What Common Core Really Means for Pennsylvania

Common Core Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI)

4/24/2013 1 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected]

The philosophy of the classroom

today, will be the philosophy of the government

tomorrow.

Abraham Lincoln

4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 2

What is Common Core?


Nationalized Education (in a nutshell)

Background

Initiated July 2009 & finalized March 2010 4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 4

Achieve, Inc.

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation & Tides Foundation

National Governors Association

(NGA)

Council of Chief State School

Officers (CCSSO)

USED (US Dept of Education

RTTT

State Departments of

Education



45 states accepted RTTT $ and a waiver to NCLB (AYP). In return, the states agreed to: •Adopt Common Core (CCSS) standards •Implement assessments by 2014-2015 School Year •Agree with all other states in the consortium •Change state laws if need be to adhere to common core •Adopt SLDS State Longitudinal Data Base (see appendix) Question: How can the PDE “change state laws” ? This is out of their jurisdiction.

Common Core Requirements

4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256

[email protected] 7


• Pa has adopted the minimum CCSS standards to obtain the $$ and waiver from NCLB

• Math is being implemented first: 2013-2014 school year

• Literature is being implemented second: 2014-2015 school year

What about Curriculum?

Why not? The claims for a more “rigorous” program sound great!

1. Violates three components of the Constitution: General Education Provisions Act Department of Education Organization Act Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2. Violates 10th Amendment- LOSS OF LOCAL CONTROL TO WASHINGTON DC 3. Violates privacy of our children by collecting personal data on the student and their families

(see appendix Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems) 4. Common Core testing (SMARTER Balanced and PARCC) dictate curriculum 5. Dumbs Down Curriculum- e.g.: math two years behind FRSD. Literature reduced to 30% lit in high

school! The remainder is informational/technical reading (see appendix) 6. SAT testing will follow CC; Alternate Education not adhering to their standards will not pass the

modified SAT’s thus eliminating their chances of entering college 7. College prep for Common Core means two year associates degree prep- NOT FOUR YEAR DEGREE

FOR ENGINEERING, FOR EXAMPLE. 8. Cost Prohibitive: After three years of funding the states will be left to hold the bill of testing,

training and implementing millions of dollars of technology per school district. Pennsylvania received $41 million. Estimated cost to implement is $650 million.


How does it affect FRSD?


$


• 40% of FRSD math curriculum is changing • Algebra I being moved from 8th to 9th grade • Students who want to pursue engineering and

technical degrees in college will need private tutors to track into Calculus senior year

• Many schools in Pa already eliminating advanced math; FRSD will follow suit with it’s goal of having less than 10% of all middle school students taking Algebra I by the 8th grade.

See appendix for specific math sequence suggested for FRSD.

How is the Math Curriculum Changing?


How does CC Affect Literature?

Elementary Middle School

High School

10% 20% 20%

60% 65% 70%

Literacy Curriculum Changes NON-fiction Text Percentages

Current Common Core

Common Core dramatically changes literacy programs to have a focus on anthologies and non-fiction/informational text from classics.

Question: During the school day, isn’t roughly 90% of the day non-fiction with

classes like math, computers, civics, history and science?


How Much Will CC Cost Pa? Pennsylvania received $41.3 million to implement Common Core Estimated cost: $650 Million not including constant upgrades in

software, technology and constant teacher training

$- $100.00 $200.00 $300.00 $400.00 $500.00 $600.00 $700.00

$ Millions

Cost to the Taxpayer

RTTT $ Actual Cost


CCSS allows the following by law: •Grants school districts a waiver from FERPA in terms of deleting identifying information on their records. •Allows school districts to then give these identifiable records basically to anyone who they deem to have an viable interest with these records. •These organization or individuals chosen by the government to use this data to develop highly accurate predictive tests with no stated ethical procedures, guidelines, or institutional controls. (What are they exactly trying to “predict”?” •All done without written parental consent. -Dr. Gary Thompson, Clinical Psychologist administering thousands of tests on children for Utah School Department of Education and the Longitudinal Data Collection System; He is no longer remaining silent. FERPA supersedes HIPPA!

