Dear
David,
Congratulations
on becoming the new head of the
College Board. I know, as a Founding Father of the national standards
effort, I may have written things that you do not agree with. While I haven’t
met you personally yet, I look forward to it. I have heard universally that you
are a smart guy and reputed by all to be a nice person.
I hope you and
the Coleman family are well, and I am writing to say I’m
sorry.
In addition to
writing about school innovations, charter schools, vocational technical schools,
school choice, accountability to results, and teacher quality issues, I’ve
written with some frequency about academic standards and curricula—and
especially recently about the effort to advance national (Common Core)
standards.
I’m sorry
because I think I may have gotten some of the intentions of Common Core's
supporters wrong. Considering the heavy hand of the Gates Foundation and
DC-based trade groups and their support of an effort that violates three federal
laws; the imposition of $16 billion in new unfunded mandates on states and
localities; and the feds’ shoehorning of states into adopting mediocre/community
college readiness academic standards; I thought there may have been a
well-thought-through plan at work. I thought the fact that many of the same
players were involved in the 1990s in similar efforts meant that they had
learned from past mistakes and decided to bypass congressional scrutiny and
state legislative processes.
I thought they
(and by association perhaps you) were consciously flouting the rule of law, the
Constitutional Framers, and 220-plus years of American constitutional history.
After all, supporters of national standards know their history and what is legal
and illegal, and why all this was a bad idea.
Well, I just
watched this national standards promo video by a couple of Gates Foundation
clients—the Council of Chief States School Officers (CCSSO) and the Jim Hunt
Institute, what I have affectionately in the past termed the EduBlob (perhaps too often
uploaded with cheesy 60s’ movie posters). The video features you
and it illustrates to me how I was wrong on the question of
intention.
The video (see
especially 2:07 to 2:49) does not dissuade me from my view that the national
standards are a mediocre race to the middle, or that they are illegal, or
needless centralizing and expensive.
In it, you
articulate how you would use Madison’s Federalist #51 to teach students
and teachers about carefully reading primary sources like Madison’s work and how
to understand concepts like “faction” as the authors themselves understood these
terms. The
video comes with a nice-looking pictorial text
of Federalist #51 on the screen. Listening for a few minutes, I thought
it sounded good, especially where you note:
I want to say a
little more about what we mean by building knowledge through reading and
writing. It doesn’t mean simply that students can refer to a text they’ve read
in history and social studies and mention that in Federalist Paper 51
someone named Madison had some ideas about faction. To be able to read and gain
knowledge to analyze that document would be as the [national] standards require
to examine precisely what Madison said or didn’t say about faction and from
reading that document carefully having a rich and deep understanding about
precisely what Madison thought about faction. It’s about the close study of
primary documents to understand from whence they come and what they might mean
and not mean.
David, I think
at this point it would be helpful to introduce you to James Madison. Another
Founding Father—but he was a key drafter of the United States
Constitution. He drafted the 10 initial constitutional amendments, which we
call the Bill of Rights.
He was the
co-founder of a major political party. Author of the Virginia Resolution.
Secretary of State (1801-1809). Fourth President of the United States of America
(1809-1817). Unlike a president before him (John Adams) and many after, even in
times of existential crisis for the nation (the War of 1812, when Washington,
D.C. was being burned by the British), Madison didn’t abuse executive power to
abridge the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. He knew better
than most the power of the Constitution and was its faithful
implementer.
Despite almost
incomparable Founding accomplishments, Madison is best known for essays he,
along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, wrote called
the Federalist Papers, the most enduring articulation of American
constitutional principles ever committed to paper. It’s the kind of stuff our
kids (and we) need to know.
I’m not sure if
Yale and Oxford, while you were there as a Rhodes scholar, forgot to tell you
this, but Madison’s Federalist #51 isn’t about “faction.” I know you
repeat this point over and over in the video tutorial. But, as any well-educated
10th-grader knows (at least in Massachusetts before we switched to the national
standards), Federalist #51 is actually about checks and balances. Here’s the title and most famous lines
from Federalist #51:
The Structure
of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the
Different Departments
In order to lay
a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers
of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be
essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department
should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that
the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment
of the members of the others...
But the great
security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same
department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the
necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of
the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be
made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract
ambition...
But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.
In fact, David,
I hope you and the Council of Chief State School Officers, the Hunt Institute,
and the whole swarm of national standards proponents will take the time to read
Federalist #10, which, incidentally is the most famous of all of
Madison’s works. The term “faction” is mentioned 18 times (including the
title) and is the major topic of Federalist #10. Madison’s views on
“faction” are thoughtful and far-sighted. Let me share a section with
you:
The Utility
of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
(continued)
AMONG the
numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be
more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of
faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed
for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this
dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan
which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a
proper cure for it...
By a faction, I
understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority
of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or
of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and
aggregate interests of the community...
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time...
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time...
David, I truly
hope you and other supporters of the Common Core will come to read the
Federalist Papers and demonstrate the skills to understand James
Madison’s original intent. I further hope you will gain the ability to reflect
on the premises of the American constitutional republic. Perhaps close attention
to the section of Federalist #10 regarding not serving as judge in your
own case would help you and the Gates Foundation understand that advancing a
policy with hundreds of millions of dollars and then paying others to support
that view is a no-no. I am convinced that, with this reading and study complete,
you will understand why national education standards are anti-constitutional,
illegal, and violate the public trust.
In truth, when
crafting the Constitution and the Federalist Papers Madison and
the Framers very much had in mind the reckless ambitions of the recklessly
ambitious. The drive to advance the Common Core outside the boundaries of the
Constitution and legal restrictions is just what Madison had in mind. And
the EduBlob represents exactly the types of dangerous “factions” whose “common
impulse of passion, or of interest” were contrary to the public good and the
“aggregate interests of the community.”
The next time
you would like to opine about why you and others should set national standards,
curricula, and testing for America’s 50 million schoolchildren, I would ask you
to reflect on you and your peers lack of even the most basic understanding of
our Founding principles.
Respectfully,
Jim
