Reporting on Current Obama Education Policies

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 – 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

Demand an Investigation into FERPA and the Illegal Access to Your Child’s Personally Identifiable Information

Why your support is needed and why I’m asking for your action today.

We must immediately request a federal investigation into the amended regulations of FERPA, Family Education Rights in Privacy Act.

Education has been used to set up data trafficking of personally identifiable information in the United States. Our rights are being trampled on. Your children and grandchildren will be at an incredible risk in the future as federal legislation is being prepared that changes how we teach our children. These are the changes: There will be no more grades like A,B,C,D or F; Curriculum will not be based on academics; Dispositions and values will be tested and remediated; Competition will be eliminated; Grade levels will be eliminated; The school year will no longer be based on 180 days; Your locally elected school board will become obsolete.

Your child must meet government standards which includes changing your child toward socialistic values. Data is given to large foundations and corporations for free so they can develop testing, curriculum, and software to change your child toward government approved attitudes and values which is a violation of your individual freedom.

Most people, including our legislators, do not know that FERPA, Family Education Rights in Privacy Act, has changed. Your family privacy is NOT protected. Your child’s personally identifiable information is being given out for FREE to large corporations to research how to “change your child into global citizens.”

Our plan is to open a privacy investigation and expose the release of this personal information to foundations, organizations, non-profits, and businesses that will profit from your children’s data. The amended FERPA regulations were issued without Congressional oversight. Obama has issued an Executive Order to change how the government and what the government collects on families. This would be a huge shakeup in the Department of Education IF we can have hundreds, thousands of people make requests to initiate an investigation into the expanded FERPA regulations that exceeded their statutory authority and are contrary to law. We could STOP the illegal rampant research on individual children in proposed legislation of the reauthorization of federal legislation, ESEA, Title I, and Special Education funds, IDEA, that will be used to fund remediation of your child’s attitudes, values, and dispositions. Your action could put a huge wrench in the cogs of our unruly Department of Education.

Please help. Your urgent action is needed. There are 2 steps. Step 1 is a letter to your Congressman and Senator for a federal investigation. Step 2 is a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request through your Congressman and Senator for contracts and agreements that will expose who has access to your child’s personally identifiable information unknown to you or our legislators. Questions are added at the end of this article that must be answered.
Please contact ALL of your legislators TODAY!

STEP 1

Dear Honorable_________

I am requesting a federal investigation into the Family Education Rights in Privacy Act, (FERPA) amended regulations that went into effect January, 2012. It is my understanding that there was no Congressional authorization to expand the FERPA regulations. It is also my understanding that there are certain sections of these FERPA regulations that ALLOW for redisclosed personally identifiable information to be released because of a new definition for “school officials.” The new definition now allows outside vendors, contractors, non-profits, corporations, and businesses to access our children’s personally identifiable information without informed written parental permission and they may also receive it without any monetary expenditure.

Redisclosure is also allowed to organizations conducting studies for, or on behalf of, educational agencies or institutions to develop, validate, or administer predictive tests and/or to improve instruction.

The extraordinary circumstances of this redisclosure of private information with the “unlocking” of this data will ultimately benefit these corporations and businesses when the information used to research and develop assessments, curriculum, digital software, and teacher training is sold back to our states and local districts. This is appalling. The invasion of privacy of our children and our families is without recourse. This must be stopped.

The trafficking of this information is an invasion of privacy and is unknown to most parents and legislators. But more important, this data is being proposed to be used to develop personalized software career modules and assessments for measuring specific behavioral changes on individual students proposed in the Common Core College and Career Ready Standards that recently included the measurement of values and dispositions. This invasion of privacy becomes an invasion of freedom. Collecting the information is one breach of law. But, the development of techniques and software to change my individual child’s attitudes, values, and beliefs is a breach of monumental concern in these United States and violates personal freedom.

I have attached a list of documents that must be requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), so that you may validate who the vendors, non-profits, and businesses are that currently have access to our children’s personally identifiable information in written agreements with the U.S. Department of Education and states involved in testing consortiums.

I will anxiously await your reply to these serious concerns and request that a federal investigation into FERPA is done immediately. Please take steps to ensure that our children are protected. All data transfer must be frozen until the investigation is closed.
I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,
Your Name

STEP 2

Request a Freedom of Information Act, (FOIA) from your US Congressman and Senator for the names of all foundations, contractors, organizations, non-profits, businesses, etc, who have access to and use Personally Identifiable Information, PII. The FOIA list is as follows:

Freedom of Information Act Requests

RE: Redisclosure of Personally Identifiable Information on Students According to 99.31 of the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, FERPA (Unknown to Parents and Legislators)

Request the Cooperative Agreements, Memorandums of Understanding, and/or any Written Agreements to be able to access PII, personally identifiable information, between the US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, or Office of Science and Technology and the following:

Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers, PARCC, and
Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium

Florida acting as the fiscal agent for each of the states in the PARCC consortium and Achieve, Inc as project management partner

Washington state acting as the negotiating partner for each state in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and WestEd, the project management partner

States using the American College Testing, ACT (Aspire, Explore, or Plan,) and/or Pearson, Inc. to measure Common Core Standards

Contractors who have been given redisclosed PII on students to develop curriculum, computer adaptive digital software, and/or any testing development. These “school officials” may be identified as private sector contractors, consultants, volunteers, or other parties to whom an agency or institution has outsourced services or functions, including, non-profit organizations, corporations, or businesses to do experimental research, develop curriculum and/ or computer adaptive resources for individual students. These contractors may include Microsoft, Pearson, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Educational Testing Service, ACT and The Center for Disease Control.

Request the purchase agreement and amount for each written agreement between any “school official” and the US Department of Education, PARCC, and/or Smarter Balanced Assessment, for the purchase of obtained redisclosed data on personally identifiable information, PII, on individual students to develop curricula or computer digital programming or experimental testing materials.

Request any Requests for Proposal, RFP, or Written Agreements between any private sector working group, defined as a “school official” in FERPA, 99.31, including PARCC, Smarter Balanced Assessment, Wested, or Achieve, ACT or ETS, who are developing and expanding Common Core Standards to new individualized criteria to ” improve instruction”, called, CCCR, College Career Citizenship Readiness, in which Citizenship measures dispositions and attitudes.

Request any memorandums of understanding or cooperative agreements to test and measure disposition test items that are ” difficult to measure” according to Race to the Top grants that may infringe on personal privacy rights and violate federal law for redisclosing psychological information without informed written parental consent.

Research using data on individuals as identifiers for interventions for changing dispositions or “improving instruction,” without the informed written consent of the parent violating privacy laws, personal liberty, and illegal access to mental health criteria.

Request sample test items or test blueprints with scoring criteria that will measure dispositions, values, and non-cognitive areas in the new College Career Citizenship Ready Standards, CCCR, that are being introduced to the Common Core Standards by the CCSSO, ETS, and the Gordon Commission.

Questions that your Senator and Congressman must find answers to:

1. Do these contractors pay for the data on our children? Are they using the data to make a profit? Example, are contractors developing testing, software, or curriculum that must be paid for by the taxpayer when they get our children’s data for free? Most businesses PAY for lists of people and are very expensive.

2. Experts in tax law say that non-profit organizations like ACT, a testing contractor, the Pearson Foundation, as well as, their partnership with the Gates Foundation who are creating “a full series of digital instruction resources,” appear to be using their tax exempt foundations to push their business interests. Is this a violation of the federal tax code? How many other non-profit organizations are using this data for profit?

“The program ACT is rolling out, in partnership with leading global education company Pearson, also emphasizes improving the way educators use data from assessments in teaching. Erickson says many teachers now administer tests and evaluations without knowing how to interpret and use the results to students’ benefits.”
Source:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alisongriswold/2012/07/24/college-and-career-prep-to-start-in-the-third-grade/

3. Is the datum on individuals, which will assuredly be used for the personalized education modules in the new proposed ESEA (Title I) regulations and new special education (IDEA) regulations being proposed, paid for as Intellectual Property to that individual, since a profit will be made on their information that is collected without their consent or the consent of the parent? Is your child a commodity for their personal data to be sold without your permission and without reasonable compensation? These proposed regulations will have federal dollars ” follow the child”.

4. Data trafficking between the Department of Education and other outside contractors may contribute to violations of Cyber Security Laws when redisclosure of personally identifiable data is shared and does NOT request informed written parental permission of uses.

5. It’s NOT about academics. What type of data is being collected by the testing contractors? ACT, a testing contractor, states that it is testing the “whole child”. Is psychological information being collected to produce curriculum for ” behavior change” ? The CCSSO has added dispositions to the Common Core Standards. Is it illegal to transfer “mental health” information without the informed written permission of the parent?

“The assessment would look beyond academics to get a complete picture of the whole student,” stated Jon Erickson of ACT. “There would be interest inventories for students, as well as assessment of behavioral skills for students and teachers to evaluate.”
Source:
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/college_bound/2012/07
act_plans_to_roll_out_career_and_college_readiness_tests_for_3rd-10th_grades.html
Source
http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/ILN%20Knowledge%20Skills%20and%20Dispositions%20CCR%20Framework%20February%202013.pdf

6. Freeze all data transfer. Demand an investigation into the FERPA illegal dissemination of personally identifiable information from the Department of Education regarding these possible violations of privacy. Carbon copy everyone. Legislators, newspapers, privacy organizations, internet outlets.

Common Core Global Communion PART 2
Democratic Engagement-The New Term for Global Citizenship Beginning at Birth Through College

Once the envy of the world, the brightest, most productive, creative, economic power the world has ever known, the United States will fall to its knees. Not because we don’t have smart citizens, because we have indoctrinated citizens who have had heavy doses of psychological manipulation and mastery learning and cooperative education since kindergarten. Remember, Common Core Standards identify Johnny in the classroom, and federal funding, ESEA Title I and IDEA (Special Ed), (HR 5 plus SB 1094), proposed by the Obama administration, the Democratic held Senate, and the Republicans pushing Charter Schools and Choice to individualize educational plans for EACH student, there will no longer be doses of manipulation. It will be constant manipulation by computer programming and Master Teachers, no matter how long it takes. Different models have kids graduating from high school at the age of 19, 20 or older. More indoctrination will be needed before those students are released as global workers, but the indoctrination must begin at birth.

Cradle to Age 21

Remember, it doesn’t matter that your child is smart or has a high IQ…what matters is the right attitudes and values. Benjamin Bloom’s “whole child theory” of teaching, which is challenging the student’s fixed beliefs, includes the affective domain and must be taught from early ages to change American thoughts and values. SB 1094 calls for testing ‘across domains,’ the whole child, values included starting at birth.This is why the Pennsylvania EQA is so important. The test, which was a model for the nation, shows you exactly what is wanted in the future citizen. This is why ACT, who developed Work Keys for career readiness, is creating career tests for Kindergarten. (“Five Year Old Put to the Test as Kindergarten Exams Gain Steam”, by Stepheny Simon, Rueters,9-25-2012.) The earlier, the better, to mold cookie cutter kids ready to bow to the master plan after years of indoctrination. Career training for Kindergarten? Really? This is the “cradle to grave” indoctrination being put in place.

The Obama administration accelerated the trend in 2011 with a $500 million competitive grant to bolster early childhood education. States that pledged to assess all kindergarten kids earned extra points on their application. The Obama administration grant guidelines encouraged states to develop holistic assessments that measure a 5- year olds social, emotional, and physical development as well as their cognitive skills ( the whole child). About a dozen states including Georgia and Maryland have developed such broad assessments according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Now, Obama is proposing paying for pre-school for early detection and molding of attitudes and values. Attitudes and values are NOT so hardened or fixed if caught in early years. Senate Bill 1094 starts funding at birth through age 21.

Lately, the interesting thing about the education establishment is that they are sometimes blatantly saying what they are doing. The public is just not catching on as clearly can be seen in this article, “ACT to Roll Out Career and College Readiness Tests for 3rd-10th Grades” By Caralee Adams on July 2, 2012, Ed Week Oct 9 2012, “The assessment would look beyond academics to get a complete picture of the whole student,” he says ( Jon Erickson, the president of education for ACT, the Iowa City, Iowa-based nonprofit testing company.) “There would be interest inventories for students, as well as assessment of behavioral skills for students and teachers to evaluate.” This statement tells you a lot about the agenda.

