Skip to content

The Common Core Memorandum of Understanding: What a Story

October 14, 2013

The question of who, exactly, is truly responsible for writing the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) has been a matter for debate. Here is how the CCSS website (update 03-23-14: link altered on the CCSS website but preserved here) describes CCSS development:

Building on the excellent foundation of standards states have laid, the Common Core State Standards are the first step in providing our young people with a high-quality education. It should be clear to every student, parent, and teacher what the standards of success are in every school.

Teachers, parents and community leaders have all weighed in to help create the Common Core State Standards. [Emphasis added.]

First of all, if the “states” have “laid an excellent foundation of standards,” why does America need CCSS?

Let us relegate the first statement above to flattery meant to disguise the lack of details of CCSS origin on the CCSS website.

Then there is the second statement, “Teachers, parents, and community leaders… weighed in….”

Another dodge.

The CCSS MOU

A more promising document for discerning the truth behind CCSS creation is the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that states entered into with the US Department of Education in applying for Race to the Top (RTTT) funding.

Let is closely examine a CCSS MOU, shall we?

According to Investopedia, a MOU is “A legal document outlining the terms and details of an agreement between parties, including each parties requirements and responsibilities. “

This link leads to the State of Delaware’s RTTT Application for Initial Funding. The CCSS MOU is located on pages 128-130.

The copyrighted “owners” of CCSS are named in the title of the MOU:

The Council of Chief State School Officers and the national Governors Association Center for Best Practices Common Core Standards Memorandum of Agreement

CCSS MOU: Purpose

The very first statement of the CCSS MOU is problematic:

Purpose: This document commits states to a state-led process…that will lead to the development and adoption of a common core of state standards.

If the process is “state-led,” why is the state entering into a legal arrangement with the federal government to “ensure” that the state “leads” itself? If the state is “leading itself,” how is it that the “standards” will be “common” to other states?

Simple: This MOU tells the states how they are to “lead themselves” in matters of CCSS.

Here is the entire “purpose” paragraph:

Purpose: This document commits states to a state-led process that will draw on evidence and lead to development and adoption of a common core of state standards (common core) in English language arts and mathematics for grades K-12. These standards will be aligned with college and work expectations, include rigorous content and skills, and be internationally benchmarked. The intent is that these standards will be aligned to state assessment and classroom practice. The second phase of this initiative will be the development of common assessments aligned to the core standards developed through this process.

Got that?

Not only was the product, CCSS, never tested; in signing this MOU, states agreed to an as-of-yet undeveloped “second phase” of “common assessments.”

It sure sounds like the state signing these MOUs are “following,” not “leading.”

CCSS MOU: Background

The next section is entitled, “Background.” it includes information on previous efforts to develop some set of “common” standards and assessments, including the American Diploma Project (ADP) and the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP).

ADP is the product of “bipartisan nonprofit” Achieve, Inc.– a key voice in CCSS. Achieve’s funders include the Gates and Joyce Foundations (Obama was once on the Joyce board of directors) as well as a number of American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) corporations (e.g., Boeing, Chevron, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Nationwide, State Farm).

Achieve, Inc.: Business muscle masquerading as “nonprofit.” Then again, so is ALEC.

Interesting how ALEC is sits on the board of a major contributor to CCSS, yet ALEC initially drafted and passed a detailed resolution against CCSS. in the end, Jeb Bush “talked ALEC into CCSS.”

There is money to be made in working for a nonprofit. Based upon Achieve’s 2010 IRS Form 990, ten individuals employed for 40 hours a week drew annual salaries and “other compensation” ranging from $154,000 to $311,000.

According to the same 990, the primary mission of Achieve is to “support standards-based education reform efforts across the states.”

There is money to be made in academic standards.

As for NECAP, this is the program that has been misused as a graduation requirement in Rhode Island. Even the corporation that designed NECAP agrees. (More on NECAP here.)

The Gates Foundation paid Measured Progress (developer of NECAP) over $4 million to contribute to teacher evaluation and teacher-moderated scoring systems.

So. The “background” of CCSS is rooted in both Achieve, Inc., and NECAP, and the background of Achieve is rooted in ALEC, and the background of both is rooted in Gates.

But never forget that it is the “states” that are “leading” this CCSS effort.

CCSS MOU: Benefits to the States

In the next section, “Benefits to the States,” NGA and CCSSO are making promises. But keep in mind that the states signing the MOU are committing to a process that they agree to implement (in the future), not one that they themselves have already written. So to make promises of what CCSS is supposed to do in the future while calling it “state led” for states just signing on is a contradiction.

Technically, if a single governor generated the idea for CCSS and all other governors followed, the “initiative” could still be called “state led.”

Reminds me of how “pork and beans” is technically correct even when a company includes only a single one-inch square of pork in a 12-ounce can.

Forget the token pork. Why not just call it what it is: In signing the MOU, states are agreeing to implement a set of standards and assessments that obviously originated outside of the time of the signed agreement, and with others, who are not state officials, in key leadership roles.

From the “Benefits to the States,” it is clear that CCSS is “one size fits all”:

Benefits to the States: The time is right for a state-led, nation-wide effort to establish a common core of standards that raises the bar for all students. This initiative presents a significant opportunity to accelerate and drive education reform toward the goal of ensuring that all children graduate from high school ready for college, work, and competing in the global economy and society.

The One Size Fits All Promise.

The “benefits” section also includes a list of what participating states will be able to do, including “articulating… general public expectations for students,” “aligning textbooks… to the standards,” “ensuring professional development… based on identified need and best practices,” “develop[ing] and implement[ing] an assessment system to measure student performance against the common core,” and “evaluat[ing] policy changes needed to help students and educators meet the common core standards….”

It is not clear how this list connects to the promise that CCSS “ensures all children will graduate… ready for college….”

And yet another promise: According to the CCSS MOU, CCSS is guaranteed to match or outdo current state standards:

…No state will see a decrease in the level of student expectations that exist in their current state standards.

Yet according to CCSS advocate Chester Finn of the Fordham Institute, Texas’ ELA standards rated higher than did CCSS.

Uh oh.  Promise broken.

CCSS MOU: Process and Structure

And now, the CCSS MOU section, “Process and Structure.” it opens with a statement akin to CCSS being “state led” since NGA and CCSSO are “in charge.”

CCSS MOU: National Validation Committee

The next subsections are curious for their ordering. First comes the National Validation Committee, a group of “national and international experts on standards.” However, their role was not to develop CCSS– it was to review:

The national validation committee shall provide an independent review of the common core. The national validation committee will review the common core as it is developed and offer comments…. This group will use evidence as the driving factor in validating the common core. [Emphasis added.]

The validation committee did not develop CCSS. They “reviewed” and “offered comments.”

According to testimony of Sandra Stotsky, CCSS validation committee member, the validation committee was little more than a “rubber stamp” whose “requests were ignored” for the “supposed body of research evidence” on which CCSS was based.

The validation committee is listed first on the CCSS MOU, yet the validation committee did not write the standards.

Why list them first?

Because it looks good to list the expected education standards experts first even if their role is superficial.

CCSS MOU: Develop End-of-High-School Expectations and K-12 Standards

The second group was the one with the power. They are identified in the next two subsections, “Develop End-of-High-School Expectations” and “Develop K-12 Standards in English Language Arts and Math”:

Achieve, ACT, and College Board.

NGA and CCSSO wanted to keep the membership of this group a secret.  Stotsky testifies as much:

After the Common Core Initiative was launched in early 2009, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers never explained to the public what the qualifications were for membership on the standards-writing committees or how it would justify the specific standards they created. Most important, it never explained why Common Core’s high school exit standards were equal to college admission requirements without qualification, even though this country’s wide ranging post-secondary institutions use a variety of criteria for admission.

Eventually responding to the many charges of a lack of transparency, the names of the 24 members of the “Standards Development Work Group” were revealed in a July 1, 2009 news release. The vast majority, it appeared, work for testing companies. Not only did CCSSI give no rationale for the composition of this Work Group, it gave no rationale for the people it put on the two three-member teams in charge of writing the grade-level standards. [Emphasis added.]

