The following written testimony has been prepared in
opposition of the implementation of the “Common Core” learning standards in the
state of New York. Delivered at the Assemblyman Minority's Common Core hearing at the Rochester Memorial Art
Gallery, November 20, 2013.
I. The Development of
Federal Standards
We are here to discuss the current status of public education which by its very name indicates it is to be controlled by the public with their benefit in mind, yet what we have seen over the course of the last few years is a very deliberate excision of the public’s ability to affect change in their own institutions. At the root of this issue are the common core standards, developed as joint venture between the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), both of which receive significant funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Pullman, 2013). The assertions that Common Core was developed through a “state-led” process is misleading at best, the truth is that a “validation board” of several state governor’s and well networked private interests was selected. The members on this board tightly controlled and obscured the development process of the standards (Pullman, 2013/ NGA.gov). The validation committee of 29 had 5 dissenting members who refused to sign off on the standards as being “evidence based” and their commentary was omitted from the committee’s report approving the standards (Pullman, 2013). This pattern of silencing critics will become evident throughout the entire implementation of Common Core. To date, the Gates foundation has spent $163 million developing this curriculum and lobbying the department of education to implement its changes (Pullman, 2013: Strauss, 2013). Case in point, in an Indiana state hearing considering a bill to withdraw Indiana from common core, 26 of the 32 speakers that testified against the state’s withdrawal were employed by organizations that receive grants from the Gates Foundation (Pullman, 2013).
Google’s dictionary defines a philanthropist as “a person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, esp. by the generous donation of money to good causes.” One could argue that the Gates Foundation’s complete control over common core stems from philanthropic motivations, however, the Gates didn’t simply donate money to good causes, they actively sought to steer and control the implementation of their agenda, financially backing the only studies cited as “evidence” to support the adoption of these standards (Greene, 2012:Pullman, 2013). The fact that the Gates foundation acted vicariously through the NGA and CCSO to control the validation process of these standards and even omitted the dissenting opinions of those on the validation board who refused to sign off on the effectiveness of the standards should have sounded alarm bells to state education boards around the country.
We are here to discuss the current status of public education which by its very name indicates it is to be controlled by the public with their benefit in mind, yet what we have seen over the course of the last few years is a very deliberate excision of the public’s ability to affect change in their own institutions. At the root of this issue are the common core standards, developed as joint venture between the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), both of which receive significant funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Pullman, 2013). The assertions that Common Core was developed through a “state-led” process is misleading at best, the truth is that a “validation board” of several state governor’s and well networked private interests was selected. The members on this board tightly controlled and obscured the development process of the standards (Pullman, 2013/ NGA.gov). The validation committee of 29 had 5 dissenting members who refused to sign off on the standards as being “evidence based” and their commentary was omitted from the committee’s report approving the standards (Pullman, 2013). This pattern of silencing critics will become evident throughout the entire implementation of Common Core. To date, the Gates foundation has spent $163 million developing this curriculum and lobbying the department of education to implement its changes (Pullman, 2013: Strauss, 2013). Case in point, in an Indiana state hearing considering a bill to withdraw Indiana from common core, 26 of the 32 speakers that testified against the state’s withdrawal were employed by organizations that receive grants from the Gates Foundation (Pullman, 2013).
Google’s dictionary defines a philanthropist as “a person who seeks to promote the welfare of others, esp. by the generous donation of money to good causes.” One could argue that the Gates Foundation’s complete control over common core stems from philanthropic motivations, however, the Gates didn’t simply donate money to good causes, they actively sought to steer and control the implementation of their agenda, financially backing the only studies cited as “evidence” to support the adoption of these standards (Greene, 2012:Pullman, 2013). The fact that the Gates foundation acted vicariously through the NGA and CCSO to control the validation process of these standards and even omitted the dissenting opinions of those on the validation board who refused to sign off on the effectiveness of the standards should have sounded alarm bells to state education boards around the country.
II. The Co-Opting of the States
These “Common” federal standards would normally be rejected by many state leaders who are rightfully skeptical of federal control, which is why their development was so closely guarded. In order to force states to adopt the standards, they were included in the federal stimulus bill of 2009, and states were forced to adopt the standards before they could be independently reviewed (Pullman, 2013).
In New York State we should be alarmed to see that our board of regents and their fellows do not consist of elected officials and many of them have a close network of political affiliations funded by these national reformers (Winerip, 2011). In 2010 the board of regents under Merryl Tisch established 13 research fellows to advise the state on the implementation of common core, these fellows receive up to $189,000 each which is largely funded by Tisch herself and a close to $900,000 dollar grant from none other than the Gates foundation (Winerip, 2011:Strauss, 2013). Tisch is married to a billionaire investor and is reported to be close personal friends with other “philanthropists” such as Michael Bloomberg, who also provided $500,000 to fund the fellows (Winerip, 2011). It becomes evident at this point that our state’s board of regents and its fellows are not free to make independent recommendations, but rather have become beholden to the influence of outside special interests. In fact, several board of regents members who quickly identified this seizure of control issued a statement in the New York Times in 2011 that said “private people give money to support things they’re interested in,” and these fellow positions “come at a steep political price.” This infusion of private capital brings with it the quid-pro-quo expectation that the board of regents and its fellows will expeditiously implement the agenda of their financiers.
III. Selling Student Data: Crony Contracts
In NYS, bid-rigged contracts are the norm not the exception,
especially in matters of accumulating private student data. Enter InBloom, a once-defunct “cloud” storage
interface used to accumulate data on students and store it in cyberspace. InBloom was recently revived after $100
million in grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Carnegie
Corporation (Singer, 2013). Last week
Jefferson County, the last school district in Colorado that contracted with
InBloom (and received $5 million from the Gates foundation to do so) cancelled
their contract citing parent concerns (Kamisar, 2013). This leaves NYS as the only InBloom contract
that operates on a state-wide level, as 8 other state partners have decided
against contracting with InBloom citing concerns over the safety of the data
storage. On November 13, 12 parents
filed a restraining order with the NYS Supreme Court in order to block their
children’s personal data from being shared, a law suit they felt necessary
because there is no opt-out clause (Kamisar, 2013). Many districts across the state seem to share
these concerns, and dozens of superintendents have withdrawn their districts
from the Race To The Top (RTTT) program specifically citing student privacy as
their reason for doing so. In an era when
districts face property tax caps, lowered state funding, and contentious public
votes over education costs; it speaks volumes as to the infringements upon
privacy of this program that superintendents would reject federal funds in
order to distance themselves from such Orwellian data collection. One of the main reasons that parents object
is the fact that InBloom is “open-source,” meaning its coding is openly shared
with developers who aim to create applications that they can sell to districts
as a bundle with InBloom, and any open-source software is in danger of being
hacked or infiltrated (Singer, 2013).
NYS also offered a
no-bid contract to “Wireless Generation” for $27 million, a data collection company
overseen by former New York City chancellor Joel Klein, who happens to be a
personal friend of the current chancellor Merryl Tisch (Winerip, 2011). Several of the 13 fellows objected this
contract but their objections were dismissed by Tisch, who they refer to as “the
most controlling chancellor in history” (Winerip, 2011). The contracts with InBloom and Wireless
Generation were so suspect that they prompted a Freedom of Information Law (FIOL)
request from a consortium of local Education Councils and PTA organizations as
to the financial ties between the board of regents, Chancellor Tisch, and these
private vendors, and questioned by the comptroller of the City of New York John
Liu. I find the obfuscation surrounding
these relationships to be quite discomforting.
Lastly, Pearson education, the company that built and
manages the website engageny should not be overlooked when dividing out pieces
of the taxpayer pie. Pearson is no
stranger to questionable lobbying tactics and ethical dilemmas, with NYS being
their finest example. Dating as far back
as 2008 Pearson identified lobbying state officials by offering them travel
packages and “swag” bags as a selling strategy. In 2011 the NYS Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman issued subpoenas for funding trips of state education officials to
Singapore, London, and Rio De Janeiro (Crotty, 2011). Following one such trip, the former NYS
Education Commissioner David Steiner offered Pearson a $1 million dollar
testing service contract with the state department of education. That contract ultimately led to a 5 year $32
million contract to administer the state regents and common core exams (Crotty,
2011). Currently Pearson runs the state’s
common core implementation site engageny which critics have demonstrated is
rife with errors, omissions, and even missing pages. This is not a local phenomenon, Pearson was
intimately involved in the development of the standards with the NGA, and their
lobbying investments peaked at over $1 million during the time that common core
was developed (Opensecrets.org).
