Wednesday, March 4, 2015

HR 5 Bastardizes Title 1 and IDEA...

...creating a dangerous hybrid


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Anita B Hoge 724-263-0474
Ryan Bannister 717-919-2122
Gen Yvette Sutton 610-507-9113
Cheryl Boise 412-389-6896
Rich Felice 484-678-2236
Pennsylvanians Restoring Education
Pennsylvanians Against Common Core
March 4, 2015

SENATOR ALEXANDER AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE,

H.R. 5 ESEA Reauthorization cannot be fixed. We also say “NO” to S. 144, Local Leadership in Education Act. We also say “NO” to S. 227, Strengthening Education through Research Act.  You both know perfectly well and recognize that the core of HR 5 ESEA Reauthorization rests upon Title I and IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, under which our children are tracked and remediated.

We citizens demand that HR 5 be completely suspended until the United States Department of Education General Counsel reviews the Constitutionality of the Title I Portability embedded in the Student Success Act of 2015 which will amend No Child Left Behind.

The federal government does NOT have the authority under TITLE I PORTABILITY to mandate “DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES.” These services, identified for an “AT-RISK” student (see pp. 53-54), are defined as “specialized student support services.” (See pp. 55, 78.)

The federal government is effectually mandating the identification of an individual student through interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic reports on assessments and how that student is meeting state standards. (See pp. 24(i), 29) This identification and reporting of the individual student means that individual children are being monitored by the federal government.  We find this monitoring of  individual students unconstitutional. (See pp. 29-30.)

SENATOR ALEXANDER AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, Who are these “AT-RISK” TITLE I children that your legislation has defined to receive “direct student services”?

“At-Risk” is defined as, “a child, youth, or student, means a school-aged individual who is at-risk of academic failure.(Emphasis added. See p. 150.) The local educational agency will monitor and identify quickly and effectively those INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS who may be  “AT-RISK” of failing to meet the State’s academic standards. (See pp. 53-54.) The Common Core Standards are the measuring stick for “AT-RISK” children. Common Core Standards have been accepted in 45 states. (Some states use ACT, who developed the benchmarks for Common Core Standards, thereby standardizing the use of Common Core in all 50 states). HR 5 nationalizes the curriculum and testing across the United States, thus standardizing the assessments, standards, interventions, and data elements for data collection. The addition and expansion of children who may be defined “AT RISK” includes mental health, social, emotional, and behavioral interventions (attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions), required by the specialized instructional support services as defined below as disabilities by 605 IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (See p. 467.) (See S. 144 page 3(e), “Title I shall be carried out....”)

“AT-RISK” children will receive these specialized student support services defined as “CHOICE” through the “Direct Student Services” that will follow the child. We do not believe the federal government has the authority to monitor individual American students or mandate these services. (Source: The following sources document the expansion of Common Core Standards into the affective domain: Secretaries Commission for Achieving Necessary Skills, Department of Labor, 1992; Presentation of ACT,  www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfP3rQ3uyPo , Nov. 2012 - Kevin Houchin; Chief State School Officers, CCSSO, Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions, Feb. 2013, http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/ILN%20Knowledge%20Skills%20and%20Dispositions%20CCR%20Framework%20February%202013.pdf; ESEA Flexibility Waiver adds non-cognitive psychological standards to the Common Core Standards in Principle 6: NAEP - soft skills and affective domain, http://www.nagb.org/content/nagb/assets/documents/what-we-do/quarterly-board-meeting-materials/2013-08/tab11-saturday-board-policy-discussion.pdf, p. 2.)


Any reauthorization of ESEA should address the illegality of the ESEA Flexibility Waivers issued by President Obama and Secretary Duncan. In Principle 6 of the waiver it establishes that a school environment must improve school safety and discipline, and address other “non-academic factors that impact student achievement, such as students’ social, emotional and health needs,” which is further clarified in S 225. The assessment and interventions in the psychological “direct student services” violates the original intent of satisfying Title I to improve academic achievement. There have been several years of identifying children as “AT-RISK” due to the implementation of the Obama/Duncan ESEA Flexibility Waivers in the affective-psychological domain. Parents are asking how these attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions will be measured, scored, and remediated to a government standard? Let's be clear: these attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions must conform to the Common Core Standards; they have nothing to do with academic achievement.

