The Common Core Problem

April 15th, 2014 at 09:57 AM

I don’t think Common Core supporters understand what they’ve done. The supporters of common core seem to think that people should be thanking them for the great benefit that is being bestowed upon their children.

At its heart, it makes sense that in a highly mobile society, students should be essentially on the same path of study so there is no disadvantage in a parent taking a new job across the country. As a person who grew up in Dubai and returned to the United States after ninth grade, I can see the benefits of keeping kids on in schools on roughly the same page of lessons.

But that’s not just what common core is doing.

I think the people who support common core out of good intentions do not realize the bad side of common core. Beyond the emotional arguments, the philosophical arguments, and the crazy arguments — there are a lot of crazy arguments against common core — there is a very practical argument the common core supporters have no answer for.

Moms cannot help their children with math homework. Reporters who are single and common core supporters without kids may not be able to relate here or identify with this, but that’s why this is such a sleeper issue. Moms cannot help their kids with math homework and that’s creating most of the rage against common core.

It is as true in my household as it is in others. The math does not make sense to the children and the math does not make sense to the parent. Kids are taught multiple ways to add totals together, must still add the totals correctly, but then must explain their answers — often having to write essays for math problems.

The best answer common core supporters have is to literally produce studies claiming that kids whose parents do not help them with homework will, over the long term, out perform kids whose parents do help them.

I am not kidding. That is their defense.

Meanwhile, elementary school kids are overwhelmed by their math problems. In some cases, their teachers are now giving them a pass if they can explain how they arrived at their answer, even if they get the answer wrong.

Common Core has become just a new education trend. Every decade, bored educators in the United States latch on to a new trend on how to teach things. By God it is a horrific idea that we might teach math the way math has always been taught. There are always new ways and common core is just the latest.

And maybe they are right. But practically, no parent in America is going to listen to the rightness of the smug opinion of the education elite and Chamber of Commerce when it isn’t Jeb Bush, Thomas Donohue, or another Common Core supporter sitting at the kitchen table trying to help an eight year old with a math problem.

Common Core may have started off with very good intentions. But in an age when politicians fixate on what the soccer mom, the Walmart mom, or mom in general think — they’ve pissed off mama because she can’t help her kid at night with math anymore. And if mama’s not happy, nobody’s happy.

Forget immigration. Forget Obamacare. Common core is going to be the under the radar, sleeper issue of campaign 2014. It transcends party and there are few issues as kitchen table as the one most often done in frustration right at the kitchen table.

I don’t think Common Core supporters understand what they’ve done. The supporters of common core seem to think that people should be thanking them for the great benefit that is being bestowed upon their children.

At its heart, it makes sense that in a highly mobile society, students should be essentially on the same path of study so there is no disadvantage in a parent taking a new job across the country. As a person who grew up in Dubai and returned to the United States after ninth grade, I can see the benefits of keeping kids on in schools on roughly the same page of lessons.

But that’s not just what common core is doing.

I think the people who support common core out of good intentions do not realize the bad side of common core. Beyond the emotional arguments, the philosophical arguments, and the crazy arguments — there are a lot of crazy arguments against common core — there is a very practical argument the common core supporters have no answer for.

Moms cannot help their children with math homework. Reporters who are single and common core supporters without kids may not be able to relate here or identify with this, but that’s why this is such a sleeper issue. Moms cannot help their kids with math homework and that’s creating most of the rage against common core.

It is as true in my household as it is in others. The math does not make sense to the children and the math does not make sense to the parent. Kids are taught multiple ways to add totals together, must still add the totals correctly, but then must explain their answers — often having to write essays for math problems.

The best answer common core supporters have is to literally produce studies claiming that kids whose parents do not help them with homework will, over the long term, out perform kids whose parents do help them.

I am not kidding. That is their defense.

Meanwhile, elementary school kids are overwhelmed by their math problems. In some cases, their teachers are now giving them a pass if they can explain how they arrived at their answer, even if they get the answer wrong.
Common Core has become just a new education trend. Every decade, bored educators in the United States latch on to a new trend on how to teach things. By God it is a horrific idea that we might teach math the way math has always been taught. There are always new ways and common core is just the latest.

