Reporting on Current Obama Education Policies

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:       Contact: Anita B Hoge 724-263-0474


Pennsylvanians Restoring Education

Pennsylvanians Against Common Core                   March 4, 2015


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.)


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, , Nov. 2012 – Kevin Houchin; Chief State School Officers, CCSSO, Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions, Feb. 2013,; ESEA Flexibility Waiver adds non-cognitive psychological standards to the Common Core Standards in Principle 6: NAEP – soft skills and affective domain,, 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.)


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: 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; 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. 


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;//;80/portal/

Pennsylvania Confidential Data Release;//;80/portal/

Pennsylvania Letter of Intent;//;80/portal/

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

Research Papers

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

The Common Core Face-off:
Hiding the Truth About Choice and Charter Schools.

“Those who have the privilege to know, have the duty to act.” Albert Einstein

Obama and ‘Conservative’ Groups Use Bait and Switch Tactics. They are using the momentum against Common Core to complete and further their agenda—“Choice” and Charter Schools.

The truth has uneasy consequences. ‘Conservatives’ and Republicans are revealing their so-called “Choice Plan” that mimics the Obama-Duncan Plan. In an article posted by the ‘conservative’ organization FreedomWorks, their entire proposed controversial agenda for “choice” in education demands rebuttal, discussion and dissection. The Einstein quote at the top of this article validates my decision to act on current documentation, explaining to the American people the danger that these ‘conservative groups’ represent to parents when they demand “choice.”

Republican Governors who say that Common Core is gone are using fraud and deception to further their cause. Their cause is government-controlled, taxpayer-funded “choice” and charter schools. Republicans are now conveniently using the slogan “No Common Core” as a litmus test—a popular hot button that will cue the Fall elections. But, are citizens and parents aware of where that path will take us? For example, see the following quote:

Common Core has emerged as the newest Republican litmus test for gauging candidates’ conservative bona fides, and experts say the controversial national education [Common Core] standard will help shape elections from school boards to the White House for the foreseeable future.
(See: link

This is the agenda that was divulged by FreedomWorks:

A draft action plan by the advocacy group FreedomWorks lays out the effort as a series of stepping stones: First, mobilize to strike down the Common Core. Then push to expand school choice by offering parents tax credits or vouchers to help pay tuition at private and religious schools. Next, rally the troops to abolish the U.S. Department of Education. Then it’s on to eliminating teacher tenure.
(See: Link)

Let me explain these real issues:

The ‘Anti-Common Core Movement’ is clouding the real issue. While states are thinking they have struck down Common Core, Obama is using the ESEA Flexibility Waivers to hide his real agenda—to Continue Common Core. Many ‘conservatives’ are—wittingly or unwittingly—helping Obama’s cause.

The move to “Strike Down Common Core” is a fake. It is a sophisticated machination to masquerade the real agenda embraced by ‘conservative’ groups who are working in tandem with the Obama Administration. “Race to the Top” and the Common Core Copyright made up the ‘foot in the door’ for standardizing the 50-state strategy. This was the first step towards nationalizing education—with national standards, a national test, and moving toward a national curriculum. Parents against Common Core are being used, especially by directing them to a new, easy answer to sidestep Common Core, i.e., government-controlled “choice.”

‘Conservative’ groups have told parents they can save their children from the federal government by supporting this “choice.” Little do these ‘new-to-the-system’ parents realize that they are being set up for a trap. Choice is that trap, and charter schools are right behind, for the bigger trap agenda. When this agenda becomes fully operational, parents will actually lose their voice. They will lose their vote in our representative form of government. There will be no true representation. The word “accountability” has meaning; it means being in compliance to federal law. You know, the federal strings attached to federal money. This fake “choice” is attached to federal strings.

What happens with Common Core? College and Career Ready Standards, or Workforce Readiness Skills, in a standards-based system will identify your child to the federal government as an individual future global worker. It doesn’t matter what name the standards use—it is within the power of the federal government to access your individual child through these individual standards. This plan was laid out by the U.S. Department of Labor in the Secretary’s Commission for Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) report way back in 1992. Obama has set out his plan through “Race to the Top,” his plan to nationalize education. This is also hidden in the ESEA Flexibility Waiver, called Title I (explained below). Here is the hard part for people to understand—the fact is that this same plan was also once called the Reagan Plan, the Clinton Plan, the Bush Plan, and the Romney Plan. Romney called for using Title I funds and IDEA, which is Special Education, the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act for school “choice.” (See: .)

Here is the plan, or let’s call it “The Big Picture”:

Individual standards are to be met by individual students, taught by individual teachers. Individual students must be taught with validated—approved and certified–curriculum. All three entities are controlled through “accountability”—the federal test. This triad–controlled standards, controlled teachers, and controlled curriculum–is the plan.

This 3-faceted plan controls the outcome—your child or student. The ‘Conservatives’’ plan is to fund individual children wherever they go to school, so this “choice” money “follows the child” and extends the accountability even to private and religious schools.

Both the Liberal and Conservative plans take advantage (profit from) the money-making schemes that result from the expansion of for-profit charter schools. Both sides of the political spectrum have plans that converge. They all want the same results—nationalizing education with federal control of ALL children, ALL teachers, ALL curriculum, and ALL schools or “knowledge-dispensing centers.” Oh, and by the way, they want your local tax base, too.

Here is how this plan will work:

It is all about Title I

The Obama Administration has given states ESEA Flexibility Waivers to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which is Bush’s No Child Left Behind legislation. ALL ESEA Flex Waivers require College and Career Ready Standards. What we have seen so far is deceptive. A state will withdraw from the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the copyright for Common Core, and then align Common Core into its own state standards when accepting the waiver.

But, parents must realize that Common Core has been transformed with a new name. The state will still conform to College and Career Ready Standards mandated by “Race to the Top” (RTTTT) funding, but further explained in these flexibility waivers. Particularly, these standards must go beyond language arts and math toward workforce readiness skills, which originally started as Common Core. Sometimes a state will include P20W, pre-natal through age 20, standards into the workforce training, expanding the K-12 agenda. (See, for example, “Oregon’s Common Core Goes P-20”: Link/ and Kentucky, too: Link

NOTE: The following pilot states—Ohio, Kentucky, Maine, West Virginia, Wisconsin, New York, New Hampshire, and Oregon—are redesigning their educational systems to correlate with federal standards called Innovation Lab Network, funded by the international Organization of Economic and Cultural Development (OECD), Lumina Foundation, and Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). CCSSO is the group that copyrighted the Common Core Standards along with the National Governors Association.

Oklahoma’s passage of House Bill 3399, that supposedly removed Common Core Standards, stated this in their bill,

Upon the effective date of this act, the State Board of Education shall seek certification from the State Regents for Higher Education that the subject matter standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics which were in place prior to the revisions adopted by the Board in June 2010 are college-and career-ready as defined in the Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Flexibility document issued by the United States Department of Education….
[emphasis added]

Oh no! The legislature put Common Core into law through their Flex Waiver! Governor Fallin is the Chairman of the National Governors Association (the other group that copyrighted the Common Core Standards). Oklahoma now calls their standards “Oklahoma Academic Standards,” and on the front of their Flex Waiver called their agenda “C3, College, Career, Citizenship Standards”—exactly the same as the CCSSO were calling it–to expand the standards to include dispositions, or attitudinal and value standards. We can assume that these standards will include testing and interventions in the non-cognitive domain. (See: Link )

Indiana’s supposed departure from Common Core is referred to as the “grand deception.” Indiana’s HB 1427 states

Provides that the state board shall implement educational standards that use the common core standards as the base model for academic standards to the extent necessary to comply with federal standards to receive a Flexibility Waiver.
[emphasis added]

South Carolina’s bill, H3893, to stop Common Core and the Smarter Balanced Test states

The summative assessment must assess students in English/language arts and mathematics, including those students as required by the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and by Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. For purposes of this subsection, ‘English/language arts’ includes English, reading, and writing skills as required by existing state standards.
[emphasis added]

Existing state standards? You guessed it! Common Core. Do you see a pattern here? This has happened in several states where Common Core is most controversial. While parents believe Common Core is gone, little do they know those standards were just embedded in the ESEA Title I Flexibility Waivers signed by your state’s secretary or superintendent of education. Unfortunately, Oklahoma, Indiana, and South Carolina have taken the bait. Common Core is still there, with other new forceful accountability measures, like Value Added Models (VAM), to be sure teachers are teaching Common Core, and interventions using special education funds from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) called “Response to Intervention.” RtI is used for ALL students to make sure they are covered by IDEA to meet Common Core Standards.