IV. Impact Upon
Students
Common core’s designers cite US test scores as the reason that common core is a necessity by comparing domestic scores to the scores of foreign students. Discrepancies in this data may strike a chord with those who are passive observers to our educational system; however, the assertions made by reformers relying upon this data are patently false. First, is it wise to compare our nation’s educational system - where each and every student has an opportunity to access a quality education - to our foreign competitors who track students from a young age and exclude low achievers from access? Secondly, the achievement gap between high and low income students in the US is the smallest of any nation in the world (
While the information presented in this testimony should be enough to make any taxpayer or privacy advocate cringe, the most damning aspect of the common core is its impact upon children. The private interests behind common core have clearly demonstrated their capacity for stealth marketing, and nowhere is this more evident than in their sales pitch to parents. Common core supporters cite that it will “raise the bar” for students and create “analytical and critical thinkers” because of its “increased rigor.” As an educator who has been trained on common core, let me diffuse what these code-words mean. “Raise the bar” and “increased rigor” are admirable goals that I would ardently support, however, there is little evidence that Common Core is successful in doing so. Take for example the most recent state exam where our students were asked to diagnose the intents of a talking pineapple. Students read a story akin to “the tortoise and the hare” in which a talking pineapple challenged a hare to a race and lost… at which point the animals present at the race ate the pineapple. As if that story isn’t bizarre enough, it gets worse… Students were then asked questions such as “Why did the animals eat the talking fruit?” and “Which animal was the wisest?” I, myself, would struggle to answer such questions. How can we expect an eighth grader to diagnose the intents of a fictional talking pineapple? Is that objective measurement? Is that rigorous or nonsensical? This is a simple case of Pearson (the test developer) enhancing their revenue stream. They design tests so difficult and ambiguous that students show poor results, and then market test prep materials to the customer (state or district) at additional cost.
I have also seen an element present in many of the common core aligned materials that discourage and disincentive individual thought. Close reading strategies and “technical texts” encourage students to read short technical passages, or in some instances manuals, rather than literature. Furthermore, students are discouraged from applying their own criticisms or prior knowledge to the texts, all questions revolve around “what does the author say” or “find evidence in the reading.” I believe this is the most dangerous practice in our “shift” to common core, in which students are forbidden from applying their independent criticism to texts and are learning to blindly accept anything presented to them as a factual model to which they must subscribe. In this capacity “analytical thinking” is only encouraged if a student’s analysis is directly congruent with the Pearson answer key…any conclusion or answer provided that hasn’t been reached in the manner that Pearson’s key approves is marked as incorrect. Imagine the apathy created in students when their correct answer is discredited because they did not reach their end by the same means as the faceless creator of a grading rubric. While proponents of common core will correctly cite that these strategies are only encouraged, not mandated by common core, the financial backers of the materials will see to it that this curriculum is not separated from the standards themselves.
In conclusion, children are not common, free thinking productive individuals are not common, we should seek to inspire individuals to be uncommon. To impose meaningless constraints upon expression, thought, and analysis, and force problem solving and intellectual exploration into a centrally planned grading key is an absurd proposition. To create a system behind closed doors that is in diametric contrast to the recommendations of educational professionals and child psychologists is irresponsible, and to usher its implementation by purchasing favor with unelected officials is antithetic to our democratic process. There are real benefits to the concentrated private interests behind common core to ensure that large cohorts of graduates are able to follow an instructions manual, but not have the capacity to innovate, become an entrepreneur, or question information. Common core is intended to produce “career and college ready” students, but we must first produce vibrant, articulate and well-rounded individuals that will have the capacity to determine for themselves the goals and outcomes of their post high school endeavors. Our constitution, the governing document of this nation, even goes so far as to caution us about allowing the federal government to influence education for this purpose. The common core is not about rigor, it is about compliance, and to anybody reading this I urge you to contact your friends, family, and community, and make it clear to a select few private interests that we are not common, and we will not comply.