And maybe they are right. But practically, no parent in America is going to listen to the rightness of the smug opinion of the education elite and Chamber of Commerce when it isn’t Jeb Bush, Thomas Donohue, or another Common Core supporter sitting at the kitchen table trying to help an eight year old with a math problem.

Common Core may have started off with very good intentions. But in an age when politicians fixate on what the soccer mom, the Walmart mom, or mom in general think — they’ve pissed off mama because she can’t help her kid at night with math anymore. And if mama’s not happy, nobody’s happy.

Forget immigration. Forget Obamacare. Common core is going to be the under the radar, sleeper issue of campaign 2014. It transcends party and there are few issues as kitchen table as the one most often done in frustration right at the kitchen table.

61% OF PUBLIC SCHOOL PARENTS KNOW 'LITTLE' OR 'NOTHING' ABOUT COMMON CORE EDUCATION STANDARDS

A new Gallup poll concerning public school parents’ views of the Common Core standards finds that even in states that have implemented the centralized standards, 27% of parents surveyed said they know “only a little” about the standards, while 29% know “nothing” about them at all, leaving 56% of public school parents with little to no knowledge of how and what their children are being taught right now.

Among public school parents in general, 30% said they know “only a little” about the Common Core, while 31% said they know “nothing” about the standards.

The poll, which was conducted via telephone interviews with a random sample of 639 K-12 public school parents living throughout the United States, has a margin of error of + 5 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

Gallup states that some survey results were based on 466 K-12 public school parents familiar with the Common Core standards, with a margin of error of +6 percentage points. Yet other results were based on 382 public school K-12 parents in the 33 states that have already implemented the standards. In this case, the margin of sampling error is +7 percentage points.

The survey results suggest that parents in states that have already implemented the centralized standards are only slightly more familiar with them than those in other states. Views about the standards tend to remain the same, whether parents live in states that are implementing the Common Core or not.

Regarding a survey question about positive versus negative impressions of the centralized standards, 35% of the parents surveyed said they had a positive impression of the Common Core standards, while 28% had a negative impression. However, 37% of parents said they either have never heard of Common Core or didn’t know enough about it to make a decision.

The survey suggests that relatively few parents feel strongly about the Common Core, and even among public school parents who say they are familiar with the standards, only 13% view them very positively and just 19% view them very negatively.

Ironically, the poll’s results show that, even if public school parents are mostly unfamiliar with the standards, they give the concepts associated with Common Core positive ratings.

A full 73% of the public school parents surveyed said having uniform standards is “very positive” or “positive” for education, and 65% said they believe standardized, computer-based testing to measure students’ performance will have a “very positive” or “positive” effect. In addition, 67% of the participants said linking teacher evaluations to their students’ performance on the Common Core-aligned tests would be a “very positive” or “positive” initiative.

When political party is a factor, the poll found that, among public school parents, only 26% of those who identify as Republican have a positive impression of Common Core, while 42% view the standards negatively. Among parents who identify as Democrats, 45% view the Common Core positively while 23% view the initiative negatively.

Regarding Common Core, Gallup states, “On one level, the program has been successful, achieving buy-in from 44 states. But there is still a long way to go…”

“Already, critics of the program are proving their muscle by slowing down or reversing implementation in some states,” Gallup continues, “and if this were to reach critical mass, it could derail the whole enterprise. But whether the critics speak for parents, generally, seems in doubt.”

The Dawning Database: Does the Common Core Lead to National Data Collection?

by Will Estrada and Katie Tipton

Will Estrada has been leading our efforts to defend homeschooling on Capitol Hill since 2006. As the oldest of eight kids, and a homeschool graduate who married a homeschool graduate, he has a passion for protecting homeschool freedom. Read more >>

The U.S. Department of Education is prohibited by law from creating a national data system.¹ But the Education Science Reform Act of 2002 gave the federal government the authority to publish guidelines for states developing state longitudinal data systems (SLDS).² Over the past decade, a slew of new federal incentives and federally funded data models have spurred states to monitor students’ early years, performance in college, and success in the workforce by following “individuals systematically and efficiently across state lines.”³ We believe that this expansion of state databases is laying the foundation for a national database filled with personal student data.

