Reporting on Current Obama Education Policies

Demand a Federal Investigation on FERPA, Family Education Rights in Privacy Act

3rd Party Contractors now have access to your child’s personally identifiable information, PII, because of the new definition of an authorized representative called a ” school official.” 3rd party contractors or vendors can apply for a written agreement that allows them to access PII. Also, the definition of personally identifiable information includes a biometric marker, definition below.

20140509-234612.jpg

PII Definition:

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(4)(A))
“Personally Identifiable Information”
The term includes, but is not limited to–
(a) The student’s name;
(b) The name of the student’s parent or other family members;
(c) The address of the student or student’s family;
(d) A personal identifier, such as the student’s social security number, student number, or biometric record;
(e) Other indirect identifiers, such as the student’s date of birth, place of birth, and mother’s maiden name;
(f) Other information that, alone or in combination, is linked or linkable to a specific student that would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty; or
(g) Information requested by a person who the educational agency or institution reasonably believes knows the identity of the student to whom the education record relates
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g)
“Record” means any information recorded in any way, including, but not limited to, hand writing, print, computer media, video or audio tape, film, microfilm, and microfiche.

Definition for biometric record:
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(C), (b)(3), and (b)(5))
“Biometric record,” as used in the definition of “personally identifiable information,” means a record of one or more measurable biological or behavioral characteristics that can be used for automated recognition of an individual. Examples include fingerprints; retina and iris patterns; voiceprints; DNA sequence; facial characteristics; and handwriting.

President Obama’s Official Position for Unlocking Data

Obama Unlocks Data

Demand a Federal Investigation on FERPA

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.

Common Core Global Communion:
The Debate About Which Flavor of Poison For the Masses

Our nation is being hypnotized and manipulated by skillful propagandists. Most debates about Common Core are very off-track. Stay focused. This is a power-play. The Common Core Standards aligned to funding in federal legislation, HR 5 and
SB 1094, will ultimately have total control of education, nationalizing education in the United States of America. Common Core will be used to TRACK individual students to meet individual standards. By stopping the Common Core Standards in your state, the federal government will not have the legal authority to access your child for tracking individual workforce plans and funding attached to your student.

Choice legislation is waiting in the wings. Charter schools are lining up at the federal trough for Title I funding that will follow the child in the choice legislation. By stopping HR 5 and SB 1094, we can stop the funding that follows the student linked to choice at any private, public or charter school. This legislation will diminish representative government and feed the charter school socialist take-over of education. Common Core was needed first to identify the student.

This is Obama’s Dream Come True: public funded- private charter schools with unelected school boards. This is a complete erosion of representative government; Control of K through 12 education; Obama expanding federal money for daycare starting at birth; the international connection, the Bologna Model, calling colleges in the United States to be “tuned” into this agenda of global convergence. Socialism is knocking on our front door and on all sides. We must act, now.

Overview of Propaganda.
The educrats want the debate to be off track away from the power that will be able to mandate to the individual student, just like the individual mandate in Obamacare. Do not agree to this power-play. The debate about which academics in the Common Core should be taught, is a side issue. It’s like debating which flavor of poison should be given to everyone, when poison is the issue. The word is CONTROL. The national standards, the national curriculum, and national testing, are being put in place. Your child is called human capital that will be molded to fit the global child for the new world order. True academics are being replaced by dumbed down, subjective standards.

Choice and Charter School Take-Over of All Education

Obama’s ‘Race to the Top’ model schools call for individual education or career plans (school to work) to be created for the Common Core based system. Did you get that parents? Common Core Standards will target your individual student for change, not just the school curriculum. Good teachers will be forced to teach to the standards. HR 5 and SB 1094 will complete the vicious circle by controlling the purse strings.

