Sunday, April 19, 2015

NCCM Opposed: LD 956 An Act to Allow Community Schools

The bill, LD 956 "An Act to Allow Community Schools", is so utopian that it is surprising anyone could take it seriously; but certainly many will, because for them the ends will justify the means. This seems to be a desperate attempt to save public schools by making them not just part of the community, but the actual community itself; not just guardians of our children while they are at school, but surrogate parents by forcing the children to live at school. Essentially, our children will be held hostage.

This is a tightly woven master plan to turn the community school into the center of all cradle-to-grave needs. Look at the positions schools commonly now have on the payroll; Police officers, doctors, nurses, psychologists, psychiatrists, nutritionists, ed-techs, data specialists and many others who arguably are not directly related teaching.

There is a huge moral issue here: Are we going to let our schools, staffed by an army of bureaucrats and social workers, take our children away by keeping them for nearly all their waking hours and acting as their primary caregivers?

Let's look at the practical issues first.

Section 9921

There is no funding mechanism here. So, where will we get the money to provide for all of these services A--X?

  • Has anyone even tried to guess at the cost of providing all of these services? 
  • $250K per year is allocated - seems very low. Is this just to cover salaries for the person appointed in each district to lead the effort? If the community feels this has value, they can contribute directly to fund this effort. Long term success would require 100% commitment – that is best exhibited by willingness to fund.
  • How long will it take to implement these? 
  • Are there any examples?  Are there any model programs that show demonstrable success? 
  • Where will all these providers come from?  Maine already has as shortage of medical and dental professionals; how will this bill provide for more? 
  • Who is responsible for the quality of the services? 
  • Who decides which children and families get which service? 
  • What about Mainers who don't have any children?  Do they get these services too? 
  • Who is responsible for malpractice and abuse claims?
  • Since a "community school" provides access to services A--X "24/7/252", how will schools be structured physically to do this?  Will we have to build new wings for doctors' and dentists' offices?  Will the school districts provide busing to existing facilities?   
  • Using school buses?  And how will districts address the additional staffing needed for doing all of this?
  • What exactly is meant by "Participates in a community-based effort to coordinate and integrate educational, developmental, family, health and other comprehensive services through community-based organizations and public and private partnerships" under the definition of "Community School"? 
  • What exactly do "participate", "coordinate", and "integrate" mean?

Since Maine law gives school board total autonomy from the public, i.e., the boards do not "represent" the members of the community, how can we ethically allow a school board to make such a decision that will literally change the entire structure of the community and binds all of our citizens to this scheme?

Why should we give school boards this power?  Since most boards are nothing but puppets of the superintendents, this will effectively make the superintendent ruler of the district!  Do superintendents have the experience and talent needed to become the next Solomon?

Section 9922

  • How is a school supposed to meet the goals under Subsection 1?  
  • What exactly do these terms mean?  
  • What is the clear definitions and descriptions of when these conditions are met?
  • Some of the initiatives like legal and mental health could raise issues of confidential information breaches that would be illegal. 

How can a board as currently structured perform any of the tasks in Subsection 2?  Will they hire outside consultants?

How much time will the board spend on meeting the conditions of Subsection 3?

  • Who will do the research?  
  • Who will be responsible for the actual work and its accuracy? 
  • Where will the money come from, when our schools are grossly underfunded now?
  • How can the local communities sustain the very likely huge increase in their property taxes?

This is nothing short of the sort of forced collectivization attempted by the Soviet Union in the '20s and '30s. Where is the constitutional authority to do any of this? How can teachers and administrators, who have no experience whatsoever in providing or integrating these services into schools, be asked to do these tasks? What happens to education under the conditions, do proponents of this even care about that?!

Consider the following scenario: You are a father (or mother) of a little daughter, how would you react?

"Daddy, the school is making me have a gynecological exam tomorrow." 
"What!? They didn't tell us!  You're too young!" 
"No, they said it's because of medical science that all girls have to have this because of the averages. And they'll give us the cytomegalovirus vaccine too, because they expect us to start having sex soon; because that's the average." 
"I'm complaining tomorrow and taking you out of school!"  
"No, Daddy, they told me to tell you that if you complain you'll be arrested for child endangerment."

If you have a son, then change the references to homosexuality sensitivity training, including videos.

Since we don't tax anywhere near enough to pay for what we have and need now, where will the money come from to provide all of this?

Let me introduce you to my new company, GCP: Great Communities Partnership.

GCP is funded by Wall Street and Silicon Valley billionaires. We hire the best retired school personnel, nurses, doctors, lawyers, etc.  Everyone needed to provide the services listed in LD 956.

We got so rich, because our lobbyists kept our tax rates near zero for decades, while the public services were starved for cash.

But now we're ready to provide our "business solution to your community needs (TM)".