As the CCSS MOU notes, this “Standards Development Work Group” is overwhelmingly comprised of Achieve, ACT and College Board members.

But there are others whose affiliations remain unacknowledged in the CCSS MOU– including David Coleman and his national standards writing company, Student Achievement Partners.

David Coleman, “a lead architect” of CCSS. David Coleman, “the architect of the Common Core State Standards Initiative.”

The very public CCSS “ghost writer.”

Mr. State Led

Student Achievement Partners co-founders Jason Zimba and Susan Pimentel were also a CCSS-MOU-unmentioned part of that Standards Development Work Group.

Zimba was “the lead writer of the [CCSS] math standards.” He teaches at Bennington College, where his mother, Elizabeth Coleman was president.

The Student Achievement Partners website glowingly refers to a Boston Globe article that names Pimentel and Zimba as “lead writers” of CCSS.

Moving on.

CCSS MOU: Adoption

The CCSS MOU repeatedly states that CCSS is “internationally benchmarked.” (In short, this means researching high-performing education systems in other nations in order to use the results to improve US education.)

Stosky maintains that CCSS is not internationally benchmarked.

Under “Adoption,” states are given three years to fully institute CCSS. That brings us to the 2014-15 CCSS implementation deadline shared by most CCSS states (and DC).

This section also includes the statement, “This effort is voluntary for states…,” a convoluted statement given the requirement of states to commit to CCSS in order to be eligible for RTTT funding. (Keep in mind that this MOU is part of a RTTT application.)

States also agree to use the complete CCSS, though NGA and CCSSO “fully intend that states… choose to include additional state standards beyond the common core” such that 85% of a state’s total standards are comprised of the CCSS package.

The RTTT prisoners get to personalize their cells. How nice.

NGA and CCSSO want to foster a process of continued improvement to “this first version of the common core….”

Don’t even think about being “state led” and modifying CCSS on an individual state basis. This is Lord of the Flies. We’re in it together.

CCSS MOU: National Policy Forum

We’re traveling farther down the ladder of CCSS influence. Time for that token teacher input. This is where organizations like the National School Boards Association, National Education Association, and American Federation of Teachers are allowed into the CCSS clubhouse. It is a token role to “inform the common core initiative,” a “place for refining our shared understanding of the scope and elements of a common core.”

Teachers and other traditional educators (i.e., the ones not affiliated with education companies or standards-writing nonprofits) are invited late to the CCSS party.

To those teachers who say, “I know that CCSS was developed by teachers. I was there,” I say,

You have been used as window dressing.

CCSS MOU: Federal Role

I just have to present this section in full. Notice the emphasis now on common core state standards:

Federal Role. The parties support a state-led effort and not a federal effort to develop a common core of state standards; there is, however, an appropriate federal role in supporting this state-led effort. In particular, the federal government can provide key financial support for this effort in developing a common core of state standards and in moving toward common assessments, such as through the Race to the Top Fund authorized in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Further, the federal government can incentivize this effort through a range of tiered incentives, such as providing states with greater flexibility in the use of existing federal funds, supporting a revised state accountability structure, and offering financial support for states to effectively implement the standards. Additionally, the federal government can provide additional financial support for the development of common assessments, teacher and principal professional development, and other related common core standards supports, and a research agenda that can help continually improve the common core over time. Finally, the federal government can revise and align existing federal education laws with the lessons learned from states’ international benchmarking efforts and from federal research.

So, you see, the federal government has not written CCSS.

(Neither have NGA and CCSSO, but I digress.)

However, the federal government has helped pay for CCSS; it has required CCSS as a component for eligibility for RTTT funding; and NGA and CCSSO (themselves, ironically, national-level organizations pushing for “state led” involvement) has generously invited the federal government to pay for as much that is connected to CCSS as is possible to pay for and to funnel federal money earmarked for states to use for other purposes into CCSS.

Certainly the federal government would not use federal funding to hold a CCSS state hostage to CCSS.

Federal-level Arne Duncan surely does take CCSS well-being to heart.