The HR 5 consolidation of funds that covers a SCHOOLWIDE Title I program also blankets an entire school with Title I “AT RISK” interventions for all children, including babies. All children are “At-Risk” for not achieving Common Core Standards, including those standards in the affective domain as described above. (Pennsylvania's affective standards were called Interpersonal Skills.) (See p. 40; p. 65, Schoolwide Programs; pp. 68,70,74,75, for mandated specialized student instructional support services in a schoolwide program; pp. 76,77, mandated specialized student support services for pre-school programs.)

SENATOR ALEXANDER AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, HR 5 continues the mandate to identify Title I “AT-RISK” individual students to receive this same SPECIALIZED STUDENT INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT (see p.  55), thus extending services in the non-academic psychological/affective domain which is defined as:
(41)(A) SPECIALIZED INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT PERSONNEL.—The term ‘specialized instructional support personnel’ means school counselors, school social workers, school psychologists, and other qualified professional personnel involved in providing assessment, diagnosis, counseling, educational, therapeutic, and other necessary services (including related services as that term is defined in section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) as part of a comprehensive program to meet student needs.
(B) SPECIALIZED INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES.—The term ‘specialized instructional support services’ means the services provided by specialized instructional support personnel. (See p. 496.)
We believe the federal government does not constitutionally have the authority to enforce psychological personality traits standards, nor regulate government-prescribed attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions. These represent Civil Rights violations. The intervention, treatment, and re-education of attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions of children fundamentally violates First Amendment protections and rights, which guarantees “right of conscience,” as well as the Fourth Amendment right “to be secure in their persons.”

SENATOR ALEXANDER AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, the Constitutionality of Title I portability funds, that “follow the child” through identification and direct student services to all private and religious schools, is also an issue. The identification of an individual child, and providing equitable services in your HR 5, extends to all private schools and religious students. This federal overreach violates the autonomy of private schools where the funds will “follow the child.” These specialized student support services are called “DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES” which are offered as “MEANINGFUL CHOICE.” These services MUST be equitable, as determined by a provider on a state approved list (see p. 18, 78-79), for all public school students and private school students. (See pp. 17-19, 473, 487, 491, 493, 496.)

SENATOR ALEXANDER AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, are you aware that HR 5 mandates equitable CHOICE defined as “DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES” to every child in the United States? These “DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES” are defined as public school choice. (See p. 473.) Do you believe that this is the kind of “CHOICE” that parents and private and religious schools desire, which is in reality no choice at all? The federal government will mandate “direct student services” no matter the school entity. (See p. 80; an ombudsman to monitor enforcement requirements on private and religious schools.)

SENATOR ALEXANDER AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, is the Title I Portability that you have designed true CHOICE? This federal encroachment controls what is taught, and how it is taught, through the reeducation of every student in the United States. The “direct student services” have nothing to do with academics, but everything to do with psychological manipulation. (See S. 227, Strengthening Education Through Research Act, pp. 28-29, Part B sec 132(l).)

SENATOR ALEXANDER AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, please clarify the following passage in HR 5 below. Does this section mandate the provision that the federal government have oversight and control of all funding and services delivered to private and religious schools in the United States?
(C) SPECIAL RULE.—If the local educational agency in which a child resides makes a tuition or other payment for the free public education of the child in a school located in another school district, the Secretary shall, for the purpose of this Act (i) consider the child to be in attendance at a school of the agency making the payment; and (ii) not consider the child to be in attendance at a school of the agency receiving the payment.
(D) CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES.—If a local educational agency makes a tuition payment to a private school or to a public school of another local educational agency for a child with a disability, as defined in section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the Secretary shall, for the purpose of this Act, consider the child to be in attendance at a school of the agency making the payment. (See pp. 466-467.)
In Uniform Provisions, on pp. 525-531, private school participation for the “DIRECT STUDENT SERVICES” or “CHOICE,” and private school participation follows:

(3) SPECIAL RULE.—Educational services and other benefits provided under this section for private school children, teachers, and other educational personnel shall be equitable in comparison to services and other benefits for public school children, teachers, and other educational personnel participating in the program and shall be provided in a timely manner. (See p. 526; pp. 15(3), 18(3), 58 (4), 78-88, 335(2).)

The IES, the Institute for Educational Sciences (see pp. 555-557), monitors “continuous progress” and accountability of all individual TITLE I “AT RISK” CHILDREN through the state longitudinal data systems designed in each state and funded through the National Center for Education Statistics. The IES is collecting psychological data (data on attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions) through a unique national ID on every child in the United States.

HR 5 violates privacy throughout the bill. The IES/NCES individual data collection violates the privacy of students and their families via individualized data reported through each state longitudinal data system and disclosed to 3rd party contractors, which is allowed through President Obama's Executive Order. Personally identifiable information on our children and families is re-disclosed, thereby allowing the tracking and trafficking of data. (See FERPA, Family Education Rights in Privacy Act, Sec. 99.31. Obama Executive Order, 12866, expanding the collection of personally identifiable information in a state longitudinal data system, Jan. 2012.)

The constitutionality of this personal data collection by the federal government on individuals is in question. (Source: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/stateinfo.asp) Does the federal government have the authority to mandate and monitor specific psychological services that an individual student must receive? Must parents allow Common Core Standards in the affective domain to be mandated to their child, in violation of parental rights and privacy? (See S 227, p. 17, IES acts as a “national school board,” SEC. 116. NATIONAL BOARD FOR EDUCATION SCIENCES. See p. 28, expansion of standards into the social and emotional domain of a child. Note: The Pennsylvania unique national ID, NCES/IES grant, Contract: CFDS-#84.384, PR/Award #R372A090022; grants.gov Tracking #: Grant1007608.)

It is time to close down and defund the Institute for Educational Sciences, the National Center for Education Statistics, and the National Assessment for Educational Progress.

It is time that the federal government get out of education and close shop. Close down the Department of Education.

It is necessary to request General Counsel for a legal opinion about the Constitutionality of Title I Portability and the “direct student services” because the federal government does NOT have the authority to mandate anything to an INDIVIDUAL STUDENT in any individual state.

SENATOR ALEXANDER AND REPRESENTATIVE KLINE, stop your unconstitutional bills, called HR 5, S 144 and S 227.

Tuesday, March 3, 2015

Common Core and the Facts:

What Conservative Groups Don't Tell You


Many parents across the nation are riled up about Common Core. There is a growing "Opt Out" movement. They recognize that the high-stakes testing process is a pressure-cooker for children, their parents and teachers. But watch out for their tunnel vision! Many are not fully informed about the facts. Many are being spoon fed by large conservative groups.

This blog has been publishing factual information about Common Core since its inception last May 2014. The history behind Common Core, the agenda that drives it, and the "controlled opposition" to it have been the subject of many blog posts. It is even MORE important now to know the facts about Common Core, and to become aware of what the "conservative" groups are NOT telling you.

Recently Heritage took credit for the opposition of the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). But, as we pointed out in several blog articles HERE and HERE,  we blew the whistle on these bad bills, long before the "Johnny-Come-Lately" so-called opposition by non-grassroots well-funded groups like Heritage. Sending out an alert coinciding the day a vote is scheduled to be taken doesn't constitute any sort of credible "opposition."
(Source)


While the big so-called conservative groups are claiming victory, look at the dates on this blog to see how far back we sounded the alarms -- and they went VIRAL!!!

We not a group. We are moms and pops, grandmothers and grandfathers, teachers, school board members, students, ministers, priests, researchers, doctors, your neighbor next door.... the TRUE grassroots. It was the true grassroots that stopped this legislation. Anita Hoge pumped out alerts, and this blog posted information. People all around the country did their homework, studied the facts, passed along the information and lobbied to defeat this bill. 