Common core’s designers cite US test scores as the reason that common core is a necessity by comparing domestic scores to the scores of foreign students. Discrepancies in this data may strike a chord with those who are passive observers to our educational system; however, the assertions made by reformers relying upon this data are patently false. First, is it wise to compare our nation’s educational system - where each and every student has an opportunity to access a quality education - to our foreign competitors who track students from a young age and exclude low achievers from access? Secondly, the achievement gap between high and low income students in the US is the smallest of any nation in the world (
While the information presented in this testimony should be enough to make any taxpayer or privacy advocate cringe, the most damning aspect of the common core is its impact upon children. The private interests behind common core have clearly demonstrated their capacity for stealth marketing, and nowhere is this more evident than in their sales pitch to parents. Common core supporters cite that it will “raise the bar” for students and create “analytical and critical thinkers” because of its “increased rigor.” As an educator who has been trained on common core, let me diffuse what these code-words mean. “Raise the bar” and “increased rigor” are admirable goals that I would ardently support, however, there is little evidence that Common Core is successful in doing so. Take for example the most recent state exam where our students were asked to diagnose the intents of a talking pineapple. Students read a story akin to “the tortoise and the hare” in which a talking pineapple challenged a hare to a race and lost… at which point the animals present at the race ate the pineapple. As if that story isn’t bizarre enough, it gets worse… Students were then asked questions such as “Why did the animals eat the talking fruit?” and “Which animal was the wisest?” I, myself, would struggle to answer such questions. How can we expect an eighth grader to diagnose the intents of a fictional talking pineapple? Is that objective measurement? Is that rigorous or nonsensical? This is a simple case of Pearson (the test developer) enhancing their revenue stream. They design tests so difficult and ambiguous that students show poor results, and then market test prep materials to the customer (state or district) at additional cost.
I have also seen an element present in many of the common core aligned materials that discourage and disincentive individual thought. Close reading strategies and “technical texts” encourage students to read short technical passages, or in some instances manuals, rather than literature. Furthermore, students are discouraged from applying their own criticisms or prior knowledge to the texts, all questions revolve around “what does the author say” or “find evidence in the reading.” I believe this is the most dangerous practice in our “shift” to common core, in which students are forbidden from applying their independent criticism to texts and are learning to blindly accept anything presented to them as a factual model to which they must subscribe. In this capacity “analytical thinking” is only encouraged if a student’s analysis is directly congruent with the Pearson answer key…any conclusion or answer provided that hasn’t been reached in the manner that Pearson’s key approves is marked as incorrect. Imagine the apathy created in students when their correct answer is discredited because they did not reach their end by the same means as the faceless creator of a grading rubric. While proponents of common core will correctly cite that these strategies are only encouraged, not mandated by common core, the financial backers of the materials will see to it that this curriculum is not separated from the standards themselves.
In conclusion, children are not common, free thinking productive individuals are not common, we should seek to inspire individuals to be uncommon. To impose meaningless constraints upon expression, thought, and analysis, and force problem solving and intellectual exploration into a centrally planned grading key is an absurd proposition. To create a system behind closed doors that is in diametric contrast to the recommendations of educational professionals and child psychologists is irresponsible, and to usher its implementation by purchasing favor with unelected officials is antithetic to our democratic process. There are real benefits to the concentrated private interests behind common core to ensure that large cohorts of graduates are able to follow an instructions manual, but not have the capacity to innovate, become an entrepreneur, or question information. Common core is intended to produce “career and college ready” students, but we must first produce vibrant, articulate and well-rounded individuals that will have the capacity to determine for themselves the goals and outcomes of their post high school endeavors. Our constitution, the governing document of this nation, even goes so far as to caution us about allowing the federal government to influence education for this purpose. The common core is not about rigor, it is about compliance, and to anybody reading this I urge you to contact your friends, family, and community, and make it clear to a select few private interests that we are not common, and we will not comply.
