ROPE Report Short - Julianne Romanello; Non-Profit Grants Often Push Soc...

\

Norman Dodd was head of research for the 1953 Reece Commission investigating the political activities of tax exempt foundations. In an interview he did with G. Edward Griffin (the author of the Creature From Jekyll Island) he exposed the politics behind the Reece Commission and the Commission's findings before it was finally stopped. What he found was that the large non-profit organizations were engaging in an attempt to use social engineering to change America into a socialist nation via the requirements of the grants it was giving out. Please read more about the Reece Commission and the investigation here: https://by-julietbonnay.com/2021/10/how-tax-exempt-foundations-subvert-democracy/ And the actual Dodd/Griffin interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUYCBfmIcHM

Money VS Results and The Socialist Nature of Public Schools

Recently, I posted a comment on our ROPE Facebook page about the socialist nature of public school. It was in response to another comment made by someone who disagreed with an earlier post (incidentally, I wish ALL dissenters could be as polite as this commenter - we've had a great time talking back and forth and even found things to agree on over the course of numerous exchanges).
 
As we were talking about the district of Glenpool - whose superintendent was able to save money to give all teachers a $1,000 bonus by cutting some services such as cleaning services - we had a lively discussion about teachers being asked to help clean their school.
 

The Failure Of Obama's School "Turnaround" - Trickle Down Education Will Never Work As Well As LOCALLY Administered Education

Just this January, it was reported that figures crunched at the end of Mr. Obama's turn as POTUS determined that one of his pet project, SIG - School Improvement Grants - with their heavy emphasis on School Turnaround, was a dismal failure after an influx of taxpayer funds to the tune of 7 BILLION dollars. Wait for it....

HUGE SHOCK - STOP THE PRESSES

Parents, Your Kids Belong To The Collective and This Is But One Reason Why You Can't Practice School Choice

This video of Melissa Harris Perry went viral last year. In the video she claims children belong to society - they are products for and of their community. 

Unfortunately, at least two recent blogs against Education Savings Accounts (to be heard in the OK legislature today) point to collectivism as one reason Oklahoma can't tolerate this form of school choice. While I can agree with many things said by people populating Education circles today - especially when it comes to state mandates - THIS is not - nor ever will be - one of them. 

One blogger references another blogger,

Blogger Peter Greene explains this well: "The educated human being (good grief! they are not even referred to as students here, let alone CHILDREN) who emerges from school will become our neighbor, an employee, a parent, a spouse, a voter, a (one hopes) involved citizen, a person whose job will contribute in some way to the life of the community. Everybody who will every deal with her in any of those capacities shares the benefits of that education. They are all "customers" of public education."

This is the philosophy which bore the term, STAKEHOLDER. As soon as this terminology began to emerge in conjunction with public education it was clear it was communitarian. After all, many parents will only agree to so much in the name of their child. Consequently, their child must be tied to a 'greater good' - must be anchored as the face of humanity - in order for parents to be sold many forms of community programming that might otherwise seem a usurpation of parental rights.

Do your children interact with the public? YES. Is it the job of the school to produce citizens? NO. It is strictly the job of the parent. Are all parents doing a good job at this? NO - I was a teacher for many years, I got that - but this is NOT an excuse to justify collectivism in a FREE REPUBLIC on any level. Are there non-profit organizations that help parents be better parents? YES. Should we support these as individuals? YES.

What about the notion of "involved citizen"? I guess it depends upon what kind of a citizen is desired. If it's one that believes in a collective over individual rights, I would imagine the public school system is doing a great job of that considering how little our public school students know about American government or civics - I just don't subscribe to this school of thought. 

This entire blog maintains the philosophy of America as a Democracy and posits that Big Investors are the basis for the ideals of 'school choice' because they

"do not want those parents to do things that might threaten minority rule of the rich like organizing, engaging in collective protest, exercising their democratic power to elect new school boards and demanding change in their publicly-owned schools."