Common Core College and Career Standards were needed to identify Johnny in the classroom. Place Johnny in the choice legislation, the model for abolishing representative government (where students, teachers, and schools must comply to federal accountability when the federal money follows the child in an IEP, individualized education plans or career pathway), we have set up the failure of public and private schools and opened the door for unelected charter school take-over. Government will now have COMPLETE control over molding the personality and values of every child in the United States and parents will have no authority to change the system. Chilling. Not a future for our Republic as we know it.

ACTION- These are the Weaknesses in the System
Access

The Common Core Standards are not federal law. This is the weakest link. Stop Common Core in your state and the federal government will not have the legal authority to access your child for tracking an IEP, or an individual career workforce plan and funding, identified for your child.

Funding
By stopping the combination of HR 5 and SB 1094, the federal government cannot fund the individual student without Common Core which is linked to choice at any private, public or charter school. This legislation will diminish representative government and feed the charter school socialist take-over of education.

States Rights– Title I funding ‘following the child” bypasses the state legislature.
Local Control– Common Core Standards control the workforce curriculum bypassing local school boards and teachers in the classroom. Choice diminishes control over local taxing authority when funding goes directly to the student.

(See these other articles for documentation, ‘Obama’s Dream Come True-Nationalizing Education,’ ‘States Under Republican Leadership Fall for Obama’s Carrot,’ ‘Common Core Molds Cookie Cutter Kids In Obama’s “Race To The Top” Schools’ by this author)

20130902-211757.jpg

20130804-150927.jpg

H.R. 5 -Power, Control, Funding, and Enforcement Aligned to Common Core Standards, Identifies the Student, Nationalizing Education

Obama’s Dream Come True-Nationalizing Education

Obamacare was first to mandate to the individual. Now, education! Is this really what the American people want? Nationalizing education? HR 5, the re-authorization of ESEA, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, passed the House without a whimper. Two remarkable turns of events: first, on July 19, 2013, the Republican held House of Representatives gives Obama the socialist agenda that he dreams of-federalizing all of education and contributing to the loss of representative government. Second, the Common Core State Standards being passed in every state closed that loop. If this legislation passes this fall in combination with SB 1094, the federal government will be able to dictate what is taught in the classroom by fiat.

Local and state control will erode when federal funds go directly to the individual student bypassing all local & state authority. The individual student is identified, monitored, and targeted for intervention with the Common Core Standards. Common Core + HR 5 + SB 1094 =federal control of ALL education-private schools included with the Choice Amendments attached in HR 5. When HR 5 is combined to SB 1094, the companion bill in the Senate that was voted out of committee, the compromise will be disastrous for the Republic destroying public education, private education, and how local government functions.

Let’s explain how the Common Core Standards identifies ‘Johnny’ in the classroom for the federal government. But, keep in mind, the Common Core Standard’s key component is standardization in all 50 states.

Background
The standards are copyrighted by the National Governors Association, NGA Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO.) The copyright ensures that the standards will be the same throughout the nation, creating a de-facto national curriculum. The standards also carry a public license which waives the copyright notice for State Departments of Education to use the standards. Two conditions apply. First, the use of the standards must be “in support” of the standards and the waiver only applies if the state has adopted the standards “in whole.” This use of a copyright for public policy document is unprecedented in U.S. political history. The effect of the copyright and public license is standardization across the United States; the standards cannot be changed or modified, creating in effect, a national curriculum.

Overview of the Common Core Standards:

In 2009 the National Governors Association hired David Coleman and Student Achievement to write curriculum standards in literacy and mathematics. Announced on June 1, 2009, the standards were supposedly designed to be “relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills for success in college and careers to compete in a global economy.” What is missing here is that a standards based system totally changes how we educate students in the United States. This is the same outcome based education debate that was feverishly fought in the 90’s. Parents moved the clock back then on compliance, but not the continual research funded by the federal government, non-profits, corporations, and business. Obama also unlocked FERPA, Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, opening the research on individual students to meet the Common Core Standards. This is a defunct, sorry, recurring, failed education model being duplicated again, and again, and again.

