What Common Core Really Means for Pennsylvania
-
Upload
paagainstcommoncore -
Category
Documents
-
view
131 -
download
0
description
Transcript of 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?
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 3
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
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 5
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 6
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
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 8
• 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.
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 9
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 11
• 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?
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 12
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?
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 13
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
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 14
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?
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 15
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
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 16
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]
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 18
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
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 19
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
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 20
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
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 21
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 22
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?
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 23
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
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 24
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] 25
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
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.
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 30
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.
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 31
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.
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 32
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 33
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
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 34
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 35
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
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 36
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).
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 37
Alabama House Bill HB 254
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 38
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.
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 39
Missouri House Bill HB 254
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 40
Missouri House Bill HB 254
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 41
Missouri House Bill HB 254
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 42
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 43
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 44
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 45
Alabama SB190
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 46
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
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 51
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 52
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
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 58
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
4/24/2013 T.C. Eshelman 724.331.0256 [email protected] 59
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.