What About Privacy?


What About Privacy? FERPA Vs. HIPAA The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is a law passed by Congress intended to establish transaction, security, privacy, and other standards to address concerns about the electronic exchange of health information. However, the HIPAA Privacy Rule excludes from its coverage those records that are protected by FERPA at school districts and postsecondary institutions that provide health or medical services to students. This is because Congress specifically addressed how education records should be protected under FERPA. For this reason, records that are protected by FERPA are not subject to the HIPAA Privacy Rule and may be shared with parents under the circumstances described above. - U.S. Department of Education


FERPA: Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act FERPA is now obsolete 2012 Arnie Dunkin said FERPA had a “chilling effect” on efforts to collect data on our children Consequently, he changed FERPA

Doesn’t FERPA Protect Children’s Privacy?

FERPA (access to student records)2012

• Teachers • Principals • Councilors

FERPA after 2012

• All previous • ANYONE IN EDUCATION • EG: prisons • EG: DHS • EG: any “contractor” • EG: any “School Volunteer” • EG: any “educational agency” not limited to

teachers, schools councilors & principals

•Blood Type •Eye & Hair Color •Dental Records •Voter Status

•Political Affiliation •Mother’s maiden name •Religious affiliation

•Extra curricular activities •Premature birth

What Kind of Data Will be Collected on My child?

•Bus stop location and arrival times •Income level

•Data collected from sensors that detect facial

expressions, posture, stressors,

•A total of 533 fields of data!

Tracks data from PreK-age 20 Office of Education Technology of the US Department of Education has approved use of MRI’s in the classroom and will put the equipment in the schools to analyze brain

activity. References:

1. http://ceds.ed.gov 2. “Promoting Grit, Tenacity, & Perseverance: Critical Factors in the 21st Century”,

February 2013, US Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology 4/24/2013 17 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected]


According to the U.S. Department of Education, CCSS will authorize the use of testing instruments that will measure the “attributes, dispositions, social skills, attitude’s and intra personal resources "of public school students under CCSS (USDOE Feb, 2013 Report). These tests are being conducted by Dr. Gary Thompson in Utah. He has recently come out with many concerns regarding privacy of this testing and the integrity of the tests being implemented in our schools via Common Core.

Dr. Gary Thompson/Concerns on Privacy


Dr. Gary Thompson Psychological and Behavioral Testing Concerns

•What type of tests will there be? •Who is developing these tests?

•These tests are unavailable for review •No mention of peer review process

•Who will administer and interpret these tests? •No accounting for African American & Latino Students who

have “skewed” test results due to cultural issues •WHO WILL HAVE ACCESS TO ALL THIS PERSONAL

DATA?!?! See appendix for detailed explanation of his privacy concerns.

FRSD State & Federal Funding Federal

1%

State 23%

Taxpayer 76%

Funding


Why are there so many proponents? • Publishing companies, tech companies and testing companies have $ billions to gain. Pearson (British

publishing company) has purchased all of the major educational textbook companies in the United States. Glencoe, McGraw Hill, Holt and all majors now belong to Pearson who embrace Common Core.

• Gates has $ billions to gain in technology upgrades • Gates has made contributions to every entity that could possibly object to Common Core. He has given

money to organizations like the Pennsylvania Business Council and PTO/PTA’s to promote Common Core • Leftist radicals can push their agendas into the earliest years of our children and teach their ideas as truth

thus changing an entire culture – Global warming taught in EVERY discipline including literature, social studies, math, science &

technology. – Samantha Power book “A Problem from Hell; America & the Genocide” IN FRSD CURRICULUM – FR social studies workbook on Constitution stating the founding fathers were “all white male

landowners… how could they represent more than half the population that wasn’t white male?” “The founding fathers probably couldn’t imagine seeking the input of these (minority) groups.” It goes on to question students what the Constitution would look like if it was “fair” and wasn't “created by white men” (McGraw Hill p. 42)

• The way to phase out alternative education (private, Christian, cyber, magnet and home schooling) Gates now has a subsidiary that is in position to take over magnet and charter schools that fail the Common Core assessments (That is in the RTTT grant- if a magnet or charter school does not pass the Common Core assessments they will be taken over)

• Making our children homogenous worker bees; churning out workers for big corporations • Case example: German family seeking asylum to home school: our future



Once the state has accepted RTTT $, the only way to opt out is to:

•Provide notice •Return the $ •Consortium of states must agree to let your state leave •US Department of Education must approve Now, what happened to the 10th Amendment?

Can a State Opt Out of Common Core?


Even though the US Department of Education and the states’ Departments of Education bypassed the legislature, there are

three things legislators can do:

•Defund Common Core by amending the state’s budget •House legislature stating that the state will not participate in Common Core •There is a U.S. House Bill revoking Common Core at the federal level that needs support. (see appendix)

Defunding Common Core seems to be the quickest, easiest way to halt Common Core until legislators can investigate its content, intent and effect on our children. Please see the appendix for specific legislation and amendments to the Ohio and Michigan budgets that de-fund Common Core.

What Can our State Do?

Need to Educate • School Board • Superintendent • City Council • Teachers Union • Gov. Corbett • PDE • Parents/PTA’s & PTO’s • Community • Legislators


Appendix • Common Core Fast Fact Sheet • Common Core Facts for Parents • Longitudinal Data System • OPT OUT of Common Core form • List of legislation & official documents • References


4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256

[email protected] 26

4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256


4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256


Purpose: The program provides grants to states to design, develop, and implement statewide P-20 longitudinal data systems to capture, analyze, and use student data from preschool to high school, college, and the workforce. Program Requirements: Since it started in fiscal year 2005, the program has awarded grants worth $265 million to 41 states and the District of Columbia. The Recovery Act competition requires that the data systems have the capacity to link preschool, K-12, and postsecondary education as well as workforce data. To receive State Fiscal Stabilization Funds, a state must provide an assurance that it will establish a longitudinal data system that includes the 12 elements described in the America COMPETES Act, and any data system developed with Statewide longitudinal data system funds must include at least 12 elements.

12 Required Elements: 1. An unique identifier for every student that does not permit a student to be individually identified (except as permitted by federal and state law); 2. The school enrollment history, demographic characteristics, and program participation record of every student; 3. Information on when a student enrolls, transfers, drops out, or graduates from a school; 4. Students scores on tests required by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; 5. Information on students who are not tested, by grade and subject. 6. Students scores on tests measuring whether they’re ready for college; 7. A way to identify teachers and to match teachers to their students; 8. Information from students’ transcripts, specifically courses taken and grades earned; 9. Data on students’ success in college, including whether they enrolled in remedial courses; 10. Data on whether K-12 students are prepared to succeed in college; 11. A system of auditing data for quality, validity, and reliability; and 12. The ability to share data from preschool through postsecondary education data systems. With such comprehensive data systems, states will be able to monitor their reforms and make specific changes to advance them. These data systems will capture data on students from one grade to the next, measuring whether they are on track to graduate and telling K-12 schools whether they are preparing their students to succeed in college and the workforce. The data systems also can help identify teachers who are succeeding so states can reward them, and find teachers who are struggling and help them improve. A request for applications is being published in the Federal Register and will be available on www.ed.gov.

