Arne Duncan is Wrong. The Pressing Issue in Civil Rights is not Education, it's the Right to Protect Your Information from Arne Duncan.

Missouri received $890,000 from the Federal government in 2010 to expand its data capturing and reporting ability for school children in public education.  Everything's coming up data...teacher evaluations are to be made on data and the future of your child will be made on data.  Creativity, ingenuity and individualism, qualities for entrepreneurship, will be difficult to assess via standardized testing and based on what the data will be used for, these qualities may be quashed in the quest for the perfect worker.  Your human capital needs to craft a good data set to be acceptable and employable in the work sector.  Think of it as human capital selection in the workforce without the personal interview.

It's from 2010, but it's important to understand the intent of information use of these  educational longitudinal data bases.  From the Department of Labor's news release:

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Labor today announced $12.2 million to 13 states through the Workforce Data Quality Initiative. These funds will enable states to build or expand longitudinal databases of workforce data that also link to education data. States will use these longitudinal databases to conduct research and analysis aimed at pinpointing the effectiveness of employment and training programs to better inform workforce system customers. 

"These grants are an important part of the administration's efforts to increase the availability and use of high-quality data," said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. "By developing and improving databases, states will help those seeking training make better informed decisions, all while more clearly demonstrating the link between employment and education in the long-term success of workers." 

Funding will be used by 11 states to expand and improve linkages between education and employment in existing longitudinal databases. These include Florida, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. Two additional states, Louisiana and Minnesota, will develop and implement new systems. 
 
Education is designed to train your human capital to become a better worker.  States need money to attain the Department of Labor's goal of data base expansion and usage.  These grants are just a drip in the ocean of cost of these data bases.  It's difficult to determine the total cost to states for this federal mandate, but here is one example regarding Florida's expense from The Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability (OPPAGA):

Exhibit 1 The Department Has Spent $20.9 Million for the Development and Operation of the Education Data Warehouse Since 2000.


This $20.9 Million expenditure is just through 2009 for one state. 



K-12 money to be made is quite lucrative for those vendors anxious to jump on the data train, so it is no wonder those private vendors are elbowing their way onto the train.  Ed Week reports:


The flow of venture capital into the K-12 education market has exploded over the past year, reaching its highest transaction values in a decade in 2011, industry observers say.

Venture capital transaction values in the K-12 field, which include both public and private schools, increased from roughly $130 million in 2010 to $334 million last year, according to data from the Chicago-based GSV Advisors.

Precollegiate education historically has not been an easy market for venture capitalists to break into, analysts say, but certain factors are contributing to a higher awareness of this market for investors.

Venture capitalists generally look for "high-growth opportunities" and rely on the ability to scale up new enterprises quickly, said Mr. Newman. So the common standards in English/language arts and math, for instance, which have been adopted by all but four states, are contributing to companies' perception of a potential for fast growth in standards-related ventures across a larger market, he said.

As you read about the motivation for venture capitalists to jump on this data train, do you detect "but..but..it's for the KIDS"?  No, it's for the money.  It's for the ability to track.  It's for the data.  And the taxpayers are paying for the opportunity for the private sector to take your child's data, manipulate it , sell it, provide it to private organizations and federal organizations so your child can become a productive worker in society.

The rescinding of the common core standards may be one of the most important civil rights issues of our time.  The data bases will collapse on themselves without the common core assessments to track the common human capital.  Apologies to Arne Duncan for stealing his line:

President Obama and I believe that education is the civil rights issue of our time....

Education is not the civil rights issue of our time.  The civil rights issue of our time has to do with protecting personal liberty and right to privacy.  The pressing civil rights issue is to ensure students, parents and taxpayers are not forced to provide data to the Federal government or private companies.  You and your children are more than data sets and your personal liberties are being stripped away.  Where is Arne Duncan's concern about personal privacy and the right to opt out? 

Parents - Are You Really Expecting This?

You know the analogy about battles and the war?  It's true.  Though we may win battles, the war is far from over.

The federal government is determined to get into the lives of the private citizen.  Michelle Obama recently told a cafeteria full of airmen that she was proud of them for eating their veggies. Her visit, as the federal face of healthy eating, was meant to promote the military's new campaign to  get more fruits and "veggies", leaner meats and low-fat dairy products into dining halls, snack bars and school cafeterias on military bases. Little Rock Air Force base's pilot program is just the start. It is a much easier start because the military is actually under the federal government's control. And have no fear, this program will be a success there; not because the healthy foods have winnowed down the weight of the average airman, but because the average airman must meet certain physical metrics in order to be accepted into the program and fit in the tiny cockpit. It seems the First Lady's lack of knowledge of her audience is no different than Marie Antroinette who advised the starving peasants to eat cake.

This food program shows how serious the Federal government is about your health. If you doubt that, consider Mrs. Obama's statement, "It's not just a diet issue, this is truly a national security issue."  You have only to look at the TSA to consider how far the federal government is willing to go to invade your privacy in the interest of national security. Food on military bases is one battle.

