Skip to content

What’s The Deal With “Common Core”

April 3, 2013

I have had a lot of people contacting me with concerns regarding Common Core. This is what I have been able to ascertain so far:

What is common core?

The Common Core State Standards (Common Core) are a set of math and English language arts curriculum standards adopted by 45 states. The Common Core was developed by a state-led effort known as the Common Core State Standards Initiative, coordinated by the National Governors Association for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Educators, administrators, researchers, parents, community groups, and private companies all reviewed the standards and provided feedback during the process. Included within the common core are college-and-career-readiness standards, which address what students are expected to learn when they have graduated from high school, and grade level standards for kindergarten through grade 12, which address expectations for elementary through high school. The State School Board adopted the Common Core as Utah’s core standards for mathematics and English/language arts in August 2010.

Utah professors in both Math and English at local institutions of higher education have endorsed the new core standards. See

How did we get here?

In 2008, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers began a push for common standards for English language arts and mathematics in cooperation with interested states. In May 2009, Governor Jon Huntsman and Superintendent Patti Harrington signed a Memorandum of Agreement to participate in the development of the Common Core (Utah’s Common Core MOA). Utah’s Common Core MOA does not require nor commit Utah to adopting the Common Core. Participation in the Common Core States Standards Initiative (the Common Core Initiative) was “voluntary for states.” The purpose of the MOA was to set up a process for the development of the Common Core Initiative and commit states to “the process and structure as described” in the MOA. Utah’s Common Core MOA does not commit Utah to maintaining the Common Core.

In May 2010, Governor Gary Herbert signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Utah to join the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), a group of states working to develop computer adaptive assessments aligned with Common Core. SBAC has received a grant of $160 million from the federal government through the “Race to the Top” (RTTT) Fund along with a supplemental award of $15.9 million to develop assessments and associated materials. (Utah sent a letter withdrawing from the SBAC in August 2102, issued its own RFP, and awarded a contract to AIR — which is also assisting other states in developing their computer adaptive tests.)

In the MOU, Utah agreed to adopt “a common set” of college and career standards and “common achievement standards”. This is what we now call “Common Core.”

Utah has had its own standards in place since 1984, and has revised them every 5-7 years. Prior to the 2009 agreement to use Common Core, Utah individuals who were elected or were overseen by elected officials created those standards. So the teachers and parents, etc. had some avenue if they wanted it changed.

Even though the legislature did not create the standards, there have been instances where they made firm requests that the standards be adjusted and the state school board considered and complied.

Contrary to what many have been told, Utah has not received any federal dollars to adopt or implement these standards. But the way we accepted our NCLB waiver arguably requires that we keep them — but our basis for that can be changed.

The minutes of the Utah Start Board of Education (State School Board) meeting on August 6, 2010 state that the Board voted unanimously to adopt the Common Core Standards. This document states that it “supersedes the specific governance provisions of the MOU,” and has the same five-step Exit Procedure as the MOU. This vote effectively replaced Utah’s core K-12 standards with Common Core State Standards developed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. On this date, the State School Board formally adopted Common Core as Utah’s core standards for English language arts and mathematics.

On January 7, 2011, the U.S. Department of Education entered into a Cooperative Agreement with SBAC. (In August 2012, the State School Board withdrew from the SBAC.) This has become to be known as the “Race To The Top” (RTTT) Award. However, Utah did not win a RTTT award. The award is deemed cooperative because the Secretary of Education has determined that “substantial involvement” of the Department is necessary for success. The Appendices contain 14 Conditions, including compliance with the Stimulus Act (ARRA) and all applicable operational and administrative provisions. There are Budget tables totaling $149 million for four years, plus $10 million for three years of comprehensive assessment. Finally, the separate Grant Award Notice covered the $149 million and $10 million items above. And it specified “substantial involvement of the Department of Education.”

What is the effect of Utah’s Waiver from No Child Left Behind (NCLB)?