Longitudinal Data System

4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256


Priority 4: Invitational Priority— Expansion and Adaptation of Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems The Secretary is particularly interested in applications in which the State plans to expand statewide longitudinal data systems to include or integrate data from special education programs, English language learner programs,1 early childhood programs, at-risk and dropout prevention programs, and school climate and culture programs, as well as information on student mobility, human resources (i.e., information on teachers, principals, and other staff), school finance, student health, postsecondary education, and other relevant areas, with the purpose of connecting and coordinating all parts of the system to allow important questions related to policy, practice, or overall effectiveness to be asked, answered, and incorporated into effective continuous improvement Practices.

Longitudinal Data System/RTTT Requirement

The Secretary is also particularly interested in applications in which States propose working together to adapt one State’s statewide longitudinal data system so that it may be used, in whole or in part, by one or more other States, rather than having each State build or continue building such systems independently.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Overview Information; Race to the Top Fund; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.395A.


Longitudinal Data System/RTTT Data Distribution

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Overview Information; Race to the Top Fund; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.395A.


Dr. Gary Thompson/Concerns on Privacy CCSS “testing” policies that have not been addressed by the Common Core to State’s Governors’,

State Superintendents, State School Boards, local school district superintendents, local school boards, to parents of children in public school education:

•What types of tests will be utilized on our children. •Does not address, specifically, exactly who is developing these tests. •Does not address the fact that these tests have not yet been developed, and are not available for public consumption or private review by clinical psychology researchers and psychometric professionals. •Does not address if the soon to be completed tests will be subjected to the same rigorous peer review process that ALL testing instruments are subjected to prior to being released to mental health professionals for their use in the private sector. •Does not state which public school employees would be administering or interpreting these tests. There is a reason that School Psychologists cannot “practice” outside of their scope in school districts. As hard working and as wonderful as this group is, their training pales in comparison to the average local clinical psychologist. •Does not address the well documented, peer-reviewed fact that both African American and Latino students, due to cultural issues, tend to have skewed testing results when cultural issues are not addressed prior to the initiation of such testing. This should probably be addressed if these results are going to be following a student “from cradle to high school graduation.” •Once these highly intimate, powerful, and most likely inaccurate testing results are completed, who EXACTLY will have access to all of this data? Common Core DOES address this issue.



HTTP://CEDS.ED.GOV “PROMOTING GRIT, TENACITY, & PERSEVERANCE: CRITICAL FACTORS IN THE 21ST CENTURY”, FEBRUARY 2013, US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY www.truthinamericaneducation.com www.StopCommonCore.com www.rightsidenews.com/2013031632175/life-and-science/health-and-education/marxism-in-education-the-infiltration-of-our-school-systems-by-the-common-core-standards.html http://wheresthemath.com http://pioneerinstitute.org “The Road to a National Curriculum- The Legal Aspects of the Common Core Standards, Race to the Top, and Conditional Waivers” A Pioneer Institute White Paper, By Robert S. Eitel & Kent D. Talbert. February 2012. Issue #81 http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20130318/NEWS/303180181/EXCLUSIVE-Testing-requires-computers-some-schools-can-t-afford?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1 http://www.indystar.com/article/20130319/OPINION/303190058 http://commoncorefacts.blogspot.com/2013/03/what-can-i-do.html http://www2.ed.gov http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/02/13/former-education-commissioner-blasts-common-core-process/

Resources


http://ceds.ed.gov/

http://ceds.ed.gov/

http://ceds.ed.gov/

http://ceds.ed.gov/

http://ceds.ed.gov/

http://ceds.ed.gov/

http://ceds.ed.gov/

http://www.truthinamericaneducation.com/



http://www.stopcommoncore.com/

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2013031632175/life-and-science/health-and-education/marxism-in-education-the-infiltration-of-our-school-systems-by-the-common-core-standards.html



































http://wheresthemath.com/

http://pioneerinstitute.org/

http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20130318/NEWS/303180181/EXCLUSIVE-Testing-requires-computers-some-schools-can-t-afford?gcheck=1&nclick_check=1

















http://www.indystar.com/article/20130319/OPINION/303190058

http://www2.ed.gov/


Legislation, Resolutions and Letters to Dept Ed Regarding Common Core

•Ohio Amendment to De-Fund Common Core in Budget 59 (passed!) •Michigan Amendment to Budget to De-Fund Common Core (passed!)