A high school student just shared with me this week a website they were told to go on in their health class to calculate their overall health based on input regarding their diet and exercise. The USDA's site is called "Supertracker."  The name says it all. Once registered, you are asked to enter all the foods you ate on a typical day.  You are then asked to input all the activity you did that day.  Each of these screens come with drop down menus with several hundred food and activity options. This is not a superficial, gimmicky, analysis program.  Someone has put a lot of time and effort into creating it.

Once you have entered all that information, SuperTracker provides you a health report detailing how many of your daily calories came from fats and what kind of fats, what you sodium intake is, and how much you need to increase your activity levels.

Even IF the government doesn't use this data to track students individually, they are amassing a lot of conglomerated data on the average teen lifestyle which will just be too tempting to ignore. This data will be combined with that from other government departments (who are all sharing data now) to develop regulations about the foods Americans will be allowed to eat. They are starting in the military and in the military schools, and they will go next to the public schools. They already have a campaign to get schools to change their menus voluntarily. Data like this will be used to justify why they must force those who do not participate voluntarily to comply with regulation in the future.

Of course they will conveniently ignore, for now, the study that said the food served in school has no impact on childhood obesity. The amount of time spent eating and the limited access to food while in school sufficiently curtail overeating, even if the kids have access to candy and soda in vending machines. It's what they eat at home that has far more impact on their weight. The study doesn't help them now when they are trying to control school food, but when they get around to controlling the public food supply, expect this little gem to be trotted out.

What kids do at home is the real data that government is interested in.  Having them use the Supertracker program to self report is one way to get that data.  Using the Polar Fit monitors is another. As I said at the beginning, there are battles and then there is the war. Parkway parents may have won the battle over the PolarFit monitors, but the school is pressing on with the war. Fox 2's You Paid For It producers looked into the financing of the Parkway monitors.  The school system spent almost $40k on the monitors for the elementary schools at a time when the district must cut $9 1/2 million in spending. When asked how they could justify that expense, the Superintendent Keith Marty said, "Parents are  expecting  us to help them and help their children become healthier." (watch the video here and pay attention at 1:04)

Is that the case Parkway parents?  Do you expect the school to help you raise your children?  Are you willing to let them track your child electronically to achieve that goal?  Or is the Parkway Superintendant unclear on the role of the school? The district is working on restarting the PolarFit program, but this time they will seek parental approval to use the monitors. The war rages on.


https://www.choosemyplate.gov/SuperTracker/default.aspx

Pioneer Institute Asks "Is the US Department of Education Violating Federal Law by Directing Standards, Tests, and Curricula?"

Is the Federal Government breaking the law with Race to the Top?  Various organizations have come to the conclusion that it indeed is acting unconstitutionally. 

Reprinted with permission from The Pioneer Institute:

Contact Jamie Gass, 617-723-2277, ext. 210 or jgass@pioneerinstitute.org

IS THE US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION VIOLATING FEDERAL LAW BY DIRECTING STANDARDS, TESTS, AND CURRICULA?

Analysis conducted by former general counsel and former deputy general counsel of

U.S. Department of Education

BOSTON, MA —Despite three federal laws that prohibit federal departments or agencies from directing, supervising or controlling elementary and secondary school curricula, programs of instruction and instructional materials, the U.S. Department of Education (“Department”) has placed the nation on the road to a national curriculum, according to a new report written by a former general counsel and former deputy general counsel of the United States Department of Education.

The Road to a National Curriculum: The Legal Aspects of the Common Core Standards, Race to the Top, and Conditional Waivers is sponsored by Pioneer Institute, the Federalist Society, the American Principles Project, and the Pacific Research Institute of California.

With only minor exceptions, the General Education Provisions Act, the Department of Education Organization Act, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), ban the Department from directing, supervising, or controlling elementary and secondary school curriculum, programs of instruction, and instructional materials.

“The Department has designed a system of discretionary grants and conditional waivers that effectively herds states into accepting specific standards and assessments favored by the Department,” said Robert S. Eitel, who co-authored the report with Kent D. Talbert.  

The authors find that the Obama administration has used the Race to the Top Fund and the Race to the Top Assessment Program to push states to adopt standards and assessments that are substantially the same across nearly all states. “By leveraging funds through its Race to the Top Fund and the Race to the Top Assessment Program, the Department has accelerated the adoption and implementation of the Common Core State Standards (“CCSS”) in English language arts and mathematics, as well as the development of common assessments based on those standards,” added Talbert, former General Counsel of the Department.
  

Through its Race to the Top Assessment Program, the authors explain how the Department has awarded $362 million to consortia to develop common assessments and measure student achievement.  Two consortia have won a total of $330 million, and each has been awarded an additional $15.9 million supplemental grant to “help” states move to common standards and assessments. 

“There is no constitutional or statutory basis for national standards, national assessments, or national curricula,” said Bill Evers, research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and Koret Task Force on K-12 Education member. “The two testing consortia funded by the U.S. Department of Education have already expanded their activities well beyond the limits of the law. As this paper recommends, the actions of the Department warrant congressional hearings.”

One of the consortia has stated directly that it intends to use these federal funds to support curriculum materials and that it expects to use the money to create a “model curriculum” and instructional materials “aligned with the CCSS” pushed by the Race to the Top Fund.  Secretary Arne Duncan has said that the work of the two consortia includes “developing curriculum frameworks” and “instructional modules.” 

“Frankly, this makes sense,” said Eitel.  “How can one design assessments without taking into account what is taught?  But the legal concern is that these federally funded assessments will ultimately direct the course of elementary and secondary course content across the nation,” Eitel added.  “This raises a fundamental question of whether the Department is exceeding its statutory boundaries,” Talbert said.  

“Proponents of national standards, curriculum and tests claim they’re merely a logical extension of previous federal education initiatives,” said Pioneer Institute Executive Director Jim Stergios.  “The key difference is that prior to Race to the Top and the recently announced federal waivers, the US Department of Education abided by statutes explicitly prohibiting federal direction, supervision, or control of curricula or instruction.”

The authors also explore how the Department’s NCLB conditional waiver program, announced last September, is driving the states toward a national K-12 curriculum and course content.   To obtain a waiver from the Department, each state must declare whether it has “adopted college- and career-ready standards” in reading/language arts and mathematics “that are common to a significant number of States.”  States seeking waivers must also declare whether they are participating “in one of two State consortia that received a grant under the Race to the Top competition.”  The Common Core State Standards and the assessments consortia are effectively the only ones that fit these descriptions.

“Our greatest concern arises from the Department’s decision to cement the use of the Common Core State Standards and assessment consortia through conditional waivers,” said Eitel.  “The waiver authority granted by Congress in No Child Left Behind does not permit the Secretary to gut NCLB wholesale and impose these conditions,” added Talbert. “As shown by the eleven states that have already applied for waivers, most states will accept the Common Core State Standards and the assessment conditions in order to get waivers,” Talbert stated. 

States need not apply for waivers, the authors said, but most states are desperate enough to escape No Child Left Behind to agree to the conditions.  “And once a state receives a waiver, escapes NCLB’s strict accountability requirements, and makes the heavy investments required by the standards, that state will do whatever it takes to keep its coveted waiver,” said Eitel.  In the view of the authors, these efforts will necessarily result in a de facto national curriculum and instructional materials effectively supervised, directed, or controlled by the Department through the NCLB waiver process. 

In their analysis, Eitel and Talbert propose several recommendations, including the enactment of legislation clarifying that the Department cannot impose conditions under its waiver authority, as well as congressional hearings on Race to the Top and waivers to ascertain the Department’s compliance with federal law.

Pioneer Institute led a campaign in 2010 to oppose the adoption of national standards, producing a four-part series reviewing evolving drafts. The reports compared them with existing Massachusetts and California standards, and found that the federal versions contained weaker content in both ELA and math. The reports, listed below, were authored by curriculum experts R. James Milgram, emeritus professor of mathematics at Stanford University; Sandra Stotsky, former Massachusetts Board of Education member and University of Arkansas Professor; and Ze’ev Wurman, a Silicon Valley executive who helped develop California's education standards and assessments.

·         Why Race to the Middle: First-Class State Standards Are Better than Third Class National Standards

·         Fair to Middling: A National Standards Progress Report

·         The Emperor’s New Clothes: National Assessments Based on Weak ‘College and Career Readiness Standards

·         Common Core’s Standards Still Don’t Make the Grade: Why Massachusetts and California Must Retain Control Over Their Academic Destinies

###

Pioneer Institute is an independent, non-partisan, privately funded research organization that seeks to improve the quality of life in Massachusetts through civic discourse and intellectually rigorous, data-driven public policy solutions based on free market principles, individual liberty and responsibility, and the ideal of effective, limited and accountable government.

Imagine

John Lennon asked us, through music, to Imagine. As long as we're looking to reform education, let's follow his suggestion and imagine what could be in public education.

Imagine how much less school would cost if we didn't have to subscribe to, practice for and administer standardized assessments.

Imagine how much could be saved if teachers were given a not-to-exceed classroom budget that they could spend any way they chose, without having to buy a specific set of materials from a specific supplier and, were also given a bonus for not spending the full amount. One teacher noted that the reading system she wanted was $600 from the school's approved vendor, but could be purchased on e-bay for $260. Another noted that they were required to purchase 10-book bundles from a text publisher when they only needed one book, but found (through a call to the publisher) that they could get a single replacement book for free. School districts regularly require teachers to purchase a particular text book which many refuse to use because it actually makes the subject more difficult to teach. Thousands of such forced texts go unused every year.

Imagine how much would be saved if students were allowed or even encouraged to proceed at their own pace, not forced to remain in a fixed age cohort. Many students would complete school months or, in some cases, years sooner at an overall lower cost to the state.

