The notably conservative Siouxland Republican Women are hosting a panel discussion on the Common Core education standards this evening in Sioux Falls (7 p.m., Good Samaritan Jerstad Center, admission $5 for members, $10 for the rest of us).
The meeting promises to be lively enough that the organizers have decided not to take questions from the floor. They want to focus on the three-on-three battle royale that seems likely to erupt. Defending Common Core will be South Dakota Secretary of Education Melody Schopp, former Ed Sec and now paid Common Core consultant Rick Melmer, and Republican State Senator Phyllis Heineman (R-12/Sioux Falls). On the attack will be Senator Ernie Otten (R-6/Tea), Rep. Jim Bolin (R-16/Canton), and a visitor from Iowa, blogger and consultant Shane Vander Hart.
With almost everyone in the room a conservative Republican, perhaps Vander Hart will want to have handy his six reasons conservatives should oppose Common Core:
- There is nothing conservative about centralizing education around a set of common standards.
- Conservatives object to the process in which they were adopted which allowed for little to no public debate, cut out the legislative process, and was introduced via the backdoor which cut out “We the People.”
- While perhaps the intent was not to have hyper-federal involvement, but the fact remains it does which violates the constitution and Federal law.
- Conservatives typically don’t approve of student privacy being violated by data mining which will be fostered through the assessment consortiums.
- They simply are not rigorous, they are mediocre and the embrace of the Common Core represents a collective race to the middle.
- They are costly and states adopted the Common Core and entered into assessment consortium without having a handle on the costs. Is this good fiscal discipline? [Shane Vander Hart, "Six Reasons Why Conservatives (Should) Object to the Common Core," Caffeinated Thoughts, 2013.04.04]
#2 is somewhat irrelevant, because the typical person in the street would rather watch grass grow than sit through endless meetings on make-work "reform", and legislative meddling in what your teachers teach is as offensive and counterproductive in Pierre as in Washington. #3 is hyperbole, and #4 is meaningless to any parent who allows his or her child to use Facebook or a cell phone.
But if we're looking for common ground against Common Core (of course we are! we're all in this together, right, Ernie?), #1, #5, and #6 work for me. We're paying higher costs for less quality and less control.
Vander Hart has previously dismissed Secretary Schopp as a propagandist. Folks, if you have ten bucks and a notepad (or a camera!), I'd love to hear your impression of how Schopp and friends respond to such criticism of their non-conservative defense of Common Core tonight in Sioux Falls.
For conservatives, who typically believe that too much government...especially centralized government... is at the heart of the problems in this country, having centralized, standardized education rules should fly in the face of all logic. If by some fluke Common Core does work, it will simply reinforce from an early age that, that to be meaningful, legislation must happen from the top. Real Republicans should be screaming against the implementation of Common Core.
Why would anyone go to a political rally to talk about this issue? Those in favor (I'm not) will be speaking to an audience that is rabidly opposed. Go to the chamber and hold a neutral discussion and visit with people of varying opinions.
I give them credit because I bet there aren't two people in the crowd supporting this issue.
These people have zero understanding of conservative criticism of education over the last 30 years.
This might be what Donald is talking about. I'm not sure if this is what Donald was thinking, but here's a thought:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/common-core-conservative-to-the-core-b9938033z1-212570341.html
Yeah, Fordham Institute has been the conservative leader on education issues for decades. Like ObamaCare, which is essentially warmed over Heritage Foundation ideas, Common Core has a conservative basis. Conservatives were all for Common Core until Obama was elected. Then the racist hatred of the deluded conservative fringe took over and you get kooks like this having public meetings. These racist kooks are the people who really could benefit from Common Core. I suspect that's why they are opposed to it. They feel they are better off being racist and stupid.
And to respond to Cory's suggestion that liberals can coalesce around points 1, 5, and 6, I suggest that
#1 has been a conservative goal since 1983.
#5 misses the point that they are far better than most current state standards. Let's understand that these conservatives have been in charge in South Dakota for 4 decades and have produced standards that are far, far worse than mediocre.
#6 misses the mark. You can have standards which cost nothing, and you can implement standards through the normal curriculum process, which occurs at the local level. It's no more cost than you would have with any curriculum change, and it could be phased in. You don't have to sign up for the stupid testing consortium and all the other costly stuff, or you can cut other testing and substitute the consortium tests.
Otten was actually coming off as okay with Common Core after spending time and talking to Superintendents from around the district. I was sort-or impressed that he was open to hear what they had to say. Bolin was the only one from the legislature that was strongly opposed against it for the reason mainly that the government is going to come and take away all local control.
Donald, so you're telling us that Common Core is like ObamaCare: conservatives were all about it, maybe even invented it, and would be cheering it right now if John McCain were the advocate?
On #5: doesn't race to the middle hold? Don't these standards squeeze out the advanced students and diversity in curriculum, driving everyone to the same basic knowledge?