Don't be caught blind-sided. Don't become a victim of Common Core tunnel vision. Below is a brief summary of a few of the major points that have been brought out by Anita Hoge and others regarding the real issues. This information should be investigated in each and every state. Parents and citizens need to go beyond the simple "anti-Common Core" rhetoric and slogans and learn these other important facts:

WHAT CONSERVATIVE GROUPS AREN'T TELLING YOU:

Data Tracking: Collection of PII, Personally Identifiable Information, on infants, children, families, and teachers identified with the national unique ID contract with the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES).


Data Trafficking: Re-disclosing of PII (Personally Identifiable Information), "womb to workforce," to 3rd party contractors through written agreements and contracts.


Treatment and Interventions: Psychological treatment mandated to change personalities, attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions through the use of IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, (Special Education funds), birth through college-aged students, monitored by the national unique ID.


Privacy Violations: Exchange and re-disclosure of PII (Personally Identifiable Information), including attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions, without the knowledge or consent of parents.



Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) violations of federal law through the use of psychiatric or psychological examination, assessment, evaluation, or test; psychiatric or psychological treatment/intervention used in classrooms without the knowledge of parents.

Civil Rights Violations: Interventions, treatment, and re-education of attitudes, values, dispositions, and beliefs of children in profound violation of 1st Amendment protections and rights, which guarantees "right of conscience" and the 4th Amendment, "to be secure in their persons."
 

Violating Public Law 103-33, General Education Provisions Act, Sec 432: Federal Government is supervising and directing curriculum, creating a "model curriculum," nationalizing education.
 

Malpractice and Maltreatment Of Children and Babies: Teachers and preschool caregivers (exceeding their professional certifications), are required to screen, evaluate, and perform anecdotal behavioral assessments, and implement psychological remediation of the child's attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions.  

Skinnerian/Pavlovian Operant Conditioning Methods used on children to "train" them like animals for lifelong (Womb-To-Tomb, Cradle-To-Grave) workforce "skills" rather than educate them with solid academics. 

Community Education: Networking an array of social services, health care, job training, etc. and implementing new forms of "governance."  

Charters and "Choice" which isn't true choice, and which will eliminate local representative government.
 

This list could go on and on. This list is just the tip of a gigantic iceberg.

Besides reading this blog, below are some important links to other articles and radio interviews:

2 recent articles written by WND:
Recent radio interviews:
Tunnel vision can be dangerous! Get informed! Stay informed! Read the "rest of the story" here at this blog:

Monday, March 2, 2015

Are we training pigeons or educating children?


No Way, ESEA!
A Classroom Teacher Raises Hard Questions
 A 3D commentary by grassroots teacher Dawn Hoagland
Are we training pigeons or educating children? That is the big question we need to ask Congress as they re-authorize ESEA (the Elementary and Secondary Education Act)!
There seems to be a new idea, which is actually old, being presented in Congress right now:  Children can be trained to do whatever we want them to do – just like pigeons!
In 1977 The District of Columbia's Associate Superintendent of Schools, Guines, told us about the change  from teaching academics to skills training, recommended by the U.S. military and necessary for workforce training.
“The materials will be standardized, the lessons will be standardized,” Guines said. “We’re taking the play out. We’re taking the guesswork out. We’re putting in a precise predicted treatment that leads to a predicted response.” Guines said that the new curriculum is based on the work in behavioral psychology of Harvard University’s B.F. Skinner, who developed teaching machines and even trained pigeons during World War II to pilot and detonate bombs and torpedoes. The basic idea, Guines said, is to break down complicated learning into a sequence of clear simple skills that virtually everyone can master, although at different rates of speed. “If you can train a pigeon to fly up there and press a button and set off a bomb,” Guines remarked, “why can’t you teach human beings to behave in an effective and rational way? We know that we can modify human behavior. We’re not scared of that. This is the biggest thing that’s happening in education today…” (Excerpt from the deliberate dumbing down of america by Charlotte Iserbyt, p. 146)
Some people have been planning for the world-wide conversion to Outcomes Based Education for decades. B.F. Skinner died in 1990 and Benjamin Bloom died in 1999 but Marc Tucker is still around to clap for this incredible transformation. Now he can write, “Dear Hillary, it is finally happening in 2015.”
The Common Core is their dream come true. Anyone who compares the old New York State Standards to the Common Core can see that academic content has been replaced by empty skill sets. Acquiring knowledge has been exchanged for modifying behavior. Learning how to carry numerals for double digit addition has been replaced by drawing circles around each group of ten cupcakes. This is not progress.
Kindergarten students are now expected to sit at desks for hours being inappropriately subjected to a crash course in reading before they can tie their shoes. What happened to playing with blocks, learning how to choose the right one, balancing it correctly to construct a tower? How about painting at an easel with bright colors?
The Common Core has made blocks and easels irrelevant. It is important to understand Benjamin Bloom’s definition of education, “to change the thoughts, actions, and feelings of students.” Bloom is to modern teacher training what Moses is to Judaism. Every teacher studied “Bloom’s Taxonomy” after it was published in 1969.
The authors of Bloom's Taxonomy state: “we recognize the point of view that truth and knowledge are only relative and that there are no hard and fast truths which exist for all time and all places.” Benjamin Bloom, Editor, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, at 32 (1969).
In 1962, prayer was banned from public schools. Removing God from the schools paved the way to remove discussions of absolute truth as well. Character Education became the new buzzword. Do we really want the state to define “good citizenship” and “morality” for our children? Nazi Germany, Red China and the Soviet Union each defined “good citizens” and used data collection and surveillance to force compliance.


We know that Skinner’s lab rats received food pellets during their training. What does behavior modification look like in the classroom? Students are taught to respond to a system of extrinsic rewards and consequences called Positive Behavior Intervention Strategies (PBIS.) Some teachers ask students to comply because they will get a sticker or marbles in the jar that will eventually result in a pizza party.
Behavior modification is not about acquiring knowledge, using logic, or assessing truth. In fact, those things interfere with the programming. This is where the excessive nonsensical testing comes in. Truth and knowledge are not the point.  It is only necessary for the student to know how to answer a series of cockamamie questions correctly and navigate the mouse to complete the test on time.
Such a system deprives the student of opportunities to reason through circumstances where depth of knowledge and good judgment are needed. Complying with nonsensical demands demonstrates loyalty to authority. What if the real purpose of the tests is simply to determine who is a compliant test taker? 


Opt your children out of the tests. Deprive the state of data. Urge Congress to scrap the proposed ESEA bills. The interoperable state data collection systems must be dismantled. Call Congress: 202-224-3121.

Did humans really evolve from a single-celled creature? Are we any different than animals or not? Benjamin Bloom was a transformational Marxist dedicated to destroying the ideals America was founded upon. If we know we are not mere animals, but instead created in the image of God with minds capable of discovering truth, beauty and virtue, then we must object to this tyranny.
The Common Core has changed our schools from teaching academic content to training for the performance of selected skills, necessary for the implementation of a school-to-work system.
This ranking and sorting program that relies on data collection, including psychometric profiles, starts in kindergarten or even pre-k. Will your children make it through the system to be labeled as “valuable” sources of human capital? Will they learn to comply? Do you really want them to?


Ed. Note: For further reading on these topics, see the month of October 2014, in which this blog covered B.F. Skinner's involvement in modern education philosophies and practices.  Also see:

Common Core Early History

"...'National, Rational, Republican Education, Free for All, at the Expense of All, Conducted under the Guardianship of the State,' apart from the contaminating influence of parents..."

Be sure to catch Dr. Dennis Cuddy's fascinating article "Common Core" posted on NewsWithViews 3/2/15, in which he divulges some fascinating early history on how education began to be controlled by an elite "intelligentsia of Horace Mann's day... the first half of the 1800s."

Dr. Cuddy, a expert historian who has delved into much early education history, wrote:
According to Will Monroe's HISTORY OF THE PESTALOZZIAN METHOD IN THE UNITED STATES (1907), the educational ideas of (Illuminati member) Pestalozzi began to be printed in journals and textbooks in the United States in 1806.

He notes that from its very inception these ideas were used to forge utopian community education:
Utopian Socialist Robert Owen visited Pestalozzi at Yverdon, Switzerland in 1818, and applied the Illuminist's educational principles in Britain and America. In 1825, Owen established the first commune in the United States in New Harmony, Indiana.
Read the rest of the article. Note that it is Part 1 in an upcoming series by Dr. Cuddy on this topic of "Common Core."

Related articles include: 
Common Core Career Readiness
Common Core Persists
Common Core Charter Village Hub Schools

Friday, February 27, 2015

D-DAY on H.R. 5

No Way, ESEA!
David vs. the Goliath ESEA bills in Congress

YOU America's Grassroots Parents,
Teachers, Voters, Citizens
stood up against the ESEA!
 

Yes, YOU truly grassroots American citizens BLEW THE WHISTLE! Guess who caused this uproar over HR 5? The Grassroots! YOU, YOU, YOU!

Don't let anybody else take the credit for it! YOU readers of this little unfunded blog, who were totally ignored by the major news media, were the first to go up against Senator Lamar Alexander's companion bill and now H.R. 5.

WE ALL BLEW THE WHISTLE on these bills over a MONTH AGO on this blog!  Has it worked? See the following story in Politico "House leadership wrestles with No Child Left Behind votes," 2/26/15, and notice who is being now credited for opposition:
(Source)
"A nearly identical bill passed the House in 2013, but this time around, NCLB faces significantly more pushback from the right: Groups including The Club For Growth and Heritage Action are pushing lawmakers to vote the bill down, and grassroots opposition to federal control in education has boomed among constituents."



Yet, we've been pumping out alerts about the Reauthorization of the ESEA since January. Meanwhile other neoconservatives groups, especially Heritage, put off taking a position on this bill until the original day of the vote, last Tuesday! Has YOUR grassroots activism force Heritage out of its pro-H.R. 5 hole and into an anti-H.R. 5 position?

YOU are the ones who truly care about YOUR children and grandchildren! This crisis has given YOU grassroots Americans an unprecedented opportunity to learn the disastrous facts about education reform and its ugly consequences on YOUR children, YOUR local school districts, YOUR teachers, and YOUR community. YOU got informed with the facts. YOU stayed up-to-day with well-documented information that equipped YOU to stand. YOU knew what you were talking about. YOU stood your ground! YOU stood up against Goliath!  


PRAY! Pray! Pray!

KEEP CALLING, KEEP CALLING, KEEP CALLING, ALL DAY LONG.


THANKS ALL!

Read more:
The Elephant in the Room
The Silence on ESEA is Deafening!
How the Mighty Have Fallen
ESEA contact with your Legislators


Thursday, February 26, 2015

Good News... Bad News

A Missouri Citizens Grassroots Report

A 3D Research Report by Betsy Kraus

Those who pull the educational strings are usually two or three steps ahead of those who would do battle with them… and these educational “planners” usually have back-up plans for any setbacks they might encounter in achieving their goals. The good that parents and concerned citizens accomplish must be protected so that it may not be over-ridden or undermined.Constant vigilance is required to save our children from government control. 

The good news is that a group of Missourians filed suit against The Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and won their case. It was announced from Jefferson City, Missouri on February 24, 2015, that the Circuit Court for Cole County, Missouri ruled in favor of Missouri taxpayer plaintiffs. Membership fees to the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium in the amount of $4.3 million were blocked, as the Court ruled that the SBAC agreement with Missouri was in violation of the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 10, cl. 3, and other federal statutes. http://www.fredsauermatrix.com/fred-sauer-prevails-in-common-core-suit-against-gov-nixon/ 

The second seemingly good news for Missouri was, that in May, 2014, Governor Jay Nixon signed a Compromise Common Core Bill.  

As long as the Total Quality Management System (TQM) of Skinnerian mind-control, Outcome Based Education (OBE) reigns supreme in our schools, there must and will be constant formative and summative testing and assessments. SBAC and PARCC have set the standard. The assessments must be written to the curriculum, and, with backward mapping, the assessments direct the curriculum. Even if SBAC or PARCC is removed from state testing and assessments, there will be clones waiting in the wing.


The constant testing and assessments will simply continue under a different venue. One way or another, either through Federal or State action, our children are slated for educational, emotional, and psychological testing and assessment unless it can be stopped at the Federal and State level.
If the Reauthorization of the ESEA Act is passed in the House it will go a long way in ensuring that America’s youth will become absorbed into a one-world, socialistic, global agenda through curriculum, testing, and assessment.

There are a number of ordinary citizens in America who have been trying for several years to expose The Reauthorization of the ESEA Act and HR-5, which aids and abets the TQM System. Some of these individuals have fought valiantly, so it is baffling that they have been ignored, receiving no moral support, no financial aid, or assistance from any of the well-known conservative organizations who are so active in the field of education. Have these organizations even spoken out against HR-5 until perhaps this very day?  HOW COULD THAT BE, AND WHY?   If ever there was an “elephant in the room”, ESEA/HR-5 is it. 


Although assessments are already mandated in The ESEA Act of 1965 and the later update, No Child Left Behind, there are more proposed amendments to the Reauthorization of ESEA Act/HR-5 to assure the testing and assessment will continue unabated. The bill is to be voted on this Friday, February 27th.  If this legislation passes the goose in pretty well cooked for public schools, and, in addition, for any private schools who accept government funding. 

The following are Amendments to insure the testing and assessments will continue despite any state elimination of PARCC OR SBAC: 

 “54. Advances assessments of student achievement and instructional practices, effective teacher preparation and continuing professional development, education administration, and international comparisons. The amendment supports development of a national research strategy to ensure that students, particularly at risk students, have effective teachers and are being prepared for the future.
56. Requires school districts to be transparent in providing information to parents at the beginning of the school year on mandated assessments the student will have to take during the school year and any school district policy on assessment participation
73. Would require that the annual, statewide assessments measure student growth and require that student growth be component of achievement within the accountability system established by a given state.
104. Allows State educational agencies and eligible entities to use Local Academic Flexible Grant funds to audit and streamline assessment systems, eliminates unnecessary assessments, and improves the use of assessments.(1)
How many other states are writing their own testing and assessments? There is a group of Educators is Kansas in the process of writing their own tests for which will surely be accompanied with assessments. Do we honestly think that their Common Core agenda will deviate from the TQM, OBE model?  

“Kansas, which is also implementing Common Core in its Kansas College and Career Ready Standards, is piloting its own tests through the University of Kansas Center for Educational Testing & Evaluation.”(2) 

Is the Common Core legislation in Missouri, passed in May of 2014, good news or is it a “SMOKESCREEN”?

Consider this comment: “Ryan Silvey, a Kansas City, North, Republican, was one of the Common Core opponents who voted against the compromise. He told The Star that lawmakers who want new standards should have kept the bill as a strict prohibition against a return to Common Core. “This bill does nothing to stop Common Core,” he said. “It’s a smokescreen. We left a loophole.”’(Emphasis added)(3) 

Does the process for re-doing the Common Core standards in Missouri, described below, fill anyone with confidence or will it be more of the same?

According to the Common Core Compromise legislation, here is how Missouri’s “new” standards are to be formulated:
“…eight advisory groups will create standards for both elementary and high school students in the state for English, math, science and history. The State Board of Education will hold public hearings on the proposed standards that are slated to be in place by 2016…The advisory groups will be composed of appointees by state education associations and leaders, legislators, Nixon, and Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder. In addition, four members will be parents of children currently enrolled in Missouri public schools. (4)
Who do you think will actually control the formulation of Missouri’s standards? What standards do you think this type of “committee governance” will produce? Do you think there will not be continued testing and assessment? Will the consensus on the standards, agreed upon by the Committees, be submitted to Congress for a vote so that parents and concerned citizens might have their voice constitutionally heard? 

Several years ago, Indiana voted Common Core out of their state. They then formulated new standards that wound up to be very much like the old ones. Despite all the efforts of those trying to protect students, the results were not very productive. Then, Republican Governor Pence turned Indiana into a “Voucher” state. Vouchers, Choice, and Charters are capable of undermining public schools through loss of pupils and funding, and putting private schools at risk for state control and Common Core or similar standards, testing, and assessments. It’s a lose-lose scenario.  


Footnotes:
3. Ibid


Related readings:
Common Core Charter School Craziness!
ALERT: HR 5, the Student Success Act of 2015 
Nation's Top Teacher Resigns 
DRILL ‘EM AND KILL ‘EM