“Discard Common Core Standards, Replace with English Success Standards”

SchoolgirlBy Donna Garner 

What is it that parents want their children to learn in English / Language Arts /Reading classes, K-12?  Most veteran English teachers know, but they are frustrated because they usually have no “voice.”  Starting in July 1997, a group of us classroom teachers in Texas managed to be heard and could well be heard again.  

 

The English Success Standards (ESS) document is an example of the Type #1 philosophy of education which is in direct opposition to the Type #2 philosophy of education found in the Common Core Standards (a.k.a., CSCOPE in Texas).   

Link to Type #1 vs. Type #2 chart:  http://www.educationviews.org/comparison-types-education-type-1-traditional-vs-type-2-cscope-common-core/

 

Since its inception in 1997, the classroom teachers who wrote the English Success Standards have offered their document for free to any and all – no strings attached. Users are free to utilize or change whatever they so choose.  

 

The English Success Standards (ESS) remain today as the only standards document in the United States that was written by classroom teachers for classroom teachers. 

 

In every classroom, there are two entities – the teacher and the student.  Therefore, in the ESS, each page has two columns:  The column on the left tells teachers what they should teach (not HOW to do it – that is left up to the creative abilities of the teachers), and the column on the right tells students what they should learn.   

 

The English Success Standards (ESS) are content-rich and explicit for every grade level, increasing in depth and complexity as the student goes through school. This cognitive progression links each concept with previous concepts and produces long-term memory in students.   

 

The ESS is built upon the empirical reading research done by the National Institutes of Health and emphasizes phonemic awareness/decoding skills (phonics).  The document contains an excellent but separate grammar strand that would require schools to emphasize correct writing and speaking at each grade level.

 

The ESS has a clear progression of composition/research-writing skills and emphasizes the four writing modes of expository, persuasive, descriptive, and narrative.  The various genres of literature are covered extensively along with the characteristics of each. 

 

The final English/Reading/Language Arts curriculum standards for Texas (ELAR/TEKS) adopted by the elected members of the Texas State Board of Education on May 23, 2008 utilized much of the content taken from the English Success Standards.

  

Because the public is becoming very disenchanted with the Type #2 Common Core Standards (and CSCOPE in Texas), now would be a good time for people to obtain a copy of the English Success Standards if for no other reason than to see what a Type #1 ELAR document written by actual classroom teachers looks like.

 

Sometimes putting the real thing (ESS) beside a counterfeit (CCS/CSCOPE) reveals the brilliance of the real thing and the shortcomings of the counterfeit.  

 

Henry W. Burke testified to the Nebraska State Board of Education on 2.3.14, and he strongly suggested that Nebraska utilize the ESS to help them write their own state ELAR standards. This would be a good idea for other states to do also. Why “re-invent the wheel” and spend millions of dollars when the ESS is completely free for the taking?

 

To watch Mr. Burke’s testimony, please go to marker 1:39:00 – 1:49:00. (The scroll bar at the bottom of the screen is invisible until you click on it to move the marker.) – VIDEO —http://www.education.ne.gov/Movies/StateBoard/Feb_2014_Work_Session.mp4

 

 

To read Mr. Burke’s full report to the NSBOE, please go to:http://www.educationviews.org/proposed-nebraska-english-standards

 

 

ACTION STEP:

 

If you would like to have a copy of the English Success Standards e-mailed to you as an attachment, please send your request to either Henry W. Burke or Donna Garner. Your e-mail addresses will not be kept, shared, nor utilized in any way:  

Henry W. Burke

hwburke@cox.net

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

 Those who teach

How Did the Gates Foundation Allocate $150 Million to Common Core?

by Henry W. Burke

Stop Common Core in Texas ~ Stop CSCOPEThe Washington Post published the following article on 5.12.13 by Valerie Strauss about the Gates Foundation Grants – “Gates Gives $150 Million in Grants for Common Core Standards”

Excerpts from this article:

For an initiative billed as being publicly driven, the Common Core States Initiative has benefited enormously from the generosity of the private philanthropy of Bill and Melinda Gates. How much? About $150 million worth.

Take a look at this list of grants, obtained from their foundation’s Web site. Note not only the amounts but the wide range of organizations receiving money. Universities. Unions. State education departments. Nonprofits. Think tanks. The grants were given for a range of reasons, including developing materials aligned to the standards and building support for the standards.

You can see how invested the Gates Foundation is in the success of the Common Core.  What kind of Core support do these grants buy from the organizations that receive them?

[The Washington Post article includes a detailed listing of the Gates Foundation grants directed to the Common Core.]