Home School Legal Defense Association has long opposed the creation of such a database. We believe that it would threaten the privacy of students, be susceptible to abuse by government officials or business interests, and jeopardize student safety. We believe that detailed data systems are not necessary to educate young people. Education should not be an Orwellian attempt to track students from preschool through assimilation into the workforce.

At this point, it does not appear that the data of students who are educated in homeschools or private schools are being included in these databases. But HSLDA is concerned that it will become increasingly difficult to protect the personal information of homeschool and private school students as these databases grow. Oklahoma’s P20 Council has already called for databases to include the personal data of homeschool students.⁴

The Development of a National Database

The Department of Education laid the foundation for a nationally linkable, comprehensive database in January 2012 when it promulgated regulations altering the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). FERPA formerly guaranteed that parents could access their children’s personally identifiable information collected by schools, but schools were barred from sharing this information with third parties.⁵ Personally identifiable information is defined by FERPA as information “that would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty,” including names of family members, living address, Social Security number, date and place of birth, disciplinary record, and biometric record.⁶ However, the Department of Education has reshaped FERPA through regulations so that any government or private entity that the department says is evaluating an education program has access to students’ personally identifiable information.⁷ Postsecondary institutes and workforce education programs can also be given this data. This regulatory change absent congressional legislation has resulted in a lawsuit against the Department of Education, though a judge in the U.S. District Court for D.C. dismissed the suit on an issue of standing.⁸

Guidelines for building SLDS that can collect and link personally identifiable information across state lines have been released by task forces funded by both the Department of Education and special interests groups. Many of these recommendations were compiled in the National Education Data Model (NEDM) v. 3.0, a project funded by Department of Education and overseen by the Council for Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), one of the organizations that created the Common Core.⁹ According to the NEDM website, 18 states and numerous local educational agencies are using this model for their state longitudinal databases. In addition, numerous states are still following other database models such as the Data Quality Campaign’s 10 Essential Elements, the State Core Data Set, the Common Education Data Standards, and the Schools Interoperability Framework, an initiative that received $6 million of federal funding in Massachusetts alone.¹⁰ Concentrating data collection around a few models means that states are getting closer and closer to keeping the same data and using the same interoperable technology to store it. Forty-six states currently have databases that can track students from preschool through the workforce (P-20W).¹¹

Driving the Data Collection

In addition to funding data models, the federal government has driven a national database through legislation. The 2009 federal stimulus bill created the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund as “a new one-time appropriation of $53.6 billion.”¹² With this money, the Department of Education gave money to states who would commit to develop and use prekindergarten through postsecondary and career data systems, among other criteria.

Additionally, $4.35 billion was given to make competitive grants under the new Race to the Top (RTTT) challenge.¹³RTTT is an ongoing competition for federal funds that awards tax dollars to states that promise to make certain changes in their state education policy, including adopting the Common Core. Every state that agrees to the Common Core in order to receive RTTT funding also commits “to design, develop, and implement statewide P-20 [preschool through workforce] longitudinal data systems” that can be used in part or in whole by other states.¹⁴Data collection must follow the 12 criteria set down in the America COMPETES Act, which requires states to collect any “information determined necessary to address alignment and adequate preparation for success in postsecondary education.”¹⁵ The 23 states that did not receive RTTT grants but are part of one of the two consortia developing assessments aligned to the Common Core are also committed to cataloging students from preschool through the workforce.¹⁶

In addition, in 2011 the Department of Education attached RTTT funding to its new Early Learning Challenge (ELC). ELC gives this money to states that meet standards and mandates for early education programs. Some of the standards that states must meet to receive these special funds involve establishing statewide databases. Known as CEDs—Common Education Data Standards—they are “voluntary, common standards for a key set of education data elements … at the early learning, K-12, and postsecondary levels developed through a national collaborative effort being led by the National Center for Educational Statistics.”¹⁷

Supporters of RTTT are correct when they say that there is not currently a central database kept by the U.S. Department of Education. However, the heavy involvement of the federal government in enticing states to create databases of student-specific data that are linked between states is creating a de facto centralized database. Additionally, in 2012 the U.S. Department of Labor announced $12 million in grants for states to build longitudinal databases linking workforce and education data.¹⁸ Before our eyes a “national database” is being created in which every public school student’s personal information and academic history will be stored.

