Common Core: The Ultimate "Nudging" in Education. This "Nudging" Extends to other Federal Agencies.

 

Do you want to take this Common Core trip?  Unfortunately, this isn't a comedy that you can walk away from.

The Missouri Commissioner of Education in her Race to the Top 2009 application was either

• a visionary
• a follower of a governmental blueprint
• a travel agent booking an exotic trip 

Why am I so concerned about Common Core standards and want others to know what is in store for their children and local school districts?  I read Missouri's first Race to the Top proposal in which our commissioner praised Cass Sunstein's book "Nudge".  She highlighted its importance in her educational vision for Missouri schools.  Her vision created fear and dread that has stayed with me the last 3 1/2 years.  From Remember Missouri's Education Commissioner's Love for Cass Sunstein?:

Who could forget Commissioner Chris Nicastro's admiration of Cass Sunstein as noted in Missouri's first Race to the Top application?  From ed.gov and the Missouri application (pg 9):

Core Student Learning and Outcomes Goals

The Race to the Top has provided an unprecedented opportunity for Missouri to bring its citizens together, to identify common goals and to develop a plan for a decade of educational reform designed to give Missouri’s children a competitive edge in tomorrow’s international competition. Our vision for reform embraces the notion advanced in the book, Nudge, where Thaler and Sunstein outline the need for "choice architects" to subtly steer choices toward positive results while leaving people, districts and schools "free to choose".  We know that if Missouri’s public schools are to be the best choice for our citizens, they must produce the best results. This Race to the Top competition has provided the "nudge" Missouri needed to pick up the pace.

We've written in the past about "choice architects" and questioned why they would need to direct Missouri education:

Missouri Education Chris Nicastro based her proposal to Race to the Top on this theory; perhaps she is employing the current theory present throughout all the government entities; schools, the EPA, the Department of Education and the State Department. Here's an excerpt from the book's review:

Every day, we make decisions on topics ranging from personal investments to schools for our children to the meals we eat to the causes we champion. Unfortunately, we often choose poorly. The reason, the authors explain, is that, being human, we all are susceptible to various biases that can lead us to blunder. Our mistakes make us poorer and less healthy; we often make bad decisions involving education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, the family, and even the planet itself.

Thaler and Sunstein invite us to enter an alternative world, one that takes our humanness as a given. They show that by knowing how people think, we can design choice environments that make it easier for people to choose what is best for themselves, their families, and their society. Using colorful examples from the most important aspects of life, Thaler and Sunstein demonstrate how thoughtful “choice architecture” can be established to nudge us in beneficial directions without restricting freedom of choice. 

From Nicastro's own words in the application process: her vision of reform is based on  the theories in Nudge (rather than the Constitution).  Missouri didn't win RTTT money but we sure got stuck with its mandates (such as Common Core State (sic) Standards) when Nicastro signed on to the ESEA waiver. 

Why would parents, taxpayers, legislators, teachers and principals accept such "nudging" and "choice architects" nonsense from an appointed bureaucrat?  "Free to choose"?  What kind of psychobabble is this?  Free to choose WHAT?  Schools can't choose their assessments nor modify standards.  Nicastro will tell you schools can choose their own curriculum, but since the curriculum must be aligned to the standards, that's a hollow "choice".

Since when did Americans have to be nudged (by a private/public partnership) to make decisions on how to live their lives and run their schools?  I thought that's why the revolutionaries fought to relieve themselves of monarchy rule.  This accepted belief of elitist thinking and policy from the highest educational office in Missouri should cause everyone to look closely at our state educational agency and reject this line of thought.  (Legislators, please take note).

It has now been confirmed in writing by a White House senior advisor that Americans require "choice architects" to live their lives.  This "nudging" is to occur in most federal agencies.  From Gov't Knows Best? White House creates 'nudge squad' to shape behavior:

The federal government is hiring what it calls a "Behavioral Insights Team" that will look for ways to subtly influence people's behavior, according to a document describing the program obtained by FoxNews.com. Critics warn there could be unintended consequences to such policies, while supporters say the team could make government and society more efficient.

While the program is still in its early stages, the document shows the White House is already working on such projects with almost a dozen federal departments and agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture. 

"Behavioral sciences can be used to help design public policies that work better, cost less, and help people to achieve their goals," reads the government document describing the program, which goes on to call for applicants to apply for positions on the team.

The document was emailed by Maya Shankar, a White House senior adviser on social and behavioral sciences, to a university professor with the request that it be distributed to people interested in joining the team. The idea is that the team would "experiment" with various techniques, with the goal of tweaking behavior so people do everything from saving more for retirement to saving more in energy costs.

The government document can be found here.  What "nudging" is needed in education by the Department of Education?  

• Increasing college enrollment and retention: Providing streamlined personal assistance on the FAFSA form (e.g., pre-populating forms using tax return data and following up with a personal call) to low or moderate income individuals resulted in a 29% greater likelihood of their attending college for two consecutive years.
•  Improving academic performance: Students taught to view their intelligence as a “muscle” that can grow with hard work and perseverance (as compared to a “fixed trait”, such as eye-color) experienced academic boosts of ½ a letter grade, with the largest effects often seen for low-performing students, students of color, or females in STEM-related courses.

The USDOEd needs to nudge people to go to college and view intelligence as a "muscle".  In essence:

• the government is nudging people to probably borrow money from the Federal Government to attend college to obtain some sort of degree....with no available jobs since the private sector is tapped out having to pay for governmental regulations
• the government is encouraging students to study harder (your brain is a muscle and innate intelligence is unimportant) and their grades are improved a  1/2 letter which will apparently make them more successful for STEM-related courses (which, by the way, there is a shortage of jobs and an excess of qualified job seekers)

When will the government leave us alone and let us fail or succeed as we see fit?  Are we such victims in this country that we are incapable of making our own decisions without government intrusion?   When did we become the serfs and the Federal government became our overlord?

Richard Thaler (co-writer on "Nudge") loves the nanny involvement but others understand the dependence fostered by "nudging" and loss of free will and freedom:

Richard Thaler told FoxNews.com that the new program sounds good.

"I don't know who those people are who would not want such a program, but they must either be misinformed or misguided," he said.

"The goal is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of government by using scientifically collected evidence to inform policy designs. What is the alternative? The only alternatives I know are hunches, tradition, and ideology (either left or right.)"

But some economists urge caution.

"I am very skeptical of a team promoting nudge policies," Michael Thomas, an economist at Utah State University, told FoxNews.com.

"Ultimately, nudging ... assumes a small group of people in government know better about choices than the individuals making them."

This last sentence is the explanation of Common Core standards.  What Mr. Thaler assumes and takes as a constitutional power is that the Federal government's role is to set policy for education. This is an erroneous assumption and he can count me among the many citizens who indeed are not "misinformed" or "misguided" on the increasing and unconstitutional "nudging" by the Department of Education.  

Commissioner Nicastro believes "nudging" is the road to travel and Missouri schools should happily implement the educational reform of Arne Duncan, Jeb Bush, David Coleman.  Maybe she should apply for a job as a chief "nudger" or travel agent to steer others toward her vision of education:

It is likely that selected individuals will serve on a temporary detail under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act before returning to their home organization, which can be a university, non-profit, or state and local government.

The trip she has planned for Missouri children is a trip that has never been tried before (not based on best educational practice/field testing), the itinerary was never reviewed by the travelers (the taxpayers, students, teachers and legislators), the cost is unknown and the destination is theoretical.  This a trip I would give 0 stars on tripadvisor.com.  

Van Harvey Notes Citizens Wouldn't be "Nudged" at the Lindbergh DESE Common Core Meeting. No Choice Architects Allowed to Present the Grand Plan.