Yes, each state is agreeing to the agenda of the Common Core Standards, as well as, all testing that is aligning to the NAEP. Standardization and accountability will be aligned internationally as the Bologna model strives to undermine our colleges and universities with their indoctrination.

Civic Education and Democratic Engagement is being taught in the United States as Global Citizenship-the dismantling of the idea of patriotism, individuality, and greatness in the world. Will American students bite the bait of indoctrination that our country is on the same level as other countries and to merge with other nations? Does the “Occupy” movement understand the implications? Do young voters know the consequence of changing the American concept of freedom? Lets hope so. The goal…acceptance of a global new world order. We are a nation at risk.

The Degree Qualification Profile-A New University Diploma-What College Students Must Know and Be Able To Do in Order to Graduate in Higher Ed-With International Standards

While the Common Core is sweeping the nation, HR 5 and SB 1094 will ultimately fund the take-over of education in the United States. Colleges appear to be the next target for the future to change and mold young adult student attitudes. Civic Engagement is on the move to redefine “quality” to be sure ALL college students are drawn into the agenda. The updated proposal to control higher education by providing compatible and comparable international benchmarking is escalating toward the international Bologna Model. Pilot projects are being implemented now in three states as models…Indiana, Minnesota, and Utah. The Bologna model refers to “tuning”. Tuning means matching US standards to the European international standards model. As of today, many colleges are turning a deaf ear to this model, thankfully. But the international push is on. You can be sure that NAEP, National Assessment of Educational Progress, and its international clone, the IEAP, International Assessment of Educational Progress, will be used for data comparisons in the international testing. Once standardization is complete, the psychological experimentation and manipulation to change older American students towards this socialistic, communistic system will move at triple speed targeted to individuals in college

January, 2011, the Obama Administration released its Road Map for civic learning, “Advancing Civic Learning and Engagement in Democracy.” In October, 2012, the National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement released a new study that explains how the convergence to world citizenship will function for our nation’s colleges called, ” A Crucible Moment-College Learning and Democracy’s Future.” Great detail is placed on the development of personality and values of the graduate student. (Page 4) This current proposal of civic education is a direct link to the European nations agreement for converging their higher education systems of standards-international benchmarks for all colleges world-wide. Many papers have been written that call for the standardization of all colleges, worldwide, to agree on global standards and outcomes. The doublespeak begins: entrusting a student’s responsibility and influence on civic values, assumptions; responsibilities to a wider public is stressed. Critical inquiry, also known as higher order thinking skills, universal democratic principles, deliberation and bridge building across differences, are central to building world citizenship. The new degree is called the Degree Qualification Profile.(page 54)

20130903-232943.jpg

This is the complete list of international values that each college student must attain for their degree listed in the Crucible document:

Focus on this partial list:
Respect for freedom & human dignity,
Empathy,
Open-mindedness,Tolerance, Justice, Equality, Ethical integrity,
Responsibility to a larger good,
Collective Action,
Integration of knowledge, skills, and examined values to inform actions taken in concert with other people,
Moral discernment and behavior,
Navigation of political systems and processes, both formal and informal,
Public problem solving with diverse partners,
Compromise, civility, and mutual respect.

This is the EQA, the NAEP, and the Common Core-College and Career Ready Standards for college students. How do you measure and score integrity, empathy and justice or other subjective values? Here we go again. The push is on to psychoanalyze and internationalize college students, too. (Just in case a student from homeschool or a Christian school slipped through the cracks.)

The Degree Qualification Profile, funded through the Lumina Foundation, defines ‘expected learning outcomes that graduates need for work, citizenship, global participation, and life’ that aligns with the Bologna Model. This is the blueprint that will force the standardization of college degrees to be equally and universally accepted worldwide. The Bologna Process ensures that the United States is prepared for convergence and urges the United States “for your eyes only” to take the most far reaching and ambitious reform of higher education ever undertaken. Our nation’s colleges and universities are far from approving this agenda. However, the agenda exists and is moving forward to standardize the process.

The Lumina Foundation explains that, “Preparing students for responsible citizenship is a widely acknowledged purpose of higher education. Like other forms of application, civic inquiry requires the integration of knowledge and skills acquired in both the broad curriculum and in the student’s specialized field. But because civic preparation also requires engagement — that is, practice in applying those skills to representative questions and problems in the wider society — it should be considered a discrete category of learning.”

“Higher education is experimenting with new ways to prepare students for effective democratic and global citizenship. Virtually all of these efforts use experiential or field-based learning as a means to develop civic insight, competence in public affairs and the ability to contribute to the common good. By definition field-based learning about civic issues is likely to immerse students in public debate about contested positions.”

“In developing civic competence, students engage a wide variety of perspectives and evidence and form their own reasoned views on public issues. Civic Learning — which is related to but goes beyond the Intellectual Skill we have labeled “Engaging Diverse Perspectives” — also involves active engagement with others. Exposure to these different perspectives helps students develop their own responses to social, environmental and economic challenges at the local, national and global levels. ”

The Bologna Model will first begin to introduce the ideas of unifying course credit, accountability and transferability internationally. The next steps are to ridicule the United States for no longer being on the “cutting edge” or the assumptions of world dominance to shame our universities and colleges into submission. The Executive Summary tells the story called the “macroeconomic theory of convergence”. Surely, our universities and colleges nationwide have big enough egos and self assurance not to allow this to happen. We pray it so.

Executive Summary: “The undertaking is known as The Bologna Process, named for the Italian city that is home to Europe’s oldest university, where the education ministers of 29 countries first agreed to the agenda and “action lines” that would bring down education borders in the same way that economic borders had been dissolved. That means harmonization, not standardization. When these national higher education systems work with the same reference points they produce a “zone of mutual trust” that most far reaching and ambitious reform of higher education ever undertaken. for their students. Everyone is singing in the same key, though not necessarily with the same tune. In terms reaching across geography and languages, let alone in terms of turning ancient higher education systems on their heads, the Bologna Process is the most far reaching and ambitious reform of higher education ever undertaken.