On September 23, 2011, the Secretary Duncan invited states to request flexibility regarding specific requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). States were given the opportunity to replace the federal accountability system with an accountability system developed by the state. Under the federal accountability system, schools were annually evaluated based on meeting targets for the percentage of students scoring proficient on English language arts and mathematics assessments with the goal of all students attaining proficiency by 2014.

To obtain flexibility, the Department of Education requires a state to adopt college-and-career-ready standards (i.e., common core standards) and develop and administer high quality assessments tied to those standards. The State School Board submitted a flexibility request and received approval on June 29, 2012. In its flexibility request, Utah noted its adoption of the Common Core and its membership in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) to fulfill the Department’s requirements for flexibility.  But then Utah sent a letter withdrawing from SBAC on August 9, 2012.

Utah was not required to fully adopt the Common Core nor participate in an assessment consortium (such as SBAC) to obtain flexibility from the current ESEA requirements. However, as part of its application for ESEA flexibility, Utah made assurances to the Department of Education regarding its current incorporation of the Common Core into its core standards and Utah’s membership in SBAC. Although Utah’s application for flexibility made goals and assurances related to its status as a Common Core state and membership in SBAC, Utah could have taken the option to adopt standards other than the Common Core or withdraw from SBAC (which it did). Utah could still petition the Department to allow it to amend or change its approved flexibility request, or it could still re-apply for the ESEA flexibility waiver with different college-and-career ready standards or assessments.

Although the ESEA flexibility waiver has been granted for two years, a state may amend its request: “The Department encourages Utah to continuously evaluate the effectiveness of the plans and other elements of its ESEA flexibility request as it proceeds with implementation, and to make necessary changes to address any challenges that it identifies. . . . If Utah wishes to make changes to its ESEA flexibility request, Utah must submit those changes to the Department as early as feasible for the Department’s review and approval.”

When Utah received the waiver, it was automatically excused from the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) reporting. As of September 2011, about one-fifth Utah schools were not meeting the AYP standards as designated by NCLB.  About 20 of those schools were Title 1 schools and would therefore be required to offer to bus children to better schools and offer more tutoring.

After the changes are submitted to the Department, the changes could be approved or the Secretary could decide to terminate Utah’s waiver for non-compliance with the ESEA flexibility waiver. If the waiver is terminated, Utah and its school districts and charter schools (LEAs) would be required to comply with the current provisions of ESEA without the flexibility. If the Secretary terminates the waiver, “Utah and its LEAs must immediately resume complying with the requirements of current [ESEA] law.” At that point Utah could re-apply for ESEA flexibility with the new standards or simply comply with current ESEA provisions without flexibility.

Can Utah get out of Common Core?

Utah’s 2009 agreement with the Common Core State Standards Initiative says “This effort is voluntary for states” and does not require the state to do anything as a participating member other than adopt the standards.  Utah can stop using common core as its state standard. Since the MOA signed by Utah to participate in the development of the Common Core does not require nor commit Utah to adopting the Common Core, and because Utah did not receive federal money related to its adoption of the Common Core, Utah is not required to keep the Common Core as its state standards.

Some maintain that Utah is required to keep Common Core unless and until it changes the waiver.  So it might be more fair to say that Utah does have the option of using other standards that are not aligned with the Common Core. However, it would require Utah to re-write and then be reapproved for the NCLB waiver — or just abandon the waiver all together. Utah could also adopt “standards that are approved by a State network of institutions of higher education, which must certify that students who meet the standards will not need remedial course work at the postsecondary level” — an option the federal government originally offered the state when it applied for its waiver. Such an alternative would allow Utah to develop its own standards and still obtain relief from some stifling NCLB regulations and receive the funding to which those regulations are attached. Two states – Minnesota and Virginia – have received NCLB flexibility waivers by choosing this option. In all events, changing Utah’s standards by leaving Common Core would requirement an amendment to the flexibility waiver for NCLB.

