Skip to main content


To ensure the elected do what's expected

About FTTF
An American Invocation
How We Work
A21 training
A21 Stories
A21 Petition
Agenda 21
Essential Constitution
USURPATION--wrong track
Timely Articles
Common Core
A Common Core Primer
2013 NCGOP CC resolution
The Origins of CC
Antonio Gramsci
CC one stop answers
More One Stop
Reagan's answer
35 Questions
Three Moms
Glenn Beck
Common Core iPhone app
FreedomWorks and CommonCo
Take Action Now
Related Links
Contact Us

Common Core Standards- Article Excerpts and Sources

This document includes information from the John Locke Foundation, American Principles Project (YouTube), Civitas Institute, a four part Series by Michelle Malkin and other articles.  Excerpts from the articles and links are provided below). 


35 Questions About Common Core: Answers for North Carolinians, John Locke Foundation, Spotlight, No. 435 – April 10, 2013


Dr. Stoops discusses Common Core|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/&__utmv=-&__utmk=248878343


American Principles Project – STOP the Common Core(video)

Last fall the American Principles Project produced an informative DVD that highlights many of the problems surrounding Common Core Standards. View the five videos on You Tube or buy all five on DVD.


Common Core Standards Will Impose an Unproven ‘One Size Fits All’ Curriculum on North Carolina  Posted on March 28, 2013 by Bob Luebke,  Civitas Institute  (full article provided)


In 2010 the North Carolina State Board of Education unanimously adopted national Common Core Standards (CCS) in English and mathematics. The standards — spearheaded by two independent organizations, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers — were developed to better prepare students for college or careers and make American students more competitive with those in other countries.

Good intentions notwithstanding, a closer look at CCS reveals students, parents, educators and policymakers have much to be concerned about. Four significant problems warrant the attention of conservatives and anyone who cares about education in America. In Part One, we’ll focus on the first: There’s little or no solid evidence that a “one size fits all” curriculum is right for America.

Questionable Assumptions

Common Core Standards have been sold as a tool to raise academic standards and improve education for all students across America. However, an untested assumption underlies CCS: all students should learn the same things and have the same education. In a nation that recognizes all children are different and learn differently, such notions violate the dignity of individuals and the freedoms on which this nation was built.

Up until forty years ago, this nation had the best system of education – both K-12 and colleges and universities – in the world. One of the traits that made American education great was its diversity. Elementary and secondary school students can choose among private, parochial, public, technical charter, virtual and home schools. College students can choose from an array of 2-year associate or technical colleges. Students wanting to attend a four-year institution have options ranging from small private liberal arts colleges to large public research universities. The diversity in institutional type, curriculum, and governance has been a hallmark strength of American education. That diversity has helped to produce the best system of education in the world. Since when is our diversity a bad thing?

Yet that’s exactly what Common Core Standards are all about. The CCS drive is sold on the idea that national standards will improve education for all.  That’s only true if the new standards are proven better than existing standards. The standards are marketed as a combination of the best practices and “internationally benchmarked.” Really? The standards have never been tested and utilize unproven methods of instruction. In some cases (e.g., Massachusetts and Virginia) the standards may be inferior to existing state standards. In the case of Massachusetts, in order to adopt CCS the state had to scuttle academic standards that were widely regarding as the best in the country. It is true that in many states Common Core Standards were equal to or inferior to state standards. How is forcing a state to adopt inferior standards good public policy?

If our goal is to improve student achievement and be internationally competitive, does anyone really think the development of a “one-size-fits-all” national curriculum is the way to get there? Of course we all favor high academic standards. However, such an argument assumes higher standards are the key to raising student achievement. There is no consistent evidence to suggest that a national curriculum leads to high academic achievement. CCS may help in some places but there are serious doubts that merely raising standards will improve student achievement for all. France and Denmark have centralized national curricula and do not show high achievement on international tests. Meanwhile, Canada and Australia employ many regional curricula yet show better results on tests than many other affluent single-curriculum nations.[1] The CCS initiative creates new standards for all students; however, it fails to make a compelling argument why all students should be treated the same.

Saying CCS are better doesn’t necessarily mean they are. If you think such criticism reflects a minority viewpoint, read the names of 300-plus educators, prominent public figures and parents who signed a statement warning that a national curriculum would stifle innovation.

Math and English Changes

In addition to philosophical concerns, math and English standards have attracted their own critics. In math, much of the criticism is focused on pedagogy.  Under Common Core, students will be asked to explain the “why” of a problem before merely performing the calculation. The changes result in needlessly complicating the teaching of basic math to students who are unlikely to have the context to properly understand such queries.  The changes have serious consequences. First, it means standards will be taught by teachers who are still grappling to understand the curriculum and not familiar with ways or resources to successfully teach various subjects.  Second, the changes also mean children will not learn traditional methods of adding and subtracting until the fourth grade. Multiplication skills will likely be delayed until fifth or sixth grade. Because of the backloading, students who might normally have the opportunity to take calculus while in high school won’t have the time to do so because the number of prerequisite courses is started too late. Do these changes improve a student’s math skills and really represent a better curriculum?

The standards for English also present problems. Professor Sandra Stotsky of the University of Arkansas criticized the English Common Core standards as “empty skill sets that weaken the basis of literary and cultural knowledge needed for authentic college coursework.”  The most significant change for English CCS is a requirement that 50 percent or more of class readings in grades six through 12 be from “informational” or nonfiction texts. Advocates say the change in reading material will better prepare students to be college ready.  But the changes will mean the curriculum will no longer include many of the classic works of literature. Professor Stotsky says the move will limit a student’s exposure to great literature and limit the opportunity to think critically and communicate, skills that are vitally necessary for success in college and also for success later in life.  Professor Stotsky also points out that there is no research to suggest that college readiness is promoted by informational or nonfiction reading in English high school classes.[2]

So contrary to what you hear from advocates, Common Core Standards are based on unproven notions and questionable assumptions. The task of educating our children is too important to employ untested, cookie-cutter methods developed by companies and organizations that have financial interests in textbooks, technology and assessment but are not accountable to parents or taxpayers.

In Part Two of this article, we will look at the other costs and problems this change will inflict on schools, teachers, parents and students.

Common Core: Worse than you Think Posted on April 11, 2013 by Bob Luebke , Civitas Institute


Let’s look at Common Core Standards (CCS)’s three other major flaws.

Diminished Parental and State Influence

Imposing CCS on the nation’s schools clashes with express prohibitions on national curriculum or increasing the federal government’s power over education. Yet Common Core continues to be implemented in 46 states  by having states “voluntarily” adopt these national standards, Washington circumvents these prohibitions and facilitates one of history’s greatest transfers of power from states and localities to the federal government and other entities. The transfer was accelerated by tying adoption of CCS to eligibility for Race to the Top funds and waivers for No Child Left Behind. Even states that applied for but did not receive Race to the Top funds were still obligated to sign on to CCS. If that weren’t bad enough, because of the application process, many states were strong-armed to adopt CCS even before the standards had been finalized.


What influence parents and local government had on education has now been intentionally narrowed, nearly eliminated and transferred to unelected bureaucrats in Washington or elsewhere. CCS forced states and localities to give up their authority and influence over education in exchange for federal dollars. One wonders if those agreements would have been signed if participants knew the true cost.

CCS Adds to Financial Burdens

Developing and implementing a national curriculum involves significant cost, both known and unknown. Because most teachers are unfamiliar with the new philosophies and techniques, teachers will need to be trained. New textbooks and other materials must be purchased. In addition, assessment plans require significant investment in technology training, infrastructure and maintenance.


AccountabilityWorks estimated that over seven years, North Carolina will spend $200 million for professional development, $85 million for textbooks and materials, and $240 million for technology. That is a total of $525 million — an average of $75 million per year. No federal money was built into CCS to cover the costs of implementation. If it is not financed by the states or local districts, one wonders what additional conditions will come with money from the federal government or other private entities.

The CCS program also creates the national Student Data Longitudinal System (SDLS) to aid assessment efforts. SDLS is a national database of personal and academic student data. The 2009 stimulus bill created the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund as well as funding to build SDLS. Any state that accepted stimulus and Stabilization Funding signed on to SDLS. Race to the Top then awarded each state additional points based on the state’s commitment to building SDLS.

It’s not only the size of SDLS that causes concern, it is the type of data that is collected.   According to the National Education Model, federal data should only be concerned with academics. Federal data collectors, however, want SDLS to collect data on deeply personal matters, including health care history, disciplinary records, family income range, family voting status and religious affiliation.[2]  SDLS will have about 400 data points in all. New regulations allow transmission of student information without parental consent to any governmental or private entity designated by the government as an “authorized representative” who wants the data to evaluate educational programs. As such, under CCS there are no limitations on who the data can be shared with and parents have no right to object.

A high percentage of the data collected for SDLS is of questionable academic value. It does little to improve educational outcomes and adds much to the belief that the drive to impose CCS is about controlling student behavior, not improving student achievement.


Conclusion: Beware of CCS

The philosophy behind CCS and the standards themselves are of questionable value. Implementing the standards is expensive and ignores prohibitions on sharing student data. Worst of all, imposing Common Core minimizes parental and local influence over education. Despite these facts, the government has disseminated CCS to 46 states. The best thing we can do is educate ourselves about the Common Core Standards and their impact. We can only hope that decision-makers protect the rights of students, families and taxpayers and reaffirm the principles of diversity and freedom that helped to make American education the best in the world.


Common Core’s student data base creating big concerns for parentsBy Bob Luebke | March 15, 2013, Civitas Review Online


Michelle Malkin’s Friday column on how the feds hope to use data collected for Common Core for all sorts of questionable purposes may shock millions of Americans from their collective slumber over the giant federal effort to remake and take over American public education.

Malkin writes:

Research fellow Joy Pullmann at The Heartland Institute points to a February Department of Education report on its data-mining plans that contemplates the use of creepy student monitoring techniques such as “functional magnetic resonance imaging” and “using cameras to judge facial expressions, an electronic seat that judges posture, a pressure-sensitive computer mouse and a biometric wrap on kids’ wrists.

The DOE report exposes the big lie that Common Core is about raising academic standards by revealing its progressive designs to measure and track children’s “competencies” in “recognizing bias in sources,” “flexibility,” “cultural awareness and competence,” “appreciation for diversity,” “empathy,” “perspective taking, trust (and) service orientation.”

That’s right. School districts and state governments are pimping out highly personal data on children’s feelings, beliefs, “biases” and “flexibility” instead of doing their own jobs imparting knowledge – or minding their own business.


The massive student is database funded with stimulus money and money from the Gates foundation, Malkin also notes that a nonprofit startup  InBloom, Inc. will be operating the database which is compiling everything from health-care histories, income information and religious affiliations to voting status, blood types and homework completion. Parents have already revolted in against InBloom’s efforts in  New York. In addition to New York, the company has contracts with eight other states.  One of those states is North Carolina.


Rotten to the Core: Obama’s War on Academic Standards              Part 1

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 23, 2013 09:43 AM                                                       Creators Syndicate  Copyright 2012

Read More:

Under President Obama,  these top-down mal-formers — empowered by Washington education bureaucrats and backed by misguided liberal philanthropists led by billionaire Bill Gates — are now presiding over a radical makeover of your children’s school curriculum. It’s being done in the name of federal “Common Core” standards that do anything but raise achievement standards.

Common Core was enabled by Obama’s federal stimulus law and his Department of Education’s “Race to the Top” gimmickry. The administration bribed cash-starved states into adopting unseen instructional standards as a condition of winning billions of dollars in grants. Even states that lost their bids for Race to the Top money were required to commit to a dumbed-down and amorphous curricular “alignment.”

In practice, Common Core’s dubious “college- and career”-ready standards undermine local control of education, usurp state autonomy over curricular materials, and foist untested, mediocre and incoherent pedagogical theories on America’s schoolchildren.

There’s no better illustration of Common Core’s duplicitous talk of higher standards than to start with its math “reforms.” While Common Core promoters assert their standards are “internationally benchmarked,” independent members of the expert panel in charge of validating the standards refute the claim. Panel member Dr. Sandra Stotsky of the University of Arkansas reported, “No material was ever provided to the Validation Committee or to the public on the specific college readiness expectations of other leading nations in mathematics” or other subjects.

In fact, Stanford University professor James Milgram, the only mathematician on the validation panel, concluded that the Common Core math scheme would place American students two years behind their peers in other high-achieving countries. In protest, Milgram refused to sign off on the standards. He’s not alone.

Professor Jonathan Goodman of New York University found that the Common Core math standards imposed “significantly lower expectations with respect to algebra and geometry than the published standards of other countries.”

Under Common Core, as the American Principles Project and Pioneer Institute point out, algebra I instruction is pushed to 9th grade, instead of 8th grade, as commonly taught. Division is postponed from 5th to 6th grade. Prime factorization, common denominators, conversions of fractions and decimals, and algebraic manipulation are de-emphasized or eschewed. Traditional Euclidean geometry is replaced with an experimental approach that had not been previously pilot-tested in the U.S.

Ze’ev Wurman, a prominent software architect, electrical engineer and longtime math advisory expert in California and Washington, D.C., points out that Common Core delays proficiency with addition and subtraction until 4th grade and proficiency with basic multiplication until 5th grade, and skimps on logarithms, mathematical induction, parametric equations and trigonometry at the high school level.

I cannot sum up the stakes any more clearly than Wurman did in his critique and the vested interests behind it:

“I believe the Common Core marks the cessation of educational standards improvement in the United States. No state has any reason left to aspire for first-rate standards, as all states will be judged by the same mediocre national benchmark enforced by the federal government. Moreover, there are organizations that have reasons to work for lower and less-demanding standards, specifically teachers unions and professional teacher organizations. While they may not admit it, they have a vested interest in lowering the accountability bar for their members. …This will be done in the name of ‘critical thinking’ and ’21st-century’ skills, and in faraway Washington, D.C., well beyond the reach of parents and most states and employers.”


Rotten to the Core : Readin’, Writin’ and Deconstructionism           Part 2


By Michelle Malkin  •  January 25, 2013 11:10 AM                                           Creators Syndicate  Copyright 2012

Common Core learning: The Gettysburg Address “word cloud”

As literature professors, writers, humanities scholars, secondary educators and parents have warned over the past three years, the new achievement goals actually set American students back by de-emphasizing great literary works for “informational texts.” Challenging students to digest and dissect difficult poems and novels is becoming passe. Utilitarianism uber alles.

The Common Core English/language arts criteria call for students to spend only half of their class time studying literature, and only 30 percent of their class time by their junior and senior years in high school. Under Common Core, classics such as “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” are of no more academic value than the pages of the Federal Register or the Federal Reserve archives — or a pro-Obamacare opinion essay in The New Yorker. Audio and video transcripts, along with “alternative literacies” that are more “relevant” to today’s students (pop song lyrics, for example), are on par with Shakespeare.

English professor Mary Grabar describes Common Core training exercises that tell teachers “to read Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address without emotion and without providing any historical context. Common Core reduces all ‘texts’ to one level: the Gettysburg Address to the EPA’s Recommended Levels of Insulation.” Indeed, in my own research, I found one Common Core “exemplar” on teaching the Gettysburg Address that instructs educators to “refrain from giving background context or substantial instructional guidance at the outset.”

Another exercise devised by Common Core promoters features the Gettysburg Address as a word cloud. Yes, a word cloud. Teachers use the jumble of letters, devoid of historical context and truths, to help students chart, decode and “deconstruct” Lincoln’s speech.

As University of Arkansas professor Sandra Stotsky, an unrelenting whistleblower who witnessed the Common Core sausage-making process firsthand, concluded: “An English curriculum overloaded with advocacy journalism or with ‘informational’ articles chosen for their topical and/or political nature should raise serious concerns among parents, school leaders, and policymakers. Common Core’s standards not only present a serious threat to state and local education authority, but also put academic quality at risk. Pushing fatally flawed education standards into America’s schools is not the way to improve education for America’s students.”

Bipartisan Common Core defenders claim their standards are merely “recommendations.” But the standards, “rubrics” and “exemplars” are tied to tests and textbooks. The textbooks and tests are tied to money and power. Federally funded and federally championed nationalized standards lead inexorably to de facto mandates. Any way you slice it, dice it or word-cloud it, Common Core is a mandate for mediocrity

Rotten to the Core: Lessons from Texas and the Growing Grassroots Revolt                                                                                                                                   Part 3

By Michelle Malkin  •  March 1, 2013 09:28 AM                                                Creators Syndicate  Copyright 2012

Claims that Common Core bubbled up from the states are bass-ackward. A shady nonprofit group called “Achieve Inc.” stocked with federal-standards advocates who’ve been around since the Clinton years, designed the materials. They were rubber-stamped by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and subsidized by the Gates Foundation. [See the Pioneer Institute here for background on how the money game works and how some conservative groups have been duped/bought off.]

In states like Texas, which rejected Common Core, similar secretive alliances prevail. The Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative, a nonprofit group led by government officials, designed the “CSCOPE” curriculum now used in 80 percent of the state’s schools. The state Board of Education, local schools and parents were denied access to the online CSCOPE curriculum database — which was exempted from disclosure rules. In fact, dissemination of the lessons was considered a crime until earlier this month. Only after parents and teachers across the state blew the whistle on radical CSCOPE lesson plans (including designing a new flag for a socialist lesson) did the state take steps to rein in the CSCOPE zealots.

Grassroots activists in Indiana, Alabama, Utah and nearly a dozen other states are now educating themselves and their state legislatures about the centralized education racket, whether it’s under the guise of Common Core or any other name. Last week, in response to a passionate parent-driven protest, the Indiana state Senate passed legislation to halt Common Core implementation. Anti-Common Core bills are moving through the Alabama state legislature, where lawmakers are especially concerned about how Common Core’s intrusive database gathering would violate student privacy.

As Texas goes, so goes the nation. The fight against the federalization of academic standards is a national education Alamo.

Rotten to the Core: The Feds’ Invasive Student Tracking Database    Part 4

By Michelle Malkin  •  March 8, 2013 09:41 AM                                                       Creators Syndicate  Copyright 2012


While many Americans worry about government drones in the sky spying on our private lives, Washington meddlers are already on the ground and in our schools gathering intimate data on children and families.

Say goodbye to your children’s privacy. Say hello to an unprecedented nationwide student tracking system, whose data will apparently be sold by government officials to the highest bidders. It’s yet another encroachment of centralized education bureaucrats on local control and parental rights under the banner of “Common Core.”

As the American Principles Project, a conservative education think tank, reported last year, Common Core’s technological project is “merely one part of a much broader plan by the federal government to track individuals from birth through their participation in the workforce.” The 2009 porkulus package included a “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund” to bribe states into constructing “longitudinal data systems (LDS) to collect data on public-school students.”

These systems will aggregate massive amounts of personal data — health-care histories, income information, religious affiliations, voting status and even blood types and homework completion. The data will be available to a wide variety of public agencies. And despite federal student-privacy protections guaranteed by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the Obama administration is paving the way for private entities to buy their way into the data boondoggle. Even more alarming, the U.S. Department of Education is encouraging a radical push from aggregate-level data-gathering to invasive individual student-level data collection.

At the South by Southwest education conference in Austin, Texas, this week, education technology gurus were salivating at the prospects of information plunder. “This is going to be a huge win for us,” Jeffrey Olen, a product manager at education software company CompassLearning, told Reuters. Cha-ching-ching-ching.

The company is already aggressively marketing curricular material “aligned” to fuzzy, dumbed-down Common Core math and reading guidelines (which more than a dozen states are now revolting against). Along with two dozen other tech firms, CompassLearning sees even greater financial opportunities to mine Common Core student tracking systems. The centralized database is a strange-bedfellows alliance between the liberal Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (which largely underwrote and promoted the Common Core curricular scheme) and a division of conservative Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. (which built the database infrastructure).

Another nonprofit startup, “inBloom, Inc.,” has evolved out of that partnership to operate the database. The Gates Foundation and other partners provided $100 million in seed money. Reuters reports that inBloom, Inc. will “likely start to charge fees in 2015″ to states and school districts participating in the system. “So far, seven states — Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, North Carolinaand Massachusetts — have committed to enter data from select school districts. Louisiana and New York will be entering nearly all student records statewide.”

The National Education Data Model, available online at, lists hundreds of data points considered indispensable to the nationalized student tracking racket. These include:

–”Bus Stop Arrival Time” and “Bus Stop Description.”

–”Dwelling arrangement.”

–”Diseases, Illnesses and Other Health Conditions.”

–”Religious Affiliation.”

–”Telephone Number Type” and “Telephone Status.”

