FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Anita B Hoge 724-263-0474
Pennsylvanians Restoring Education
Pennsylvanians Against Common Core March 4, 2015
SENATOR ALEXANDER AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE,
H.R. 5 ESEA Reauthorization cannot be fixed. We also say “NO” to S. 144, Local Leadership in Education Act. We also say “NO” to S. 227, Strengthening Education through Research Act. You both know perfectly well and recognize that the core of HR 5 ESEA Reauthorization rests upon Title I and IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, under which our children are tracked and remediated.
We citizens demand that HR 5 be completely suspended until the United States Department of Education General Counsel reviews the Constitutionality of the Title I Portability embedded in the Student Success Act of 2015 which will amend No Child Left Behind.
The federal government does NOT have the authority under TITLE I PORTABILITY to mandate “DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES.” These services, identified for an “AT-RISK” student (See pp. 53-54), are defined as “specialized student support services.” (See pp. 55, 78.)
The federal government is effectually mandating the identification of an individual student through interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic reports on assessments and how that student is meeting state standards. (See pp. 24(i), 29) This identification and reporting of the individual student means that individual children are being monitored by the federal government. We find this monitoring of individual students unconstitutional. (See pp. 29-30.)
SENATOR ALEXANDER AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, Who are these “AT-RISK”
TITLE I children that your legislation has defined to receive “direct student services”?
“At-Risk” is defined as, “a child, youth, or student, means a school-aged individual who is at-risk of academic failure.” (Emphasis added. See p. 150.) The local educational agency will monitor and identify quickly and effectively those INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS who may be “AT-RISK” of failing to meet the State’s academic standards. (See pp. 53-54.) The Common Core Standards are the measuring stick for “AT-RISK” children. Common Core Standards have been accepted in 45 states. (Some states use ACT, who developed the benchmarks for Common Core Standards, thereby standardizing the use of Common Core in all 50 states). HR 5 nationalizes the curriculum and testing across the United States, thus standardizing the assessments, standards, interventions, and data elements for data collection. The addition and expansion of children who may be defined “AT RISK” includes mental health, social, emotional, and behavioral interventions (attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions), required by the specialized instructional support services as defined below as disabilities by 605 IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (See p. 467.) (See S. 144 page 3(e), “Title I shall be carried out….”)
“AT-RISK” children will receive these specialized student support services defined as “CHOICE” through the “Direct Student Services” that will follow the child. We do not believe the federal government has the authority to monitor individual American students or mandate these services.
(Source: The following sources document the expansion of Common Core Standards into the affective domain: Secretaries Commission for Achieving Necessary Skills, Department of Labor, 1992; Presentation of ACT, www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfP3rQ3uyPo , Nov. 2012 – Kevin Houchin; Chief State School Officers, CCSSO, Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions, Feb. 2013, http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/ILN%20Knowledge%20Skills%20and%20Dispositions%20CCR%20Framework%20February%202013.pdf; ESEA Flexibility Waiver adds non-cognitive psychological standards to the Common Core Standards in Principle 6: NAEP – soft skills and affective domain, http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/what-we-do/quarterly-board-meeting-materials/2013-08/tab11-saturday-board-policy-discussion.pdf, p. 2.)
Any reauthorization of ESEA should address the illegality of the ESEA Flexibility Waivers issued by President Obama and Secretary Duncan. In Principle 6 of the waiver it establishes that a school environment must improve school safety and discipline, and address other “non-academic factors that impact student achievement, such as students’ social, emotional and health needs,” which is further clarified in S. 225. The assessment and interventions in the psychological “direct student services” violates the original intent of satisfying Title I to improve academic achievement. There have been several years of identifying children as “AT-RISK” due to the implementation of the Obama/Duncan ESEA Flexibility Waivers in the affective-psychological domain. Parents are asking how these attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions will be measured, scored, and remediated to a government standard? Let’s be clear: these attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions must conform to the Common Core Standards; they have nothing to do with academic achievement.
The HR 5 consolidation of funds that covers a SCHOOLWIDE Title I program also blankets an entire school with Title I “AT RISK” interventions for all children, including babies. All children are “At-Risk” for not achieving Common Core Standards, including those standards in the affective domain as described above.
(Pennsylvania’s affective standards were called Interpersonal Skills.) (See p. 40; p. 65, Schoolwide Programs; pp. 68,70,74,75, for mandated specialized student instructional support services in a schoolwide program; pp. 76,77, mandated specialized student support services for pre-school programs.)