In both January 2010 and May 2010, Utah submitted applications to receive grants through the first two phases of the Obama administration’s “Race to the Top” (RTTT) Fund. As part of its evaluation process for determining which states would receive funds, the federal government gave preference to a state if it had “demonstrated its commitment to adopting a common set of high quality standards” by participating in a consortium that included “a significant number of states” and was “working toward jointly developing and adopting a common set of K-12 standards.” Because the state did not win a grant in either the first or second phases of RTTT funding and did not apply for phase three, it is not required to remain in Common Core because of RTTT.  But the waiver is a separate matter, as set forth above.

In 2012, the Utah Legislature passed a bill requiring the state to administer statewide computer adaptive tests aligned with Utah’s core standards. The State Office of Education released a “request for proposal” in order to have its own assessments developed or to adopt another existing assessment. It eventually awarded a contract to American Institutes for Research (A.I.R.).  AIR is the only vendor that has been approved by the U.S. Department of Education, which makes some people question the amount of federal influence.

What are assessments?

In order to determine if students are learning and understanding the standards through the teaching of the curriculum, schools administer assessments. Utah law requires the State School Board to develop an assessment method to uniformly test students in basic skills courses. In the 2012 General Session, the Legislature passed H.B. 15, Statewide Adaptive Testing, which enacted a new requirement to test Utah’s core standards in science, math and English/language arts with a computer adaptive assessment system.

The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) was authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the federal government provided funding to two consortia of states to develop assessments aligned with the Common Core. Utah initially joined the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), a consortium of 27 states created to develop an adaptive assessment system.

On August 3, 2012, the State School Board voted to exit SBAC. The Board’s August 3, 2012 Meeting Summary states that the Board voted to end its membership in SBAC in order to avoid a conflict of interest related to the Board’s request for proposals for an adaptive assessment system required under 2012 General Session H.B. 15, Statewide Adaptive Testing. Utah is no longer a member of SBAC and through the RFP process has contracted with the American Institutes for Research (A.I.R.) to develop Utah’s computer adaptive assessments.

What will common core cost?

The answer is not yet clear.

According to the Utah State Office of Education, “Utah is not spending any more money on the common core adoption than is typically associated with core standards revision — which have been in place since 1984. School districts and charter schools have received no additional funds, federal or state, to implement the new core standards or new instructional materials and curriculum. In fact, earmarked funding for professional development, which is used to train Utah’s public school educators in new core standards, has decreased significantly. Before 2008. school districts and charter schools had $78 million in state funds for professional development through the Quality Educator Block Grant. This funding has been almost completely eliminated. For the 2011-12 school year, the Legislature allocated only $2 million in state funds for professional development, and cut that amount in half for the following school year. Furthermore, textbook costs are not anticipated to increase. Whenever new standards are implemented, school districts and charters are required to phase in new materials. Due to restricted finances, many do not immediately purchase new books.Instead, most have a five-to-seven-year textbook replacement plan.

“Utah is spending money on developing new computer adaptive assessments. In 2007, Governor Jon Huntsman convened a Blue Ribbon Panel on Assessment. The panel, stakeholders throughout the state, and the Utah State Board of Education concluded that computer adaptive assessments should be studied and, if successful, should be adopted statewide. Successful pilots were conducted, and the State School Board concluded that state funds should be sought for computer adaptive assessments aligned to state standards. This request would have been made for whichever state standards were adopted by the State Board.”

The Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel had similar findings in regards to the cost of implementation of the new core standards in Utah. It concluded that the federal government may only require a state to comply with a public education mandate if the mandate is a condition of the receipt of money accepted by the state through a federal program. If a state were to fail to comply with the conditions of a grant, the federal government could require the state to refund the money as a penalty for non-compliance. While Congress has no authority to regulate activities for a general welfare purpose, it may tax and spend “for the general welfare.” According to United States Supreme Court jurisprudence, Congress may not directly regulate certain interests that traditionally belong to the states, such as education. Congress may, however, indirectly regulate traditionally local interests by conditioning a state’s receipt of federal money on the state meeting certain conditions.

There is a limit to Congress’s ability to coerce a state to act by granting or withholding federal funds. The United States Supreme Court has noted the possibility that a given set of federal conditions to a state’s participation in a federal spending program could be so onerous as to rise to a point where “pressure turns into compulsion,” regardless of whether Congress has sought the consent of the states as part of the federal program.

In South Dakota v. Dole, the state challenged a grant of federal funding for roads that required South Dakota to raise its minimum drinking age to 21 or lose 5% of the state’s ongoing federal transportation funding. The Court recognized that a circumstance could exist where the conditions placed on receipt of the federal money were so extreme that they amounted to coercion of the states. The Court ruled in favor of the federal government, finding that a loss of 5% of ongoing transportation funding was minimal and that the state’s argument that it was “coercion [was] shown to be more rhetoric than fact.” Despite the Court’s specific holding in Dole, the case left open the possibility that a future grant program offered to the states by Congress could be struck down if the grant conditions were so onerous that a court could determine that they amounted to “coercion.”

Is Utah required to give student-identifying data to the federal government or other states because of the Common Core or SBAC?

Neither Utah’s adoption of the Common Core nor its past participation in SBAC require Utah or its school districts and charter schools to share data or report student information. Utah school districts and charter schools are required to report certain aggregated (non-identifying) student information pursuant to certain federal programs, but both of the largest federal public education programs explicitly prohibit the reporting of student identifying information to the federal government. Utah will have to comply with the same federal reporting requirements whether it continues to use its current standards based on the Common Core or if Utah adopts other core standards created exclusively for Utah.

There is some concern about data sharing that may be associated with using national assessments.  Those will arguably link Utah into national data banks that we don’t have control.  Therefore, Utah will not have any say regarding what information is collected or to whom it is distributed.  So it may be more fair to say that Utah schools are required to report certain aggregated (non-identifying) student information pursuant to certain federal programs. The Legislature has attempted to secure the information of Utah students, but this is an issue that has proven to be complicated.   Some people fear that federal FERPA changes have made it optional to share this data.

Can Utah change the Common Core?

Utah adopted the Common Core standards and they are now Utah Core Standards in math and English language arts, and yes, Utah can change the Utah standards at any
time. In early April 2013, the State Board adopted new standards in cursive writing, adding that to the Core standards. So we have already made changes to adapt these to Utah’s needs.  So there is little or no argument that Utah can add whatever it wants.  But the true concern is that the assessments are tailor made to the standards, with the curriculum falling somewhere in between.  Since teachers will be evaluated on how well their students perform on the assessments, they will be motivated to teach only the common core materials.   

Utah could change or substitute portions of the Common Core.  Utah’s Common Core MOA does not require nor commit Utah to adopting the Common Core but, by the terms of the MOA, allows Utah to add 15% on top of the Common Core: “States that choose to align their standards to the common core standards agree to ensure that the common core represents at least 85% of the state’s standards in English language arts and mathematics.”

The Common Core State Standards Initiative license grant states: The NGA Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) hereby grant a limited, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to copy, publish, distribute, and display the Common Core State Standards for purposes that support the Common Core State Standards Initiative (emphasis added). These uses may involve the Common Core State Standards as a whole or selected excerpts or portions. The license grant allows Utah to use the Common Core in whole or in portions “for purposes that support the Common Core State Standards Initiative.” If Utah amends the Common Core standards significantly, it is uncertain whether NGA and CCSSO would consider the changes or substitutions to be supportive of the Common Core State Standards Initiative.

