Posts Tagged ‘Common Core State Standards’

by Gretchen Logue of Missouri Education Watchdog

Citizens are concerned with the Department of Revenue in Missouri and the recent discovery of secret data mining of their information when they renew their driver’s license.  From The Dana Show and EXCLUSIVE: DHS Plans Backdoor Gun Registration? *UPDATES:

This from concerned citizen Eric Griffin and Missouri’s Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder.  Department of Revenue is working with the Department of Homeland Security to install new hard and software to obtain data on Missouri citizens and transfer this information to DHS and unnamed third parties, says Kinder. Kinder and the Stoddard County Prosecutor today took legal action and held a press conference outlining the infringement on civil liberties as posted by the DoR and DHS. The move by the departments is related to the Real ID.

Griffin went to renew his driver’s license and was disturbed by how, and with whom, his information was being shared. Kinder and other lawmakers say that the move violates several Missouri state statutes.

Loesch followed up on this privacy gathering in Missouri Department Of Revenue Saving Biometric Data In Violation Of State Law:

Today I spoke with Missouri Senator Kurt Schaefer about this story I told you about two weeks ago. According to Sen. Schaefer, not only is the Missouri Department of Revenue colluding with the Department of Homeland Security and other third parties to illegally share Missourians’ conceal carry information, the DOR is also gathering and storing biometric data on every Missourian who gets a license.

Schaefer notes that the collection of biometric data was never discussed with Missouri lawmakers and that it was discovered quite by accident when suspicious Missourians questioned why the DOR would want their marriage licenses and a multitude of other information simply to renew their conceal carry permits. When Schaefer confronted the DOR, they twice lied to the senator, claiming that the DHS grant money was for things like “hole punchers.” Schaefer later learned the DHS grant money was actually used towards items like facial recognition hardware and software. It’s not only backdoor gun registration, but a massive invasion of privacy as well.

It raises two interesting questions: what else is the DOR lying about and what did Gov. Jay Nixon know and when did he know it?

The privacy gathering allowed through Common Core and the revised FERPA regulations mimics what has happened in the DOR:

  • the collection of biometric data was never discussed with Missouri lawmakers
  • DESE indicated currently 61 data points are gathered on Missouri students in legislative hearings
  • the sharing of student information with other entities violates several state statutes
  • DESE is working with the US Department of Education to obtain data on Missouri students and transfer this information to the DOEd and unnamed third parties approved by the DOEd to comply with Common Core mandates

Loesch writes:

Kinder and the Stoddard County Prosecutor today took legal action and held a press conference outlining the infringement on civil liberties as posted by the DoR and DHS. The move by the departments is related to the Real ID.

Could Kinder and a county prosecutor take legal action against DESE to outline civil rights infringements on civil liberties as posted by the US Department of Education?  The move by DESE and school districts to obtain information is related to the Common Core requirements.

If citizens are upset about their license data being shared with unknown agencies and third parties, shouldn’t this outrage extend to the mining of their children’s data?

Advertisements

HAVE YOU CONTACTED YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE AND ASKED THEM TO OPPOSE COMMON CORE?

from Missouri Education Watchdog

Representative Kurt Bahr’s  house bill 616 was voted out of the Downsizing State Government Committee 8:4 today along party lines. HB616 requires the state to stop implementation of Common Core State Standards and Assessments.

Parents, principals and teachers continue, as they learn more about the full scope of the Common Core initiative, to join the ranks of supporters of the Missouri Coalition Against Common Core. The slick marketing of this initiative to teachers and administrators over the last twelve months, paid for heavily by the Gates Foundation,  cannot overcome the deeply worrisome aspects of cost, loss of control and intrusive data collection on our children.

Many veteran teachers are all too familiar with the constructivist approach to teaching math inherent with CC and know that it does not work for a significant portion of students. Higher education teachers know that it will leave those unable to afford supplemental math enrichment in K-12 without the math skills necessary to complete college degree programs that rely heavily on mathematics like engineering without paying for extra math courses in college. Those in the language arts reject the heavy emphasis on informational text reading and analysis knowing that the research does not support that as a good path path to developing future writers.

