Local School Boards Not Needed. Will the US Dept of Education be Running Your School District?

He's BAACCCKKK. Tell your school district Arne Duncan should stay out of our states, districts and schools.  If your district takes Federal money, go ahead and abolish your school board.  A centralized system doesn't need/want local input. 

IMPORTANT! Some info about the new round of race to the top - district grants that are due on October 3rd. 

School districts who want to take federal money directly from the Federal Government and bypassing state agencies are listed below.  What taxpayers, parents and legislators must understand is with money comes enormous strings.  Why not just abolish state educational agencies and school boards if the Federal Government gives money directly to school districts?  Forget about the constitutional authority of state agencies and local school boards.  The US Department of Education is now directing local and state educational directives.  

Here is a list of school districts by state that have indicated that they intend to apply for RTTT-D funding: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-district/2013-list-intent-apply.pdf THERE ARE DISTRICTS FROM EVERY STATE on this list!

There is a state and local comment period -- start working on the mayors or town administrators to influence their comments!

"Each LEA included in an application must provide its State at least 10 business days to comment on the LEA’s application and submit as part of its application package: (a) the State’s comments or, if the State declined to comment, evidence that the LEA offered the State 10 business days to comment; and (b) the LEA’s response to the State’s comments (optional). Similarly, each LEA included in an application must provide its mayor or comparable official at least 10 business days to comment on the LEA’s application and submit as part of its application package: (a) the mayor’s or city or town administrator’s comments or, if that individual declines to comment, evidence that the LEA offered such official 10 business days to comment; and (b) the LEA’s response to the mayor’s or city or town administrator’s comments (optional)."

This grant application also requires the signature of the head of the teachers union in the district-- they are sealing this one airtight. "Required signatures for the LEA or lead LEA in a consortium are those of the superintendent or CEO, local school board president, and (where applicable) local teacher union or association president."

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.

CCSSO and Its "State" Led Efforts Look Increasingly Like Collusion With the Federal Goverment & Private Corporations

Have you heard of Next Generation Schools?  They are schools based on business models stressing sustainability, competency (outcome) goals and public/private partnerships:

Next Generation Schools will be built on a sustainable business model. That means we’ll do business differently. 

 How will Next Generation Schools do "business differently" in education?  From nextgenerationschools.org website:

• Cooperative purchasing
  We estimate that teaming up to purchase supplies could save schools 15-30% on those purchases. This model can be used for purchasing goods as well as services such as maintenance and construction. This is just one way Next Generation Schools will do business differently.

• Community partnerships
  By teaming up with local organizations, Next Generation Schools will avoid costly duplication of services. For example, the regional education system will work closely with family services to ensure that students are getting the support services they need.

• Natural transitions
  It is estimated that if students moved through the levels of education sooner - both academic and social/behavioral skills have been mastered - the cost savings could be more than $19 billion nationally.

• Venture capital
  Inventors, foundations and entrepreneurs have made headlines nationwide for their investments in education. Likewise, CESA 6 hopes the Next Generation schools initiative will attract venture capital for new initiatives and projects.

What the website doesn't tell you is that this business model of structuring schools does away with the local funding of schools and any semblance of local control, as well as the bypassing of state legislatures for these educational programs.  Anita Hoge in newswithviews.com, STATES UNDER REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP FALL FOR OBAMA'S CARROT:

It's easier to understand an agenda with a picture. A picture is worth a thousand words. The following graph was used in a power point presentation about how the Innovation Lab Network will change and redesign how American schools will function in the future. This is a 'Race to the Top' education model. The graph was taken from a power point presentation from the Stupski Foundation, the OECD, the international Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, with a grant from the Chief State School Officers, CCSSO, about the Next Generation Schools, called the Innovation Lab Network.

These are the original states that are included in this pilot research project from Obama's 'Race to the Top' -Maine, West Virginia, Wisconsin, New York, Kentucky, and Ohio. Race to the Top was funded from the Recovery Act with $400 billion dollars. Since that time waivers have been given to states that need flexibility in using their Elementary and Secondary School Act (ESEA) funding In the "No Child Left Behind" legislation to move toward this model since the current Congress has not passed a budget. More states are involved at this time. The most profound concept in this graph shows how the next generation school will eliminate representative government. Notice that the new system bypasses the community, governance, and finance. Draw your attention to the blue lines that are most important to this agenda. They are: your child, called human capital, assessment which is testing, technology, and any time and any place. Testing and technology become the most important part of this agenda to create the human capital of the future for the international global workforce.

How will abolishing representative government work? In order for this graph to become a reality, there are three barriers that must be removed. Community; families, parents, and churches must have no options or legal authority, only a choice of which school to send their children; Governance; your locally elected school board or other elected local or state officials that could become a hindrance will be eliminated or reduced to minor functions: parents will not have any voting power over a for-profit charter school; Finance; the neighborhood school no longer depends on your local tax base to fund schools under equality or leveling the field. The mantra that will be quoted is, under fairness and equity there should not be rich school districts or poor school districts, only schools. Your tax money will be pooled regionally or toward a county base to be distributed equally for each child. Federal funds will now fund individual students. Your elected school boards will no longer have the tax base from which to run their school. Your local neighborhood school will eventually be pushed out through academic bankruptcy and/or taken over by charter schools.

 

Do you think Governor Jay Nixon and Commissioner Chris Nicastro had an idea that CCSSO, a private trade organizatio that we were told crafted a "state led" initiative (Common Core State Standards), actually is giving out grants to do away with any state authority over schools?  Would that be a surprise to them?  Would it surprise them the grants are actually from Federal stimulus money?  Why is the CCSSO giving away federal money and informing portraying itself as being state led?  Could the CCSSO be an organization actually crafted by private interests and funded by federal dollars to establsh a public/private corporation to eradicate representative government and representative decisions on public education?

If in fact this is the intent and the adoption/implementation via Common Core makes such a scenario possible, then the Governor and Commissioner should rescind the MOU the signed with Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortia immediately.

Read more from Hoge:

This is the new model for school choice. Federal monies, ESEA Title I, is being changed in new laws being proposed that will follow the individual child and the Individual Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) will change the definitions of who can receive funds to include any child not meeting Common Core Standards (CCS) in an Individualized Education Program (IEP), individual education plan similar to the special education plans for handicapped children. This will mean ANY and EVERY child can receive choice money to go to the school of their choice. The entry point solutions are the end results or the child meeting government Common Core Standards and what must be done to achieve these goals. This is a design down program, start with what the government wants and work backwards....what a child will know, do and be like, or beliefs, values and actions....Blooms taxonomy, the whole child theory.

This graph from the Next Generation Schools, Race to the Top agenda, spells out how to mold the child toward those objectives. It shows how representative government, as well as parents, will be erased from any authority in educating their children or how the schools of the future will function through a computerized monopoly of selected profit making corporations, otherwise known as corporate fascism. 

This is the model for for-profit Charter Schools that use public taxpayer funds with no elected school boards or taxpayer accountability and this is the model for the takeover of all education in America including private schools. Private schools are included because, when these stipends are given to each child under Choice from Title I which is being proposed in the new ESEA legislation in the federal budget supported by Republican Congressmen and Senators, Republican governors and unknowingly by many conservative groups, any child accepting that federal stipend to go to a charter, private, Catholic, Christian, home school, or other school, will be mandated under accountability, to take federal testing to meet the federal standards. Many tests are being aligned to the Common Core Standards using federal objectives from National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test item banks already validated to meet government goals. Inevitably this will control all education in the United States if you take the money. The CCSSO has had model legislation waiting in the wings for years. Perhaps we can ask why Governor Jeb Bush is in Maine pushing his Charter school agenda with his ”Foundation for Excellence in Education" that is widespread in Florida? Legislation in Michigan, under Republican leadership, House Bill 6004 and Senate Bill 1358 would expand a separate and statewide school district Education Achievement Authority (the EAA) overseen by a governor-appointed (unelected) chancellor and functioning outside the authority of the State Board of Education or state school superintendent. These schools are exempt from the same laws and quality measures of community-governed public schools. The EAA can seize unused school buildings (built and financed by local taxpayers) and force sale or lease to charter, non-public or EAA schools. This is proof that there is some truth to an agenda of eliminating representative government.

 
Contact Senator Lamping regarding SB 210 and thank him for his amended bill requiring Commissioner Nicastro to appear at eight town hall meetings to talk about Common Core standards to taxpayers.  Contact the Senate members and urge its passage so questions can be asked why DESE signed on to standards/assessments that had not yet been written and if the Commissioner is concerned about the CCSSO funding of programs that take away state/local authority of education.  Does Commissioner Nicastor agree the takeover of public schools is accelerated via Common Core standards?  If she agrees with that premise, would she be willing to withdraw Missouri from the SBAC consortia and the MOU signed by Nixon and Nicastro?

Download Ms. Hoge's article, hopefully have the opportunity to attend a townhall meeting in your Congressional district, and ask her why she and the Governor would sign on to standards  that allow the common tracking of children and the allowance of private companies taking over education.  Do Governor Nixon and Commissoner Nicastro prefer the runaround of representative government and the establishment of public/private partnerships to control "public" education?  Do they believe the "public" needs to be guided by "choice architects" to make decisions on how to run their schools?  From the original Missouri Race to the Top proposal (comments are my own):

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.[L1] 

---

 [L1]The direction/development of Missouri education is now handed to choice architects. These choice architects have evolved into the NGA and CCSSO, both private trade organizations.  The idea that people are “free to choose” means the state has to comply with the CCSSO rules and means little to no “choice” by the “people”.

If you are against Common Core State standards, you may sign a petition to submit to the Legislature here.