How is the Common Core Connected?

The adoption and implementation of the Common Core State Standards has furthered the government’s expansion efforts, because the authors of the Common Core are clear: the success of the standards hinges on the increased collection of student data.¹⁹ The Data Quality Campaign clarifies by explaining that the Common Core’s emphasis on evaluating teachers based on their students’ academic performance and tracking students’ college and career readiness requires broader data collection.²⁰

The authors of the Common Core have been heavily involved in developing data models and overseeing data collection. The National Governors Association started an initiative to collect data on states’ postsecondary institutions. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation not only funded the creation of the Common Core but currently funds the Data Quality Campaign, one of the leading voices on database expansion and alignment. The Gates Foundation and CCSSO previously partnered with the National Center for Education Statistics (a division of the Department of Education) to build the State Core Data Model, a model that includes data from early childhood through the workforce. CCSSO now manages another data model: the National Education Data Model.

The connection between those pushing the Common Core and these expansive new databases is obvious. The Common Education Data Standards, a division of the Department of Education, even says, “The State Core Model will do for State Longitudinal Data Systems what the Common Core is doing for Curriculum Frameworks and the two assessment consortia.”²¹

What Can I Do to Stop this Data Collection?

A crucial part of the responsibility of parents is protecting the privacy of their children. This enables parents not only to guard their children’s physical safety, but also to nurture their individuality and secure opportunities for them to pursue their dreams apart from government interference. The rise of national databases threatens these freedoms.

At the federal level, HSLDA continues to work to defund and eliminate Race to the Top, the Early Learning Challenge, and other federal programs that are using federal funds—your tax dollars—to entice the states into creating national databases in exchange for federal grants. But since RTTT and the ELC are priorities of the Obama administration, it will be difficult to end these programs.

The states, however, can choose to reject these federal funds in order to safeguard student data. Please contact your state legislators, including your state’s governor, to discuss this issue with them. Ask them about their position on the issue. Find your governor’s current information here. And urge your state officials to reject these national databases of student-specific data.

For information on the status of your state’s databases, visit our Common Core webpages.

• • •

To make a tax-deductible gift to the Homeschool Freedom Fund, which will fund litigation and education about homeschooling, click here. If you are not an HSLDA member, join now! For more information about opportunities to support the work of HSLDA see the FAQ here.

Notes

1. No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. § 7911 (2001).

2. “Frequently Asked Questions,” Common Education Data Standards, accessed August 27, 2013, https://ceds.ed.gov/FAQ.aspx.

3. Limited Out-of-state Data Needed to Produce Robust Indicators (Data Quality Campaign, November 2012), 1, accessed August 27, 2013, http://dataqualitycampaign.org/files/1646_BreakingSilos_Limited Out-of-State Data.pdf.

4. Sunny Becker et al., Data, Data Everywhere: Progress, Challenges, and Recommendations for State Data Systems (HumRRO, July 20, 2011), accessed June 5, 2013, http://www.scribd.com/doc/110361334/Data-Data-Everywhere-CCSSO-Presentation-at-National-Conference-on-Student-Assessment.

5. “Family Educational Records Privacy Extension Act,” HSLDA, September 21, 2011, accessed June 11, 2013, http://www.hslda.org/Legislation/National/2011/HR2910/default.asp.

6. 34 C.F.R. § 99.3 (2013).

7. Emmett McGroarty and Jane Robbins, “Controlling Education from the Top: Why Common Core Is Bad for America,” A Pioneer Institute and American Principles Project White Paper, no. 87 (Center for School Reform, May 2012), 19.

8. “EPIC to Defend Student Privacy Rights in Federal Court,” Electronic Privacy Information Center, July 23, 2013, accessed August 14, 2013, http://epic.org/2013/07/epic-to-defend-student-privacy.html.

9. “National Education Data Model,” accessed August 27, 2013, http://nces.ed.gov/forum/datamodel/files/NEDM_FAQs.pdf.

10. “Information Services: Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF),” Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, last modified June 24, 2013, accessed August 27, 2013, http://www.doe.mass.edu/infoservices/data/sif/.

11. Data for Action 2012: Focusing on People to Change Data Culture (Data Quality Campaign, November 2012), 18, accessed August 27, 2013, http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/find-resources/data-for-action-2012/.

12. U.S. Department of Education, “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Overview,” March 21, 2013, accessed August 29, 2013, http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/stabilization-fund.html.

13. Ibid.

14. “Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems,” U.S. Department of Education, accessed June 11, 2013, http://www2.ed.gov/programs/slds/factsheet.html; U.S. Department of Education, “Race to the Top Program Executive Summary,” March 21, 2013, http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf.

15. 74 Fed. Reg. 221,59836 (November 18, 2009), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009-11-18/pdf/E9-27427.pdf.

16. Ibid.

17. U.S Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge Executive Summary” (August 2011), 21, accessed August 27, 2013, http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/exec-summ.pdf.

18. Jason Kuruvilla, “US Department of Labor Announces More Than $12 Million in Grants Available to States to Improve Workforce Data Quality,” United States Department of Labor, February 12, 2012, accessed June 11, 2013, http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20120352.htm.

19. Tabitha Grossman, Ryan Reyna, and Stephanie Shipton, Realizing the Potential: How Governors Can Lead Effective Implementation of the Common Core State Standards (National Governors Association, 2011), 10, accessed June 8, 2013.

20. Why Data Matter in ESEA Reauthorization: Recommendations to Ensure Data Are Used to Improve Student Achievement (Data Quality Campaign, October 2011), 5, accessed August 27, 2013. http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/1443_ESEA%20recs.pdf.

21. Alyssa Alston et al., The State Core Data Model (Common Education Data Standards, November 2010), 2, accessed August 27, 2013, http://www.pesc.org/library/docs/Common Data Standards/State Core Model 11-17.pdf.

Data Collection, Your School, and You!

The Sneaky Tactic Some States Are Using Now That Parents Are Standing Up Against Common Core

As fed-up parents across the nation voice their staunch opposition to federal Common Core standards, several states are trying a new approach to appease them… by just changing the name in a “rebranding” effort.

In Iowa, Common Core is now referred to as “The Iowa Core” and as “Next Generation Sunshine State Standards” in Florida. Further, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed an executive order recently to scrub the “Common Core” name from their math and reading standards. Louisiana is also reportedly considering a name change.

Glyn Wright, executive director of the Eagle Forum, told FoxNews.com that the name isn’t the problem.

“Even under a different name, the Common Core Standards are still mediocre, at best, and continue to put American students at a significant disadvantage to their international peers,” Wright said.

There are only four states in the U.S. that haven’t adopted at least some Common Core standards.

Critics argue that Common Core, which was never voted on by Congress, promotes a one-size-fits-all approach to education and takes away control from teachers and local school systems. There have also been problems with Common Core “aligned” lessons and textbooks including liberal and progressive political messages.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee sits down for lunch before speaking at the Republican National Committee winter meeting in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 23, 2014. AP Photo/Susan Walsh

Some Republicans, including Jeb Bush and Mike Huckabee, have been longtime supporters of Common Core. Both agree that the name change is necessary because the term Common Core has become “toxic.”

“Rebrand it, refocus it, but don’t retreat,” Huckabee said at a recent meeting of the Council of Chief State School Officers.

Wright had this to say of the tactic: “Rebranding the Common Core does not change the fact that it is still a top-down, federally controlled approach to education that is untested and unproven. We know that Americans will not be fooled by dressing-up this failed initiative.”

Do Common Core’s roots date back to America’s earliest socialists?

In a recent article, TheBlaze’s Fred Lucas noted a troubling aspect of the mindset driving Common Core. Lucas revealed that during an education panel at the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, Common Core proponent and former Massachusetts education Secretary Paul Reveille stated “the children belong to all of us.”

Back in 2010, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan argued that schools should have a communal function stating:

“My vision is that schools need to be community centers. Schools need to be open 12, 13, 14 hours a day six, seven days a week, 12 months out of the year, with a whole host of activities, particularly in disadvantaged communities…Where schools truly become centers of the community, great things happen.”

In doing some research on progressive education, we came across “Education: Free & Compulsory,” a 1971 book written by libertarian economist Murray Rothbard. In the book, Rothbard notes that Frances Wright and Robert Dale Owen, two of the first socialists in America, writing in the early-to-mid-1800s, outlined an education system eerily ideologically similar to that of Paul Reveille, Arne Duncan and other proponents of Common Core specifically and progressive education more broadly.