What has transpired since 1999 cannot be but lightly acknowledged in the United States. While still a work in progress, parts of the Bologna Process have already been imitated in Latin America, North Africa, and Australia. The core features of the Bologna Process have sufficient momentum to become the dominant global higher education model within the next two decades. Former Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings’ Commission on the Future of Higher Education paid no attention whatsoever to Bologna, and neither did the U.S. higher education community in its underwhelming response to that Commission’s report. Such purblind stances are unforgivable in a world without borders.

But since the first version of this monograph, a shorter essay entitled The Bologna Club: What U.S. Higher Education Can Learn from a Decade of European Reconstruction (Institute for Higher Education Policy, May 2008), U.S. higher education has started listening seriously to the core messages of the remarkable and difficult undertaking in which our European colleagues have engaged. Dozens of conferences have included panels, presentations, and intense discussions of Bologna approaches to accountability, access, quality assurance, credits and transfer, and, most notably, learning outcomes in the context of the disciplines. In that latter regard, in fact, three state higher education systems—Indiana, Minnesota, and Utah—have established study groups to examine the Bologna “Tuning” process to determine the forms and extent of its potential in U.S. contexts. Scarcely a year ago, such an effort would have been unthinkable.

Economist Jeffrey Sachs calls ours “the age of convergence,” and, indeed, that is what we witness when U.S. higher education opens its borders to learning. We’ve had a good run, as the saying goes, but we are no longer at the cutting edge. U.S. higher education can no longer sail on the assumption of world dominance, oblivious to the creative energies, natural intelligence, and hard work of other nations. We cannot rely on 50 research universities and 50 selective liberal arts colleges—some of which boast budgets and endowments (however diminished) greater than those of entire countries—to carry the day for the mass of our students. We cannot live in a room of mirrors, claiming that we are so unique that nothing occurring beyond that room matters. Mirrors lead to delusions, and to short-term, positivistic bean counting. We are mesmerized by the immediacy of “how much,” absent a historical “how well.” It’s time to break the mirrors. The point is not that other countries produce more degrees; it is that they just might be producing better degrees, certainly degrees whose reference points in student learning outcomes and meaning is transparent—something that cannot be said for the degrees we award.

The End of Higher Education and Freewill
Its all about equality and what is fair. Equalization across the board. Socialism. Those universities in the United States that think they are exceptional, well, think again. You are each a target for international tuning, equalization.The United States creeps closer to a world without borders. We are a nation at risk from losing all that’s dear to us, freedom. The individualists of our country are being identified and psychoanalyzed. Strong willed students and leaders of the Constitution are zeroed in on for psychological cleansing and group thought. Will your child survive? Will our country survive?
It is up to us!

NOTES

Read Charlotte Iserbyt’s historical book, deliberate dumbing down of america and Soviets In the Classroom, which details the history documenting how our country has been taken over from within through massive education funding, treaties, and deception. She Identifies names and the who. This extremely important background information and her expertise will connect you to the ‘internationalization’ of education and inevitable global citizenship. Whatever name you want to call the control, socialism or communism, the agenda is people control, and the United States has been the prize.

http://www.newswithviews.com/guest_opinion/guest229.htm

Getting Inside the EQA Inventory, Pennsylvania Department of Education

Resources for Improvement, Citizenship, Pennsylvania Department of Education

Interrelationships to the Pennsylvania Quality Goals: http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED238146

http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/The_Degree_Qualifications_Profile.pdf

http://www.aacu.org/civic_learning/crucible/documents/crucible_508F.pdf

http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/A_stronger_nation.pdf

http://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/road-map-call-to-action.pdf

NAEP Civics Frameworks: http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/publications/frameworks/civicsframework-word.doc#_Toc234923502
Chapter Three: The Civics Assessment: Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions

Tuning USA Indiana Committee. (2010). Tuning USA Indiana final report. Indianapolis, IN: Author.

Tuning USA Minnesota Committee. (2010). Tuning USA Minnesota final report. St. Paul, MN: Author.

Tuning USA Utah Committee. (2010). Tuning USA Utah final report. Salt Lake City, UT: Author.

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.

Stress Induced Belief & Value-Changing Curriculum
Do ‘College & Career Ready Standards’ cause harm? Is this outright abuse? The Common Core, coming to a school near you!

The ‘Common Core’ & ‘College & Career Ready Standards’ outright admit that the the objectives are in the affective domain of attitudes, values, & dispositions. What is happening to your child through this process?

What happens when your child’s beliefs are challenged? We, as parents, must oppose the techniques for behavior change that are being used in the classroom & on the computer when standards are diametrically opposed to basic traditional values that are based on our culture & our laws. We must demand to view all testing & assessments. Psychological techniques that are being used to identify & change a child’s attitudes, values, & beliefs unknown to parents must be exposed. Kohlberg defines inducing cognitive conflict as painful when students’ fixed beliefs are challenged. In the teaching of moral development, a student that has moral absolutes are on the first & lowest stage. This is commonly referred to as a ‘rigid’ set of values & beliefs or the authoritarian personality. The idea of cognitive conflict is to make the student question his beliefs so that he/she will progress up the ladder to the sixth stage of universal values. The student goes through periods of doubting of what is right or what is wrong. This method of inducing cognitive conflict creates disequilibrium. The student takes one view, becomes confused by discrepant information which involves a personal crisis & the need to reorder ones’ beliefs to fit into the group.

To resolve the frustration & confusion the child is forced to form a more collective position. The method is also called the dialectic process of Socratic teaching. The students give a view, the teacher asks questions which gets them to see the inadequacies of their views, and they are then motivated to formulate other positions along with the group through peer pressure. This is ” the people development business” that Dr. Holliday, Kentucky Commissioner of Education, was referring to in the ‘Innovation Lab Network’ in Obama’s Race to the Top education agenda. We must also remember that computer software is programmed to do the job. There may be teacher directed activities & also differing types of software/curriculum that have been validated to change values & dispositions. Who decides what the answers are when it comes to vague & subjective standards?

The College & Career Ready Standards are vague & subjective, like ethical judgment, honesty, or integrity. How will these affective standards be measured? How will ethical judgment be scored? Dispositions? Adapting to change? Getting along with others? Character? Diversity? Compromising? Argumentation? Persuasion? Citizenship? (Remember, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, deceptively defined & measured Citizenship as ‘thresholds of compliance by reward & punishment” in Pennsylvania, not knowledge of government.) Who decides how much change is too much or too little, & who is agreeing as to how those values will be defined? Will teachers grade students through subjective observations or psychological testing? Will attitude testing be done on the computer? Will psychologists test the students? Will the school get informed written parental consent? Is this type of testing & teaching in violation of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, PPRA? What type of questions are going to be included on tests like Smarter Balanced, PARCC & the ACT test which admits that career pathways will be testing the whole child & behavioral standards beginning in Kindergarten? Who has direct assess to this data when FERPA rediscloses personally identifiable information to outside contractors? Foundations? Businesses? Non-Profits? InBloom already disclosed personal data uploaded to a data cloud in New York. New York is also an Innovation Lab Network model. Parents were not happy about the disclosure of personal & sensitive information released on their children & families. Privacy groups are filing suit. Has Obama unlocked data & expanded FERPA to allow this personal data to be distributed for research, with no federal protections? Are children being experimented on for this reason? Will this collection of data that is released to others, be in violation of HIPPA?
Why is government data collection of personally identifiable information a serious issue for parents & students?

Does it really matter that the government is collecting this information on our children?
If you follow the technique of ‘feedback loop control,’ you begin to realize that once the data is collected on students, that is to quantify & document WHAT values the student has, the next step is to implement therapy, activities & techniques to CHANGE the student’s attitudes & values toward whoever decided what the desired standard will be. So the answer is, YES. This system is a decision making model committed to change your child’s attitudes, values, & dispositions. Please re-read the West Virginia standard #3 in Personal & Workplace Skills. Validated techniques will be used to change your students’ behavior. This is an example of how a conflict is created in a classroom setting taken from, “Promoting Moral Growth from Piaget to Kohlberg,” Hersh, Paolitto, Reimer; (page 189) This technique is called, cognitive conflict or cognitive dissonance, or creating a conflict in what the student believes:

Lisa: “The only thing -I can tell you I’m really confused because, since this class
I’ve had to consider an awful lot more than I ever would. And I’m so confused as
to what is really right & what is really wrong. I feel like in a sense that I know so
little about what is right and what’s wrong that I can’t say that Hitler was even
bad. Or that we have a right to our own lives. I don’t know.”
Teacher: “One thing, we are making a distinction between whether Hitler was
bad or whether he was wrong.”
Lisa: “I don’t really know whether he was wrong. Just because I don’t want to
say anything definite. I’m afraid of, somebody could prove me wrong in a
different way.”

The dialogue continues about Lisa’s stress & confusion in this episode. There are three areas of values that are usually targeted for behavior change; moral: right-wrong, social: good-bad, & aesthetic: beautiful-ugly. This particular book is a wake-up call for abusive techniques in the classroom implementing moral development. The only statistics you will find in this book is what level & how many students were forced to change their beliefs. Another moral dilemma used was to discuss whether you agree if a man should steal milk for his poor family, from a wealthy home or not, in an eighth grade social studies class. (Page 121). There is no mention of what happens to a student left at a certain level or the stress that is artificially induced. Understanding this technique is crucial, in that, if no conflict is applied, the student will retain their belief about what is right or wrong. If a student is taught that they should not steal, he/she will retain that belief. If cognitive conflict is applied, that student becomes a victim to moral relativism or situation ethics….Is it OK to steal under certain circumstances, or maybe Hitler wasn’t wrong? These types of techniques are imbedded in all subject areas & in many types of activities like a Radical Math class that uses percentages to discuss wealthy areas of the country versus poor & why being rich is unfair. Students will be pressured to change their beliefs according to the standards & the group. The Common Core Standards are just the beginning which will allow government, individual access to your child.

Many of these techniques were developed & researched in the 70’s & 80’s in federally funded research labs. Pennsylvania’s job was testing in the affective domain, or the testing of attitudes in the Educational Quality Assessment, EQA which incorporated affective measures from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) objectives. Michigan was heavily federally funded for teacher training called B-Step, & Sidney Simon’s values clarification. Oregon’s job was to code for computer retrieval, student learning objectives called the Course Goals Collection. Specific states had differing jobs in values testing, value laden curriculum, techniques to change values, & teacher training to teach values education. In 1983 A Nation at Risk was published that falsely determined that America was underachieving nationally & internationally. The controversial 90’s were laden in the Outcome Based Education, OBE, debacle where affective outcomes were being re-introduced & were included in student learning outcomes for graduation requirements. In 1992, the Department of Labor issued the SCANS Report, Secretaries Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, where workplace skills first blatantly appeared that advanced the idea of placing values in workplace skills standards under the Goals 2000 mantra, ‘All Children Can Learn.’ They were introduced in ‘School to Work’ legislation & now they have resurfaced in the 21st Century Skills for a global workforce incorporated into the Common Core Standards as College & Career Ready standards. It is evident that our government continuously created a crisis to come right behind with a new model that did not reflect American values for indoctrinating our students to accept global citizenship.

This is just a glimpse of how many techniques have been validated to change values. The Taxonomies of Educational Objectives of Benjamin Bloom, cognitive domain, ( Book I), & David Krathwohl’s affective domain, (Book 2), are incorporated into the Common Core Standards & are being deceptively incorporated into the 21st Century Skills, the “whole child.” The agenda is to mold the child from their earliest years….mind, body, & spirit. Obama has presented new legislation for the federal government to pay for pre-school. This is not coincidental. The younger, the better, to indoctrinate. Nothing is new, again.

The Common Core Standards for Global Citizenship

The newest push for global citizenship comes with new names from the Assessment & Teaching of 21st Century Skills (ATC21S), with global leaders including OECD, Intel, Cisco, & Microsoft, who are combining efforts for an international push for 21st Century Skills. In the book “Education For Life & Work: Developing Transferrable Knowledge & Skills in the 21st Century,” Pelligrino & Hilton, explain three domains of competence—cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal, similar to Bloom, but expanding the interpersonal. (See Graph above) The cognitive domain involves reasoning and memory; the intrapersonal domain involves the capacity to manage one’s behavior and emotions to achieve one’s goals (Common Core & College & Career Ready Standards); and the interpersonal domain involves expressing ideas, and interpreting and responding to messages from others.

Be prepared to accept the new mumble-jumble of names that the indoctrinators will place in these new models. The concept of getting into the personality of students including value judgments like “higher order thinking, deeper thinking, & metacognition” continues the idea of teaching the “whole child” theory for acceptance & understanding the international merging for a new world order. Not much has changed from the 70’s. The apple never falls far from the tree.

A Current Behavior Changing Activity reported in April, 2013, which includes roll playing & presumes that the Germans were the victims during the holocaust.
“Think like a Nazi,” Read more:
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/School-apology-Think-like-a-Nazi-task-vs-Jews-4428669.php#ixzz2QFwDZ1AE

This following activity was news worthy April 12, 2013 of a value changing technique: “Students in Albany High School English classes were asked this week as part of a persuasive writing assignment to make an abhorrent argument: “You must argue that Jews are evil, and use solid rationale from government propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Third Reich!”
Students were asked to watch and read Nazi propaganda, then pretend their teacher was a Nazi government official who needed to be convinced of their loyalty. In five paragraphs, they were required to prove that Jews were the source of Germany’s problems.”

New York is a state involved in the Innovation Lab Network along with West Virginia & 5 other states.

The following excerpt was taken from testimony of a clinical psychologist about the Common Core Standards:
“A Mental Health Professional’s Perspective on the Common Core”, By Dr. Gary Thompson, Director of Clinical Training & Community Advocacy Services
Early Life Child Psychology & Education Center, Inc., March 25, 2013
http://truthinamericaneducation.com/common-core-state-standards/a-mental-health-professionals-perspective-on-the-common-core/

Excerpt: Educational Testing
According to the U.S. Department of Education, CCSS will authorize the use of testing instruments that will measure the “attributes, dispositions, social skills, attitude’s and intra personal resources” of public school students under CCSS (USDOE Feb, 2013 Report). In a nutshell, CCSS simply states that it will develop highly effective assessments that measures….well….almost ”everything.”

Below are issues regarding CCSS “testing” policies that have not been addressed by the Common Core to State’s Governors’, State Superintendents, State School Boards, local school district superintendents, local school boards, to parents of children in public school education:

Common Core does not address what types of tests will be utilized on our children.
Common Core does not address, specifically, exactly who is developing these tests.
Common Core does not address the fact that these tests have not yet been developed, and are not available for public consumption or private review by clinical psychology researchers and psychometric professionals.
Common Core does not address if the soon to be completed tests will be subjected to the same rigorous peer review process that ALL testing instruments are subjected to prior to being released to mental health professionals for their use in the private sector.
Common Core does not state which public school employees would be administering or interpreting these tests. There is a reason that School Psychologists cannot “practice” outside of their scope in school districts. As hard working and as wonderful as this group is, their training pales in comparison to the average local clinical psychologist.
Common Core does not address the well documented, peer-reviewed fact that both African American and Latino students, due to cultural issues, tend to have skewed testing results when cultural issues are not addressed prior to the initiation of such testing. This should probably be addressed if these results are going to be following a student “from cradle to high school graduation.”
Lastly, once these highly intimate, powerful, and most likely inaccurate testing results are completed, who EXACTLY will have access to all of this data?

Comment from this author: Although Dr. Thompson has explained the privacy invading techniques & asked about the who & why of the testing components to the Common Core Standards & testing, we need to address one step further, the what’s next “therapy” that would be applied at school to change the student. This is the reason the collection of personal information is completely dangerous in the hands of government. The first step is the collection of information or data on the student which is a violation of privacy. The second step, remediation or therapy applied to the student in an individual education plan (IEP) or personal career pathway without the knowledge or consent of the parent, is a violation of freedom. The death of free will, individualism, & our concept of America as we know it.

NOTES:

Use the 5 Magic Questions developed by Anita Hoge to fight subjective & vague Common Core-College & Career Ready Standards.
1. How do you measure that standard?
For example: If a College & Career Standard states that “all children must have ethical judgment, honesty, or integrity,” what exactly is going to be measured? How do you measure a bias in a child? Must children be diagnosed? Will they be graded by observation or take a pencil-and-paper test? How will performance or behavior be assessed?

2. How is that objective scored, or what is the standard?
What behavior is “appropriate” and to what degree? For example, how much self-esteem is too much or not enough to graduate? Can government score the attitudes and values of its citizens in a pluralistic society?

3. Who decides what that standard will be?
The state has extended its mandated graduation requirement, or Common Core Standards, down to the individual child. This bypasses all local autonomy. What about locally elected school directors – will they become obsolete? Are we talking about a state or government diploma or certificate?

4. How will my child be remediated?
What are you going to do to my children to change them from here-to-there in their attitudes, values, & dispositions in order to graduate? How do you remediate ethical judgment, decision making, interpersonal skills, environmental attitudes, adapting to change? What techniques will be used? What risks are involved? What justification does the state have to change my child’s attitudes?

5. What if parent and state disagree on the standard or how it is measured in the classroom?
Who has the ultimate authority over the child … parents or the state? What about privacy? Can parents opt out of a graduation requirement mandated by the government?

