Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home

Common Core State [sic] Standards


811 in the collection  

    New ESEA Orders Same Old Mandates that Killed Reading for Kids
    Note: See The NPE/Fairtest Machine: Culpability High, Credibility Low by Jim Horn at Schools Matter. Jim makes an essential critique of the 5% rule:

    The 5 percent rule, however, remains a central privatization tool in the new ESEA, which means that the bottom five percent of test-scoring schools, i. e., the poorest schools, must be targeted for turnaround each year. And with a new bottom 5 percent guaranteed in perpetuity (or until all schools have been privatized), tell me again that sanctions have been eliminated.

    by Susan Ohanian

    After plowing through the new ESEA [long pdf file], I'm sure that I'd rather watch sausage get made.

    Does anyone believe our Congressional representatives read this 1061-page bill? I asked my Congressional representative to please point out to me what he liked (Then it was a 1059 pages).

    No reply.

    Are politicos better than I at reading this --and figuring out whether this is good for libraries or bad?

    (2) Section 224(b)(6)(A) (20 U.S.C.
    20 9134(b)(6)(A)) is amended by striking "including
    21 coordination with the activities within the State that
    22 are supported by a grant under section 1251 of the
    23 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
    24 (20 U.S.C. 6383)̢̢۪۪ and inserting "including
    25coordination with the activities within the State that
    are supported by a grant under section 2226 of the
    Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965".

    VerDate Nov 24 2008 10:28 Nov 30, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 01039 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:USERSKLMERY~1APPDATAROAMINGSOFTQUADXMETAL7.0GENCCONFRP~1
    November 30, 2015 (10:28 a.m.)
    f:VHLC113015113015.012.xml (619087|5)

    Do members of Congress know what "universal design for learning" is? Do teachers and parents? Page 363 of this legislation mandates it:

    "(J) incorporates the principles of universal design for learning;"

    I do know that I'm irate about this mandate, ordering states to provide:

    targeted subgrants to early childhood education programs and local educational agencies and their public or private partners to implement evidence-based programs that ensure high-quality comprehensive literacy instruction for students most in need.

    Here's further description of what they have in mind:

    "(1) COMPREHENSIVE LITERACY INSTRUCTION.--The term 'comprehensive literacy instruction' means instruction that--includes...
  • contextually explicit, and systematic instruction, and frequent practice, in reading and writing...

  • explicit instruction in writing

  • We've been confronting these danger words for decades:

  • explicit

  • systematic

  • frequent practice (i.e. skill drill)

  • But we've learned that it's useless to ask our unions and professional organizations to stand up for pedagogy.

    Beware of Pay for Success provision, which takes the ugliness of standards and testing to pre-schoolers--and puts it in the hands of outfits like Goldman Sachs.

    Here's how the US Department of Education describes it:

    Pay for Success (PFS) is an innovative financing model that states and communities are studying, and beginning to use, to fund early learning and other programs. PFS leverages philanthropic and other private dollars to fund services for a target population that measurably improve the outcomes for the individuals and communities. Because it focuses on outcomes, PFS appeals to taxpayers who want their dollars spent wisely.

    The deal here is that private outfits like Goldman Sachs take over a preschool program and earn money when they reduce the number of kids requiring special services. So Goldman Sachs gets to define who needs special ed and rake in profits accordingly.

    The bill writers sneak all this-- much much more--in the middle of gems like this:

    (2) by striking "9305" each place it appears
    2 and inserting "8305";
    3 (3) by striking "9302" each place it appears
    4 and inserting "8302"; and
    5 (4) by striking "9501" each place it appears
    6 and inserting "8501".
    7 SEC. 8002. DEFINITIONS.
    8 Section 8101, as redesignated and amended by section 8001 of this Act, is further amended—
    10 (1) by striking paragraphs (3), (11), (19), (23),
    11 (35), (36), (37), and (42);
    12 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (4), (5), (6),
    13 (7), (8), (9), (10), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17),
    14 (18), (20), (21), (22), (24), (25), (26), (27), (28),
    15 (29), (30), (31), (32), (33), (34), (38), (39), (41),
    16 and (43) as paragraphs (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8),
    17 (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (18), (19), (24),
    18 (26), (27), (29), (20), (30), (31), (34), (35), (36),
    19 (38), (39), (41), (42), (45), (46), (49), and (50), respectively, and by transferring such paragraph (20)
    21 (as so redesignated) so as to follow such paragraph
    22 (19) (as so redesignated);
    23 (3) by striking paragraphs (11) and (12) (as so
    24 redesignated by paragraph (2)) and inserting the
    25 following:
    VerDate Nov 24 2008 10:28 Nov 30, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00778 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:USERSKLMERY~1APPDATAROAMINGSOFTQUADXMETAL7.0GENCCONFRP~1
    November 30, 2015 (10:28 a.m.)
    f:VHLC113015113015.012.xml (619087|5)
    1 "(11) COVERED PROGRAM.—The term ‘covered
    2 program̢۪ means each of the programs authorized
    3 by—
    4 "(A) part A of title I;
    5 "(B) part C of title I;
    6 "(C) part D of title I;
    7 "(D) part A of title II;
    8 "(E) part A of title III;
    9 "(F) part A of title IV;
    10 "(G) part B of title IV; and
    11 "(H) subpart 2 of part B of title V.
    12 "(12) CURRENT EXPENDITURES.--The term
    13 "'current expenditures' means expenditures for free public education--
    15 "(A) including expenditures for 16 administration, instruction, attendance and 17 health services, pupil transportation services, operation
    18 and maintenance of plant, fixed charges, and
    19 net expenditures to cover deficits for food serv20
    ices and student body activities; but
    21 "(B) not including expenditures for 22 community services, capital outlay, and debt 23 service, or any expenditures made from funds 24received under title I.";

    So you decide: For or against?

    There is, of course, a very deliberate motive for such obfuscation. And no Democratic member of the House chose to stand up against it. None voted against this piece of offal.

    Maybe they were all enamored by the Earthquake Hazards modifications (see p. 1006).

    — Susan Ohanian
    December 04, 2015

    Index of Common Core [sic] Standards

Pages: 33   
[1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next >>    Last >>

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.