In fact, Wright and Owen start from Reveille’s premise that “the children belong to all of us,” and take this notion to its logical end that children should be taken away from their parents altogether and raised in public schools, more closely reflecting Duncan’s vision.

Screen shot of the answer key for a questionable 3rd grade grammar assignment from Common Core. (Image Source: @ColletteMoran)

Check out the remarkably prescient passage from Rothbard’s book below [emphasis ours]:

“By the 1820s, their goals of compulsion and statism were already germinating over the country, and particularly flourishing in New England, although the individualist tradition was still strong. One factor that increased the power of New England in diffusing the collectivist idea in education was the enormous migration from that area. New Englanders swarmed south and west out of New England, and carried their zeal for public schooling and for State compulsion with them.

Into this atmosphere was injected the closest that the country had seen to Plato’s idea, of full State communistic control over the children. This was the plan of two of the first socialists in America—Frances Wright and Robert Dale Owen. Owen was the son of one of the first British “Utopian” Socialists, and with Robert Owen, his father, had attempted an experiment in a voluntary-communist community in New Harmony, Indiana. Frances Wright was a Scotswoman who had also been at New Harmony, and with Owen, opened a newspaper called the Free Enquirer. Their main objective was to campaign for their compulsory education system. Wright and Owen outlined their scheme as follows:

“It is national, rational, republican education; free for all at the expense of all; conducted under the guardianship of the State, and for the honor, the happiness, the virtue, the salvation of the state.“

Featured Book

Title: Education: Free & Compulsory

Author: Murray N. Rothbard

Purchase this book

The major aim of the plan was that equality be implanted in the minds, the habits, the manners, and the feelings, so that eventually fortunes and conditions would be equalized. Instead of the intricate apparatus of common schools, high schools, seminaries, etc., Wright and Owen advocated that thestates simply organize a series of institutions for the “general reception” of all children living within that district. These establishments would be devoted to the complete rearing of the various age groups of children. The children would be forced to live at these places twenty-four hours a day. The parents would be allowed to visit their children from time to time. From the age of two every child would be under the care and guidance of the State.

“In these nurseries of a free nation, no inequality must be allowed to enter. Fed at a common board; clothed in a common garb…raised in the exercise of common duties…in the exercise of the same virtues, in the enjoyment of the same pleasures; in the study of the same nature; in pursuit of the same object…say! Would not such a race…work out the reform of society and perfect the free institutions of America?”

Owen was quite insistent that the system not “embrace anything less than the whole people.” The effect will be to “regenerate America in one generation. It will make but one class out of the many.”Frances Wright revealed the aim of the system starkly, calling on the people to overthrow a moneyed aristocracy and priestly hierarchy. “The present is a war of class.” Thus, we see that a new element has been introduced into the old use of compulsory education on behalf of State absolutism.

The…aim of the plan was that equality be implanted..so..fortunes and conditions would be equalized

Share:

A second goal is absolute equality and uniformity, and a compulsory school system was seen by Owen and Wright to be ideally suited to this task. First, the habits and minds and feelings of all the children must be molded into absolute equality; and then the nation will be ripe for the final step of equalization of property and incomes by means of State coercion.Why did Owen and Wright insist on seizing the children for twenty-four hours a day, from the age of two on, only releasing them when the school age was over at sixteen? As Owen declared:

“In republican schools, there must be no temptation to the growth of aristocratical prejudices. The pupils must learn to consider themselves as fellow citizens, as equals. Respect ought not to be paid to riches, or withheld from poverty. Yet, if the children from these state Schools are to go every evening, the one to his wealthy parent’s soft carpeted drawing room, and the other to its poor father’s or widowed mother’s comfortless cabin, will they return the next day as friends and equals?”

Likewise, differences in quality of clothing invoked feelings of envy on the part of the poor and disdain by the rich—which should be eliminated by forcing one uniform upon both. Throughout his plans there runs the hatred of human diversity, particularly of the higher living standards of the rich as compared to the poor. To effect his plan for thoroughgoing equalization by force, the schools

“must receive the children, not for six hours a day, but altogether must feed them, clothe them, lodge them; must direct not their studies only, but their occupations and amusements and must care for them until their education is completed.”