Van Harvey's perspective on the Common Core attempted Delphi meeting at Lindbergh School District was spot on.  From If Govt is reckless with money that's not theirs, just imagine how they'll treat your human capital (aka:children) - Common Core State Standards:

 *******************************************

After attending our local Common Core 'presentation' by Missouri's DESE, I've only time for a brief pre-post post. This picture (H/T Adam Bohn) of the only informational hand out that the DESE (Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) people brought to the meeting tonight, should tip you off to how the evening went.

All they thought to provide interested parents, was a one sided questionnaire, to a meeting of parents who have been chaffing for a chance to comment on and ask questions about the monstrosity that is the Common Core Curriculum. Their handout has two sections. The first says:

"1. What do you like about the Common Core State Standards?"

,

, followed by a number of blank lines suitable for recording our praises, and then a second line:

"2. What questions do you have?"

and another section of lines, followed by an optimistic section to be filled out afterwards, for

"Location:___, Table Recorder:___, Table Facilitator:______".

They never got that far, as their 'Nudge' bombed, big time.

To lure people out of their lives in the expectation of information, discussion and debate, and then to make it clear that not only have you not come prepared to answer any of their questions, but she also made it clear that neither she nor DESE had ever had any intention whatsoever of answering any of our questions - that was infuriating. Her one comment to one of many questions on the CCSS summed it up well, and I quote:

"I can't answer your question in a public sense."

There ya go. They simply called us parents out of our evenings to be hosed down with a content-less presentation and a healthy heaping of condescension. Sums their educational philosophy up rather well.

Gretchen Logue of MEW

Fail.

Towards the end of the Q&A that we finally forced upon them, I asked her, truly puzzled,

'Why are you surprised by the reaction of the people here?'

, and she was speechless. When I followed up afterwards, she so much as said that she really expected our common decency to yield to their completely disrespectful presentation. Surprise. Another DESE representative, Doug, I think his name was, said that he couldn't understand why anyone was the least upset, after all, he said,

"This is the first time, the very first time I can remember, where everyone agrees upon a plan. Our big corporations agree, our governors agree and the leaders of our educational system all agree, these standards are the best for all concerned - I can't understand why you don't welcome them."

***********************************

Read more here.  To fully understand Van's reference to "nudge" and Doug's response above, read the Commissioner's Race to the Top proposal in 2010 (pg 11/299): 

The Race to the Top has provided an unprecedented opportunity for Missouri to bring its citizens together, to identify common goals and to develop a plan for a decade of educational reform designed to give Missouri’s children a competitive edge in tomorrow’s international competition.  Our vision for reform embraces the notion advanced in the book, Nudge, where Thaler and Sunstein outline the need for ―choice architects‖ to subtly steer choices toward positive results while leaving people, districts and schools ―free to choose.  We know that if Missouri’s public schools are to be the best choice for our citizens, they must produce the best results.  This Race to the Top competition has provided the ―nudge‖ Missouri needed to pick up the pace.  (MEW note: Sunstein is Cass Sunstein, Obama's former regualtory czar)

Once people understand (and accept) that they are not considered "choice architects", it is inconceivable to bureaucrats that citizens could be concerned they are not consulted about the educational plans for their children that their tax dollars are funding.  That's the underlying theme of all the DESE meetings on May 2, 2010 to "communicate the message".  DESE really doesn't want to hear from you and doesn't care what you think or what you envision for your children.  "Trust them".  Allow yourself to be "nudged".  Make way for the governors and the private associations and the big businesses to develop/direct the education for your children.  They are the choice architects.  Just go along and everything will turn out just fine.

That explains the reaction of the presenter and other DESE official.  They really are surprised you little people would question the grand plan.

Remember Missouri's Education Commissioner's Love for Cass Sunstein?

Who could forget Commissioner Chris Nicastro's admiration of Cass Sunstein as noted in Missouri's first Race to the Top application?  From ed.gov and the Missouri application (pg 9):

Core Student Learning and Outcomes Goals

 

The Race to the Top has provided an unprecedented opportunity for Missouri to bring its citizens together, to identify common goals and to develop a plan for a decade of educational reform designed to give Missouri’s children a competitive edge in tomorrow’s international competition. Our vision for reform embraces the notion advanced in the book, Nudge, where Thaler and Sunstein outline the need for "choice architects" to subtly steer choices toward positive results while leaving people, districts and schools "free to choose".  We know that if Missouri’s public schools are to be the best choice for our citizens, they must produce the best results. This Race to the Top competition has provided the "nudge" Missouri needed to pick up the pace.

 

We've written in the past about "choice architects" and questioned why they would need to direct Missouri education:

 

Missouri Education Chris Nicastro based her proposal to Race to the Top on this theory; perhaps she is employing the current theory present throughout all the government entities; schools, the EPA, the Department of Education and the State Department. Here's an excerpt from the book's review:

 

Every day, we make decisions on topics ranging from personal investments to schools for our children to the meals we eat to the causes we champion. Unfortunately, we often choose poorly. The reason, the authors explain, is that, being human, we all are susceptible to various biases that can lead us to blunder. Our mistakes make us poorer and less healthy; we often make bad decisions involving education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, the family, and even the planet itself.

Thaler and Sunstein invite us to enter an alternative world, one that takes our humanness as a given. They show that by knowing how people think, we can design choice environments that make it easier for people to choose what is best for themselves, their families, and their society. Using colorful examples from the most important aspects of life, Thaler and Sunstein demonstrate how thoughtful “choice architecture” can be established to nudge us in beneficial directions without restricting freedom of choice. 

 

From Nicastro's own words in the application process: her vision of reform is based on  the theories in Nudge (rather than the Constitution).  Missouri didn't win RTTT money but we sure got stuck with its mandates (such as Common Core State (sic) Standards) when Nicastro signed on to the ESEA waiver.  

 

What is Sunstein up to these days?  From Althouse:

Cass Sunstein reviews "Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism."

That's a book by Sarah Conly, published by Cambridge University Press. 206 pages, $95. $95! Fortunately, we cannot be coerced to buy that. I will exercise my autonomy and refrain from buying it. I'll just read Sunstein, for free, here.

[A] significant strand in American culture appears to endorse the central argument of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty....

the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or mental, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.

Sunstein refers to social science research that shows people actually aren't very good at making decisions for themselves. We have "present bias" (and don't pay enough attention to the future), we're bad at assessing probability, and we're "unrealistically optimistic."

Until now, we have lacked a serious philosophical discussion of whether and how recent behavioral findings undermine Mill’s harm principle and thus open the way toward paternalism. Sarah Conly’s illuminating book Against Autonomy provides such a discussion....

To Mill’s claim that individuals are uniquely well situated to know what is best for them, Conly objects that Mill failed to make a critical distinction between means and ends. True, people may know what their ends are, but sometimes they go wrong when they choose how to get them....

If the benefits justify the costs, she is willing to eliminate freedom of choice, not to prevent people from obtaining their own goals but to ensure that they do so....

A natural objection is that autonomy is an end in itself and not merely a means. On this view, people should be entitled to choose as they like, even if they end up choosing poorly. In a free society, people must be allowed to make their own mistakes, and to the extent possible learn from them, rather than facing correction and punishment from bureaucratic meddlers. Conly responds that when government makes (some) decisions for us, we gain not only in personal welfare but also in autonomy, if only because our time is freed up to deal with what most concerns us....

 As for Sunstein himself, he prefers a softer form of government manipulation, described in the article and in his book "Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness."

Heh. Various readers comment on Althouse about Sunstein:

I heard Sunstein on a radio show many years ago (I think he appeared with Althouse). I was very unimpressed with him -- a defensive dumbass was my take. But then again, he was a lawprof at an elite school so he must be really really smart. 

