Are the NGA and CCSSO Lobbyists Who are Funded by Corporations?

I have a friend on FaceBook who has been on a tear about Common Core.  It all started with discussions about Common Core Math.  At first he refused to talk about anything but the Common Core Math which he is in favor of.  That is a whole other story for another time though.  What I want to focus right now is on the funding for Common Core.

He posted the link to this article by Phyllis Schlafly.

“So the Obama Administration has latched onto a national education curriculum called Common Core that was launched by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers in 2009. Those organizations have very official names as though they are government agencies, but they are actually private groups financed by foundations such as Gates and various corporations.”

He is taking issue with the fact that the NGA and CCSSO are lobbyists with corporate donors.  The question he posed was "Is Mrs. Schlafly being honest?"

His claim is that since the NGA is comprised by governors and they control it, then those of us who say that Common Core is not state-led are not being honest.  In fact, he says that the CC opponents aren't to be trusted.

Let's start out with the definition of a lobbyist.  According to Dictionary.com a lobbyist is "a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest."  According to their own websites, both the NGA and CCSSO fit that definition.  First off, both of their offices are in Washington D.C.  Secondly, both organizations have lobbying divisions or offices.

This is the description from the NGA website about their  Office of Federal Relations.

"The mission of the National Governors Association (NGA) Office of Federal Relations is to ensure that governors’ views are represented in the shaping of federal policy. NGA policy positions, reflecting governors’ principles on priority issues, guide the association’s efforts to influence federal laws and regulations affecting states."

Let's look at the CCSSO website:  They describe themselves as "The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is a nationwide, nonpartisan, and nonprofit membership organization."

This is what the CCSSO says about their Legislation and Advocacy for their members.

"As the national voice of the Chief State School Officers in all 50 states and U.S. Territories, CCSSO represents its membership by coordinating consensus on federal education matters before the Administration, Congress, and the U.S. Department of Education.

"CCSSO provides thoughtful, pragmatic, analysis of the implications and opportunities federal education policies, including all major federal laws and grant opportunities, have on state education agencies. CCSSO prepares testimony for congressional committees, analyzes proposed federal regulations, form coalitions with other national education organizations, and educates federal policy makers on the education policy needs of states.

"CCSSO regularly hosts informational discussions with its membership updating chiefs on policy. Additionally, CCSSO hosts an annual legislative conference in Washington, D.C. providing its members the opportunity to meet with federal elected officials, discuss state education challenges, and formulate the Council's stance on federal issues.

"Through encouraging collective state action, CCSSO strengthens the influence and impact each state has over federal education by unifying states around common principles, themes and policies."

I don't know about you, but that sure sounds like lobbying to me.

Next let's look at the corporate sponsors or funding for both the NGA and the CCSSO.  They are not self-sustaining from their membership of governors and school officers.

You can find the list of NGA Corporate Fellows at this link

What is a Corporate Fellow? So glad you asked. "As a Corporate Fellow, your contribution supports the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and positions you and your colleagues as intellectual resources for providing governors ideas that work. "

Unless I don't know what the word contribution means, I think that means monetary funding from the Corporate Fellows.

Here is information on the CCSSO's Business and Industry Partnerships.

"The Council's mission is to assist chief state school officers and their organizations in achieving the vision of an American education system that enables all children to succeed in school, work, and life. This mission cannot be met without forging new collaborations. In today's environment, success derives from working with and learning from diverse constituencies.

"One such constituency is the business community. The Council has engaged this community by developing a corporate sponsorship program for interested partners, who have provided support for Council meetings throughout the year. To ensure appropriate representation, the Council offers tiered levels of partnerships. The tiered partnership approach provides businesses with a menu of options from which to choose and enables the Council to receive sponsorship support to operate its meetings, conferences, and forums."

Apparently the CCSSO has 3 different tiers of Corporate partners. Just glancing thru their list, several jump out. Microsoft, inBloom, McGraw-Hill Education, Pearson Education, and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Both  the NGA and CCSSO have received funding from the Gates Foundation.  The NGA has received over $25 Million from the Gates Foundation.  The CCSSO has received $84 Million from the Gates Foundation.

My question is does being run by governors or school officers negate the fact that these organizations are lobbyist influenced by their corporate donors?

My friend has also accused me of being anti-capitalist because I object to our kids being treated like units whose information is being tracked for marketing.  I reminded him that there is a difference between capitalism ~which I am all for~ and corporatism, but again that is a discussion for another time.

What do you think?  Are the NGA and CCSSO lobbyists or are they as the Common Core proponents claim, state led?

Common Core: Just Standards or really a Curriculum?

One of the big myths that Common Core supporters will tell you is that Common Core is just standards and that they don't dictate to schools and teachers what to teach.  Let's examine this claim and see if it is really true.

This article perpetuates that myth.  The author links to ~note that the link is not correct~ one of the math standards for 2nd grade as an example.  Here is the correct link by the way.

For example, the Standards require second graders to know that “100 can be thought of as a bundle of ten tens—called a ‘hundred,’” but curriculum dictates the textbook, or teaching methodology, or philosophy used to teach that skill. 

If one looks at all of the 2nd grade math standards that cover Number and Operations in Base 10, one also sees this.

Add and subtract within 1000, using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction; relate the strategy to a written method. Understand that in adding or subtracting three-digit numbers, one adds or subtracts hundreds and hundreds, tens and tens, ones and ones; and sometimes it is necessary to compose or decompose tens or hundreds.

What the heck are concrete models or drawings?  And up to 1000?  What does that even look like?  Glad you asked.  Here is a 3rd grader showing us what is looks like.  Now grant it, she is in 3rd grade so she will be showing us numbers above 1,000.  Are you ready?

And what does it mean to compose or decompose tens or hundreds?  It means breaking down numbers into their components.  And what is it's importance?  According to Leslie at KindergartenWorks.com

The simple answer is because there is value in students being able to see the groupings, relationships and patterns in numbers. We are laying the foundation for students to be able to do 53+12 and see that they can manipulate it into making 50+15 or 60+5 or 50+10+3+2 or any other variety of ways to see the quantity as it makes sense to them.

Do you understand that?  Is she saying that if our kids can break apart numbers, then they can build them back into a number they understand?!?  I'm lost.  How about you?  More importantly, how about your K-2nd grader?  Don't worry though because Ms. Leslie has written three articles to help you understand and teach your kindergartner.  Don't miss out on her visuals.  They will help you understand.  BTW, what is it with 10 frames and Common Core?!?  Are our kids destined to see dots and count dots to do math?

Back to the CC standards.  Here is another one of the actual math standards.  This one is for 1st grade and the Domain is "Operations and Algebraic Thinking".

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.1.OA.C.6

Add and subtract within 20, demonstrating fluency for addition and subtraction within 10. Use strategies such as counting on; making ten (e.g., 8 + 6 = 8 + 2 + 4 = 10 + 4 = 14); decomposing a number leading to a ten (e.g., 13 - 4 = 13 - 3 - 1 = 10 - 1 = 9); using the relationship between addition and subtraction (e.g., knowing that 8 + 4 = 12, one knows 12 - 8 = 4); and creating equivalent but easier or known sums (e.g., adding 6 + 7 by creating the known equivalent 6 + 6 + 1 = 12 + 1 = 13).

Now let's put out critical thinking caps on.  That is after all, what the proponents of Common Core tell us these standards are all about.  Regardless of which company the school district buys its math "curriculum"' from, what has to be taught for the child to pass the test for this standard?  Ms. Lahey mentions Everyday Math as being the culprit here.  How is Everyday Math going to teach this without being confusing?  Ms. Lahey is right.  This fuzzy math ~and the education reformers~ have been around for a long time.  Common Core isn't the first rodeo that parents have had to push back on education reform.  Common Core is probably the first time that these failed math strategies have been written into standards that must be taught.

This is where you have to follow the money in the complicated web that is Common Core.

IF one has a new set of standards that require new skills to be taught and tested on, what happens to the current textbooks and curriculum in a school?  That's right.  They have to be replaced, but replaced with what?  Why curriculum that is aligned with the new standards and tests, right?  Well, where would one go to get new curriculum for Common Core?  Enter Pearson.  Pearson is a London-based company ~yes, as in the London that is across the Pond~ whose goal is to "to transform education globally in order to improve people’s lives through learning."  Pearson is the leading education company that provides ~sells~ curriculum, tests ~for both students and teachers~ and data solutions.   The bonus is that it all fits together in one neat package for the school.  What could be easier than that?  In 2011, Pearson entered into a partnership with the Gates Foundation ~hmm where have we heard that name before?~  to create digital learning systems programs to teach the Common Core standards.  Guess who owns the GED Testing Service?  Well, what do you know.  GED is a joint venture of Pearson and ACE. ~The American Council on Education~  Who else has received Gates Foundation dollars to implement Common Core?  Let's see, there was $4.4 Million to Scholastic ~another familiar name in the school curriculum world~   $4 Million to Khan Academy in 2011, and  $1.5 Million in 2010.  Just for fun go to the Gates Foundation data base for Awarded Grants here and type in Common Core.  Currently it lists 161 grants for Common Core.  Just browse through them and see what names jump out at you.  We'll tackle the Gate Foundation funding in the creation of Common Core in another post.  That is a whole other knot to unravel as is the link between McGraw-Hill and No Child Left Behind.

Still not convinced?  Don't take my word for it, listen to what Bill Gates himself says about aligning the standards with the curriculum and the tests.



Suffice to say, I think we've answered the question of whether Common Core is only standards or do they dictate to teachers what to teach ~curriculum~.  What do you think?