•Michigan HB 4276 •Alabama HB 254 •Alabama SB 190

•Sen. Grassley Letter to Investigate CC •Georgia SB 167

•Missouri Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-3) letter to Sec. Arne Duncan with grave concerns on privacy and loss of local control

•NSBA Bill: Local School Board Governance & Flexibility Act, HR 1386 •RNC Resolution Concerning Common Core

•Texas Ed Commissioner Blasts Common Core in Let to Senate


Michigan HB 4276 MI Bill HB4276 changes 1976 PA 451, entitled ”The revised school code,” by amending section 1278 (MCL 380.1278), as amended by 2004 PA 596, and by adding section 1278c. On February 19, 2013, the bill was introduced by Representatives McMillin, Hooker, McBroom, Somerville and Howrylak and referred to the Committee on Education. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1278 (MCL 380.1278) – The State Board Model Core Academic Curriculum content standards shall not be based upon the Common Core Standards described in Section 1278C. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1278C (MCL 380.1278) - (1) The State Board and the Department shall not implement the Common Core Standards promoted by the Common Core Standards Initiative coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. The State Board shall take the necessary action to rescind the State Board’s adoption of those Common Core Standards, which occurred on June 15, 2010, and to discontinue any assessments aligned to those Common Core Standards. (2) After the effective date of this section, the State Board or any other state official or agency shall not participate in the Common Core State Standards initiative described in Subsection (1). (3) The State Board shall ensure that the State Board Model Core Academic Curriculum Content Standards under Section 1278 and the subject area content expectations that apply to the credit requirements of the Michigan Merit Standard under Sections 1278A and 1278 are not based upon the Common Core Standards described in Subsection (1).


Alabama House Bill HB 254


Michigan House Budget Amendment Funds appropriated in Part 1 (MDE’s full budget) shall not be used to fund the Common Core State Standards Initiative or Smarter Balanced Assessments. Funds shall not be used to

implement programs or student assessments created by the Common Core State Standards Initiative or Smarter Balance

Assessments.


Missouri House Bill HB 254









Alabama SB190


4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256


4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256


4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256


4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256




Indiana Senate Bill No. 193 (PASSED!)

4/24/2013 53

4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256


4/24/2013 55

4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256


4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256



NSBA Bill: Local School Board Governance and Flexibility Act, H.R. 1386

On March 21, 2013, Rep. Aaron Schock (IL) introduced the Local School Board Governance and Flexibility Act, H.R. 1386. Additional original sponsors included Representatives Rodney Davis (IL), Ron Kind (WI), Patrick Meehan (PA), David Valadao (CA), Jim Gerlach (PA), Kevin Cramer (ND), and Kenny Marchant (TX). The bill enjoys the support of the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) This bi-partisan bill, Local School Board Governance and Flexibility Act, HR 1386, will help rein in the U.S. Department of Education’s authority in the absence of federal legislation and ensure that school boards are involved during the implementation of U.S. Department of Education guidelines. H.R. 1386 recognizes the vital role and responsibilities of local school board governance and local school district decision-making in designing, developing and delivering high quality educational services for our nation's schoolchildren. This legislation also ensures that the U.S. Department of Education fulfills its role as a policy implementer rather than a policy-maker, and performs that role with proper recognition of governance