Older names for Common Core Standards are: OBE, Outcome Based Education, Competency Based Education, Performance Based Education, Mastery Learning Model, and Student Centered Learning. The key to this model deals with the individual meeting learning outcomes or standards. This model is an un-natural process and does not identify individual differences in people. The focus is removed from a teacher teaching the curriculum with curriculum objectives to a group of students with varying intellectual differences. The Common Core Standards transforms education with each student with varying intellectual differences meeting the same specific controlled outcomes. Traditional education is turned upside down. This system removes the Carnegie Unit (ABCD or failure). Students no longer go to school 180 days or seat time, now there is no time limit for meeting standards. There are no more grade delineations like freshman, sophomore, junior, senior. And, most important, there is a transformation away from teaching content toward teaching ‘standards only’ driven by constant assessments and testing.

Think about that. Everyone will meet the SAME standard. Hello, America! Everyone is not the same. This is a socialistic-communistic system….equitable education. This system does not identify differences in individuals. Those students who move faster through the standards, will be the 20% selected for higher education, the global children selected for Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate, (Franken Amendment) but with the right attitudes. The other 80% will be trained for work. And yes, attitudes and values are part of the standards and part of the workforce skills for jobs aligned to the SCANS, Secretaries Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. Values and attitudes are a part of the College and Career Ready Standards. Senate Bill 1094 blatantly includes “across domain” testing for the social and emotional development of students. Parents be prepared for the psychoanalyzing of your student.

The Remarkable Carrot and Stick Routine

Forty-five of the fifty states in the United States are members of the Common Core State Standards Initiative. States were given an incentive to adopt the Common Core Standards through the competitive federal Race to the Top grants to the tune of $4.35 billion from the Recovery Act. President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced Race to the Top competitive grants on July 24, 2009, as the carrot. To be eligible, states had to adopt “internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the work place.” This meant that in order for a state to be eligible for these grants, the states had to adopt the Common Core State Standards or something similar. The rush to accept federal dollars provided a major push for states to adopt the standards. The Common Core Standards are funded by the governors and state school chiefs, with grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, and others. States are planning to implement this initiative by 2015 by basing at least 85% of their state curricula on the Standards. Last year Obama also provided the states with Flexibility Waivers for No Child Left Behind. With this funding coup, states would have to also entertain College and Career Ready Standards, workforce skills in the affective domain, moving away from an academic curriculum toward a standards based system.

With the implementation of new standards, states are also required to adopt new assessments. The two consortiums surfaced with two different approaches to test the standards. 26 states formed the PARCC RttT Assessment Consortium, (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, Race to the Top.) The approach focuses on computer-based ‘through-course assessments’ in each grade combined with streamlined end of year tests, including performance tasks. The second consortium, the SMARTER Balanced Consortium, consists of 31 states for adaptive online exams.The decision to use which assessment is determined by state education agencies.

Work is in the planning stage to create a common, universal assessment system based on the common core state standards. Of course. If you have a national curriculum, you must have a national test. This unprecedented move changes the Standardized Testing most students are currently taking, because standardized testing measures content and does not measure attitudes. The “Universal Assessment System” is assuredly NAEP, the National Assessment of Educational Progress and has always been the prototype for all state assessments that experimented with testing in the affective domain.

The clever plan to standardize the standards was actually passed by individual states or state boards of education. This removed the legal violation of the federal government directing and supervising curriculum which is against federal law. In summary, once your state accepts the Common Core Standards, power is removed from your neighborhood school and the teacher in the classroom. Common Core removes the old system based on content and replaces it with individual Common Core Standards that each individual student must meet and every individual teacher must teach. The Common Core lowers the bar of academics with a “dumbing down” approach in order for all children to meet them. Feedback loop control is initiated to force compliance on the school, the teacher, the student with data tracking creating a Total Quality Managed system. Individual educations plans, career pathways, small letter iep’s, whatever you want to call forcing the individual student to comply to ONLY the Common Core, will be developed for EACH and every student creating a system of interventions if the student does NOT meet each standard through federal Special Ed funds, IDEA. HR 5 and SB1094 refer to the interventions as “Specialized Student Support.”

