Real Time Web Analytics

Schools Fight Against 5-Year-Olds Using ‘Sexist’ Language

Victor Skinner

EAG News

LONDON, England – Teachers across England are expected to take lessons on gender bias to the next level by chastising students as young as 5 years old for using “sexist” language in school.

The Institute of Physics, an international organization based in London, issued a series of recommendations for the country’s schools to fight gender stereotypes, and encourage students to study subjects that are more popular for the opposite sex, SchoolsWeek reports.

The report, titled “Opening Doors: A guide to good practice in countering gender stereotyping in schools,” comes with nine recommendations for school leaders to challenge sexism in schools and in conversations between students as well as in teacher-student interactions.

The initiatives come from feedback at 10 secondary schools in southern England that participated in a pilot project that examined sex bias in the classroom.

“Students were … sensitive to casual comments made by teachers, which, while not consciously sexist, often reinforced gender prejudices,” according to the report, which was funded by the government’s Equalities Office.

“Some schools, mindful of bad behavior from boys, had policies of alternate boy-girl seating, effectively using the girls as buffers to keep the boys apart,” the report notes. “In general, the girls noticed and resented this policy.”

The report goes on to note students were “particularly sensitive” to subtle gender bias from teachers.

“Both girls and boys routinely felt that bad behavior is tolerated more for girls than for boys, whereas for violations of the dress code it was the other way around,” according to the report, which also took issue with teachers who encourage boys to pursue STEM subjects and girls to take on ‘female’ subjects like English and psychology.

But the more controversial aspect of the report deal with language, and focused on banning ‘sexist’ comments from both teachers and students.

“We have always had clear policies on racist language but now we are making it clear to staff that any kind of sexist language is not acceptable,” Janice Callow, deputy head of one of the pilot schools, Fairfields High School, told the Sunday Times.

“We used to say ‘Man up, cupcake.’ We’ve stopped that,” she said. “Saying ‘Don’t be a girl’ to a boy if they are being a bit wet is also unacceptable. Language is a very powerful tool. You have to be so conscious of what you are saying to children.”

The report also highlighted other types of comments that should no longer be considered appropriate, such as calling boys “sissies,” telling girls to “go make a sandwich,” or calling girls who study “male” subjects “lesbians,” the Telegraph reports.

Eliminating the “sexist” comments from public school discourse is critical to eliminating the gender divide in certain subjects, officials said, which they believe is tied directly to a pay gap that results in women in England earning about 19 cents less per hour than men.

“As a government, we are committed to doing everything we can to help women feel empowered so that no career is seen as off limits,” a government spokesperson told Schools Week.

“That’s why we’re prioritizing work to get more girls into careers into Science, Technology and Engineering subjects – to help bridge a gap in our future economy and get them on the path to some of the highest paid careers.

“While we support the work that IOP has put into this guide and the advice it offers to help get more girls into STEM, we trust schools to know what’s best for their pupils and to adopt the approaches that work for them.”

Common Core and The Corporate Agenda

Nathan Laurenson




This past Monday  a couple friends and myself attended a meeting in our area dealing with common core. At the meeting had state representatives and board members of our state school board members of Louisiana. It was an open mic meeting where parents and educators had the opportunity to express their concerns with common core and could ask questions about what Louisiana could do to remove ourselves from this atrocity that is plaguing not only our children but the parents of these kids. A couple of things that took from this meeting was the passion from everyone who got up and spoke, not only parents but educator after educator with degree after degree laying out the agenda by these corporations who are profiting in the dumbing down of our children.

Another microcosm of todays society that I noticed was the number of parents with handicapped children, it was truly astonishing and to be honest tears my guts up. Autism used to be 1 and 10,000 now its about 1 and 50. With these numbers you can’t convince me its not from all the vaccines and the poison they feed us which they claim is food. The reason I bring this up I will correlate later in article. Every parent that spoke told a story of doing homework until 9 and 10 o’clock and many on verge of having depressed kids who where seeking help from councilors.

During the meeting parents where extremely educated on who the players are and what corporations are gaining from the common core agenda. One company that kept being brought up was Pearson education. Pearson is a Libyan based company that owns the standardized testing and are buying up most of the companies dealing with publishing of the material. But here is the kicker for me Pearson bought up the company that administers the ADHD testing. What planet are we on? We have a foreign Libyan company that controls what are children are learning and they know the stress the kids are under with these tests so they buy the ADHD testing company because many parents will either put or allow a councilor to suggest being tested for ADHD or other neurological ailments that you can not test for. This is A diabolical and criminal act against our children.

In George Orwell’s book 1984 they say 2 plus 2 is five, the ability to say 2 plus 2 equals 4 is a revolutionary act. Common core is a an agenda to push our kids into globalization, so all of the kids on the planet will think and act the same so they will be good little slaves who owe their soul to the company store. Common Core is truly ROTTEN TO THE CORE.





Pearson’s Buys ADHD Testing Co

Bobby Jindal announces plans to get Louisiana out of Common Core






Gov. Bobby Jindal announced his plans Wednesday (June 18) to try and roll back Louisiana and the nation’s largest educational change in a generation: the Common Core academic standards and a related standardized test.

The Louisiana Legislature, the state school board and almost all other high-ranking state education officials have indicated they want to stick with Common Core. Still, Jindal called on them to come up with “Louisiana standards and a Louisiana test” to replace current academic standards.

“We want them out of our state. We want out of Common Core,” said Jindal.

The governor did acknowledge he can’t scrap Common Core by himself entirely. Jindal may have the ability to block a Common Core standardized test the state had planned to use next year, but he can’t ditch the academic standards totally without the support of the Louisiana Legislature or the state school board.

Still, getting rid of the Common Core test Louisiana planned to use is key, according to the governor. “Common Core is, to my mind, defined by the test,” he said.

The governor said the current agreement Louisiana has entered into with a Common Core test developer — called the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) — doesn’t comply with state law. The arrangement calls for the state to enter into a contract for the PARCC test, without going through a competitive bid process.

“PARCC is, at least anecdotally, more expensive than many of the other tests offered out there,” said Jindal, who explained the state is supposed to pick the cheapest testing contract that is acceptable.

The governor also expects state lawmakers to push for new Louisiana-based academic standards to replace Common Core in 2015, though legislators refused to do so during their session that concluded just two weeks ago.

“The Legislature, when they are in session, needs to tell [the state school board] to develop Louisiana standards and a Louisiana test,” said Jindal.

Story by
Julia O’Donoghue
and Danielle Dreilinger
Staff writers

State Education Superintendent John White, a Common Core supporter, has said it is likely the fight over the academic standards will end up in court. He and state school board president Chas Roemer have said they don’t think the governor has the authority to unilaterally scrap Common Core in Louisiana without their consent.

Common Core lays out what students are supposed to learn each year in mathematics and English. Most states adopted the standards, and Jindal was considered a staunch supporter when Louisiana signed on four years ago. The Pelican State’s public and Roman Catholic schools began teaching to Common Core in the academic year that just ended. Next year, third through eighth graders are slated to take new Common Core tests developed by a multi-state consortium, the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers.

Read the governor’s letter to PARCC and his executive order.

But last year, a national conservative uproar began to grow, saying the standards, which were developed by a multi-state consortium, represented federal intrusion into state affairs. This spring, Jindal joined the chorus. In March, he started publicly issuing statements indicating he had reversed his position on Common Core, a surprise to White, Roemer and many of the governor’s other close allies on state education policy.

Several weeks of escalating rhetoric resulted in Wednesday’s announcement.

“The federal government would like to assert control of our educational system,” Jindal said, explaining his actions. “We’re very alarmed about choice and local control of curriculum being taken away.”

Louisiana students have long scored at the bottom of the U.S. on tests, and the nation’s results among other countries are mediocre.

Jindal said he remained committed to improving education. “We can have rigor. We can have high standards in Louisiana,” he said. “We can do it without the federal overreach.”

In a case of strange bedfellows, teachers union officials — who have fought Jindal on a number of education policy matters — offered praise for the governor’s decision.

“It obvious to anyone paying attention that PARCC and Common Core have become toxic,” said Les Landon, head of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers. “Frankly, I think the governor did the right thing.”

A number of states have seen efforts to move away from the educational benchmarks as Common Core opposition grew, and three have signed off: Indiana, Oklahoma and South Carolina.

But Jindal is in a different position than the other governors who have recently moved to get their states out of Common Core and related assessments. In the three states that have scrapped the academic standards, governors had the support of the legislature to get rid of Common Core. In fact, Okla. Gov. Mary Fallin had supported the standards and signed the legislature’s bill only reluctantly.

And most states that have moved away from a Common Core test have done so because of actions taken by a state school board or superintendent. Jindal is the only governor who has acted without the support of other lawmakers to get out of Common Core so far.

Implementing the Common Core: A Look at Curriculum

Tom Loveless

Most analysts agree that the success or failure of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) hinges on implementation. But the term has been ambiguous. Advocates of CCSS talk about aligned curriculum, instructional shifts, challenging assessments that test critical thinking, and rigorous accountability systems that produce an accurate appraisal of whether students are on track to be college- or career-ready by the time they graduate from high school. These descriptions are unsatisfying. Heavy with flattering adjectives, they echo the confidence proponents have that CCSS will improve several important aspects of schooling. But such confidence may be misplaced; for example, decades—if not centuries—of effort have been devoted to the perfection of instruction. Moreover, when CCSS’s advocates talk about implementation, it seems to mean every important activity in education outside of adopting standards. By meaning almost everything, it means nothing.

This Chalkboard post begins a series on implementation of the CCSS, with an examination of curriculum as an aspect of implementation. Future posts will look at instruction, assessment, and accountability. I start with a framework for thinking about implementation. This conceptual framework will guide the current analysis as well as future posts. I will mostly discuss CCSS’s mathematics standards, primarily because I know more about them than the ELA standards, but also because the skills and knowledge expressed in math standards have a clarity that ELA standards lack. That said, I will bring ELA standards—and standards in other subjects that CCSS does not yet encompass—into the discussion when appropriate. I will also draw on the public policy literature on implementation. The goal is to discuss the implementation of CCSS analytically.

A Framework for Thinking about Implementation

In the field of policy analysis, the classic text on implementation is Jeffrey Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky’s Implementation, published in 1973. The book’s 45-word subtitle—surely one of the longest for such an influential text—begins with the clause, “How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland.” The book describes the saga of a federal redevelopment program in Oakland, California. The program’s designers started out with ample resources, broad political support, and the cooperation of all major federal, state, and local stakeholders, including powerful people in both government and the private sector. The path to successful implementation looked like a slam dunk. And yet the program failed.

What happened? The details of the program’s failure are not important here. But two big ideas that Pressman and Wildavsky highlight are generalizable to a lot of other policies, including the Common Core. Implementation involves step-by-step encounters with what Pressman and Wildavsky call “decision points,” a sequence of hurdles for the policy or program to clear. In the case of a program involving several layers of government, these decision points not only mean that the support of state and local officials must be held over time, but also that officials must make good decisions when exercising discretionary authority on the program’s behalf. Think of a child lining up several dozen dominoes, with the goal of pushing over the first domino in order to topple them all. If a single domino doesn’t do its job, the last domino will not fall. Every decision point in the implementation process exposes nascent programs to possible failure.

Policy makers are wildly optimistic about implementing new programs. Pressman and Wildavsky offer a mathematical insight into why this is so. Consider an implementation path in which the probability of negotiating any single decision point is quite high—say, 95 percent. A casual preview of implementation may lead one to conclude that since clearing points A, B, and C is easy, implementation will be easy. Such reasoning overlooks the reality that the probability of success shrinks as the number of decision points increases. With three decision points, the odds fall to about 86 percent (.95 x .95 x .95). It takes 14 decision points for the odds to drop below 50 percent. Then failure is more likely than success.

Implementing Common Core

A key assumption of Pressman and Wildavsky’s conceptual scheme is that implementation decision points are organized vertically, down through levels of government. There is also a certain amount of sequential dependence, as the domino analogy above implies. That may be true for a redevelopment program, but it’s not always true in education. I doubt that it’s true for Common Core. Education consists of loosely coupled organizational units (states, districts, schools, classes). Failure at one level may not be fatal to another. There can be good classes in bad schools, for example, good schools in bad districts, and so on. States or districts might bungle the CCSS, but savvy districts and schools could still rescue the standards and use them effectively.

Nevertheless, the vertical structure is useful for modeling how CCSS implementation will unfold. It is also useful for anticipating political opposition that the CCSS may encounter. Terry Moe has written extensively on the politics of “blocking.” When advocates of a particular education policy are victorious in the legislative arena, they have only won a battle, not a war. Opponents will show up again and again during implementation—in schools, or before school boards, or in other local forums—to continue the battle.

So let’s map the major points of vulnerability for the Common Core’s implementation. The project functions at the national, state, district, school, and classroom levels. At each of the five levels, decisions have been made or will be made regarding Common Core. The four crucial components of CCSS’s implementation—curriculum, instruction, assessment, and accountability—combine with the levels of decision making to create a minimum of twenty decision points. Imagine a 4 X 5 table with empty cells for the decision points. Future historians, by filling in the blank cells of the table, will tell the story of CCSS’s implementation.

Cells may comprise multiple decision points. In terms of curriculum, for example, twenty states have state textbook adoption, in which state boards and departments of education select the curricular materials that public schools may purchase. The other thirty states leave that decision up to districts, but typically provide funding for purchasing materials. Currently, states and districts are selecting math programs to reflect the CCSS, offering programs to train educators on how to use the new curricula, and purchasing new materials that are beginning to appear in schools and classrooms.

Note that the whole implementation process is bottom-heavy, leading ultimately to activities in the nation’s 98,817 public schools and in the classrooms within them. Historically, curriculum controversies reach their greatest intensity when curricular materials are introduced in classrooms. That is happening now with the Common Core. Common Core won the support of elites and cleared most upper-level decision points—all but a few states are on board with CCSS. Those high-level decisions are no longer the main events in CCSS’s implementation.

The emergence of social media as a tool for mobilizing political action has undoubtedly enhanced the power of actors at the lower-level decision points to sway implementation. Forty or fifty years ago, difficulties implementing a math program in a small rural district probably would not receive much notice. In the 1960s and 1970s, the failure of “new math” wasn’t apparent for several years, until surveys revealed teachers were not using the new curricula. During the last curriculum controversy in mathematics—the math wars of the 1990s—the internet was just beginning to be used for organizing people politically. Curriculum aligned with the 1989 standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics was the source of the conflict. The website “Mathematically Correct” fostered a national network of opposition by tabulating local efforts to drive NCTM-oriented math programs out of the schools.

Today, a number of grass roots organizations have sprung up to fight against CCSS. Poorly designed math problems are widely circulated on Twitter and criticized by bloggers. I will discuss this phenomenon in greater depth in my June Chalkboard post, but suffice it for now to say that these attacks on Common Core, whether justified or not, illustrate the vulnerability of CCSS curriculum as implementation unfolds and the number of decision points multiply.

