0

Letter to FL. Representative Yoho or NO WAY ESEA!

FLORIDIANS   Floridians Against Common Core Education F.A.C.C.E.

February 3, 2015

 

Representative Ted Yoho
511 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Representative Yoho:

I guess it is time for us to introduce ourselves to you. No, we are not a Tea Party group – just patriots who love their country very much and are very concerned as to the direction we are going.

For years “conservative” politicians have been claiming “liberals” want ‘a cradle to grave nanny state” through the arms of the education system when in fact that statement was first made by Sen. Lamar Alexander in the 80’s and he is at the forefront of the ruination of our children with the new ESEA bill.

Everything aside, the education of the children of this country should be the most important thing on your plate. It is to us. The works have been in place for the final formation of not only school-to-work and outcome-based education since the Carnegie Report of 1934, but also nationalized education. Those in charge of this, know they need to have the children be indoctrinated to their way of thinking, not retain what they are being taught and to act as robots so they will not cause any dissention.

Currently moving through hearings in Washington is the Re-Authorization of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) bill by the name of “Every Child Ready for College or a Career Act of 2015”. The author of the bill, Sen. Lamar Alexander claims it is an effort to restore the power of local and state education agencies when in reality, it will do the opposite.

In fact, this bill places more conditions on the way states develop their standards, assessments, and accountability systems than required under NCLB, and will cement the Common Core State Standards into federal law and Nationalize our education system.

Why are these hearings closed to the public and Washington not allowing Americans to testify either for or against the ESEA?

The grants from the Race To the Top (RTTT) to the states and the offer of waivers to the states from the mandatory regulations of NCLB were a clear path to hold the states under the “hammer” of the Federal government.

In 1934 the Carnegie Foundation issued a report laying out the plans for our education system you see today. In Marc Tucker’s famous letter to Hillary Clinton while embracing the 1934 report, the letter also talked of all the plans Tucker, David Rockefeller and others had for the implementation of the School To Work Act Clinton put in place with the help of a Republican Congress under the leadership of Newt Gingrich.

In June 1991, we were presented with the SCANS Report or “THE SECRETARY’S COMMISSION ON ACHIEVING NECESSARY SKILLS – U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR”. I hope you notice that everyone on this “committee” were not only non-educators, but corporate CEO’s who seem to have gotten it in their heads they have the RIGHT to not only control the politicians and our education system, but Americans everyday lives.

Then in 1992, just about the time the CCSSO and NGA were being fed all the crazy ideas about our education being aligned with the United Nations and the whole world, Marc Tucker and his cronies produced the report “Tough Choices or Tough Times”. This piece of work laid out everything for the coming of teachers under the control of the states, since of course according to them our teachers come from the “less able of high school graduates to go to college” – in others words they come from the bottom of the barrel. They felt they ‘tolerate’ an enormous amount of WASTE in the system which I believe most Americans would agree the Federal government far surpasses school districts when it comes to waste.

The report puts in place Charter schools, Choice, Vouchers all for the reasons we have been telling parents – the elimination of elected school boards and taking parents out of the equation of overseeing their children’s education leading us to Nationalized Education. It is Common Core only not by that name, but standards, assessments and tomorrow’s requirements. There would be a Teacher Development Agency similar to Teach for America whose teachers for the most part are no smarter than a rock.

Recently, Bill Bennett, the old has been who never was, ventured into an argument with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott over the merits of Common Core. He supports Common Core and is part of Jeb Bush’s website “Conservatives for Higher Standards” supporting CC. There’s that word again – conservatives and you kind of choke on the word when you read the names of the supporters of the CCSS. By the way, Bennett lost the debate!

All of you seem to forget that a good share of us were schooled on good education in PUBLIC schools when America was on the top of the Education ladder but thanks to the Federal government and politicians, the rungs got slippery and now we are almost at the bottom. And, yes, this was done gradually under the wing of every president since and including Reagan.

But I am going to let you read these documents and then maybe you can pass them around to your colleges and then the parents of Florida will give you all an assessment test to see how well you do since you are the ones controlling our children’s futures and think these tests are the best thing since peanut butter for our children.

And – don’t think we are stupid enough to think you guys have done a wonderful thing today by passing legislation to get rid of Obamacare. We know it will not happen because Obama will never sign it.

However, he has already said he will sign the 2015 ESEA re-authorization bill as long as they keep the testing and assessments in the bill. That should tell you all you need to know. And in case you haven’t figured it out, this letter is all about – NO WAY ESEA!

We have watched you all for the past 2 years since taking control of the House and still you allowed Obama to have whatever money he wanted for whatever he wanted it for. We also watched while you stated you were NOT going to give him any more RTTT grant money and then in the same breath you grant him $1 Billion to invade the lives of our youngest and most vulnerable.

I hope you understand we understand this is not an “R” or “D” thing – it is the sheep dogs against the wolves in sheep’s clothing.

What I want to know is why you and others in Washington who like to call themselves conservative are so willing to sell our children “down the river of ruination” by a bunch of corporate bullies, ego ridden politicians and New World Order junkies” Do you and others enjoy these thoughts when you go to bed at night that you have once again “put the screws to the American people” or have they sent most of you to Manchurian Candidate school?

You and your predecessors are responsible for the mess this country is in and if you care, the first step is to STOP Sen. Lamar Alexander’s ESEA bill – or do you support the likes of Marc Tucker’s (socialist) and Alexander’s vision of ruining this country through education? You and your colleges are going to have to decide and soon.

At the 1989, Governors’ Conference, led by Clinton, Lamar Alexander stated, “I would go down to the maternity ward of the local hospital, or whatever you call the part of the hospital where the nurses are who are there when the babies are born. Find out how many babies are born out-of-wedlock, how many babies are born with single parents. Just so you know that! I would think the Brand New American School would be year-round, open from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. A second characteristic might be that these schools will serve children from age 3 months old to age 18.” FASCIST EDUCATION!

Then they had socialist Sally McClune speak. Listen close!

0

How States and School Districts Can Opt Out of Common Core

By Dr. Sandra Stotsky March 8, 2014

States that want to opt out of the Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) and/or the tests aligned to or based on its standards are being threatened by a toothless tiger that doesn’t want the states to know the tiger has no claws.

RTTT7States are hearing, “It’s too late to back out”; “You’ll waste all the money you’ve spent on implementing the [low-level Common Core] standards your state board of education adopted three years ago”; “You’ll waste all the money you’ve spent on [self-described] Common Core consultants who have given [very costly] professional development to your teachers and told them what to change in their classroom curriculum to address Common Core”; “You will have to pay back all the money you got under Race to the Top (RttT)”; or, “You will lose your waiver and not get your Title I money.”

Can the U.S. Department of Education (USED) demand repayment from states that got RttT funds? Can it withhold Title I money from a state that loses its waiver? It is important to recall that Congress didn’t pass legislation requiring Common Core’s standards or tests. All it authorized in 2001 was a re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) called No Child Left Behind (NCLB). ESEA hasn’t been re-authorized since then, so there are no new or different education policies passed by Congress. A variety of conditions have been attached to the recent waivers issued by USED, but they may have no constitutional legitimacy since Congress didn’t approve them. States can certainly raise that objection.

At the national level:

If a state received RttT money and spent it, it most likely doesn’t have to pay it back if it now seeks to opt out of using Common Core’s standards (by any name) and any tests aligned to or based on these standards. Neither the RttT application nor the grant award from USED contained a repayment penalty for withdrawing from a commitment. Moreover, the Grant Award Notification from USED implied withholding of future RttT funds, not repayment of RttT funds already expended.

RTTT winenrsIn other words, there seem to be no likely penalties if a state accepted a USED award of RttT funds and now chooses to withdraw from the agreement. States can justify their withdrawal on the grounds that the Common Core standards do not meet the original requirements of “common standards” outlined in the RttT application. These standards were supposed to be “supported by evidence that they are internationally benchmarked.” But they are not. The Common Core Validation Committee never received any evidence.

Nor has evidence been provided by two post hoc attempts to provide such evidence: the 2011 report by David Conley at the University of Oregon and the 2012 report by William Schmidt and a colleague at Michigan State University, Richard Houang. Conley’s report, funded by the Gates Foundation, contradicted the findings in his 2003 pre-Common Core report on college-readiness standards, while Schmidt and Houang’s report has been severely criticized on methodological grounds. It is unclear who funded it.

Moreover, RttT was a three-year program extended to last four years. It expires in the fall of 2014. Whatever changes states make after 2014 cannot affect the grant. In addition, no state committed itself explicitly to maintain forever the new policies required by RttT. Once RttT grants expire, it is unclear how the USED could demand repayment for an expired program.

If a state obtained a waiver from some aspects of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and now seeks to opt out of using Common Core’s standards and tests aligned to or based on them, it is highly unlikely to lose Title I money. Title I is implicated in the Common Core issue only because the state committed to the CCLS to obtain the waiver.

If the state applies for an extension of the waiver through the 2015-2016 school year, it would need to replace its commitment to implement the Common Core with a commitment to implement alternative standards approved by its institutions of higher education (IHEs). IHE approval of more demanding “college- and career-ready” standards would allow the state to retain the waiver, without penalty. Legislators need to ask their public IHEs to approve standards that enable mathematically and scientifically ambitious high school students to take STEM-preparatory coursework while in high school, not in transition courses elsewhere after high school graduation or after passing a GED test.

If the US Department of Education (USED) decided to be punitive, it could withhold at most only 5%-10% of the 1% of Title I funds set aside for state administrative functions. For example, if a state received $200 million under Title I, the administrative set-aside is $2 million. The most severe federal punishment would be 5-10% of that, or a maximum of $200K.

nclbIf the state chose to give up its waiver, the state would be under the NCLB mandate again to get all students to proficiency by 2014. NCLB has a range of sanctions for persistently failing schools and districts, ranging from conversion to charter schools, closing the school down altogether, replacing a large percentage of the school’s staff, to carrying out turnaround plans. If states give up their USED waivers from NCLB requirements, they would still have to assess their state’s standards annually with tests that, by law, must be based on these standards, and NCLB’s sanctions would again apply for failing schools and districts. It is not clear what the sanction would be for failing to get all students to proficiency by 2014, that is, if most schools failed to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for all subgroups.

The primary financial consequence of relinquishing the waiver would involve flexibility, not amount, of funding. Under NCLB, failing schools must allocate 20% of their Title I funding to Supplemental Education Services, typically outside tutoring. The waiver doesn’t change the amount of funding those schools receive but allows them to redirect 20% of it to other Title I uses. These districts would lose flexibility, not money.

USED would find it politically difficult to impose financial penalties on waiver cancellation when Common Core is not, in theory, a federal program. Or so we are regularly told.

At the state level:

Districts can select their own curricula and, in some states, their own standards. What they cannot do easily is avoid state testing. State tests operate under state laws which force all districts to participate, although sanctions vary by state. Typically, the results of these tests are used to rank or grade schools publicly, and they serve to label the schools as meeting or not meeting NCLB’s requirement of proficiency.

RTTT KidsA district with a stronger curriculum than one addressing Common Core’s standards is betting implicitly that its results will be better on the state test. If schools choosing to address more demanding standards than Common Core’s are ranked low on a Common Core-aligned test for several years, they may face state department of education sanctions, which can range from the state managing the district to reshuffling school administrators. Legislators can address this power play by withholding funding of the state’s department of education if it seeks to prevent schools with low scores on a Common Core-aligned test from addressing more demanding standards than Common Core’s. All the district should be required to do is produce evidence of evaluations showing that its standards are more demanding than Common Core’s.

A future post will further address districts that want better standards and tests than their state board and department of education are imposing on them.

Sandra Stotsky, Ed.D. is Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas.

Published by Jimmy Kilpatrick
Education News

2

The Subversion of Education in America: Lesson #2

Just how did education in America turn from being a system that imparts knowledge to one that uses behavior modification techniques to influence the attitudes and beliefs of those passing through it?

nclbTo achieve this, beginning in the 1960’s, the perpetrators of the subversion have employed deception to achieve their goals. Earlier this month, a New Jersey daily newspaper ran an editorial, “Let board members speak”, noting that members of a local school board had been restricted from speaking to the press to avoid “confusion” about the board’s programs and objectives. “But this isn’t about ‘confusion’,” said the editorial. “It’s about control”, adding “And it is insulting to the public and the idea of open local government.”

There is nothing “open” about the effort to subvert education in America. It only has that appearance because it takes place at presumably local school boards or in a state education department. Always, the vehicle is a governmental agency. The controlling player, however, is the US Department of Education.

The objective of those who control our educational systems has long been to produce poorly educated, little world citizens, ready to forego the liberties guaranteed by the oldest living Constitution. The system introduced into American schools mirrors the Soviet and Communist Chinese systems that produce a compliant and complacent population.

To achieve this, they have had to dumb-down the students passing through the system. On February 17, 2001, the Los Angeles Times reported that the president of the University of California “wants to eliminate the SAT as a requirement for admission to all eight of the university’s undergraduate campuses.” What a great way to further dilute all standards for academic achievement!NCLB Signing

In January 2001, the Times reported that the University of California kicked out 2,009 students, six percent of last year’s freshman class, for failing to master basic math and English skills in their first year of classes. These are skills that should have been mastered in their first twelve years in California schools! It means that the diplomas they received are worthless pieces of paper.

This pattern repeats itself from state to state because it is the educational system that is failing American students. The President’s emphasis on testing misses the point entirely!

In the January/February 2001 issue of The American Enterprise, devoted to why some few schools succeed while the majority fail, Karl Zinsmeister writes that “it’s extremely interesting how many common traits are shared by the successful schools we profile. A remarkably similar basic formula applies in almost all of these places: high demands on students, strict discipline, a strong and unapologetic moral component, including a respect for religion, an emphasis on teaching intellectual basics, a preference for time-tested books and curricula, clear standards of dress, grooming, and comportment, and an insistence on politeness, respect and courtesy.”

Compare that to schools in your area where the way students dress is an offense to decorum, the language they use is replete with profanities, and their chief complaint is that they have too much homework.

President Bush has bought into the Education Establishment’s systematic stupification of students. He is not the first President to fall prey to this effort. To learn the facts, you must read The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt.

The President has proposed a five billion-dollar program to help children learn to read. Please! Please, please, will someone explain to me why spending even more money will answer the question of why our schools, soaking up billions a year, are NOT teaching this already?

One need only look at the realities of education in Texas to see why the call for national testing standards is a deception. An excellent article by Jerry Jesness in the November 2000 issue of Reason magazine blows away the hype about the test scores of Texas students. Despite apparent improvements, a closer look at the test scores of basic skills places young Texans in 39th place for SAT scores.

In 1984, the State adopted the Texas Educational Assessment of Minimal Skills that established minimal standards for graduation. The result has been that a considerable amount of time is spent “teaching to the test” in schools throughout Texas. Students are taught strategies to pass the text. For example, the acquisition of real arithmetical skills is sacrificed to methods that include drawing and counting sticks! This is not progress and the test is, essentially, meaningless.

All this was foretold back in the 1970’s as the “educrats” continued their efforts to undermine the teaching of basic knowledge. In 1976, Catherine Barrett, then president of the National Education Association, gave a speech in which she said, “First, we will help all of our people understand that school is a concept and not a place. We will not confuse “schooling” with education. The school will be the community, the community the school.” This predates Hillary Clinton’s “it takes a village” concept, but it reflects a communist view that all of society must be employed to form the views of students. Individualism is bad. Conforming to the group is good.

Barrett went on to say “We will need to recognize that so-called basic skills, which currently represent nearly the total effort in elementary schools, will be taught in one quarter of the present school day. The remaining time will be devoted to what is truly fundamental and basic—time for academic inquiry, time for students to develop their own interests, time for a dialogue between students and teachers, more than a dispenser of information, the teacher will be a conveyor of values, a philosopher. Students will learn to write love letters and lab notes.”

You may want to read this again. The then-head of the NEA was talking about turning the school day into one devoted to just about everything other than the teaching of reading, writing and arithmetic. Teachers were, instead, to become “agents of change.”

nclb-horsey-cartoonThe change incorporated into today’s educational programs is intended to change the entire social structure of our society and the values that had made it great. Competition and achievement in the acquisition of basic knowledge and the skills to implement that knowledge are jettisoned in favor of changing attitudes about family, patriotism, religion, and sexuality. Look around you and ask yourself why we now except all forms of “families.” Look around you and ask why we live in a cultural environment drenched with sexuality without responsibility. Ask yourself why millions fail to vote. Look at the way the expression of religious values is continually derided.

In 1972, Dr. Chester M. Pierce, MD, of Harvard University wrote an article entitled “Becoming Planetary Citizens: A Quest for Meaning” that appeared in the November issue of Childhood Education. He was concerned that children, by the age of five, “already have a lot of political attitudes”, among which were “a tenacious loyalty to his country and its leader.” What he wanted was a child who entered kindergarten “with the same kind of loyalty to the earth as to his homeland.”

This is a formula for degrading patriotism and loyalty to everything for which this nation stands in favor of creating citizens of the “global government” being pursued by the United Nations and the environmentalism that preaches against the use of the earth’s natural resources.

All throughout the 1970’s, the Federal government funded these goals. Local educational systems were taken over by programs designed to destroy local control. I do not want President Bush’s education proposals to succeed because they reflect the continued subversion of our nation’s schools by the Department of Education.

The process dates back to the 1960’s, continued through the 1970’s, and in the following discussion of education in America, we will see how they increased through the 1980’s.

Permission to republish or reprint this series in whole or in part must be secured via email or other written communication from The National Anxiety Center (acaruba@aol.com) or Box 40, Maplewood, NJ 07040.

The series is Copyrighted by Alan Caruba, 2001. Any use of the series, in whole or in part, must contain attribution to the author, The National Anxiety Center, POB 40, Maplewood, NJ and/or the Center’s URL, http://www.anxietycenter.com.