 ***********

Easy to understand Sunstein (a proxy for our government) = fascist

 **********

These ideas are as old as humanity. The entire concept of the feudal nobility is based around the idea of a class of people who just know better than the foolish underclasses.  

and finally

I'm reminded of the story about Sen Phil Graham (R) questioning a child-hood Govt pre-K advocate during hearings when this came up the first time around in the late 70s (iirc)

Graham was making the point that no govt bureaucrat could care for his children better than he, Phil Graham could, and that tax-payer dollars should not be used to fund a brogram designed by faceless bureaucrats and carried out by teachers not related to the children. "But Sen Graham," the HHS guy replied, "we're concerned for your children's welfare just as much as you are." "Oh really, " Phil replied. "O.K., then, if you say you care about them just as much as I do, tell me their names."

LMAO!

There are many other responses you might want to check out.

Should we be impressed or worried that our Commissioner of Education wants Missouri's educational vision to follow Cass Sunstein's?  I bet I know the answer to that question if I posed it to Althouse readers.

Does the Government Really Believe in "Choice"? When it Comes to Sex, Yes. Food Choices? Not so Much.

Here is an interesting post on HotAir about the "nudging".

JE Dyer asks, "What if government treated eating the way it treats sex?"

It’s a useful distinction to consider.  A particular moral idea governs left-wing views on social and health matters, and the left’s purpose with political advocacy is to put the power of government behind that view.  By examining the left’s very different policy approaches to eating and sex, we can discern the features of the morality at work.

.....If government treated obesity the way it treats sex, it would encourage schoolchildren to explore their enjoyment of Twinkies, Oreos, and moon pies; it would employ professionals to devise ways of suiting government policies to the principle that our bodies belong to us and we can put whatever we want in our stomachs; it would hold legislative hearings on the overriding importance of the freedom to eat what we want; it would resist the very idea of remedies that involve the individual eating less, or eating different things; it would pay for liposuction, cholesterol drugs, heart surgery, and diabetes-mitigation measures but not for programs of diet and exercise; it would encourage the development of drugs that could prevent fat formation regardless of what one eats; and it would make it a basic human right to be able to eat whatever one wants and have the consequences mitigated by the public. (emphasis added)


This is a most illuminating article on how the government wants to control the behavior of its citizens in a particular direction and it provides excellent examples of "nudging".  

Why Does the Parkway School District Want to Monitor Physical Activity 24/7 on Students? Is it a "Nudge"? (Video)

We wrote yesterday about children wearing bracelets home in the near future (provided by the Parkway School District) to track their physical activity and sleep patterns.  The plan is to have the children wear them 24/7 for one week and to extract the data on the activity level and sleep information.   The school apparently believes it needs this data to make the correlation between physical activity (one hour of moderate to vigorous activity a day), sleep hours, and academic achievement.

This data will be noted individually and could be applied to an entire class, according to the district from the video on the Parkway's website.  (At the end of this article are notes I typed from the video).  The information on the polargofit bracelets given to the Board members begins around 48:40 and ends at 58:14.  


What is bothersome to me is there is no serious discussion about possible the legality of what the school is proposing in gathering student data, and no mention of parental permission either being sought by the school or given by the parents.   Near the end of the information given by the district employee on the bracelets, there is some laughter (the conversation is muffled) about tracking kids and using GPS's on students. 

I could not determine how much these devices would cost the district in total and I did not see it listed on the published agenda.  Here is a press release about polargofit and its mission:

"Polar Active will forever change the ways teachers educate and students learn PE" said Padovan. "With the activity monitor, students exercise based on their individual fitness level, so it shifts the focus from athletic ability to personal improvement, which is key to developing positive lifelong habits around exercise." PolarGoFit.com PolarGoFit.com is an online web service for teachers and students to monitor and track student activity. This time-saving and flexible portal allows for easy documentation of all activity data, tracking daily and long-term progress and sharing reports with students, parents and school administrators. The ability to evaluate tangible activity data helps to assess students objectively for their effort and results. This also helps encourage and motivate students to stay active for longer periods of time and maintain a healthy weight. 