RN

C R

ESO

LUTI

ON

CO

NC

ERN

ING

CO

MM

ON

CO

RE

EDU

CA

TIO

N S

TAN

DA

RD

S W

HER

EAS,

th

e C

om

mo

n C

ore

Sta

te S

tan

dar

ds

(CC

SS)

are

a se

t o

f ac

adem

ic s

tan

dar

ds,

p

rom

ote

d a

nd

su

pp

ort

ed b

y tw

o p

riva

te m

emb

ersh

ip o

rgan

izat

ion

s, t

he

Nat

ion

al G

ove

rno

r’s

Ass

oci

atio

n (

NG

A)

and

th

e C

ou

nci

l of

Ch

ief

Stat

e Sc

ho

ol O

ffic

ers

(CC

SSO

) as

a m

eth

od

fo

r co

nfo

rmin

g A

me

rica

n s

tud

ents

to

un

ifo

rm (

“on

e si

ze f

its

all”

) ac

hie

vem

ent

goal

s to

mak

e th

em

mo

re c

om

pet

itiv

e in

a g

lob

al m

arke

tpla

ce, (

1.)

an

d

WH

EREA

S, t

he

NG

A a

nd

th

e C

CSS

O,

rece

ived

ten

s o

f m

illio

ns

of

do

llars

fro

m p

riva

te t

hir

d

par

ties

to

ad

voca

te f

or

and

dev

elo

p t

he

CC

SS s

trat

egy,

su

bse

qu

entl

y cr

eate

d t

he

CC

SS

thro

ugh

a p

roce

ss t

hat

was

no

t su

bje

ct t

o a

ny

free

do

m o

f in

form

atio

n a

cts

or

oth

er s

un

shin

e la

ws,

an

d n

ever

pilo

ted

th

e C

CSS

, an

d

WH

EREA

S, e

ven

th

ou

gh F

eder

al L

aw p

roh

ibit

s th

e fe

der

aliz

ing

of

curr

icu

lum

(2

.), t

he

Ob

ama

Ad

min

istr

atio

n a

ccep

ted

th

e C

CSS

pla

n a

nd

use

d 2

00

9 S

tim

ulu

s B

ill m

on

ey t

o r

ewar

d t

he

stat

es

that

wer

e m

ost

co

mm

itte

d t

o t

he

pre

sid

en

t’s

CC

SS a

gen

da;

bu

t, t

hey

fai

led

to

giv

e st

ates

, th

eir

legi

slat

ure

s an

d t

hei

r ci

tize

ns

tim

e to

eva

luat

e th

e C

CSS

bef

ore

hav

ing

to c

om

mit

to

th

em, a

nd

W

HER

EAS,

th

e N

GA

an

d C

CSS

O in

co

nce

rt w

ith

th

e sa

me

corp

ora

tio

ns

dev

elo

pin

g th

e C

CSS

‘a

sses

smen

ts’ h

ave

crea

ted

new

tex

tbo

oks

, dig

ital

med

ia a

nd

oth

er t

each

ing

mat

eria

ls a

lign

ed

to t

he

stan

dar

ds

wh

ich

mu

st b

e p

urc

has

ed a

nd

ad

op

ted

by

loca

l sch

oo

l dis

tric

ts in

ord

er t

hat

st

ud

ents

may

eff

ecti

vely

co

mp

ete

on

CC

SS ‘a

sses

smen

ts’,

and

W

HER

EAS,

th

e C

CSS

pro

gram

incl

ud

es f

eder

ally

fu

nd

ed t

esti

ng

and

th

e co

llect

ion

an

d s

har

ing

of

mas

sive

am

ou

nts

of

per

son

al s

tud

ent

and

tea

cher

dat

a, a

nd

W

HER

EAS,

th

e C

CSS

eff

ecti

vely

rem

ove

s ed

uca

tio

nal

ch

oic

e an

d c

om

pet

itio

n s

ince

all

sch

oo

ls

and

all

dis

tric

ts m

ust

use

Co

mm

on

Co

re ‘a

sses

smen

ts’ b

ased

on

th

e C

om

mo

n C

ore

sta

nd

ard

s to

al

low

all

stu

den

ts t

o a

dva

nce

in t

he

sch

oo

l sys

tem

an

d t

o a

dva

nce

to

hig

her

ed

uca

tio

n p

urs

uit

s;

