Another day, another Pro-core Op-ed.
This one at The Tennessean by a woman named Betty Anderson.  None of these Op-Eds or their authors are really as simple as they seem. Keep reading and you’ll see what I mean. From the article, about Ms. Anderson and I’ve added some hyperlinks to the text:

Betty Anderson is the executive director of Stand for Children Tennessee, an education advocacy organization. She has been involved in education policy for more than 40 years in Tennessee.

A few points about “Stand for Children”
It’s not just a Tennessee outfit, it’s a national one. Yet another education non-profit to add to the myriad of them already out there. It is run by Jonah Edelman, who revealed some tactics in his idea of a ‘corporate education reform‘ scenario that got him in hot water.

Stand for Children does a lot of focusing on parents and empowering them. It figures the Pro-Core machine would tap them to push Common Core.

There is a lot of money behind Stand For Children – I know, you’re shocked.
They have two arms, the Stand for Children Leadership Center is a 501(c)(3) and the other is Stand for Children, Inc. which is a 501(c)(4). This split allows them to enter into some political arenas.  In 2012, Stand for Children Inc. gave over $321k to campaigns and PACS to influence education races and blew nearly half a million on ‘consulting and strategy’ groups. If you wish to view their 990 tax filings, hit the links below:

• Stand for Children Leadership Center 
• Stand for Children Inc.

Fun fact: The woman in charge of the political version, Stand for Children, Inc., is none other than Michael Bloomberg’s daughter, Emma. Read more about Emma’s focus and link to Teach for America here.

In 2013, the two non-profits had combined gains of just under $29 million. That same 2013 report lists their donors. The very first name is Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation who are in the $1 million plus donor category.  Read some more of Stand Up for Children’s Financial Reports.

The Tennessee branch of Stand for Children has a focus on electing certain types of candidates. Ms. Anderson doesn’t mention that in her Op-Ed. These candidates should have certain qualities:

We support candidates who believe in these tenets to building better public schools-

• Every child deserves an education system with funding equity and fairness.
• Every child deserves a 21st century education.Every child deserves an excellent teacher.
• Every child deserves high-quality public school options.Stand’s endorsements are built on these four principles. 

 

Back to the article
I left a brief comment on Anderson’s article.  I’ll expand on it here. Ms. Anderson opens with a flawed premise, that Common Core is a “non-issue”:

It’s interesting what some candidates will do to get elected. When all else fails, they resort to fear-mongering and confusion of voters. This year, some school board candidates are being taken to the woodshed by their opponents over a non-issue as it relates to the school board. It’s one that the board has never and will never have to deal with: Common Core State Standards.

First – what rock has Ms. Anderson been under? Common Core is THE issue.
Second – the school board should have had to deal with Common Core in 2010. Either they did their due diligence or they didn’t; either way they are properly and justly being ‘taken to the woodshed’.  Ms. Anderson also calls such ‘fear mongering’ a way to ‘trick’ voters. Yet another flawed premise.

Pro-Core Giving Advice: Be Reasonable, Do It Our Way?
It gets chuckle-worthy when Ms. Anderson gives her advice on how to avoid such ‘trickery’.

She uses three bullet points (that’s important for her wrap up about a stool) and she leads with “Common Core is just a set of standards” bit.

Really?

Those three bullet points are supposed to tie in to her analogy of Common Core being a three-legged stool:

Standards, curriculum and assessment are like a three-legged stool: Remove one leg and the stool falls. But it’s these three components of the Common Core system that, during discussion or debate, allow opponents to reduce the topic to a misleading level of simplicity. Candidates who understand the complexity are unable or unwilling to use sound bites to convey their position, and unfortunately the heat of a campaign does not lend itself to constructive discussion of complex topics. And, it appears, this is exactly what some candidates hope for.

I find this stool analogy funny, because Common Core is more of a beanbag chair. It’s got too many pieces fighting inside it and the cheaply made lining rips easily which makes a mess all over the floor and  causes the owner to have to chuck it after a few years of use.

Ma’am, the ones questioning the candidates who back Common Core? The ones advising those candidates on these “complex” issues? Those advisers are the voters. We understand the “complexity” and we’re bringing pressure to bear. I’m sure the 501(c)(4) arm of Stand for Children is really unhappy that their money can’t buy the voters, eh?