Rothbard notes that for those who might argue that the “Owen-Wright plan is unimportant; that it had purely crackpot significance and little influence…The contrary is true.”

He cites the former president of the progressive Teachers College at Columbia University, Lawrence A. Cremin, who wrote “The Transformation of the School: Progressivism in American Education, 1876-1957“ as “a contemporary laudatory historian of the public-school movement” who “places it [the Owen-Wright plan] first in his story, and devotes considerable space to it.”

Other Must-Read Stories

• Progressives' stealth operation revealed
• And the education bubble goes 'POP!'
• These 3 books had the greatest impact on the political philosophy of Reagan's most-quoted living author
• Liberals Literally Think Conservatives Belong in a Mental Institution (op-ed)
• ezPaycheck Software Gives FL Business Proprietor's Easier Options In Printing W2 & W3 Forms(prweb.com)

According to Rothbard, the prominent Professor Cremin “reports that a great many newspapers reprinted Owen’s essays on the plan, and approved them.” Further, Cremin notes that the plan:

“exerted a great influence on the widely noted report of a committee of Philadelphia workers in 1829 to report on education in Pennsylvania. The report called for equality, and equal education and proper training for all. And this and similar reports “had a considerable influence in preparing the way for the progressive legislation of the middle thirties.”

Lending further credence to the lasting effect of the Owen-Wright plan, a 2013 book titled “Progressive Education” by education historian John Howlett notes “Perhaps the continuing successes of the educational aspects of Owen’s philosophy attest to their radical, progressive, and, ultimately successful, nature.”

Surprising Liberal Governor Is Taking Another Look at Common Core

Facing critics from both the left and the right, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo named a panel to try to fix the implementation of Common Core in the state.

An anti-Common Core demonstration in Jackson, Miss., Jan. 7, 2014. (AP/Rogelio V. Solis)

Cuomo’s action comes after New York State United Teachers, the largest teachers union for the Empire State, joined the chorus of critics and called for a moratorium on the standards, saying there is too great a focus on testing.

New York is one of 45 states that has adopted the K-12 standards for math and English developed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Common Core is touted by the Obama administration and national teacher unions as a way to prepare kids for the future, while critics say it is tantamount to national standards because the U.S. Department of Education incentivize states to adopt the standards to get federal dollars.

Last week, nine Republican senators introduced a resolution to prevent the Department of Education from making adoption of Common Core standards a requirement to receive federal school grants. But the bulk of opposition has come from Republicans in red states.

New York is among the bluest of Democratic-leaning states in the country. Yet, Cuomo – a Democrat and supporter of the standards – is being pushed to consider changes.

“The Common Core standards are a critical part of transforming New York’s schools, and the failure to effectively implement them has led to confusion and frustration among students and their families,” Cuomo said in a statement. “I urge the members of this panel to work speedily in bringing forward a set of actionable recommendations to improve the implementation of the Common Core.”


The 11-member Common Core panel includes national experts, New York state legislators, parents, educators, business and nonprofit leaders, according to the governor’s office.

The panel could have benefited from more teacher and parent representation, said Richard Iannuzzi, president of the New York State United Teachers, who added that the panel must “work swiftly to respond to parents, teachers and school leaders who are committed to high standards and accountability but are frustrated and angry.”

“The state’s over-reliance on standardized testing and data — and rush to test students before teachers had a chance to deliver instruction, and before all the appropriate curriculum materials were provided — undermines whatever potential new standards may have to improve student achievement,” Iannuzzi said.

“A moratorium on the high-stakes consequences for students and teachers from standardized testing will provide time needed for the board of regents, state Education Department and school districts to make the necessary course corrections and provide additional support to students and educators to get us back to teaching and learning, and not testing and more testing.”

Republican state Assemblyman Al Graf has reportedly been the leading opponent in the legislature against Common Core standards. He submitted a bill to withdraw the state from both Common Core and the Race to the Top federal grant program, Capitol New York reported.

Meanwhile, even a Democratic supporter of Common Core, state Sen. David Valesky told the Syracuse Post-Standard he supports blocking the standards.