According to the minutes of the August 3, 2012 State School Board meeting, there is no “core police” that will stop or prohibit Utah from amending the Common Core standards in excess of the 15% allowed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative. The State School Board is free to add to (but not delete from) to the standards to meet a state’s individual need and encouraged all states to look at those needs. Even if Utah has the legal right to amend the Common Core by more than an additional 15% added to the top, it risks losing benefits a state gains when it adopts the Common Core. If Utah amends its core standards to make them significantly different from the Common Core, Utah may not be able to accurately compare its students’ performance to the performance of students in other Common Core states. Also, Utah may not be able to take advantage of products and materials developed for the Common Core states, which may be more cost effective. Legally Utah is free to amend its core standards significantly beyond the 15% added to the top. Doing so, however, could cause Utah to lose certain benefits of being a Common Core state.

Is Common Core different than curriculum?

Core standards are concepts, knowledge, and skills that students need to understand and master as they move through their schooling that prepare them for further education or careers after high school graduation. Standards are not curriculum. Utah law requires the State School Board to establish core curriculum standards.

Utah Code 53A-1-402.6(2) provides that the board shall:

(a) identify the basic knowledge, skills, and competencies each student is expected to acquire or master as the student advances through the public education system; and

(b) align the core curriculum standards and tests administered under the Utah Performance Assessment Systems for Students (U-PASS) with each other.

The State School Board adopts standards in a range of subjects including math, English language arts, driver education, social studies, science, and fine arts. These core standards are revised every five to seven years to assure that students learn what they need to know to be successful after public school.

Curriculum is an educational plan; it sets forth how and what is used to teach the standards. It may include content, teaching materials, and methods. Strategies are recommended at the state level, but are not mandated. Utah law requires local school boards to establish curriculum, which may vary from district to district and be tailored to local needs. UTAH CODE Subsections 53A-1-402.6(4)–(5) provide that

(4) Local school boards shall design their school programs, that are supported by generally accepted scientific standards of evidence, to focus on the core curriculum standards with the expectation that each program will enhance or help achieve mastery of the core curriculum standards.

(5) Except as provided in Section 53A-13-101,each school may select instructional materials and methods of teaching, that are supported by generally accepted scientific standards of evidence, that it considers most appropriate to meet core curriculum standards.

Although the federal government cannot control curriculum, some are concerned that it can effectively drive the curriculum by controlling the assessments on the standards.  There remains the concern that the adoption of federal standards diminishes local control, i.e., a parent’s ability to go to the local school board and seek a change in curriculum from what is currently being taught.

What are my sources?

UTAH CODE ANN. § 53A-1-402.6 (2012).


Common Core Standards for Mathematics, COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE, (last visited Aug. 14, 2012); Common Core Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE, (last visited Aug. 14, 2012).

UTAH CODE ANN. § 53A-1-402.6 (2012).

Process, COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE, (last visited August 7, 2012).

Official minutes of the State Board of Education, which discussed the Common Core at its February 5, March 5, and May 7 meetings; adopted the Common Core on first reading at its June 4 meeting; and adopted the Common Core on final reading at its August 6, 2010 meeting. In a joint meeting with the State Board of Regents on June 25, 2010, the Board discussed the Common Core. The Legislature’s Education Interim Committee discussed the Common Core at its June 17, 2009 meeting.

Board Meeting Summary, UTAH STATE OFFICE OF EDUC. (Aug. 3, 2012),

Letter from Arne Duncan, U.S. Sec’y of Educ.,to Chief State School Officers (September 23, 2011), available at

Memorandum of Agreement between The Council of Chief State School Officers and The National Governors Association for Center for Best Practices, and the State of Utah regarding Common Core Standards (May 2009) (signed by Governor John Huntsman and Superintendent Patti Harrington).

South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987).

U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 66 (1936).

Memorandum of Agreement between The Council of Chief State School Officers and The National Governors Association for Center for Best Practices, and the State of Utah regarding Common Core Standards (May 2009) (signed by Governor John Huntsman and Superintendent Patti Harrington).


Public License, COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE, (last visited Aug. 1, 2012).

Board Meeting Summary, UTAH STATE OFFICE OF EDUC. (Aug. 3, 2012),

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) require Utah school districts and charter schools to report certain aggregated student information.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. No. 101-476, 104 Stat. 1142 (2004), codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1416(b)(2)(C)(iii)(2006) (“The State shall not report to the public or the Secretary [of the U.S. Department of Education] any information on performance that would result in the disclosure of personally identifiable information about individual children. . . .”).



Letter from Deborah S. Delisle, Assistant U.S. Sec’y for Elementary & Secondary Educ., to Hon. Larry K. Shumway, Utah Superintendent of Pub. Instruction (July 9, 2012), at 3.


From → 2013 Interim

  1. Senator Weiler, could you please direct me to the source of your information on Common Core?

  2. Senator Weiler, some of your statements here are correct, but many are false. Your article would appear more credible to readers if you would provide linked references for each of your claims. There are so many problems with this that I don’t know where to begin. I will hit a few highlights:

    1) it appears that you didn’t realize that Utah opted out of SBAC last year and are contracted to the American Institutes for Research for Common Core tests, now.

    2) It appears you are not aware that while Utah is not required to give personally identifiable information, federal FERPA changes have made it optional to do so, and according to John Brandt, at least 12 people in the Utah Data Alliance do have access to students’ personally identifiable information. As soon as a child is registered for school, he/she is entered into the State Longitudinal Database System which is federally paid for and federally interoperable with all other states; a de facto national database.

    3) It appears by your “no police” statement about the 15% no-improvement rule of the Common Core, that you are unaware that the Common Core tests will be the enforcer of that rule. Teachers and administrators will feel the “accountability” heat and will not teach beyond the Common Core. Goodbye, innovation, creativity and time spent on meaningful learning as defined by a teacher or locality.

    4) It is dishonest to call Common Core “state-led” when legislators were never aware of it, teachers were never aware of it, taxpayers were never aware of it, until after its adoption in Utah. It is dishonest to call it “state-led” when there is no say at all in the standards’ creation nor the standards’ amending in the future. Common Core is a case of education without representation and worse, it is the glue that makes possible the invasion of citizen privacy via the Common Core tests’ data collection, which is common knowlege– even the White House at its recent “Datapalooza” event verified that Common Core is the data collecting “glue.” Google it– the CEA of eScholar said it at the White House and it’s on YouTube and elsewhere.

    5) Republicans are being wined and dined by the promoters of Common Core to believe that this is an acceptable conservative movement when it is the epitome of socialism; Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education is backed by Gates’ money; The NGA has courted our Governor and Tom Luna of Idaho very heavily and has made them part of its executive committee to try to ensure that they promote Common Core in supposedly conservative states; Common Core is an experiment, without empirical validity of any kind; it is a tragic joke on teachers and citizens.

    6) Did you see the mighty (unreferenced) article called “The Truth About Common Core” that the National Review put out yesterday? It sounds like the same people (Gates Foundation) that paid for that article helped you write yours. Please, if you have an honest heart at all, read my rebuttal to it. Notice I actually give references. They do not. That should be a clue.

    • In response,

      1. The original article stated that Utah withdrew from SBAC, but I have further revised it to avoid any confusion. I have also included some of the sources relies upon.

      2. I stand by the statements in my article about data sharing — and they have been vetted by legislative attorneys.

      3. I am aware of the testing requirements. I have valid concerns about Common Core, which is why I have been digging into it. I am seeking out the facts, and trying to dissect them from the emotion.

      4. I stand by the history set forth in the article. According to the official minutes of each entity, in addition to several 2009 meetings, in 2010, the State Board of Education (Board) discussed the Common Core at its February 5, March 5, and May 7 meetings; adopted the Common Core on first reading at its June 4 meeting; and adopted the Common Core on final reading at its August 6, 2010 meeting. In a joint meeting with the State Board of Regents on June 25, 2010, the Board discussed the Common Core. The Legislature’s Education Interim Committee discussed the Common Core at its June 17, 2009 meeting.