===================

In Donna Garner’s 5.13.13 article on this subject, she wisely stated:  As you read through these grants that Bill Gates gave to “Universities. Unions. State education departments. Nonprofits. Think tanks,” remember which corporation stands to gain the most financially if Common Core Standards (CCS) are implemented throughout the United States – Microsoft Corporation. 

In other words, a corporation that stands to gain billions from CCS is owned by the private philanthropist who has been driving education policy.  This is called “a direct conflict of interest” by a vendor who is working alongside the Obama administration to create education policy to federalize standards, curriculum, assessments, teacher evaluations, and a national database of intrusive personal information.

 The end result would be billions for Microsoft and the indoctrination of our nation’s school children into Obama’s social justice agenda.  

As someone who has followed the grim progression of Common Core Standards which is the Obama administration’s takeover of the public schools by the federal government, I thought it would be interesting to provide a breakdown of the roughly $150 million ($146.6 million) in grants for the Common Core Standards.  The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Gates Foundation) is clearly the major sponsor of the Common Core Standards Initiative (CCSI).

The largest category by far is “Think Tanks,” which garnered about $67 million or 46 % of the $147 million total.  State Departments of Education received $22 million or 15 % of the total.  The other categories obtained 3 – 12 % of the total.

 

Summary of Gates Foundation Grants

(All Amounts in Millions of Dollars)

Category

Grant

Amount

($ Millions)

Percentage

of

Total

Think Tanks     66.758     46 %
State Departments of Education     22.288     15 %
National Associations     17.629     12 %
Universities     12.293       8 %
Common Core “Project Leaders”     11.500       8 %
Institutes     11.193       8 %
Local School Districts       4.946       3 %
    Total   146.607   100 %

 

The lion’s share of the Gates Foundation Common Core grants were directed to Think Tanks.  The Gates Foundation spent major dollars on Think Tank organizations that are advocating CCS and developing Common Core materials.  As a group, Think Tanks obtained about $67 million (46 % of the Gates Common Core $146.6 million total).  Clearly, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is utilizing Think Tanks to promote the Common Core agenda.

Because the Think Tanks played a huge role in shaping education policy, it should not surprise us that they received much of the Gates Foundation funding.  By driving education policy, the Gates Foundation will control what happens in the local classrooms.

 

 

Grants to Think Tanks

Organization Year

Grant

Amount

($ Millions)

WestEd 2013     0.030
LearnZillion, Inc. 2013     0.966
National Paideia Center, Inc. 2013     0.660
The Achievement Network 2012     3.002
BetterLesson, Inc. 2012     3.527
JUMP Math 2012     0.699
Center for Curriculum Redesign, Inc. 2012     0.198
State Education Technology 2012     0.500
Student Achievement Partners, Inc. 2012     4.043
The College-Ready Promise 2011     0.300
Scholastic, Inc. 2011     4.464
New Venture Fund 2011     0.378
Learning Forward 2011     1.000
Americas Promise-Alliance for Youth 2011     0.500
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, Inc. 2011     4.619
Khan Academy, Inc. 2010     1.465
Khan Academy, Inc. 2011     4.079
National Writing Project 2011     3.096
Creative Commons Corp. 2011     0.813
Reasoning Mind, Inc. 2011     0.743
MetaMetrics, Inc. 2010     3.468
New Visions for Public Schools, Inc. 2010     8.150
Center for Teaching Quality, Inc. 2010     0.396
Alliance for Excellent Education, Inc. 2009     0.551
Alliance for Excellent Education, Inc. 2010     3.200
Cristo Rey Network 2010     0.556
Research for Action, Inc. 2010     1.309
Common Core, Inc. 2009     0.551
Colorado Legacy Foundation  2011     9.707
Colorado Legacy Foundation  2012     1.748
The Education Trust 2009     2.040
  Subtotal — Think Tanks     66.758

The Gates Foundation issued about $22 million in grants to the State Departments of Education.  Gates singled out the Kentucky DOE for $12.028 million (54 % of the State DOE total).  The Louisiana DOE received around $7 million (33 % of the State DOE total).

 

 

Grants to State Departments of Education

Organization Year

Grant

Amount

($ Millions)

Delaware 2013     0.400
Georgia 2010     1.981
Kentucky 2010     1.000
Kentucky 2011     9.125
Kentucky 2012     1.903
Louisiana 2011     7.352
Pennsylvania 2010     0.527
  Subtotal — State DOEs     22.288

An assortment of National Associations obtained mostly small grants from the Gates Foundation.  Together, they received $17.6 million (12 % of the total).  The two major teachers’ unions (NEA and AFT) grabbed 31 % of the National Association total.

 

 

Grants to National Associations

Organization Year

Grant

Amount

($ Millions)

National Education Assoc. Found. (NEA) 2012     0.100
American Federation of Teachers (AFT) 2011     1.000
American Federation of Teachers (AFT) 2012     4.400
National Indian Education Assoc. 2011     0.500
Office of Supt. of Public Instr. (Tribal) 2011     0.075
Council of State Governments 2010     0.400
Council of State Governments 2011     0.370
National Association of SBOEs 2009     0.451
National Association of SBOEs 2011     1.078
Council of Great City Schools 2010     0.100
Council of Great City Schools 2011     4.911
Education Commission of the States 2010     0.799
Military Child Education Coalition 2009     0.270
Military Child Education Coalition 2011     0.150
Assoc. for Supervision and Curr. Develop. 2011     3.025
  Subtotal — National Associations     17.629

Seven universities obtained grants totaling $12 million from the Gates Foundation.  The largest recipient was the University of Arizona at $3.4 million.

 

 

Grants to Universities

Organization Year

Grant

Amount

($ Millions)

University of Kentucky 2013     1.000
University of Arizona 2012     3.417
University of Michigan 2012     2.000
Massachusetts Inst. of Technology (MIT) 2011     2.889
University of State of New York 2010     0.893
University of State of New York 2011     0.600
Purdue University 2010     1.454
New York University 2010     0.040
  Subtotal — Universities     12.293

The Common Core Standards Initiative has been led by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association.  Not surprisingly, the Gates Foundation provided $11.5 million in funding to these organizations.

 

 

Grants to Common Core “Project Leaders”

Organization Year

Grant

Amount

($ Millions)

Council of Chief State School Officers 2011     9.389
Council of Chief State School Officers 2012     0.475
National Governors Association 2011     1.598
National Governors Association 2012     0.038
  Subtotal — CCS  “Project Leaders”     11.500

Gates gave grants to four Institutes, with the largest amount ($5.5 million) going to the James B. Hunt Institute; $3.6 million went to the Aspen Institute.  Common Core supporter Thomas B. Fordham Institute received almost $1 million.

 

 

Grants to Institutes

Organization Year

Grant

Amount

($ Millions)

The Aspen Institute 2013     3.616
American Enterprise Institute 2012     1.069
James B. Hunt Institute 2009     5.549
Thomas B. Fordham Institute 2009     0.959
  Subtotal — Institutes     11.193

The Gates Foundation sent about $5 million in funds to local school districts and local/state organizations.

 

 

Grants to Local School Districts

Organization Year

Grant

Amount

($ Millions)

Albuquerque Public Schools  (NM) 2010     0.500
School District of Philadelphia  (PA) 2010     0.500
Cleveland Metro School District  (OH) 2010     0.498
Forsyth County Schools  (GA) 2010     0.151
Fund for Public Schools  (NY) 2012     1.816
Baton Rouge Area Foundation  (LA) 2012     0.500
Nellie Mae Educ. Fdn.  (New England) 2011     0.350
Pennsylvania Business Roundtable  (PA) 2012     0.257
Hillsborough County Council  (FL) 2011     0.025
Massachusetts Business Alliance  (MA) 2010     0.151
Pritchard Committee for Acad. Exc.  (KY) 2011     0.198
  Subtotal — Local School Districts       4.946

 

CONCLUSION

What did $150 million in grants to the Common Core do for Bill Gates?  For one thing, these grants bought a great deal of control over education policy in this country.  This means that a man who owns a private corporation is directing public policy that will control what is taught to millions of students in their local classrooms.

Gates believes in the ideology enshrined in Common Core, and he knows money talks.  With many organizations clamoring for Bill Gates’ grant funds, they are more than willing to promote whatever he wants; and he likes the Common Core agenda.

The Common Core Standards will require huge commitments to technology.  According to the Pioneer Institute, the 46 CCS states will need to spend $6.9 billion for Technology to implement CCS.  Of course, not all of that money will be for computer hardware and software, but the computer portion will be substantial.

As the co-founder of Microsoft Corporation, William “Bill” Gates has strong ties to the corporation.  He is the former CEO and is its current Chairman.  Bill Gates is the largest individual shareholder of Microsoft, with 6.4 % of the common shares.  Under the Common Core computer demands, Microsoft stands to gain immensely.

It seems obvious that Bill Gates is involved in a classic conflict of interest situation.  Through the Gates Foundation, Bill Gates is actively supporting and promoting the Common Core.  Microsoft will greatly benefit from the huge increase in technology spending required by the Common Core.  Do we need to say more?

Henry W. Burke

E-mail: hwburke@cox.net  

“Common Core Standards with Henry W. Burke on Dr. Laurie Roth Show” – gives state-specific costs for implementation of Common Core Standards — audio clip – listen to interview —