Saturday, March 28, 2015

Teacher Says Refuse the Tests

DAWN ASKS WHY NOT Refuse the Tests?
By gutsy teacher D.A.W.N. in New York State

Parents have the power to stop the madness. Refuse the unfair test!

It is really quite simple. Yes, Goliath, the giant testing steam roller, which includes everyone and everything that is tenaciously moving forward to implement the testing schedule can be defeated by David. The young boy who picked up a stone and flung it at the forehead of a giant defeated the Philistines in the Bible.

The young children in grades 3 through 8 who come to school and refuse to participate in the ten hours of high-stakes standardized testing can bring the whole invalid, unfair, worthless testing system to a halt. Parents have the power to stop the madness. Refuse the unfair test!

Notify your child’s school principal that your child will be refusing the PARCC tests or the Common Core standardized tests in April and May. PARCC stands for the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers which is one of the two multi-state consortiums that every state has to participate in. New York is administering the Common Core test this year, not PARCC, but it is still a lousy product created by Pearson.

Last year over 44,000 students in New York State refused the test. The recent reports confirming that Pearson and the NJ Department of Education is aggressively surveilling student social media such as Facebook and Twitter should inspire an exponential increase in that number.

Pearson is an international corporation, with headquarters in London, which has no business tracking the conversations of our children. Who knows where these conversations will end up?

The NJ superintendent of the district including Watchung Regional High School, Elizabeth Jewett, stated that “her testing coordinator received a late night call from the state education department saying that Pearson had initiated a ‘Priority 1 Alert’ for a test item breach within our school. The DOE informed us that Pearson is monitoring all social media during the PARCC testing.”

Jewett continued: “I have to say that I find that a bit disturbing—and if our parents were concerned before about a conspiracy with all of the student data, I am sure I will be receiving more letters of refusal once this gets out.”

School officials may tell you that you can’t “opt out.” Tell them that you are not “opting out,” you are refusing the test, which you have every right to do. You, the parents, are ultimately in charge of your children’s educational experience. You do not have to allow the district to subject your child to ten hours of boring, tricky, frustrating, and ultimately pointless testing.

The PARCC tests, created by Pearson, are poorly designed and confusing. It has been discovered for many of the sample released questions that there is no correct answer. There are many plausible answers which supposedly requires “higher-order thinking” in order to discern the “best” answer.  In actuality these tests are confusing to adults with PhDs in English so how valid can they be as assessment tools for children?

The tests are diagnostically and instructionally useless because teachers and students cannot even see the tests to find out what they got wrong and why. Even the simple scores are not published until the following year when the child is in a different grade with a different teacher, therefore, they cannot be used to drive instruction.

The PARCC tests have not been validated by any of the normal procedures for test validation. Validation requires that the test maker show that the test correlates strongly with other accepted measures of what is being tested, both generally and specifically. This has not been done.

It is a much more difficult test that will increase students’ anxiety and feelings of inadequacy. The cut scores have been adjusted to intentionally and predictably fail more than 60% of all students. Many of these newly designated “failures” were quite bright and on level just months ago. We are fools if we accept these snake oil tests.

The PARCC tests have an enormous financial cost. The PARCC contract itself is worth over one billion dollars to Pearson in the first three years. It is especially egregious that this money is going to a foreign corporation headquartered in London.

This is a complete misuse of tax dollars that could be spent on things that matter, such as making sure poor children have eye exams, warm clothes, and enough food to eat. This money could go to make sure libraries are open and school nurses are on duty in every school in America.

This money could go to hire more teachers and reduce class size which is the one change that every school could immediately make that has been proven to improve learning. Check out any good private school and notice the class size. Small works best. Ask any teacher. “What is the one factor that impacts their teaching ability the most?” They will invariably answer, “Class size.”

Teachers know how to teach. They know how to create diagnostically valid assessments. They know how to create relationships with the unique students in their classrooms. They know how to use their creativity to motivate hard to reach students and inspire students to soar to explore their full potential. They are tired of being micromanaged by Arne Duncan who knows nothing about how children learn best. Let teachers teach.

No other nation is implementing a testing regime like this. It is not valid and not necessary. It is costly and counterproductive. See the following website for helpful forms and sample letters.  

The quicker we reject these new tests, the quicker we can get back to teaching and learning. 

New York Common Core standardized tests begin on April 14. Help your child refuse the test! Notify the schools now.

Read more articles from true grassroots citizens at this blog:
New Jersey Superintendent Reveals Pearson Spying On Students
Watch Out For Opt Out! A "Seismic Shift" In Assessing Students 

John Birch Society Comes Out of Closet

Birch Society Sells Out Our Freedoms!
With Public Support for School "Choice" & Tax Credits
Read the above article published in the John Birch Society's magazine, The New American, "Tax-credit Private-school Scholarship Funding Explodes in Oklahoma," This article needs to be read in its entirety to realize the terrible depths of compromise into which the Birchers have fallen. Below are a few snippets, alarming excerpts, including -- unbelievably! -- lauding the Friedman Foundation:
The movement, called “school choice,” began in the mind of free-market economist Milton Friedman, who, with his wife, Rose, established a foundation in 1996 to promote his vision of school choice for all children. Operating on a modest $5 million annual budget, that foundation — now called the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice — has moved some big mountains in the field of public education....

Thanks once again to the Friedman Foundation, in its groundbreaking study “The Fiscal Impact of Tax-Credit Scholarships in Oklahoma,” it was learned that those tax-credit scholarships were vastly more effective in putting dollars where they would do the most good....

In a perfect world, families would pay directly for the education of their children, at the school of their choice. Oklahoma comes close: Tax credits fund scholarships to the most deserving and needy of the young people, while keeping government interference at a minimum. These programs are growing ever more popular across the nation. The ultimate goal should be to let the money follow the students to whatever school their parents want them to attend. [emphasis added]
 Whoa!  Doesn't that last sentence come right out of the Reauthorization of ESEA legislation this blog has been trying to kill? Read: "What is Title I Portability?"

The John Birch Society finally has come out of the closet. They have fallen hook, line and sinker for the  STATE-controlled fake "choice" proposed for decades by BOTH the Friedman Foundation and the Leftists like Bill Ayers. In this article the Trojan Horse of "Choice" has just gained a key entrance to the city! So many groups and people are coming out of the phony "choice" closet recently. This has to be the last domino to fall!

Here is the ultimate disinformation found in the conclusion of the New American article:
Tax-credit scholarship programs such as the one in Oklahoma are helping to move education to that ultimate destination. As those tax-credit notices from Oklahoma’s Tax Commission show up in the mail, they will add to the momentum of a good idea where everyone wins. [emphasis added]

We regret to inform the John Birchers that NO ONE WINS! This is the biggest myth since the earliest days of education reform. The parents lose, the children lose, the teachers lose, the voters lose, true local control and representative government loses. NOBODY WINS! All John Birchers need to read this one post -- if nothing else -- and then grasp the ramifications of how they have just been sold out: "Charters Kill True Choice"

Read more at this blog where we have been reporting on these issues for the past year:
Read about the Reauthorization of ESEA bills in Congress. See:
For a complete listing of Anita Hoge's alerts on this blog, see the post "It Wasn't US!" and scroll to the bottom.

Friday, March 27, 2015



A 3D Research Report by a Grassroots Mother


Paper Tiger: a person, group, nation, or thing that has the appearance of strength or power but is actually weak or ineffectual. (Source)

OPT-OUT is meaningless if STATES and LOCAL RIGHTS disappear through STEALTH LEGISLATION or INTERNATIONAL UN TREATY ratification.

From the article, "UN Treaty on Child's Rights Legally Binding, and Absurd," by Michael Farris of HSLDA, come the following statements:
"The CRC is a comprehensive treaty covering the economic, social, political, civil, and cultural rights of children. No area of our law regarding children lies outside of its scope. And virtually all American law on children comes from the laws of our 50 states. Yet our Constitution says treaties override state laws....

"Many school districts allow parents to allow their children to “opt out” from certain controversial courses such as sex education. The UN body holds that such parental involvement violates the treaty. The CRC will trump all state “opt out” laws....

"The UN treaty establishes the law; American courts and child welfare agencies can, will, and must enforce the UN standards by virtue of Article VI of our Constitution." [bold added]

So, if Farris is right, all of the OPT-OUT language we are hearing will be rendered useless if UN Convention on the Rights of The Child is ratified here in the U.S. -- and it is coming.

[ED. NOTE: BUT bear in mind that Farris is working both sides of the issue here, as has been reported on in detail at this blog. His solution to the "crisis" of UNCRC is "Parental Rights and Responsibilities" language in legislation (which "coincidentally" happens to be embedded in H.R. 5 language which Farris supports) in which the Big Brother State defines parental rights and prescribes (assesses?) parental responsibilities, including penalties non-compliance. Get it? Farris hypes the crisis, and then proposes the "solution." (See article links at the end of this blog post for more information.)]

The U.S. HAS SIGNED this U.N. Treaty but has NOT ratified it yet. This will be coming down the pike SOON, as this presidency INTENDS to ratify it, especially in its final destructive hours as it throws all globalist waste at the wall.

Here is the Wikipedia entry description: "U.S. ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child":
"Under the United States Constitution, the ratification of treaties involves several steps. Firstly, the president or his representative would negotiate, agree and sign a treaty, which would then be submitted to the U.S Senate for its "advice and consent". At that time the President would explain and interpret all provisions in the treaty. If the Senate approves the treaty with a two-thirds majority, it goes back to the President who can ratify it....

"On 16 February 1995, Madeleine Albright, at the time the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, signed the Convention. However, though generally supportive of the Convention, President Bill Clinton did not submit it to the Senate. Likewise, President Bush did not submit the Convention to the Senate. President Barack Obama has described the failure to ratify the Convention as 'embarrassing' and has promised to review this. The Obama administration has said that it intends to submit the Convention to the Senate, but there is no set timeline for it....

"...ratification of the Convention would require the United States to submit reports, outlining its implementation on the domestic level, to the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, a panel of child rights experts from around the world. Parties must report initially two years after acceding to (ratifying) the Convention and then every five years...."

Something to be considered carefully. When international education policy is being sold and set by UN insider "Education Experts," like recently confessed Canadian PEDOPHILE, Professor BEN LEVIN, it bears consideration. Especially if his policy agenda furthers his own perverse personal agenda. (Read this court case against Benjamin Levin HERE.)

HOW then can we TRUST any EDUCATION POLICY PUSHERS who TAKE AWAY PARENTAL RIGHTS? What are any of their motives to take away parental rights with the UNCRC treaty? With omnibus education bill's like HR5 and Lamar Alexander's Senate Bill version of the ESEA, to keep children away from their parents by 12/7/365 (12 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year) schools desired by both Arne Duncan and Lamar Alexander? (Read "Lamar the Tsar.")

These are questions we PARENTS NEED to ask ourselves and ASK The POLICY PUSHERS! Why? See, for example, the following alarming article about Levin, a high level Educrat who has been arrested for child pornography:
"Levin has been invited by school districts around the world and in Canada in recent years to deliver keynote addresses on sustainable education, policy and education leadership." [emphasis added]

The extent of Levin's influence in setting United States education policy is unknown, but he has participated in high level Education Summits with big U.S. EDUCRAT POLICY PUSHERS such as ARNE DUNCAN, the United States Secretary of Education. BEN LEVIN held a high level position here on the conference masthead, one of 4, including LINDA DARLING HAMMOND as "Rapporteur" for this 2011 international summit on the Teaching Profession. This summit was hosted by both Arne Duncan and Secretary General of the OECD, a UN partner. See the following list of speakers from the International Summit on the Teaching Profession, March 16-17-2011:

Ben Levin has also been a regular with the OECD over the years.
Both the Policy Pushers and the International Education Experts will be influencing and deciding law for American parents and their children if we do not stop both ESEA Reauthorization AND the ratification of UNCRC.
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Members of this UN committee which will be deciding how AMERICAN PARENTS will REQUIRED by LAW to act are from Bahrain, Morocco, Togo, Ecuador, Slovakia, Russia, Egypt, and Venezuela, and other countries like Monaco and Spain. No representative from the USA. But Bahrain will impose its values on our children if we RATIFY the UNCRC, or if it is ALLOWED in by STEALTH or SOFT LAW through an OMNIBUS BILL. (See: and read the following:
"Bahrain is a destination country for men and women trafficked for the purposes of forced labor and commercial sexual exploitation. Men and women from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Ethiopia, and Eritrea migrate voluntarily to Bahrain to work as formal sector laborers or domestic workers. Some, however, face conditions of involuntary servitude after arriving in Bahrain, such as unlawful withholding of passports, restrictions on movement, non-payment of wages, threats, and physical or sexual abuse.  - U.S. State Dept Trafficking in Persons Report, June, 2009   [full country report]" [bold added]