First, referring to America as a 'Democracy' is a common misconception of those who do not understand - or believe in - the concept of American Constitutional government. America is a Constitutional Republic with democratic elections for our representation in government, held together by the rule of law. A true Democracy is at best, mob rule by a majority - a collective. This is NOT what our Founders intended, yet even Oklahoma's own History Standards perpetuate this lie. 

Secondly, I most certainly couldn't be labeled rich, or privileged, but I guess I'm not a collectivist because I don't understand the notion that the STATE can do a better job than individuals in any area involving personal choice. I guess I believe in individual rights as given by God and enumerated in the Constitution because I believe in the right of the individual to fail and/or succeed and as such, learn. 

(At this point the argument will turn to roads and bridges and ambulance service - oh wait, that's privately owned - to make the point that society operates as a collective for different reasons. Yes. That is true. Roads are necessity for commerce from which all residents benefit. Fire/Police service protect and defend the safety of all residents in an orderly society protected by a Constitution. How again do children fit into this picture? Conflating children and the public good is dishonest because roads/bridges/police/fire services do not have human characteristics. You simply can't take a human being with individual rights and self-awareness and slap them into a societal mold because they will - ostensibly - eventually come out to be firemen/policemen/civil engineers to perpetuate the public good.)

I'm told over and over that public education is a societal right which precludes my right as a parent to withdraw my child from the system with the money the state attaches to my child for a public education. After all, apparently I'm rich enough to pay for a state education I don't use and a homeschool education I do because the one the public offers is not appropriate for my children or family. This thought alone is massively frustrating because the public school system is producing high school graduates that can't read or do math, ostensibly because there isn't enough money in the system. Public K-12 education in Oklahoma already uses 51% of the entire budget. How much money is ever enough money to produce educated students?

I'm also told over and over that the Oklahoma Constitution provides for a 'system of free public schools' and we must obey the Constitution. The Oklahoma Constitution also specifies that public education includes only those aged from EIGHT (8) to SIXTEEN (16) years of age. This is the point, however, at which the Constitution is ignored by those citing the previous statute. If Oklahoma taxpayers were to stop paying for pre-K and Kindergarten services based on the Oklahoma Constitution, there would be screaming loud enough to be heard on the moon and it wouldn't just come from parents. 

As I've said numerous times, people are entitled to their opinions and I'll certainly stand for their ability to voice them - and so will I. Collectivist thought is not only antithetical to my belief system, it's counter to the thought process that created this country. I shun it on every level because it is dangerous on every level. Collectivist thought is responsible for global atrocities such as ethnic cleansing, it destroys work ethic and allows the state to believe they can make decisions for parents against the parent's beliefs or wishes.

My religious beliefs are most certainly up for derision by secularists and those who don't agree, but according to these, my children are gifts from God and I am to "Train them up in the way they should go so they should not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6). Christians are also told, "Children, obey [your] parents in all things: for this is well pleasing to the Lord. (Colossians 3:20) Please note, the word "public school" or "community" or any other term is present in that statement. 

Oklahoma should provide some kind of publicly-supported education for those that endeavor to use it. I'm also for eliminating public school (state and federal) mandates that force compliance while usurping money from the classroom, putting school officials in the impossible bind of having to educate more and more children with less and less classroom funding. I'm certainly willing to pay a portion of my taxes toward a 'public' education. It seems beyond eternally 'fair', however, that if the public system is not appropriate for my children, I should be able to keep some of those monies designated for their public instruction to the instruction I choose as a parent. If public schools are providing the best educational service, it doesn't make sense to me that public school officials would oppose the right of a parent to choose the education best for their child. After all, how much money would really be removed from the system in that case?

It seems to me that, so long as public schools are responding to their districts and not state/federal money-sucking mandates, school officials should be happy for parents to choose the education best for their child/children. Maybe the fight shouldn't be against 'choice in education' but mandates in education. Maybe that's where individuals from opposing world-view philosophies should work together to make public school changes for the betterment of Oklahoma parents, students, teachers, administrators and tax-payers. Seems fair to me.

Who Are The Common Core People In Your Neighborhood? Marc Tucker

Today I read an article published in EdWeek called, "Common Core The Real Issues" by a man named Marc Tucker. Here, the writer asserts, 

There has been much Sturm und Drang about the Common Core in recent months, but it looks to me as though the Common Core, in most states, is safe for the time being.  Its name may be changed in some states.  It may suffer from nips and tucks on occasion, but in most states it will emerge into the highlands fairly unscathed.

Goodness! This is quite the statement isn't it? If you haven't been paying attention to the Common Core fight today, nearly every state in the union has some form of legislation against the Common Core. Arguably, fighting the Common Core has become a populist movement in this nation not seen since nationalized health care - but then again, the move to 'nationalize' everything in a country that even decades ago was still the bastion of free-thinking, free-thought and free-economy, can do that to a people not ready for serfdom.

He then goes on to tell us,

Consider what the Common Core is all about.  Prior to the Common Core, the states set their own standards and chose their own tests to measure student progress against those standards.  In a majority of states, students can graduate high school by getting a passing grade on their core high school courses and they could do that mostly just by showing up.

This is bad? Local control is bad? I guess so because he also asserts that the reason why Common Core is causing so much consternation is because we don't also have a national curricula to go with it.

But the states have not developed curricula that will become the basis of their examination systems.  It is hard to imagine us having the kind of success that the top performers have had unless we figure out how to create very powerful and coherent curricula that accurately reflect the intent of the standards and serve as the basis of our examinations. 

Wow. So not only are we to create a national system of standards - and, no matter what parents think or how poor the standards have been shown to be - America should not only continue this trend, but double down by now including curricula? Pardon me while I simply utter "Wow" in the exclamatory.

One last quote from the article with worth mentioning,

The Common Core is far more likely to be declared a failure by the general public because the states failed to implement it well than it is likely to be the victim of the attacks of current critics from either the right or the left.

On one hand, this is as frightening as it sounds, but on the other, really quite expected when you look at Marc Tucker and his vision for US public education. 

Here is information about Tucker from the National Center for Education and the Economy - an organization which he founded and for which he has served as President and Chief Executive Officer since 1988.

Marc has been a leader of the standards-driven education reform movement for many years. Mr. Tucker created New Standards, a 23-state consortium designed to develop internationally benchmarked student performance standards and matching student examinations. He authored the 1986 Carnegie Report, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century, which called for a restructuring of America’s schools based on standards; created the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards; created the Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce and co-authored its report, America’s Choice: high skills or low wages!, which called for a new high school leaving a certificate based on standards; and, was instrumental in creating the National Skill Standards Board and served as the chairman of its committee on standards and assessment policy.

The letter Tucker wrote to Hillary Clinton in 1992 - which, coincidentally, shaped the trajectory of public schools in America via the Clinton presidency - explained exactly, and in great detail, how he intended to implement Common Core. 

Clear national standards of performance in general education (the knowledge and skills that everyone is expected to hold in common) are set to the level of the best achieving nations in the world for students of 16, and public schools are expected to bring all but the most severely handicapped up to that standard.

We have a national system of education in which curriculum, pedagogy, examinations, and teacher education and licensure systems are all linked to the national standards... 

As with most initiatives created by those convinced government is smarter than individuals, this system is predicated on the notion that nationalization is the only way to create a level playing field for all involved. Teachers can't be expected to help ALL students equally, but a federal mandates will solve that problem nicely. 

NONE OF THIS IS AMERICAN. None of it. As Phyllis Schlafly explains,

Designed on the German system, the Tucker plan is to train children in specific jobs to serve the workforce and the global economy instead of to educate them so they can make their own life choices.

Yes, Tucker's model is predicated on the German system. Knowing this, I found the use of Sturm and Drang in his opening sentence quite telling. Not the student of history I should be, I had to research the term. Here's what I found

(German: "Storm and Stress"), German literary movement of the late 18th century that exalted nature, feeling and human individualism and sought to overthrow the Enlightenment cult of Rationalism.

Lest we believe 'human individualism' to be the same in Germany as America during this time, it is important to note that 'individualism' in Germany - and other European countries - was antithetical to that which became the model for our Constitution. In fact, this kind of 'individualism' became a rallying cry for national community. 

In other words, Marc Tucker - in the opening sentence of yet another treatise extolling the virtues of education for the collective - tells us plainly he will never give up his socialist vision for America and he will never give up plying that upon school children who he understands can be molded to create this utopia.

I do not understand why more parents haven't awakened to the ultimate goal of today's public education - unification training. The architects of this plan tell you this straight out, it's just that they do so in the most elitist of terms possible, betting on the ignorance of today's population. Do not be ignorant. School your children at home if at all possible. If not, 

1. Stay as active and involved in their educations as you possibly can - to the point of activism. 
2. Run for your local school board, challenge teachers and principals who seem to be more interested in advancing the collective than in fostering the individual growth and spirit of your child. 
3. Opt your children out of every test possible - and those are the majority given today. 
4. Educate your children about the loss of privacy that comes with completing surveys that ask questions that probe into personal or family areas.
5. Opt your child out of every form of data collection possible through the school.
6. Never, never use your social security number to identify your child in a public venue - especially public school.

Tucker's vision for this country via it's public education system must be destroyed. This will take parent education and activism at every level and while seemingly a task of epic proportion, one-by-one states are kicking at their chains and stopping his plan for nationalized standards, aka Common Core. We must continue to fight, and on the days we fail to see light at the end of the tunnel, we must turn to Churchill and agree to "Never, never, never give up". 

Schools As Microcosms of the Socialist State

I read a post on our Facebook page today that really just made me shudder - and that happens rarely anymore with all I've learned about the Common Core and specifically the data collection aspect of the initiative. 

Here is the post by DeShawna Marie Smyth:

"What is sad is our school is spending less and less time on actually educating our students and more time sending the students home, calling the parents, or ticketing the parents because the child is wearing a zipper on their sweater, or a hood on their jacket, or the wrong color of tights! Our uniform rules have gotten out of control here! Not only are parents getting tickets, but children are worrying too much about what they need to be wearing at school and less about what they are learning!"

And now my return post:

OH WELL SAID!!!! I knew that 'uniform codes' were so much more insidious than everyone thought and I think this is one of the things they are supposed to do (in order to change society)! Along with putting the child in a box (the school makes them feel inseparable from their counterparts). After all, you can't have a society of little automatons who are willing to do the state's bidding if you don't first decide to take away their sense of 'self' - their sense of who they are. See, everything is done for the sake of 'safety' these days. Schools tell you, "We're installing this retinal scanner to make sure your kids are safe" and "We're making all kids wear a uniform because we don't want kids to be sad if they don't have enough money for the clothes the other kids have" - which, incidentally is socialism! What happens when you buy all the items (school supplies) the school wants at the start of school. The school takes them and puts them into a single pile so no one has the items they bought and brought with them, doling them out instead to the kids 'according to their need. 

DeShawna replies to my comment:  

This is exactly how I feel!!! They add more and more restrictions and call it "Safety" when it's really "conformity".

Apparently this struck a cord because here are a couple of other posts:

Tina Dobbs: Don't forget, not wearing a belt is a huge offense as well!!

Paula Ray: Or can't take purse with ya because of personal reasons on a field trip because not allowed to bring bags, electronics, or jackets.

Until I pulled them from school, ALL my kids were in a public elementary school that forced a dress code.  The worst part about the whole thing was not the conformity, but the LACK of conformity.  Basically, I was one of the only parents in the entire school that followed the dress code!  My kids would put something on in the morning that was out of dress code and I'd tell them to go change, after which I'd get a 5 minute diatribe about how I was so mean and "no one else in the school followed the dress code".

I would show up at school on numerous occasions and I could tell the dress code wasn't being enforced - or at worst, it was being enforced SELECTIVELY.  

What did this teach the kids?  That not only were rules not important, but if you were important enough, rules didn't apply to you.  Gosh, I get this feeling about our President everyday!  Is this why the word 'president' and the word 'precedent' are so similar? 