The Plan to Use Title I to Expand School Choice to Private and Religious Schools

How will EVERY child become Title I? President Johnson’s “War on Poverty” gave schools funding, called ESEA Title I, to help those schools where there were concentrations of students who were poor. Interestingly enough, the term was “educationally deprived.” So, the issue with the ESEA Flexibility Waiver is that the poverty guidelines were removed. This means that children who qualified for free and reduced lunches, where a school had to have 40% of students that qualified under poverty guidelines, are now in a school where that requirement is reduced to “0%.” This means ALL individual children in an entire school can receive federal ESEA Title I funds for EVERY child: the funds “follow the child.”

This means that a child is considered “educationally deprived” if he/she does not meet standards. Interestingly, the ‘Conservative’ organization American Legislative Exchange Counsel, (ALEC) just released model legislation for choice and charter schools for every state in the country. They refer to students not meeting standards with the term “academically disadvantaged.” This is what is needed to move forward with federal “choice.” EVERY child must be identified for “choice” funds, no matter where they go to school. Obama has done this through the ESEA Flexibility Waiver.

Now that ALL children in public school are Title I, the Republicans can take over from here. They want “choice” [those Title I funds] for EVERY student who goes to private and religious schools, too! This is a terrible bait and switch deception for those parents and citizens who think that choice means freedom of choice for private and religious education! This is not freedom, nor true choice.

Where is the federal “choice” agenda now? ESEA Re-authorization Is held up by Senator Reid… at the moment.

The Re-authorization of ESEA is the bill in Congress that changes how funding will now follow the child. The Republicans in the House of Representatives added “choice” amendments to the ESEA Re-authorization in HR 5 that can “follow the child” with Title I funds into any private or religious school. This passed the House in July of 2013. The Democrats, on the Senate side, voted to have SB 1094 come out of committee, but it has not been brought up for an entire Senate vote. SB 1094 wants Title I funds to follow the child to any public or charter school. But, Obama’s Flexibility Waivers are doing most of that job already without the passage of the Re-authorization of ESEA legislation. Obama supports “choice” in the Flexibility Waivers in public schools. The passage of the entire ESEA package (with Republican amendments in conference committee using federal “choice” funding) will allow federal Title I funds to be attached to your child, to have the “choice” to go to any school, anywhere. This is the legislation that Obama and the ‘Conservative’ groups want to pass for federal “choice” to become a reality.

WARNING! There are strings attached! Title I Choice funds can be connected to your child to go to any charter, private or religious school you choose. Obama wants “equity” in education. This means the same amount of money for every child with federal accountability strings attached. The compromise will be “choice” for everyone, potentially even home schoolers. There will be no differences in schools anywhere, nationalizing education in the United States through “choice” and Common Core—all will have to “drink the Kool-Aid.” That’s what “equity in education” means. All schools will become government schools under the Re-authorization of ESEA. You get “choice.” But they control all the schools!

Here is the Set-up

Lets say the Re-authorization of ESEA is passed with the “choice” amendments. Your child has already been identified by the national database through the state longitudinal data system. Your child has been identified for funding under Title I because of the Flex Waiver. Now, with this “choice” the Title I funds will ” follow” your child to whichever school you choose.

Here is an example of what can happen once your child has the “choice” funds in his/her backpack, with their name allotted to the scholarship, and you (the parent) decide to use this “choice” funding to send your child to Immaculate Conception Catholic School in Washington, Pennsylvania. This school will be mandated by federal law to comply with ESEA, better known as Common Core. This will be disguised as academic standards or College and Career Ready Standards (CCRS). Under this sort of “choice,” there can be no discrimination for this Catholic school to turn down a student. [NOTE: This changes the hope that a private school can bypass this issue by just refusing federal funding. The private school must refuse the child. This is where discrimination comes into play.] So, Immaculate Conception must enroll your child. This would be the same for any private school or religious school.

