Twitter Rally For HB1622 And End Of EOI Testing!

This legislative session in Oklahoma, there have been numerous bills to reduce testing. We've written about a number of them. Now, as session draws to a close for this year, all the testing bills that have been passed by the House and Senate committees are being funneled to the floor for votes by the full Senate.

Several bills (707, 784) contain language that points directly to ACT. We have written extensively about why ACT is not an option for Oklahoma currently - mainly because ACT has their own set of standards by which students will be tested, while Oklahoma has barely begun the process of writing our own standards as dictated by last year's Common Core repeal bill (HB3399).  ROPE supports the passage of HB1622 by Representative David Derby, which stops EOI testing, while creating a process by which Oklahoma can design one end of year exam using our own Oklahoma standards. HB1622 passed the House UNANIMOUSLY and is thus supported by an overwhelming majority of Oklahoma State Representatives. There really is no reason not to use this bill over the others still circulating.

As all the testing bills move to the floor of the Senate THIS WEEK, we are asking you to help us campaign for the passage of HB1622.

FIRST: Right click on one or all of the memes in this blog, then save it to your computer.

NEXT: If you are on Facebook, replace your FB image with one of these memes.

NEXT: If you are on Twitter, Tweet out the memes to your Senator (and others if you wish) using the list below (there are House members included there too, so just pick out your Senator). This list may not be comprehensive, so once you have attached your photo to your Tweet, try typing in the name of your Senator (for example, I'd type in Sen, Ron, Sharp, and if I didn't find anything, I'd use variations of that name - Senator Ron Sharp - until I found the right Twitter handle).

NEXT: Use the hashtag, #YESONHB1622 so we can keep count of the number of Tweets sent.

NEXT: Tweet these to your friends to re-Tweet as well.

Feel free to CALL your Senator as well. You can find their numbers here.

Thanks for your help!

@AnthonySykes

@brecheen4senate

@BrianRenegar

@ClaudiaHD45

@ConnieJ4OK

@davidbrumbaugh

@DavidPerrymanOK

@ecannaday

@FieldsForSenate

@jamesmleewright

@jasonnelsonok

@jdunnington

@jonechols

@JordanOKHouse

@jwmurphey

@Kannady4OK91Rep

@KayFloydOK

@KenWalker4house

@kimdavid

@kimdavid2010

@kyledloveless

@leslieosborn1

@lewismooreok

@MarkDistrict30

@MarkMcBrideHD53

@MazzeiMike

@MontgomeryOK62

@NathanDahm

@Newberry37

@OKHouseofReps

@okrepstrohm

@oksde

@oksenategop

@patownbey

@RandyJGrau

@RepAPittman

@RepCOrtega

@RepEmilyVirgin

@RepHickman

@RepJoshCockroft

@RepMarkMcBride

@RepMikeShelton

@RepScottBiggs

@RepScottInman

@RepTomNewell

@RickBrinkley

@SallyKern

@SE_Pres_Burrage

@Sen_GregTreat

@sen_roger

@Senatorcjohnson

@senatorcrain

@SenatorRandyBas

@SenatorRobS

@SenatorSimpson

@SenatorSparks

@SenCoreyBrooks

@Seneca_Scott

@SenStanislawski

@smalley101

@SoonerRep

@SpkrHickmanOK

@stephaniebice

@ToddThomsen

@VoteEliseHall

@Yen4Senate

Answer to Janet Barresi's Interview With Choice Media and Bob Bowdon

A bit over a week ago Superintendent Janet Barresi was video interviewed by Bob Bowdon of Choice Media.  After viewing the interview, I felt it important to discuss the inconsistencies in her interview.

Dr. Barresi begins by discussing the education reform measures she is directing in Oklahoma:

• Implementation of Oklahoma Academic Standards
• A-F grade card 
• Institution of the end of social promotion – children must be reading by 3^rd grade or be held back   
• Continuation of “high stakes” testing out of high school (ACE)

HIGH STAKES TESTING

Bowdon asks Dr. Barresi about her thoughts on testing since the term “high stakes” testing is usually a negative concept.

Dr. Barresi answers by saying she is against “anything that is about drilling and teaching to the test”.  That is why she is excited about Oklahoma’s new “college and career ready” standards “that we’re setting up” which allow teachers to 

”teach in a way to develop student’s application skills…The test will test the student’s application of the knowledge – problem solving – thinking on their feet if you will and so instead of test asking for a correct answer; name the capitols of all of the 8 northeastern states, it’s going to ask a question also of application; of those, which one presents the largest population – or of those, which one of those 8 capitols has shipping – uh, involved – or which – what is a seaport – is any of them a seaport?  And so and that is that application.  Teachers are going to be teaching more then to that application.  And so now the tests become more informative to teachers so they know how to adjust instruction.  Besides, if you don’t test, how are you going to know how you’re doing?”

First; Dr. Barresi gives a rather long answer but never addresses Bowdon’s question.  In her reply, she tells us first that she is excited about Oklahoma’s new “college and career ready” standards “we’re setting up”.  Oklahoma’s ‘new’ standards are called “Oklahoma Academic Standards”.  Once at the link for these standards, you find the statement under both math and English L/A standards headings, 

“The Oklahoma State Board of Education adopted Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for grades K‐12 in June 2010. Pre‐Kindergarten standards are currently undergoing revision. Transitions began in 2010 and will be completed by school districts prior to the 2014‐2015 school year.”

Please note that if you click on the link found for “Oklahoma Academic Standards” under English, L/A you are led to the CommonCore State Standards for English/LA, Literacy in History/Social Studies,Science and Technical Subjects though Dr. Barresi mentions the “Oklahoma Academic Standards”, as though Oklahoma had written individualized, state level standards.  This is also true for the heading “Oklahoma Academic Standards” under the math heading.  When that link is followed, the URL belongs to a PDF labeled, “Common Core State Standards for Mathematics”.  So, does Oklahoma have its own “Oklahoma Academic Standards”, or the Common Core?

Secondly; Bowdon’s question about “high stakes” testing came after Dr. Barresi used this same term in application to Oklahoma’s ACE requirements.  Instead of discussing the issue of “high stakes” testing in relation to ACE (which has been a very contentious issue in Oklahoma), Dr. Barresi clearly switches gears and begins discussing the Oklahoma’s Common Core State Standards testing.  Her answer buffs the shine on what she believes are more rigorous tests that will allow a better picture of a student’s ability to apply their knowledge to the questions posed.

Thirdly; Barresi – in her explanation – gives Bowdon a description – NOT of an application process, but a memory skill.  One doesn’t ‘apply’ knowledge to a question that simply asks a student to recall – from memory – which northeastern capitol is a seaport.  Additionally, Oklahoma educators think Dr. Barresi has no concept of how Oklahoma’s tests are actually structured.  In fact, they disagree with her assessment of the state’s current assessments pretty much across the board.

Fourthly; Dr. Barresi then states that ‘high stakes’ tests are ‘more’ informative to teachers – allowing them to better adjust instruction.  As a former teacher, I feel a large majority of teachers would relay the notion that several federated state tests a year will provide no more information (and possibly less) regarding the position of a student in their individual learning arc than many individual classroom level formative tests given after each section of material taught.  

Dr. Barresi finally tilts her head sweetly and lilts, “Besides, if you don’t test, how are you going to know how you’re doing?”  Teachers have been testing students inside the walls of their own classrooms since the beginning of classroom instruction.  In recent decades, teachers have dutifully taken 2 weeks or more a year out of classroom instruction time to prepare their students for yearly state examinations.  Testing has been part and parcel of a teacher’s duties since the profession began.  This was a question regarding “high stakes” testing – a different, more intrusive form of testing.  In this case, the ACE testing process can make or break graduation from high school for a student – even those with looming college prospects.  Sadly, teachers will still not be privy to the thoughts explaining Dr. Barresi’s love of “high stakes” testing from this interview.

GETTING OUT OF PARCC

Bowdon tells Dr. Barresi that it seems less expensive to shoulder 1/17^th of the test cost in PARCC than Oklahoma developing their own.  

Barresi explains (eventually) that Oklahoma withdrew from PARCC because of:

• Cost 
• The amount of time students were having to spend on the test
• Federal overreach
• Technology readiness

Essentially Bowdon asks Dr. Barresi how it is less expensive for Oklahoma to develop their own tests.

Barresi responds,

“When you develop a test that’s been in place for decades in Oklahoma that really tests low level questions, it’s very easy and cheap to develop a test like that – when you just ask for answer A,B, C or D.  When you develop a test that has performance items where the student justifies their answer, writes out short answers and…goes…into really showing their understanding, that is a much higher order test – it is much, much more expensive (Bowdon interrupts but Barresi continues) so we knew going to a better test like that that gives better information was gonna cost more.  That’s one of the reasons we participated in this consortium.  Then, after we got in and saw really how the test was being developed in terms of the fine print of the cost of it, we knew then that even with this additional funding – we appreciate that – that really we did not feel responsible for going back to the legislature and asking for another 2 million dollars.  That money needs to be in the classroom.”

First; again Barresi did not answer the question asked.  Dr. Barresi never gives any indication of the differences in cost between ‘state developed’ and PARCC tests – ever.  In fact, after a great deal of searching on the OSDE website, I was unable to come to find any indication of test costs.  So much for accountability.  I saw several articles on the web that discussed PARCC test costs, and though Oklahoma was mentioned in several, none had Oklahoma’s test costs reported.  

Secondly; since Nancy Pelosi uttered her now infamous, “We have to pass it to see what’s in it” statement about the Health Care law, many of us have opened our eyes to the fact that this is apparently Standard Operating Procedure for government at all levels.  Most states, for example, passed school code or state law adopting the Common Core Standards before they were even available to read in their final format in order to increase their chances for getting a Race to the Top grant.  Here, we see Barresi admit she jumped into an association with PARCC before she knew what it would cost her state taxpayers.  Certainly all states joined knowing that the federal government had given PARCC an RTT grant to develop the tests and that no tests had been developed at the time they entered their agreement with PARCC.

Thirdly; Page 206 of Oklahoma’s NCLB waiver provides a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Florida Department of Education as the granted PARCC authority and Oklahoma as a Governing member.  Oklahoma received 90K yearly for being a governing member of PARCC – not only that, but according to the MOU, there is NO reason for Oklahoma to have removed itself from PARCC, because Oklahoma’s position in the consortium provided the ability to make changes at any point in the test development progression – ostensibly, that should include costs.  Why leave then, really?

NCLB AND FEDERAL OVERREACH

Dr. Barresi’s admission that PARCC represented too much federal overreach is a head-scratcher.  She says the OSDE was,

“Just getting a little too much push from USDE.  We applied for the waiver (NCLB) and then it’s like, “Look what you asked for” and so we’re pushing back on that, but we thought it was time then that we separated us from that government interaction.  We’re developing an Oklahoma test.”

She then goes on to say she is not too sure,

“Barack Obama - President Obama had the right to do that (create the NCLB waiver) but also, I was in a state dealing with the reality that we had an entire array of reforms we were trying to implement and I was trying to fit a square peg into a round hole which was No Child Left Behind accountability.  We needed a better accountability system.”

She continues by saying the feds want to meet with her regarding the tests her state is developing on their own and that there is a possibility the feds will pull back on the waiver.

First; would anyone concerned about federal overreach apply for an NCLB waiver knowing what it said when they applied?  I find this to be the silliest thing I’ve ever heard.  I’ve read Oklahoma’s NCLB waiver.  It is very specific in its demands and the state is very specific in its complete submission to those demands. 

Page 31 says, “Oklahoma is committed to full implementation of the CCSS and other college and career ready standards, PARCC and other college and career ready assessments…”  Page 32 of the state’s waiver application gives three possibilities for the state in terms of testing 1. Using PARCC tests  2.  Not using PARCC but working on developing own Common Core tests or, 3.  The state isn’t in PARCC but has already developed and begun to “annually administer statewide aligned, high-quality assessments that measure student growth in reading/language arts and in mathematics in at least grades 3-8…”  The first option was chosen for the waiver.

I would wonder at any possibility of the USDE wanting to meet with Barresi regarding a roll-back of the waiver.  The waiver she signed provided a binding contract between the USDE and the OSDE’s use of PARCC tests.  But then again, who really cares about contracts today anyway?

FYI:  Dr. Barresi has also applied for a RTT Early Learning Challenge grant, several School Improvement Grants, a State Longitudinal Database grant and facilitated statewide 21^st Century Community Learning Center grants.  If you’re not a fan of federal overreach, why keep applying for federal assistance?

Secondly; why say you took an NCLB waiver because the state needed a better accountability system? Oklahoma was already following Jeb Bush down the yellow brick road of the A-F grading system prior to receiving an NCLB waiver.  In fact, the same Jeb Bush that invented the A-F grading system, then got Secretary Duncan to jump on board with using the system as a requirement of an NCLB waiver.  Janet Barresi, as a member of Bush’s Chiefs for Change, is well known for utilizing Jeb Bush’s reforms in Oklahoma on a constant basis – waiver or not.

Thirdly; on page 11 of the NCLB waiver, the OSDE told the USDE they would collaborate with them to evaluate at least one program of 3 required in the waiver to “determine the feasibility and design of the evaluation…[to ensure] the implementation of the chosen program, practice or strategy is consistent with the evaluation design.”  Why do this if you are concerned about federal overreach?  Apparently, as states wishing to apply for a SECOND round of NCLB waivers are finding out, this evaluation – via the collection of data via the state’s own state longitudinal database – is proving to be “mother may I” on steroids.

Frankly, I could go on, but it’s pointless.  Dr. Barresi has done the sort of things described in this rebuttal since she took office three years ago.  In fact, quashing the right of parents to speak at state board meetings, deflecting questions, spinning facts and filibustering are some of her favorite fallbacks.  

Sadly, people in states all across the country will be able to relate to this situation.  Superintendent Barresi is simply another in a long line of educrats in states all over the country - many with little to no education background - hoping to widen their sphere of political influence by riding Jeb Bush’s coattails down the trail of never tried nor proven education ‘reform’ methods which make guinea pigs of our nation’s students every day.

Common Core Testing Needs "Assessing"

Today, KRMG released its interview with Janet Barresi about the Common Core State Standards after being inundated with questions from listeners on the issue.  Here is the full text of the article.

I have chosen to go head to head - arguing each of her points in this article, as this information is exceptionally important for parents to know.  Sadly, this interview contains the same kind of behavior we have witnessed Janet Barresi exhibiting since she became our Superintendent - waving away opposition as if those of us who pay her salary are just peons to be ignored.  It infuriates me anytime I hear this because it is so elitist - so big government Republican.  She never really seems to give credibility to any concerns emanating from the public, but continues with the rhetoric spawned by the supporters and defenders of the Standards.

Please read the article so you can follow my points, although I will paste the quotes from the article upon which I will comment.

"The old assessments were simply questions that were memory tests. That's all they tested, was a child's ability to recall. These new assessments are testing their full knowledge of foundational information, and then more importantly, they're assessing their ability to think about those items and to apply those items," she told KRMG in an exclusive interview.

She talks about the tests as though she knows what the tests say...PARCC doesn't even know what the tests say!  All they've released are sample questions.  In fact, the tests will not be fully ready for use until 2014 AND our superintendent has already gone to our legislature to ask them to approve money for INTERIM tests because our children are going to fail the PARCC tests when they are ready (SB447 - comment made by Senator Clark Jolley at a Senate Education Committee Meeting on 2/5).  So these tests are all that and a bag of chips but our kids are going to fail them and we need to cough up more money for other tests until kids can pass them?  That's comforting and, well, confusing.   

Look at the speech Secretary Arne Duncan gave at a gathering of Achieve (one of the Players in the Common Core scheme)  lauding the 'new generation' ASSESSMENTS!  See if Dr. Barresi is not simply parroting Arne Duncan nearly word for word.

How about them apples for "testing their full knowledge of foundational information"?  Yup, you got it!  Kids are supposed to show their thinking about math!  How exciting.  Very creative though.

How about the fact that numerous different studies have shown technology as more a bane than a boon to student learning and attention spans in the face of more and greater technologies that allow escapism and instant gratification?   Okay, so let's make the computer one of the biggest things in the life of a student.  Cognitive dissonance much?

How about the fact that these new tests could potentially have partial credit answers?  Where's the line in the sand?  How do you determine what a kid really knows when you're granting him partial credit answers?  But then, I guess it's important to have every point you can get when the test results go into determining the school's A-F grade and schools that get a D or an F can be taken over and run by a contractor for the State Department of Education!  Look also at that link provided for this test.  Look at the jargon written on the page.  Have you not seen these terms used over and over and over with the Common Core?  So much so in fact, that I wrote a blog about it way back in late 2011, two in 2012 (and here) and another in 2013.  Frankly, it seems to me there is more time spent 'messaging' about the Common Core than actually 'teaching' the Common Core.  Look at the number of articles I found online showing states how to "MESSAGE" about Common Core.

Messaging Toolkit - from the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) - one of the two private, trade organizations responsible for the Common Core.

Common Core State Standards Communication and Outreach - Achieve

Common Core, We'd Better Get The Message Out - Jeb Bush's Foundation for Excellence in Education

Realizing the Potential:  How Governor's Can Lead Effective Implementation of the Common Core State Standards - National Governor's Association (NGA) the other organization responsible for creating the Common Core

What to Tell Your Teachers To Help Them Implement The Common Core Standards; Messaging is Key To Common Core Implementation (among other choices) - from the School Improvement Network

Why in the world are these organizations so invested in this effort that they devote so much energy to selling it?  If the standards and tests are so good, why in the world do you have to work so hard to sell them?  (Answer:  Money - they are all invested in selling schools programs/books/software/etc. to support the Common Core).

Maybe there's so much 'selling' going on of the Common Core and PARCC tests because this is the way in which the state and the federal government will collect data point after data point of personal information on your child.  Since the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1964, provisions have been made in the law for collecting 'educational data' on students.  This troubled ROPE so badly that we researched this situation and produced a paper for an interim study on the topic of student privacy last October for the Oklahoma House.

Many readers have no doubt seen Glenn Beck talk more than once about the intrusive nature of the data 'mining' occurring within schools today.  This is just one page from the National Center for Education Statistics including the type of data they collect on students.

Note Blood Type and Birthmark in the 1st column 5 and 6 down!

Recently, while trolling around for information on other issues, I found something called the Tripod Project.  Of course it's founded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - a serious major underwriter of all this new education 'reform' - or should I say data collection?  Just this page on their Foundation website shows that the Gates apparently have quite the interest in 'assessments' and data collection.  The Tripod 'project' provides,

"...a suite of multi-item indicators that capture students’ academic and social behaviors, goals, beliefs and feelings. Student engagement and achievement are conceptually and empirically predicted by seven multi-item measures covering key domains of teaching effectiveness referred to as the 7Cs."

What?  Feelings?  Beliefs?  What in the world does that have to do with my kids' education?  Well, in order for teachers to be effectively teaching students, schools need to know about their Grit Tenacity and Perseverance and the only way to do that is to monitor them electronically with as many gadgets as possible and then collect and store that data in a database in order to more fully evaluate the child.  Apparently, teachers are too stupid to figure out how a student is responding in their classroom, so that student must be hooked up to an electronic instrument of some kind and data collected on his 'engagement' and 'behaviors' in the classroom.  But what about feelings?  How do we measure these?  On tests apparently, where we 'assess' just these things.  After all, "to assess" means to pass judgement - something that's a subjective state, not an objective state such as a right or wrong answer to a deliberately posed and specific question.

Just recently, our friend Howard Houchen posted an exchange he had with one of his son's friends over their recent writing tests on ROPE'S Facebook page.  As Howard puts it:

He said he noticed a "transition" in the "writing tests" from others he had taken. He didn't like the "how does this make you feel" and the "how do you feel about this" questions in the "pre-tests". Now, keep in mind these "tests" are now called OCCT (Oklahoma Common Core Test) and not CRT. This kid mentioned that to me during his letting me know about the "transition" he noticed. Close to the end of our conversation, and these are the words he spoke that STICK...he said: "yeh, these pre-tests make you feel like your talking to a psychiatrist or something". A Common Core Writing Pre-Test that makes a kid uncomfortable...like they are spilling their feelings out to a psychiatrist??? This, at the very least, is NOT acceptable!

McGraw/Hill - the testing company identified by Senator Jolley during the Senate Education Committee meeting as providing interim Common Core tests, ALSO does psychometric testing.  Gosh, that's handy.

We identified a similar situation last year with the 21 Century Skills After School Program where we were able to show that Behavioral Response tests (psychological tests) were given to students without parental permission, so this is undeniably occurring, though the extent is unknown.

Having administered several state tests over the course of my teaching career, I can tell you without hesitation that test security is a HUGE issue.  Why?  Because if the test questions get out it costs the testing company more money to create additional test questions and allegations of cheating can be leveled against the school if security protocols are not followed.  What better place to put psychological test questions but on a test that has ZERO scrutiny outside the testing company and its graders and the child taking the test who has not enough life experience to know the questions he/she is answering can lead to the creation of a psychological profile of their own making?

For years Dr. Barresi has taken pride in saying that these standards are "state led" (another talking point) and that the federal government is not involved.  In fact, the Daily Oklahoma created an editorial calling us Conspiracy Theorists for our assertion that the Common Core is federally led!  Let's think....if the two consortia creating the tests were given FEDERAL dollars (Race to the Top) grants and are now saying they the consortia need to undergo a 'federal review process'  how NOT federal is that?  We won't get started on the standards themselves...

The interview goes on:

[Dr. Barresi] says those who say it will mean 40 days of testing a year are simply misstating the facts.  "It is generously timed so children can actually think and formulate an answer. So, it is not 40 days. There are two 20-day testing windows. Children are not involved in testing for the full 40 days all day. That is simply not accurate."

Okay, well no one ever said kids would be tested for 20 days.  I have no idea where that came from.  Our concern was that teachers were literally going to have to spend 40 days a semester getting their kids ready to take tests lasting 8-10 hours.  Here's the document.  Isn't that what it says?

Here she makes a concession about the fact that this Common Core stuff is all an UNFUNDED mandate, but who cares, really, because all schools will have to have all this technology anyway.

She does admit that many schools will have to make major upgrades in terms of broadband Internet access, computer equipment, and software.  But, she firmly believes that's something that would have to happen regardless of whether Oklahoma instituted the new testing system or not.  "This is something that is absolutely critical. This is not a nice to have kind of thing -- this is an essential tool. This is as important as pencil and paper."

Hmmm...so we want kids to think critically and be able to write, but only if we use the computer as a crutch to do so.  Not only does this not make sense, but I don't know how much sense it makes to taxpayers to see their property taxes (and others) increase because the school can't afford the technology necessary to administer tests for a set of standards that were never generally agreed upon, studied or even seen before put into law.  But then, I guess that doesn't really matter if we can keep the state from studying the actual costs associated with the Common Core by killing bills and holding the media at arms length with platitudes like, "We anticipate low costs".

Dr. Barresi also explains that...once people learn more about what's called "common core" education, they get on board.

"I know industry is excited about being here, I know the governor is focused on making sure we have a work force that's ready for the 21st Century, and we're doing our part at the State Department of Education and all the great educators throughout the state are working their hearts out."

Wow.  It just shocks me that she continues on the Communist Party line here.  WE DON'T EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN FOR THE WORKFORCE we educate them so they can decide what they want to do with their lives when they are able to make those decisions for themselves.  The Oklahoma and National Chambers of Commerce, however, do not believe in such folly, however.  The top two issues of the Oklahoma State Chamber (under the heading of 'workforce') are

• Prioritize education funding for programs and reforms designed to enhance access to current and future Oklahoma workforce needs.
• Protect Common Education reforms designed to enhance growth, learning and proficiencies needed to ensure students are career or college ready.

The National Chamber of Commerce supports "A Competitive Workforce" by:

• Requiring a Quality, Rigorous, and Well-Rounded K–12 Educational System:
  • Promoting the use of student data for accountability.
  • Supporting college and career ready standards, including the common core, that prepare all students.
  • Providing real choices and options for students and parents.

I guess Dr. Barresi is right on this!  Industry is excited about this.  I wonder why she doesn't understand, however, that America doesn't educate its children to be members of the states' workforce - CHINA DOES!

Of course, she is correct that Governor Fallin is all behind these education 'reforms'!  Of course she is - she's Vice-Chair of the National Governor's Association and on her way to the highly touted Chair position!  It wouldn't look good for her political aspirations if her state rejected Common Core, would it?  Damn the parents/kids/voters!  Full speed ahead she cries as she forgets for whom she works and to whom she owes her position.

In closing, Dr. Barresi has this to say,

"we are going in this state from driving an old broken down 1980s car that's burning oil to a Prius."

What a metaphor!  Isn't it that broken down old 1980's car that PUT A MAN ON THE MOON?  Oh, but the Prius has been a shining example of JAPANESE engineering though most hybrid owners wouldn't own another.  Maybe she's got that backward?  Maybe she just doesn't know what the heck she's saying!

I Will Not Be Assimilated!

Today, Robert Pondiscio of Core Knowledge Foundation, wrote a post that made me have to stop and respond.  It was called, Nobody Loves Standards (and that's O.K.).

You know what?  That's BUNK! 

I love the fact that there is a standard for how restaurants serve food, as I don't enjoy the prospect of Tomain poisoning or Salmonella infection.  I love the fact that I am entitled to a certain standard of treatment by my physician and dentist as I don't enjoy the prospect of being made more ill or losing a tooth I didn't need to.  These kind of standards are those imposed by a municipality or city via my tax dollars and are designed to protect the community they serve.  If I decide to open a restaurant and decide these codes or standards are too harsh, I can petition my city government to have them changed.

The Common Core State Standards are in NO WAY an apples to apples comparison with those described above.  The CCSS are imposed on students and parents by education elitists who think they know better than parents and students, what students should learn.  They were created in a galaxy far, far away (the National Governor's Association - a private, dues-collecting organization), by a group of individuals so that no one single group can be held accountable for their creation.  How then, does a parent or student complain or have them changed if they feel they are not living up to their advertised excellence?  Good question.

In short, the Common Core State Standards are an extra-Constitutional form of control which usurps the rights of those that are supposed to use them and pay for them.  That is not what a STANDARD should do in this country.

Consequently, I felt the need to respond - rather cheekily I agree - to Mr. Pondiscio assertion that Common Core State Standards will be just what the doctor ordered when it comes to teaching reading - and apparently ALL of elementary school for that matter.

Below was my comment:

I am speechless.  I am a former Core Knowledge 7th grade Science teacher.  For you, of all people to be touting - in any way - the Common Core, makes me, well, ah, okay, speechless.

Though I was frequently frustrated by the cross curricular aspect of Core Knowledge (getting the History, English, Math and Science teachers all on the same topic for even a day, is more than difficult to wrangle), I found it rich and interesting and easy to align with our states standards.  I often spent time ferreting out information on specific scientists as we covered specific topics in chemistry and life science, and giving the students a real glimpse into the minds of the people that came before them to prepare the way for them to learn.  I tested (I didn't ASSESS) my students after each unit to make sure they were 'getting' the harder concepts (such as the Periodic Table) and my students did well above average on their state Core Curriculum tests.

I'm so glad I'm now at home schooling my own kids.  With CCSS, teaching to the test would be my reality.  Gone would be the days of foraging around in the lives of scientists or trampling around off-topic to watch a film to reinforce a concept or spending enough time covering the Periodic Table well enough to make sure everyone got it.  Heck with that, I'd have to cover everything that would be on the test, or lose my job when my students weren't ASSESSED at a proper assessment 'interval'. 

Teaching was once a profession in which the promise of (and necessity for) individualism and autonomy, drew those who enjoyed imparting wisdom to people younger than themselves in whatever way they found worked best.  Now, all that remains for teachers is to become assimilated into the collective called 'accountability' while figuring out a way to remain at least human enough to 'facilitate' classrooms of children glued to computers and iPads full of programs effortlessly guiding them toward their necessary place in the global workforce.

Though I fear my commentary here will simply be overlooked as the lunatic ravings of a dissenter for not including enough of the CCSS buzzwords I've picked up over the year and a half I've been studying and writing about this initiative (I devoted an entire blog to those!), I'm pretty sure teachers still in the classroom would agree with my thoughts.

Why otherwise intelligent people such as yourself seem so intent upon joining the Borg, I can't possibly comprehend on any level.  The collective is NOT (nor has it ever been) the way, and I for one will not be assimilated. 

What is HUMAN CAPITAL?

This is SUCH an important article, I felt I should create a blog of it immediately. As my friend Howard and I were talking and consoling one another after he read it today, we both realized that this particular article plugs holes in SO many places where ROPE has really been unable to explain what has gone so horribly wrong in public education today.

The article is cited in my latest research on the P20 database - how we are "tracking" kids using different educational data points in the name of education reform. It will by ready to read by the end of the week and I will provide links to it then. The article below, explains the idea of Human Capital so well, it helps us understand why it is SO wrong for our State Superintendent and other "reformers" to use this term. It is extremely apparent that very, very few of our representatives in government have any real clue as to how or WHY they are being manipulated into creating a communist society all under the guise of "education reform".

Sadly, I think the reason why many Americans can't possibly wrap their brain around this concept, stems from the fact that - having worked at it for more than 5 decades - the communists among us have dis-educated us in civics so brilliantly, that we have no idea what role government is to play in our lives and can be led like sheep in any direction they want to point us. In addition, we have lived in this "sweet land of liberty" for so long (whether it was or not) that not only haven't we been able to see it changing before our eyes, but we have told ourselves that it isn't simply because we can't or don't want to believe it. In fact, I wrote an article for a Notre Dame project describing this phenomenon and how it can be rectified through civic education.

The article on Human Capital was written in the mid-90's. Before or after you read it, please, please at least open this article, "Common Core: Preparing Globally Competent Citizens" and read how, the Council of Chief State School Officers are developing student global competence which fits with the new Standards. Please ALSO note that the article refers constantly to the ASIA Society - one of the most globalistic, liberalistic organizations in America today.
 
It would help if we researched organizations involved with "reform" projects of any kind to determine their roots - and therefore their agenda - but we Americans have been dis-educated from that process as well. Please note what ARE considered global competencies:

If you aren't seeing how this is all fitting together yet, I beg you to read, re-read and read it again. It's right here in front of our faces. We must be prepared. It is absolute NECESSITY at this point in this late hour - when we have very little time to wake up those around us - to understand these concepts and make them known to anyone who will possibly listen.

Is Your Child Human Capital?
Yes, According To The Architects Of The New Global Economy
By Cindy Weatherly
12-7-3

During preparation for a workshop on educational policy in 1982, I was asked by the host organization to prepare a glossary of terms pertaining to my presentation. That request seemed simple enough and a reasonable one, so I set about compiling terms related to CBE (Competency-Based Education) (forerunner of Outcome-Based Education and promulgated by the same man Bill Spady), our fad-of-the-moment in educational reformation toward illiteracy in Georgia.   As I said, the task seemed simple enough. However, while still in the "A's" of the alphabet, I developed an overwhelming respect for professional compilers of glossaries. The first word block I encountered was "assessment". Sure it was familiar; we all knew it meant 'test'; but the longer I struggled to apply that definition to CBE the more elusive "assessment's" definition became.   The latest word for 'test' was "instrument" and that proved easy to explain. But, "assessment" was a broader term, "assessment" was the noun form of the verb "assess". What did "assess" actually mean? The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) had been in use since its development in the latter 1960's. Had we overlooked a change in emphasis by the Federal level of education implied by the use of the word "assessment" that could be significant?   Receiving no help from my small hill of accumulated state department of education materials relating to assessment, I decided to "read the instruction manual": (Webster's New World Dictionary.) Webster's clearly stated:   "assess": 1. to set an estimated value on (property, etc.) for taxation 2. to set the amount of (a tax, fine, damages, etc.) 3. to impose a fine, tax, or special payment on (a person or property) 4. to impose (an amount) as a fine, tax, etc. 5. to estimate or determine the significance, importance, or value of; evaluate.   "assessment": 1. the act of assessing 2. the amount assessed.   This definition disturbed me a little. I had assumed that "assessment" was just the latest educationese for a broad-based test. Had I missed something somewhere? To accomplish the task at hand -- the glossary -- I crafted a definition that read like this:   "Assessment: an estimation; determination of the significance or value of. As used in education, a general term for measuring student progress. Conflict in definition occurs when considering that this is a measurement process that is used to determine the value or significance of a particular outcome in educational performance. Therefore, it is not a true measurement, but a process of assigning value to specific tasks, creating a cumulative score for performance instead of an accurate measurement against a standard."   It sounded good at the time and spoke to the question of "what are we testing?" which was a growing concern due to the nature of Competency-Based Education's life role skills competencies, which were going to dictate our educational goals -- just like "OBE" does today. Even though satisfied to have introduced the idea that there may be a conflict within the definition of "assessment" as an educational term, I was bothered that I could find no definitions in other dictionaries, including legal ones, which did not have primary meanings related to assigning a value for tax purposes. "Assessment" is primarily a legal term; in fact, the use of the word "instrument" could carry a legal connotation as well. Disturbing.   THE FEDERAL ACCOUNTING PROCESS   In March of 1984 I had the privilege of giving testimony supporting stringent regulations for the Pupil Privacy Act (the Hatch Amendment) which amended the General Education Provisions Act to offer protection from intrusive questioning, programs, and the record-keeping for parents and students.   Again, preparation for that testimony caused me to review the National Center for Educational Statistics' handbook series known as the "State Educational Records and Reports Series". Specifically, Handbook IIR - the Financial Accounting Handbook - alluded to a "unified accounting system" based on the process known as Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) which was to be used by all school systems. PPBS involves mandated goals and constant adjustment of resources to ensure that goals are met... the system that is still in use today. In testifying, I drew a projected conclusion:   If our financial resource reporting is going to be unified by such a system, then are we not but a step away from unified goals for our educational outcomes? This is assuredly a step toward mandated national curriculum and interstate and interregional tax and financial management revisions... will we not soon be sharing tax resources from region to region as needed to `equalize' educational opportunities and programs deemed `exemplary` or in the `national interest to produce global- minded citizens?'   The longer I thought of "assessment" being the "value determined for tax purposes" and the possibility of cross-regional/state sharing of tax resources, the more concerned I became over the idea that the record-keeping and information-compiling might become so tied to the individual student that "assessment" might have a more malignant potential. We were talking about our children here.   At that point in time there was a growing emphasis on choice and vouchers/tuition tax credits in education. Since with the money flows the control, could this be part of the "assessment" picture? That would tie an individual student moving about in the "choice market" directly to a federal accounting process both financially and educationally due to national standards being proposed. No one seemed to be too worried about it in the 1980's, but it still bothered me.   Over a period of time I shared my concern with close associates -- if "assess" was to "assign a value for tax purposes", then why were we "assessing" children? A theory began to take root and grow in my mind: somehow we were going to allow children's potential worth to society to be measured, and their future life roles would somehow be measured, and their future life roles would be somehow projected, and they would be limited by that assigned worth. What a thought! Could this be possible in the United States [of America]?   HUMAN CAPITAL DEFINED   Later someone sent me pages from a book entitled Human Capital and America's Future, edited by David W. Hornbeck and Lester M. Salamon. The title itself set off alarm bells because of the connection to education shared by many of the contributors, especially Hornbeck. It was now the early 90's and many disturbing things were happening. David Hornbeck was a highly visible change agent responsible for many radical education reforms in states from Kentucky to Iowa and had been a consultant to many more.   Why was Hornbeck focusing on 'human capital'? That had been primarily used in economic and commercial literature. Hornbeck was also identified with changes in "assessment" in the school systems with which he consulted and worked. The book was published by Johns Hopkins University Press in 1991 and contains an enlightening list of contributors in addition to Hornbeck: Ernest Boyer; Nancy Barrett; Anthony Carnavale; Sheldon Danziger; Marian Wright Edelman; Scott Fosler; Daniel Greenberg; Jason Jaffras; Arnold Packer; Isabel Sawhill; Marion Pines; Donald Stewart, and Lester Salamon.   The social and political views of "Human Capitol's" line-up of contributors could be the basis of another whole article, but suffice it to say that most of the radical changes toward a managed populus in this country can be reflected among this group of individuals. Weren't some of them involved in the dis-establishing of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) and turning it into the Department of Education?   While references to "human capital" have been the fare of business publications for some time, it has only been in the last few years that this term applied to school children. In Hornbeck's chapter in "Human Capital", 'New Paradigm for Action', he outlined the systemic change which must occur to produce the workforce for the future and fulfill our nation's 'human capital' needs. Hornbeck's "new paradigm of action" looked a lot like old "OBE" -- setting specific performance standards and invoking penalties for schools, teachers and students not meeting them:   "If the new comprehensive system is to be outcome-based, careful attention must be paid to 'assessment' strategies. The selection of outcome indicators will be informed by the availability of sound assessment instruments." [emphasis added]   Now here was Hornbeck using "assessment" and "instrument" together instead of a substitute for one or the other -- and he had selected the two terms which carried legal usage definitions. Hornbeck asserted that while the NAEP might be universally available, and portfolio "assessments" (notice the use of both words together) would become popular, "the Educational Testing Service (ETS) is investing time and funds in developing new approaches to assessment." He further stated that while most of the present 'assessment' observations are "related to academic objectives"...   "Similar sensitivity is required in carefully defining appropriate assessment tools in other areas as well. In citizenship... a method should be developed for expressing qualitative aspects of participation activities... a different 'value' could be placed on 'community service'... physical and mental fitness... problems arise as we confront legal and even constitutional issues (self-incrimination, search and seizure)... Perhaps a school system should plan to have all students undergo a "physical exam" in the fourth, eighth, and twelfth grades as a health counterpart to the academic testing program. Again, the emphasis must be on carefully determining assessment strategies that measure the outcomes to be achieved."   All of this is structured because "incremental change is insufficient. Systems must be radically altered to produce what the nation's economy demands in a work force."   Weren't we supposed to be concerned about the education of school children? This sounded a lot like literature which proposed "full employment" policies -- much like the billboards and signs plastered on public transportation and public buildings in Grenada -- "Work for everyone; everyone working!" -- before the U.S. invasion to overthrow their communist government.   Was this why the Council of Chief State School Officers accepted a contract from the National Center for Educational Statistics to develop what is known as the "SPEEDE ExPRESS? (The Exchange of Permanent Records Electronically of Students and Schools.) This electronic information track can carry the most diverse and extensive information on a student, delivering it to future employers, places of higher education, training centers, health providers (contraceptive histories will be included), the military and a number of other recipients yet to be designated. Then if employers, government and others have input into what should be the outcome of education in this country -- instead of education being academically and informational-based -- then the concept of "assessment as assigning a value" to a child takes on proportions that are certainly Orwellian.   What if your child's "assessed" worth doesn't meet anyone's projected goal? Proponents of the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM) and the Certificate of Advanced Mastery (CAM) are, in truth, fleshing out the skeleton of assigning a value to a person. Without the CIM/CAM in those states adopting the concept a young person will not be able to apply for a job, drive a car, or do many other things which have never before been predicated on governments' conferring a value on a person's worth to society.   The People's Republic of China, a communist country, uses "no conformity" -- "no job" policies to enforce its "one child" policy. Have we understood the direction of these changes? Is this constitutional or moral?   ASSESSING HUMAN VALUE   The next piece to the puzzle of assessment fell into place when my suspicions were confirmed that we really were assessing "value". The August 1993 issue of "Visions", the newsletter of the Education for the Future Initiative sponsored by Pacific Telesis Foundation, was given out at a legislative committee meeting as part of a packet of information on technology in the classroom and school-to-work transition activities. The lead article was Beyond the Bubble with a blurb reading: "Educators are finding that new ways of teaching require new forms of 'assessment'."   On page three there was a column entitled 'Authentic Definitions'. Finally, I thought, I have found an educational publication that will define this word and allay my fears. Sure enough, there was the word: "Assessment - The act or result of judging the 'worth' or 'value' of something or 'someone'.   The worth or value of something or someone?! This was confirmation that educational testing had taken an extreme left turn. It was not comforting to realize that our children were going to be assigned a value based on "acceptable performance behaviors in life-role applications" as proposed in PacTelesis Foundation's 'Authentic Definitions'.   Knowing that   1) Our children would be tracked and that extensively detailed would be electronically compiled and transmitted to select file-users;   2) Information would include or be based on a value level assigned to them contingent upon performance - as a child - of life-role competencies;   3) Value levels could reflect the scale of achievement outlined in the United States Labor Department's 1993 "Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills" [SCANS] -- which encompasses personality traits and private preferences, and   4) The purpose of education has documentably been diverted into workforce training, led me ultimately to the conclusion that indeed the future holds a less than bright prospect for our young people. To be formally assigned a "worth" to society based on your ability as a child to demonstrate that you can perform an "essential skill" should be a foreign concept in a constitutional republic like the one in which we live -- these United States of America.   An example of how these efforts at "assessment" have been perverted to the ends outlined above is given in "Crucial Issues In Testing", edited by Ralph W. Tyler and Richard M. Wolf. This book is one in a series prepared under the auspices of the National Society for the Study of Education, which in 1974 included names like William Spady, John Goodlad, and Robert Havighurst on its governing committee.   On page 98, within an article by Carmen J. Finley (of the American Institute for Research) is a section entitled "Defining Goals versus Comparison With an Average:"   "In the National Assessment program specific objectives or goals are defined and exercises are written which determine how well these goals are being met. For example, in citizenship a major objective is to `Support Rights and Freedoms of All Individuals.' One specific way in which a person might meet this goal is to defend the right of a person with very unpopular views to express his opinion and support the right of `extreme' (political or religious) groups to express their views in public."   One exercise which was written to try to tell whether or not this objective was being met is as follows:   "Below are three statements which make some people angry. Mark each statement as to whether you think a person on radio or TV should or should not be allowed to make these statements: * = Russia is better than the United States. * = Some races of people are better than others. * = It is not necessary to believe in God."   This is the goal-oriented approach. The objectives or goals represent a kind of standard which is considered desirable to achieve. The exercises, if they are good measures, tell to what extent the goals are being achieved. This approach tells very specifically what a person knows or can do.              Jenni's Note: [THIS IS THE WORDING USED BY THE COMMON CORE TODAY] This article is PRIOR to the Common Core. I submit that the goals-oriented/performance-based /OBE/assessment approach just outlined tells more than what a child knows or can do. This approach very specifically reveals what a child feels and believes. Remember that "assessments" measure toward predetermined outcomes. Those outcomes represent the judged "worth" or "value" of your children and mine!   With the last election cycle (during the Clinton years) hope swept the country that a conservative majority had exerted itself; changes would be made. As a country we'd be snatched from the brink of economic socialism and potential corporate fascism; and sanity would be restored to the halls of government. Right?   WHEN RIGHT IS LEFT   It just happens that the October 1992 edition of Visions (PacTelesis Foundation newsletter) contained an article entitled "Why Technology?" It began,   "Alvin Toffler, the author of such influential books as "Future Shock" and "The Third Wave", has written that the spread of personal computers is the single most important change in the field of knowledge since the invention of movable type in the 15th century. He goes on to state that knowledge is the key to power in the 21st century -- not mineral rights or military force."   This was the same publication that carried the definitive definition of "assessment". And wasn't this the same Alvin Toffler who wrote "Creating A New American Civilization", which heralds the coming third wave of global culture, published by the Progress and Freedom Foundation and introduced at their 'Cyberspace and the New American Dream' conference in Atlanta last year?   Newt Gingrich, the new Speaker of the House, introduced Toffler as his longtime friend and then sat quietly by to hear Toffler say that national sovereignty was a thing of the past and that he was an avowed secularist. These are the stripes of our new "conservative" future?   At the same Cyberspace conference, an array of professionals from many areas of cultural life paraded their contributions to leadership toward the much-touted Third Wave. The spokesperson for education in Progress and Freedom Foundation's lineup was -- and still is -- Lewis J. Perelman, author of "School's Out: A Radical New Formula for the Revitalization of America's Educational System". Perelman advocates what he calls just-in-time learning, privatized public schools, total quality applications, hyperlearning, and many other catchy concepts which are now, of course, getting much attention in the policy debate.   It should be noted that in the Preface to his book Perelman cites Wassily Leontief and B.F. Skinner among those from whom he particularly benefited during his years at Harvard in the 70's. Most interesting since Leontief is the acknowledged expert on management by objectives (MBO) -- the forerunner and companion to PPBS. And Skinner was the American father of behavioral psychology, and mastery learning/operant conditioning -- the foundation for OBE.   These relationships of Perelman's are important because he supplied the connecting piece to complete the puzzle picture of our children's future. Perelman states on page 316 that. . .   "Nostalgic mythology about `local control' should not mask the reality that the state governments have the constitutional authority, call the shots, and pay most of the bill for education. But government, local or otherwise, no longer needs to own and operate school systems or academic institutions."   TAXING HUMAN WORTH   Now, to the heart of Perelman's alternative proposal which forms the future of "conservative" educational policy and expresses "assessment's" future use:   "One possibility would be a 'human capital tax'. The human capital tax might be simply the same as a personal income tax, or might be calculated or ear-marked in a more limited way. Technicalities aside, it's logical that if the government is going to help fund investments in the development of the community's human capital, taking back a share of the resulting gains is a good way to pay for it. In effect, each generation of beneficiaries of such investment pays back some of the benefits it received to the next generation" [value-added tax, ed.] (p. 317) "We should deal with parents who are 'starving their children's minds' with the same legal remedies we use to deal with parents who are starving their children's bodies. The... media through which a microchoice [voucher] system is provided will give public authorities more accurate information on what individual families and kids are doing than is currently available, making it easier to identify instances of negligence or misuse." (page 318 [emphasis added] "...there's no good reason why the learner should not be able to purchase services or products from any provider -- whether public or private, in-state or out-of-state." (p. 319)   A VALUE ADDED TAX FOR HUMAN WORTH   There is the framework. A value-added tax process that will "deduct" from a services/education super-voucher a tax for every level of achievement/skill a student achieves -- true 'assessment'. Standards will be rigid and penalties for non-achievement will be enforceable against the student, his parents, and providers of educational services in order to achieve a trained workforce."   The implications for families being disrupted by accusations and prosecutions for Perelman's implied abuse and neglect over "parental starving of children's minds" are startling in their flagrancy. An elaborate and accurate system will track families and students, leaving privacy and confidentiality in the dust. The tax/voucher will follow the student across state and regional boundaries, necessitating a reformulation of tax bases; this could even be extended to foreign sources -- Facilitated by choice and charter school initiatives. (Remember Toffler asserts that national sovereignty is or will soon be a thing of the past. And what about GATT's education provision?)   The World Bank has just announced (Associated Press, "The Des Moines Register", 9/15/95) its new formula for estimating a nation's worth. Ismael Serageldin, World Bank vice president for environmentally sustainable development, stated in 'Monitoring Environmental Progress: A Report on Work in Progress' that the system "for the first time folds a country's people and its natural resources into its overall balance sheet."   While the World Bank projects that its new system of measuring wealth which "attempts to go beyond traditional gauges" and lists "Human Resources: value represented by people's productive capacity" (e.g. education, nutrition) will take years to perfect, I submit that our process of 'assessment' is a giant step in that direction.   I am reminded that in May of 1984 the "Washington Post" published an article entitled "Industrial Policy Urged for GOP." The Institute for Contemporary Studies, "founded by Edwin Meese, Caspar Weinberger and other Reagan Supporters", issued a report that advocated "Republicans shed some of their deep-rooted antipathy to a planned economy." All signals seem to point to the fact that this has indeed happened.   Somewhere in all of this is lost the ability to communicate our culture in an organized way and to teach basic skills that can be used whether cyberspace technology is available or not. Didn't we used to call this "education"? Didn't we believe that our children had some choice in their futures?   When is 'assessment' really 'assessment'? Ernest Boyer, former Director of the Office of Education and Carnegie Foundation director, once said, "To be fully human one must serve   In the future to be fully assessed may mean our Children's worth as a "servant" of the state will be "assigned a value for tax purposes."   America, where are you?

 

Disclaimer

Email This Article