The Questionable Roots of Common Core

On November 14th, the Cato Institution posted an article about the waivers given in the “No Child Left Behind” program. The waivers were issued very selectively and were used as a means to get states to approve Common Core educational standards.

The article reports:

If the outcry over unilateral executive moves we’ve seen over the last few years remains consistent, Obamacare and immigration are likely to keep sucking up most of Republicans’ attention and the media’s coverage. But just as sweeping have been executive waivers issued from the hated No Child Left Behind Act – really the most recent reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act – that have been instrumental in connecting numerous states to, among other things, the Common Core national curriculum standards. And yesterday, the Education Department issued guidance offering states the chance to obtain waivers – if they do the administration’s bidding, of course – lasting well into the term of the next president: the 2018-19 school year.

These waivers are almost certainly illegal – even a Congressional Research Service report often cited to suggest the opposite says they are unprecedented in scope and, hence, an untested case – and even if they are not deemed technically illegal, the reality is they still amount to the executive department unilaterally making law. NCLB does grant the Secretary of Education the authority to issue waivers from many parts of the Act, but it grants no authority to condition those waivers on states adopting administration-preferred policies. Indeed, as University of South Carolina law professor Derek W. Black writes in a recent analysis of waivers, not only does NCLB not authorize conditional waivers, even if a court were to read any waiver authorization as implicitly authorizing conditions, the actual conditions attached – “college- and career-ready standards,” new teacher evaluations, etc. – fundamentally change the law. In fact the changes, Black notes, are essentially what the administration proposed in its 2010 “blueprint” to reauthorize NCLB. And quite simply, the executive fundamentally changing a law is not constitutional.

The federal government is now taking direct power over what our children learn. That is not only unconstitutional–it is dangerous.

The Educational Aspect Of The 2014 Mid-Term Election

Yesterday The Daily Signal posted an article about the education policies of the winners and losers in Tuesday’s election. As parents become more aware of the problems with a federally controlled education system, they are voting for the candidates who will give them more freedom and more choice in matters involving their children’s education.

The article cites some of the candidates and their positions on education:

Charlie Crist, running as a Democrat, lost his election bid for Florida governor to incumbent Republican Rick Scott. Crist supported the state’s teachers’ union and the Florida School Boards Association’s campaign , to stop Florida’s tuition tax credit scholarship program. The program, which enables nearly 69,000 low-income children to attend a school of choice, is the nation’s largest choice program.

David Figlio of Northwestern University, who has evaluated the scholarship program on an annual basis for the state, found that “scholarship students are by and large the ones who struggled the most at the public schools they left behind, but that they are now, on average, making the same academic gains as students of all income levels nationally.”

Scott’s victory is a victory for supporters of school choice in the Sunshine State.

Similarly, in Wisconsin, Republican Scott Walker won his re-election bid for governor running, in part, on a platform of expanding school choice.

Voters voted for candidates who opposed Common Core and supported state and local control of education.

The changes in the leadership of the Senate Committee dealing with education will make a difference:

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., will take the helm of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and is likely to work to reauthorize No Child Left Behind. Although Congress should pursue policies that would allow states to completely opt out of No Child Left Behind, as the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success, or APLUS Act, does, a potential reauthorization of NCLB would provide an opportunity to move the nation’s largest K-12 education law in a more student-centered direction.

Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., already has introduced the CHOICE Act, which would allow states to have Individuals with Disabilities Education Act funds follow children to the private schools of their parents’ choice. Rep. Todd Rokita, R-Ind., has introduced a companion measure in the House. A similar approach to Title I funding for low-income school districts also has been advanced in the House by Rep. Luke Messer, R-Ind.

…The Higher Education Reform and Opportunity Act—or HERO Act— introduced by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., would empower states to allow any entity to credential courses, which could pave the way for a more flexible college experience for students and make possible a dramatic reduction in college costs.

It’s time for parents and local school boards to take back education. The newly-elected Senate may provide that opportunity. However, the corporate and political interests that are supporting Common Core and the new Advanced Placement U.S. History course will strongly oppose any move in that direction. It won’t be easy to get this done, but it is very doable.

Who Is Actually Running Things?

Last Monday, Heritage.org posted an article about Congress. It wasn’t the usual article blaming Congress for the various ills of the country–it was an article noting the declining power of Congress–they’re giving their power away!

The article cites a number of examples:

Consider several of the items Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus listed in a recent column headlined, “Losing the art of legislating as John Dingell retires”:

This is not how our government is supposed to work–it is rule by agencies in the executive branch–not three branches of government balancing each other.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta