Also typically, conservatives participating in vital evaluation of a federal policy presenting smart, salient critiques to ideally honest-minded opponents, find them selves thrown into that category of the “lunatic fringe.” Case in position, the straw-man bonfire Loved ones Study Council endured in the Washington Publish recently.
The Post’s “Answer Sheet” took a Family members Study Council fundraising letter regarding “Common Core” (in which I am named) to the amount of circus fare. The creator, Valerie Strauss, manufactured reference to the derisive Twitter hashtag, “ThanksCommonCore,” equating the rhetoric in the letter with “garbage.”
It seems as if Ms. Strauss was at a decline for what to write about, and so selected to mock a fundraising letter directed towards FRC’s constituency, utterly disregarding what she phone calls the “genuine criticism” we’ve offered to the CCSS Initiative in the previous (I would immediate her to observe our latest webcast discussion board, or go through some of my white papers, or op-eds at TownHall.com or DailyCaller.com). Fairly than shifting the ball, she made the decision to foul one more participant. On her own team.
What Ms. Strauss also fails to recognize is that language employed by FRC in its letter to constituents about CCSS does not change the reality that the components of CCSS them selves are still problematic.
Every person from the Countrywide Schooling Association to the Socialist Worker to the Heritage Foundation to the American Business Institute have regarded the Specifications as a failed experiment in check-heavy, sub-par, bureaucratic academics.
I established wholly aside the avowed directive of the CCSS (to, among other things, “broaden worldviews“). I’ll leave out of this dialogue the simple fact that the Core’s advancement was steeped in secrecy, or that is its architect, David Coleman, is now changing the AP U.S. Heritage Exam with a development that shifts the landscape of American history “sharply to the remaining.” It is very clear that the Widespread Core engineers experienced a worldview, and 1 they did not want open up to discussion, which to my mind is the epitome of closed minded “nonsense.”
But from whence Frequent Core’s divergent critics draw our conclusions should not make a difference if we are all energized to the same conclude: its greatest and swift repeal.
Tragically, Ms. Strauss rates the “report” of the Southern Poverty Regulation Heart, “Public Faculties in the Crosshairs: Much-Correct Propaganda and the Widespread Core State Standards.” That self-identical “report” which lacks a one footnote or citation, that “report” which is as considerably propaganda by itself as that which it claims to expose, that “report” which notes that “this much-proper marketing campaign is genuinely a proxy for a broader assault on public education itself.”
As a citizen of blue-state Maryland who sends 3 children to community college, I converse for each myself and my firm in saying I have no curiosity in assaulting public education and learning only in generating it greater. I feel Ms. Strauss and I agree — maybe for diverse motives — that the Frequent Main Specifications are not the way to do so.
If we both see the initiative as riddled with problems, what excellent is served in criticizing the Household Research Council, apart from ingratiating Ms. Strauss to the remaining? Notably in using the left’s very own arguments towards us? It is no mystery that the Southern Poverty Regulation Middle is no good friend of the Household Research Council.
But, Ms. Strauss. I imagined we were friends.