Why Parents Object to Common Core Standards

Reasons to object to the implementation of Common Core (CC) standards are numerous. Critics object to the manner in which they were created, adopted and funded, and say they are unconstitutional and illegal. The standards themselves are complicated and some worry that CC is inferior to some current state standards and intends to indoctrinate rather than teach students. The creation of an invasive student and family online database is troubling, as is the massive cost of implementing Common Core, which will strain states and communities.

How Were Common Core Standards Created?

Common Core standards were not developed by and did not emanate from states. They were funded and developed at the behest of two Washington, D.C.-based trade organizations, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA), through their contractor Achieve, Inc., with generous funding from the Gates Foundation and other private philanthropies. Some Common Core developers have questionable motives and backgrounds. Common Core standardized test creator Linda Darling-Hammond was President Obama’s top choice for education secretary but was never nominated because of her controversial leftist leanings; she is a close associate of domestic terrorist turned educator Bill Ayers. (See book review in this Education Reporter) Common Core was developed in closed meetings, without public debate, by committees.

How Was Common Core Adopted by States?

State Governors or State Boards of Education signed on to Common Core standards before even seeing the standards, after being cajoled to do so and “bribed” by promises of federal Race to the Top (RTTT) grants by the Obama administration. Only some states received money from the competitive RTTT grants. States were also threatened with the loss of No Child Left Behind waivers if they did not align, which would have meant significant loss of federal financial support. State legislatures, which represent the public, were not involved in the decision to adopt Common Core standards. Neither was the U.S. Congress.

Illegal and Unconstitutional Federal Overreach

Nationalized education standards should be considered unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment. The General Educational Provisions Act also prohibits federal overreach by prohibiting “any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States [from exercising] any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system. . . .”

Common Core severely limits local control of education. The standards are copyrighted by the CCSSO and NGA and licensed only to states. Federal dictates assure that 85% of academic standards in reading and math will strictly adhere to CC standards, leaving only 15% flexibility. With only 15% of the standards eligible to be altered by the local district, a state choosing to teach cursive writing instead of just the keyboarding mandated by CC would likely use up the entire 15% on this one change. Nationalized tests are more federal interference. These standardized tests will drive curriculum and textbooks.

Education standards could have been improved without federal intervention. According to Lindsey M. Burke of the Heritage Foundation:

States and local school districts can have success improving their standards and assessments without surrendering control to Washington. Increasing transparency of outcomes in a way that is meaningful to parents and taxpayers, providing flexibility for local school leaders, and advancing systemic reforms that include school choice options for families will go a long way in improving academic outcomes while at the same time preserving local control of education.

 article continues here