Common Core, the Common Good and Why Close Readings are Just ‘Not Enough’ for Critical Thinking
Did you ever think your governors and state bureaucrats would actively work against your state laws and regulations so that private organizations’ mandates could be implemented in your state? Did you know that in Missouri (and probably in your Common Core state) the end justifies the means for the implementation of Common Core States Standards Initiative?
The MOU between Smarter Balance Assessment Consortia and Missouri signed in 2010 reveals that the states were actively looking to bypass state ‘barriers’ that would impeded the progress of the NGO created CCSSI. The private organizations wanted to circumvent state laws and statutes to accomplish the privatization of education while using Federal funding. ‘Each State’ in the document refers to state Governors, State Education commissioners/supervisors and State Board of Education members. The Missouri Legislature was not a party to this document. From Missouri’s MOU with SBAC:
By signing this agreement, these politicians and bureaucrats agree to identify their specific state laws, statutes, regulations or policies by noting the barrier and the plan to remove the barrier. While policies and regulations may have been set by the State Educational Agencies and/or the State Board of Education, state laws and statutes are enacted by the political process. Can ‘the states’ conveniently note ‘existing barriers’ in state laws and statutes and target for circumvention to obtain the goals for private organizations to direct/develop public education?
The table above has a column to note Governing Body with Authority to Remove Barrier. How can a governor or SEA plan to ‘remove a barrier’ (law, statute) to accomplish its goal without legislative or voter approval? Doesn’t that necessitate repealing specific statutes/laws? How can MOUs be agreed to when statutes/laws do not allow specific mandates in SBAC?
Governor Nixon, Commissioner Chris Nicastro and the State Board of Education signed this document which requires them to make plans to remove any barriers to duly enacted laws and statutes.
Should politicians and government bureaucrats be allowed to keep their jobs when they agree to plan to remove the barrier (state statutes, laws, regulations, policies) that impedes the plan for non-governmental organizations to direct/develop public education? Have they become the decision makers for which laws to repeal and/or change instead of the citizens and legislators? O
Their signatures are on the document showing they are in support of the document and its implementation. These politicians and bureaucrats are actively agreeing to circumvent existing laws and statutes in order to create an oligarchic structure in public education. Should the Missouri legislature be concerned that Missouri statutes deemed ‘barriers’ to The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortia agenda are targeted by the Governor and bureaucrats for circumvention? Is there any legal action available against these entities for agreeing to work against the state constitution?
Governor Nixon did swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Missouri Constitution in January 2013 beginning at 53:50:
In his Second Inaugural Speech, he mentions education goals to get an education that prepares them to compete for the best jobs in the global economy. This aligns with the SBAC MOU he signed in 2010 (to make students college and career ready) which also required him identify barriers (state laws and statutes) to CCSSI implementation. So which is more important? His allegiance to the Constitutions of the United States and Missouri or a MOU document with the Smarter Balance Assessment Consortia?
Do ‘shared principles’ and ‘the common good’ in the Smarter Balance Assessment Consortia MOU with Missouri supersede the laws of the state? Whose ‘shared principles’ and ‘common good’ is he referring to in this speech? My opinion is that the people of Missouri deserve-and expect-no less that the laws of their country and state are adhered to by elected officials. That’s what he swore to uphold. That’s not what he promised to do when he signed on to this 2010 MOU with SBAC. Does he believe that a future without limits includes a future without laws?
A close reading of his speech needs to be combined with historical documentation to understand how the political process is being actively circumvented for the ‘common good’ of the NGOs determined to direct public education. It’s not for the ‘common good’ for the ‘common people’. It’s for the good of the Common Core State Standards Initiative.