CCSS MOU: Agreement

Time to sign on the dotted line. Just two signatures: A state’s governor and education superintendent.

Two officials making a decision with profound consequences for thousands of people.

State led.

Contrast this to the irony of this propaganda originally from the CCSS website (update 03-23-14: but now preserved via the Hunt Institute):

With students, parents and teachers all on the same page and working together for shared goals, we can ensure that students make progress each year and graduate from school prepared to succeed in college and in a modern workforce. [Emphasis added.]

The “same page,” for sure.  It just happens to be the last page.

44 Comments
  1. Mercedes,

    You’re outdoing yourself with each writing! Thanks for putting this all together.

    Do you mind if I copy and distribute this?

    Duane

    • Thanks, Duane. Send to whomever you like.

      Sent from my iPhone

      >

      • Believe me I will spread it as far and wide as is possible for this old fart Spanish teacher!!

        Again, Thanks for all you do!

  2. Great job Mercedes. I’ve had a tab open for about a week planning a post on the point about the membership of the ELA work group announced in July 2009. It has 14 members, but we only ever hear about Coleman and Pimentel.

    I’ve never understood why everyone just accepted at a certain point that Coleman (and Pimentel) were “the authors” of the ELA standards. Basically you have a choice of believing that the initial group who we were told was writing the standards was a lie, or you can believe it is a lie that Coleman and Pimentel wrote them. It seems to me that what happened was that someone decided it was better to act like this impressive-seeming dude nobody had ever heard of did it instead of a committee of people from testing companies. I’ve never seen a shred of evidence one way or another indicating who actually wrote the standards, and I think we’ll never know.

    One thing that would test it post hoc is if ANYONE had EVER asked David Coleman for his personal rationale was for some of the odder choices in the standards, e.g., what exactly ARE the important 18th century works of American literature? Why are they more important than mid- or late- 20th century American literature?

    Regarding international benchmarking, CCSSI published a very thorough benchmarking of the ELA with the early drafts, visible in part here: http://web.archive.org/web/20090924225541/http://www.corestandards.org/Standards/index.htm

    However, if you really dug into it — and at the time they had live links to the full text of the comparison standards, which would have represented A LOT OF WORK — it was clear that the standards they were citing weren’t very much like the CCSS at all, e.g., http://www.tuttlesvc.org/2010/03/many-facets-of-reading-standard-7.html

    This was all disappeared, although it did a good job of convincing ME at the time of the CCSS’s design flaws.

    It is also worth mentioning that all of Achieve’s background work on international benchmarking, which goes back a while, is focused on math and science. Nobody — NOBODY — is really interested in international benchmarking in ELA, and the only documents I’ve found from Achieve on benchmarking CC ELA is quite superficial: http://www.tuttlesvc.org/2012/12/achieves-common-core-ela-benchmarking.html

  3. Great report, Mercedes!

    AmericasChoice.org now redirects to Pearson…

    Any idea if there is a list of the people who were duped on the National Policy Forum? I’ve looked but haven’t found one yet.

    Did you know about the “Dear Hillary” letter from Marc Tucker, President of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE)? It’s a blueprint for all of this: http://www.edwatch.org/Seamless%20Web/append_2.pdf A bit late in implementation, but it should come as no surprise that it occurred under the next “New Democrat” prez.

    • Cosmic, thanks for the “Dear Hillary” link. I did not know about it.

      Not sure about Natl Policy Forum members. Will have to investigate.

  4. Thanks for this but I really want to know how Coleman Zimba and Pimentel were selected to design the standards – three people who has never taught a K12 class- and who chose them? Also do we know how mich they were paid?

  5. Thanks, Mercedes, for your amazing work. Why aren’t mainstream investigative journalists digging this up? Oh well, …
    One thing that struck me–the claim is that all high school graduates will be college and career ready, but this is not the same as saying that all students will become college and career ready. Apparently the brilliant minds that concocted this disaster are resigned to the fact that many students just won’t cut it. If they happen to be poor, minority, ELL, and/or special needs–well, that’s too bad, but it can’t be helped.
    Also, I’m surprised that there hasn’t been much if any attention paid to David Coleman’s performance at the Student Town Hall on the MSNBC Education Nation recently. He explained that his Bar Mitzvah experience was a model for the close reading of text that Common Core is extolling. Having grown up in a Jewish family and being familiar with the Bar/Bat Mitzvah process, I can’t fathom what he’s talking about. Most young Jewish people I have known have practiced memorizing their portion of the text with the appropriate melody. What does this have to do with becoming an informed and self-actualizing human being, able to analyze texts by evaluating the source?
    The other thing that really bothers me about the CC ELA assumptions and dictates is the idea that context does not matter. This could not be further from the truth, as any real teacher would know.

  6. Reblogged this on Maryland Values Educational Excellence and commented:
    Great Blog detailing the issues with Common Core and who is responsible for its inception as well as problems with the MOU. Before any state or county aligns they must read the State Race to the Top Application and the MOU’s each school district signs. These document have contractual obligations… Don’t get caught in the net.

  7. Donna C permalink

    The Pioneer Institute found Massachusetts’ and California’s standards to be superior to CCSS as well. http://www.uark.edu/ua/der/People/Stotsky/CommonCoreStandards.pdf

  8. The problem I see with all the research so many of us have done is that progressives do not believe in research and facts. I have sat down with supporters of Common Core loaded with proof, facts and research while they sit on the other side with nothing more than their “elevator speech” and even after presented with the facts, truth, research they stick with their “elevator speech” liked programmed robots. Which is what they are. They are the same people that with no real proof of global warming believe humans are evil and destroyers of the earth. No facts. Just propaganda. There people are truly brainwashed and this is why you will never convince them of what is really behind education today. Brainwashed people cannot be convinced of anything except what they were brainwashed to believe. So we need to turn away from those people and pray there are enough people with some margin of sense left to fight with us. Personally I do not believe we will win this fight. I believe it is too far gone. We woke up about 10 years too late. BUT there IS and answer for the time being. STARVE THE BEAST. If you know what is going on and continue to send you kids to public school everyday then don’t be surprised when your kids turn on you some day. Either get them out of public school NOW or pay the price later. If you really want to you will, it not you will make excuses. There a lot of options if you care to take the time to explore them. In TN where I live parents are pulling their kids out of public school in large numbers. Home school requests are up and Christian Classical education schools are popping up all over the place. It is our Plan B here in TN. We know they will NEVER repeal Common Core (too much money crossing their palms) so we need to work around them.

  9. Mercedes,
    You are more of an investigational reporter than any 50 from the MSM.
    I shall proudly link you on my site.
    Thank you for all you do,
    RalphPierre @ http://www.killcommoncore.com

  10. History often by-passes it’s ‘Unsung Hero’s’, and you, Mercedes, are indeed, my Hero.
    Were I to wear a hat, a generous tip and a deeply bent bow I would present to you.
    Consider them done.
    RalphPierre,
    KillCommonCore.Com

  11. Laura h. Chapman permalink

    This is brilliant reporting, and I take joy in knowing it tis evidence-based. I had tried to find samples of the state agreements but came up empty, just pro-forma “approvals” of the CCSS adoption in various states.
    More. Some of the actual writers for the CCSS were recruited from those who worked on the American Diploma Project and, for the early grades, E.D. Hirsch’s Core Knowledge curriculum.
    I found direct evidence of recycling content from the American Diploma Project (ADP) into the CCSS –ELA Standard RL.9-10.7, Integration of Knowledge and Ideas. This calls for students in grades 9-10 to “Analyze the representation of a subject or a key scene in two different artistic mediums, including what is emphasized or absent in each treatment (e.g., Auden’s ‘Musée des Beaux Arts’ and Breughel’s Landscape with the Fall of Icarus).” This standard is identical to a benchmark assignment in the ADP project, which ( in turn) came from an Introductory English Survey Course at Sam Houston University, Huntsville, TX. The example appears on pages 98-99 in Achieve (2004) American Diploma Project (ADP), Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma That Counts, http://www.achieve.org/readyornot (see pages 105-106). This standard and example also illustrates one meaning of “rigor,” namely, making 9th or 10th grade assignments the same as collegiate studies.
    Achieve’s American Diploma Project, beginning around 2002, was intended to put higher standards in place for high school graduation. “Higher” meant that Achieve was pushing states to require specific courses in English and mathematics (four years each), along with Sciences and Social Studies (each three years), and foreign language (at least two years, but ideally four). Studies in the arts were to be electives, available only in the 11th and 12th grades and primarily for students who did not pursue four years of study in a foreign language. About 30 states adopted some or all of these requirements.
    The spill over from The American Diploma Project into the Common Core State Standards extends to research intended to show that requirements for entry into “careers” and “college” are the same, especially in English and mathematics. The CCSS recycled “research” from the ADP project, not peer-reviewed, but abstracts of interviews and brief surveys from a convenience sample of persons in five states who were in 22 occupational roles. I did not any criteria for the sampling procedures, survey questions, or reasoning about the implications for setting “career ready” standards. That “research” helped to create the mantra of “career readiness.”

