Let's dispel the Myths...
1) The Common Core State Standards Initiative is state-led.
In a previous post I stated that the Common Core State Standards Initiative was "cloaked in state-domain" It is precariously removed from the federal government. This was the intention of the US Sec. of Education, Arne Duncan, when the National Governors' Organization was charged with the development of national academic standards. If the push for federal standards can be disguised as a state initiative, it immunes the federal government from violating the ESEA which clearly delineates what power regarding education belong to the states and what falls within the reach of the federal government.
In fact, the CCSSI is not the first time the federal government has tried to create national standards. In the early 1990s, under then-president Clinton, the federal governement took on a campaign for national standards called Goals 2000. By 1996, the effort was abandoned by even the most well-meaning. Goals 2000 was ultimately swept under the rug for NCLB.
2) The Common Core State Standards Initiative is voluntary.
There is little about these standards that is truly voluntary. I've already taken to task the fact that the adoption of the standards became prerequisite for states applying for RTTT.
"Last year, GM CEO Rick Wagoner “voluntarily” stepped aside when Washington took over his company. BP is “voluntarily” setting up a $20 billion escrow account. And now, states are being pushed to “voluntarily” adopt national education standards and tests....
But if the Obama administration has its way, states might not have a choice in the matter. The U.S. Education Department recently released a “blueprint” for reauthorizing No Child Left Behind. The blueprint language indicates the administration will try to tie $14.5 billion in money for low-income school districts to a state’s adoption of national standards.
While it was one thing for states such as Texas to eschew $4.35 billion in Race to the Top money, it will be nearly impossible for states to turn down their share of $14.5 billion in Title I funding. “Voluntary” once again rings hollow. (Morning Bell: Time to Stand Up to National Standards Agenda, by Jennifer Marshall, June 21st, 2010)
"President Obama’s administration has offered both strong rhetorical and monetary support for adopting CCSSI standards. Well before there were publicly available drafts of the standards, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan suggested that states that adopt them would put themselves in a better position to get part of the $4.35 billion “Race to the Top Fund”—a chunk of the massive 2009 “stimulus” bill—that he controls. He also announced that up to $350 million of the fund would be used to develop assessments aligned with the standards.4 And this is to say nothing of how the standards would be integrated into reauthorization of NCLB—the core of federal K–12 policy—a process that is currently three years overdue..." (Behind the Curtain Assessing the Case for National Curriculum Standards by Neal McCluskey), Feb. 2010)
Neal McCluskey is associate director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom and author of the book Feds in the Classroom: How Big Government Corrupts, Cripples, and Compromises American Education (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007).
“This administration’s attempt to bait states into adopting national standards is an effort to undermine states’ authority to determine how their students are educated, and is clearly aimed at circumventing laws prohibiting national standards,” Gov. Perry said. Press Release from the Office of Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Tuesday, June 01, 2010 • Austin, Texas
Federal and Involuntary
Many national standards advocates are quick to point out that the CCSSI—the leading national standards effort—involves states cooperatively determining standards and voluntarily adopting them, not federal control. As the CCSSI website explains: “Governors and state commissioners of education from across the country committed to joining a state-led process to develop a common core of state standards in English-language arts and mathematics for grades K–12.”65
There is a sound political reason for emphasizing state control: citizens and state officials are loath to have standards imposed on them by Washington, and previous efforts to create standards at the federal level failed miserably.66 Moreover, many people fear that having the federal government set standards and write tests would make it easy for specialinterest groups like teacher unions and administrator associations to keep standards low. They would essentially have “one-stop shopping,” a single power center on which to focus all of their energies. As Sandy Kress, a chief architect of the No Child Left Behind Act, has stated, “the process [of setting standards] will be hijacked by [interest] groups if the process is federal.”67
That said, despite national–standards supporters emphasizing that the CCSSI is state-led and that adoption of its standards is technically voluntary, adoption will almost certainly be de facto involuntary, and the standards themselves ultimately federal. Already, as previously noted, Secretary of Education Duncan has made clear that it would behoove states to sign on to the CCSSI if they wish to compete for a share of the $4.35 billion “Race-to-the-Top” fund. Duncan has also said that the federal government would furnish $350 million to develop tests tied to the standards. Finally, it would be very difficult to conceive of a reauthorized No Child Left Behind Act, especially in light of what Duncan is currently pushing, that would not mandate adoption of national standards and ultimately lead to federal control of those standards. Of course, states could “voluntarily” turn down the billions of federal dollars attached to NCLB, but even in that unlikely case there would still be absolute compulsion involved: state citizens would continue to have no choice about paying federal taxes.
Constitutionality
The federal government has only been heavily involved in education since 1965, when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed, because for most of the nation’s history it was understood that federal involvement would be unconstitutional. The Constitution makes no mention of “education” or “schooling” among the specific, enumerated powers it gives to the federal government, and outside of controlling the District of Columbia and military educational activities, Washington has no authority to be involved in education.68 To justify its growing involvement, federal policymakers have typically argued that Washington does not force states and schools to do anything, but only attaches rules and regulations to federal money that states and districts may turn down. By essentially demanding that all states and districts adopt specific standards, however, Washington would be exceeding even the unconstitutional power it has accumulated under ESEA, violating a stipulation that has been in federal education law—including NCLB—since day one: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local education agency, or school’s curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources.”69 (Behind the Curtain Assessing the Case for National Curriculum Standards by Neal McCluskey), Feb. 2010)
No comments: