Reporting on Current Obama Education Policies

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.