The Death of Free Will, Charlotte Iserbyt, http://www.newswithviews.com/iserbyt/iserbyt102.htm

West Virginia 21st Century Skills aligned to legislation
Begins coding for distinct behaviors
http://wvde.state.wv.us/policies/p2520.14.pdf laws connected to data sets

http://apps.sos.wv.gov/adlaw/csr/readfile.aspx?DocId=23911&Format=PDF

http://wvschools.com/harrisoncounty/21learning/21stcenturyskillsmatrix.pdf. Common core standards connected to data sets

http://wveis.k12.wv.us/teach21/public/21C/popUp21.cfm

Lesson plan with coding
http://wveis.k12.wv.us/teach21/public/Uplans/UPview.cfm?tsele1=10&tsele2=65&tsele3i=1516

Smart Inventory, Interests Inventory Grade 4
http://wveis.k12.wv.us/teach21/public/Uplans/LPview.cfm?page=1&tsele1=4&tsele2=104&upidU=2030&UPid=2061

http://wveis.k12.wv.us/Teach21/CSO/Upload/LP2061WS2.doc?tsele1=4&tsele2=104&tsele3i=2061

College & Career Ready Standards Task Force
https://kyp20nxgla.wikispaces.com/file/view/Discussion+Outline+for+CCR+Task+Force-1+12+12.docx

ACT21S, Assessment & Teaching of 21st Century Skills, a global team for transformation, http://atc21s.org/index.php/about/team/

Education For Life & Work, National Research Council, Pelligrino, Hilton, 2012
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/WorkGroups/EdOp/Education%20for%20Life%20and%20Work-%20National%20Academy%20of%20Sciences.pdf

Promoting Moral Growth from Piaget to Kohlberg,” Hershey, Paolitto, Reimer 1979

SCANS, Secretaries Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, US Department of Labor, 1992

Stupski workshop presentation, 6 states chosen for Innovation Lab Network,
http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/46399963.ppt

‘Obama’s, Race to the Top Agenda’ – States Under Republican Leadership Fall For the Carrot: Children Sold-Out for a Profit, by Anita B. Hoge, March 18, 2013.

West Virginia Molds Cookie Cutter Kids In Their Incubator Lab: Codes Common Core Standards for Obama’s ‘Race to the Top’ Schools

When traveling west from Pennsylvania on Interstate 70 toward West Virginia, you see the bold sign on the border: Wild, Wonderful West Virginia. West Virginia is a ‘Race to the Top’ model state with an international agenda for our nation’s schools. Perhaps you will wonder why a state like West Virginia is being used as a guinea pig model for our nation’s children? America is not watching.

West Virginia had been selected through the CCSSO, Council Chief State School Officers, as a Next Generation School called Innovation Lab Network. There were 6 other states selected for this Race to the Top agenda, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Maine, New York, Ohio, & New Hampshire was added. Steven L. Paine, former State Superintendent of Schools, led West Virginia down the international path of 21st Century Learning Outcomes. The state created policies that set up an agenda that correlated those outcomes into strategies & learning objectives that would be coded for individual data retrieval in the Common Core longitudinal data collection. Dr. Paine was President of the CCSSO, member of the Governing Board of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, the national test, Vice President Business Operations of CTB/McGraw Hill, a testing company, & now president of Partnership for 21st Century Skills, P21. He is now pushing the integration of 21st Century Skills in federal legislation, HR 347. (Link this information to the legislation currently passed by the Republican House of Representatives, HR 5.) However, workforce skills standards are already being swept in under the door mandated through federal ESEA Flexibility Waivers. HR 347 would make workforce standards law. The CCSSO, OECD, the international Organization for Economic Co-Operation & Development, & the Stupski Foundation funded the Innovation Lab Network in which West Virginia was a model state in Obama’s ‘Race to the Top’ schools.

Led by Paine, West Virginia is deeply engaged in systemically transforming the public school system with the goal of providing all West Virginia children with the skills for global citizenship. This agenda redesigns what the reformers are calling the old ‘Industrial Age’ style of schooling & ridicules the traditional education system that is based on intellectual knowledge & academic content, the Carnegie Unit (ABCD or failure), going to school for 180 days or seat time & grade separations ( freshman, sophomore, junior, senior). Our traditional system of teaching, identifies, challenges, & rewards intellectual excellence & hard work. The transformational, standards based system, where there is no competition, eliminates all this & is a radical change from schooling as we know it. A standards-based system is focused on the individual meeting specific standards that are being replicated across the country & duplicated from state to state in the Common Core State Standards. This type of education demands an IEP, individual education plan or career pathway that is developed to meet the standards. (See “Republican Leadership Falls for Obama’s Carrot” by this author.) The fallacy in a standards based system is that there is no identification of individual differences or IQ. This un-natural system eliminates the concept of individual accomplishments & freedom to choose your future, where the direction is a controlled, standardized authority where the government chooses for you in a caste-like agenda. The Common Core Standards eventually lead to a national curriculum controlled through testing, retesting, & standardization called ‘feedback loop control’ for continual monitoring & the eventual federal take-over of education. A state agreeing to the Common Core Standards is the first step, like getting the camel’s nose under the tent.

West Virginia’s Global21 program is focused on the development of international curriculum standards, an assessment that measures & tests those standards, research-based instructional practices & curriculum taught to meet the standards, a parallel accountability system that aligns teacher performance with school performance based on the standards, development of a 21st century mastery teacher continuum; emphasis on pre-K programs to identify interventions early on, and integration of technology tools and skills in every classroom…all centered around meeting standards that government controls.

There are currently 46 states that have adopted the Common Core Standards for Obama’s ‘Race to the Top’ schools mostly because of the Elementary & Secondary Education Act, Title I, ESEA Flexibility Waivers given to states applying for flexibility in the ‘No Child Left Behind’ legislation under the Bush administration. The waivers require explicitly that an accountability system of assessments along with College & Career Ready standards must be devised. Another incubator state, Kentucky, has also transformed their focus of education toward the international standards. Dr. Terry Holliday, Kentucky Commissioner of Education is quoted on Oct. 29, 2010,…” [that] we will change from school- to the people development business.” In December 2010, Holliday was named to the board of directors for the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) for 2010-11. In September 2011, Holliday was appointed to serve a four-year term on the National Assessment Governing Board. These key change agents have mastered the agenda for moving entire states to an international agenda of molding students for global citizenship & accepting Common Core Standards.

West Virginia Department of Education focuses on three goals for all children & blatantly professes the fact that attitudes, values,& dispositions are a focus of their curriculum:
Goal 1: To meet or exceed state, national and international curriculum standards that incorporate acquisition of 21st century skills.
Goal 2: To develop the personal skills and dispositions of wellness, responsibility, cultural awareness, self-direction, ethical character and good citizenship.
Goal 3: To graduate from high school prepared for post-secondary education and career success through personalized pathways and guidance.

What are Common Core Standards & 21st Century Skills? These standards, taken from the Partnership for 21st Century Skills or P21 under Life & Career Skills, are incorporated into West Virginia standards. Notice in the graph above, the personal & workplace productivity skills. Many are in the affective domain, or in the area of attitudes, values, beliefs, & dispositions. No longer is school focused on academics. The agenda to educate the child is now referred to as the ” learning genome” – evaluating personality & teaching the whole child. That means the way a child thinks or what they believe, what they feel or their values & attitudes, & what they can do or their behavior or how they act. It’s not about academics, it’s about control & molding the child to the state desired minimum standard. This is the new school & these are the steps that are being taken.

West Virginia Codes Unique Data Sets for the Common Core Standards: Each standard and each objective will have a Unique Electronic Number (UEN) that will always remain the same.

The next several paragraphs teaches how to code standards & the objectives so that the Common Core Standards can be duplicated for computer retrieval. This also sets the stage for individual students to be monitored toward meeting those standards. A standards-based curriculum includes learning standards and instructional objectives. The learning standards are the broad descriptions of what all students must know and be able to do at the conclusion of the instructional sequence. The objectives are specific descriptors of knowledge, skills and attitudes that the student must master to attain the standard. The instructional objectives guide curriculum planning and provide a basis for determining specific assessments, instructional strategies and resources validated to meet the standards. Objectives build across grade levels as students advance attaining the appropriate knowledge, skills & attitudes. This is known as scaffolding where all activities are related & controlled toward meeting the standards.

Understanding the Numbering of Standards & the Codes for Computer Retrieval are explained below:

The number for each content standard is composed of four parts, each part separated by a period: the content area codes are LS for Learning Skills and TT for Technology Tools, the letter S, for Standard, the program level, and the standard number
Illustration: 21C.S.PK-2.1 ( 21st Century Standard, PreK thru grade 2, content standard #1.)
Numbering of Objectives: The number of each objective is composed of five parts, each part separated by a period: content area code (LS for Learning Skills; TT for Technology Tools),the letter O is for Objective, the program level, the number of the content standard addressed, and the objective number.
Illustration: 21C.O.3-4.1.TT2 (21 Century Objective, grades 3-4, addresses standard #1 in Technology Tools, and is the second objective listed under that standard.)

Unique Electronic Numbers (or UENs) are numbers that help to electronically identify, categorize and link specific bits of information. Each objective will have a Unique Electronic Number (UEN) that will always remain the same. The only additional set of numbers that will be added to each code to formulate its UEN will be a prefix that indicates the year and month. These codes will follow individual student attainment of the Common Core Standards in a longitudinal data base Pre-k through career.

UENs (Unique Electronic Numbers) are unique numbers that facilitate implementation of Standards into Electronic formats such as Databases and XML Files. The WV Department of Education encourages everyone to use the WV Content Standards in any kind of electronic distribution, alignment, or software development to use the UENs so that all efforts can be cross- referenced and there is consistency across initiatives. The key to the transformation is standardization. The standards, the coding, the teaching, the curriculum, the testing, all must conform to the blueprint.

This is the blueprint. So. What will be taught? Let’s fill in the blanks & look at the actual standards:

West Virginia Openly Measures & Molds Student Attitudes: Discussing Affective Issues in Common Core & College & Career Ready Standards

Under the federal Elementary Secondary Education Act, ( ESEA) Flexibly Waiver under Title I, a state applying for the grant must meet certain guidelines. A state must also incorporate college & career ready standards & assessments into their state plan that would align to Common Core Standards.

West Virginia blatantly states what those standards will be. The standard #3, Personal & Workplace Skills in the graph below, proves that students will be forced to change their beliefs & attitudes. The 3rd standard is: “The student will exhibit leadership, ethical behavior, respect for others, accept responsibility for personal actions considering the impact on others, take the initiative to plan & execute tasks, & interact productively as a member of the group.”

Notice in the graph under Learning Skill Objective #1, that the student is being pressured to “go along with the group, even under stress.” The student must work collaboratively. They must “willingly align their personal beliefs & goals to the goals of others,” forcing the student to change through cognitive conflict “under stress” as a positive goal. The standard concludes that the student “derives personal satisfaction from achieving group goals.” This objective creates artificial stress on the student. What if the standard conflicts with what the student believes or what the student has been taught at home? What is the roll & responsibility of a teacher to facilitate changing of these beliefs & attitudes? Does this effect the student’s personality? Are clinical psychologists involved or are school counselors & teachers acting as clinical psychologists?

“Moral issues often involve the examination of authority roles. Classroom discussions of what is right & fair inevitably turn to a questioning of authority relationships in class, school, and family. This is so because our beliefs about authority figures are a vital part of our moral judgment.” ( Promoting Moral Growth from Piaget to Kohlberg,” Hersh, Paolitto, Reimer.) What will happen to the rugged individualist? What will happen to the creative child? This example is the most chilling outcome that we could possibly put children through. This is people molding, not teaching & learning. What’s happens to a students’ psyche when there will be continual stress/conflict induced activities? Why are we moving to this type of teaching at school? Is enough stress placed on the child to commit suicide? To commit crimes? Will this technique cause a change in personality? Depression? Are there studies to conclude that these techniques are NOT harmful? What is the end result of standards that force ALL students to be non-thinking, non-feeling programmed robots that respond only to the group & to specific stimuli? Why MUST these standards & techniques be used in American schools allowing experimentation on our children & why is it so important? Perhaps, American children must think differently & prepare for something their parents are NOT preparing them for. Welcome to the 21st Century Skills for global citizenship.

20130801-085204.jpg
Cookie Cutter Common Core Kids

20130801-085456.jpg
West Virginia Values Standards