      5. I have yet to be wined and dined.

      6. I will read the article and your response.

      • marion anderson permalink

        Stay Strong!

      • The proponents of Common Core, don’t ask people to study the evidence for themselves. They say, “We trust, and so should you.”

        I say, trust after you verify.

        Here is a list of source documents that anyone can find online with a simple word search. Studying these documents can end the “misinformation” since both proponents and opponents of Common Core can read the same documents.

        The Race to the Top Grant Application – Utah got points for having a kid-tracking SLDS database system. Utah got more points for having adopted Common Core. This was how we got into it. Despite not winning the grant money, we remained in these systems.

        The No Child Left Behind Waiver – This shows the 15% cap the federal government put on top of the copyrighted, unamendable Common Core standards.

        The State Longitudinal Database System Grant – This is a federally paid-for database that every state in the US now has. It tracks students within the state. Aggregated data ion students is sent from this system to the federal EdFacts Exchange.

        The lawsuit against the Department of Education – The Electronic Privacy Information Center has sued the DOE for destroying the previously data-privacy protective federal FERPA. The lawsuit explains which terms were redefined, which agencies now have legal access to the private data of students, and much more.

        The copyright on Common Core held by CCSSO/NGA – The fact that there are “terms of use” and a copyright shows that we have no local control over the standards which are written behind closed doors in D.C.

        The report entitled “For Each And Every Child” from the Equity and Excellence Commission – This report was commissioned by Obama. It reveals that redistribution of wealth is the real reason that Obama wants a national education system.

        The Cooperative Agreements between the Dept. of Education and the testing consortia – Even though Utah escaped the SBAC and is not bound by the Cooperative Agreement directly, Utah’s current testing group, A.I.R., works closely with SBAC. This document shows how clearly the DOE has broken laws like the General Educational Provisions Act and the 10th Amendment. It mandates the synchronizing of tests and the sharing of data to triangulate the SBAC, PARCC and DOE.

        The speeches of Secretary Arne Duncan on education – He seems to believe Common Core was Obama’s idea from the start.

        The speeches of President Obama on education – Obama’s goal is total control of everything– teachers, tests, money, and toddlers.

        The speeches of the CEA of Pearson Ed, Sir Michael Barber – Barber wants every school on the globe to have the exact same academic standards and to underpin every standard with environmental propaganda. He also likes having global data on kids and stresses the term “sustainable reform” which is “irreversible reform”.

        The speeches of the main funder of Common Core, Bill Gates – He’s funded Common Core almost completely on his own; he’s partnered with Pearson; he says “we won’t know it works until all the tests and curriculum aligns with the standards” so he’s writing curriculum for us all.

        The speeches of David Coleman, a noneducator, the architect of the Common Core ELA standards and now promoted to College Board President -He mocks narrative writing, he’s diminished the percentage of classic literature that’s allowable in the standards, he’s not been elected, he’s never taught school, yet he’s almost singlehandedly destroyed the quality and liberty of an English teacher’s classroom. And as he’s now the College Board President, he’s aligning the SAT to his version of what Common standards should be. This will hurt colleges.

        The Dept. of Ed report: Promoting Grit, Tenacity and Perserverance – behavioral indicators of students are wanted by the federal government. It’s all about control.

        The federal websites such as the EdFacts Exchange, the Common Education Data Standards, the National Data Collection Model, and the Data Quality Campaign, sites because three of these four ask us to give personally identifiable information on students, from our state database. -The first link shows what we already give to the federal government; the others show what the federal government is requesting that we share, which does include intimate, personally identifiable information.

        The Common Core English and Math standards – These are the actual standards.

        The full contract that Utah has signed with the American Institutes for Research (if you can get a copy from the USOE; it is not online yet). Here is AIR’s common core implementation document. – This shows that AIR is not an academic testing group but a behavioral research institute. Parents and teachers may not see the test questions.

  3. marion anderson permalink


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: