By Jim Stegall

June 30, 2010

RALEIGH — North Carolina has become one of the first states officially to adopt a newly developed set of national curriculum standards for use in the state’s public schools. When fully implemented, the “Common Core State Standards” will guide the development of everything from teachers’ lesson plans to final exams, and make it easier to compare North Carolina’s progress in education to that of other states.

Critics warn that the move may cost state officials the ability to determine what North Carolina school children should be learning. They also question the wisdom of jumping onto the national standards bandwagon in the middle of a five-year state initiative to develop new curriculum standards of our own.

That project, known as the Accountability and Curriculum Reform Effort, grew out of a 2008 study recommending a complete overhaul of the standard course of study for students in kindergarten through 12th grade. State education officials had completed work on the new standards for mathematics, and were putting the finishing touches on those for English language arts, when the U.S. Department of Education announced that states using the common core standards would receive extra points in the Race to the Top education reform initiative.

Although the ACRE project is described on the Department of Public Instruction’s website as “the most important and significant work of the State Board of Education and Department of Public Instruction in a generation,” education officials warmed quickly to the idea of adopting the national standards instead. DPI could not say how much has been spent on the ACRE project to date.

DPI’s Chief Academic Officer Rebecca Garland credits the federal reform initiative with helping spur action on national standards. Noting that states had been considering the idea of developing a common set of curriculum standards for years, she said, “It’s not like Race to the Top initiated the conversation, but it may have caused folks across the states to say it’s time to stop talking and start doing.”

In an interview, Garland rejected the idea that the two years DPI spent working on new mathematics and English language arts via the ACRE project were wasted. She pointed out that the new common core standards for both subjects are very similar to those developed by ACRE. In the case of the math standards, she said that one of the key contributors to the national standards project (a North Carolina State University mathematics professor) was also working with DPI’s ACRE project.

“The English language arts [national standards] were actually being developed at the same time that our standards were,” Garland said, “so we had our groups looking at what they thought were important.”

But not all educators are comfortable with the move to national standards. Some think that “national standards” could eventually spell “national control.”

“I don’t think it’s the right way to go,” says John Locke Foundation director of education studies Terry Stoops. He cited the recent controversy over the State Board of Education’s attempt to adopt new social studies standards — which some felt slighted U.S. history. “There’s always a potential for ideological manipulation on a national scale,” Stoops said, “and that’s a concern.”

Garland says that should not be a problem. “A state can sign on or a state can pull out if anything goes in a direction that makes them uncomfortable.” She said that the standards are flexible enough to allow states to add things that they feel are particularly important to them.

DPI plans to start using the new standards in the 2012-13 school year. But before that can happen, new tests aligned with the curriculum will have to be designed. Garland says that those tests will be designed by a consortium of states to be chosen by the U.S. Department of Education later this year. “In essence it will give us a national assessment, but it will be an assessment controlled by the states,” she said. “None of us are interested in a federally mandated assessment.”

Stoops says the assessments bear close watching. “It’s no good to have great standards and horrible assessments,” he said. Referring to North Carolina’s history of problems with standardized testing, he said, “We have seen what poor assessments can do.”

Jim Stegall is a contributor to Carolina Journal

Look at the proposed budget and the massive increase to Education (although you will see significant decreases to Special Education and Education to the  Disadvantaged)  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html 

Neal McCluskey’s article on nationalizing education http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11240

From the Federal website http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/funding.html:  States are encouraged to develop budgets that match the needs they have outlined in their applications.

TX has opted out as noted here: http://biggovernment.com/bdterry/2010/01/15/texas-is-right-to-quit-the-race-for-the-top-education-program/

NJ has concerns: http://www.gloucestercitynews.net/clearysnotebook/2010/01/new-jersey-education-association.html

Below is the article from Missouri http://www.missourirecord.com/news/index.asp?article=10102:

February 26, 2010 07:15 AM

The Race to the Top (RTTT) education plan currently being pushed by US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan should keep its acronym.  What it should be renamed, however, is Race to the Takeover.  This plan is flying under the radar, but it is one of the most “transformational” programs of Obama’s administration.  This mandate will cede sovereignty of the states’ rights to educate Missouri’s children to the federal government.

This mandate involves state education departments submitting grants to the federal government for educational stimulus money.  The grant is $4.3 billion to be divvied up to states for educational programs.  Sounds good, right?  Well, let’s look at what the state of Missouri will give up for this money and scrutinize this proposal.  (The 300 page grant proposal can be accessed here.)

The plan reflects the belief that our schools need to be nudged by “choice architects” (pps 10 and 40) to steer educational choices for our children.  The document was drafted on the basic tenet of this belief held by Cass Sunstein.  This is the recurring theme of the Obama administration.  We, the people, are ill prepared to handle decisions for ourselves and our children.  We need the “nudging” by the government for correct choices.

RTTT will require the redistribution of teachers and principals (pps 13 and 75).  “Highly effective” teachers and principals will be transferred to failing classrooms and schools.  Local districts will have no power for their own staffing.  Curriculum choices and testing protocols will be taken out of local and state control as Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) will be decentralized into a regional service center (pg 67).  These decisions will be made by a consortium of states, not by a state board or local district.

Now that you have an idea on what we will give up, what will we gain?  We obviously gain federal control over another aspect of our life.  We gain the possibility of a maximum grant of $250 million for a plan that is projected to cost $390 million (pg 257).  We gain more infrastructure and more staffing requirements which will only be partially funded (pg 19).  We gain an unfunded mandate after four years, as any federal money will be stopped after that time.

I believe there are two impediments to this plan.  It is illegal as it usurps our state sovereignty, and financially, is it unsustainable.  When did it become acceptable or legal for the governor, State Board of Education and school superintendents to sign away our sovereign rights?

Contact these entities and demand they immediately withdraw districts’ applications for RTTT.  Initial grants will be announced in April and secondary grants will be announced in the summer.  If the majority of districts withdraw, the state will withdraw its proposal.  Ninety-nine percent of  Missouri school districts did sign on to this plan, but many district officials complained they were pressured and the document was not ready for review until a few days before the signing deadline in January. 

This proposal is akin to the health care bill.  It was pushed on the parties in a rush and it is filled with vagueness on specifics.  The one certainty in this proposal is the total control of the federal government.  Does that sound familiar?  Once again, the parents and taxpayers were left out of this proposal.  As you read through the document, you should note that parents are mentioned twice in 300 pages.  In fact, the “actors” who will drive this reform are: individuals (students, teachers, principals); education organizations (unions, reform organizations); and educational institutions (pg 11). 

An aside, since when are reform organizations considered as an “education organization” and specifically, what reform groups are driving this proposal?  You, as a parent, are not considered as an important aspect in your child’s education.  Perhaps you are considered nothing more than the entity paying for this plan.

Missourians must demand the legislators not release any funds received for these mandates.  Our legislators took an oath to protect our state sovereignty and we must demand they not accept any of these stimulus monies.  The strings are too tight and they will strangle educational choices for our children.  Contact your representative and senator and tell them NO.  No more federal control over our daily lives.  No to budgets we can’t sustain.  No to spending of our tax dollars for a program that circumvented the legislative process.

Reclaim our sovereignty.  Refuse RTTT—Race to the Takeover.

Click on the download at the bottom of the article to see a pictorial view of the ACORN Web

A Single Seed Grows Many Branches: ACORN’s Web of Connections in North Carolina

The Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) has woven itself into the fabric of the left in North Carolina. Listed below are short explanations of the ties between the groups illustrated on the above chart. For more detailed information on ACORN NC see Capitol-Monitor.org.

Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN)
ACORN NC – ACORN’s North Carolina arm – has offices in Raleigh, Durham and Charlotte. ACORN NC is a member of Blueprint NCand partners with NC Housing Coalition, NC Policy Watch and the NC Justice Center, among others.  

Blueprint North Carolina
Blueprint NC was organized and funded by the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation. It is a partnership of over 40 progressive (liberal) state-level nonprofits housed at the  NC Justice Center. Blueprint NC’s partner organizations are:

• Phillip Randolph Institute
• Action for Children
• American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina (ACLU)
• Carolina Justice Policy Center
• Center for Community Self-Help/Center for Responsible Lending
• Center for Death Penalty Litigation
• Common Cause
• Community Reinvestment Association of NC- CRANC
• Conservation Council of NC Foundation
• Conservation Trust of NC
• Covenant with North Carolina’s Children, Inc.
• Democracy NC
• Disability Rights NC
• El Pueblo
• Environment NC
• Equality NC
• Fair Trial Initiative
• Institute for Southern Studies
• Ipas
• League of Women Voters – Charlotte
• Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation
• NARAL Pro-Choice NC
• NC ACORN
• NC Against Gun Violence
• NC Alliance of Black Elected Officials
• NC Association of CDCs
• NC Center for Voter Education
• NC Coalition Against Domestic Violence
• NC Coalition Against Domestic Violence
• NC Coalition Against Sexual Assault
• NC Coalition to End Homelessness
• NC Community Development Initiative
• NC Conservation Network
• NC Environmental Defense
• NC Fair Share
• NC Housing Coalition, Inc.
• NC Institute of Minority Economic Development
• NC John Muir Foundation (Sierra Club)
• NC Justice Center
• NC Latino Coalition, Inc.
• NC Minority Support Center
• NC NAACP
• NC Policy Watch
• People of Faith Against the Death Penalty
• Planned Parenthood Health Systems
• Planned Parenthood of Central NC
• Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
• Southern Coalition of Social Justice
• Traction
• Working Families Win

Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation
The Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation funds progressive groups. Among them are El Pueblo Inc., North Carolina Housing Coalition, NC Justice Center and Project Vote.

NC Housing Coalition
The Campaign for Housing Carolina is a collaborative effort led by the NC Housing Coalition joined by NC Justice Center, A.J. Fletcher Foundation and ACORN NC.

Project Vote
Project Vote is ACORN’s voter mobilization arm and has provided legal support, including supporting litigation, for ACORN in a number of states. Project Vote registered more than 1.3 million individuals to vote; many of who were deceased, under the voting age or were fabricated registrants. 

A.J. Fletcher Foundation
The A.J. Fletcher Foundation, whose mission is to support progressive nonprofits, gave $205,000 to the NC Justice Center and over $66,000 to the NC Housing Coalition in 2007.

Tides Foundation
Tides Foundation received a $25,000 grant from the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation, part of which was used to create gettraction.org. The Tides Foundation has given grants to the Center for Community Change as well as over $1 million to Project Vote.

Center for Community Change
The Center for Community Change received money from the Tides Foundation and is partners with the NC Justice Center.

Traction
Traction and their blog, gettraction.org, define themselves as the “future of the progressive movement.” Traction was created through the Tides Foundation from a Z. Smith Reynolds grant.

NC Policy Watch
NC Policy Watch is a project of the Justice Center and located there. NC Policy Watch affiliates with El Pueblo Inc, works with ACORN NC on projects and is a member of Blueprint NC.

El Pueblo Inc.
El Pueblo, an advocacy organization for the Latino community, is a member of Blueprint NC and affiliates with NC Policy Watch. They also received a $107,500 grant from the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation.

AFL-CIO
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations is a federation of 57 international labor unions. In North Carolina, AFL-CIO shares a building with ACORN NC and is on the North Carolina chapter of Health Care for America Now.

Bank of America
Bank of America has donated millions of dollars to ACORN for “neighborhood preservation.” They also financially support the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America (NACA).

North Carolina Coalition of Health Care for America Now
NC HCAN is the North Carolina arm of a grassroots organization that pushed for passage of the national health-care bill. NC HCAN has a 16-member steering committee, whose organizations include ACORN NC, AFL-CIO and SEIU. SEANC is one of NC HCAN’s coalition partners.

State Employees Association – North Carolina
SEANC is the largest state employees’ association in the South with over 55,000 members. SEANC became legally affiliated with SEIU in 2008 and is now SEIU Local 2008

Service Employees International Union
SEIU has donated over $3.6 million to ACORN over the last six years. SEIU Local 100 was co-founded by ACORN founder Wade Rathke. In 2008, SEIU gave $1.1 million to the NC Democratic Party.

Wade Rathke
Wade Rathke is co-founder of ACORN as well as SEIU Local 100. He served as ACORN’s chief organizer until stepping down in 2008 after his brother Dale Rathke’s embezzled over $1 million dollars from ACORN and it became public. Wade Rathke is also the former director of the Tides Foundation.

State of North Carolina
Over $640,000 of North Carolina taxpayer money wasawarded to the NC Justice Center in 2006. Continuing payments have likely exceeded $1 million. The state also granted $1 million to NACA. 

Click here to download a printable PDF of this document
Click here to download the ACORN N.C. Map