Imagine a curriculum that didn't tell students what to learn but, rather, how to learn.  The amount of information available is growing exponentially and new curricula try to keep up with this ever increasing database. If we expect schools to cover all of this with children, they may never leave school. What costs could be reduced by finding a logical place where the state's obligation to teach ends and the personal responsibility to learn begins.

Imagine if we promoted students getting an AAS (Career Associates) degree instead of  a four year bachelor degree as the president and others want to do. Students who either lack the aptitude, fortitude or financial resources for a four year program, or who simply want to start working sooner, could achieve their goal with less debt. They would become contributors to the state coffers rather than recipients that much sooner.

Imagine how much we would save on education if we followed the lead of these tech guru families in Los Altos, CA [NYTimes] who send their kids to a Waldorf school that pointedly does not use technology to teach. Technology, these parents say, is so user friendly now that kids can learn it at any time so there is no rush to use it at an early age.  And where technology is not spoon feeding kids someone else's creativity, they can develop their own. Students who are weaned on technology find it hard to break from later. One Waldorf student ,who recently went to visit cousins, found himself surrounded by kids with their heads buried in gadgets, not paying attention to him or each other. He was ready to play.  They were ready to sit and be passively entertained.

Those who endorse this approach say computers inhibit creative thinking, movement, human interaction and attention spans. Think of all the other programs we have to create (and pay for) as separate entities, the more we rely on computers in the classroom.

Imagine if public school focused on teaching the basics, what they call core classes, paid for by all the tax payers, and parents with children in school voted on assessments for the other courses they would like the school to offer. Your overall tax bill would go down and would only experience a slight bump for the period of time you had kids in school.

What would you imagine for public education?

STEM Students Need Their Privacy

Whether it's called collaborative learning, group projects, or collective education, we've all seen instances of modern education's love affair with kids doing projects together. It is usually justified by the notion that they will have to work together as a group in the business world so they may as well develop the skills needed to do that while they are in k-12. However, if the future focus of American education, the course work that is going to save our economy, is STEM courses, that justification may just have to be jettisoned. A now famous study, Coding War Games, looked at programmers (you know, people that excel at a STEM subject) in 92 companies and found that those who had a greater degree of privacy and autonomy were happier and more productive. Our society is traveling down a path that promotes, what author Susan Cain calls, Groupthink, the idea that creativity and achievement are arrived at by committee or through brainstorming sessions. But in the creative and technology world, this strategy may in fact be counterproductive and our current education process may be training our STEM students for failure.

In her new book, Quiet, The Power of Introverts, Cain sheds light on the introvert mind and shows how there is a currently a cultural bias against introverts.

"It’s playing out in schools and workplaces where everyone is expected to sit and work together. This enforced collectivism, she explained, in which nobody has a room of their own any longer, is creating a socialized, “groupthink” culture in which we are no longer thinking for ourselves."

This is not to say that introverts should be left alone to create and problem solve.  A balance in all things is necessary.  In the New York Times, Ms. Cain reminds us of the introverts role as she tells the story of the technical genius behind Apple, Steve Wozniack.

"Rewind to March 1975: Mr. Wozniak believes the world would be a better place if everyone had a user-friendly computer. This seems a distant dream — most computers are still the size of minivans, and many times as pricey. But Mr. Wozniak meets a simpatico band of engineers that call themselves the Homebrew Computer Club. The Homebrewers are excited about a primitive new machine called the Altair 8800. Mr. Wozniak is inspired, and immediately begins work on his own magical version of a computer. Three months later, he unveils his amazing creation for his friend, Steve Jobs. Mr. Wozniak wants to give his invention away free, but Mr. Jobs persuades him to co-found Apple Computer.

The story of Apple’s origin speaks to the power of collaboration. Mr. Wozniak wouldn’t have been catalyzed by the Altair but for the kindred spirits of Homebrew. And he’d never have started Apple without Mr. Jobs.

But it’s also a story of solo spirit. If you look at how Mr. Wozniak got the work done — the sheer hard work of creating something from nothing — he did it alone. Late at night, all by himself."

What does this mean for education? For starters, the organization of the classroom into learning pods of grouped desks may work for some students but not for introverts.  It should not be accepted norm.

Studies show that open-plan offices make workers hostile, insecure and distracted. They’re also more likely to suffer from high blood pressure, stress, the flu and exhaustion. And people whose work is interrupted make 50 percent more mistakes and take twice as long to finish it. 

Maybe the incidences of students to acting out, being  distracted or taking a very long time to get their work done are actually due to the teacher's use of work groups.  This use of groputhink in was taken to the extreme in one class.

In one fourth-grade classroom I visited in New York City, students engaged in group work were forbidden to ask a question unless every member of the group had the very same question.

Anyone who has sat on a committee that was charged with reaching a consensus will know the ultimate frustration in this scenario.  Cain's book says groupthink may have its place, but it is a very specific place. She points to studies that have shown that the best brainstorming is done by extremely large groups (think the internet), but that individual contributions to this mass collection are often developed in private.

Back in the classroom where the teachers are forcing group projects under the guise that this is developing useful job and coping skills, consider this study by Marilyn Ford and Jenny Morice.   They looked at the perceived fairness group assignments in class.  Their study showed the greatest dissatisfaction with group projects came from the highest performing students.  This is not surprising.  The second highest dissatisfaction level comes from the lowest performing students who are unhappy at the frequent complaints and efforts of their teammates to make them work. The same study also found that teachers were the least aware of problems in work groups. This was partly explained by the students perception that bringing these issues to the attention of the teachers was pointless as the teachers just told them to work it out. In the business world, slackers are not tolerated for long because they bring down the productivity of everyone. The world of education can't boot the slackers out.  Teachers telling the kids to "work it out themselves" is a cop out for their inability to find a way to motivate the unmotivated student. Not exactly teaching the kids a real world skill, unless that skill is telling co-workers "not my problem."

Did the old layout of the classroom, where every desk was an island, have some merit? Could charter or private schools have a leg up on public schools because they can group kids into the two categories,  highly social learners and introverts, and allow each group work in environments that allow them to progress more rapidly? If public schools could do this, could they have an impact on achievement at the low low cost of rearranging the classroom furniture and providing independent study options?

Technology is not just centered in problem solving.  It also involves an element of dreaming, of creativity. This is one of the reasons America has continued to excel in technology.  We allow our students to dream the impossible. Like Steve Wozniak, we ask the question, "If you could create anything for the future, what would it be?" Other countries, who we are so fond of comparing ourselves to, ask, "Have you memorized information that everyone already knows?"  This gives them great scores on things like the PISA test, but leaves them to wait for someone else to develop the next great "earth changing" thing and then copy it.

STEM subjects may hold the promise of resurrecting America, but only if we allow the introverts who are attracted to those subjects to work in the way they need to work to excel.

Why Use Longitudinal Data Systems on Students when Palm Reading is Probably As Effective (and Cheaper)

Can data determine your child's future in the work force?  That's the plan of the Department of Education and the use of the Longitudinal Data System.  Student data will be shared with various federal agencies so employers will be able to identify workers fitting their unique requirements. 

How dependable is this data in scrutinizing children?  According to a recent Wall Street Journal article and the teenage brain, adolescent behavior may not determine the character or future actions of children, and children may have little control over their actions at certain stages.  From "What's Wrong With the Teenage Mind":

"What was he thinking?" It's the familiar cry of bewildered parents trying to understand why their teenagers act the way they do. 

How does the boy who can thoughtfully explain the reasons never to drink and drive end up in a drunken crash? Why does the girl who knows all about birth control find herself pregnant by a boy she doesn't even like? What happened to the gifted, imaginative child who excelled through high school but then dropped out of college, drifted from job to job and now lives in his parents' basement?
 
Adolescence has always been troubled, but for reasons that are somewhat mysterious, puberty is now kicking in at an earlier and earlier age. A leading theory points to changes in energy balance as children eat more and move less.

It's a fascinating peek into how teenage brains operate and how they are operating differently than just a few generations ago as society has shifted:

...contemporary children have very little experience with the kinds of tasks that they'll have to perform as grown-ups. Children have increasingly little chance to practice even basic skills like cooking and caregiving. Contemporary adolescents and pre-adolescents often don't do much of anything except go to school. Even the paper route and the baby-sitting job have largely disappeared.


The experience of trying to achieve a real goal in real time in the real world is increasingly delayed, and the growth of the control system depends on just those experiences. The pediatrician and developmental psychologist Ronald Dahl at the University of California, Berkeley, has a good metaphor for the result: Today's adolescents develop an accelerator a long time before they can steer and brake.

This doesn't mean that adolescents are stupider than they used to be. In many ways, they are much smarter. An ever longer protected period of immaturity and dependence—a childhood that extends through college—means that young humans can learn more than ever before. There is strong evidence that IQ has increased dramatically as more children spend more time in school, and there is even some evidence that higher IQ is correlated with delayed frontal lobe development.

The author makes the argument that children do not have the apprenticeship skills necessary to learn how to attain skillsets and success via repetition and failures.  As we have noted previously, they will be judged on data sets and standardized internationally benchmarked tests.  Students' futures will be decided from assessments at birth...and into adolescence... and into college or career training.  With society changing and brain development differing from past generations, how informative and reliable is this data?


The education "reformers" should ditch the multi-billion dollar plans they have for the taxpayers, parents and children and practice the ancient art of....palm reading...to determine where to channel the human capital in future endeavors.  Palm reading might just be as accurate as tracking data from the teenage brain via the Longitudinal Data System (and much cheaper).  From news@xinahuet.com:



TAIYUAN, Jan. 31 (Xinhua) -- Education authorities in a north China city on Tuesday banned schools and kindergartens from carrying out palm-reading tests that could allegedly tell a child's intelligence and professional aptitude.

"We have issued a circular to criticize the three kindergartens that offered palm-reading tests for 1,200 yuan (190 U.S. dollars) per person," said Ma Zhaoxing, education bureau chief in Taiyuan, capital of Shanxi Province.

Earlier in January, some parents in Taiyuan complained to Xinhua that they had been offered the test, which could allegedly help them find out their children's aptitudes in music, mathematics or languages, so as to cultivate these talents accordingly at an earlier age.


Mei Mingzhi, a company executive with Shanxi Daomeng, said the test could help determine a child's innate intelligence and potential and was applicable to all children aged over three months.

The test, however, was described as pseudoscience by Zhao Yulin, a family education specialist with Shanxi Academy of Social Sciences.

Zhao, who did some research work on palm-reading three years ago, said the test was originally based on genetics and the multi-intelligence theory, but had apparently gone beyond science and could be misleading.

Does data from the Longitudinal Data System (gathered from developing brains of children) go beyond science as well and could be misleading?  Just substitute the word "data" for "palm reading" in the article.  Could a case be made they are both less than reliable in determining if a child will be successful in life...or not?

The Sunday Education Weekly Reader: Visual Soundbites for 02.05.2012

Welcome to the Sunday Education Weekly Reader for 02.05.2012.  The visual soundbites from Twitter for the week:
 

• Federal Officials breaking the law affecting public education students.   Is the Department of Education thumbing its nose at American taxpayers and parents?....Department of Education, So what if we break the law goo.gl/fb/6x9Ss

• Is your child late to school?  In Loudoun, VA, expect a deputy to appear on your doorstep.  “It’s not just trying to meddle in someone’s affairs or dictate how someone raises their child,” said Wayde Byard, spokesman for Loudoun County Public Schools. “It’s a child welfare issue, basically.”  Nanny state gone wild?....VA Parents summoned to court b/c their kids were a few minutes late to school Washington Post - http://goo.gl/vLdob

• If schools adopted these rules from 1898, would we have better schools that wouldn't cost billions of dollars in "reform"?.....Just found this "Good Manners" chart, supplied to schools in 1898 (It's a PDF): http://bit.ly/kPFP7h

• WSJ article on French children vs American children.  Is this what is missing in American education and much of American parenting the key to raising more successful American children?  Maybe if children had more of "this", it wouldn't require billion of dollars in education "reform" either....Why French Parents Are Superior http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577196931457473816.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

 

 

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

 

Educational thought of the week picked up from twitter encapsulating what's wrong with public education.  

 

Are schools day care facilities or academies of intellectual pursuit?  Is the reason children are sent to school to give a break to the parents?  Maybe the parents need to read the aforementioned WSJ article.

 

Starting to suspect that the reason why kids have to go to school isn't that they need an education. It's that parents need a break. 

Kirkwood School District and Washington DC School Council Have a Common Thread: Education Equity

 We wrote about Washington DC's idea about mandating and paying for all students to take the ACT/SAT and apply for college:


Mandates are in the works for universal preschool and the Washington DC council may be taking the first stab at mandating mandatory post-secondary education.  A bill has been introduced that will mandate that everyone apply to at least one post-secondary institution and take either the SAT or ACT. It apparently doesn't matter if the individual doesn't want to attend a post-secondary institution, he/she will be compelled to apply to a college, trade, seminary or vocational program.  


Kirkwood (Missouri) School District administrators believe in education equity for all students even if they can pay for half-day kindergarten or ACT testing. 

The Kirkwood Patch reported Kirkwood School District's administration wants to offer the ACT test to all junior beginning next year at the cost to the district of $17,000.  Principal Mike Havener wants every junior to take the test for "free", which is somewhat disingenuous as the district will pick up the cost. Why does the district want to provide the test to all students, regardless of their ability to pay?  It is evident the vast majority of students have found a way to pay for the test in past years:

“My goal is to provide opportunities for all of our students to be successful,” Havener said. “We are telling our students that we are preparing them for college – we need to back that up.”


Many Kirkwood students already take the ACT and some take it multiple times, but Havener said that as many as 20 to 30 percent of students don’t take the test at all, for a variety of reasons, including cost.

“This would give all the students at least one opportunity to take it for free,” Havener said.
He said he hoped it would inspire some students to go on to college who might not otherwise have considered it. It also might give students confidence that they could score better on a subsequent test, he said.

Kirkwood is not a high poverty area in Missouri.  Here is  2010 Census information from Wikipedia:

As of the census of 2010, there were 27,324 people, 11,894 households, and 10,276 families residing in the city. The population density was 2,993.5 people per square mile. There were 12,895 housing units at an average density of 1,333.7 per square mile (514.8/km²). The racial makeup of the city was 89.4% White (88.2% Non-Hispanic White), 7.0% African American, 0.1% Native American, 1.4% Asian, 0.0% Pacific Islander, 0.4% from other races, and 1.6% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 1.8% of the population.


The median income for a household in the city was $70,261, and the median income for a family was $89,219. Males had a median income of $51,515 versus $36,235 for females. The per capita income for the city was $32,012. About 2.8% of families and 4.6% of the population were below the poverty line, including 6.1% of those under age 18 and 3.6% of those age 65 or over.


Why would the school administration with an area poverty level of 6.1% of those under age 18 living in Kirkwood offer to provide ACT testing for ALL high school juniors at an additional cost of $17,000 to the taxpayers?  The district has just implemented "free" all day kindergarten (half day was paid for and mandated, full day was not funded nor mandated) for ALL residents, regardless if they were above that 6.1% poverty level.  This will cost the district $850,000 to implement the program with continuing costs every year. The superintendent explained in an informational meeting with citizens this was an issue of "educational equity".  Regardless if a family could pay the way for their child to attend kindergarten, it was incumbent on the taxpayers to foot the bill for this unmandated program.  I suppose "educational equity" for kindergartners should be expanded to "educational equity" for high school juniors.  Has the district considered:

• Not all students WANT to go to college. 
• Not all students SHOULD go to college.  
• Not all students ARE READY to go to college. 

Why should the taxpayers foot yet another wealth redistribution program for students whose parents can well afford the $34.00 for the test?  Why should the taxpayers pay for a test some students have no desire to take?
  

If the administration wants ALL students to take the test and it is a financial problem for some students, then maybe the PTOs or the Kirkwood Foundation (a private fund raising group supported by citizens in the district), could raise funding for those students  unable to afford the test.  To burden taxpayers with a cost for test taking because it is "educational equity" is poor financial planning especially as the tax base is shrinking.    Kirkwood School District funding: 

• 92.60% local, county and Prop C monies
• 5.10% state funds 
• 2.30% Federal funds

 KSD relies heavily on local taxes for its operating budget.  The school spends $12,200 per student, well above the average Missouri per pupil expenditure of $9,619.13. If the district is determined to provide this test for all high school juniors, it could review its expenditures in education and see if it can eke out $34.00 per pupil from this $12,200 per pupil yearly figure to accomplish its goal.


If this plan goes to the School Board for a vote, the voters must ask the existing School Board members and the candidates running for election in April their thoughts on this proposed expenditure.  The voters should also ask this administration if applications to colleges (as in Washington DC) should be considered "education equity" as well and if that's the next "free" offer from Kirkwood School District.

Does Actually Getting It Right Even Matter Any More?

Character education has focused on building a student's self esteem, primarily by never criticizing or even critiquing what they do. Everything is good.  Just making the effort is good. Actual success in what they are doing is secondary.  We have raised a generation of kids who think everything they do, no matter how lame, trite, cliched or even inaccurate is good.  They have little or no experience with someone pointing out these flaws because the system graded them with a happy purple pen and extended them multiple tries to "get it right" in a skewed view that this was education. We are now seeing the quality of what this generation produces.  I think we need to bring back the red pen.

The movie "American Teacher" is making the rounds in many cities, usually for a one night showing. The movie is about The Equity Project, TEP, a charter school which pays teachers $125,000 a year plus up to $25,000 in bonuses. TEP's  goal is to improve education by bringing dignity and respect back to the teaching profession by paying top dollar for top teachers. It claims this is done through the normal pupil funding process. As with most education reform, the icing on top sounds great. 

The movie was cheered by the NEA and AFT which should raise some concerns. Its tour is being sponsored by Bill Gates which should raise even more.

A writer for Great Schools America went to such a showing in Portland OR and was amazed by the story and facts presented in the movie. She was so amazed that she just had to find out if it could possibly be true. Alas, it was not.

1. IRS returns do not list one person as being paid more than $100,000. Since paying teachers $125,000 is the primary tenet of the school and the movie, this is either a major oversight or something more nefarious. Teachers agree to work other jobs and forgo benefits to earn the higher salary. So, why would the school make extraordinary claims and then forget to report compensation on its tax return? And, why if teachers are giving up benefits, does the school list over $90,000 in employee benefits

2. TEP claims to enroll 480 students on its tax return, 2009-2010. The New York City Report Card sets that number at 125. Perhaps TEP intends to grow the school to 480 at some later date, but the IRS likes facts not aspirations. In its first year, 2009, The Equity Project Charter School enrolled 125 fifth-grade students.

3. The school is funded by more than the government per pupil expenditure. Both the annual report and tax returns state clearly that the school receives over a million dollars in local, state, and federal grants, and generous private contributions and loans in addition to the annual per pupil expenditure. According to the TEP’s web site, the school is seeking investors"

There seems to be much more that is wrong with the message portrayed in the movie which, given the ease of verifying such facts, you would think its three writers, Ninive Calegari, Daniel Moulthrop, and Dave Eggers, would have corrected. For instance, though the movie didn't specifically claim TEP was doing a phenomenal job with actual teaching, improved student performance was implied.  However,

According to the Annual School Report Card (Accountability and Overview Report 2009-2010, p. 13), only 24% of [TEP] students tested proficient in language arts and 37% tested proficient in math. It seems that paying teachers much higher salaries does not buy an excellent education.

The movie makers didn't present either actual salary figures or test scores and I question whether it is simple marketing strategy that encouraged them to weave such an inaccurate tale or whether it is the message we are feeding everyone today.

We live in an age when we can combine technology, which has capacity to deliver a message to a very wide audience, with the message "you can change the world." The bar is set very high. Don't just clean up your area.  Change the whole world. That's a lot of pressure. However, the ability to reach so many people doesn't mean that you will or, that your message will be openly welcomed. We have been trying to fundamentally change the situation in Afghanistan for four decades, with all our military might and buckets of money, and have not succeeded. But our children are taught  that the simple act of recycling in their school could magically make the whole world recycle. "It all starts with one person" they are told. While there is usually someone who had the original idea, such global change rarely occurs overnight through the simple action of a few. Our media presents the Occupy Wall Street movement was the act of a few simple students, when infact there are recordings of power brokers planning the effort over a year before it started. 

So are factually flawed movies like "American Teacher" the product of people who don't think it is necessary to get the facts straight?  Who think that their inaccuracies are only purple pen worthy, not red pen?  Has the message "you can change the world" been so heavily drilled into them that they will do anything to avoid the failure of not changing the world including overstating or outright lying about their case? Everyone wants to be the person who came up with the one magic bullet that addresses all our educational woes.  Their drive to change the world overrides their desire to look at the problem objectively and realize that the solutions are many and the only magic key is to have access to the many possible solutions to find the one that best fits your situation.

Character education would serve us all better if it would start with teaching that truth is the ultimate goal and at the very heart of character.  Self esteem is not the cause of an easy life, it is a reward earned by facing difficult realities and learning you are strong enough to handle them. And the first world you are going to change is your very own, which is very small - maybe just your room - and just changing that world is a good thing in itself.

 Read the full story of American Teachers on Great Schools For America http://greatschoolsforamerica.org/wordpress/?p=900

The Global Agenda in America and the Players Setting the Educational Agenda for your Human Capital

When I turn on my computer every morning, I wonder what information I will find today relating to education or other matters.  When we first started the blog a couple of years ago, there wasn't much on the common core standards, longitudinal data system, etc.  But as the information spigot has been turned on from federal agencies, educational websites, global sites, news organizations and blogs, it's becoming easier and easier to connect the dots.

The dots in all areas of life (energy, financial, education, social, health systems, etc.) are interconnected to the globalization of services and resources.  We've written about the increasing federal agency (Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, EPA) involvement into education and the move to data track your child (and the family) from the child's birth to the workplace.  The ultimate goal is not for educating the child for academic learning so he/she can determine his/her best path in life,  the goal for education is to supply the workforce.

Education is not in the interest of the individual, rather it is for the collective good.  Did you catch Arne Duncan's statements while speaking in Florida on workforce development and education?

 Arne Duncan said that TCC's Center for Workforce Development is doing an excellent job training individuals to meet specific needs of local employers.

Education has morphed into training for businesses, rather than for the academic discipline and investigation needed for students to become their own employers and entrepreneurs. Education has become the avenue to fill an existing need for the existing employers.  This collective good goes far beyond the borders of each state; the collective good encompasses the globe and America has become a willing participant.


Look at the dots contained in this site, The Network of Global Agendas Council (it will be easier to read the screen shots when you link directly into the site) developed for the World Economic Forum

From Wikipedia:

The World Education Forum is a premium body comprising representatives of major organisations involved in education and related activities across the world. Major organisations involved in the forum include: UNESCO, and the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank. The World Education Forum also involves representatives from governments and education departments across the world. The World Education Forum (Dakar, Senegal, April 2000) adopted the Dakar Framework for Action reaffirming the commitment to achieving Education for All by the year 2015 and entrusted UNESCO with the overall responsibility of co-ordinating and significant international players in this work. 


Take time to click on this highly interactive web of connected agendas.  Check to determine who is on what council.  Wendy Kopp of Teach for America is on the Education Systems council...maybe she can be labelled as "Teach for the World".  See how education is so much more than reading, writing and arithmetic.  It's now connected to genetics, health and well being, water security and other global concerns.

Note that very few of the council members on Education systems are actually educators.  The majority of them are connected to international business or political organizations.

 

Study these elite players and understand they are setting the script in "nudging" America and other countries into the global common goal of education: to data mine human capital for the good of the collective.  Whatever you do, however, do not click on "learn more about this issue" listed on the Education Systems site.  You will receive this warning:

What an appropriate warning!  Why should we trust these elitists to shape our educational system?  When did we elect international players to direct American educational goals?  Why are our common core standards "internationally" benchmarked?  Why will data on our children be shared with foreign entities for "research" purposes?

  Oh, how I wish if we did click "Get Me Out of Here" we could truly exit from this nightmare of losing the right to educate our children as spelled out in the Constitution.  All the ruckus about teacher pay, charter schools, tax credits, tenure, etc really pales in comparison when compared to the ultimate goal of education: globalization in the education of human capital.  I sure hope you like the curriculum the elitists provide....that we are paying for.