Oral Testimony on the Social Studies Standards – Prepared Remarks of Education Liberty Watch

Education Liberty Watch Oral Testimony Regarding the 2011 Social Studies Academic Standards
Judge Barbara Nielson
Administrative Hearing – December 20, 2012
OAH 11-1300-30011

Introduction:
Good morning Your Honor.  My name is Marjorie Holsten and I am here on behalf of Education Liberty Watch as an attorney, mother, and homeschool teacher of the Constitution to present our concerns about the new social studies standards.  My remarks today will be in summary form and then we will submit detailed written testimony with quotes and references before the hearing record closes.

We have one request from today’s hearing:
We oppose the rule in its entirety and would therefore ask that either the 2004 standards would remain in effect at least until proper revisions are made, or permanently

Our concerns are fall into several categories.

Statutory:
1.    Minnesota statute, 120B.02, subd, (b)(1) states that, “the rule is intended to raise academic expectations for students, teachers, and schools.”  We would argue and our documentation will show that the academic rigor of these standards has decreased instead of increased compared to 2004 and to other sets of exemplary state standards that the committee chose to review.  Therefore, the 2011 standards are in violation of legislative intent.

2.    As stated in Minnesota statute 120B.03 and explained on page 30 of the SONAR, the standards by law are to “identify the academic knowledge and skills that prepare students for postsecondary education, work and civic life in the twenty-first century.”  This new version of the standards, because of its omissions and changes in emphasis will not accomplish that goal.

3.    The SONAR fails to mention the statutory requirement that the standards “be consistent with the Constitutions of the United States and the state of Minnesota.” (120B.021, Subd. 2b3).   The focus on globalization and reliance of the committee and the SONAR on a document titled “Preparing Citizens for a Global Community” and making the statement on page 35, “Several leading social studies sources support the need for students to develop skills to become effective global citizens,” seems to be emphasizing loyalty to entities and governance outside of the US and is inconsistent with the US Constitution.

4.   There is an overly expansive interpretation of and reliance on No Child Left Behind and the possibility of losing federal funding for not having social studies standards in the SONAR:

a.    The SONAR states, “The No Child Left Behind Act requires states to have academic standards in subjects determined by the state. Minnesota statutes section 120B.021, subd. 1, requires academic standards in social studies, thus federal funding is at risk if the state does not enact revised academic social studies standards.”
b.    However, the SONAR fails to mention that a mere paragraph later in MN Statute 120B.021, subd. 1 states, “For purposes of applicable federal law, the academic standards for language arts, mathematics, and science apply to all public school students…”  Social studies is not mentioned.
c.    The SONAR quotes Section 1111(g)(1) of NCLB to back up its claim which says:

If a State fails to meet the deadlines established by the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (or under any waiver granted by the Secretary or under any compliance agreement with the Secretary) for demonstrating that the State has in place challenging academic content standards and student achievement standards, and a system for measuring and monitoring adequate yearly progress, the Secretary shall withhold 25 percent of the funds that would otherwise be available to the State for State administration and activities under this part in each year until the Secretary determines that the State meets those requirements. (Emphasis added)

There is no system for measuring adequate yearly progress in social studies in Minnesota via assessment and in fact, MN statute 120B.130, subd 1a forbids it:

“The commissioner must not develop statewide assessments for academic standards in social studies, health and physical education, and the arts.”

None of Section 1111 of NCLB mentions social studies at all, therefore it is highly unlikely that the accountability penalty would apply if states do not have social studies standards.  The U.S. Department of Education has never penalized a state for not having social studies standards and given the presence of the conditional waivers granted under the Obama administration is highly unlikely to deal with social studies at all.

d.    The SONAR also claims on page 20 that the component subjects of social studies are listed as “core academic subjects “in Sec. 9101 of NCLB and are therefore required in sec. 1111, but we believe that the term “core academic subjects” is not found at all in sec. 1111 and is discussed much later in the bill in sections having to do with teacher training and evaluations, etc.

5.    Linking the social studies standards to the Common Core Standards, as explained on page 28 of the SONAR is problematic because in the opinion of eminent attorneys and former federal education officials, the standards are believed to be in violation of at least three federal statutes that prohibit interference by the federal government in academic curriculum or content :
a.    The General Education Provisions Act
b.    .The Department of Education Organization Act and
c.    The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

Therefore, because the illegal, unconstitutional and federally promoted Common Core ELA standards are now affecting social studies and will eventually affect other subjects, our state is losing its autonomy to determine and control its own standards in multiple subjects when the Department and other proponents assured the public and policy makers that the state was accepting only the English standards.

Continue reading »

1st Presidential Debate Discussed Federal Role in Education

Education Liberty Watch Introduces New Freedom Grading Scale for Private School Choice Laws

The concept of trying to rescue poor and minority students from failing public schools is a noble one.  However, if the private schools are forced to teach the public school standards, which are at grave risk of becoming nationalized via the Common Core and its accompanying tests in 45-1/2 states and the District of Columbia (Minnesota accepted the English standards but not the math), in order for their students to pass the state tests, private schools will no longer be a meaningful alternative to the public schools.

This danger was detailed in our 2011 alert Imposing a Federal Curriculum on Private Schools – Why Voucher Programs that Require State Tests Are So Dangerous. At that time, we mentioned Minnesota’s proposed law that has not yet passed (that would have received a D grade on our scale) and Indiana’s enacted law (that did receive an F grade) that both require state tests to be given to private school students receiving vouchers or to the entire private school.  Since then, I have reviewed the testing accountability requirements for all of the 30 school choice laws that have passed in 18 states and the District of Columbia through 2012 based on the Alliance for School Choice’s annual report  and looking at the  newest 2012 laws passed since that report was written.

And, since grading scales are becoming de rigeur, I though that Education Liberty Watch should join in on the trend and provide a freedom grading scale based on how well each statute protects private school autonomy.  My hope is that you will see where your state falls and contact your policymakers to either improve your own state law if needed, make sure that any school choice bill offered in your state is as strongly pro-freedom as possible, and if nothing else, warn the private schools in your area what may be coming and urge them to speak up as this type of legislation is considered.

Before the table with the grades is presented however, it is important to also mention the education plan of presidential candidate Mitt Romney on this issue.  Thankfully his plan is a just a plan right now that was likely mostly written  or at least heavily influenced by former Governor Jeb Bush.  Mr. Bush, whose organization is funded by the Bill Gates Foundation, is a huge fan of the Common Core to the point of trying to prevent model legislation against the standards from being supported by ALEC. He also seems to be completely tied in with the corporate interests such as the US Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and the Business Partnership and the Gates Foundation, which has funded his own organization, that seem not at all concerned or even determined to bring about the usurpation of private school curriculum with the national standards. The Romney plan, A Chance for Every Child, speaks of the federal government promoting and paying for both public and private school choice.  It says on pages 23-24:

Romney Administration will work with Congress to overhaul Title I and IDEA so that low-income and special-needs students can choose which school to attend and bring their funding with them. The choices offered to students under this policy will include any district or public charter school in the state, as well as private schools if permitted by state law… To ensure accountability, students using federal funds to attend private schools will be required to participate in the state’s testing system. (Emphasis added.)

Aside from the fact that the federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in education, a fact both parties have completely forgotten, this would be an utter disaster for education freedom.  It would bring the full force of the federal government to impose the federal curriculum of the Common Core on private and religious schools.  It would also negate the laboratories of democracy in the states that have passed good state laws that do not require this public school testing accountability.  On Education Liberty Watch’s Freedom Grading Scale, the Romney education plan, as currently written, would receive a D grade for requiring students to participate in the state tests.  If the plan is meant to require that all of the students in a private school attended by voucher recipients take the state (Common Core) tests, we would give it a failing grade.

However, the good news is that Governor Romney has recently made some important and very good statements opposing the Common Core and government expansion of preschool, which we will outline in our next alert. It is therefore hoped that the more pro-freedom members of his education team are beginning to hold sway and that Governor Romney can be educated about the perils to private schools in his plan.

Continue reading »

Education Liberty Watch Private School Choice Freedom Grading Scale Table

FREEDOM GRADING SCALE:

A+ = No testing requirements and accountability only to parents

A = No testing requirements

B+ = Requires only a nationally norm-referenced test and reports results to parents

B = Requires only a nationally norm-referenced test  (Not currently tied to Common Core)

C = Requires the state tests or a nationally norm-referenced test

D+ = Requires private schools to give voucher recipients the state tests but reports results to an outside entity instead of the state

D = Requires private schools to give voucher/tax credit recipients the state tests

F = Requires private schools to give state tests to all students in a private school

ABBREVIATIONS:

CSTC = Corporate Scholarship Tax Credit

ESA = Education Savings Account

FSV = Failing School Voucher

ISTC = Individual Scholarship Tax Credit

MTV = Means Tested Voucher

NNRT = Nationally Norm-Referenced Test

SNV = Special Needs Voucher

UV = Universal Voucher

*Information, except for 2012 laws, adapted from Alliance for School Choice: School Choice Year Book 2011-12