SENATOR ALEXANDER AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, HR 5 continues the mandate to identify Title I “AT-RISK” individual students to receive this same SPECIALIZED STUDENT INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT (see p. 55), thus extending services in the non-academic psychological/affective domain which is defined as:
(41)(A) SPECIALIZED INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT PERSONNEL.—The term ‘specialized instructional support personnel’ means school counselors, school social workers, school psychologists, and other qualified professional personnel involved in providing assessment, diagnosis, counseling, educational, therapeutic, and other necessary services (including related services as that term is defined in section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) as part of a comprehensive program to meet student needs.
(B) SPECIALIZED INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES.—The term ‘specialized instructional support services’ means the services provided by specialized instructional support personnel. (See p. 496.)
We believe the federal government does not constitutionally have the authority to enforce psychological personality traits standards, nor regulate government-prescribed attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions. These represent Civil Rights violations. The intervention, treatment, and re-education of attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions of children fundamentally violates First Amendment protections and rights, which guarantees “right of conscience,” as well as the Fourth Amendment right “to be secure in their persons.”
SENATOR ALEXANDER AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, the Constitutionality of Title I portability funds, that “follow the child” through identification and direct student services to all private and religious schools, is also an issue. The identification of an individual child, and providing equitable services in your HR 5, extends to all private schools and religious students. This federal overreach violates the autonomy of private schools where the funds will “follow the child.” These specialized student support services are called “DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES” which are offered as “MEANINGFUL CHOICE.” These services MUST be equitable, as determined by a provider on a state approved list (see p. 18, 78-79), for all public school students and private school students. (See pp. 17-19, 473, 487, 491, 493, 496.)
SENATOR ALEXANDER AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, are you aware that
HR 5 mandates equitable CHOICE defined as “DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES” to every child in the United States? These “DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES” are defined as public school choice. (See p. 473.) Do you believe that this is the kind of “CHOICE” that parents and private and religious schools desire, which is in reality no choice at all? The federal government will mandate “direct student services” no matter the school entity. (See p. 80; an ombudsman to monitor enforcement requirements on private and religious schools.)
SENATOR ALEXANDER AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, is the Title I Portability that you have designed true CHOICE? This federal encroachment controls what is taught, and how it is taught, through the reeducation of every student in the United States. The “direct student services” have nothing to do with academics, but everything to do with psychological manipulation. (See S. 227, Strengthening Education Through Research Act, pp. 28-29, Part B sec 132(l).)
SENATOR ALEXANDER AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, please clarify the following passage in HR 5 below. Does this section mandate the provision that the federal government have oversight and control of all funding and services delivered to private and religious schools in the United States?
(C) SPECIAL RULE.—If the local educational agency in which a child resides makes a tuition or other payment for the free public education of the child in a school located in another school district, the Secretary shall, for the purpose of this Act (i) consider the child to be in attendance at a school of the agency making the payment; and (ii) not consider the child to be in attendance at a school of the agency receiving the payment.
(D) CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.—If a local educational agency makes a tuition payment to a private school or to a public school of another local educational agency for a child with a disability, as defined in section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Secretary shall, for the purpose of this Act, consider the child to be in attendance at a school of the agency making the payment. (See pp. 466-467.)
In Uniform Provisions, on pp. 525-531, private school participation for the “DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES” or “CHOICE,” and private school participation follows:
(3) SPECIAL RULE.—Educational services and other benefits provided under this section for private school children, teachers, and other educational personnel shall be equitable in comparison to services and other benefits for public school children, teachers, and other educational personnel participating in the program and shall be provided in a timely manner. (See p. 526; pp. 15(3), 18(3), 58 (4), 78-88, 335(2).)
The IES, the Institute for Educational Sciences (See pp. 555-557), monitors “continuous progress” and accountability of all individual TITLE I “AT RISK” CHILDREN through the state longitudinal data systems designed in each state and funded through the National Center for Education Statistics. The IES is collecting psychological data (data on attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions) through a unique national ID on every child in the United States.
HR 5 violates privacy throughout the bill. The IES/NCES individual data collection violates the privacy of students and their families via individualized data reported through each state longitudinal data system and disclosed to 3rd party contractors, which is allowed through President Obama’s Executive Order. Personally identifiable information on our children and families is re-disclosed, thereby allowing the tracking and trafficking of data. (See FERPA, Family Education Rights in Privacy Act, Sec. 99.31. Obama Executive Order, 12866, expanding the collection of personally identifiable information in a state longitudinal data system, Jan. 2012.)
The constitutionality of this personal data collection by the federal government on individuals is in question. (Source: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/stateinfo.asp) Does the federal government have the authority to mandate and monitor specific psychological services that an individual student must receive? Must parents allow Common Core Standards in the affective domain to be mandated to their child, in violation of parental rights and privacy?