HR 5, the Dollar and the Force Behind the Common Core. SB 1094 Out of Committee

The legislation passed by the Republican held House of Representatives sold our country out with this piece of legislation. The funding, Title I, “follows the child.” What does this mean? This means that the money will fund each student wherever they want to go to school. This funding bypasses the state government and the local district. Interesting enough, the amendments attached by key Republican Congressmen, and a few other Democrats, have an assortment of issues that contribute to ensuring that representative government is erased.

Eric Cantor, (VA) R, and Rob Bishop (UT) R, allows Title I funds to follow the student to other public or charters schools upon the state opting to allow it. Rob Bishop also makes Title I portable to public ( including charter) schools and private schools. Matt Salmon, (AZ) R, provides States with the flexibility to allocate Title I grant funds in a manner that follows the child. States may allocate these funds based on the number of eligible children enrolled in the public and private schools served. John Tierney (MA) D, ensures a state’s accountability system is applied to charter schools in the same manner as to other public schools. Jeff Duncan (SC) R, states would be able to direct block grant funding to any education purpose under state law.

In Summary: Creating Choice, Diminishing Public Schools, Grooming Charter Schools.

Under the House Bill, HR 5, a student is “given” Title I federal dollars to go to the school of their choice. Which school will they go to? The public school across the district? across the state? to a private school? Catholic school? homeschool? across state lines? Your tax money is traveling everywhere blurring tax bases. What will this do to your local school district? What will this do to a locally elected school board who will no longer have control over the tax base with students moving everywhere? The funds must be divided to each student in an equitable way.

Under the Senate Bill, SB 1094, funding establishes or expands inter- or intra-district public school choice programs that follow the child starting at birth to age 21, mandates workforce skills, and testing across ALL domains, attitudes and values included. It also establishes a NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARD. (This bill does not extend the choice funds to private schools, Senators Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Paul Rand (R-Ky.) amendment to allow Title I dollars to follow a student to any school, public or private, was defeated.) The meshing of the two bills gives us the entire agenda. The writing is on the wall.

Eventually, there will no longer be “better” schools, only equal schools. It is only fair, there shouldn’t be wealthy school districts and poor school districts. Right? This ensures that your local school district will struggle. If a local district survives, they must be in-tune and in compliance with the common core agenda with perhaps minor functions like hiring, firing, maintenance of buildings, and managing federal accountability guidelines. Many states have already gone to court over equitable school finance and alternatives to property taxes. The trend is a regional tax base, pooling tax money, and this legislation lays the groundwork to do just that. Schools will close because of less funding to operate, and so called “academic bankruptcy” for not meeting standards. This also sets the stage for charter school take over, which is a public school without an elected board. Local and state representative government will continue to be gradually diminished. Follow the money.

Sending Federal ‘Choice Children’ to Private Schools

Will a private school be forced to accept a choice student? Will this choice money force private schools into ” equal opportunity” and “an equitable resource implementation plan” for the choice students enrolled? Will choice students force the national curriculum and national testing on the private schools? Yes, Yes, and Yes. Particularly if your state passed the Common Core Standards.

Charter schools will be the norm, the future for all public schools. Charter schools are the model for taxation without representation. Specialized Student Support, Continuous Improvement, Teacher Evaluations, and Data Tracking Oversight with testing, testing, testing for accountability are all packed into HR 5 along with the choice amendments. Will the Democrat Senate pass this legislation this fall? Combined with SB 1094 introduced by Senator Harkin, which is the Democrat version of HR 5, we can count on it. We will have federalized all of education in the United States of America-Obama’s Dream.

Action:
Stop the Common Core Standards.
Stop HR 5.
Stop SB 1094
.

Notes:
Historical Documentation: Charlotte Iserbyt,
the deliberate dumbing down of america
Soviets in the Classroom

See Obama’s, Race to the Top Agenda’ – States Under Republican Leadership Fall For the Carrot: Children Sold-Out for a Profit, by this author for documentation. Obama’s Race to the Top Agenda

HR 5 legislation HR 5
SB 1094 legislation out of Committee: Senate Bill 1094
Franken Amendment- Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate: The Chosen 20%:
Accelerated Learning Act

Obama’s, Race to the Top Agenda’ – States Under Republican Leadership Fall For the Carrot: Children Sold-Out for a Profit

The Next Generation Schools.
It’s easier to understand an agenda with a picture. A picture is worth a thousand words. The following graph was used in a power point presentation about how the Innovation Lab Network will change and redesign how American schools will function in the future. This is a ‘Race to the Top’ education model. The graph was taken from a power point presentation from the Stupski Foundation, the OECD, the international Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, with a grant from the Chief State School Officers, CCSSO, about the Next Generation Schools, called the Innovation Lab Network.

20130725-222357.jpg

These are the original states that are included in this pilot research project from Obama’s ‘Race to the Top’ -Maine, West Virginia, Wisconsin, New York, Kentucky, and Ohio. Race to the Top was funded from the Recovery Act with $400 billion dollars. Since that time waivers have been given to states that need flexibility in using their ESEA funding in the “No Child Left Behind” legislation to move toward this model since the current Congress has not passed a budget. More states are involved at this time. The most profound concept in this graph shows how the next generation school will eliminate representative government. Notice that the new system bypasses the community, governance, and finance. Draw your attention to the blue lines that are most important to this agenda. They are: your child, called human capital, assessment which is testing, technology, and any time and any place. Testing and technology become the most important part of this agenda to create the human capital of the future for the international global workforce.

How will abolishing representative government work? In order for this graph to become a reality, there are three barriers that must be removed. Community; families, parents, and churches must have no options or legal authority, only a choice of which school to send their children; Governance; your locally elected school board or other elected local or state officials that could become a hindrance will be eliminated or reduced to minor functions: parents will not have any voting power over a for- profit charter school; Finance; the neighborhood school no longer depends on your local tax base to fund schools under equality or leveling the field. The mantra that will be quoted is, under fairness and equity there should not be rich school districts or poor school districts, only schools. Your tax money will be pooled regionally or toward a county base to be distributed equally for each child. Federal funds will now fund individual students. Your elected school boards will no longer have the tax base from which to run their school. Your local neighborhood school will eventually be pushed out through academic bankruptcy and/or taken over by charter schools.

This is the new model for school choice. Federal monies, ESEA Title I, is being changed in new laws being proposed that will follow the individual child & IDEA will change the definitions of who can receive funds to include any child not meeting Common Core Standards (CCS) in an IEP, individual education plan similar to the special education plans for handicapped children. This will mean ANY & EVERY child can receive choice money to go to the school of their choice. The entry point solutions are the end results or the child meeting government Common Core Standards & what must be done to achieve these goals. This is a design down program, start with what the government wants & work backwards….what a child will know, do & be like, or beliefs, values & actions….Blooms taxonomy, the whole child theory.

This graph from the Next Generation Schools, Race to the Top agenda, spells out how to mold the child toward those objectives. It shows how representative government, as well as parents, will be erased from any authority in educating their children or how the schools of the future will function through a computerized monopoly of selected profit making corporations, otherwise known as corporate fascism.

