Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Anita Hoge Discusses ESEA Reauthorization

Testing and Accountability
A Small Part of the Federal ESEA
By Anita Hoge

A recent article appeared in POLITICO "Hill fight on No Child Left Behind looms." This article is about the Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which has also been called the No Child Left Behind Act (NCBA). It is now known as Every Child Ready for College or Career Act of 2015 and it is being sponsored by Sen. Lamar Alexander. The POLITICO article divulges that
Senate education committee leader Sen. Lamar Alexander says he wants to work out a bipartisan deal this spring to rewrite the landmark education law No Child Left Behind.

But last week, he released a discussion draft of the bill that was anything but....
The coming debate may be the most dramatic congressional fight over education in more than a decade.
Here is an important excerpt from the article:
School choice is dear to many conservatives and reform-minded Democrats. But Alexander has said he’d like to move an aggressive school choice proposal separately from No Child Left Behind, in part because he knows proposing policies such as school vouchers would be a deal killer.
His broader caucus may not agree.
Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, both likely contenders in the 2016 presidential election, have repeatedly called for more school choice options in recent months. And other tea party-aligned Republicans in the Senate may get their say on the issue if the Senate allows for amendments on No Child Left Behind in committee and on the Senate floor, which Alexander has said it will.
And one part of Alexander’s NCLB draft that has been hailed as a school choice provision would allow federal funds for low-income students to follow the student from school to school, but isn’t as expansive as it sounds. The plan, first proposed by former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in 2013, would let only a small amount of money follow students from one public school to another — and many students already can transfer from failing schools under the current NCLB. Still, Democrats are likely to fight the provision because they say it would take away schools’ ability to concentrate Title I funds for poor students in the highest-needs schools. [emphasis added]

What this means
The discussion about the options for testing is only about 14 pages in the 400 pages in Alexander's bill. The hearings, and Diane Ravich's letter to Senator Alexander, ONLY focus on those 14 pages. The original bill, SB 1094 was over 1200 pages. The testing/accountability issue, or over-testing, had been called for a change through the evaluations of the Gordon Commission with 3 levels of measurement...
     - 3rd grade guarantee, 
     - 8th grade career pathway, and 
     - 11-12th grade graduation requirement, 
all NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress test) driven. 

The teacher accountability, and evaluations of teachers based on how their students perform on state tests, is still in the bill. Teachers have been feeling these effects, especially when the ESEA Flex Waiver allowed teachers to be dismissed or principals fired if they were not teaching Common Core. With embedding most of standards within the curriculum on computer, teachers will have immediate feedback of whether students are meeting Common Core standards. Teachers are being forced to teach Common Core -- also known as teaching to the test. 

THIS has been the focus of the hearings and testimony..... 14 pages out of 400 pages. However, when this bill will been published with a bill number, it will be over 1200 pages long.
(Source. Also see previous post about Ravitch HERE)

What's in the other parts of the legislation?
ESEA, TITLE I and Mental Health-Interventions of 'At Risk' Children

Realize that there has been 2 years of implementation of the ESEA Flexibility Waivers that U.S. Secretary of Education Duncan illegally gave out to the states, that changed federal law WITHOUT Congress. So what is in effect in the classrooms already? If you read the current bill, a "hidden" mental health agenda permeates this legislation. It was in Principle 6 of the Flex Waiver for addressing other "non-academic factors that impact student achievement, such as studentssocial, emotional, and health needs."

Let's ask this most important question: 

What happened when Sec. Duncan dropped ALL eligibility standards for poverty in Title I (free and reduced lunch) and allowed ALL CHILDREN TO BE LABELED "educationally deprived" UNDER TITLE I, WITH A DISABILITY MEANING NOT MEETING COMMON CORE?  

It is vital to understand that the affective domain NON-ACADEMIC STANDARDS have been included. These refer to the social, emotional, behavioral dispositions of our children as a "disability" that can be remediated through special education.

Why does this bill say the secretary of education CAN USE WAIVERS? Why have legislation at all if the secretary can grant a waiver?

The ESEA Reauthorization bill continually refers to interventions of 'at risk' students, and then states how they will be treated for remediation: Specialized Systems of Support; Response to Interventions, Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports funded through Special Education, IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act). And those children with a disability, TITLE I, (any child not meeting COMMON CORE STANDARDS) will be targeted for interventions under the Rehabilitation Act as "related services." 

Whoa! How do you measure, score, and remediate those social, emotional, behavioral, dispositions of students?   

It's all about how TITLE I identifies the child and how IDEA implements the interventions.

How This Legislation Correlates
How Title I, Choice, and Charter Schools change our local school systems and representative form or government.

So, let's go on and analyze further. Let's talk about how every child is a Title 1 student that can go to any school of their "choice." Lamar Alexander proposes so-called "Choice" funding to "follow the child" to all public, charter, and private schools!!!  How will FEDERAL "CHOICE" be funded?  TITLE I. This will enable these federal choice funds will "FOLLOW THE CHILD" right into any private and religious school -- with Common Core and Title I mandates attached to him/her. 

What the above translates into and what it will bring about: The dismantling of our public neighborhood schools, causing them to crash under the weight of "CHOICE" AND COMMON CORE.

These purposely financially-broken public schools will be taken over by a charter school authorizer (also in the Flex Waivers). And note well: Alexander has pages and pages of charter school expansion in his bill. Why? Is he proposing the destruction of our local neighborhood school and the re-direction of your hard-earned taxes money to an unelected money-making charter school operation?  Charter schools do not have an elected school board, but they operated on public funds. Your money. But you taxpayers and parents do not have a voice about how your taxes are spent, nor do you have a voice about Common Core which charters must teach because they are a public school.  

What do you call this agenda? I think this is called taxation without representation. Do you remember what happened when England tried that number on us? This will be the destruction of all private schools in America since they will now have to teach and remediate Common Core standards and assessment. Why? Because they cannot discriminate against a student who wants "choice."

 Really!  Is this what we want?

We need a federal investigation into the Reauthorization of ESEA:
1. Why is the federal government funding Title I choice vouchers and charter schools? Why does Alexander want to expand charter schools where parents and taxpayers have no input?

2. Why is the federal government testing and implementing treatment and interventions of attitudes, values, and dispositions of students? Why is the federal government implementing this mental health agenda on our children? How has this agenda escaped oversight, discussions, or protection of our students in this legislation?

3. Why doesn't HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act )cover an education record if psychological and psychiatric conditioning will be prevalent in our classrooms secretly posing as academics? Isn't mental health part of a medical record or health? Interesting that Alexander changes all reference to medical records to health records in his bill! HIPAA must cover health record!

4. Why was FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) changed? We need FERPA to be re-examined. Alexander's bill says specifically that data on your child will be disclosed. Why is your child's personally identifiable information allowed to be released to outside 3rd party vendors without the knowledge or consent of parents?

5. Why are schools allowed to bill Medicaid for these behavioral  interventions? We must investigate Medicaid billing in public schools (once they apply for partial hospitalization licenses). We must investigate Medicaid's billing for these "mental health" social, emotional, and behavioral" standards that the government wants. What are the standards for identification of infants and children for having a mental health disability, or what is a positive disposition is according to the government in the positive behavioral interventions and supports that are in the legislation?

6. Why does the federal government want a data system to monitor each individual in the United States? We must investigate the state longitudinal data systems through grants from IES,
(National Center for Education Statistics) that set up a data system to monitor individual students in meeting these standards with a "unique national ID."   

What about wages? The wages collection is in the NCES grant, not ESEA bill. But, NCES is monitoring all Title I, which is in Alexander's bill.

IES will monitor and evaluate all TITLE I programs. That's convenient! Since they have access to all of this personally identifiable information and NAEP can use this psychometric data for the new "census." 

All of this is demographic data and psychological data. 

Does this amount to a psychometric dossier?

I think Senator Alexander should allow me, Anita Hoge, to testify at his hearings because this information taken from his bill is not being discussed.

The above requirements, steps that I have outlined above, efffectually nationalize education in the United States. The subtle call for equity, will result in total control of ALL education. 

Related Posts: