Thread: "Common Core" And The All-Too-Common Tendencies Of Heavy-Handed Government

Opposition to Common Core in New York Is Widespread

by Shane Vander Hart on July 22, 2014


49% of New Yorkers want Common Core implementation stopped in a Siena College poll taken on July 13-16th of 774 likely New York voters. Only 39% want to see the standards implemented. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.5%.

60% of Republicans want to see the Common Core implementation stopped compared to 25% who support the Common Core. 47% of Democrats want to see the Common Core continued, but 40% do not. (Again this demonstrates Common Core opposition is not partisan.). 53% of independents want to see Common Core implementation stopped, while only 39% want to see it continued.

More moderates, conservatives, union households, non-union households, men, women, suburbanites, upstaters, whites, Catholics, and members of all age groups want to see the Common Core implementation stopped.

African Americans are the only group that overwhelmingly favor implementation of the Common Core by a 60% to 25% margin. Hispanics, and Protestants are divided. Liberals and Jewish voters both support the implementation of the Common Core by a seven and six point margin. Those who live in New York City support it by a 52% to 34% margin.

Those who make $50,000 or more a year oppose the implementation of the Common Core. Those who make less are split 45% to 45%.


http://truthinamericaneducation.com/...rk-widespread/

Society dumb down!! Don't worry be happy!

Obama’s Scary Plan for Preschoolers



On May 2, 2014, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius gave a speech to the Committee for Economic Development. She touted “an exciting investment opportunity.” She claims the investment “promises solid dividends and long-term growth” and states “its payout ratio is so solid that it’s projected to return at least $7 for every dollar that’s put in.” To what investment does the HHS secretary refer? “Infants and toddlers in those precious early years from birth to kindergarten.” (HHS.gov, 5-4-14)
Most parents don’t think of their children as an investment and some may be disturbed to hear a federal official speaking about them in those terms, especially to the Committee for Economic Development. The CED describes itself as “a group of business and education leaders committed to improving the growth and productivity of the U.S. economy, a freer global trading system, and greater opportunity for all Americans.” (CED.org) Parents may not approve of this plan whose aim seems to be to turn out cogs for the industrial machine rather than educated citizens.
While explaining President Obama’s “Early Childhood Package,” Sebelius in her May speech points out other programs that she claims are good for America: the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare; expansion of Medicaid; reauthorization and expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program or CHIP; and the expansion of Head Start.
Obama’s Early Childhood Package
What is Obama’s Early Childhood Package? According to Sebelius, the plan is that all preschool children “should have an opportunity to be in a high-quality learning environment and acquire social, emotional, and educational skills at the same time.” The first part of the plan is “universal preschool for every four-year-old child in America.” It is unclear whether this is intended to be mandatory. Sebelius offers the following to show just how far behind she thinks America is:
In Japan, virtually every 4-year-old attends preschool. In Britain, 97% of 4-year-olds are enrolled in preschool. And by 2020, China plans to provide 80% of its three- and four-year-olds with preschool education.
But is that something that American parents want and are those countries that America wishes to emulate?
Sebelius laments Economist magazine’s assertion that America ranks 26th among Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development nation members in percentage of four-year-olds in preschool and 24th for three-year-olds. But maybe some American families prefer to keep their children home during those tender years.
Referring to research by Harvard University’s Center on the Developing Child, Sebelius claims that babies and toddlers “develop 700 new neurological connections every single second,” a phenomenon that is “the foundation upon which all later learning, behavior, and health depend.” Does it not occur to Sebelius and federal officials that many parents choose to be with their own children during this crucial time rather than entrusting them to someone else?
Head Start Grants
The next goal of Obama’s package is to “grow the supply of effective early learning opportunities for our children,” including new “Early Head Start-Child Care partnerships through which we award competitive grants to communities that make Early Head Start available to more families.” Sebelius claims, “We know from a wide array of research that the investments we make in early childhood initiatives put those kids on a path to learn more in school, and earn more in the workplace.” It is unclear to what research she is referring because actual research shows that Head Start is a failed program: any gains made by young children disappear in the early grades and, in fact, there is evidence that some children are harmed by the program. (See April, 2013 Education Reporter)
Yet, as stated at the HHS Administration for Children and Families website, Obama’s plan “will maintain and build on current Head Start investments, to support a greater share of infants, toddlers, and three-year-olds in America’s Head Start centers.” (HHS.gov). The federal government seems intent that infants and toddlers be away from their own homes and enrolled in an institutional setting.
This is also the premise of President Obama’s proposal that “encourages states to expand the availability of full-day kindergarten.” Claiming that “only 6 out of 10 of America’s kindergarten students have access to a full day of learning,” the Obama administration wants all children to spend the “time they need in school to reach rigorous benchmarks and standards.”
Critics worry that this drive to get young children out of family life and into institutions is harmful; they believe young children can learn while being with their own parents and caregivers chosen by their parents.
Voluntary Home Visitation
The final part of Obama’s Early Childhood package is “voluntary home visitation.” The visitations are to be conducted by “nurses, social workers, and other trained professionals.” Sebelius also favorably mentions pediatricians who can “screen for … parental depression.” The visitation program aims to start with low-income families. To some it sounds as if the federal government doubts the ability of low-income parents to parent their own children without federal supervision and monitoring.
Once the visitation program gets started, it is not certain that it would be limited by income levels; the intrusion could soon be manifest in all families. There is little doubt that some want these federal programs to become universal. Sebelius promotes the Health and Human Services “Watch Me Thrive!” program that creates “universal developmental and behavioral screenings, so that we can track a child’s progress in areas like language, social development, and motor development.” In what may seem to some to be double-speak, Sebelius claims these intrusions by the government into the family are “based on the premise that a child’s best and most important teachers are a child’s parents.” As Ronald Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”
Sebelius’s speech was in part an attempt to gain financial support from the CED and its members; the other funding method she mentions is an increase in the tobacco tax.
Perhaps the most disingenuous part of Sebelius’s speech is when she claims that further federal intrusion into families will result in “more of our kids realiz[ing] their fullest potential” and says it will allow us to “benefit from a new generation of innovation, entrepreneurship, poetry, discovery, art, and progress.” This is said by an official of the same federal government that is pushing Common Core education standards, which spell the death knell for poetry, art, and the individual creativity that leads to discovery, innovation, and entrepreneurship because students are allowed to learn only what is tested on standardized tests.
RTT Early Learning Challenge
The Obama administration’s Race To The Top Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) has awarded over $1 billion to supposedly “provide a strong start for our nation’s youngest children.” At the Dept. of Education website it states: “RTT-ELC supports states in their systemic efforts to align, coordinate, and improve the quality of existing early learning and development programs across multiple funding streams that support children from birth through age five.” (Ed.gov)
As with Common Core Race to the Top grants, ELC-winning states had to jump through federal hoops in order to be considered winners; they will remain under federal scrutiny, having been given mandates about how awarded money will be spent. As with Common Core, the federal government is asserting control over decisions states should be making on their own and this will result in loss of local control.
HHS Sec. Sebelius will be replaced by Sylvia Burwell. After a stint in the Clinton administration, Burwell moved to Microsoft where she was a key aide to Common Core’s major funder and most powerful champion, Bill Gates. Observers expect that future alliances between the Depts. of Education and Health and Human Services will remain aimed at further diminishing states’ rights in favor of federal bureaucratic control of individuals, families, and education.
But Is It Good For Children?
Contrary to what Sec. Sebelius and her cronies believe, parents know what is best for their children. Swedish educator Jonas Himmelstrand, writing in the Huffington Post Canada (11-5-13), states that “the Swedish approach is that the state has taken over raising children from parents through the state run daycare system.” He notes that as a result of the universal preschool/daycare system in Sweden, “education outcomes are declining, teens are anxiety-ridden and misbehaving, and the quality of parenting is suffering.” Swedish parents accepted the government’s offer of free preschool for children from 18-months-old through kindergarten; the result has not proven good for children, families, or education. A study by Trends in International Mathematics and Science shows that “disorder in Swedish classrooms is among the worst among comparable countries.” Evidence indicates that “[Swedish] children are simply not sufficiently emotionally nourished to be teachable in school.”
In response to campaigns to get children out of the family home at younger and younger ages, society in general, and parents in particular, should take Jonas Himmelstrand’s advice to heart:
Child care must be a parental decision based on the needs of the child, not a state decision based on politics and the economy. The state needs to remain neutral to all forms of care — daycare, home care, nanny, granny care, and neighbor care — and not support one form of care above another.
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on pinterest_shareMore Sharing Services61

Order for home delivery



Special offer on our Boot Camp Common Core DVDs and CDs.
Topic Highlight:

• Common Core info

• A Child's Reading List
• 100 milestone documents
• Bad Books
• Book Reviews/Lists
• ClassicReader.com
  Read, search, and annotate great works of literature.
• America's Great Religious Document
• Christopher Columbus
• George Washington Articles
• Marc Tucker "Dear Hillary" Letter
• Obligation, Inc.
  Reminding Businesses and Governments of Their Responsibility to Children
• Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment
  Assistance: Family Policy Compliance Office
• School Board Candidate Questionnaire

© 2014 - Eagle Forum

http://www.eagleforum.org/publicatio...schoolers.html

Obama’s Scary Plan for Preschoolers



On May 2, 2014, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius gave a speech to the Committee for Economic Development. She touted “an exciting investment opportunity.” She claims the investment “promises solid dividends and long-term growth” and states “its payout ratio is so solid that it’s projected to return at least $7 for every dollar that’s put in.” To what investment does the HHS secretary refer? “Infants and toddlers in those precious early years from birth to kindergarten.” (HHS.gov, 5-4-14)
Most parents don’t think of their children as an investment and some may be disturbed to hear a federal official speaking about them in those terms, especially to the Committee for Economic Development. The CED describes itself as “a group of business and education leaders committed to improving the growth and productivity of the U.S. economy, a freer global trading system, and greater opportunity for all Americans.” (CED.org) Parents may not approve of this plan whose aim seems to be to turn out cogs for the industrial machine rather than educated citizens.
While explaining President Obama’s “Early Childhood Package,” Sebelius in her May speech points out other programs that she claims are good for America: the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare; expansion of Medicaid; reauthorization and expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program or CHIP; and the expansion of Head Start.

Obama’s Early Childhood Package
What is Obama’s Early Childhood Package? According to Sebelius, the plan is that all preschool children “should have an opportunity to be in a high-quality learning environment and acquire social, emotional, and educational skills at the same time.” The first part of the plan is “universal preschool for every four-year-old child in America.” It is unclear whether this is intended to be mandatory. Sebelius offers the following to show just how far behind she thinks America is:
In Japan, virtually every 4-year-old attends preschool. In Britain, 97% of 4-year-olds are enrolled in preschool. And by 2020, China plans to provide 80% of its three- and four-year-olds with preschool education.
But is that something that American parents want and are those countries that America wishes to emulate?
Sebelius laments Economist magazine’s assertion that America ranks 26th among Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development nation members in percentage of four-year-olds in preschool and 24th for three-year-olds. But maybe some American families prefer to keep their children home during those tender years.
Referring to research by Harvard University’s Center on the Developing Child, Sebelius claims that babies and toddlers “develop 700 new neurological connections every single second,” a phenomenon that is “the foundation upon which all later learning, behavior, and health depend.” Does it not occur to Sebelius and federal officials that many parents choose to be with their own children during this crucial time rather than entrusting them to someone else?

Head Start Grants
The next goal of Obama’s package is to “grow the supply of effective early learning opportunities for our children,” including new “Early Head Start-Child Care partnerships through which we award competitive grants to communities that make Early Head Start available to more families.” Sebelius claims, “We know from a wide array of research that the investments we make in early childhood initiatives put those kids on a path to learn more in school, and earn more in the workplace.” It is unclear to what research she is referring because actual research shows that Head Start is a failed program: any gains made by young children disappear in the early grades and, in fact, there is evidence that some children are harmed by the program. (See April, 2013 Education Reporter)
Yet, as stated at the HHS Administration for Children and Families website, Obama’s plan “will maintain and build on current Head Start investments, to support a greater share of infants, toddlers, and three-year-olds in America’s Head Start centers.” (HHS.gov). The federal government seems intent that infants and toddlers be away from their own homes and enrolled in an institutional setting.
This is also the premise of President Obama’s proposal that “encourages states to expand the availability of full-day kindergarten.” Claiming that “only 6 out of 10 of America’s kindergarten students have access to a full day of learning,” the Obama administration wants all children to spend the “time they need in school to reach rigorous benchmarks and standards.”
Critics worry that this drive to get young children out of family life and into institutions is harmful; they believe young children can learn while being with their own parents and caregivers chosen by their parents.

Voluntary Home Visitation
The final part of Obama’s Early Childhood package is “voluntary home visitation.” The visitations are to be conducted by “nurses, social workers, and other trained professionals.” Sebelius also favorably mentions pediatricians who can “screen for … parental depression.” The visitation program aims to start with low-income families. To some it sounds as if the federal government doubts the ability of low-income parents to parent their own children without federal supervision and monitoring.
Once the visitation program gets started, it is not certain that it would be limited by income levels; the intrusion could soon be manifest in all families. There is little doubt that some want these federal programs to become universal. Sebelius promotes the Health and Human Services “Watch Me Thrive!” program that creates “universal developmental and behavioral screenings, so that we can track a child’s progress in areas like language, social development, and motor development.” In what may seem to some to be double-speak, Sebelius claims these intrusions by the government into the family are “based on the premise that a child’s best and most important teachers are a child’s parents.” As Ronald Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”
Sebelius’s speech was in part an attempt to gain financial support from the CED and its members; the other funding method she mentions is an increase in the tobacco tax.
Perhaps the most disingenuous part of Sebelius’s speech is when she claims that further federal intrusion into families will result in “more of our kids realiz[ing] their fullest potential” and says it will allow us to “benefit from a new generation of innovation, entrepreneurship, poetry, discovery, art, and progress.” This is said by an official of the same federal government that is pushing Common Core education standards, which spell the death knell for poetry, art, and the individual creativity that leads to discovery, innovation, and entrepreneurship because students are allowed to learn only what is tested on standardized tests.

RTT Early Learning Challenge
The Obama administration’s Race To The Top Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) has awarded over $1 billion to supposedly “provide a strong start for our nation’s youngest children.” At the Dept. of Education website it states: “RTT-ELC supports states in their systemic efforts to align, coordinate, and improve the quality of existing early learning and development programs across multiple funding streams that support children from birth through age five.” (Ed.gov)
As with Common Core Race to the Top grants, ELC-winning states had to jump through federal hoops in order to be considered winners; they will remain under federal scrutiny, having been given mandates about how awarded money will be spent. As with Common Core, the federal government is asserting control over decisions states should be making on their own and this will result in loss of local control.
HHS Sec. Sebelius will be replaced by Sylvia Burwell. After a stint in the Clinton administration, Burwell moved to Microsoft where she was a key aide to Common Core’s major funder and most powerful champion, Bill Gates. Observers expect that future alliances between the Depts. of Education and Health and Human Services will remain aimed at further diminishing states’ rights in favor of federal bureaucratic control of individuals, families, and education.

But Is It Good For Children?
Contrary to what Sec. Sebelius and her cronies believe, parents know what is best for their children. Swedish educator Jonas Himmelstrand, writing in the Huffington Post Canada (11-5-13), states that “the Swedish approach is that the state has taken over raising children from parents through the state run daycare system.” He notes that as a result of the universal preschool/daycare system in Sweden, “education outcomes are declining, teens are anxiety-ridden and misbehaving, and the quality of parenting is suffering.” Swedish parents accepted the government’s offer of free preschool for children from 18-months-old through kindergarten; the result has not proven good for children, families, or education. A study by Trends in International Mathematics and Science shows that “disorder in Swedish classrooms is among the worst among comparable countries.” Evidence indicates that “[Swedish] children are simply not sufficiently emotionally nourished to be teachable in school.”
In response to campaigns to get children out of the family home at younger and younger ages, society in general, and parents in particular, should take Jonas Himmelstrand’s advice to heart:
Child care must be a parental decision based on the needs of the child, not a state decision based on politics and the economy. The state needs to remain neutral to all forms of care — daycare, home care, nanny, granny care, and neighbor care — and not support one form of care above another.
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on pinterest_shareMore Sharing Services61

Order for home delivery



Special offer on our Boot Camp Common Core DVDs and CDs.
Topic Highlight:

• Common Core info

• A Child's Reading List
• 100 milestone documents
• Bad Books
• Book Reviews/Lists
• ClassicReader.com
  Read, search, and annotate great works of literature.
• America's Great Religious Document
• Christopher Columbus
• George Washington Articles
• Marc Tucker "Dear Hillary" Letter
• Obligation, Inc.
  Reminding Businesses and Governments of Their Responsibility to Children
• Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment
  Assistance: Family Policy Compliance Office
• School Board Candidate Questionnaire

© 2014 - Eagle Forum

http://www.eagleforum.org/publicatio...schoolers.html


What is control!!!

(Ohio) Huffman Seeks To Repeal Common Core : HB597



Published on Jul 29, 2014
The article - http://limaohio.com/news/home_top-new...

Lawsuit Against Common Core Filed in Utah

Filed in Common Core State Standards, Education at State Level by Shane Vander Hart on July 31, 2014 • 0 Comments
The Libertas Institute announced a lawsuit filed against the Utah State Board of Education over the Common Core State Standards. The lawsuit filed today in Utah’s Third Judicial District Court has six plantiffs, a couple of them who are well known by Truth in American Education readers.
They are:

• Patti Bateman, who was an elementary school teacher at the time of Common Core’s adoption
• David Cox, an elementary school teacher
• Timothy Osborn, who was a member of the Alpine School Board at the time of Common Core’s adoption
• Christel Swasey, a parent of school aged children and licensed educator
• Dr. Gary Thompson, a parent of school aged children
• Steve Whitehouse, a board member of the Maeser Prep Charter School

“Two weeks ago, Governor Herbert announced he had asked the Attorney General to investigate legal issues surrounding Common Core,” said Libertas Institute president Connor Boyack. “We have been conducting our own investigation since January and have identified several violations of the law.”
“Most Utahns believe that local control of education is important,” said Boyack. “We agree, but it’s important to note that local control is not merely about having Utahns managing federal or multi-state programs. The idea behind local control is that the people who are most intimately affected by the product of public education should be involved and able to give input. This did not happen with the adoption of Common Core—and it should have.”
Their six page brief petitions the judge for an petitions the judge for an “order enjoining the Board from further implementing Common Core in Utah’s public schools, from requiring Utah’s public schools to further adopt or abide by Common Core, and from enforcing Common Core in Utah’s public schools.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/235552746/...awsuit-in-Utah



You may also like:

Responding to Jason Glass | Truth in American Education

SAT Delaying Redesign | Truth in American Education

South Dakota House Narrowly Rejects Common Core Resolution | Truth in American Education

Arne Duncan to California: No Data, No Funds | Truth in American Education

November 2013 - Truth in American Education November 2013 - Truth in American Education

Veteran OK Educator Blasts the Common Core | Truth in American Education


Shan Vander Hart

About the Author (Author Profile)

Shane Vander Hart is the Editor-in-Chief of Caffeinated Thoughts, a popular Christian conservative blog in Iowa. He is also the President of 4:15 Communications, a social media & communications consulting/management firm, along with serving as the communications director for American Principles Project’s Preserve Innocence Initiative. Prior to this Shane spent 20 years in youth ministry serving in church, parachurch, and school settings. He has taught Jr. High History along with being the Dean of Students for Christian school in Indiana. Shane and his wife home school their three teenage children and have done so since the beginning. He has recently been recognized by Campaigns & Elections Magazine as one of the top political influencers in Iowa. Shane and his family reside near Des Moines, IA. You can connect with Shane on Facebook, follow him on Twitter or connect with him on Google +.

http://truthinamericaneducation.com/...filed-in-utah/

Common Core Expert: Techno-Progressives Seek To Violate Your Child’s Privacy

10:32 AM 07/27/2014


“Techno-progressives” in local and federal governments are gathering more and more information on students in public and private schools — and many parents don’t realize it, says Jane Robbins, an attorney and senior fellow at the American Principles Project.

According to Robbins, “techno-progressives” hope to guide workers from birth to the workplace with their social engineering in a planned economy, which benefits vendors hoping to grow rich from big data.

Whereas self-determination and families used to guide students in choosing their career path, proponents of Common Core think they know better when it comes to jobs that communities supposedly need. Privacy safeguards for concerned parents — much less for the students themselves — have been eviscerated over the last two-and-a-half years by agreements, regulations and the allure of federal funding to school districts for extensive, non-academic information being collected on students.

“Common Core is not a political issue. It’s an issue of their children,” Robbins told The Daily Caller. “You can mess with a lot of things. You can have the IRS going after people. You can have the NSA spying on people, but when you start to mess with people’s children, they start to pay attention.”
From Robbins’ experience, most parents are surprised at how the education establishment typically “views parents as an adversary” in the process of teaching children. In her opinion, teaching — to the professionals — is not a joint effort and they want parents to remain quiet.

Most troubling to Robbins, who co-authored a 60-page report issued from the Pioneer Institute, Cogs in the Machine: Big Data, Common Core and National Testing, were the hints of where the edu-crats want to go with the future of the fine-grained student data they are seeking to collect and analyze.

Techno-progressives value smart, well-trained experts running society from the top down, with lots of data. Robbins’ eye-opening report discusses the use of physiological and psychological measurements to see how students are responding to their lessons.

In this 15-minute video interview, Robbins cites a recent appearance by Professor James Gee of Arizona State University, who has discussed how video games “cannot only impart academic knowledge, but they can change the child.” He goes on to discuss how “if you can change the child, you can change society.”

The National Education Data Model, discussed by Robbins, recommends states collect over 400 data points per child, including data on health care, voting, religious beliefs, bus stops, family income, hobbies, and extra-curricular activities. States are at varying points along this path. Robbins summarizes the report on Common Core and the new data initiatives as these education elites have “a lot of plans and not a lot of protections [for students].”

This video interview ends with Robbins discussing a February 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Education, titled “Promoting Grit, Tenacity and Perseverance,” which discusses technology capable of obtaining student information during testing or tutoring online about beliefs, attitudes, dispositions, values and ways of perceiving oneself — things critical to educational success, they say. The government report shows a “brave new world” with one set up to showing sensors gathering subtle physiological responses, something they claim “is not practical for the classroom … yet.”

Robbins also discusses the new Advanced Placement U.S. History Standards released by the College Board to be implemented in high schools starting next year. She says it is “a leftist revisionist view of America.”

Robbins says it focuses exclusively on the negative story of America — slavery, Indians, Japanese internment; no mention of the founders except George Washington — so common for the ideological left. America’s best and brightest high school students will be left without pride in America’s greatness, and without an awareness of sacrifices made by our forefathers to preserve liberty.

For more information on Jane Robbins and the American Principles Project, click here.

Mrs. Thomas does not necessarily support or endorse the products, services or positions promoted in any advertisement contained herein, and does not have control over or receive compensation from any advertiser.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/27/co...#ixzz39F7KcYj5

Stopping Common Core and Homeschooling your children/grandchildren is essential in stopping these people from brainwashing and propagandizing your children's mind..Don't let them be the teachers of your children....If you do they will be stealing another generation of children...Look what has happend while we were all sleeping at the wheel already, look who are teaching your children in college, and highschool. Wake up please now they are going for the kindergarten and lower grades...Wake up America....Home school them or at least reinforce their education your self or get into groups with like minded parents, your children are at risk..

School District Halts Condom Giveaway to 6th Graders After Community Protests

Posted by Joe For America on Aug 4, 2014 in Culture


The Oregon legal Age of Consent for sexual contact is 18 years old, yet, they give away a condom to a 6th grader?
Great report from Howard Portnoy we wanted to share about a community that has had enough.
Anyone who engages in sexual activity of any type with a partner under the applicable Age of Consent is breaking the law and can be charged with crimes ranging from a misdemeanor to a felony (statutory rape) depending on the jurisdiction in which they are prosecuted.
It takes a village … to stop a school district from loonily handing out condoms to 11-year-olds. From the Statesman Journal via EAG News):
The Gervais [Oregon] School District’s board of directors agreed to hit the brakes on implementing its condom distribution plan, saying while it’s urgent to address teen pregnancy, more research needs to be done.
The school board in May voted to make condoms available to students in sixth through 12th grade through trained teachers who would first have a discussion with the student.
The original plan was to hash out the details this summer and implement the policy in the fall, but the administration asked during Wednesday’s meeting for more time.
“We would be the only district in Oregon if we proceeded to implement this as it is laid out in September,” Gervais’ new superintendent Matt Henry said.
[...]
Gervais High School principal Mike Solem told the board that he did not feel ready and comfortable to start giving condoms to students at the beginning of the next school year.
He said when news first broke of the school board’s decision, students were “beating down teachers’ doors” asking for condoms. Solem said he wanted a more detailed plan. [Emphasis added]
That was not the only reaction to the news breaking.
continue reading at Liberty Unyielding:


Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/08/sch...7HY2VRU6tKS.99

WND EXCLUSIVE

U.S. history takes drastic left turn this fall

AP course 'rewrites America's past, cuts out Founding Fathers'

Published: 21 hours ago



By John Aman


High-school history teachers nationwide will give their top students a dark retelling of U.S. history this fall, courtesy of the College Board, a nonprofit college readiness firm led by Common Core architect David Coleman.
The College Board – which administers AP (advanced placement) courses and tests – is rolling out a revised curriculum framework for AP U.S. history, offering the 450,000 students who take AP U.S. history classes a hero-free account of America’s deeply stained past.
Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, calls the new AP U.S. history framework “a briefing document on progressive and leftist views of the American past,” one which “weaves together a vaguely Marxist or at least materialist reading of the key events with the whole litany of identity group grievances.”
Conservative author Stanley Kurtz asserts the College Board is “pushing U.S. history as far to the left as it can get away with at the high-school level.”
The new 124-page history curriculum is a dramatic departure from the five-page outline previously supplied by the College Board to guide AP U.S. history instructors. A much more detailed “history from below,” it focuses on how native Indians and Africans suffered at the hands of Europeans in the New World.
Founding Fathers omitted
It deletes the Pilgrims, John Winthrop, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexis de Tocqueville, Abraham Lincoln and other long-celebrated figures central to America’s founding and growth.
In their place, America’s future leaders are given a warts-only take on America’s past that casts European settlers as villains. These Europeans disrupted ecologically balanced native American society, bringing “widespread deadly epidemics,” a “caste system,” resource exploitation and slavery. The Europeans’ “belief in white superiority” was used, the framework declares, “to justify their subjugation of Africans and American Indians.”
Things got worse with the British. Instead of establishing a “city upon a hill,” as generations of students have been told, they are cast as bigots beholden to a “rigid racial hierarchy,” indicated by their failure to intermarry with native populations or Africans (John Rolfe and Pocahontas, notwithstanding).
The framework gives the father of the country, George Washington, a quick, passing nod, and the founding document, the Declaration of Independence, merits two brief mentions.
Meanwhile, Manifest Destiny was “built on a belief in white racial superiority and a sense of American cultural superiority.” The framework omits black leaders like W.E. DuBois but asserts “prominent racist and nativist theories, along with Supreme Court decisions such as Plessy v. Ferguson, were used to justify violence as well as local and national policies of discrimination and segregation.”
The document’s treatment of the New Deal echoes Democratic Party tributes, asserting that President Franklin Roosevelt’s Depression-era programs used “government power to provide relief to the poor, stimulate recovery, and reform the American economy.”
America’s central role in defeating Nazi Germany and Japan rescued much of the globe from a long night of tyranny, but the frameworks include no mention of the sacrifice of America’s “Greatest Generation.” Instead, the new College Board history curriculum announces that “the internment of Japanese Americans, challenges to civil liberties, debates over race and segregation, and the decision to drop the atomic bomb raised questions about American values.”
Read the No. 1 book “America” by Dinesh D’Souza, and see the many offerings on the most powerful nation ever, from “Armed America” and “Ameritopia” to “Pat Boone’s America 50 Years.”
Larry Krieger, who has taught U.S. history for 35 years and written numerous widely popular AP and SAT exam prep books, said he reacted with shock and dismay when he read the framework earlier this year.
“It’s relentless left-wing indoctrination,” he said, calling it “antithetical to everything that I believe about teaching and our country’s history.”
Leftist bias, poorly written
“Leaving aside its very leftist bias, it is a very poorly written, unprofessional document,” said Krieger, adding he found it “boring” and “dispiriting.”

It’s also an anonymous document. While the College Board convened two committees composed of 27 college professors and teachers to oversee the new curriculum, the actual author or authors and the process used to produce it are unknown.
The framework is one of 34 AP courses that are being revised under the leadership of College Board president and CEO David Coleman, who arrived at the organization in 2012.
“When they hired David Coleman, the chief architect of Common Core, they effectively politicized the College Board,” Krieger asserted. “The first thing he did was to yoke the SAT to Common Core, and now we’re going to apply Common Core principles to AP courses.”
The College Board denies that Common Core elements have made their way into its new AP U.S. history curriculum, but College Board executive Lawrence Charap indicated otherwise in May. Charap, who leads the College Board’s History and Social Sciences Content Development Group, told a gathering of the Organization of American Historians that his boss, David Coleman, is implementing the Common Core approach in both the AP and SAT exams, according to a report from Mary Graybar, an English professor and Common Core critic who attended the conference.
Formed in 1900, the College Board is a deep-pocketed association of more than 6,000 educational institutions. It took in $759 million in fiscal year 2012 and reported a surplus of $45 million. Funding sources include the federal government, the Gates Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The organization has headquarters in Manhattan and Reston, Virginia, with six regional offices around the nation. It says its mission is to promote “excellence and equity in education.”
‘Curricular coup’
Krieger calls the new framework a “curricular coup” that shoves aside state-mandated history guidelines in favor of the new College Board curriculum.
Jane Robbins, an attorney who joined Krieger in a sharp critique of the new curriculum framework published this spring, said the framework is a radical departure from the state history standards they have reviewed.
“I would venture to guess it’s different from all states,” she said.
Krieger and Robbins report that a College Board-commissioned analysis turned up 181 specific elements required in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills are missing from the new College Board history curriculum. Another study found that 134 elements required in the Alabama Standards for U.S. History were not in the framework.

The College Board’s new history curriculum for AP students “does commandeer how history is taught,” said Robbins, a senior fellow at the American Principles Project.
Instead of following state-mandated history guidelines, AP history instructors will “teach to the test” to ensure that students do well on the AP U.S. history exam. Good AP test scores can enable students to skip college history survey courses or jump ahead to take more advanced courses.
Teachers “can’t really focus on state standards,” she explained, “because that is a whole different body of knowledge, in most cases, so the AP course therefore will replace the history standards.”
And the impact of the new curriculum will go beyond AP classes, Robbins said, since most AP history instructors teach other students as well.
“It’s very likely that whatever is taught in the AP class is going to be taught to some extent in the other history classes,” she stated.
“So this is actually a quite effective way of changing what’s taught in history classes all over the country, in both public schools and private schools.”
It’s also being done without much public scrutiny. The College Board posted its new framework on its website in 2012, but for unclear reasons that did not generate much reaction until this spring when Robbins and Krieger published their critique.
The College Board is also keeping its sample AP U.S. history exam for the new framework a tightly guarded secret. The sample test is provided only to certified AP U.S. history teachers who face the loss of the AP teaching credentials – a severe, career-busting consequence – if they disclose test questions.
Teachers around the nation have contacted Krieger to vent their concern, telling him, he said: “I don’t like this. This is wrong. Can you help?”
At the same time, teachers are “very afraid of repercussions for speaking out.” They fear, Krieger said, negative consequences from either the College Board or their local school system.
One teacher who attended a gathering of some 1,000 AP exam “readers” – those who read and evaluate student AP exam essays – told Krieger 90 percent of teachers there either detested the new framework or viewed it with skepticism.
The College Board did not respond to interview requests from WND but claims in the framework document that teachers have “flexibility” to teach relevant history topics outside the prescribed curriculum. However, the framework also emphatically states that the new AP U.S. history exam will be limited to information in the framework.
In boldface and underlined text, the College Board states: “Beginning with the May 2015 AP U.S. History Exams, no AP U.S. History Exam question will require students to know historical content that falls outside this concept outline.”
Attempt to derail framework
Krieger and Robbins are working to derail the framework’s implementation, alerting parents and legislators about the College Board’s new history. One pivotal battlefront is Texas, where state school board member Ken Mercer wants the College Board to postpone the implementation of the framework in his state for one year. He and another school board member have said they will push for a rule that requires AP classes to conform to Texas history standards.
Texas is one of the College Board’s largest customers. Mercer told WND that some 46,000 Texas high schoolers take AP U.S. history classes, more than 10 percent of the roughly 450,000 students that will be taking the class nationwide this fall. College Board President David Coleman and others executives from the AP firm have spoken with Mercer to allay his concern but Mercer remains opposed to the new framework.
He blasted the new framework as a “rewrite of American history.” “It’s so negative that only America haters like former Illinois professor Bill Ayers would like this.”
Mercer decried the glaring absence of uplifting aspects of the U.S. civil rights struggle, including the Gettysburg Address, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, the Tuskegee Institute, the Navajo code talkers and the election of Barack Obama.
“If you look at the lessons on civil rights, Martin Luther King is nowhere to be found. How can that be?”
Mercer also charged that the College Board is “usurping the authority of the states’ boards of education and the state legislatures” with the implementation of the new framework.
“I don’t believe there is any elected board in the nation that could pass what they have,” said Mercer. “These are unelected people who don’t have to stand before my constituents, and they’re taking the power away from the state board and state legislature in all 50 legislatures.”
The Texas school board won’t consider a new rule to force AP history instruction to follow state standards until it meets in September, by which time instructors will already be teaching the new curriculum across Texas.
Concerned Texans spoke out against the new AP U.S. history curriculum at a July 18 meeting of the Texas school board. Mary Bowen, a Texas teacher with 30 years of instructional experience told the board, “If parents up and down the neighborhoods knew that this is what would be taught to their children they would be rising up in droves against it.”
‘Not the story of dead, white men’
The College Board’s Debbie Pennington testified as well, assuring the board that the new framework leaves ample room for the state history standards.
“This is designed so state standards can be integrated. It’s not on its own. It’s supposed to work in partnership with you to get what you need.”
Pennington also gave insight into the College Board’s approach to U.S. history, asserting history “can be fuzzy in a lot of different places.”
“You’ve got to remember, this is not the story of dead, white men as taught by almost dead, white men,” she said, citing the words of a mentor. “There were other people there, too, and you’ve got to give room for that flexibility, you’ve got to give room for that flavor and a true understanding of all those issues.”
That view of U.S. history – especially as it is presented in the new AP U.S. history framework – “is designed to create a cynical generation,” Robbins countered.
“Cynicism does not coexist very well with pride in one’s country and the belief that this country can accomplish great things. So, to me, it’s very disturbing. It’s not just that it leaves [students] without some of the factual foundation they need to have but it really does create a different mindset that is going to makes them skeptical of any real belief in the country, that we are exceptional that we have something to offer the rest of the world.”
John Aman is a writer and communications consultant


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/u-s-histo...VlAIt3I1psE.99

Are awake yet America!!!

Michigan Primary Has One Bright Spot for Common Core Opponents

Shane Vander Hart on August 6, 2014 •

Over all the Michigan Republican Primary yesterday was not a good day for Common Core opponents. Debbie Debacker of Stop Common Core in Michigan told me yesterday that most of candidates running against Common Core lost.

I didn’t track those races, I don’t know all of the players, nor do I know how many were going up against incumbents. So it’s hard to provide any type of analysis and I really don’t know how much Common Core was an issue in each race compared to say the quality of the candidates.
It’s not enough to just be against Common Core to win a race, in particular if you are running against an incumbent which is always tough to do anyway.
Debbie indicated that pro-Common Core candidates were well funded by Michigan businesswoman and philanthropist Betsy DeVos (who is a huge Common Core and charter school supporter), as well as, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. It is also hard to beat someone who has more money to spend.

So without any more information I really can’t perform a postmortem of the Michigan Republican primary. I was disappointed to learn that Tom McMillin who was a strong Common Core opponent in the Michigan House lost his bid for Congress. He was beat by former State Senator Majority Leader Mike Bishop in Michigan’s 8th Congressional District Republican primary. Bishop was endorsed by the outgoing Congressman Mike Rogers. McMillin is term-limited so he was not able to run for reelection as a state representative.

I will say that based on national polling I’ve seen I highly doubt Common Core advocacy was what won elections for anybody. More than likely it was downplayed on top of a lot of rhetoric that they respect local control, yada yada…

There was one obvious bright spot however. Two-term State Representative Frank Foster (R-Petoskey) was beat by Lee Chatfield, a 26-year-old Christian school teacher in Michigan House District 107 54% to 46%.

The local paper painted Common Core as being a primary issue.

From the start, Chatfield has portrayed Foster as a supporter of the nationwide Common Core State Standards for education that were adopted in Michigan in June 2010 and have led to controversial debate in several states.But Foster says the federal standards were adopted just before he was first elected in November 2010 and ever since he arrived in Lansing he has voted to put in place safeguards that return control over curriculum to the local districts.“The standards were adopted but the big thing was whether the legislature was going to fund the implementation of that,” Foster said. “They call it Common Core but really what we said is we understand this process is moving forward, however we think that Petoskey schools ought to have the right to adopt their own curriculum if they don’t like what Common Core is doing.”Foster is a 27-year-old Republican and Petoskey resident who represents the state House’s 107th district, which includes part of Cheboygan County and all of Emmet, Mackinac and Chippewa counties.Last year, the legislature briefly paused its changeover to the Common Core standards but later reauthorized the Michigan Department of Education to continue implementing them again. The state Department of Education says “the (Common Core) standards promote equity by ensuring all students, no matter where they live, are well prepared with the skills and knowledge necessary to compete with their peers in the United States and abroad.”Apparently Foster approved the funding, and he tried to downplay it. It either didn’t work or there were other issues at play as well. Elections are rarely won or lost over one issue.

Congratulations to Lee Chatfield, and I want to wish Tom McMillin well.Just for reference sake, I’ve written about Common Core as an election issue here, here and here.

About the Author (Author Profile)

Shane Vander Hart is the Editor-in-Chief of Caffeinated Thoughts, a popular Christian conservative blog in Iowa. He is also the President of 4:15 Communications, a social media & communications consulting/management firm, along with serving as the communications director for American Principles Project’s Preserve Innocence Initiative. Prior to this Shane spent 20 years in youth ministry serving in church, parachurch, and school settings. He has taught Jr. High History along with being the Dean of Students for Christian school in Indiana. Shane and his wife home school their three teenage children and have done so since the beginning. He has recently been recognized by Campaigns & Elections Magazine as one of the top political influencers in Iowa. Shane and his family reside near Des Moines, IA. You can connect with Shane on Facebook, follow him on Twitter or connect with him on Google +.

http://truthinamericaneducation.com/...n+Education%29