This is the model for for-profit Charter Schools that use public tax payer funds with no elected school boards or taxpayer accountability and this is the model for the takeover of all education in America including private schools. Private schools are included because, when these stipends are given to each child under Choice from Title I which is being proposed in the new ESEA legislation in the federal budget supported by Republican Congressmen and Senators, Republican governors and unknowingly by many conservative groups, any child accepting that federal stipend to go to a charter, private, Catholic, Christian, home school, or other school, will be mandated under accountability, to take federal testing to meet the federal standards. Many tests are being aligned to the Common Core Standards using federal objectives from NAEP test item banks already validated to meet government goals. Inevitably this will control all education in the United States if you take the money. The CCSSO has had model legislation waiting in the wings for years. Perhaps we can ask why Governor Jeb Bush is in Maine pushing his Charter school agenda with his Foundation for Excellence in Education that is widespread in Florida? Legislation in Michigan, under Republican leadership, House Bill 6004 and Senate Bill 1358 would expand a separate and statewide school district (the EAA) overseen by a governor-appointed chancellor and functioning outside the authority of the State Board of Education or state school superintendent. These schools are exempt from the same laws and quality measures of community-governed public schools. The EAA can seize unused school buildings (built and financed by local taxpayers) and force sale or lease to charter, non-public or EAA schools. This is proof that there is some truth to an agenda of eliminating representative government.

Look at the corporations that are flooding into these states to get contracts and compare them to who has access to the personal data explained below. Research to create these individual models for individual children with individual needs to meet Common Core Standards has attracted big business. Big money is being made and businesses are lining up at the door to get their share. But at what price? PARCC, The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, a testing organization just applied for 501(c)(3) non-profit status which allows easy access to individual data under FERPA, Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. Smarter Balanced is another through Educational Testing Service,ETS. American College Testing, ACT, Pearson Foundation, Gates Foundation, & Wireless Generation already are feeding at the federal data trough. Republican governors have been hoodwinked into an agenda that is racing toward ending representative government & school as we know it.

Notes

Historical documentation from, ‘The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America’
by Charlotte Iserbyt, mentor & friend.

For information about testing attitudes & values, see “Getting Inside the EQA Inventory,” Pennsylvania Department of Education.

Stupski workshop presentation: Stupski PowerPoint Presentation

OECD Workshop

Forbes Article-beyond academic testing.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/college_bound/2012/07/act_plans_to_roll_out_career_and_college_readiness_tests_for_3rd-10th_grades.html

New York selling student information

Obama unlocks data, FERPA is unleashed, and opens Pandoras Box of privacy invasion, psychological manipulation, giving data for free to organizations to make a profit, and falsely using children in research unknowingly to parents, school boards, & legislators. The ” learning genome,” which means testing and teaching the whole child, is not just about academics

This is top news yesterday out of New York: Experts, Parents, Lawmakers Blast Database Providing Personal Student Information To Vendors March 14, 2013 1:45
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork/AP) –” A new national database that compiles personal student information for educational companies that contract with public schools is being blasted by privacy experts:
.
“In turn, inBloom reportedly plans to put this private information on a data cloud and share it with for-profit vendors. The information will include personally identifiable information, including student names, test scores, grades, home addresses, email addresses, linked to grades, test scores, disciplinary and arrest records, special education status, race, economic status and health conditions, according to Class Size Matters, a non-profit organization that advocates for class size reduction in NYC’s public schools.”
This is only the beginning.

Obama “unlocks” data by issuing FERPA’s new regulations that were promulgated without congressional authority, now allowing written agreements with outside vendors to access personal data from the US Department of Education so that a plan can be developed. Each child will be evaluated as to their learning style and personality, strengths and weaknesses, not for the child to do the best of their ability, but do their best to meet government standards. This is for EACH and every child….no child left behind has new meaning. No child will escape the threat of big brother forced on them through computer compliance programming. In January, 2012, in an Office of Science and Technology Assessment meeting, Obama names private corporate businesses that he has contracted with to make this government agenda become a reality. These corporations and businesses are developing systems, assessments, software, and curriculum that will be sold back to the schools and states when in effect, they get the data for free. Some of those corporations are ETS, Pearson & Microsoft to name a few. (I have requested a FOIA request for all written agreements that FERPA has entered into, to specifically attain a list of all organizations, foundations, and businesses that are receiving PII for free to do research, testing, & curriculum development. I have not received a reply as of today.)

This next graph at the end of this page explains how the system will work. Its not about academics, its about control. The Next Generation indicators and diagnostics are: equity based, higher order/deeper learning, authentic affective engagement, leading to narrow accountability and system redesign. The indicators and diagnostics are important toward creating a profile that will force human capital to mold to a prescribed agenda. What is higher order and deep thinking? Most higher order questions on a test will measure ” beyond text”. Beyond text means you cannot get the answer from information provided in the story. You have to give your opinion or value judgment. Affective testing is measuring attitudes and values. This is critical thinking which sounds good to the parents or legislators. These value questions are scored to a criterion or standard set by the state. Higher order and deeper thinking & learning will be psychological intervention toward prescribed government attitudes and beliefs. Authentic affective engagement will be the psychological techniques used & needed to force the student to change their attitudes and behavior toward workforce objectives. This is the re-design of your neighborhood school.

The Next Generation School agenda will use personally identifiable information, PII, to create this ” learning genome” or the IEP for the individual child. Data has been UNLOCKED by Obama, so that, any foundation, business, corporation, non-profit, etc, can access data for free from personal micro-records collected by the government through testing and record keeping, to align software and curriculum for children to meet these government Common Core Standards. A customized, individual education plan, or IEP will be developed for every child & technology will help the system accomplish their goals.

Families will be drawn into this agenda by stroking them into believing this IEP is for the good of their child. They will use words like learning styles, citizenship, character, career paths, civic learning and engagement. Here is the point, these attributes sound good, but they cannot be tested and scored in a pluralistic society. Do you want your child to be taught to the best of their abilities, or do you want them to be stymied toward only attaining government standards? One is a ceiling, the other is a floor. Remember the design down approach. You will design down from a ceiling, the only content that will be taught are Common Core Standards: you design up from the floor where the sky is the limit. The United States never had a ceiling on knowledge & we can confirm & document that there is a “Deliberate Dumbing Down of America” (author, Charlotte Iserbyt). We are talking about functional literacy, but with the right attitudes & values.

Ask yourself this question? How do you measure character, or honesty, and integrity? What is measured in Citizenship? How will these standards be scored? The answer is psychological testing and probing, writing about argumentation and challenging the students point of view or fixed beliefs. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, researched the testing of attitudes & values in Pennsylvania. Documents show that the Department of Education said it depended on the sophistication of your school district as whether you told parents about the testing. Citizenship tested thresholds, self esteem tested locus of control. They came under the umbrella of Quality Goals of Education, all scored to a minimum positive attitude according to reward and punishment, all according to the government group goals & group efforts…collectivism. Pennsylvania had to withdraw this controversial test. Is it appearing again in computerized IEP’s?

Notice that the assessments, which are most important to collecting data on the individual, are linked to a new kind of credentialing. This new diploma will determine who is college bound or career bound in workforce training. The 20-80 percent agenda applies, those selected for college, those selected for workforce training. The agenda for teaching careers, starting in Kindergarten, or before in pre-school, will direct the child’s learning path. ACT reported this past summer that testing will begin in Kindergarten to test the whole child to direct them toward a career. Work Keys, also an ACT credentialing program for the workforce also tests students in the affective domain, the testing of attitudes. These workforce standards were all spelled out in SCANS, Secretaries Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills from the Department of Labor. School to Work accomplishes the goal through direct intervention and guidance toward a new caste system of work that is being designed for Americans. At the State of the Union address the President also talked about a Race to the Top for high schools: “The President will call on Congress to consider value, affordability, and student outcomes in making determinations about which colleges and universities receive access to federal student aid, either by incorporating measures of value and affordability into the existing accreditation system; or by establishing a new, alternative system of accreditation that would provide pathways for higher education models and colleges to receive federal student aid based on performance and results.” A Degree Qualification Profile is also being developed for college students by the Lumina Foundation documented in The Crucible Moment, Civic Learning & Engagement for global citizenship. Same standards, same objectives, testing college students in the affective domain, no one escapes having the ‘right attitudes.

Teacher training must also change to the new agenda. Differentiated roles, new career pathways, modular use of people & resources, redefined preparation, selection, licensing, & development.

In summary, this is a synopsis of current developments with questions that should be answered.

Data is ” unlocked” by President Obama. He awards specific private partnerships to develop systems, technology, software, and curriculum toward individual students meeting common core standards. These partnerships have been experimenting in Race to the Top school districts.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ed_data_commitments_1-19-12.pdf

FERPA is expanded January, 2012, without Congressional oversight. New regulations permits any organization, business, non profit, foundation, etc to be a “school official” that can access individual records of individual students for research. This expansion will include the private partnerships who will gain to make huge profits alluded to in unlocking the data.

The individualized packages become ” learning genomes” that test & teach to the whole child. The whole child includes a psychological component of attitudes, emotions, values, and beliefs. What values will be taught? Who controls the standards? Can a computerized model teach attitudes and values? Will social justice and economic democracy be taught? Will the subject matter have a conservative or liberal bent? Who decides what the standards will be?

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 & are very expensive. Who are the contractors? Are these businesses just vendors out to make a profit?

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 its business interests. Is this a violation of the federal tax code? How many other non-profit organizations are using this data for profit?

Once data was unlocked by Obama, FERPA was relaxed, the issue of longitudinal data collection that follows an individual from birth to career has a huge new privacy concern. The “unlocked” data on an individual is now allowed to be accessed by “others” deemed school officials other than the Strict guidelines that was proposed under the Hanson Memorandum which required that under the ‘‘audit or evaluation exception,’’ only an authorized representative of a State educational authority must be a party under the direct control of that authority, e.g., an employee or a contractor to access the data. FERPA rescinds the Hanson Memorandum which open the flood gates of data flowing to outside contractors now called school officials. The issue becomes, who has direct access?

The new direction in education is that the money funded through Title I will ” follow the child”. This in effect will have curriculum & software that would directly “affect” the individual child in a customized, or personalized education plan to meet government standards. In other words, particular organizations will have direct access to each students’ profile to test and prepare instructional programs toward government goals on the computer. Nothing will come between the child and the computer.
Is the datum on individuals, which will assuredly be used for the personalized education modules in the new ESEA Title I regulations & new 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”, are there not federal protections?

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. Is the DOE taking chances that security will not be breached on data that is so personal and private? Is it legal to allow outside contractors access to children’s records? Is this safe? Where are the federal protections for children?

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” ? This is a quote directly from the testing contractor, “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.” Are these tests legally allowed to use psychological tests without informed parental consent? Is this a revisiting from the old EQA/NAEP from Pennsylvania?

Demand an investigation into the illegal dissemination of personally identifiable information from the Department of Education regarding these possible violations of privacy. Carbon copy everyone. Newspapers, privacy organizations, everyone.

These questions MUST be answered by your Congressman & Senator once they understand the violations of privacy, freedom, and other violations of law. Investigate FERPA. Stop Choice and the ESEA Title I stipends for individual students with federal strings attached. Stop psychological testing without informed written consent. Stop unConsitutional Charter Schools. Dismantle the Department of Education.

20130730-153348.jpg
Notes

Historical documentation from, ‘The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America’
by Charlotte Iserbyt, mentor & friend.

For information about testing attitudes & values, see “Getting Inside the EQA Inventory,” Pennsylvania Department of Education.

Stupski workshop presentation: Stupski PowerPoint Presentation

OECD Workshop

Forbes Article-beyond academic testing.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/college_bound/2012/07/act_plans_to_roll_out_career_and_college_readiness_tests_for_3rd-10th_grades.html

New York selling student information

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.