st Century Skills”. These policies materialized through the Race to the Top (RttT) federal grant program in February 2009. RttT is a “competitive grant”, where states “competed” by committing to develop and adopt “common standards… (with) a significant number of states”, “common, high-quality assessments… (with) a significant number of states”, “fully implement(ing) a statewide longitudinal data system… accessible to… key stakeholders… (and) researchers…”, “Improve(ing) teacher and principle effectiveness based upon performance” by “measuring student growth” and “(using) evaluations, at a minimum, to inform decisions regarding… compensating, promoting, and retaining teachers and principals”2. States also earned points under the grant for creating laws, regulations, and policies favorable to the education reforms listed within the grant criteria2.
In June 2010, the Ohio State Board of Education voted to adopt the “College and Career Ready” common standards and common assessments required to “compete” for RttT grant funding. Interestingly, the only standards which met the requirements were the “Common Core State Standards”, which were in the process of being developed by the National Governors Association, the Chief Council of State School Officers, and Achieve, Inc… the same organizations which had published Benchmarking for Success3. The final versions of the CCSS were not published until June 2, 2010, the day AFTER the second RttT grant application deadline, ensuring that no state had the opportunity to thoroughly review the content of the final standards before committing to adopt and implement them in the hopes of receiving some RttT funding.
Ohio was awarded $400 million dollars in RttT funding4 (to be paid out over a four year period) but it has come at a significant expense to our system of locally controlled public schools, independent private schools, and state autonomy. In fact, the adoption of national standards and assessments has resulted in essential obliteration of local control, regardless of the oft-claimed statement that “Ohio is a local control state!” Ohio’s law says that a local school board may adopt the state standard or a higher standard but each public school and charted, non-public (aka independent/private school) in Ohio is required to use the state assessments for graduation5. The new assessments adopted under RttT are directly aligned to the Common Core State Standards6, essentially requiring every school district in the state to adopt the CCSS to pass the tests and look good on the state report card.
Additionally, public school teachers are now evaluated based upon how their students perform on these new, untested assessments, with as much as 50% of their evaluation based on the students’ assessments. Even if a teacher wanted to include something outside of the standards, the threat of a student doing poorly on the test, bringing down the teacher’s evaluation score and possibly leading to termination, ensures that most will have to teach directly to the tests, like it or not.
Chartered non-public schools in Ohio are also affected by the new PARCC assessments. Ohio is one of the only states in the nation which requires private schools to use the state assessment for their graduation requirements. Although chartered private schools are not required to adopt the state standards, they have pointed out that taking the new state assessments will require them to change their course of study and spend more time teaching to the test.
Finally, the RttT grant has made national standards and assessments a reality. No longer do states retain direct control over the standards, now private lobbyist groups hold the copyright!3 If changes need to be made, locally elected representatives can no longer make them, an inaccessible private board and lobbyist organizations are now in charge of directing the scope of children’s learning. No longer can states create standards that reflect the diversity of their populations, cultures and circumstances, while enriching their students’ experiences. The RttT grant specifically notes that “a state may supplement the standards with additional standards, provided that the additional standards do not exceed 15% of the state’s total standards for that content area.” Fifteen percent is token “control”! This is a significant component in the ongoing argument over the value of cursive handwriting and whether or not it merits being a part of a state’s “additional 15%” in English Language Arts standards. (Printing and cursive handwriting are not included at any point in the Common Core State Standards although computer skills such as keyboarding are incorporated from kindergarten.)
As emphasized in my 2012 campaign, I firmly believe that education decisions should remain in the hands of parents and taxpayers at the local school district level. By participating in the RttT federal grant, adopting the privately owned and developed CCSS and associated PARCC Assessments, Ohio has voluntarily signed away our ability to direct public education at a state and local level in exchange for funding equating to less than 1% of Ohio’s annual education budget! And, these rights have been handed to unelected lobbyists and private interest groups who are unaccountable to those whom they claim to serve. For these reasons, I held over fifty educational forums on the CCSS throughout district seven and surrounding areas during my first sixteen months on the State Board of Education. I provided written testimony to the Ohio House Education Committee in November 2013 and personally met with at least twenty state representatives, regardless of their party affiliation, about the unforeseen dangers in the CCSS. It is my intention to continue researching and bringing awareness to the issues within the Common Core.
1. http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/0812BENCHMARKING.PDF
(Inside cover, page 2)
2. Race to the Top Executive Summary, February 2009 (pages 7, 8, 9, 11)
3. www.corestandards.org/public-license (last viewed June 19, 2014)
4. Setting the Pace: Expanding Opportunity for America’s Students under Race to the Top,
March 2014 (page 3)
5. Ohio Revised Code: 3301.079, 3301.0710, 3301.0712
6. Ohio RttT Application 1, January 19, 2010 (page 50: “Ohio has entered into Memoranda of Understanding with three multi-state consortia that are jointly developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments aligned with the Common Core set of K-12 standards.”)
www.parcconline.org/implementation (last viewed June 25, 2014) “This section includes resources for state and district leaders in the process of implementation, which outline some of the obstacles to implementing the new standards and aligned assessments.”
In June 2010, the Ohio State Board of Education voted to adopt the “College and Career Ready” common standards and common assessments required to “compete” for RttT grant funding. Interestingly, the only standards which met the requirements were the “Common Core State Standards”, which were in the process of being developed by the National Governors Association, the Chief Council of State School Officers, and Achieve, Inc… the same organizations which had published Benchmarking for Success3. The final versions of the CCSS were not published until June 2, 2010, the day AFTER the second RttT grant application deadline, ensuring that no state had the opportunity to thoroughly review the content of the final standards before committing to adopt and implement them in the hopes of receiving some RttT funding.
Ohio was awarded $400 million dollars in RttT funding4 (to be paid out over a four year period) but it has come at a significant expense to our system of locally controlled public schools, independent private schools, and state autonomy. In fact, the adoption of national standards and assessments has resulted in essential obliteration of local control, regardless of the oft-claimed statement that “Ohio is a local control state!” Ohio’s law says that a local school board may adopt the state standard or a higher standard but each public school and charted, non-public (aka independent/private school) in Ohio is required to use the state assessments for graduation5. The new assessments adopted under RttT are directly aligned to the Common Core State Standards6, essentially requiring every school district in the state to adopt the CCSS to pass the tests and look good on the state report card.
Additionally, public school teachers are now evaluated based upon how their students perform on these new, untested assessments, with as much as 50% of their evaluation based on the students’ assessments. Even if a teacher wanted to include something outside of the standards, the threat of a student doing poorly on the test, bringing down the teacher’s evaluation score and possibly leading to termination, ensures that most will have to teach directly to the tests, like it or not.
Chartered non-public schools in Ohio are also affected by the new PARCC assessments. Ohio is one of the only states in the nation which requires private schools to use the state assessment for their graduation requirements. Although chartered private schools are not required to adopt the state standards, they have pointed out that taking the new state assessments will require them to change their course of study and spend more time teaching to the test.
Finally, the RttT grant has made national standards and assessments a reality. No longer do states retain direct control over the standards, now private lobbyist groups hold the copyright!3 If changes need to be made, locally elected representatives can no longer make them, an inaccessible private board and lobbyist organizations are now in charge of directing the scope of children’s learning. No longer can states create standards that reflect the diversity of their populations, cultures and circumstances, while enriching their students’ experiences. The RttT grant specifically notes that “a state may supplement the standards with additional standards, provided that the additional standards do not exceed 15% of the state’s total standards for that content area.” Fifteen percent is token “control”! This is a significant component in the ongoing argument over the value of cursive handwriting and whether or not it merits being a part of a state’s “additional 15%” in English Language Arts standards. (Printing and cursive handwriting are not included at any point in the Common Core State Standards although computer skills such as keyboarding are incorporated from kindergarten.)
As emphasized in my 2012 campaign, I firmly believe that education decisions should remain in the hands of parents and taxpayers at the local school district level. By participating in the RttT federal grant, adopting the privately owned and developed CCSS and associated PARCC Assessments, Ohio has voluntarily signed away our ability to direct public education at a state and local level in exchange for funding equating to less than 1% of Ohio’s annual education budget! And, these rights have been handed to unelected lobbyists and private interest groups who are unaccountable to those whom they claim to serve. For these reasons, I held over fifty educational forums on the CCSS throughout district seven and surrounding areas during my first sixteen months on the State Board of Education. I provided written testimony to the Ohio House Education Committee in November 2013 and personally met with at least twenty state representatives, regardless of their party affiliation, about the unforeseen dangers in the CCSS. It is my intention to continue researching and bringing awareness to the issues within the Common Core.
1. http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/0812BENCHMARKING.PDF
(Inside cover, page 2)
2. Race to the Top Executive Summary, February 2009 (pages 7, 8, 9, 11)
3. www.corestandards.org/public-license (last viewed June 19, 2014)
4. Setting the Pace: Expanding Opportunity for America’s Students under Race to the Top,
March 2014 (page 3)
5. Ohio Revised Code: 3301.079, 3301.0710, 3301.0712
6. Ohio RttT Application 1, January 19, 2010 (page 50: “Ohio has entered into Memoranda of Understanding with three multi-state consortia that are jointly developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments aligned with the Common Core set of K-12 standards.”)
www.parcconline.org/implementation (last viewed June 25, 2014) “This section includes resources for state and district leaders in the process of implementation, which outline some of the obstacles to implementing the new standards and aligned assessments.”