Resources

Overview  |  Content | Legality & Process

Cost to the StatesCentralized Governance

Privacy and Data Collection

Exiting the Common Core | Resolutions

Overview

Controlling Education from the Top, May 2012.  This 23 page white paper written by Emmett McGroarty and Jane Robbins and published by American Principles Project and the Pioneer Institute.  Common Core suffers from a number of systemic defects. We have already seen that the claims of state involvement and voluntariness are misleading at best. This paper demonstrates that other claims are doubtful as well, and that any state evaluating the Standards should consider the following problems: (1) quality and content of the Standards; (2) legality of the federal promotion of the Standards and assessments, and the usurpation of state autonomy; (3) governance of the Standards; (4) fiscal cost to the states; and (5) student and family privacy rights.

Reasons for Concern About the Common Core,February 2012.  This one page document lists reasons for opposing the Common Core State Standards.

Common Core State Standards What Parents, Taxpayers, and School Boards Should Know, March 2011. This four page flyer gives an overview of the Common Core State Standards and provides reasons for opposing them by refuting many of the promotional claims.

The Republican National Committee recently approved a resolution critical of the Comon Core (at their 2013 Spring Meeting).  Read it by following the link or jump to the resolutions section below.  You can share this resolution with your Republican lawmakers and use it as a model for your county and state party.

Content

Common Core Standards Still Don’t Make the Grade: Why Massachusetts and California Must Regain Control of Their Academic Destinies,commissioned by the Pioneer Institute and writtenbySandra Stotsky and Ze’ev Wurman.

Common Core State Standards Content, a collection of information and reviews of the ELA and Math content standards.

Testimony for a Hearing on a South Carolina Bill to Amend the 1976 Code, Sandra Stotsky, South Carolina General Assembly’s K-12 Education Senate Subcommittee.  February 8, 2012.  The quality of the ELA standards is addressed.

Testimony of Ze’ev Wurman, South Carolina General Assembly’s K-12 Education Senate Subcommittee, Feb. 19, 2012. This addresses the quality of the Common Core math standards, negative effect of Common Core on AP/higher level math, and the cost of implementation.

Testimony of Ze’ev Wurman, South Carolina General Assembly’s K-12 Education Senate Subcommittee, Feb. 22, 2012.  This addresses the quality of the Common Core math standards.

Legality & Process

The Road to a National Curriculum: The Legal Aspects of the Common Core Standards, Race to the Top, and Conditional Waivers,by Robert Eitel and Kent Talbert with contribution from Williamson Evers, commissioned by the Pioneer Institute and co-sponsored by American Principles Project, the Pacific Research Institute, and the Federalist Society, February 2012.  This discusses the illegal implementation of the Common Core Standards.

Education Revolution…Without the People?, EmmettMcGroarty, TownHall Magazine, March 2011.  This explains how the federal government and special interests foisted the Common Core onto the states.

Cost to the States

Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics: Analysis and Recommendations Report to the Legislature January 2011, Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Washington State

National Cost of Aligning States and Localities to the Common Core Standards, commissioned by American Principles Project and Pioneer Institute,co-sponsored by Pacific Research Institute, and written by AccountabilityWorks.  The estimated cost of implementing the Common Core is $17 billion.

State Costs for Adopting and Implementing the Common Core State Standards

Testimony of Ze’ev Wurman, South Carolina General Assembly’s K-12 Education Senate Subcommittee, Feb. 19, 2012. This addresses the quality of the Common Core math standards, negative effect of Common Core on AP/higher level math, and the cost of implementation.

Centralized Governance

2012 Brown Center Report on American Education:  How Well Are American Students Learning?  With a section on predicting the effect of the Common Core State Standards, Brookings Institution, Feb. 16, 2012.

Testimony of Jay P. Greene, U.S. House Subcommittee on Early Education, Elementary, and Secondary Education. Sept. 21, 2011.  The evidence indicates that the Common Core’s central management nature will impair innovation.

Closing the Door on Innovation Why One National Curriculum Is Bad for America:  A Critical Response to the Shanker Institute Manifesto & The U.S. Department of Education’s Initiative To Develop a National Curriculum and National Assessments Based on National Standards, May 2011.

 

Privacy and Data Collection

How the Feds Are Tracking Your Kids,Emmett McGroarty and Jane Robbins,New York Post, Dec. 28, 2011.  This addresses how the State Longitudinal Database Systems threatens child and family privacy.

Here is written testimony that Jane Robbins submitted to the Kentucky Senate for a data privacy bill they were considering.

 

Exiting the Common Core

A National Education Standards Exit Strategy for the States, Lindsey Burke, Heritage Foundation.  This explains how a state can develop an exit strategy from the Common Core.

Resolutions

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 the collection 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-19195093

3.  http://www.gop.com/rnc_counsel/

Adopted on April 12, 2013

Other Resolutions.  This page has a collection of resolutions opposing the Common Core State Standards and related issues.