AMERICAN PARENTS: DO YOU WANT YOUR RIGHTS and YOUR CHILDRENS RIGHTS DECIDED BY "a panel of child rights experts from around the world"? LIKE BAHRAIN?? OR by a PEDOPHILE LIKE BEN LEVIN? Below are a collection or articles in the press about Ben Levin. When parents no longer have rights, will Educrats like him be in charge?

"Via online communications, Levin urged a woman who’d presented herself as the single mother of two girls aged 8 and 14, to engage in sexual acts with the kids, claiming that he’d sexually abused his own three daughters when they were as young as 12."
In case you think this is an over-reaction, examine the facts. How many PEDOPHILE's have been setting policy in children's schools all over the world? PEDOPHILE's want access to children to GROOM them for abuse. Social emotional learning dominating curriculum combined with porno/pedo sex ed is potentially catastrophic, GROOMING on a MASS SCALE. Read more, if you can stomach it:
OUR CHILDREN HAVE NEVER BEEN LESS SAFE IN SCHOOL!!! And, finally, don't miss this article reported by the Toronto Sun:

For articles about Michael Farris and his double-dealing, read "Are Homeschoolers on MARS? " and follow the links at the bottom to other articles about Farris. 
Read about "Opt Out":  
To read about ESEA Reauthorization, see: 
For a complete listing of Anita Hoge's alerts on this blog, including how the Reauthorization of ESEA will destroy private education in the U.S., see the post "It Wasn't US!" and scroll to the bottom.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

The New Conscientious Objector

Time To Take A Stand
A 3D Research Report by A. Patrick Huff, Ph.D.*

Read: "Debate over test security vs. student privacy rages in the age of social media," by Emma Brown, The Washington Post,  March 23, 2015:
A New Jersey student’s tweet about a question on new Common Core tests was deleted after it was flagged by a testing company, spurring a national debate about how to balance children’s privacy with test security in the age of social media.

Many parents and Common Core critics accused Pearson, the publisher of the new exams, of spying on the nation’s children. But for Pearson and other major test publishers — including ACT and SAT, which administer college entrance exams — watching public conversations on the Web has become a fundamental part of combating cheating and ensuring fairness.

“Sharing images of test questions on social media is the 2015 equivalent of a student copying test items and handing them out,” said David Connerty-Marin, spokesman for PARCC, whose new Common Core tests are being administered for the first time this year in the District, Maryland and 10 other states. “Protecting students and teachers from breaches — which are a violation of testing policies — is the right thing to do.”

If one were to look up the definition of conscientious objector in the dictionary, the definition would be confined to serving in the military. Being a conscientious objector is not something one hears about anymore since our country stopped drafting young men in 1973 (women have never been conscripted). For those too young to be familiar with the cause, it involved refusing conscription in the military based on moral, philosophical, or religious objection to killing another human being. At the time of my coming of age the Vietnam War was raging full blast. Conscientious objectors were seen as either draft dodgers or righteous defenders of personal sovereignty, depending on your worldview. If someone is seasoned enough, they can remember when Mohammed Ali (then Cassius Clay) refused to step forward for military duty in 1967. It cost him dearly as he was stripped of his heavyweight title and was not allowed to box again until 1971 when the Supreme Court overturned the judgment. Ali’s defiant action made him an icon of his day; vilified by some, hailed as a hero by others. 

To stand up for what someone believes in has always been something revered in our nation. We should support the principle one believes in simply on the grounds of the First Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 
To petition the government for a redress of grievances simply states that an objection or wrongdoing needs an audience so that the grievance can be addressed. This last sentence in the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not heard much about. Mostly we tend to center on the right to have free speech and freedom of religion.  It also states, however, that an individual has the right to be heard if they feel they have been wronged.
Students all over the country are standing up and exercising their First Amendment right to be heard in their objection to taking the standardized test that is administered every year at this time. In most states that means the Common Core Test. The latest incident that took place in New Jersey, where it was discovered that the mega testing company Pearson was eavesdropping on students social media sites looking for cheating incidents, has raised a firestorm with parents.

This is just the latest in a long line of grievances parents and students have had with their right to a free and appropriate public education. Public school education has now become synonymous with standardized testing. It is practically the only thing that matters now within the walls of the schoolhouse. Testing administrators under fire to defend the invasion of privacy perpetrated by Pearson, are looking for ways to justify this intrusion by saying Pearson is only trying to keep the test secure. 

As a former high school principal that was engulfed in the testing environment, I can tell you that in 99% of schools across the country test security is taken very seriously, and checks and balances are in place to ensure a violation of security does not occur. A breach of security at the school level creates a paper trail of answering to state officials that no principal wants to encounter. An outside company offering their services by monitoring social media sites looking for security issues is laughable, if it wasn’t so insidious. This latest action by Pearson is simply just another indication of how ridiculous the testing matrix has become.  

Once again, the U.S. Constitution has been violated in the name of test security.  The Fourth Amendment reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees the First Amendment. If people are to fear how they communicate through their writings, in whatever form of written transaction they choose, then most assuredly they will begin to monitor their opinions, beliefs and feelings they express through their speech and writings regarding various issues of importance.

Many have had enough and are now taking a stand. Students, along with many parents, are exercising their duty to conscientiously object to taking the yearly test. What are school officials to do about this new conscientious objector? Many will seek punishment.  Graduation denial will also be used to threaten students to not even think about opting out of the yearly test. 

If large numbers of students decided to opt out of the test in a state that requires passing the test for graduation, the state school officials will have a real problem on their hands. If a school experienced a mass protest of the test, it most assuredly would loose its accountability rating. Federal Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements call for a high school to have 75% of students make graduation within the four-year time frame in order to “meet standards.” AYP standards also dictate that 95% of all students in the school must take the test each year. Not to meet standards is something that every school principal dreads. The entire focus of the school is to meet standards of AYP.

If the truth were known, however, every school superintendent, principal, and certainly all the teachers, would love to get out from under this horribly oppressive system of education. They have no idea how to accomplish this, though, because the laws have all been written to ensure everyone stays put in their proper place. Every facet of school business is focused on achieving AYP. Campus plans are written every year that tie academic goals and objectives to meeting standards of AYP. If goals are not achieved, plans have to be written to detail how failure to reach the goals will be rectified. Jobs are on the line. Failure comes with a high cost. What a stifling system education has become. Why would anyone want to be a teacher, and God forbid anyone would aspire to become a principal! What is to become of dynamic, inspirational leadership for the future of our schools if all it is about is achieving an accountability rating?

Superintendents need to be on the right side of this issue. There may not have been any conscientious objectors in your school district yet, but there will be. Will you be on the side of the student and support his/her right to object to this tyranny of the mind that exists today in our schools? Or will you side with the state and seek ways to penalize and punish just to keep your accountability rating? 

I know that’s harsh, but superintendents need to think about this issue before it ends up on their desk. Take stock in your gut and make the right call. Your school board may not support you, but your principals, teachers and parents will applaud your stand and back you when the heavy hand of the state comes down. When the authorities see the support coming from the parents and educational community they will then need to rethink their position. 

This is what it means to be an American. Protest is woven throughout out history. Does all of that go away at the schoolhouse door?  

The most powerful voice at any learning institution, be it high school or college, is the student. To all superintendents and principals, I say let the voice of the student be heard. Support their protest. Support their opting out of taking the test. It just may be your only path to freedom and regaining any sense of sovereignty over your school and restoring the honorable profession of teaching to its rightful place. Yearly standardized testing linked to the Accountability System, teacher evaluations, and student graduation, whether it is Common Core, or any other name the powers that be in education want to call it, must end.  

Politicians will not listen. The money behind the testing industry is too big. School choice, charter schools and vouchers are not the answer. The answer lies in restoring the public school to the beacon of learning it used to be. School districts should be allowed to choose their own curriculum; one that is right and appropriate for their own schools.  Schools should return to using only those standardized tests that are for diagnostic or aptitude purposes. The teacher should be returned to the rightful position as the purveyor of knowledge and information to their students, not a lesson found in a laptop or tablet.

It appears that the only answer left is the conscientious objector. If enough students take a stand and opt out, it will cause a roar so loud that it cannot be denied. A decision of this magnitude cannot be entered into lightly. This is an individual choice, and one that may come with a cost. Students need to discuss with their parents if this is the right course of action for them. There is strength in numbers, however; especially when the cause is just. 

“In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man,
and brave, and hated and scorned.
When his cause succeeds,
the timid join him,
for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.”

~Mark Twain

We have a new type of patriot today; a young conscientious objector that is using dissent as a tool to express his/her rights as an American. Let’s all take a stand and support them.  They just may pave the way for a brighter day inside the schoolhouse.

Read more on this blog:
"New Jersey Superintendent Reveals Pearson Spying On Students"
"A Teacher's Courageous Speech"

*Dr. Pat Huff is a 3D research team contributor and author of the new book The Takeover of Public Education in America: The agenda to control information and knowledge through the Accountability System

This is Title I Portability

No Way, ESEA!
An explanation of Title I  +  IDEA  =  "Choice"
By Anita Hoge

Read previous post: "What is Title I Portability?"

What is Title I Portability?

Title I  +  IDEA  =  "Choice"
(IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)

Intensive Intervention (Source)

An Alert by Anita B. Hoge
March 24, 2015

Education Daily, February. 25, 2015, quotes federal Department of Education Secretary Duncan,

"Duncan: ‘Hard to fathom’ compromise with GOP on Title I portability.
What a crock!

Let's shine a little light on this. This was the same portability when the Senate Democrats were in power. Their version of the Reauthorization of ESEA in 2013 was called SB 1094. The only COMPROMISE was to get Democrats on board with so-called "CHOICE" for all private and religious schools. Title I portability (all children are at-risk) and "direct student services" (meaning "choice" funded by IDEA for all at-risk children) is embedded in the 2015 bills, HR 5 and Alexander's ESEA, with convoluted definitions and mandates for all public, charter, private, Christian, and Catholic schools. See "HR 5 Bastardizes Title I and IDEA."

Background: In the older Reauthorization of ESEA legislation, SB 1094 and HR 5 from 2013, there was language in the bills and amendments that were submitted for Title I portability by both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats were having a hard time agreeing to "choice" for private and religious schools. Senator Reid never brought this bill to the floor for a vote when it was released out of committee. Why? The Republican version passed the House with flying colors... passed without a whimper. So, why did Reid hold up the vote in 2013 to Reauthorize ESEA? They didn't have the votes. It looks worse now that parents know the content of the 2015 Reauthorization of ESEA bills.

Title I funds "following the child" is not a new phenomena. In fact, former Governor Mitt Romney, Republican candidate for President, had the exact same agenda for Title I and IDEA in 2012. Read closely "Romney Calls for Using Title I, IDEA Funds for School Choice":
Republicans in Washington have long been attracted to proposals to use federal funds for school vouchers, and in that context, Romney's proposal is not unusual, Michael J. Petrilli, a vice president at the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. He described the Republican candidate's school choice proposal as "an interesting idea," though he said it could be difficult to implement, for a variety of reasons.
Federal per-student Title I and special-education funds, on their own, are probably not sufficient to cover many private school costs, though they could help if combined with state voucher money, Petrilli said. The broader challenge is that federal funding formulas currently do not distribute Title I and other funds in ways that make it easy to give it out individually among qualified students.
On the other hand, if the federal funding stream could be overhauled so that each qualified student was given a "backpack" of funding to carry to ANY school,.... Petrilli said." (Emphasis added)
This is the agenda. Overhaul federal funding formulas and distribute these federal-per-student Title I funds and IDEA funds that would follow all children in a "backpack" of funding that would go to any public, charter, private, or religious school.
  • Who is a "qualified" student for choice?
  • How will private and religious schools pay for these services?
  • Especially since these funds "are probably not sufficient to cover many private school costs (Petrilli)?
The devil is in the definitions. The definitions of at-risk and disabilities that go with Title I and IDEA have changed. You no longer have to be poor or handicapped. "Direct student services" are the psychological interventions and remediations for Common Core.  
  • Are private and religious schools taking into account that a choice child is at-risk of failing for not meeting Common Core psychological mental health standards (standards in the affective domain defined as attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions)? 
  • Do they realize that all schools will be mandated to deliver mental health interventions and remediation through IDEA? 
  • Are they willing and able to hire the social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists that are mandated for these services? 
  • Is this real choice?
In order for President Obama and Secretary Duncan to get TOTAL control of ALL education in the United States, they need "CHOICE" called TITLE I PORTABILITY (where the money 'follows the at-risk child') and "DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES" (psychological interventions and remediation funded by IDEA that will "follow the at risk child.") This was the equity in education plan, For Each and Every Child:

Also see the Compendium:

 Yes, Title I portability is for every child. This is the equitable education and equitable funding that Obama promised. Every child will be taught the same Common Core psychological standards, every child be be funded exactly the same, and every child will be remediated with psychological interventions exactly the same, with integrity and "fidelity." Teachers are retrained to deliver and teach EXACTLY as the scientifically evidence-based techniques were designed. (Response to Interventions, RTI: see graph below and click on

What is not being discussed is this: What will be measured? And how will these non-academic standards like interpersonal skills, responsibility, honesty and integrity, or grit, be scored? 

Pennsylvania parents know because these social, emotional, and behavioral standards (attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions) were researched and piloted in our state assessment by NAEP, National Assessment of Educational Progress. NAEP and the ESEA Flexibility Waivers have incorporated these social, emotional, and behavioral standards into the Common Core standards. The Hoge complaint forced Pennsylvania Department of Education to remove the state assessment (EQA, Educational Quality Assessment) because the test was violating federal law, the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, PPRA. In October, 2014, former Governor Corbett expunged the Pennsylvania website portal of ALL the Interpersonal Skills Standards that were in the affective domain in order to hide them; however they remain in the model curriculum.
  • How much honesty does a student need in order to graduate? 
  • How do you score honesty? 
  • Is your child proficient in interpersonal skills? 
  • What about the violations of privacy in data tracking and trafficking of this personally identifiable information?   
  • Are these children coded for mental health disabilities?  Will schools bill MEDICAID and expect the states to pick up the tab?  
  • Are DSM codes (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Health Disorders) used for billing? 
  • Will these codes affect your child in the future for having a mental health disability? Are these mental health wrap-around EPSDT services? (Early Periodic Screening and Diagnostic Testing) (See Pennsylvania House Select Committee Investigation on school based mental health services and MEDICAID billing: HR 37, Representative Sam Rohrer, Chairman, 1995: )
Congressman Kline and Senator Alexander have a lot to explain about their legislation. 

UPDATE: Backroom Politics With Senators Alexander and Murray 

So what's happening with the deals in the backroom for the Reauthorization of ESEA?

A bipartisan deal to overhaul the No Child Left Behind education law is nearly complete and will be ready for a committee vote on April 13, two key Senate lawmakers said Monday.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, has been working with the top Democrat on the panel, Sen. Patty Murray of Washington.
"We are making significant progress in our negotiations," the pair said in a joint statement.
The committee has held several hearings, and staff continue to negotiate behind the scenes on a proposal designed to win support from Republicans and Democrats in the Senate. (emphasis added)

Do you like this "behind the scenes negotiating"? Do you like this "CHOICE"?  This Reauthorization of ESEA will nationalize education. This is a federal power grab. This is government controlled "big brother." Plus, these mental health DSM codes on every student will eventually eliminate the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, through the backdoor. (NRA, YOU'D BETTER PAY ATTENTION.)

Parents, contact every private and religious school to vote 'NO" on the Reauthorization of ESEA! This is not the real choice you want.
Vote NO on HR 5!
Vote NO on Alexander's ESEA!
Vote NO on Obama's Choice!
Stop ESEA Reauthorization!

Read more: "Wrong, Wrong, Wrong on H.R. 5"
For a complete listing of Anita Hoge's alerts on this blog, including how the Reauthorization of ESEA will destroy private education in the U.S., see the post "It Wasn't US!" and scroll to the bottom.