Works Cited and Supporting Reference
"Common Core State Standards Initiative Validation
Committee Announced." Common Core State Standards Initiative Validation
Committee Announced. N.p., 24 Sept. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.
Crotty, James M. "No Educator Left Behind: Pearson,
Leading Scorer of Standardized Tests, Subpoenaed." Forbes. N.p., 21 Dec.
2011. Web.
"Forty-Nine States and Territories Join Common Core
Standards Initiative." Forty-Nine States and Territories Join Common Core
Standards Initiative. N.p., 1 June 2009. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
Greene, Jay P. "Jay P. Greene's Blog." Jay P Greenes
Blog. N.p., 7 Jan. 2012. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
Kamisar, Ben. "Lawsuit Filed in New York to Halt
InBloom Program." Education Week. N.p., 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
"Pearson Education." Opensecrets RSS. N.p., n.d.
Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
Pullman, Joy. "Five People Wrote 'State-Led' Common
Core." Heartlander. Heartland.org, 7 June 2013. Web.
Pullman, Joy. "'State-Led' Common Core Pushed by
Federally Funded Nonprofit." Heartlander Magazine. N.p., 24 Apr. 2013.
Web. 18 Nov. 2013.
Poor
ranking on international test misleading about U.S. student performance,
Stanford researcher finds.” Stanford News. The Stanford University Report. 15
Jan. 2013.
Singer, Alan. "Pearson Rakes in the Profit." Huff
Post Business. The Huffington Post, 19 Mar. 2013. Web.
Singer, Natasha. "Deciding Who Sees Student's
Data." The New York Times. N.p., 5 Oct. 2013. Web.
Strauss, Valerie. "Gates Gives $150 Million in Grants
for Common Core Standards." The Washington Post. N.p., 12 May 2013. Web.
Strauss, Valerie. "How New York's Education
Commissioner Blew It Big Time." The Washington Post 13 Oct. 2013: n. pag.
Print.
Winerip, Michael. "Regents Pay a Policital Price for
Their Free Advisers, Dissenters Warn." The New York Times. N.p., n.d. Web.
14 Aug. 2011.
Quick Facts
|
Common Core:
- Created in private by two organizations (National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers) with no local input and $163 million dollars of grants from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
- Only 29 individuals on the validation board, 5 of which would not approve standards, their dissent was removed from the official record
- All supporting “evidence” comes from Gate’s funded non-profits, third party organizations are critical of the standard’s developmental appropriateness
- 2009 Stimulus funds coerced states into adoption prior to independent vetting
NYS Board of Regents:
- Chancellor Merryl Tisch is a billionaire personally aligned with corporate reformer special interests
- Boards special fellows appointed to implement common core are funded by Tisch ($1 million), Gates foundation (nearly $1 million)
- Dissenting member’s input disregarded when criticizing adoption of Common Core
Special Interests:
- $27 Million NYS no-bid contract to “Wireless Generation,” senior company official Joel Klein has personal ties to Tisch
- $32 Million NYS contract to Pearson education for testing materials following subpoena from NYS Attorney General for unethical lobbying
- Pearson ramped up lobbying efforts from $100,00 in 2006 to $1.2 Million in 2010 in order to push Common Core in the states
- NYS is the only state that contracts with InBloom ($100 million in funding from Gates Foundation) for student data, against the wishes of many districts
Testing:
- Independent research shows learning gap between high and low resource students is lowest in the US
- Independent research shows common standards lower high achieving student performance
- $27 Million NYS no-bid contract to “Wireless Generation,” senior company official Joel Klein has personal ties to Tisch
- $32 Million NYS contract to Pearson education for testing materials following subpoena from NYS Attorney General for unethical lobbying
- Pearson ramped up lobbying efforts from $100,00 in 2006 to $1.2 Million in 2010 in order to push Common Core in the states
- NYS is the only state that contracts with InBloom ($100 million in funding from Gates Foundation) for student data, against the wishes of many districts
Testing:
- Independent research shows learning gap between high and low resource students is lowest in the US
- Independent research shows common standards lower high achieving student performance