Immaculate Conception will be mandated to administer the federal test. This national test will also evaluate the teachers. If Immaculate Conception School is not teaching Common Core, they will be targeted as a priority or focus school to be brought into compliance with the law. This will be the demise of “private” in your group of “choice” schools. This will be the end of truly private education in America, because your private or religious school just became a government school—it must use the standards passed in your state (Common Core warmed over), and take the assessment aligned to the national curriculum and national test. All schools become government schools with “choice.”

Is This the End of Public Schools?

Now, what happens to the old public school that your child just left? Your old public school will struggle. Your local district must pay for at least 50% of your child’s stipend or scholarship with taxes collected locally so that your child can go to another school. Your federal Title I “Choice” fund pays the other 50%. Your public school loses 100% of funding for every student who leaves to go to a “choice” school. Your public school system locally will collapse, because there will not be enough money in the budget to support your community’s school. Plus, your tax money will be following students everywhere, even across state lines.

Your locally elected school directors will be fired or retired. What happens to “voting” for locally elected representatives? What happens to your tax base, to property taxes that were collected to run your neighborhood school? Where will property taxes go if there are no public schools? What happens to wealthier districts if funding for students becomes equalized? This is the “punch in the gut” that Secretary Duncan was talking about when he chastised soccer moms that were against Common Core. (See: Link)

Meanwhile, everyone is fiddling around with Common Core, states are taking the caps off the number of charter schools, expanding them, closing down public schools, and sometimes transforming a public school into a charter school. Parent trigger bills are allowing parents to set up charter schools. Charter schools are not private schools. Charters are public schools. They have no elected boards, but they do have access to public funds.

A June 24, 2014 article in the Detroit Free Press explains the powerless authority of a Charter School Board when told, “none of the board’s business” as to how the school was run. (See:link

“In its investigation into how Michigan’s charter schools perform and spend nearly $1
billion a year in taxpayer dollars, the Free Press found board members who were kept
clueless by their management companies about school budgets or threatened and
removed by a school’s authorizer when they tried to exercise the responsibilities that
come with their oath of office. Board members removed by an authorizer have no
recourse in Michigan.”
“There have been board members who have basically said, ‘We tried to make changes,
we tried to instill our rights as board members overseeing a public school’ and were
essentially told to back off,” said Casandra Ulbrich, vice president of the state Board of
Education, which sets education policy and advises lawmakers. “You have to
question who’s really running the show here because technically and legally, it’s
supposed to be the board.” In traditional school districts, with elected boards,
members can’t be removed for asking tough questions. Voters get to decide
whether to re-elect a board member.”
[emphases mine]

By supporting the Common Core agenda you have just agreed to diminish our American representative form of government by supporting “choice” and charter schools. Taxation without representation. Will taxes be centralized or regionalized toward a central base? Will the people have any power or voice to change this system?

So, think again. “What is your choice?” Charter schools, private schools, religious schools, and remaining public schools—all conforming to the ESEA federal law with Common Core embedded in the standards. Your state will continue to reduce caps on charter schools, and some public schools will become community “hub centers” or school-based clinics. And lest you forget, SB 1094 also changed the definition of a “Family Member.” You, the parent are demoted to a “partner” who is responsible for your child along with many “other” government officials. Please do an Internet search for the definition of partnership. You won’t like it when the government takes away your authority as a parent, your voice and your representative voting power is lost forever and your child belongs to the state, with reduced in authority to “partner.” And if your child moves to another city or state to go to a school more suited to his/her abilities and can produce more “human capital” from your child, who will “partner” with him/her there?

Will these ‘Conservative’ groups and Obama give you the straight talk about ESEA and ESEA Flexibility Waivers? Will they tell you the truth about what will happen to your private, Catholic, or Christian school with federal “choice”? No! They are NOT talking about it! They continue to insist that “choice” is the answer. Keep in mind that there is a profit motive for many of these groups to continue to advocate this phony “choice.”

What Will Happen if the U.S. Department of Education is Abolished?

So, what about abolishing the U.S. Department of Education? Watch the switcheroo!

Who better to monitor human capital than the U.S. Department of Labor? Plus, another aspect of SB 1094 (Re-authorization of ESEA) is that they want a national assessment board that monitors compliance to the national test, most likely the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Well, this “appointed” commission was the plan all along, too.