MCACC provided expert witnesses at both the House and Senate hearings on Anti-Common Core legislation. Emmett McGroarty of the American Principles Project was one of them. He will be on Glenn Beck’s TheBlaze tv tonight at 5:00 pm central talking about Common Core. Go to TheBlaze.com/tv to watch on line.

Join the MCACC network at MOAgainstCommonCore.com and spread the word about Common Core.

by Gretchen Logue of Missouri Education Watchdog

The following written testimony by Mark Garrison, Ph.D. was entered to support MO SB 210 and HB 616 and end the implementation of Common Core State Standards:

EXPERT TESTIMONY OF MARK GARRISON, PH.D., IN OPPOSITION TO THE
COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS INITIATIVE (CCSSI).

March 3, 2013

Based on my research, I have concluded that the CCSSI should be opposed for four reasons.*
They are:

1. There is no evidence that the CCSSI will improve the quality of education, reduce
inequalities, or ensure students are prepared to contribute to society or engage in
higher learning. For example, researchers have compared states with higher standards
to those with less challenging ones, and found that the existence of higher, better or
clearer standards did not result in demonstrably better results on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) or other international tests. There is,
however, a great deal of research that suggests the CCSSI will further narrow
curriculum, further mechanizing teaching. It needs to be understood that the architects
of the CCSSI mean to vastly increase the amount of testing (tests controlled by one of
the two private testing consortia created with federal funds). Testing will include
computer scoring of student essays, which raises a host of issues that I am certain
parents will be very concerned about. Finally, after review of many CCSSI documents,
I have come to the conclusion that the entire project treats students as “products” or
“things” and not human beings. If parents knew the whole truth about what the CCSSI
has in store for their children, I believe their opposition would be swift and
unanimous.

2. Despite the name of the initiative, there is little evidence that the effort was “state
lead.” Many state officials signed on to the CCSSI before the final standards were
even written. The former commission of education in Texas, Robert Scott, has
publically stated he was pressured by reformers to sign the Common Core Standards
MOU. There is evidence that governors in other states compelled their education
leaders to rubber stamp the CCSSI. As the legislatures of each state have been largely
absent from the process, it is impossible that legislator constituencies were involved,
making empty CCSSI advocates claims to have “parent support”. Few parents even
know about the CCSSI or that their schools are now being restructured to meet the
demands of the CCSSI.

3. The process by which the CCSSI has been adopted and implemented violates basic
principles of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States. The
framers of the Constitution worked to construct a political system to avoid tyranny,
which meant that governmental power could not be consolidated in one office or
branch. Thus, framers insisted on the separation of powers between the legislative,
judicial and executive branches, and a weak central government. Importantly, the right
to operate schools was reserved to the States or the people themselves. Education was
envisioned as one means to block tyranny through the force of “enlightened public
opinion”. But education cannot serve this function if people lose control over their
schools. The federal Department of Education, an executive branch, has nonetheless
acted to make laws with its Race to the Top (RttT) initiative and its waivers to
provisions of No Child Left Behind Act. While executive waivers have legal
precedent, Secretary Duncan’s use of RttT funds and NCLB waivers as “incentives”
for states to adopt the CCSSI, which is not rooted in existing law, is in fact a form of
law making. Taken in conjunction with 1979 law prohibiting the Department of
Education from having “any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum”
(section 103b), the CCSSI adoption process is unconstitutional and violates existing
federal law as well. And, how many legislatures know that the MOU for entry into one
of the two Common Core assessment apparatuses (Missouri is a member of the
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium) required alteration or elimination of any
state laws that might interfere with the operation of the assessment consortia!

4. While the federal Department of Education is in violation of the law, the CCSSI
represents something worse than a “federal power grab.” In fact, the illegal power of
the federal government has been used to remove public power over education at the
local, state and federal level and place it in the hands of four private (501c3)
publically unaccountable corporations, who have strong connections to test publishers
and the big private philanthropies secretly driving education reform. They are: the
National Governors Association (NGA), the Council of Chief State School Officers
(CCSSO), and the two assessment apparatuses, the Partnership for Readiness for
College and Career (PARCC) and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC).
Most telling is that the Common Core State Standards, standards that now govern
curriculum, instruction and assessment across the country, are jointly “owned” by the
NGA Center for Best Practices and the CCSSO! Both federal and state legislatures,
not to mention local school boards, are complete removed from having a say.