Reporting on Current Obama Education Policies

Common Core Global Communion Part I
Background On Testing Global Subjective Standards

Pennsylvania EQA, Educational Quality Assessment, the test that I filed my federal complaint against, was the model for the NAEP, National Assessment for Educational Progress. The NAEP Civic Frameworks of today continue to test the same dispositions as were developed in the EQA. Ditto that for the workforce standards. Ditto that for the new degree for Higher Education. Pennsylvania was the “affective” test for the nation that tested attitudes and values. Responsible Citizenship was not what normal Americans thought was being measured and taught. The government goal was to collect information on the individual and the family. But, how do you measure and score a standard like honesty or integrity in our free society? We must ask these questions to clarify when measuring workforce skills and values, what will the standard be… what will be taught? What is the cut-off for how much honesty, integrity, and responsibility that a student needs to graduate? Liberals as well as conservatives should be very concerned about the manipulation and psychoanalyzing that comes with vague and subjective standards. Here is why!

EQA and NAEP background questions were always asked in the beginning of the test to categorize your family: books in the home, education of parent, race, do you own a computer, college education of the parent, salary of father, salary of mother, do you like to study, all related to as conditions or variables. There were also over 300 questions on values, 30 in math, 30 in reading analogies.

Deception, betrayal, and using our children as guinea pigs was the only way the behavioral educrats could access our kids. The educrats got away with this subversive agenda for a long time by deceptively using words and phrases you would agree with. There were 10 Pennsylvania Quality Goals in 1965 that were taken from the 10 Cardinal Principles of the NEA from 1913. The goals were expanded to 12 in later years including: communication skills, mathematics, science and technology, citizenship, arts and humanities, analytical thinking, family living, work, health, environment, self-esteem, and understanding others. Every goal and stated objectives could be taken from Blooms Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Pennsylvania was the pilot in the affective domain for the world. Lets look at one of the goals, Citizenship.

Tempest in a Test: the Pennsylvania EQA, the model test for measuring attitudes and values for World Citizenship.

The top behavioral scientists of the world were in Pennsylvania in 1965 formulating the Pennsylvania EQA which was the model for the national test, NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress.)The Advisory Standing Committee included: Urie Bronfenbrenner, Cornell University; Warren Findley, University of Georgia; Joshua Fishman, Yeshiva University; Eric Gardner, Syracuse University; David Krathwohls, Michigan State University; Robert Thorndike, Colombia University; Melvin Tumin, Princeton; Ralph Tyler, Palo Alto, UCLA, along with ETS, Educational Testing Service. ESEA was the federal funding that secretly moved this agenda along.

Pennsylvania Goal:Citizenship. Quality education should help every child acquire the habits and attitudes associated with responsible citizenship.”

We can ALL agree to the idea in this goal, but, what you, as an American, thought was really being measured, was totally opposite. The information that follows about the testing is scientific and complicated, but important. Please bear with me while I try to explain what B F Skinner was all about and how the social engineers above, went about the task of measuring our children’s attitudes and values. I have the tests and the scoring materials. Lets dig in….but hold onto your hats.The following quote was taken from the Pennsylvania Resource manual, “Getting Inside the EQA Inventory,”

The National Assessment of Educational Progress developed 9 citizenship objectives. These national objectives were used to provide a frame of reference for what was to be measured. Objectives in the factual domain, knowing structure of government or understanding problems of international relations were not considered in developing the scale. Arriving at a satisfactory definition of citizenship was much less complicated than applying the definition to the assessment of students’ attitudes and behaviors. The display of responsible citizenship behaviors like honesty or integrity are most often situational. A person’s display of good citizenship under one set of motivating conditions tells us little about the way he or she can be expected to act if those conditions are altered. The context in which the behavior is elicited therefore becomes at least as important in determining the outcome as the preposition of the individual involved.”

“To assess citizenship, a behavior-referenced model incorporating elements related to the psychological notion of threshold is used. In reference to citizenship, threshold refers to that set of conditions necessary to bring about the desired responses. Thus by varying the situation & introducing conditions of reward & punishment, we are able to determine the cutoff levels at which the student will display positive behavior. In this way it is possible to assess not only the students’ predisposition to behave in a manner consistent with responsible citizenship but also to provide some measure of intensity of that predisposition across a wide spectrum of situations.”>br/>

Betrayal and Deception. Let me remind you that positive behavior was the government desired responses, not what you as a citizen might think. Thresholds were being tested by reward and punishment. This is BF Skinner to the MAX. This was the only way the federal government could do its research on unassuming children at our neighborhood schools. EQA was really the national test. Parents were uninformed. Teachers were uninformed. The federal Department of Education has been testing attitudes and values of your children for years and monitoring behavior change.
Let’s define predisposition: Noun: A liability or tendency to suffer from a particular condition, hold a particular attitude, or act in a particular way. Synonyms: inclination, tendency, propensity, proclivity

The test questions were hypothetical situations or ‘social situations’ in which the students were asked to decide what they would do or what action they would take. Each story had 3 items which listed positive or negative consequences resulting from the action. There were 3 sub-scale objectives which were used to SCORE the behaviors to a minimum positive desired response according to the government;

The Science of Scoring Attitudes and Values Toward Collectivism: What Was the Government Looking For: Read The Question Carefully. Look at the Sub-Scales.>br/>

NAEP Sub-Scales
(1)willingness to protest unfair treatment, tendency to accept new members into a group, degree of restraint from teasing or degrading others and concern for others feelings
(2) willingness to report law breaking of others, obey authorities during emergencies, prevent
classroom disruptions, restraint from violence to harm others or damage property
(3) personal responsibility and integrity, willingness to honor self made commitments to individuals or groups, willingness to take responsibility for one’s own mistakes, report mistakes made in one’s favor.

Citizenship Question On the Test

20130903-225446.jpg

20130903-225830.jpg

Situations were used for the student to respond to. The answers were “yes, maybe, no.” One story is about Midnight Artists that go out late at night and vandalize. The student is placed in a vandalizing situation and made to roll play in the first person, and asked if they personally would join the club to vandalize.

The first question is, ” in this situation I would join the club when I knew,” ‘my best friend had asked me to join’. Scoring to sub-scale #3, what is your willingness to honor self-made commitments to individuals or groups; you got 1 point for yes, (I would join the club if my best friend would join,) 0 points for no. If the student said ” No” I would not go out to vandalize with their best friend, that is a weakness, that student got a zero because there was not a willingness to commit to a best friend. Thresholds measure at what point your child will act. The sub-scale was looking for your loyalty to your best friend. So the government desired answer was “Yes” you would go out to vandalize if your best friend was going to do it. Everything was geared to group goals and group action.

The 2nd question is the same sub-scale, I would join the club when…’most of the popular students in school joined the club’, both positive reinforcements. What is your commitment to the group: 1 point for yes, 0 for no.

The 3rd question is interesting using a negative reinforcement. I would join the club when…’my parents would ground me if they found out I joined’. In this response, Skinner would want to know if punishment is incurred, will the student obey. The correct response is ‘no’. You got 1 point for no, 0 for yes. In this question, the government was looking for obedience to authority. The idea of collecting this particular information from this question on the student, explains what personality tendency the student has and will the student respond to punishment. The idea is to get information on the disposition of the student in differing situations, obedience….What would you do if? (Re-read the NAEP objectives on dispositions. You will begin to understand. The government is looking for information. )

So, you see, if your school had enough students that portrayed ‘weaknesses,’ ( that they wouldn’t go out to vandalize with a friend or a group of friends,) that was a target for specific curriculum to begin behavior change. Noble sounding goals would be used to hoodwink the parents while a sinister deceptive test was being used to develop an analysis that measured attitudes and behavior to find out how a person would act in certain situations. Citizenship was defined as measuring compliance to group goals & group action. The Skinnerian agenda measured the personality of the child according to a minimum positive attitude according to what the government standard was, which was scored toward collectivism, group think. They are measuring what you, as parents, have taught your children. Remember, this was only one goal. There were 11 others goals that tested the psychological profiles of your family and your child. (Remember, this was the test my son came home and said the test was weird. This is where my journey began fighting Outcome Based Education.)

20130903-230621.jpg

20130903-230846.jpg

When a controversial activity shows up in your school, it is not by accident. Or, oh gee, we’re sorry, that wasn’t OK’d by the school board. Your school was pinpointed by research to receive curriculum to change the students in your school by the government scored tests for interventions and school improvement. Unfortunately, parents are usually upset about certain books being used or a specific activity. These controversial activities count. Little do the parents know that it’s more, a complete transformation of education. What I’m describing is the total ball of wax.



Leave a Reply