(See S 227, p. 17, IES acts as a “national school board,” SEC. 116. NATIONAL BOARD FOR EDUCATION SCIENCES. See p. 28, expansion of standards into the social and emotional domain of a child. Note: The Pennsylvania unique national ID, NCES/IES grant, Contract: CFDS-#84.384, PR/Award #R372A090022; grants.gov Tracking #: Grant1007608.)
It is time to close down and defund the Institute for Educational Sciences, the National Center for Education Statistics, and the National Assessment for Educational Progress.
It is time that the federal government get out of education and close shop. Close down the Department of Education.
It is necessary to request General Counsel for a legal opinion about the Constitutionality of
Title I Portability and the “direct student services” because the federal government does NOT have the authority to mandate anything to an INDIVIDUAL STUDENT in any individual state.
SENATOR ALEXANDER AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, stop your unconstitutional
bills, called HR 5, S. 144 and S. 227.
This following list are states that use the FERPA loopholes. I have links from specific states that use a template or have a policy to access your childs personally identifiable information. Use the templates as your basis to request the contracts in your state to actually see WHO has your personally identifiable information.
Ohio Data MOU written agreements for Research
Ohio MOU Template
Ohio Data Sharing Agreement
Maine Data Sharing Agreement
Pennsylvania Data Sharing Agreement
Penn Research Requests
Pennsylvania Student Data Access Policy
Pennsylvania Request Documents
Pennsylvania Confidential Data Release
Pennsylvania Letter of Intent
Pennsylvania Student Data Access Policy
Louisiana Data sharing agreement
Kentucky data sharing agreement
Connecticut data sharing agreement
Illinois Data Sharing Agreements
Nevada Data Sharing agreements
Colorado Data Sharing Agreement
Oklahoma Data sharing info
South Dakota Data Sharing
Delaware Data Sharing Agreement
Indiana data sharing agreement
New Mexico Data sharing agreement
Kansas Data sharing agreement
Florida Data Sharing Agreement
West Virginia Data Policy Data Agreements /Page 45+
New Hampshire Privacy Legislation
NH Data sharing agreement
North Carolina Data Sharing Agreement
Massachusetts privacy FERPA
District of Colombia (DC) Data Sharing Agreement
College Board Data Sharing Agreement
Strong Foundations /States with Data Sharing Agreements
Bridging the Divide University if Virginia
Promise Neighborhood Data Sharing Prototypes
States That Are Making it Work
The Fake Repeal of Oklahoma Common Core Standards-ESEA Flex is in Place
Governor Mary Fallin signs bill repealing the Common Core, but is it true?
The fake under-pinnings of this fake maneuver by the Governor of Oklahoma proves the unorthodox ways the education establishment will continue to use deceptive tactics to pull the wool over the parents and constituents of Oklahoma. The headlines will rave about the HB 3399 as a major victory for Oklahoma against the terrible evils for federal takeover of education to do away with Common Core Standards. NOT TRUE!
All along the Governor and the Secretary of Education moved in stealth form to amend their ESEA Flexibility Waiver dated April 4, 2014. They changed the words of “Common Core.” College Career Citizenship Standards are called C3 as on the front of their flexibility waiver, and has renamed their standards, Oklahoma Academic Standards, which includes the Common Core Standards. This move has been very deceptive when most parents fighting Common Core thought they have won the battle.
( Scroll down 28 pages of the waiver extension)
In the words of Governor Fallin, “The words ‘Common Core’ in Oklahoma are now so divisive that they have become a distraction that interferes with our mission of providing the best education possible for our children,” Fallin said. So the Governor is using the momentum against Common Core to continue the federal agenda by signing onto the ESEA Flexibility Waiver. Fallin is current Chairman of the National Governors Association, which is one of the organizations that copyrighted the Common Core in the first place.
Page 18 of the bill HB 3399 makes Oklahoma Academic Standards law by including Common Core into the ESEA Flexibility Waiver that was just updated on April 4, 2014. This move by the legislature makes Oklahoma Academic Standards law which include Common Core in their state. Page 18.
The new message for ALL states: Dispose of the name Common Core because it is too controversial. Incorporate the Common Core into your ” academic” standards and approve them within your OWN state standards. Therefore, parents, legislators, and the public at large, will THINK the Common Core is gone.
BEWARE: Look at your state ESEA Flexibility Waiver.
The waiver will tell you that Common Core are the standards that are renamed. The waiver will also explain that your poverty guidelines are removed making ALL schools Title I. ALL children in a Title I school will have the funding ” follow that child.” The schools are called priority or focus schools. Those schools will use ” turn-around” principles to target your school for interventions. Please study the principles for each action that your state MUST take. This allows the IDEA (special Ed) funds to be used for interventions for your child forcing them into compliance toward those college and career ready standards. The techniques used under IDEA are called Response to Intervention, Response to Instruction, and sometimes called both, Response to Instruction and Intervention. [RTI] The waivers are everything in the main Re-Authorization of ESEA, but without the federal CHOICE to private and religious schools, However, Duncan and Obama put CHOICE as an intervention in the waiver. The waiver principles also calls for removing any principal or teacher that does not comply and puts in place extreme VAM value added measurement models for forcing the teachers to teach to the standards.
Total quality management for complete control of education. Please see my article entitled,
Obama’s Dream Come True, Nationalizing Education
Demand a Federal Investigation on FERPA, Family Education Rights in Privacy Act
3rd Party Contractors now have access to your child’s personally identifiable information, PII, because of the new definition of an authorized representative called a ” school official.” 3rd party contractors or vendors can apply for a written agreement that allows them to access PII. Also, the definition of personally identifiable information includes a biometric marker, definition below.
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(4)(A))
“Personally Identifiable Information”
The term includes, but is not limited to–
(a) The student’s name;
(b) The name of the student’s parent or other family members;
(c) The address of the student or student’s family;
(d) A personal identifier, such as the student’s social security number, student number, or biometric record;
(e) Other indirect identifiers, such as the student’s date of birth, place of birth, and mother’s maiden name;
(f) Other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty; or
(g) Information requested by a person who the educational agency or institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education record relates
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g)
“Record” means any information recorded in any way, including, but not limited to, hand writing, print, computer media, video or audio tape, film, microfilm, and microfiche.
Definition for biometric record:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(C), (b)(3), and (b)(5))
“Biometric record,” as used in the definition of “personally identifiable information,” means a record of one or more measurable biological or behavioral characteristics that can be used for automated recognition of an individual. Examples include fingerprints; retina and iris patterns; voiceprints; DNA sequence; facial characteristics; and handwriting.
President Obama’s Official Position for Unlocking Data
Demand a Federal Investigation on FERPA
Why Common Core is Wrong For America
By Anita Hoge
1. Power shift: The key aspect of Common Core is that it is a power shift away from the local level. Under teaching traditional education, locally elected school boards had the decision making authority over curriculum. Teachers had authority over what to teach in her/his classroom. Once a district accepted Race to the Top federal funds, standards were mandated. The Chief State School Officers, CCSSO and the National Governors Association copyrighted the Common Core. Local control is dissolved as standards controlled from the government dictate what is taught and what is learned. Common Core creates a national curriculum and a national test.
2. Standards are geared toward workforce skills: Common Core College and Career Citizenship Standards were developed and benchmarked by ACT [American College Testing] in 2003 before the copyright was brought forward by CCSSO and National Governors Association. The Department of Labor went into contract with ACT to develop workforce standards in the 1990’s in the SCANS documents. Secretaries Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills laid out the plans for ACT and the College Board to define the standards for workforce readiness. The standards include competencies that are basic [functional], thinking skills, and personal qualities. Personal qualities include psychological testing and interventions. CCSSO incorporated the personal qualities, dispositions into the Common Core. Attitudes and values will be tested, remediated, and is being developed in the research, development and dissemination (RD &D) in the Innovation Lab Network.
3. Opposite of traditional education: No competition-the bell curve is flattened. A standards based system of education is the opposite of traditional education. Traditional education is a floor, where Common Core is a ceiling. In traditional teaching, the teacher is in control of what is taught where the sky is the limit to teaching and learning. In Common Core, there are only a set of standards that the teacher is forced to teach which are monitored,evaluated, and controlled by the state, which was nationalized through a copyright, [CCSSO and NGA] being accepted nationwide. There is only a specific set of standards that will be taught and tested. Common Core creates a de-facto national curriculum with a national test currently being designed. [PARCC and Smarter Balanced and ACT Aspire]
4. Standardization: The Common Core copyright guarantees that the standards will be uniform in all 50 states. This standardization allows the business model to function, called total quality management. Every state had to also comply to a set of uniform data elements for data collection called a state longitudinal data system, on every student, every teacher, every principal, every superintendent, every school, every school district, every state. This cross referencing capability allows a decision making model to function where any person on the continuum can be pinpointed for evaluation, interventions, and compliance toward the standards.
5. Demands an individual education plan including attitudes, values, opinions, and dispositions that will be taught, tested, and remediated. The affective domain will be incorporated into Common Core Standards. The CCSSO and NAEP, National Assessment of Educational Progress, have incorporated dispositions into the Common Core. Response to Interventions, RTI, includes interventions into each child’s personal career plans to meet behavioral and emotional standards. These non-cognitive standards demand an individual career plan or personal opportunity plan for each individual student. [small letter iep]. This plan addresses all interventions needed for the student to meet government psychological outcomes for college and career readiness. These individual, personalized plans are called personal opportunity plans or career pathways for college and career readiness.
6. Total Quality Management: Grades will be eliminated [ABCDF]. Students meet outcomes, and if they don’t, they must go through intervention services. The Common Core is a business model that forces students to master outcomes and forces teachers into compliance of only teaching to the test. Students are evaluated through meeting standards not graded levels of achievement. No competition. A TQM system can link and identify any individual not complying to the standards. This is why each state had to have a state longitudinal system for tracking each individual in the school system: student, teacher, principal, superintendent, school, district, state. The key, no parent, school board, or state official has control of the standards. This is a top down system where decisions are made beyond the control of the elected at the local level.
7. Teacher pedagogy is primary focus: Teachers are held accountable and evaluated by VAM, value added measurement, or value added model, of how their students are tested not on how well they teach. Teachers are held captive to only teach to the national test. Therefore, teachers are forced to ‘teach to the test’ not what is best for their students. Traditional teachers are being dismissed and replaced by a troop of Teach for America newcomers, unexperienced and easily groomed for the new system. This is TQM. Teach to the test. Individual teachers will be monitored for compliance through accountability measures or be fired. Schools will also be monitored through accountability measure or be taken over by the state, academic bankruptcy or turnaround schools.
9. BF Skinner’s Operant Conditioning or Mastery Learning is used: In order to force ALL children to perform exactly the same on meeting standards, operant conditioning, Mastery Learning, must be used [BF Skinner] to control the outcomes. Functional literacy, teaching math and reading through mastery learning, following directions or reading to assemble an item is assumed to be functional. Operant conditioning does not have transference of cognitive abilities because of the Pavlovian aspect of training. If you command a trained dog to roll over and has never been taught that command, they just sit there. That is called not having transference. Transferring knowledge is essential for comprehension and true higher order thinking, not controlled thinking. Behavioral conditioning is used in the Common Core pilot districts, called Innovation Lab Network. Do not be deceived by the term higher order thinking, critical thinking skills, or deeper thinking.
10. Equity in Education: No more grade levels, no competition: Common Core levels the bell curve. There will no longer be grade delineations like sophomore, junior, and senior. Students will work at their own pace on a computer. Everyone is given the same curriculum. Everyone must meet the same standards, only some will move faster or slower through the process. Common Core identified the individual child for the federal government so that mandated programs and interventions will be funded from the federal level…Title I funds to identify and assess (test). IDEA funds (special Ed) will be used for interventions. The state longitudinal data system monitors individuals in the data collection for identification, analyzing, decision making, interventions, in a continual cycle called feedback loop control.
This is equity in education where all students will be forced to be the same. ESEA Flexibility Waivers will identify children ‘at risk’ under Title I. What is the definition of ‘at risk?’ Students not meeting outcomes. Poverty levels, free and reduced lunch, are removed so ALL children become Title I under schoolwide. Title I funding follows the child for equity in funding. This is the set up for future federal choice in education where ANY child can receive a federal stipend under Title I, when that child can go to any private or religious school taking their federal choice stipend with them in their backpack with their name on it. Therefore, federal CHOICE mandates that all schools must teach Common Core, private and religious schools, too. The ReAuthorization of ESEA has not been passed yet, although Republicans have attached these choice amendments to allow funding to follow the child, but Obama’s Flexibility Waivers have, by fiat, accomplished the same goal….accessing ALL CHILDREN through Title I. ALL SCHOOLS WILL BECOME GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS…if federal choice is passed in the ReAuthorization of ESEA.
Nationalizing Education in the United States.
Anita Hoge Interview with Charlotte Iserbyt About Common Core Standards and Total Quality Management
Anita Hoge – The End Game of Assessment – YouTube
► 70:05► 70:05
Click Here for Presentation
Mar 12, 2014 – Uploaded by Charlotte Iserbyt
SHARE! SHARE! SHARE! Those of us involved in the production of Exposing the Global Road to Ruin
Although, published in the mid1990’s, nothing explains Common Core Standards and the impact on teachers in the classroom, as this expose’ on the coming revolution in teacher education and teacher evaluation based on how well students perform on tests.
Common Core is not new. It is a revised, failed education system that has been systematically being forced on American students and American teachers since 1969, when NAEP began implementing a planned economy through education.