Home-schoolers and religious families that reject traditional government education would be tracked. Original NEDM data points included hair color, eye color, weight, blood types and even dental status.

How exactly does amassing and selling such personal data improve educational outcomes? It doesn’t. This, at its core, is the central fraud of Washington’s top-down nationalized curricular scheme. The Bill Gates-endorsed Common Core “standards” are a phony pretext for big-government expansion. The dazzling allure of “21st-century technology” masks the privacy-undermining agenda of nosy bureaucratic drones allergic to transparency, accountability and parental autonomy. Individual student privacy is sacrificed at the collective “For the Children” altar.

Fed Ed is not about excellence or academic achievement. It’s about control, control and more control.

Indoctrination and Data Mining in Common Core: Here’s Why America’s Schools May Be in More Trouble Than You Think  Tiffany Gabbay, The Blaze


According to the conservative think tank American Principles Project, Common Core’s technological project is “merely one part of a much broader plan by the federal government to track individuals from birth through their participation in the workforce.” As columnist and author Michelle Malkin has pointed out, the 2009 stimulus package included a “State Fiscal Stabilization Fund” to provide states incentives to construct “longitudinal data systems (LDS) to collect data on public-school students.”

In other words, an aggregation system to mind personal data on children including information about their health, family income, religious affiliation and homework.

Even more off-putting is the revelation that a 44-page Department of Education Report released in February indicates that the Common Core data-mining system could one day implement monitoring techniques like “Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging” (scanning one’s brain function), as well as “using cameras to judge facial expressions, an electronic seat that judges [a child's] posture, a pressure-sensitive computer mouse and a biometric wrap on kids’ wrists.”

Attention, parents: Common Core opt-out form now available   

By Michelle Malkin  •  March 11, 2013 09:11 AM


Courtesy of Truth in American Education, you can now exercise your parental rights to protect your children from the nationalized Common Core racket. Download, print, Facebook, tweet, and share the opt-out form. The revolt is growing. Make your voice and your choice heard.


COMMON CORE in NC                 Public Schools of NC, State Board of Education, Dept. of Public Instruction

On June 2, 2010, North Carolina adopted the Common Core State Standards in K-12 Mathematics and K-12 English Language Arts released by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers. With the adoption of these state-led education standards, North Carolina is in the first group of states to embrace clear and consistent goals for learning to prepare children for success in college and work. The full Common Core standards can be viewed at A copy of the slides used at the June 2nd North Carolina Board of Education meeting can be found below.

June Presentation to SBE on Common Core  (ppt, 1.3mb)

Read more:


Misadventures in the Common Core-The Blog by Mark Rice

Posted: 03/05/2013 11:12 am


Common Core Standards Articles

35 Questions About Common Core: Answers for North Carolinians, John Locke Foundation, Spotlight, No. 435 – April 10, 2013


 Dr. Stoops discusses Common Core|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/&__utmv=-&__utmk=248878343


Common Core Standards Will Impose an Unproven ‘One Size Fits All’ Curriculum on North Carolina  Posted on March 28, 2013 by Bob Luebke, Civitas Institute


Common Core: Worse than you ThinkPosted on April 11, 2013 by Bob Luebke , Civitas Institute


American Principles Project – STOP the Common Core (video)

Last fall the American Principles Project produced an informative DVD that highlights many of the problems surrounding Common Core Standards. View the five videos on You Tube or buy all five on DVD.


Common Core’s student data base creating big concerns for parents  By Bob Luebke, 3/15/ 2013, Civitas Review OnLine


Rotten to the Core: Obama’s War on Academic StandardsPart 1


Rotten to the Core : Readin’, Writin’ and Deconstructionism  Part 2

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 25, 2013 11:10 AM



Rotten to the Core: Lessons from Texas and the Growing Grassroots Revolt  Part 3     By Michelle Malkin  •  March 1, 2013 09:28 AM                                                                


Rotten to the Core: The Feds’ Invasive Student Tracking Database   Part 4 

By Michelle Malkin  •  March 8, 2013 09:41 AM



Indoctrination and Data Mining in Common Core: Here’s Why America’s Schools May Be in More Trouble Than You Think  Tiffany Gabbay , The Blaze


Site run by 3 mothers in Utah


                        To have this page emailed to you so the links open, please email