Reporting on Current Obama Education Policies

20140210-103851.jpg

Teacher, Teacher, I Declare

Although, published in the mid1990’s, nothing explains Common Core Standards and the impact on teachers in the classroom, as this expose’ on the coming revolution in teacher education and teacher evaluation based on how well students perform on tests.

Common Core is not new. It is a revised, failed education system that has been systematically being forced on American students and American teachers since 1969, when NAEP began implementing a planned economy through education.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Common Core Standards for Global Citizenship

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20130801-085204.jpg
Cookie Cutter Common Core Kids

20130801-085456.jpg
West Virginia Values Standards

20130729-163640.jpg

B. F. Skinner’s Perfect Laboratory-Race to the Top

” I could make a pigeon a high achiever by reinforcing it on a proper schedule.” B. F. Skinner

What are Common Core Standards? What is Mastery Learning or Competency Based Education also known as Outcome Based Education, OBE? What happens when you combine the standards with the process? There is a school of thought that presumes all children can learn if they are provided with the appropriate learning conditions. Learning for mastery or mastery learning are terms coined by Benjamin Bloom in 1968 and 1971 respectively. Bloom hypothesized that a classroom with a mastery learning focus as opposed to the traditional form of instruction would reduce the achievement gaps between varying groups of students (Guskey 2007). What is true is that biology is biology. Everyone is different & the only way to reduce achievement gaps is to lower standards & eliminate the time it takes for All students to meet the standards. With “conventional instruction”, there is recognition of individual differences & intelligence. The individualized computerized concept of mastery learning “uses conditioning,” (reward & punishment) manipulating students to master the below standard, standards in this unnatural process. Only the standards will be taught & tested. Traditional education is opportunity, mastery learning is a controlled environment.

Mastery learning has little to do with specific content, but rather is a description of the process of mastering particular learning objectives. This approach is based on Benjamin Bloom’s Mastery for Learning model, with refinements made by Block. Mastery learning may be implemented as teacher-paced group instruction, one-to-one tutoring, or self-paced learning with programmed materials using direct teacher instruction or computerized models. It requires well-defined learning objectives organized into smaller, sequentially organized units, otherwise known lately as Common Core Standards. Individualized, computerized instruction is a perfect partner used with mastery learning. The computer is a perfect programmed teacher to reach a perfect controlled goal.

Block discussing “redistribution of brains” in an article published in Educational Leadership (November 1979) entitled “Mastery Learning: The Current State of the Craft.” Block explained that:
“One of the striking personal features of mastery learning, for example, is the degree to which it encourages cooperative individualism in student learning as opposed to selfish competition. Just how much room is there left in the world for individualists who are more concerned with their own performance than the performance of others? One of the striking, societal features of mastery learning is the degree to which it presses for a society based on the excellence of all participants rather than one based on the excellence of a few. Can any society afford universal excellence, or must all societies make most people incompetent so that a few can be competent?”

The concept of mastery learning can be attributed to the behaviorism principles of Skinner’s operant conditioning. According to operant conditioning theory, learning occurs when an association is formed between a stimulus and response (Skinner, 1984). In line with the behavior theory, mastery learning focuses on overt behaviors that can be observed and measured (Baum, 2005). The material that will be taught to mastery is broken down into small discrete lessons that follow a logical progression. In order to demonstrate mastery over each lesson, students must be able to show evidence of learning the material before moving to the next lesson (Anderson, 2000). Just think of constant reinforcements like bells, pop-ups, & errors made by students on computers. This is operant conditioning.

The Race to the Top model does away with the-knowledge based model, seat time, the calendar year, grade groupings, & competition. A personalized, student education plan or career pathway uses mastery learning & is the system to be taught for the Common Core Standards.The reason Obama unlocked data under FERPA, Family Education Rights & Privacy Act, is to develop & research these programs & monitor individuals for compliance toward those standards.

A computerized, personalized student plan or career pathway is called a ‘learning genome.’ The child’s learning style, background, & dispositions will be monitored & assessed through the entire process. The “process” that is used to teach the dumbed down Common Core Standards is Mastery Learning. Operant conditioning takes away the normal process of thinking so that the transfer of knowledge in normal human thinking activity is stunned. This is a dumbing down technique purposely being used on American children. Mastery Learning, Master Teachers, Common Core Standards, NAEP, National Assessment of Educational Progress, & data-trafficking is the foundation for a national curriculum, national testing, national teacher certification, & a national data bank to monitor & force compliance. This is the footprint of nationalizing & redesigning education in America.
This is what is being called accountability toward a New World Order School.

The graph on the previous page & photo pictured on this page were taken from “Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century,” February, 2013, U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology

This entire excerpt that follows is Kentucky’s ‘Race to the Top’ Model State Using Mastery Learning called STEAM Academy in Fayette County, Kentucky

“DIG DEEPER:
Fayette County Public Schools and the University of Kentucky imagine a 21st-century school that is flexible and adaptable, technology rich, responsive to student and teacher needs, and recognizes and extends learning beyond the traditional school day and classroom. The STEAM Academy, an urban public school opening in fall 2013, will incorporate mastery learning, personalized instruction, internships, and dual/college credit opportunities. The goal: to ensure that students will graduate college and career ready, and experienced. Low-income, first-generation college, and traditionally underserved students will have enrollment preference.

The STEAM Academy will use an innovative, hybrid instructional program based in student‐paced, mastery- and problem‐based experiential learning. Technology will help deliver content and real-time assessment to provide students with greater autonomy, help instructors better diagnose and address each student’s needs, and engage parents more effectively.

Student voice and student agency are central to the school model. Students will take ownership of their learning by choosing their instructional delivery, schedule, and learning style and engaging in real-world problem-solving projects that interest them. At the classroom level students will work to mastery with time as a variable. Some students may move thorough the coursework in two years and matriculate into classes at the University of Kentucky while others will need four years to be ready for college or career. Demonstration of mastery will be determined by summative assessments and evidence collected in an e-portfolio.

Upon entering the school, students will be assigned an adviser who will remain with the student until graduation. Advisory groups will meet bi‐weekly throughout the year to provide guidance in college and career readiness skills, personal goal setting and monitoring, and problem identification and solution finding.

The district is taking advantage of an environment ripe for innovation. Innovation waivers provide unprecedented flexibility in seat time, enabling a true competency-based approach. The University of Kentucky P20 Innovation Lab (part of CCSSO’s Partnership for Next Generation Learning) is helping create the innovative infrastructure and instructional model. In addition, teachers will work with Innovation Lab faculty members and other UK faculty who will provide training across a range of instructional innovations including project‐based learning, performance assessment, and technology integration. Preparation of these teachers will also include a mentoring component with master teachers, teacher leaders, and content specialists with Fayette County Schools. Ultimately, the STEAM Academy will serve as an incubator – where pre-service and master teachers gain experience in a mastery-based blended learning environment, and a lab – where UK faculty can research and pilot new innovations.”
http://www.nextgenlearning.org/grantee/fayette-county-public-schools

Kohlberg on Skinnarian Techniques.

“Skinner may dispense with ideas of freedom & dignity to arrive at a theory valid for explaining studies of reward in animals & children. A theory that ignores freedom & dignity in the learning process leads to the practice of constructing “teacher proof” materials. It also leads to kits designed to be “student proof,” that is, to modify the student’s behavior without his understanding or assent to the theory and methods applied to him.” Lawrence Kohlberg in the Foreword to “Promoting Moral Growth from Piaget to Kohlberg,” Hershey, Paolitto, Reimer 1979, about Skinnarian techniques.

Standards Based Basketball-Otherwise known as doing away with competition.

STANDARD: All players will make 10 baskets at the game tonight & feel good about it.
(The basket is lowered 6′)
All players did make all 10 baskets at the game last night & both teams won.
All players received mastery of the goal. They are all treated to candy bars. They are rock stars.

NOTES:
Historical documentation on Mastery Learning, “Deliberate Dumbing Down of America,” Charlotte Iserbyt

Richard I. Evans, 1968, “B.F. Skinner: The Man and His Ideas.” Skinner, “I could make a pigeon a high achiever by reinforcing it on a proper schedule.” (p. 10)

“Our Children: The Drones,” Ann Herzer

Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century,” February, 2013, U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology, http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/files/2013/02/OET-Draft-Grit-Report-2-17-13.pdf

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ed_data_commitments_1-19-12.pdf

Kentucky Race to the Top, STEAM, http://www.nextgenlearning.org/grantee/fayette-county-public-schools

Race to the Top model presentation: http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/46399963.ppt

20130729-164115.jpg

20130729-164543.jpg

ANITA HOGE PRESENTS:
“TALKING PAPERS”
A “HANDS ON” TOOL FOR PARENTS TO UNDERSTAND OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION

This education model is a recurring, failed education model being duplicated with new names over the past several decades. The reference to a student is “human capital.” This value-added definition addresses the worth of an individual to business. There are many older names for Outcome Based Education. Common Core State Standards, CCSS, is the newest name. Older names are Competency Based Education, Performance Based Education, Mastery Learning Model, & Student Centered Learning. The key to this model deals with the individual meeting learning outcomes or standards. The model is un-natural & does not identify individual differences in people. The focus is removed from a teacher changing & teaching the curriculum with curriculum objectives, to a student meeting specific controlled outcomes; removing the Carnegie Unit (ABCD or failure); no longer will the student go to school 180 days or seat time, to no time limit for meeting outcomes; no more grade delineations like freshman, sophomore, junior, senior; and a transformation from teaching content toward teaching ‘standards only’ driven by constant assessments & testing.

A Total Quality Management system, TQM, or MBO, management by objectives, will be used to control these outcomes creating a national curriculum, national teacher certification system, and national testing all conforming to the Common Core State Standards. This is why the CCSS are copyrighted. They must be duplicated in all 50 states- standardization. Teachers, curriculum, & assessment will use feedback loop control to control all three of these aspects for students to meet standards under the eye of government compliance. Talking Papers illustrate the concept of the “dumbing down” process that will be used to control student achievement and control student attitudes & values to a collectivist viewpoint. The key is the individual student meeting these standards controlled by the federal government nationalizing education in the United States.

20130727-094716.jpg

Anita Hoge’s Talking Papers 1995