I can't help but come back to the frog in the boiling water scenario.  Parents are that frog.  Schools have turned up the heat on us so gradually by implementing 'tools' to help them 'teach' our children better or keep them 'safer' and we've been either so dumbed down or trusting - or a combination of both - that we've gone right along with it to the point that now, many schools are simply little socialist states.

I'm telling you, I think parents are starting to wake up - at least I hope so, because the lives of our children and this country are at stake.  

Here are my thoughts:  When you find your school not allowing your child to use the school supplies you bought - BE CIVILLY DISOBEDIENT!  Say, "I do not want these items used for other children - I bought them for mine", and then have your child play tattle-tale!  

If your school has a dress code, get some parents together to ABOLISH it and if that's not possible - BE CIVILLY DISOBEDIENT and say, "I'm sorry but my child will not wear a uniform to a public school.  I have the right AS HIS/HER PARENT to allow him/her to dress any way I find fit that doesn't offend others."  (Sadly, today you'd have to add that, as many parents seem to be uncertain of what is appropriate clothing and need to be educated on the topic - notice I say EDUCATED and not HAVE THEIR PARENTAL RIGHTS USURPED!)

If your school is giving Common Core tests and you don't want your child to take them but the school won't provide an opt-out - BE CIVILLY DISOBEDIENT and say, "My taxes help pay for this public institution and I don't agree with the tests and standards this school is using, therefore, my child will not be taking the tests."

There is no reason to be ugly and certainly not violent, just kind, but firm!  Stand parents - it's time!

Liberty, Not Common Core; Liberty, Not Education Reform

I knew my post of yesterday would create a stir - I meant for it to. 

I believe without a doubt that Americans today do very little deep thinking on any topic other than who will win The Voice this season, sadly.  How can I say such a thing?  Look at the arts for example.  How many seats does a theater sell for a play versus the number of seats the a major league sports team sells for a single game?  How did we end up with 500 channels of television and yet the number of books being sold in a year has declined nearly exponentially over the course of the last 10 years.

As I showed my husband my previous post, he shook his head and said, "Yeah, well no one's gonna get it."

I figured as much when I began the post, but that doesn't mean I won't try.  He actually went on to wax philosophic on the topic with such excellent elocution I was embarrassed at my own oratory skills (that sentence was for my English teacher mom!).  What he said, in a nutshell, was that schools need only teach the Constitution, civics and the key concepts of LIBERTY to create a populace capable of throwing off the cloak of tyranny wherever and whenever it should rear its ugly head.  I got to thinking about that and I could not deny the absolute truth of that statement.  People who understand the concepts of liberty have thriving economies where the cream rises to the top and mediocrity is soon pushed down to the bottom of the barrel.  

Unfortunately, we don't have that anymore, and that is mostly because our liberal colleges warp history at all levels.  I saw this post this morning about how liberal college professors call Hitler (of all people) a member of the right wing.  How odd.  Who would even believe that nonsense?  I mean, he was the CREATOR of the National SOCIALIST Workers Party (NAZI).

I also saw this today.  A very short (1:48) YouTube of a professor from Hillsdale College talking about just this very warping of history and how it is happening under the Common Core.  We don't STUDY the Constitution, we just compare parts of it to other documents.  We don't expect kids to understand what it means, we simply want to pay it lip service as we slide down the slippery slope of government controlled education into the sea of socialism where everyone is COMMON yet no one understands the problem with this fact.

Then you have another article I read today about how the State Longitudinal Database basis - the Data Quality Campaign (an organization created and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to make sure that states are collected information on all American students) is going to have yet a new arm.  Yes, instead of just collecting information on all STUDENTS we will now start collecting data on all students in the WORKFORCE.  Gosh.  Have we really gone so far in America that we don't understand the ramifications of that?  Do we NOT understand anymore that we DON'T educate students for jobs?

After my post yesterday, I received an email from a dear friend of mine - Howard Houchen - a fellow political activist.  Though I've known him for years, I did NOT know that his Bachelor's degree was actually in Political Science with a major in Communist Studies.

I am closing this blog with his words because they were echoed by my husband and because they mean something.  I desperately hope they mean something to you:

If others don't get it, its not your fault -- you can't MAKE them understand the history nor its magnitude.  That's a big struggle for many of us.  I've said it a thousand time -- Face it, we're nerds!

To 99% of the every day average folks, communism died around 1991.  Communism, to them, was a set of countries, not a lasting ideology.  When these countries fell, these folks believed it was THAT act which spelled the demise of an ideology and so what if N.Korea and Cuba held on -- Weirdos.

Now, we (The good ole U.S. of A.) were the victors over Communism so why would anyone contemplate America EVER adopting any policy(s) which equaled communist policy(s)?  That would be "insane"!!!  Its how people think because of the inherent trust of government Americans have evolved to have.  In two generations, Americans have accepted government as protector and provider over self-sufficiency and reliance.  Maybe a bit reluctantly but, they've accepted it nonetheless.  

Those that have could care less about history or future consequences.  The media (the 4th Branch of Government) and government itself, possesses the ability to get to people EVERY day and EVERY hour with the message (twisted as it is) THEY want to spread -- by nature, Americans have become informationally lazy and despise having to work (search) for truth.   The average American mind has been conditioned to soak up the 'institutionalized' (ABC, NBC, CBS) information, not the alternative information.  

Its not your fault or my fault the masses are unable to see truth...it's their fault combined with a centralized effort to keep them in the dark and those centralized forces have ALL the really good cards to play with!

Ghost In The Machine

And this, my friends, is how it’s done.  This is how Progressives/Liberals have changed America right in front of our faces – right before our very eyes.

Just today, EdWeek ran this article, “National Service Can ignite School Turnaround Efforts”.  

“Oh, this sounds great!” you think as you begin to read.  After all, what in the world could possibly be bad about “turning around” schools?  We all know they are in horrible shape!  Yes, yes, sending workers from the community out into the community to help kids stay in school!  This is awesome!

Unfortunately (or fortunately – I guess it depends upon where you sit on the ideological fence) I tend to see this kind of thing coming immediately.   

After becoming acquainted with the idea of Community Organizing and Saul Alinsky some years ago, I have an extreme alert hit my heads up display when I hear something – anything – that has the word/s National and/or Service in the title.

It seems particularly well-timed, in fact, that yesterday my friend Kaye Beach posted this on my Facebook page – “The Turning of the Tides” by Paul W. Shafer and John Snow – written in 1953.   

This document lays out how the Intercollegiate Socialist Society and the League for Industrial Democracy (still going strong TODAY by the way) along with UNESCO and John Dewey, took over the public schools.  It literally made me sick to my stomach to scan the document, however, once I had been turned on to that one, I quickly found, “Vital Speeches of the Day – Education for the New Social Order”.  Interestingly enough, this speech (printed February 26, 1948) had a subtitle called, “Tragic Results Now Apparent”.

This speech absolutely puts the nail in the coffin of our thesis four years ago as we began ROPE, that our public schools have completely brainwashed kids in US History so that they have no real knowledge of civics, our Republic and/or the Constitution.  The speaker, Augustus G. Rudd, Chairman of the Guardians of American Foundation and delivered before the National Society of New England Women in New York, clearly lays out the mechanism by which American young people were so brainwashed.  It began in college with the inception of liberal professors from Columbia University (instructed by John Dewey) and filtered down into secondary schools through TEXTBOOKS. 

In fact, the National Education Association sponsored such a set of textbooks called, “Building America”.  The Sons of the American Revolution in California so detested these books, that they took the NEA to court to get an injunction against allowing them in schoolrooms.  This was the opening salvo of their court case, 

“Building America is a subversive publication in that it undermines principles essential to our form of government.”

Under the heading “Scheme of Indoctrination” Rudd writes,  

“Briefly, that is how it happened – how the radical teachers captured the citadel of learning, while parents did not realize what was going on, and consolidated their position by means of great organizations such as the NEA.”

Goodness!  There is absolutely NOTHING more descriptive than that particular paragraph as far as I’m concerned.  This point is driven home further when one remembers that our own State Superintendent, Janet Barresi, has hired a former OEA/NEA president and lobbyist to work for her in the Oliver Hodge Building and has singlehandedly brought about more state and federal control over Oklahoma’s public education than her predecessor Sandy Garret did in 20!

And so, with these little pearls of wisdom tucked carefully into our hat bands, let us review the article concerning how ‘National Service’ organizations can ‘fix’ public schools.

So, what is “National Service”?  Well, we’re told about the disparity in education between the rich and the poor right away, so it takes a bit of time to get to the meat of “National Service”, but apparently, the writer believes, it happens through community organizations such as “Citizen Schools”, “College Summit” and “Diplomas Now”.   

He cites AmeriCorps as ground zero of this effort, 

“Again, working through AmeriCorps, City Year AmeriCorps members—who receive a small living stipend and modest funding for their educations—serve students in grades 3-9 in nearly 250 schools across the country. They work with students before school, after school, and throughout the school day, delivering targeted academic interventions aligned to the common-core standards, and social-emotional support.”

Again, that sounds so awesome!  And cheap too!  What are we thinking NOT to attempt this in OUR state/community? 

Well, it actually goes back to a sentence the writer inserts right after the one above, 

“As near-peer (close in age) mentors, corps members are uniquely positioned to build strong relationships with students that can help them identify and report issues requiring more-intensive services.” 

Yes, they may be uniquely positioned...TO INDOCTRINATE THESE YOUNG PEOPLE ON AN IDEOLOGY COMPLETELY OFFENSIVE TO CONSERVATIVES.   

The writer goes on to say that the Diplomas Now turnaround model, 

“…brings together smart school design, the idealism of national-service members and trained case managers to tap community resources.” 

Fortunately, the writer is honest.

I did a bit of a search on these “idealistic”, “National Service” organizations.

City Year – run by AmeriCorps.  City Year use AmeriCorps members as tutors, mentors and role models through Academic Support, Attendance and Positive Behavior Encouragement and Community and School Improvement projects. Their mission is to 

“build democracy through citizen service, civic leadership and social entrepreneurship. It is through service that we can demonstrate the power and idealism of young people, engage citizens to benefit the common good, and develop young leaders of the next generation.”  

Build…DEMOCRACY?  Guess you’d really have to read the articles above to find out why I object so strenuously to this ‘model’.  Here’s another one for you, 

“City Year’s work in schools is strengthened by its deep history in community service. Since 1988, City Year has been a leader in the growing national service movement, leading to the establishment of AmeriCorps, the passage of the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, and the creation of Voices for National Service.”

How about AmeriCorps?   

“In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed the National and Community Service Trust Act, which established the Corporation for National and Community Service and brought the full range of domestic community service programs under the umbrella of one central organization. 

This legislation built on the first National Service Act signed by President H.W. Bush in 1990. It also formally launched AmeriCorps, a network of national service programs that engage Americans in intensive service to meet the nation’s critical needs in education, public safety, health, and the environment.”   

It is funded by taxpayers (so, as usual, the government can turn on those of us that want it ONLY in its Constitutional role!), but there is much room for people who would like to donate – such as the venerable George Soros!  I thought I might go on, but this article really hits the nail on the head of what a despicable organization really is AmeriCorp.

What about Citizen Schools?  Well, I’ll just go ahead and give you the “about” page from their website.  I think the number of organizations with which Eric Schwarz (the Co-Founder) has been involved will make it easy for you to make up your mind about his ideological bend.

What about College Summit?  Well, just troll around this website for a bit.  Look under leadership and staff.  Note that Barrack Obama has donated a large chunk of his Nobel Peace Prize (snicker) to this organization.  Note that Bill and Melinda gates are prominent supporters.  Note that College Summit has applied for and received a Race To The Top grant for districts.  Lots and LOTS of federal involvement here!

What about Diplomas Now?  This is a 

“national campaign to put all students on the path to high school graduation”.   

Certainly a lofty cause and the one thing going for them is that they appear to be solidly non-profit – taking no taxpayer money.  Apparently, Diplomas Now is funded by the corporation so fully in the pocket of Barrack Obama that they changed their logo to match his during the last election cycle.  Give up on who that could be?

And so my friends, there you have it.  Now - especially if you’ve never heard ANYTHING reported in this little expose - go to the mirror, point your finger at yourself and realize that you are the reason we stand a chance of losing a limited government Republic genetic only to this particular chunk of soil, to a man/party who would create his/their own flag they detest America so.

If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a THOUSAND times – RESEARCH EVERYTHING!  

Our fathers, mothers and grandparents quite apparently trusted the idea that schools were a bastion of all that was good in America to our very sincere detriment.  It must have been swimming upstream for these writers in the late 40’s and early 50’s to come out with their research.  I can just imagine the finger wagging, scoffing and cocked heads they met.  Sad that today they are fully vilified.  

Today, we see the fruits of their research. 

If Americans can ignore what stares them right in the face – the metered, specific, planned destruction of their country through its educational system – then, unfortunately for me and those of us that are fully awake and believers, we’ll get the fascist we deserve come November, 2012 and really see for what they have planned so long and so well.

PS: The picture I have used to depict the “ghost in the machine” is from the movie Metropolis.  I had heard of the movie, but never read anything about it.  I pulled up Wikipedia for the movie and found that, interestingly, the plot of the movie isn’t too very far from the plot actually pulled off in American public education.

Let's Educate Americans Into Jobs For Our Country, Chinese-Style!

As usual, Marc Tucker blogged on Education Week today about how we need to educate Americans to create a high wage workforce (Manufacturing Jobs: What Will It Really Take To Bring Them Back).  As usual, his comments made me violently ill.  Normally, I remember that no amount of reasoning will make a Socialist/Communist a Capitalist, read his tripe (just to know what the enemy is thinking/saying) and move on.  Today, I simply couldn't.  The words flowed and I vomitted them up all over the comments section. 

Please read this and share with those who believe that Marc Tucker and his hero Barrack Obama are on the right track.  Maybe we can change one red to red, white, and blue!

Mr. Tucker,

Mr. Romney has indicated his interest in limiting federal involvement of public education - allowing greater local control and the subsequent fertilization of individualism that will inevitably follow.

Having studied your positions on education, Mr. Tucker, I rather believe this thought to be absolute anathema to you. I feel certain that, like our President, you believe in a federal government which oversees every facet of American life – since, as individuals we can do nothing for ourselves without the assistance of a benevolent dictator to show us the way.

It may come as a surprise, but Communist China uses the same workforce education model you tend to espouse. This, comes as anathema to me, as I believe the principal of individualism - clearly the historical model for this nation - produces a product wrought of blood, sweat and tears that rises closer to perfection than any product subsidized by any government ever could.

Public education is a truly American trait. We do not (at least we SHOULD not according to our Constitution) socialize the institution. Instead, we allow boards of citizens at the local level, whose taxes support the system and who know what's best for the students/families in their towns and bergs, to promulgate necessary rules and guidelines, creating an education model that meets a bar of success in their specific localities.

During the long, horrifying years before 1964 and the first real federal intrusion into education, the American people suffered greatly. Without the government to tell them how to prepare for the kind of jobs the country would need down the road, nearsighted entrepreneurs like Ford created the automobile, crazy professors like Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity, moronic researchers like Edison invented the light bulb and downtrodden slaves like George Washington Carver overcame racial prejudice to become one of the best botanists ever known.

Though I feel sadly grim at the prospect, I hope most Americans still have enough 'common' sense to see that the 'common' public education identified and promulgated by your ilk since the early 1900's are exactly what has KILLED American education.

I live on a clinging, yet paltry, hope that those of us who do understand the ramifications and repercussions of your model, are able to sabotage your efforts to create a socialized system of education designed to churn out workers and 'thinkers' based on COMMON (socialized) standards and COMMON (socialized) tests, relieving America of the individuality that – until the last couple decades - had made it, in every way, superior to every other country in the world since 1776.

Until then, I guess I'll attempt to teach children to spell "a-u-t-o-m-a-t-o-n" and watch the system – and the American way of life - circle the drain.

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