The Gordon Commission has already been set up by Obama and the Educational Testing Service (ETS),the contractor for NAEP, which calls for an unelected board to manage the national test. Want to talk about top down control? Why not just use the U.S. Department of Labor to monitor the “human capital” (your child’s economic value to the state) that is being processed by all schools in America? The national testing, along with the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES), will monitor compliance from the national database on ALL aspects of education.

Who needs the U.S. Department of Education? Who needs state control of funding when Title I federal funds “follow the child” and do NOT pass through state government? Who needs locally elected school boards when public schools fail?

CEO Reed Hastings of Netflix, who is a big charter school supporter and an investor in the Rocketship Education charter school network, agrees. His big idea is to “kill” elected school boards. “At a meeting of the California Charter Schools Association on March 4, he said in a keynote speech that the problem with public schools is that they are governed by elected local school boards.” (See: Link

Effectively, this charter school system destroys representative government.

Why the System Needs Traditional Teachers Out of the Way

Traditional teachers must be gotten rid of. The Vergara case in Los Angeles ruled teacher tenure unconstitutional, and it serves as the precedent doing away with teacher tenure. Soon you will see lawsuits erupting all over the country against teacher tenure with the Obama gang members presiding. (See: link

Teachers unions are girding for a tough fight to defend tenure laws against a coming blitz
of lawsuits — and an all-out public relations campaign led by former aides to President
Barack Obama.

But, wait a minute! Wasn’t that the so-called ‘conservative’ FreedomWorks agenda? So, now you know the rest of the story. Who is on whose side?

Teachers will be manipulated to leave the education system through the Value-Added Measurement Model (VAMM) incorporated into the ESEA Fexibility Waiver. Teachers will be evaluated by how their students score on the national test. Teachers MUST teach to the test, and must be evaluated with the Charlotte Danielson Evaluation, spelled out in the Flex Waivers. [NOTE: Charlotte Danielson was an official with the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory during development of the original Course Goals Collection, the forerunner of Outcome-Based Education and the Common Core.] All curriculum used will be developed with total alignment to the standards aligned system (SAS), which matches curriculum, teaching, and testing to the standards. Teachers must perform and teach the standards, period.

Removing teacher tenure easily allows traditional teachers who know what is best for children, to be replaced if they do not conform to the Common Core agenda. The Flexibility Waiver is very clear about replacing the principals and the teachers not in compliance. Young, inexperienced Teach For America members are standing on the sidelines ready to jump at the chance to replace traditional teachers. Eager and committed, they will comply with the plan.

All barriers are now removed for federal takeover.

A Little Background on Choice

When the controversy exploded in the 1990’s over Outcome Based Education (OBE), the education bureaucrats did not expect the explosion of fury from parents against OBE and the subjective learning outcomes that were trying to be placed in every state at that time. OBE failed. The bureaucrats have gotten smarter, but very little else has changed.

Copyright the standards, call them academic, and align them to “Race to the Top” funds so every state could be the same. Change Title I in ESEA for every child to be funded the same, equity in education. Test every child to see where their weaknesses are in meeting standards that were expanded to values and attitudes. Then use Special Ed funds for remediation or intervention to meet those standards. Monitor and force teachers to teach the standards, and implement choice to throw the net over everyone. Here was the sentiment then, as it is now:

“TO OBE OR NOT TO OBE?” WAS THE QUESTION POSED BY MARJORIE LEDELL, ASSOCIATE of William Spady’s in his High Success Network in her article for Educational Leadership’s January 1994 issue. On page 18 of her article we read the following:

Finally, raise the real issue and depend on democracy. Don’t let “to OBE
(common core) or Not to OBE (common core)” or “to implement or not implement efforts to improve student learning” cloud the overdue national debate about whether public education should exist or be replaced with publicly funded private education.

[Emphasis added. OBE quote taken from the deliberate dumbing down of america. By Charlotte T. Iserbyt.]

Sorry, FreedomWorks. Freedom doesn’t work this way.

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.


PII Definition:

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

Obama Unlocks 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

Click Here For Entire Interview

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


Teacher, Teacher, I Declare

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.

Healthcare, Education and Labor