ther

efo

re b

e it

R

ESO

LVED

, th

e R

epu

blic

an N

atio

nal

Co

mm

itte

e, a

s st

ated

in t

he

20

12

Rep

ub

lican

Par

ty

Pla

tfo

rm, “

do

no

t b

elie

ve in

a o

ne

size

fit

s al

l ap

pro

ach

to

ed

uca

tio

n a

nd

su

pp

ort

pro

vid

ing

bro

ad e

du

cati

on

ch

oic

es t

o p

aren

ts a

nd

ch

ildre

n a

t th

e St

ate

and

loca

l lev

el,”

(p

35

)(3

.), w

hic

h is

b

est

bas

ed o

n a

fre

e m

arke

t ap

pro

ach

to

ed

uca

tio

n f

or

stu

den

ts t

o a

chie

ve in

div

idu

al

exce

llen

ce; a

nd

, be

it f

urt

her

R

ESO

LVED

, th

e R

epu

blic

an N

atio

nal

Co

mm

itte

e r

eco

gniz

es t

he

CC

SS f

or

wh

at it

is–

an

inap

pro

pri

ate

ove

rrea

ch t

o s

tan

dar

diz

e an

d c

on

tro

l th

e ed

uca

tio

n o

f o

ur

child

ren

so

th

ey w

ill

con

form

to

a p

reco

nce

ived

“n

orm

al,”

an

d, b

e it

fu

rth

er

RES

OLV

ED, T

hat

th

e R

epu

blic

an N

atio

nal

Co

mm

itte

e r

ejec

ts t

he

colle

ctio

n o

f p

erso

nal

stu

den

t d

ata

for

any

no

n-e

du

cati

on

al p

urp

ose

wit

ho

ut

the

pri

or

wri

tten

co

nse

nt

of

an a

du

lt s

tud

ent

or

a ch

ild s

tud

ent’

s p

aren

t an

d t

hat

it r

ejec

ts t

he

shar

ing

of

such

per

son

al d

ata,

wit

ho

ut

the

pri

or

wri

tten

co

nse

nt

of

an a

du

lt s

tud

ent

or

a ch

ild s

tud

ent’

s p

aren

t, w

ith

an

y p

erso

n o

r en

tity

oth

er

than

sch

oo

ls o

r ed

uca

tio

n a

gen

cies

wit

hin

th

e st

ate,

an

d b

e it

fin

ally

R

ESO

LVED

, th

e 2

01

2 R

epu

blic

an P

arty

Pla

tfo

rm s

pec

ific

ally

sta

tes

the

nee

d t

o r

epea

l th

e n

um

ero

us

fed

eral

reg

ula

tio

ns

wh

ich

inte

rfer

e w

ith

Sta

te a

nd

loca

l co

ntr

ol o

f p

ub

lic s

cho

ols

, (p

36

) (3

.);

and

th

eref

ore

, th

e R

epu

blic

an N

atio

nal

Co

mm

itte

e r

ejec

ts t

his

CC

SS p

lan

wh

ich

cr

eate

s an

d f

its

the

cou

ntr

y w

ith

a n

atio

nw

ide

stra

itja

cket

on

aca

dem

ic f

ree

do

m a

nd

ac

hie

vem

ent.

R

efer

ence

s:

1. w

ww

.co

rest

and

ard

s.o

rg

2.

Fed

eral

Law

20

USC

12

32

a-Se

c. 1

23

2a.

an

d T

he

Ele

men

tary

an

d S

eco

nd

ary

Edu

cati

on

Act

(E

SEA

) P

ub

.L. 8

9-1

0, 7

9 S

tat.

27

, 20

US.

C. c

h. 7

0.

http://www.corestandards.org/

Date post:	12-Apr-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	paagainstcommoncore
View:	129 times
Download:	0 times

What Common Core Really Means for Pennsylvania

Documents