  12. One of the great mysteries of the CC process is why it isn’t CLOSER to ADP. The two are close, but ADP is stronger in several areas, (in ELA at least). They had the opportunity to pitch the whole thing as just an evolution of the already successful core (ADP) of most of the state standards. I guess that didn’t sound “revolutionary” enough for them though.

    It seems to me that a small bore-ADP based approach would have been successful in achieving their primary goals. I guess I’m glad they decided to go crazier and more controversial.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Mercedes Schneider: Who Created the Common Core? How Did It Happen? | Diane Ravitch's blog
  2. Common Core Redux | Network Schools - Wayne Gersen
  3. Understanding ALEC: How ALEC’S Duplicity Undermine the American Public Education Project | educationalchemy
  4. – @ THE CHALK FACE
  5. The Common Core Memorandum of Understanding: What a Story | The Education Report
  6. Understanding ALEC: How ALEC’s duplicity undermines the American public educational project | ΕΝΙΑΙΟ ΜΕΤΩΠΟ ΠΑΙΔΕΙΑΣ
  7. An Open Exchange With AFT President Randi Weingarten | bloggergate
  8. Arne and the Mommies II: “My son had great test scores…” | Reclaim Reform
  9. Keeping the Message about “Reform” Clear and Simple | educationalchemy
  10. The Common Core, in a Nutshell…. | Timbered Classrooms...
  11. Common Core Standards, Ten Colossal Errors - BillLawrenceDittos
  12. Objection to Common Core ‘top down’ education mandates now percolating up from ‘the bottom’ in at least 17 states | Impeach Obama, McCain and Boehner Today
  13. Will the Common Core be the Rosetta Stone for Corporate Reform? | ΕΝΙΑΙΟ ΜΕΤΩΠΟ ΠΑΙΔΕΙΑΣ
  14. Common Core Concerns?
  15. Schneider Responds to Honig on California and the Common Core | Diane Ravitch's blog
  16. Mercedes Schneider and Peter Greene Offer Timely Help to Dennis Van Roekel | Diane Ravitch's blog
  17. NewsSprocket | Louisiana Lawmakers Consider ‘Rebranding’ Common Core Name
  18. Georgia SchoolWatch
  19. Gates and Duncan and Their Common Core “Freedom” Charade | Dr. Rich Swier
  20. Gates and Duncan and Their Common Core “Freedom” Charade #stopcommoncore | Stop Common Core Illinois
  21. Bill Gates’ Sobering 2009 Speech on Common Core Data Mining | Dr. Rich Swier
  22. Bill Gates’ Sobering 2009 Speech to Legislators | ΕΝΙΑΙΟ ΜΕΤΩΠΟ ΠΑΙΔΕΙΑΣ
  23. The Deceptive Push to “Implement” Common Core | Dr. Rich Swier
  24. The High-Profile People Who Are Doubling Down on the Common Core | Accident Victims Alliance | 502-333-0012
  25. The Three Louisiana Common Core Development “Teachers” Work for the DOE | Dr. Rich Swier

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,177 other followers

%d bloggers like this: