Recently, U.S. Secretary of Education John King, while speaking at a press conference, remarked that although some homeschool situations are just fine, in general, “Students who are homeschooled are not getting kind of the rapid instructional experience they would get in school.”

King also said that part of the school experience is learning how to deal with and build relationships with peers and teachers—implying that homeschoolers don’t get this kind of experience.

Now, before I go on, in the interest of full disclosure, I’ll tell you that my wife and I homeschool our three daughters. To be specific, we’re part of a community of homeschooling families with a hybrid model that shares resources and that journeys together. We think our daughters are receiving a first-rate education. I say that not just so you know I’ve got a horse in the race, but because my wife and I have personal experience. We know this world. We live in it.

But back to the Secretary’s comments. It’s not clear what he meant by “rapid instructional experience,” but that can mean a sort of checklist approach—plowing through the material, cramming for standardized tests, and hitting every mandated topic. In that sense, he’s right. Many homeschoolers don’t get “rapid instruction” of this sort, but that’s not really education in the first place.

But what has me most concerned about the Secretary’s remarks is the classic “we know better than you” attitude so endemic among governmental elites—whether it’s telling us what kind of healthcare we need, or how to teach our young ones about the most intimate of human relations.

Let me be clear: The federal government’s ever-growing reach into our children’s education is a bi-partisan effort. The Department of Education was established by Jimmy Carter. George W. Bush signed the disastrous “No Child Left Behind” initiative into law. And Common Core, which many argue will leave kids unprepared for college, has both Republican and Democratic support.

But if the federal government really does know best, how is it, as Lindsey Burke of The Daily Signal notes, that “just one-third of all eighth-graders in public schools can read proficiently”? How is it that “Roughly two out of 10 students don’t graduate high school at all, [and]the United States ranks in the middle of the pack on international assessments?”

And while we’re at it, can we address this idea that homeschooled children don’t socialize well? That’s just nonsense. Some struggle, of course, but so do some public schoolers. And what does it mean for a child to be normally socialized anyway? If it’s activities, homeschooling author Joe Kelly observed recently that “Many home-schoolers play on athletic teams…” And “they’re also interactive with students of different ages… [having] more opportunity to get out into the world and engage with adults and teens alike.”

Now, I’m not trying to hammer public education. I grew up in Northern Virginia, home of some of the finest public school systems in the country that turn out highly educated, well prepared young people. And Colorado Springs, where I live now, is full of great teachers, and innovative charter schools.

But none of that changes the statistics. According to the National Home Education Research Institute, homeschoolers typically “score 15 to 30 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests.” And they “score above average on achievement tests regardless of their parents’ level of formal education or their family’s household income.”

Homeschoolers are, according to U.S. News “ripe for college.” They receive an education tailored to their needs. And you know what? They’re well-socialized, too

Now am I saying you should homeschool your kids? Not necessarily. What I am saying is that you—not the Secretary of Education, the federal government, or anyone else—know what’s best for your children and your family.

---

We live in a nation where we are free to tailor our children’s education to their specific needs, whether that involves public, private, charter, or home schooling. Let’s be proactive in protecting and championing that freedom. For more information on homeschooling statistics, check out the links below.

Home-Schooled Teens Ripe for College
Kelsey Sheehy | USNews.com | June 1, 2012

Research Facts On Homeschooling
Brian D. Ray, Ph.D. | NHERI | March 23, 2016

What Obama’s Education Secretary Got Wrong About Homeschoolers
Lindsey Burke / The Daily Signal | September 21, 2016

---

This article was originally posted at BreakPoint.org

A 1,061-page rewrite of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which is better known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), suddenly popped up in the House on Monday and was voted on late Wednesday, passing 359-64. All 64 “no” votes were cast by Republicans.

At over 1,000 pages, S. 1177, the Every Child Achieves Act (ECAA) [also known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)], like Obamacare, was too lengthy to read and digest in just two days, and yet House Republicans rammed it forward despite Paul Ryan’s prior assurances that as House speaker he would provide voters ample time to read bills prior to votes.

On November 19, Erin Tuttle, writing for the non-partisan Truth in American Education argued that Americans are entitled to read this bill before the vote:

Because the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (No Child Left Behind) will be the largest piece of federal education legislation Congress will pass in over a decade, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) should allow the bill to be made publicly available for at least 60 days before the House considers it.

The bill is not scheduled to be made publicly available until November 30^th. Thus, a vote should not be scheduled until late January. Currently, it is scheduled for December 2; two days is clearly not sufficient. House members will be forced to vote on a bill they haven’t read.

