Georgia Doesn’t Want the State to Take Over Its Schools by Mercedes Schneider

Georgia Doesn’t Want the State to Take Over Its Schools by Mercedes Schneider

With only two weeks to go, Georgia voters will decide to approve or reject Governor Nathan Deal’s Opportunity School District, a plan that will authorized a Governor appointed OSD Czar to take over 20 schools/year in Georgia that are on the “chronically failing list.” The OSD plan is based on the New Orleans Recovery School District, which has been in affect just before Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.

The New Orleans (RSD) has been shown through peer reviewed research that the plan has been a failure (in terms of academic performance, and drop out rates.

The Governor of Georgia convinced enough members of the Georgia Legislature to pass Senate Bill 133, thereby enabling the question to appear on the November 8th ballot.


Mercedes Schneider, Ph.D., is a high school teacher of English in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, located close to New Orleans. She has taught high school not only in Louisiana, but in Rome, Georgia as well.  She is one of the leading thinkers and writers in the field of educational reform.  She is author of three books on educational reform:  A Chronicle of Echoes: Who’s Who In the Implosion of American Public Education (2014)Common Core Dilemma: Who Owns Our Schools? (2015), and School Choice: The End of Public Education? (2016).

I am re-blogging Mercedes Schneider’s post “Georgia Doesn’t Want the State to Take Over Its Schools“, from her blog with her permission. She blogs at deutsch29. It’s an amazing blog.  You should check it out.


Georgia Doesn’t Want the State to Take Over Its Schools by Mercedes Schneider

On November 08th, 2016, Georgia voters will decide whether they will allow the state to take control of public schools that the state labels as “chronically failing.”

The ballot measure, Amendment 1, is vaguely worded– it does not disclose the fact that school districts will lose money when the state takes control of schools.

As Ballotpedia notes, here is the ballot question that Georgia voters will see:

Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended to allow the state to intervene in chronically failing public schools in order to improve student performance?

( ) Yes

( ) No

And if Amendment 1 passes, here is the language that would be added to the Georgia constitution:

Paragraph VIII. Opportunity School District. Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph II of this section, the General Assembly may provide by general law for the creation of an Opportunity School District and authorize the state to assume the supervision, management, and operation of public elementary and secondary schools which have been determined to be failing through any governance model allowed by law. Such authorization shall include the power to receive, control, and expend state, federal, and local funds appropriated for schools under the current or prior supervision, management, or operation of the Opportunity School District, all in the manner provided by and in accordance with general law. [Emphasis added.]

The bolded, Georgia-constitution-altering, text above is what Georgia voters will not see as part of the Amendment 1 ballot question text.

However, it seems that word is spreading among Georgia voters, as the October 21, 2016, Atlanta Journal-Constitution notes:

Gov. Nathan Deal’s proposed Opportunity School District has significant opposition just weeks ahead of the Nov. 8 election, according to a new Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll.

The results released Friday found likely voters siding nearly 2-1 against Amendment 1, the referendum that would create a statewide school district to take over Georgia’s lowest performing schools.

The poll question revealed more about the proposal than does the ballot question itself, which has been criticized by opponents as misleading because it does not clearly say that the state would take over schools. …

The resulting state charter schools have no access to local school district funding, but charter schools created as a result of Amendment 1 would get those local tax dollars.

Opponents claim the constitutional amendment would harm school districts financially and undo a history of local control over education.

They also say the ballot wording is misleading, since it does not mention that the state would take over schools and local tax dollars.

Only three days prior, on October 18, 2016, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution also published a piece entitled, “Four Signs Gov. Nathan Deal’s Opportunity School District May Be in Trouble,”

One of the four “signs” involves Deal’s trying to sell state takeover of schools as a proven solution for keeping pre-high-school dropouts in school:

In a speech last week at the Commerce Club, Deal made a bizarre pitch for the OSD to an engineering association. Johnny Kauffman of 90.1/WABE-FM reported the governor tried to sell the OSD to the engineers as a way to decrease crime threats to their nice cars and nice homes. The governor said:

Why is it that we don’t have so many chronically failing high schools? Those folks are already gone. They’ve already dropped out. So, their bad test scores don’t show up in those high school scores. They’re already out there amongst us. And one thing about crime, there is an entrepreneurial element to it.

If you think that those who are coming out of bad schools and are dropping out and going to crime are going to only steal from people in their school district, you’re wrong. Those people don’t have anything worth stealing in many, many cases. They’re going to go where people have nice cars, nice homes, things that are worth a criminal’s attention. It’s time that we stop that. It’s time that a young person has an opportunity to see that if you will stick with me, and get an education there are jobs that are going to let you make a decent living and you will not have to resort to a life of crime. I’m passionate about this. I hope it comes through. I really am. I believe we have an opportunity, with all the other good things we have done, we have an opportunity to change the dynamic, not only of our state, but of our nation. Because we can show that people regardless of the color of their skin care about children and their education and if we work together we’re going to make a difference in that regard.

Deal’s argument is meant to tap into the fears of the well-to-do. However, a major problem with Deal’s sales pitch that state takeover will keep students in school is that state takeover of schools in New Orleans did not solve the issue. On the contrary, the decentralized nature of the New Orleans Recovery School District (RSD) actually fosters the ability of students to leave one independently-operated charter school without confirmation of enrolling in another. Charter schools operate as their own little school “systems”; even an RSD deputy superintendent publicly admitted that he “didn’t know” exactly how many students “fell between the cracks” of RSD’s decentralized school “system.”

Given that Deal is trying to emulate New Orleans’ RSD, Georgia voters should be aware of such perils of decentralization, which is sure to come to any state-run setup that is actually an “opportunity” to proliferate charter schools.

Georgia voters should also realize that state takeover is being phased out in Louisiana; beginning May 2017, the Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB) will gradually resume oversight of the RSD schools. Of course, the complication is that OPSB will actually inherit scores of charter schools that will be run by their own independent, non-elected boards but that will have to answer to some degree to OPSB. It will be possible for charters that do not meet their chartering agreements to once again become traditional, locally-controlled schools. However, it is also possible that a pro-charter OPSB will continue to promulgate charter churn as one charter school closes and another takes its place. In short, it is very difficult to convert an all-charter (formally “state-run”) district back into a traditional, locally-elected-board-controlled school district.

If New Orleans is your model, Georgia beware. According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, it seems you are.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s four “signs” of Amendment 1 resistance also includes the appearance of a proliferation of anti-OSD yard signs as well as an October 18, 2016, joint press event held by Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young and baseball great Hank Aaron.

In his remarks, Young criticizes the top-down approach of Amendment 1:

The family values, the traditions that have made us great as a nation, have very seldom come from the state down. They’ve come from people up. And public education controlled by communities is the basis of a continued, growing, creative society.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports Aaron as adding, “We have to defeat this. We have to vote ‘no’ on Amendment 1.”

Interestingly, the Young-Aaron press event occurred within days of the NAACP’s October 15, 2016, ratification of a moratorium on charter schools. One of the NAACP’s concerns is the diverting of public funding “to charter schools at the expense of the public school system.”

The diverting of public school funding to charter schools is also a concern in Massachusetts, which has its own ballot question up for vote on November 08th– Question 2– which involves raising the state’s charter school cap by 12 schools each year. As of this writing, 198 Massachusetts school districts have formally opposed Question 2, which has an astounding $32 million in funding behind it to date, almost 2-to-1 in support– and most of it from a single New York-based, pro-charter organization, Families for Excellent Schools.

Despite the heavy spending pushing Question 2, the public isn’t buying it. According to a poll conducted October 13-16, 2016, 52 percent of Massachusetts voters are against Question 2; 41 percent are in favor (the remaining 7 percent are either undecided or chose not to respond).

As for the funding behind Georgia’s Amendment 1: According to Ballotpedia, any ballot committee spending $500 or more must file its first report 2 weeks prior to the November 08th election, which means Georgians do not get to know about any Amendment 1 spending until October 31, 2016.

Even so, it is pretty clear that the Georgia public is already showing a healthy skepticism towards a bleeding of public school district funding to charter schools in the name of “state-run.”

Quietly Downplaying the Success of the Louisiana Recovery School District: Implications for Georgia

Mercedes Schneider posted an article on her website suggesting that the Louisiana Recovery School District (RSD) is not what it’s cracked up to be.

Georgia parents will find her reporting important in the context of Georgia Governor Deal’s Opportunity School District which is modeled on the Louisiana RSD.

In Dr. Schneider’s article, entitled New Orleans Recovery School District Proponents Now Offer a Disclaimer, she offers a warning to Georgians to be wary of Nathan Deal’s proclamation that what struggling schools in Georgia need is a charter school model that will be outsourced to charter management companies who will promise, no matter what, to raise student test scores.  That’s all.  Raise test scores.

Problem.  In 10 years, the Louisiana RSD has not be very successful raising student test scores.

In fact, Dr. Schneider highlights the backtracking that the corporate reform proponents are now talking about.  She cites an article in Politico, and I repeat part of it here:

The results aren’t all great, though. The average ACT score for the high school class of 2014 in the state’s Recovery School District, created to take over failing schools statewide before the storm – was 16.4 – considerably below the minimum score required for admission to a four-year public college in Louisiana. Others note that school quality is uneven, political dysfunction endures and allegations of civil rights violations persist. Critics say that parents’ voices have been shut out. All in all, analysts say that despite the enthusiasm for the portfolio strategy used in New Orleans and elsewhere, there isn’t much evidence to prove whether it’s working or not.

This is not the kind of analysis that Governor Deal and Georgia Assembly want to hear.  Well, they are going to hear about it.

In the next 18 months, we will investigate the “recovery” school concept, and show that it might not be in the interests of students who have not performed well on Georgia’s standardized tests.

One of the resolutions (Senate Resolution 287) that passed both houses of the Georgia Assembly that will enable the Governor to form a recovery school district in our state will be on the November 2016 ballot.  We need to advocate for the defeat of this ballot initiative, and do what we can to offer the evidence and reasoning why the Opportunity School District is nothing more than an opportunity to make some folks very wealthy.  And it is not the kids who will forced into the OSD.

 

“Deans for Impact”: A Potential, “Teacher-prep Charter” Petri Dish?

The post that follows is a re-blog from Mercedes Schneider’s blog.  It documents yet another step in the corportization of U.S. Education–this one is directed at teacher preparation. Many education deans have signed up and joined a group called the Deans for Impact.  I am curious how many of the teacher education faculty at these schools are onboard.  As Schneider points out, these folks are enamored with using metrics, standardizing teaching, measuring the computer habits of potential teachers, and following graduates after graduation to find how much kids learned from them.  Oh, and of course they will use computerized, wearisome Common Core standardized tests such as PARCC.  Mike Klonsky’s SmallTalk blog has a great piece about the concern that a superintendent of one of the nation’s most affluent school districts has to say about PARCC.  It isn’t very pretty.

Teacher preparation needs to be in the hands of practicing teacher educators, not Deans and former hedge fund managers.  This is no different from our thinking about K-12 education.  Real teaching and learning is created by professional teachers working with colleagues to bring the best and most interesting experiences to their students.  Teacher preparation is no different.

I was very pleased to note that after visiting the Deans for Impact website that Georgia State University, where I am Emeritus Professor of Science Education, was NOT among the list of membership schools.  If I were a faculty member at any of the membership schools, I would be giving the dean a call.

Here is Mercedes Sneider’s blog post: Deans for Impact”: A Potential, “Teacher-prep Charter” Petri Dish?

Benjamin Riley has started a new organization called Deans for Impact. The goal is to streamline teacher preparation to produce ever-higher student test scores. Members agree to be “data driven” and to use “common metrics and assessments.” Why, Deans for Impact are even considering incorporating value-added into their measures of “teacher effectiveness.”

And, oh, yes, member deans agree to be “transparent and accountable.” A bumper sticker for corporate reform. How novel.

Wait– there’s more:

These deans are going to “identify a common understanding of what educators should know and be able to do by the time they finish their training.”

Teacher-prep Common Core?

Sounds like Deans for Impact is decidedly on its way to becoming standardized– the clarion call of all that touches K12 education according to corporate reform.

read more… “Deans for Impact”: A Potential, “Teacher-prep Charter” Petri Dish?.

Bush’s Digital Learning Report Card: Misleading and Disingenuous

In March 2014, Jeb Bush’s organization Digital Learning Now (DLN), issued its 2013 Digital Learning Report Card measuring and grading K-12 education policies in the nation’s 50 states against its 10 Elements of High Quality Digital Learning.

I found their report misleading and disingenuous.

Digital Learning Now released its report card grading each state on 41 criteria divided into 10 Elements of High Quality Digital Learning.  You can visit their website to find interactive maps and a full report.

The ten elements are policy statements that the FEE claims are the essential elements for a high quality digital learning environment.  The 10 Elements are shown in Box 1, along with one of the criteria that states must adhere to or be marked down.

Box 1: Bush’s 10 Elements of High Quality Digital Learning & Sample Criteria

  1. Student Eligibility: All students must complete at least one online course to earn a high school diploma
  2. Student Access: No school district may restrict student enrollment in a full-time online school or in a part-time individual online course through enrollment caps or geographic boundaries
  3. Personalized Learning: All students may enroll with more than one online course provider simultaneously.
  4. Advancement: All students must demonstrate proficiency on standards-based competencies to advance/earn credit for a grade/course and to advance to the succeeding grade/ course.
  5. Quality Content: All digital content and instruction must be aligned with state standards or Common Core State Standards.
  6. Quality Instruction: State accepts alternative routes for teacher certification.
  7. Quality Choices: Based on eligible statewide online providers, digital providers, are allowed to appeal decisions or revise and resubmit their applications after denial
  8. Assessment and Accountability: State-mandated assessments in core subjects, including annual assessments, end-of-course exams, and high school exit exams, must be administered digitally.
  9. Funding: Public funds are available for online learning to: all district public school students, charter school students, private school students, home-schooled students.
  10. Delivery: All schools have high-speed broadband Internet access.

According to the Digital Learning Now website, 41 criteria categorized into the 10 elements for their rubric which according to them, “allowed for an objective evaluation of policies across all states.  Using research-type language, they weight equally each of the 10 elements by grading each criteria (41 of them) on a 0 – 4 point scale.  Thus scores can range from 0 – 164.

Each state completed ONE survey and returned it to DLN for analysis, and follow-up, if needed.  According to the Bush group, staff consulted with several groups, none of which were universities or schools, but all were either private firms, or those with a financial interest in virtual schools and digital curriculum.  The Bush digital foundation would have us believe that have a survey instrument which can be used to check the state of state’s digital policies. They use terms such as metric, which when you see the criteria you will at once notice that most of the “criteria” are based on Jeb Bush’s “Florida Miracle.”

In her new book, A Chronicle of Echoes (Library Copy), Dr. Mercedes Schneider highlights the Bush plan (in three chapters) for corporate education reform.  Dr. Schneider shows who Bush, through several Foundations is using his model for self promotion:

One could consider Bush’s statement, that Florida education reforms are “now a model for the nation,” from two different perspectives.  First, one might view such a statement to mean the Florida education reforms actually work, and are “a model to the nation.”  Second, one might consider that, regardless of the efficacy of these Florida reforms, model legislation has been written and is being actively marketed to states across the nation as the panacea to “reform” education.  Bush himself promotes both views.

Digital Learning Now is a way for Bush to package his “reforms” but in the context of digital learning and virtual schools.  Schneider identifies the following as the six key parts of the Bush education reform plan:

  1. Grading schools on a A through F scale based upon student standardized scores.
  2. Using of high-stakes testing.
  3. Preventing student social promotion.
  4. Basing teacher pay upon student performance on standardized tests.
  5. Using nontraditional avenues for teacher credentialing.
  6. Supporting charter schools, vouchers for private schools, and online schools (“parent choice”)

These are all present in the Digital Learning Now plan, and in its survey instrument.

Box 2 shows three criteria which are used to assess the Eligibility, one of the 10 elements of high quality digital leaning.  Note the word “must” in the first two criteria, and note that criteria #2 says that the state must require every student to take at least one online course to graduate. Who will benefit from this criteria? We see here authoritarian tactics used to promote a political and corporate plan in a democratic society.

Box 2. Student Eligibility
1. All students must be provided opportunities to use online courses throughout their entire K-12 experience.
2. All students must complete at least one online course to earn a high school diploma.
3. Student eligibility in digital-learning environments is not based on prior-year enrollment in the public school system.

So, one question to ask here is, How did the states do on “eligibility?”   Thirty states got a grade of “F,” 15 got a grade of “D,” and only 5 passed.  And by-the-way, Florida was rated highest, getting a 100% on this element.

You can see the results at the Digital Learning Now website.  Using a series of maps, you can click on an element and see at a glance how the country did as a whole, or zoom in on a state and see its grade.  Figure 1 are the grades for each state based on their overall score.  Notice that only two states got an A, a few Bs scattered here and there, a lot of Cs in the midwest, but Ds and Fs elsewhere.

Figure 1. Overall Grades on the Digital Learning Now Score Card, 2013. Source: http://digitallearningnow.com/
Figure 1. Overall Grades on the Digital Learning Now Score Card, 2013. Source: http://digitallearningnow.com/

Misleading and Disingenuous

The criteria that the Bush Foundation has identified to rate the states is designed to support their political views, and financial assets.  The Digital Learning Now group is nothing more than a politico-digital-wing of the Foundation for Excellence in Education.

None of the data that they have collected would be acceptable if they tried to publish an article using the methods, tactics, and so-called “metrics” of their report.

The Bush group converts the scores they obtained from one questionnaire per state into a grade.  Not only does this lack condor, it misrepresents what the states are doing in digital learning.  For example, as I’ve stated, the largest score on the questionnaire is 164.  But the Bush group does not use real scores.  Instead they convert them to percentages, and then using a conversion chart of their making, they give each state a grade as follows:

Figure 2.  Grading scale used on Bush's Digital Learning Now Report Card. Source: http://digitallearningnow.com/
Figure 2. Grading scale used on Bush’s Digital Learning Now Report Card. Source: http://digitallearningnow.com/

There is no scientific basis to this conversion scale. The cut offs are opinion on qualitative and personal viewsof the Digital Learning Now staff. Nothing more. Nothing less.  There is no basis for deciding that a score lower than 59% is an F, any more than a score above 90% is an A.

In their report 27 states were graded “D” or “F.”  Or to put it another way, 54% of the states seem to be digitally challenged.  To to make matters worse, another 22% were graded “C,” meaning less than a fourth of the states digitally qualified.

What if the data was analysed in a different way?  What follows is an analysis of the Bush data using somedescriptive statistics and a more robust statistical process control.   If the Bush team did this, their report would read very differently.  But remember, if the Bush Foundation can show how poorly states are doing, then they put themselves into a position of pushing their reforms onto the backs of citizens in other states.  There is a lot of money to be made in the digital world, and if you study the Bush Foundation rosters, you will see that its stacked with people ready to make the move.

I converted all the percentages to real scores earned by each state.  Then, I examined the data using these raw scores.

The mean score on the questionnaire was 111 and median score was 118, and the standard deviation was 19.2.  The scores ranged from 67 – 151.

Figure 3 is a histogram of scores which shows a nearly normal distribution for how the states scored on the DLN score card.  It’s a normal distribution.

Figure 3. Histogram of Scores on the 2013 Questionaire
Figure 3. Histogram of Scores for States 2013

 

Variation

If we consider the variation in the scores, we find something very interesting about digital learning as measured by Bush and his team. Take a look at Figure 4. This is a flow chart of the scores that were released by Digital Learning Now.

Figure 4. 2013 Digital Score Card for All States
Figure 4. 2013 Digital Score Card for All States

There is variation from one state to another, but the variation is within Upper and Lower Control Limits.  No state (even Florida) fall outside the control limits.  The Bush report card is disingenuous because it fails to acknowledge that all states fall within expected limits, and that there is no state that needs to be “turned around,” or all of a sudden blamed for failing to meet their standards. Giving states a grade is dishonest.  Indeed, Figure 4 shows that all the states fall within expected limits using Bush metrics!

Organizations such as the Bush Foundation use tactics that are on the edge of being unethical, if not unscientific.  They use “instruments” to collect data from a few people, and then use these results to make outrageous claims about the state of education.  How can 50 questionnaires be representative of the nation?  Come on.

Do you think Bush’s Digital Learning Report Card is Misleading and Disingenuous?

Is Technology the Trojan Horse of the Common Standard’s Movement?

 

Screen Shot 2014-03-16 at 8.55.08 PM

Anthony Cody (Living in Dialog) and Mercedes Schneider (deutsch29) wrote articles on their blogs about the Arne Duncan – Bill Gates – Common Standard’s triumvirate.  Cody commented that Duncan and Gates are trying to woo teachers to support the floundering rollout of the Common Standards.  As he explains, teachers were not involved in the development of the Common Standards, but now Duncan and Gates are using their bully pulpits to lure teachers onto their bandwagon.  But as Anthony Cody says:

Remember, if Bill Gates and the Department of Education trusted teachers, they would not have had the Common Core standards drafted by testmakers instead of educators. If they trusted teachers they would not have created the pseudoscience of VAM to try to hunt down the “bad teachers” hiding amongst us. If they trusted teachers they would not create “teacher voice” organizations that require allegiance to their beliefs. If they trusted National Board certified teachers, they would not disregard their expertise until they needed it to sell their Common Core standards and testing system to the public. Cody, A. Cody, Anthony. “Gates and Duncan Seek to Use Trust in Teachers to Promote Common Core.” Living in Dialog. Education Week, 16 Mar. 2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2014. <http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2014/03/gates_and_duncan_seek_to_lever.html>

Over on Mercedes Schneider’s blog, she warns us to look for a change of name or tagline for the Common Core State Standards.  A name change or a re-branding, if you will, is because of the anti-common core movement that is hitting Gates and Duncan straight on.  Schneider suggests that technology will play a major role in the re-branding of the Common Standards, and we’ve seen evidence of this for years.  Jeb Bush and his minions are flying around the country selling states on virtual classrooms, technology-based curriculum, data systems, and all the rest.

Too many state legislators think that technology is the answer to what ails education.  However, if they would study the research on the way that eduction has not embraced technology, they might put their mouths somewhere else.  Yet, in today’s culture, information and research does not seem to affect the way legislators vote, or the policies they enact.

Schneider is right on target to suggest that the Common Standards will enter the classroom on the heels of our infatuation with technology.

Yesterday I reported the results of  a search of the Gates Foundation College-Ready grants for 2009 & earlier – 2013 using the terms Common Core, and the search returned 161 results.  The largest grant was awarded to the Kentucky Department of Education for $9,800,877, and the smallest grant was awarded to Benchmark Education Company for $25,000.  Using an Excel spreadsheet of the 161 programs that focused on the Common Core, I found out that the Gates Foundation has awarded grants totaling $204,350,462.  That’s $269 million for 161 programs.  The average grant was for $1,269,258.

Today I want to report what I discovered when I went back to this data base about technology grants.  I searched the 161 programs for the term technology and the search returned 131 results.  I found that of the $204.3 million that Gates awarded for Common Core programs, $151,966,216 was spent on programs that were technology-based.   For example, the Alliance for Education, a Seattle-based group, received the largest grant which was $25,464,998.  It was funded to improve teaching and learning by enhancing student access to technology.  There are 130 more examples on the Gates Awarded Grants webpage which you can explore here.

Figure 1 identifies five different types of groups that were funded including organizations (public and private), public school districts, universities, state education departments, and private and charter schools.  Figure one also shows that public and private organizations got the lions share of Gates technology funding, followed by state departments of education, public school districts, state departments of education, and private and charter schools.

Figure 1. Technology Grants Awarded to various groups by the Gates Foundation 2009 & earlier - 2014
Figure 1. Technology Grants Awarded to various groups by the Gates Foundation 2009 & earlier – 2014

It is quite clear that Gates is investing (his term) in technology in schools.  It’s no surprise.  But we must keep in mind the word technology is a seductive term, especially when used in the context of schools.  But the history of top-down technology projects has not served classroom teachers very well.  Too often, the technology is used to replace what was already going on in classrooms, or to use a tablet as a textbook.

The paradigm of learning is normally not addressed when the “influential ones” such as Bush and Gates tote their ideas into America’s schools.  Teachers know this.  That is why the most articulate explanation for why the Common Standards should not be pushed into classrooms, come from classroom teachers.  Simply read Mercedes Schneider’s blog.

Schneider says this about how technology might be used to prop up the Common Standards:

It makes sense, then, to “rebrand” CCSS into a technological savior. Turn the public’s attention away from the spending of so many millions on CCSS-assessment technology while programs and staff are being cut.

So, one of the ways that CCSS can morph and can make the money spent on technology appear tied to the “standards” (whatever they might be called in an effort to not call them CCSS) is to refocus on how useful untested CCSS will certainly be (tongue in cheek) for Promoting Technological Prowess Necessary to Compete in the Global Economy.  Schneider, Mercedes. “Common Core As “Technologically Necessary”: A Looming Shift In Sales Pitch?” Deutsch29. N.p., 16 Mar. 2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2014. .

Finally, one more thing.  The Common Standards are embedded in the U.S. Department of Education program, the Race to the Top.  It was almost impossible to get a RT3 grant if the Common Standards were not a part of a proposal.  The RT3 program that I’ve investigated is the Georgia RT3.  Georgia received $400 million.  Keep in mind that half of this amount was distributed to 26 participating Georgia public school districts.  Those funds support the primary goals of RT3 which is to set in motion a technology driven system, which involves millions of dollars for Common Standards implementation, and the creation of data systems to manage schools.  Take a look at the way the $400 million is being spent in Georgia (Figure 2).  More than half of the money is being used to support data driven education.  I’d say that Mercedes Schneider’s warning about a re-branding of the Common Standards is well underway.

Figure 2. Georgia RT3 Budget 2010 - 1014.
Figure 2. Georgia RT3 Budget 2010 – 1014.

What do you think about technology and its role in the Common Standards movement?

 Trojan Horse Image,tams Leever, Creative Commons