Of course it will cost money. (Hey!  We're a business.) But don't worry. If you go into tax foreclosure, since you can't afford the property tax hike after we start working for you, then we'll buy your house (cheap) and rent back to you while you work for us (cheap).

But don't call it 21 Century sharecropping. You'll hurt our feeling and be liable for commercial defamation.

Contact the Education and Cultural Affairs Committee and tell them to oppose LD 956, An Act to Allow Community Schools.

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Press Release - Letter to Senator Alexander - ESEA

This press release was sent out last week. We thought it well worth publishing here because of the importance of the issues involved with the reauthorization of ESEA.

Anita Hoge
Pennsylvanians Restoring Education
Pennsylvanians Against Common Core

Anita B Hoge 724-263-0474
Cheryl Boise 412-389-6896
Ryan Bannister 717-919-2122
Gen Yvette Sutton 610-507-9113
Rich Felice 484-678-2236

February 9, 2015, Pennsylvanians Restoring Education, Pennsylvania Against Common Core, Citizens of Pennsylvania, parents and students are asking Senator Lamar Alexander to stop the REAUTHORIZATION of ESEA: Every Child Ready for College or Career Act of 2015 which will amend No Child Left Behind. This legislation violates federal law, the privacy of our children and families, our civil rights, and states' rights.

Senator Alexander,
  • Parents were not invited to testify.
  • Parents demand new hearings and an investigation on the impact of this legislation.
  • The public deserves to know that ESEA eliminates true choice [i.e., not taxpayer funded].
  • The reauthorization of ESEA must be stopped until further study.

The Reauthorization of ESEA must be stopped because the provisions inherent in this legislation will NATIONALIZE EDUCATION. 2 years of the ESEA Flexibility Waiver have proven to the states that have accepted this waiver, exactly what the Reauthorization will mean -- total federal control of education; no state authority, and no local school board autonomy.

No one at the ESEA public hearings addressed the IES, Institute for Educational Sciences of the National Center for Education Statistics, both of which have the contracts for each state to initiate a personally identifiable longitudinal data system. The grants in each state create a national ID for every child. This data collection will be used to monitor EVERY CHILD IN THE UNITED STATES under Title I. In Pennsylvania's NCES grant, this personally identifiable longitudinal system is called a "womb to workplace" data system monitoring all children, adolescents, and adults. The grant also includes wages, human capital, a person's worth or worthlessness to society. The grant also includes babies with data collection of behaviors and dispositions beginning at birth. References to the IES and the data collection is in the ESEA bill. (Source)

Senator Alexander, why has this not been discussed?

Why hasn't anyone testified to the fact that in effect the poverty guidelines, as now allowed, are being manipulated to include ALL children in the ESEA Flexibility Waiver, 2013, under the Title I blanket that mandates Common Core to EVERY CHILD. (Source) 

" (5.) The requirement in ESEA section 1114(a)(1) that a school have a poverty percentage of 40 percent or more in order to operate a school wide program. The SEA requests this waiver so that an LEA may implement interventions consistent with the turnaround principles or interventions that are based on the needs of the students in the school and designed to enhance the entire educational program in a school in any of its priority and focus schools that meet the definitions of “priority schools” and “focus schools,” respectively, set forth in the document titled ESEA Flexibility, as appropriate, even if those schools do not have a poverty percentage of 40 percent or more." (emphasis mine)

Title I now has the authority to move and switch funds from one account to another. Funds authorized for different fiscal areas, can now be transferred into Title I. Every child being designated as Title I will necessitate that these funds be funneled toward the states' budgets. And so Title I expands by quantum leaps, making states liable for increased Medicaid expenditures for every child to have mental health wrap-around services as explained below.

Senator Alexander, why has this not been discussed?

NAEP has made a claim that this data collection, which includes attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions, is to become the census. Why does your legislation say specifically that the IES, national center for education statistics will monitor all title I programs, that is every child in the United States? Every individual, including teachers, principals, and superintendents, will have a unique national id monitored under title I that was implemented under these NCES longitudinal grants to the states.

Senator Alexander, why has this not been discussed?

No one at the public hearings explained INTERVENTIONS FOR "AT RISK" CHILDREN and how that definition would apply under IDEA, Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, to IDENTIFY ALL CHILDREN AS "AT RISK" UNDER TITLE I WITH A MENTAL HEALTH DISORDER.

Senator Alexander, why has this not been discussed?

The social, emotional, and behavioral dispositions were added to the COMMON CORE, now called College and Career Ready Standards by the Chief State School Officers, CCSSO, under the cover of "CITIZENSHIP." What is the definition for NAEP CITIZENSHIP? Taken from Pennsylvania "Getting Inside the EQA Inventory," (Source: ED 103 488, Russell, Nolan; 1974)

A review of literature revealed that the National Assessment of Educational Progress developed nine general citizenship objectives. The criterion for inclusion of any one objective was its relative importance to society as agreed upon by a committee of scholars and lay people.