About Polar Headquartered in Lake Success, NY, Polar USA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Finland-based Polar Electro OY, which invented the first wireless heart rate monitor (HRM) in 1977. Polar now operates internationally in more than 80 countries. Polar heart rate and fitness assessment technology delivers unparalleled insight into the human body from valuable training guidance and feedback, to enabling individuals to improve their fitness level and sports performance. Polar technology is key to the success of leading fitness facilities, athletic teams, corporate wellness facilities, health insurance providers and thousands of physical education programs around the world. "

Notes from the video:

Video of the School Board Meeting December 7, 2011
http://www.pkwy.k12.mo.us/boe/archive/boe120711.cfm

48:45 starts the discussion of the bracelet. Rough transcript of the conversation. Parenthesis denotes questions from the Board.
**********************************************
So kids can "self-monitor" moderate to vigorous exercise. Teachers took a class this summer and the teachers wore them through the fall.

Henry, Ross Elementary, Shenandoah Elementary Schools.

Kids see it as a cool gadget.

Goals. Health, fit, active kids ready to learn.

Kids were "jealous" so bracelets will be shared.

Used as much as they can during PE classes.

Ideally, let the kids wear the monitor an entire week 24/7 and look at sleep patterns as well as physical activity patterns. Interested in seeing the results of that and identity correlation between sleep patterns and academic achievement. **MEW comment: Is this the governmental "nudge" touted by Cass Sunstein and our Commissioner of Education Chris Nicastro?**

Start with one grade level and then add grades one at a time.

In physical education for the longest time we've just been looking at fitness data.

We don't want to just assess fitness we want to assess behavioral change w/regard to physical activity patterns with our students and then we know we've done our job and this tool here will help us do that.

(How do you follow this?)

Each day there is a graph and they try to fill up the tube with moderate to strenuous activity. Keeps 7 days worth of data. Teachers download the information in a graph to the parents.

Idea: get them into the hands of the elementary students at the beginning of the new year.

(How do you plan to use the data and how will you run the data)

We are uploading data--body strength, muscle strength--into PARS. Correlate fitness levels to MAP scores, SAT score. Hope to do the same with physical activity.

Will do individually. Sure we will have school data, entire 5th grade, we'll have the ability to track individual students.

(Question about GPS, school cameras, tracking kids. Laughter)

No, they won't be able to track our students.
Ends at 58:14

Related links:


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/local-st-louis-schools-use-bracelets-to-monitor-children-at-school-and-at-home/


http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/04/new-psa-you-should-feel-very-very-badly-about-your-obese-child-you-know/

Easter and Spring vs Nudging and Compliance.

I've been trying to put into words why the current government push toward indoctrinating children bothers me so. We've written about how students are being told plastics are bad, to boycott and petition big business; children are expected to dance in Michelle Obama's project without parental knowledge; students in Chicago at the Little Village School cannot bring lunches from home because their parents don't make lunches that are healthy enough.

It doesn't stop with children; the mayor of Boston has banned sugary drinks from all governmental buildings. He states he wants to direct changes in behavior; it is his civic duty.

This is not manipulation of behavior for American citizens by politicians and bureaucrats, this is nudging of our rights out of our lives. This is the antithesis of what Easter and springtime represent: the springing of hope and of new life.

What does hope and new life bring to people? It brings anticipation of a better life. It brings a sense of freedom and purpose. It allows people to think for themselves and gives them a direction to their beliefs. People who experience this hope and springing of new life have a great deal of self-direction and don't appreciate or need governmental authorities mandating their thought processes and personal behavior.

Refer back to the mandates, policies, rules and regulations mentioned above. Do they encourage individuals to think for themselves? Do they allow freedom of expression and thought? Do American children and adults need to be "nudged" to behavior acceptable to the government?

As Anngie stated in her latest posting:

It is one thing to be a watchdog. But we also need people to act.

Remember Easter and springtime and what they represent. Take the hope of new life and new beginnings and refuse to be nudged by a system that represents the nanny state of mandates, rules, regulations and oppression. Isn't this why we broke away from England? Didn't our founders believe that people could and should make their own individual decisions, no matter how mundane they may be (i.e., choosing your own lunch, drink, whether to join in a dance or if you want "paper or plastic")? It is becoming increasingly apparent the Federal, State and local governments believe you, the taxpayer, who pays the taxes that allows these systems to operate, is too ignorant to live your life and make good decisions for you and your family. They will cheerfully take your money...and your rights along with those mandated taxes.

What's happened to us that we (and our politicians) allow ourselves to be "nudged" into a governmental idea of acceptable behavior? What are you going to do about it? You could go to school board meetings or sit on a curriculum committee. Volunteer to go on field trips to determine exactly where your child is going and what he/she is hearing. Ask your child about his/her activities and what was learned that day in school. Start paying attention and if need be, start "nudging" back.

Has Individual Choice Been Banned in Boston?

Boston can't run away from its history on banning behavior it finds abhorrent. Here is a definition of the phrase "Banned in Boston":

"Banned in Boston" was a phrase employed from the late 19th century through the mid-20th century to describe a literary work, motion picture, or play prohibited from distribution or exhibition in Boston, Massachusetts. During this period, Boston officials had wide authority to ban works featuring "objectionable" content, and often banned works with sexual or foul language.

Here we are in 2011 and apparently certain beverages are grouped together with those items from the late 19th century deemed "objectionable" by the government. Boston Mayor Menino is banning sugary drinks on government-owned property. The basic gist of this order per Mayor Menino:

“I want to create a civic environment that makes the healthier choice the easier choice in people’s lives, whether it’s schools, worksites, or other places in the community,” Menino said in a statement after the ban was announced.

Is this the purpose of government? Why should a mayor be making decisions on what people can drink on government property? Should government be making our choices for us in what we care to drink? It seems as if Cass Sunstein's version of "Nudge" has arrived in Boston to take over drink machines and fountains. Is "Nudge" the blueprint for governmental decisions these days vs the Constitution?

Well, if you are on jury duty in Boston, you might just want to pack a Coca-Cola if that's your pleasure. Just hope the court system doesn't know about The Little Village School's policy on bringing your own food from home and confiscates your property and denies you your right to consume what you choose to drink.

(There is a bit of irony in this story. Link onto the story and check out the first two advertisements listed. Priceless!)

How the Nudge becomes a Takeover. And why is Bill Gates Involved in the Nudging?

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has poured millions of dollars in grants to states for Race to the Top proposals, and his foundation has been instrumental in crafting Common Core standards. Here is an excerpt from the Common Core standard initiative website with Gates' enthusiastic approval of these standards:

"With the states' release today of a set of clear and consistent academic standards, our nation is one step closer to supporting effective teaching in every classroom, charting a path to college and careers for all students, and developing the tools to help all children stay motivated and engaged in their own education. The more states that adopt these college and career based standards, the closer we will be to sharing innovation across state borders and becoming more competitive as a country."
- Bill Gates, Co-Chair, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Why should we be concerned about Bill Gates advocating for common core standards? Review the sponsors listed on the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) site. They are educational publishing, software, and testing/assessment companies. They include Microsoft, McGraw-Hill, Apple, Dell and many other institutions. Think about the push for the common core standards. Are they really to help the children or to create a huge market for these educational, data, and software companies? Are Bill Gates' multi-million donations to states truly for student improvement or self-serving as the monies generated by these mandates will create billions of dollars for these companies that have partnered with Gates?

Bill Costello writing for American Thinker doesn't like the idea of common core standards and questions why these standards are being pushed to the states. He details how they in reality are not voluntary to sign onto as federal money will be withheld from Title 1 funding if not adopted by a state. This is the one of the best articles we've read about common core standards and the danger of the standards. As Costello writes:

Typically, when federal financial strings are attached, control begins with a nudge. Then it's a push. Then it's a shove. Ultimately, it ends up becoming a takeover.

For now, it's a nudge to national education standards. Then it will be a push to national testing. Then it will be a shove to a national curriculum.

When you understand the constitutional and financial considerations in this federal takeover, further your questioning into the reasons why Bill Gates is pushing so hard for these standards. Again, who will really benefit from centralized educational systems? Individual children or companies needing to institute a huge federalized system?

As Costello points out:

Look how federal funding for No Child Left Behind led to mandatory testing and proficiency requirements for the states.

Did that federal intervention actually lead to higher academic standards or improved student outcomes? No, it led to the dumbing down of many state standards and zero improvement in student outcomes.

In fact, ever since President Lyndon Johnson implemented the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965, federal involvement in education has led to zero improvement in student outcomes.

Why are CEO's with vested interests in education policy setting this same policy for our children? This has less to do with the children and more to do with an agenda that doesn't care a whit about educational progress. It cares about making billions of dollars establishing even more of a bureaucratic nightmare from which public school children can't escape.

Pink Floyd, Ronald Reagan, Robert Frost, & Public Education..."Something There is that Doesn't Love a Wall, That Wants it Down"

Read the article here from American Thinker. Mr. Mulholland has an interesting plan on how to restructure secondary education. Here is his thesis on why secondary education is failing students:

Our school system was designed many decades, well over century, ago, much of it before high school was invented, and when college was for only a very few. While adequate for the elementary grades (for which it was designed), it does not work well for the upper grades. It did not expand effectively as the nation grew and our goals changed. It is time to redesign it with no preconceived notions except to meet the needs of the students and the society they must live in.

Mulholland's plan won't require billions and billions of dollars, such as Race to the Top or the adoption of common core standards. It won't require unfunded or underfunded federal mandates.

It will return the role of education to the states. Students will be able to work at their own pace and independently. Parents and students will have choices in educational decisions.

The choice architects who designed Race to the Top may have wanted us to believe they were "meeting the needs of the students and the society they must live in" when they were formulating their redesign plan; but there is a distinct and important difference in the method Mr. Mullholland is suggesting and the method put forth by the Federal government and states in the pursuit of Race to the Top and common core standards. It is very clear parents and students were not factored into the planning of reform by the government entities...they base their methods on Cass Sunstein's "Nudge". Do you remember the description of this book on which Education Commissioner Chris Nicastro based her application (see page 9) for Race to the Top money?:

Every day, we make decisions on topics ranging from personal investments to schools for our children to the meals we eat to the causes we champion. Unfortunately, we often choose poorly. The reason, the authors explain, is that, being human, we all are susceptible to various biases that can lead us to blunder. Our mistakes make us poorer and less healthy; we often make bad decisions involving education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, the family, and even the planet itself.

According to Sunstein and Nicastro, parents, students and taxpayers are not smart enough to make their own educational decisions or determine the individual educational direction for their student. Mr. Mulholland's plan puts the parents, students and taxpayers in the driver's seat and they are the ones making the educational choices.

Read the comments after the article as well. Mulholland and the readers have raised some interesting questions and ideas. They are common sense approaches to problems that the Department of Education haven't been able to figure out for 40 years...and has cost taxpayers (and students) an enormous amount for failure.

I agree with Mulholland: fire the choice architects, put the parents and taxpayers on planning committees, permit education to be locally controlled, and there will be a better chance our students will succeed and become "globally competitive".

This radical common sense plan protects the individual and his/her freedom to choose his/her path; the government's plan treats a student like "you're just another brick in the wall". Ronald Reagan told Gorbachev in his famous Berlin speech, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall". Perhaps we should adapt President Reagan's line to the Federal government's educational plan for students, taxpayers and parents. Public education with its mandates, regulations, and forced compliance is becoming a symbol, a brick wall, of educational totalitarianism. It's time to tear down this wall.