The American people expected a new style of leadership under Speaker Ryan, not more of the same. If he allows a bill of this magnitude to become law without adequately vetting its merits and faults, it will affirm that the same ills that plagued Congress under Speaker Boehner remain fully intact.

ECAA includes some positive changes in terms of diminishing the role of the federal government in state education business, such as eliminating onerous Adequate Yearly Progress mandates. That said, there are serious problems with the bill, including the following change explained by Education Week:

[S]tate accountability systems would be required to include “not less than one indicator of school quality or student success that allows for meaningful differentiation in school performance and is valid, reliable, comparable, and statewide, which may include measures of – (I) Student engagement; (II) Educator engagement; (III) Student access to and completion of advanced coursework; (IV) Postsecondary readiness; (V) School climate and safety; and (VI) any other indicator the state chooses that meets the requirements of this clause.”

These criteria or measurements are troubling for several reasons:

• Several are woefully ambiguous.
• Several are difficult to measure and would be based on subjective responses.
• Evaluation of “School climate and safety” would surely be based at least partly on subjective responses by students and would likely be used to justify further school involvement in controversial, political school-sponsored activity related to homosexuality and gender dysphoria.

Another troubling aspect of ECAA is its involvement with pre-kindergarten programs. Under Title IX, ECAA authorizes $250 million for a new federal preschool program to be administered by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education. This massive expenditure of money the government does not have is being made despite the fact that many scholars like Grover Whitehurst at the Brookings Institution doubt the efficacy of pre-kindergarten programs:

The best available evidence raises serious doubts that a large public investment in the expansion of pre-k for four-year-olds will have the long-term effects that advocates tout. 

This initiative requires that preschool curricula align with Head Start (which is administered through HHS). Few are aware that since 2012, Head Start has been quietly working to align its standards with Common Core, which explains why some are calling ECAA “Baby Common Core.”

If you’re not troubled yet by the prospect of Big Brother poking his proboscis through the preschool door, perhaps this excerpt from a Head Start document will illuminate some of the goals Head Start has for our nation’s disadvantaged little ones:

Last month the Early Head Start National Resource Center hosted a conversation with key stakeholders to explore how lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) families are being served by Early Head Start programs….Stakeholders included program and parent representatives, federal staff, Head Start training and technical assistance representatives, and experts from the LGBT community….what do welcoming Head Start/Early Head Start programs look like?

The group brainstormed ideas of what a welcoming program looks like. And some of the characteristics of welcoming programs include:

• Welcoming symbols for LGBT families such as  the rainbow flag or equality stickers, and diverse images of parents and families in marketing materials
• Inclusive intake and enrollment forms that are not specific about the gender of parents and caregivers
• Partnerships with organizations that help LGBT families get information and support that they need

Is this the organization Americans want to receive more tax dollars?

ECAA does not allow Title I funds to be portable, thus limiting school choice for parents.

ECAA does not include an Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (A-PLUS) provision that would have allowed states to opt out of programs that fall under ECAA and instead direct money in ways that best serve their state’s needs.

ECAA neither eliminates wasteful, inefficacious, and duplicative programs, nor reduces spending, nor establishes funding limits.

So, who loves this bill? The National Governor’s Association, which gave us Common Core; the Third Way, a center-left think tank; the Center for American Progress, a leftist public policy and advocacy group; the National Education Association; and President Obama.

Who dislikes this bill? Heritage Action, a conservative grassroots activist organization that deems a vote for ECAA to be a “key vote,” that will be reported on the lawmaker’s legislative record.

All that remains is for President Obama to sign it into law, which he has promised he will.

---

How Did Illinois’ Congressional Delegation Vote?

TheECAA passed late yesterday afternoon in the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 359 to 64.  Democrats voted 181 to 0. Republicans voted 179 to 64.  Unfortunately, our Illinois Congressional Delegation voted unanimously in favor of this intrusive, immoral, big government bill.

Voting Results:

Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D)—YEA
1st Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: (202) 225-4372
District Phone: (773) 224-6500
Webform

Rep. Robin Kelly (D)—YEA
2nd Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: (202) 225-0773
District Phone: (708) 679-0078
Webform

Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D)—YEA
3rd Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: 202-225-5701
District Phone: 312-886-0481
Webform

Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D)—YEA
4th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: (202) 225-8203
District Phone: (773) 342-0774
Webform

Rep. Mike Quigley (D)—YEA
5th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: (202) 225-4061
District Phone: (773) 267-5926
Webform

Rep. Peter Roskam (R)—YEA
6th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: (202) 225-4561
District Phone: (630) 232-7393
Webform

Rep. Danny K. Davis (D)—YEA
7th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: (202)225-5006
District Phone: (773) 533-7520
Webform

Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D)—YEA
8th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: (202) 225-3711
District Phone: (847) 413-1959
Webform

Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky (D)—YEA
9th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: (202) 225-2111
District Phone: (773) 506-7100
Webform

Rep. Bob Dold (R)—YEA
10th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: (202) 225-4835
District Phone: (847) 793-8400
Webform

Rep. Bill Foster (D)—YEA
11th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: (202) 225-3515
District Phone: (630) 585-7672
Webform

Rep. Mike Bost (D)—YEA
12th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: (202) 225-5661
District Phone: (618)-233-8026
Webform

Rep. Rodney Davis (R)—YEA
13th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: (202) 225-2371
District Phone: (217) 791-6224
Webform

Rep. Randy Hultgren (R)—YEA
14th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: (202) 225-2976
District Phone: (630) 584-2734
Webform

Rep. John Simkus (R)—YEA
15th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: (202) 225-5271
District Phone: (217) 347-7947
Webform

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R)—YEA
16th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: (202) 225-3635
District Phone: (815) 708-8032
Webform

Rep. Cheri Bustos (D)—YEA
17th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: (202) 225-5905
District Phone: (309) 966-1813
Webform

Rep. Darin LaHood (R)—YEA
18th Congressional Dist.
Washington Phone: (202) 225-6201
District Phone: (309) 671-7027
Webform

---

Support the work of IFI for your family and community

We must continue, now more than ever, to champion immutable moral principles and take a strong stand for traditional values. IFI will continue to be your voice at the capitol, in the community, in the media, and in the culture.  Bible believing Christians and true conservatives cannot afford to run the risk of complacency while anti-God, anti-American, and anti-freedom forces work overtime.

If you believe in the mission and purpose of Illinois Family Institute, please send your most generous contribution to IFI today. IFI is supported by voluntary donations from individuals like you across the state of Illinois. Donations to IFI are tax-deductible.

Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, Illinois 60188

(All gifts to IFI are tax-deductible.)

Written by Napp Nazworth

Implementation of the Common Core State Standards Initiative has not gone well, supporters and critics alike now agree. Understanding why the education reform has been so rocky could aid future policy initiatives.

Here are five of the main reasons Common Core has been a disaster.

1) No Deliberative Democracy

Common Core was put into effect sneakily, rather than through the usual deliberative and democratic processes.

The Common Core is a set of math and English standards for K-12 education developed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, both of which are non-governmental organizations. Neither Congress nor state legislatures were involved in developing the standards.

For comparison, look at how President George W. Bush’s education reform, No Child Left Behind, was implemented. That legislation was debated in subcommittee hearings, committee hearings, and on the floors of the U.S. House and Senate before being passed on a bipartisan vote. While the debate was taking place in Congress, there was a public debate, with newspaper reports and pro and con arguments presented in editorials, news programs and water cooler talk across the nation. None of that happened when states adopted the Common Core.

The Common Core was developed in a private meeting by a non-governmental body. States were then encouraged to adopt the standards in an Department of Education grant competition that was part of the 2009 stimulus bill.

Even some Common Core supporters now admit that the way it was implemented was a mistake. At an American Enterprise Institute panel in October, Chris Minnich, current executive director of CCSSO and the council’s strategic initiatives director of standards assessment and accountability in 2009, said that Common Core would be better off today if the federal government had not been involved by creating incentives and funding the testing consortia.

By the time the standards had made its way to teachers, students and families, most were taken by surprise. And due to the lack of deliberative democracy, proponents had not gone through the difficult task of building public support before the policy was thrust onto the public.

2) Supporters Demonized Critics

Common Core supporters also made the mistake of characterizing critics as a bunch of crazies. A May Christian Post analysis pointed out many examples of this.

Common Core critics have been derided as “fringe voices,” people who are “comfortable with mediocrity,” an “ideological circus” with “hysterical claims and fevered accusations” from “the market-share-obsessed talk-radio crowd,” “far-right,” a “mediocrity caucus,” and “white suburban moms” opposed to educational progress.

Demonizing critics created additional problems for the Common Core. First, supporters lost legitimacy when these claims were easily demonstrated as false. Some of the harshest critics have been liberals, academics and teachers.

And second, by demonstrating an unwillingness to listen to the critics, Common Core supporters reinforced the critic’s view that Common Core is top-down and elite-driven. The arrogance of these Common Core supporters is similar to that of “Obamacare” architect Jonathan Gruber, who said that implementation of President Obama’s signature healthcare reform law had a “huge political advantage” in its “lack of transparency” due to the “stupidity of the American voter.”

3) No Trial and Error

Rather than pushing Common Core on an unsuspecting public using backdoor methods, supporters should have started small.

In the United States federalist system, states are often described as “laboratories of democracy.” Policies can be tried by early adopter states while other states wait to see the results. If the results are positive, other states will adopt them.

At the AEI October panel, Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at AEI, said that 10 to 15 states likely would have adopted the Common Core on their own, even without the federal incentives. Hess is neither for nor against the Common Core standards, but has been critical of how they have been implemented.

If Common Core had started that way, Hess noted, it would have been “a truly and genuinely kind of state-led effort, which if it was working and being implemented well, others would have wanted in.”

4) No Process to Improve Them

The developers of the Common Core did not leave in place a process to improve the standards.

In a perfect illustration of how the Common Core was put together haphazardly and without much forethought, the standards were created by a panel formed exclusively for the purpose of writing the standards. The panel was disbanded, and then the standards were copyrighted.

So, as education historian Diane Ravitch has pointed out, if a state wanted to change the standards, how would they do so? The answer is not entirely clear.

What if a state wanted to keep part of the standards but throw out other parts? Over 500 early childhood experts, for instance, signed a letter saying that the standards would be harmful for children in the early grade levels. (No early childhood experts were part of the panel that developed the standards.) So some states may want to dispose of at least that part of the standards. Whether they are legally allowed to do that is, however, murky.

Legally, a state should not be able to change a copyrighted product it does not own. But, who would a state go to for permission? And, if a state violated the copyright, who would sue them anyway? Others have even argued that the Common Core is not something that should have been able to obtain a copyright in the first place, because, according to copyright law, “ideas, methods, or systems” cannot be copyrighted.

Some states, like Florida, have made changes to the Common Core. Those changes appear to be mostly additions to the standards, which is legal, rather than changing the existing standards.

Suppose, however, that each state does ignore the potential copyright issues and changes the Common Core to its liking. That would undermine one of the main purposes of the Common Core to begin with. One of the primary impetuses for having a Common Core was that it would be, well, common. Having all, or many, states on the same set of standards, comparisons could be made across states and resources could be pooled for texts and testing materials. So, without a national process for improving the standards, the reason for having common standards in the first place has already been undermined.

5) Cronyism

Now that the secretive, top-down, elite-driven education reform was thrust onto unsuspecting students, parents and teachers, American taxpayers will wonder why they are being asked to pay for what is turning out to be an extremely expensive project with most of the benefits going to a few large companies.

A significant portion of the taxpayer dollars for Common Core implementation will go to testing companies. And these testing companies were also involved in developing Common Core.

As Julian Vasquez Heilig, professor of educational leadership and policy studies and the director of the doctorate in educational leadership program at California State University, points out on his blog, the work groups who designed the Common Core were comprised of five employees of ACT, two employees from a Pearson affiliate, six employees from Achieve, seven employees from The College Board and two employees and co-founders of Student Achievement Partners. Teachers and administrators were part of the group that reviewed the standards but not the group that wrote the standards.

Parents and teachers may look at that situation and wonder if those who wrote the standards did so in the interests of their children or in their self-interest. There is, however, a more important question raised by Common Core cronyism.

In all likelihood, those who wrote the standards see no conflict between their self-interest and what is best for American students. They are, after all, involved in those companies (many of which are non-profit) because they believe the work of those companies is to the benefit of students.

The larger question that should be asked, then, is — why should they get to decide education policy for the nation? As Vasquez Heilig pointed out, those involved in writing the Common Core have a particular view of education (which he wrote more about here and here). It is a legitimate view of how children should educated, but it is not a view shared by all educators, parents and education professors. There are equally legitimate alternatives that should also be part of the national dialogue on education reform.

Americans hold certain expectations of how education should be reformed — with parent and teacher input; through deliberation (both talking and listening) and democratic processes; and through trial, error and re-reforms at the local and state level. Common Core did none of those things and that is why it has been a disaster.

---

This article was originally posted at the ChristianPost.com website.