"These national objectives were used to provide a frame of reference for what was to be measured. Objectives in the factual domain such as (a) knowing structure of government and (b) understanding problems of international relations were not considered in developing the scale. "To assess citizenship, a behavior-referenced model incorporating elements related to the psychological notion of threshold is used. In reference to citizenship, threshold refers to that set of conditions necessary to bring about the desired responses. Thus by introducing conditions of reward and punishment we are able to determine the cutoff levels at which the student will display positive behavior. In this way it is possible to assess not only the students' predisposition to behave in a manner consistent with responsible citizenship but also to provide some measure of the intensity of that predisposition across a wide spectrum of situations." (emphasis mine)

These standards were scored toward "group goals," "group actions," and "group efforts as followers" (pp 19-21) (emphasis mine), even though that particular "positive" goal or action might very well be morally wrong.

The definition for adapting to change was explained as, "methods of coping with freedom."  (Source: Getting Inside the EQA Inventory, Cover; ED 103 488, Russell, Nolan; 1974) (emphasis mine) "The inventory provided information on… (3) Proportion of the student body who demonstrated "minimum positive attitudes." (Source: Getting Inside the EQA Inventory: Grade 11. Russell, Nolan; 1975, Document Resume; ED 109 199)

NAEP HAS CALLED FOR MEASURING THESE NON-COGNITIVE, 21ST CENTURY SKILLS. (Source: May, 2013) THIS IS COMMON CORE! (It doesn't matter which name is being used.) The individual mandate filters down to the individual child to force conformity to these standards. This is a power shift away from local control. These non-academic standards were added in the ESEA Waivers. Is the testing of attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions through the NAEP in the 12th grade, the pivotal criteria for graduation? Is this the government diploma for college and career readiness for students "without the need for remediation?" Has the government defined that no child will move forward without this re-education? How does the federal government SCORE ETHICAL JUDGEMENT? HONESTY? INTERPERSONAL SKILLS? American parents refuse to have their children used as guinea pigs with this type of research and maltreatment.

PENNSYLVANIA VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW, THE PROTECTION OF PUPIL RIGHTS AMENDMENT, PPRA, IN THE PAST STATE ASSESSMENT, EQA, Educational Quality Assessment, FOR MEASURING ATTITUDES, VALUES, BELIEFS, AND DISPOSITIONS. ON October 22, 2014, former Governor Corbett withdrew these non­academic controversial Interpersonal Skills Standards that had re-surfaced, because the Pennsylvania Department of Education was violating federal law that was enacted to protect our children. This is the expansion of mental health into the schools through ESEA. The ESEA Flexibility Waivers mandate that states implement these non-academic social and emotional standards. The interventions in the ESEA legislation mandate that mental health "disabilities" must be identified and remediated in every child to the NAEP group "minimum positive attitude."

We must point out that it is illegal to re-educate and assess students in these sensitive areas, and your legislation must provide informed written parental consent for EVERY child in the United States. Otherwise, every state department of education would be violating federal law, and in Pennsylvania, state policy. This non-academic mental health agenda is blatant in ESEA legislation and therefore, in fact, it may very well be considered child endangerment for parents to knowingly opt their children into this maltreatment and illegal activity. Does a helmet even yet exist that would protect our children from "mind concussion?" ESEA legislation violates federal law.

But yet, no one testified about the expansion of mental health standards and Medicaid to fund these interventions within our neighborhood schools. State budgets will be crushed under this debt when SCHOOLS are able to bill Medicaid for ALL THESE TITLE I "AT RISK CHILDREN." Remember now, that EVERY CHILD will be identified as "at risk." No one testified about the impact of mental health wrap- around services at school by billing Medicaid, although these services are mandated in the ESEA bill. Senator Alexander, why has this not been discussed?

The entire affective domain, testing and remediating values and dispositions, will be codified under this ESEA federal legislation. This is a direct violation of the Protection of Pupils Rights Amendment, PPRA. The resolution of the Hoge complaint, 1990, filed against the Pennsylvania Department of Education, EQA, determined that testing and scoring the attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions of the children in Pennsylvania was in violation of the PPRA. The use of the test broke the law. It must be noted that this illegal activity was underhandedly DIRECTED BY THE NAEP. THE NAEP WANTS THE PSYCHOMETRIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ON OUR CHILDREN IN THE UNITED STATES. This NAEP CENSUS will include all data (psychological and demographic) on our children, and their families, their teachers, principals, and superintendents. This is a blatant violation of privacy and Civil Rights.

Senator Alexander, why has this not been discussed?

The parents in Pennsylvania can prove that these mental health interventions are being implemented through federal ESEA Title I and IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act guidelines. These behavioral interventions and the data system to identify and monitor our children were exposed in our Press Release to Governor Corbett last December. (Source) Parents will not let this child maltreatment stand. We demand that the tracking and trafficking of personally identifiable psychological data on our children's attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions STOP! The exact same wording for interventions and identifying children through anecdotal screenings throughout your bill, are the exact words in our Press Release.

These Title I funds "following" a CHOICE, TITLE I CHILD will impact the intrusion into private and religious schools, which will be forced into all of the mandates that come with Common Core implementation and EVERY CHILD identified and funded through Title I. This has been done behind closed doors and accomplished very deceptively in the way ESEA has been fast tracked. THIS ESEA REAUTHORIZATION will NATIONALIZE EDUCATION BYPASSING LOCAL CONTROL AND STATE CONTROL ELIMINATING LOCAL REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, THE HALLMARK OF A FREE SOCIETY.

Correspondence dated December 29, 2014 from former Governor Corbett's General Counsel, says, in effect: we (the Governor's office and the Pennsylvania Department of Education) are collecting the personally identifiable information on Pennsylvania children and sharing it with others, as permitted by the recent changes in FERPA, Family Education Rights in Privacy Act and IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act as follows: "Please be assured that individual student data managed by PDE is in accordance with state and federal laws, including The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232g, and it's implementing regulations found at 34 CFR 300.123 and 300.622, and Pennsylvania statutes, regulations, and policies governing the confidentiality of, and access to, students' educational records." (emphasis mine)

Now, Senator Alexander, YOU want to CODIFY this data collection and these psychological interventions into federal law, exactly as had been foreshadowed under the ESEA Flexibility Waiver and President Obama's Executive Order, EO 12866, that neutered FERPA, REMOVING ALL PROTECTIONS OF PRIVACY. Your bill advocates the collection of this personally identifiable information and allows the re-disclosure of this personal data to 3rd party contractors -- data which continues on to be tracked and trafficked into the National Center of Education Statistics, IES, data collection.

Senator Alexander, why has this not been discussed?

Has anyone explained this list of items below in the ESEA LEGISLATION or, perhaps someone can answer, why these interventions are there? Please refer to the hundreds of pages of "at risk interventions" which expand the definitions of a disability. Why does ESEA legislation mandate the re-education and remediation of our children's, including babies', attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions in line with the NAEP "trait identifications" as described in the Gordon Commission? (Source) SENATOR ALEXANDER, you are creating financial incentives for children, even babies, to be labeled with these definitions for a mental health disorder -- THROUGH THE FEEDBACK CONTROL LOOP  ACCORDING TO THE RESPONSIVE/NON-RESPONSIVE intervention methods and  manipulations. This data is entered on their permanent electronic education file that can take on a life of its own on the Internet. (Source) Note: HIPAA protections do not cover any educational records.

  • Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, PBIS
  • Functional Behavioral Assessments
  • Response to Interventions, RTI
  • Multi-Tiered System of Supports, MTSS
  • Specialized Student Support, SSS
  • Student Assistance Programs, SAP
  • Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, IDEA
  • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
  • Behavioral Health Rehabilitation Services
  • Mental Health Wrap Around Services
  • 21st Century Community Hub Schools contracted with outside mental health providers
  • Promise Neighborhoods, Promise Schools, same as 21st Century Hubs
  • NCES Exposure of the National ID- Alignment of ALL 50 states
  • NAEP/NCES data collection creating the census- National ID identifying ALL CHILDREN as Title I
  • Exposure of FERPA, allowing data trafficking our personally identifiable information
  • Title I funds "following the child"
  • Choice funds (Title I) for all private and religious schools
  • Expansion of charter schools with no elected boards
  • Destruction of local neighborhood schools and Representative government usurping our vote, our voice through an un-elected board, and removing our taxes from the local level to a regional investment workforce board, or to the state.

Senator Alexander, the states' rights issue has not been discussed at the hearings. Title I funds "follow the child" going directly to every child, bypassing state government. No one at the public hearings explained that CHOICE, TITLE I FUNDS "FOLLOWING THE CHILD" would be used to destroy the financial base of public schools which have elected school boards and are funded by local tax dollars.Furthermore, Senator Alexander, there are 60 pages in your ESEA legislation that would expand CHARTER SCHOOLS OPERATING WITHOUT BOARDS ELECTED BY THE TAXPAYERS AS THEIR REPRESENTATIVES. THIS IS A SET UP FOR CHARTER SCHOOL TAKEOVER OF ALL EDUCATION. Yet, no one explained HOW.

Senator Alexander, there has been no discussion of these issues at your hearings.
The truth of this legislation must be revealed. Stop this Re-authorization of ESEA.