Did common core ride a well oiled corruption pipeline?

Ever wonder why The National Govenoers Association and the Council of Chief State school officers wanted to give us commo core?. Well, look at thier corporate sponsers and the at the companies that are making money of the assessements that every state now bneed because of common core. Moreover, These are not the big ones, Bill Gates and Pearson deserve thier own blog.

We are told is the reason that common core is “state led” is that the CCSSO and NGA simultaneously and coincidently breathed them into existence on their own. We are told with all the problems facing our students and teachers and the taxpayers that pay the bills is that brand new untried and untested standards will solve the biggest issues our education system faces today. One issue being the trauma of a student moving somewhere that is a little behind or a little ahead of where they left.  The other is that some states had standards that were not “rigorous” enough so the whole country was falling behind.  Even if these reasons for new standards are true, why create new standards instead of fostering the adoption of standards in the highest ranking states?  Why did a company called Achieve INC, with no experience creating standards suddenly become to go to guys for standards so different that every school district would need new textbooks, new Computer based assessments, new training, and new accreditations for teachers? Well, it seems we have just answered our own question.
If the common core standards were great, then maybe a wholesale and expensive rebuilding of our education methods would be warranted. But the final product of the people who turned out the standards that looked like something hurriedly thrown together to achieve a purpose other than to synchronize the states with higher standards.  So to paraphrase Robin Eubanks who delves in to the real goals of the education puppet masters, if what they ere telling you is not so, then the (unintended) result is really what they wanted all along.
Even if you can trust the Fordham Institute who, in spite of receiving millions to promote common core, said that many state standards were equal or better than the common core standards.  So with not even looking at the standards yourself we can conclude that at least some states will be lowering their standards. One example is Massachusetts. with had standards clearly superior to the common core, but because they kept  their own standards they came in 13th  in the race to the top grant award in 2010, they came in 1st.  in 2011 simply by accepting the lower CCSSI standards. If you read the evaluation on the CCSSI by members of the common core validation committee that refused to sign off on the standards, you will see that these standards are flawed. Read them for yourself and see if you can pick out flaws such as the Math standards requiring student to fine the time and tell if it is AM or PM on both digital and analog clocks. Find out how the standards contain inappropriate expectations for younger students.
The stated purpose for imposing common core of raising the standards in American schools will in far too many cases is not going to happen, and we must have known that at least by 2011 when the Fordham study came out. However, they do not fix the CCSSI or do anything other than repeat the original talking points using the same buzz words like “rigorous”.  If the definition of rigorous is “unyielding, stiff and unrelenting then they are rigorous, which brings us to one of the unintended consequences of CCSSI and that is the fact that they are copyrighted by the CCSSO and the NGA and thus rigorously unyielding and unchangeable.  This gives the two trade organizations that independently dreamed up the idea for a common core control of 100% of the nation’s standards that will be assessed for student progression, teacher evaluation and college entrance exams. Each state can add 15% but it will not be tested. SO maybe we should look into who exactly is the NGO and the CCSSO and hat do they gain from owing all our standards. Both of them are Washington based trade organization whose members are chosen by becoming a governors in the case of the NGA or a Chief State school officers, Education secretaries, in the case of the CCSSO.  To be sure not all governors and chief state school officers take an active role in their representative organization and some do not support common core but most do. Which begs the question why? The reason could be that these organizations either push common core or foster its adoption at its conferences. Most trade organizations supply some benefits to members and provide an opportunity for vendors to pitch their products. However, most trade organizations members are not government officials with the power to decide who gets taxpayer dollars and what products get funded.  Both these groups are partners or receive donations from corporation that will get awarded millions in contracts because of common core. If the Governors and the chiefs receive any benefits at all this should called out a s a conflict of interest at best and possibly a well oiled bribery system. Both these groups state that their purpose is to influence public policy and advocate for change. Even if everything they do is open and above board they should be recognized for what they are, as special interest lobbying groups. One definition for lobbying is “Lobbying involves the advocacy of an interest that is affected, actually or potentially, by the decisions of government leaders.”  Here is where an apparent conflict of interest becomes an issue. The NGA and the CCSSO are both the lobbyist and the public officials that they lobby. When we look at the timing of the acceptance of common core it is easy to see why common core was so readily accepted in the states.
It is clear that the acceptance of common core would never have happened in most states had it not been for the chance to win race to the top money (RTT).  The RTT application never mentioned common core because they were not written at the time the RTT applications were sent to the states. The applications did however, require the each state adopt a common standard in order to have a chance to win the RTT grant. The application were sent in late summer to the states when most state legislatures were not in n session and most school districts were not meeting regularly. This left the decision to adopt the common standards to the Governor and to Chief state school officers. Many lame duck and term limited governors approve the application over the objection to the incoming governors. 
The governors and the Chiefs bound their respective states to adopt a common standard whose label of “college and career ready” had only one acceptable supplier, the common core standards being created by Achieve Inc. and to become copyrighted by the NGA and the CCSSO. Amazing coincidence or audacious collusion, you decide.

With many states having both the Governors and chief state school offers being primed by the NGA ad CCSSO to accept common core, I is no wonder why it was accepted so easily with very little fanfare. Most states legislatures not in session and most district officials on vacation in August of 2009, when the Race to the top application calling for a common standard was due in a few months. Later in early 2010 they were accepted by legislatures in most cases before they were even written.