Lack of Evidence to Guide Curriculum Decisions

Shouldn’t we expect local educators to make good decisions when choosing curriculum that is compatible with the Common Core? As my colleagues Matt Chingos and Russ Whitehurst have documented, educators have very little evidence to go on when selecting curriculum. Evidence of effectiveness is in short supply. One of the rare randomized control trials of elementary math curricula was conducted by Mathematica. The study followed students through grades 1 and 2. Four math programs were evaluated, and although limiting the study to first and second grade curricula ensured that many common topics were covered, one of the programs produced very different results. Students in three of the programs (Math Expressions, Saxon, and Scott Foresman/Addison Wesley/envision) scored about the same, but all three outscored the fourth program (Investigations) by a statistically significant amount (effect size of about 0.22). A student at the 50th percentile who received instruction in Investigations in first and second grade would have scored at the 59th percentile if taught from one of the other programs.

What do educators go by if they can’t select on effectiveness? One popular approach is to go by alignment—how well math programs match up with the topics in the CCSS. This is a poor substitute for evidence of effectiveness. A well-aligned program means it covers the topics and objectives that CCSS lists for a particular grade level—it does not mean that the program covers them well. Some programs may cover Topic A well and students will learn because of that. Other programs may cover Topic A poorly and students will not learn. Both programs are aligned with Topic A.

Summary and Conclusion

Let’s conclude by returning to the question of defining implementation. What does the implementation of CCSS mean? I have drawn on and modified Pressman and Wildavsky’s implementation model to suggest a definition: the decisions that educators make—at national, state, district, school, and classroom levels—to realize the curriculum, instruction, assessment, and accountability systems of the Common Core. The CCSS implementation process will involve several decision points, with each one leaving the CCSS vulnerable to bad decisions by officials, who have scant evidence on which to act, and to the efforts of political opponents.

Common Core and UN Agenda 21: Mass Producing Green Global Serfs

Alex Newman
The New American


As the Obama administration, Bill Gates, the United Nations, and other forces seek to finalize the decades-old effort to nationalize — and even globalize — education by bribing and bludgeoning state governments to impose Common Core, one of the key agendas behind the deeply controversial standards has been largely overlooked. In essence, official UN documents and statements by top administration officials reveal a plan to transform American children, and students around the globe, into what globalists refer to as “global citizens” ready for the coming “green” and “sustainable” world order.

In recent years especially, UN reports and top world leaders have been openly boasting of their globalist plot to create a top-down, planned, and regimented society that is completely at odds with the U.S. Constitution, national sovereignty, individual liberty, God-given rights, Judeo-Christian values, and Western traditions. A major component of the scheme surrounds so-called “sustainability” and a radical UN program known as Agenda 21 encompassing virtually every facet of life. To prepare humanity for their vision, however, requires a new form of “education,” globalists admit. UNESCO calls it “Education for Sustainable Development.”

On its website, UNESCO, the self-styled global education agency, actually boasts of its plans. “The UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (2005-2014) seeks to mobilize the educational resources of the world to help create a more sustainable future,” the UN outfit explains. “Many paths to sustainability … exist and are mentioned in the 40 chapters of Agenda 21, the official document of the 1992 Earth Summit. Education is one of these paths. Education alone cannot achieve a more sustainable future; however, without education and learning for sustainable development, we will not be able to reach that goal.”

Before the term “sustainability” was in vogue, the late UN Deputy Secretary General Robert Muller, the architect of UNESCO’s “World Core Curriculum,” also offered some insight into the purpose of UN-led, globalized pseudo-education. The goals: “Assisting the child in becoming an integrated individual who can deal with personal experience while seeing himself as a part of ‘the greater whole.’ In other words, promote growth of the group idea, so that group good, group understanding, group interrelations and group goodwill replace all limited, self-centered objectives, leading to group consciousness.” Put another way, smash individualism and notions of individual rights, replacing them with collectivism.

Meanwhile, actually educating children in the traditional sense — teaching them reading, writing, critical thinking, math, real history, actual science, and more — is on its way out, as globalists openly admit in official documents and all across UN websites. In its place, UNESCO, Bill Gates, the Obama administration, and other powerful globalist forces are working quietly but fiendishly to impose global education standards on humanity. Among other schemes is a UN plot known as the “World Core Curriculum” that has been in the works for decades.

(For additional information on planetary efforts to standardize schooling, please see “UN, Obama, and Gates Are Globalizing Education Via Common Core.”)

So what will children learn in the “green” world order? In a 2010 speech at a “Sustainability Summit,” Obama Education Secretary Arne Duncan offered more than a few hints. Openly proclaiming the administration’s loyalty to the globalist UN “sustainability” agenda, Duncan boasts of how the U.S. government is foisting it all on American children via the Common Core national standards and a wide range of related federal and international programs.

In fact, he said, the U.S. Department of Education “is taking a leadership role in the work of educating the next generation of green citizens and preparing them to contribute to the workforce through green jobs.” Obama’s former “Green Jobs” Czar, Van Jones, of course, was eventually forced to resign after his own words exposed him as a self-described “communist.” The notion of a centrally planned, UN-directed “green” economy and “green” world order, however, never went anywhere. As Duncan makes clear, central planners will determine what jobs citizens will have, and central planners will train them accordingly.

Of course, the unconstitutional federal education bureaucracy is not alone in the plot to transform America’s youth, Duncan continued, pointing to numerous other U.S. agencies and departments that “have made important contributions linking education and sustainability.” In the United States, like the imposition of Common Core on state governments, Duncan explained that much of the federal effort to indoctrinate young Americans into the “sustainable development” agenda is being funded by the so-called “stimulus” plan.

At the global level, the World Bank, multiple UN agencies, Big Labor, Big Business, tax-funded so-called “non-governmental organizations,” and more are all involved in harmonizing and globalizing education as well. As Duncan made clear in a separate 2010 speech to UNESCO, the Obama administration is fully on board with the planetary schemes as well. “Our goal for the coming year will be to work closely with global partners, including UNESCO, to promote qualitative improvements and system-strengthening,” he said, quoting former South African President Nelson Mandela to add that education “is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.”

With the Obama administration as well as the nationalization and globalization of education via Common Core, domestic efforts will only intensify as well. “Historically, the Department of Education hasn’t been doing enough in the sustainability movement,” Duncan explained in his speech, omitting the fact that the federal government has been lawlessly pushing similar schemes to transform and undermine values on U.S. schools for decades now — under Republican and Democrat presidential administrations. “Today, I promise you that we will be a committed partner in the national effort to build a more environmentally literate and responsible society.”

The new “green” world order will be imposed using federal power over schools, Duncan re-iterated in the speech. “We must advance the sustainability movement through education,” he explained, perhaps unaware that the vast majority of parents send their children to school to be educated, not to advance the sustainability movement. “We at the Education Department are energized about joining these leaders in their commitment to preparing today’s students to participate in the green economy, and to be well-educated about the science of sustainability.”

The language may sound innocent enough to those who know little or nothing about what globalists mean when they refer to “sustainability” and the “green economy.” After all, taxpayers unwittingly spent many millions of dollars on “focus groups” and “market research” to help the schemers conceal the true agenda by identifying language and terms that the public would be most likely to embrace. But what exactly is it that Duncan, UNESCO, Common Core, and the Obama administration admit they are training your children to participate in?

In essence, according to UN documents and reports, the idea is to re-structure human civilization into a centrally planned global society under the control of international institutions such as the UN — all under the guise of “sustainable development.” In fact, they say so themselves in countless reports and documents; even though, ironically enough, central planning has always and everywhere produced environmental devastation in addition to human misery.

Official UN documents show, for example, that under the “green economy” banner, literally everything about human existence must dramatically change: Lifestyles, opinions, education, health, consumption, production, agriculture, diet, law, taxation, industry, governance, and much more. “Transitioning to a green economy requires a fundamental shift in the way we think and act,” explains a 2012 UN report entitled “Working towards a Balanced and Inclusive Green Economy.” A more recent UN report, developed with help from Obama policy architect John Podesta, noted that the “worldview and behavior” of every person on Earth must be “dramatically altered.”

On the other hand, national sovereignty, individual liberty, free markets, unalienable rights, traditional values, self-government, Biblical Christianity, and more must all be pushed aside. “But our commitment has to be about even more than career pathways,” explained U.S. Education boss Duncan, sounding like a Soviet commissar claiming that schools must “prepare workers” for jobs in the new green world order. “It also has to prepare all students with the knowledge they need to be green citizens.”

To that end, Duncan continued in his speech at the “Sustainability Summit,” the Obama administration is working to “build the science of sustainability into the curriculum, starting in kindergarten and extending until the students graduate from high school.” While the Common Core standards and related establishment schemes are solidifying that in the United States, the same phenomenon is taking place at break-neck speed around the world.

At the 2012 UN “Conference on Sustainable Development” in Rio, for instance — chaired by an anti-American Chinese Communist — virtually every national government on Earth committed to do what Duncan described in the countries they rule. “We therefore resolve to improve the capacity of our education systems to prepare people to pursue sustainable development, including through enhanced teacher training, the development of curricula around sustainability, the development of training programs that prepare students for careers in fields related to sustainability,” reads the text of the final agreement, dubbed “The Future We Want.” The “we,” of course, refers to the legions of bureaucrats, dictators, presidents, and mass-murderers at the UN sustainability summit — not the public.

Traditional and classical notions of education, however, have no place in the sustainable “green” world order. In a stunning admission posted directly on UNESCO’s website in a document about the agency’s “Education for Sustainable Development” machinations, the outfit makes that abundantly clear. “Generally, more highly educated people, who have higher incomes, consume more resources than poorly educated people, who tend to have lower incomes,” the UN “toolkit” for global “sustainable” education explains. “In this case, more education increases the threat to sustainability.”

Read that sentence again, and again: More education threatens their vision of “sustainability” (as do freedom, prosperity, humans, and more). Lest there be any doubt about the purpose of Common Core, the broader globalist vision for education, and the fact that it has been burrowing its way into U.S. schools for decades, consider a 1989 speech given to the federally funded National Governor’s Association — the unaccountable D.C.-based trade group that helped develop and impose Common Core on America — by a prominent player in the “reform” movement under contract with the U.S. Department of Education.

“What is happening in America today and what is happening to Kansas in the Great Plains is not simply a chance situation in the usual winds of change. What it amounts to is a total transformation of our society,” Dr. Shirley McCune, a senior official with a little-known education outfit involved in writing national standards, told the governors. “So we have to anticipate what the future is and then move back and figure out what it is we need to do today. That’s called anticipatory socialization or the social change function of schools.” Governors applauded.

Dr. McCune, who also worked with the National Education Association, the U.S. Department of Education, and more, was not shy about sharing the long-term agenda with the nation’s governors. “You have to understand the breadth of the task that’s before us,” she continued. “You cannot think about restructuring of education without understanding that our total society is in a crisis of restructuring and you can’t get away from it … what we are facing is a total restructuring of the society.”

Some two decades after that speech, following a long series of federal and international programs to pave the way, Common Core was officially born. It was developed by establishment forces infamous for openly advocating the nationalization of schooling, with funding from prominent globalists, and using federal bribes to foist it on states. So far, some 45 state governments have imposed the poor-quality national standards in exchange for “stimulus”-funded bribes and threats.

With the ongoing globalization of education under UN and Obama administration guidance, Americans are at a crossroads. One alternative is putting a stop to it all now, withdrawing from Common Core, rejecting unconstitutional federal bribes and mandates, and restoring proper education to promote a well-educated citizenry capable of critical thinking and maintaining liberty. The other option, as globalist voices have made clear, is a “green” economy — and everything that radical vision entails. Choose wisely.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

Related articles:

UN, Obama, and Gates Are Globalizing Education Via Common Core

Common Core: A Scheme to Rewrite Education

Orwellian Nightmare: Data-mining Your Kids

The Real Agenda Behind UN “Sustainability” Unmasked

UN Academic Impact Joins CFR to Infiltrate U.S. Classrooms

Debunking Myth of Common Core Education as “State Led” (Video)

Achievement of UNESCO’s Agenda Stalled by Loss of U.S. Funding

UNESCO’s Rotten Track Record

UN Plotting to “Dramatically Alter” Your Views and Behavior

UN Seeks New Powers to Remake World at Rio Sustainability Summit

UN Bosses Secretly Plot Global Govt Through “Green Economy” for Rio+20

Exposing the Green World Order

UN Plans $45 Trillion Cost for “Going Green”

Feds using Common Core to data mine students

World Net Daily

Leo Hohmann


The Obama administration, shortly after taking control of the federal bureaucracy, changed student privacy laws so that government can track their progress from “cradle to career,” monitoring everything from math and reading skills to values, opinions and attitudes.

More and more people don’t like that. And they are just saying “no” to the government.

It is the amount of student data being collected that ballooned under the new Common Core national education standards, fueled fears of abuse and sparked a growing backlash against the testing system used to scoop up highly personal information.

The “opt out” movement in which parents opt their children out of the standardized tests has spread in recent weeks from New York to Georgia to Alabama.

Some teachers have also started to buck the system. Just last week teachers at Prospect Heights International School in Brooklyn, NY, refused to administer a standardized test tied to Common Core.

The cost of resisting, however, can be steep.

Meg Norris was forced out of her job as a Hall County, Ga., teacher last year after she ran afoul of mandatory testing for Common Core.

“We were one of the first counties in the nation to implement Common Core, and at first the teachers felt like we were special, we were all excited. I drank the Kool-Aid,” said Norris. “But after teaching Common Core in my class for about 18 months, I started seeing a lot of behaviors in my students that I hadn’t seen before. They started becoming extremely frustrated and at that age, 12 years old, they can’t verbalize why they couldn’t ‘get it.’”

The frustration, she believes, came from Georgia’s adoption of a set of unproven educational standards and then constantly testing students against those standards. Some schools administer up to a dozen or more high-stakes tests in a single school year.

“I had some kids that were cutting themselves, some were crying, some would stab themselves in the legs with their pencils,” Norris said.

One of the complaints about Common Core standards voiced by Norris and other teachers is that they require pre-teens to learn abstract concepts their brains aren’t yet able to grasp.

One day a student came up to Norris and asked, “Do we have to take the test?”

“No, you don’t have to do anything your parents don’t want you to do,” Norris responded.

That was when the school district opened a secretive internal investigation on its wayward teacher and she resigned.

Will Estrada, director of federal relations for the Home School Legal Defense Association, said the assessments tied to Common Core collect more than 400 points of data on every child.

“It’s their likes and dislikes, grade-point average all the way through school, their home situation, health questions,” he said. “It’s an incredibly invasive collection of information that they are trying to collect in what they call P-20, or pre-K through workforce.”

The idea behind opting out is to “starve the beast,” a reference to the corporations and nonprofits that feed on the $8 billion student assessment industry. They analyze the test data, come up with recommendations on how to “remediate” the students’ weaknesses, then sell that information back to the school districts at a profit.

This type of student data mining by private contractors was made possible only after the Obama administration moved unilaterally to dilute privacy restrictions in the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. The new rules took effect in January 2012 without congressional approval.

Even before FERPA rules were weakened, some in Congress had concerns about the U.S. Department of Education’s “cradle to career education agenda,” as DOE Secretary Arne Duncan described the president’s plan.

Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, sent a February 2010 letter to Duncan saying the department’s efforts to “shepherd the states toward the creation of a de facto national student database raises serious legal and prudential questions. Congress has never authorized the Department of Education to facilitate the creation of a national student database. To the contrary, Congress explicitly prohibited the ‘development of a nationwide database of personally identifiable information’ under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and barred the ‘development, implementation or maintenance of a federal database of personally identifiable information …including a unit record system, an education bar-code system or any other system that tracks individual students over time.’”

Fordham University Law School’s Center on Law and Information Privacy published a study in late 2009 warning that private student data was at risk and that many school systems across the U.S. were not following the rules under FERPA, basically ignoring key protections of the nation’s school children.

Fordham found that sensitive, personalized information related to matters such as teen pregnancies, mental health, family wealth indicators and juvenile crime is stored in a manner that violates federal privacy mandates.

Some states outsource the data processing without any restrictions on use or confidentiality for K-12 children’s information, the Fordham study found. Access to this information and the disclosure of personal data may occur for decades and follow children well into their adult lives.

Catastrophic results

“If these issues are not addressed, the results could be catastrophic from a privacy perspective,” warned Joel Reidenberg, a professor at Fordham Law School. He urged Congress and state officials to take “rapid steps to ensure the data is collected and stored properly and used in compliance with established privacy laws and principles.”

Two years later, instead of heeding those warnings, the U.S. Department of Education went in the opposite direction and watered down the FERPA protections with respect to releasing data to third-party private contractors.

The Obama administration also required all states receiving federal Race to the Top funds to put in place longitudinal databases capable of tracking students’ progress over time. These databases are designed to be “interoperable,” essentially creating a uniform data chain across the 50 states.

Defeating a monster of this size and scope would seem daunting.

But one education activist with some experience in this area says it’s a battle worth fighting.

Anita Hoge filed a federal complaint against the state of Pennsylvania under the Protection of Pupils Rights Amendment in the early 1990s over that state’s invasive Educational Quality Assessment. She believes that project was a model for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, that illegally measured attitudes, values, opinions, and dispositions on tests without informed parental consent. Her successful lawsuit dealt a blow to the plans for a universal data tracking system that follows every student from pre-K through college and into their careers.

Twenty years later, Hoge sees Common Core as the centerpiece of a renewed effort to implement a testing system that again seeks to identify values and dispositions in students.

“Opting out is really the key,” said Hoge, now an education consultant and expert on student assessments. “Everything depends on the data. You start with data collection at the local level and that is your weakest link. That drives the whole thing. From there you score it, you analyze it, you can cross-reference it with census data and you can identify the individual student and the individual teacher, the curriculum, the interventions. You can now make a decision as to why scores are not up to par. Is it the teacher not teaching to the test? That’s why teachers are so upset.”

Hoge believes Common Core is to education what Obamare is to healthcare.

“It’s exactly like the individual mandate in Obamacare. Common Core is the federal mandate in education,” she said. “Before, you had federal aggregates for schools and school districts but not individual students and teachers being tracked.”

Common Core mandates that each child must meet certain standards at each grade level.

That would be great if every child was the same, Hoge says.

“It’s creating the same standard for every student. It’s taken the bell curve and made it flat. So what happens next? To make sure everyone is meeting the same standards you eliminate grades, you eliminate timeframes, you dumb down the tests. You force everyone to be average.

“The reason all the parents and teachers are so upset is because this is the massive socialist system coming down on them, grading them, not on how well they teach but on things that are outside of their control.”

But testing a student’s grasp of reading, writing and arithmetic is only part of the plan that the education bureaucracy has for your child.

Attitudes and values

Testing for “attitudes and values” is something many parents are not even aware is going on in their schools.

How does the state “assess” a student’s honesty or integrity?

Common Core provides the answer with its “Grit” program.

Citing “changing workforce needs,” a U.S. Department of Education draft document from February 2013 titled “Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21st Century” calls for public schools to cultivate “non-cognitive factors” in students, including “attributes, dispositions, social skills, attitudes” that are “independent of intellectual ability.”

The “Grit” perspective was included in the Common Core standards in 2013 and represents a “shift in educational priorities to promote not only content knowledge but also grit, tenacity and perseverance,” according to the DOE document.

“This brief explores the possibility that grit, tenacity, and perseverance can be malleable and teachable,” the summary of the document concludes.

“What they are doing is building a total psychological profile,” Hoge said. Any “weaknesses” in a child’s attitudes or values could then be targeted for “remediation.”

The only thing lacking then was a way to standardize the system and make sure teachers addressed various problem areas. Sufficient data was also lacking to drill down to the individual level of each teacher and student.

“That’s why Common Core had to be standardized across the 50 states,” Hoge said. “They had to translate and link the data so they were able to compare one school to another, one student to another, one teacher to another. So now we’re saying ‘stop the data collection.’”

If America’s schools are moving toward testing attitudes, values and opinions of its students, the obvious question Hoge and others are asking is, who will be the final authority in judging such subjective qualities in people? What are the guarantees the data won’t end up in the wrong hands?

“How much honesty is too much or not enough?” asks Hoge. “If these attitudes and values are found to be deficient, how are you going to remediate that? Who is the final authority? The parent or the state?”

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former senior policy adviser with the U.S. Department of Education under President Ronald Reagan, thinks she knows the answer to those questions.

Iserbyt sees Common Core as just the latest in a long line of programs put forth over the decades by globalist elites intent on transforming America from a free-market to a socialist system. Schools have always been the preferred tool of implementation for such changes, she said.

‘Evil’ Common Core

“As evil as Common Core is, it’s a diversion,” said Iserbyt, author of several books including “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America” and “Back to Basics Reform.”

The real genie in the bottle, she says, is the takeover of education by corporations pushing “school choice,” a very seductive concept to conservatives who have soured on traditional public education. But the schools would still be funded by tax dollars. The main difference, she said, would be that locally elected school boards would be shut down or stripped of any meaningful authority.

Iserbyt believes the burgeoning charter-school movement is being readied to create a pipeline of “school-to-work” graduates that fulfills the needs of corporations but does little to encourage real education.

It was called “mastery learning” in the 1960s and 70s and that morphed into “outcome-based education” in the 1980s and 90s with assessments to measure the outcomes.

Now the final building block has been introduced – Common Core. Unlike previous standards, teachers cannot ignore Common Core. They must comply because their evaluations are being tied directly to their students’ performance on the Common Core tests. If they weren’t teaching to the test before, they are now, Iserbyt said.

The Soviet and Chinese systems use the same model, Iserbyt said. The vast majority of children get “trained” for specific “outcomes” while traditional education is reserved for the top 10 percent of elite students. The global drive toward school-to-work, outcome-based training comes packaged with the full backing of the United Nations Educational and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and tax-exempt foundations funded by the Carnegie, Gates and Rockefeller families.

David Hornbeck, former chairman of the Carnegie Corporation, is one of the leading change agents” working in this realm. He described students as “human capital” to be trained for their appropriate place in the global economy in a 1993 book he edited under the title “Human Capital for America’s Future.”

“Community education is the plan, womb to tomb,” Iserbyt said. “Is it the value of the child that matters? No, it’s the value of that person to the state. You can train an animal, but only the human has the unique ability to be educated.”

Iserbyt traces the school-based plan to transform America from a capitalist to a socialist country to a little-known document funded by the Carnegie Corporation in 1934 called “Conclusions and Recommendations of the Commission on the Social Studies in Schools.”

On pages 16 and 17 of that book, the authors state:

“Under the moulding influence of socialized processes of living, drives of technology and
science, pressures of changing thought and policy, and disrupting impacts of economic disaster,
there is a notable waning of the once widespread popular faith in economic individualism; and
leaders in public affairs, supported by a growing mass of the population, are demanding the introduction into economy of ever-wider measures of planning and control.”

It goes on to say that “evidence supports the conclusion that, in the United States as in other countries, the age of individualism and laissez faire in economy and government is closing and that a new age of collectivism is emerging.”

The book predicts that individual economic actions and individual property rights “will be altered and abridged.”

Opting out gaining steam

“What we’re ending up with is their plan from 1934; it is going in place now. Everything is Carnegie,” Iserbyt said.

But if “opt out” and other grassroots movements continue to gain steam, then it’s not too late to save America’s education system from the central planners, she said.

Parents who resist or push back will face many challenges as the system tries to force its will upon them.

“Resisters have to be dealt with,” Iserbyt said. “I think they’re really upset because there’s a lot of opposition out there, but they’re clever. They could take our opposition and then pretend that they’re giving us something, maybe you can opt out but then you’ll have to let your child do a locally controlled assessment. Because how are they going to remediate for the work force, for the training, if they don’t have this data? This is a huge performance-based system, a global system. They have to have the data if they want the planned economy.”

Most states have laws demanding that all students take part in standardized assessments.

In Georgia, those who fail the test or refuse to take it are entitled to a hearing among the child’s teachers and principal, which will then vote on whether to pass the student to the next grade.

“Of course the parents often aren’t told they have the right to appeal,” Norris said.

The opt out groups are active and organized. They use Facebook to form groups that offer support and vital information on parental rights.

Norris posted May 3 on the Facebook page Opt Out Georgia: “The Georgia testing window is closed! Wow! What a ride! Parents, we will keep moving forward, ready to refuse retests, and helping prepare anyone with an appeals hearing. Next year we go full force on the refusal train. We are here, we are fighting, and we are legion.”

Reactions to the test refusals varied. Some parents were politely threatened with retention of their children, others were told they had a right to appeal. Some New York students who refused the test were reportedly required to “sit and stare” into a corner.

One school in Marietta, Ga., arranged for an opt-out parent to be met at the school by a police officer, who warned them they would be considered trespassers if their children did not take the test and escorted them out of the building.

Other schools in Georgia have punished children not taking the test by not allowing them to participate in end-of-year field trips.

Norris tells parents that Supreme Court rulings have a history of affirming parental rights dating back to the 19th century.

“Supreme Court decisions will always trump state law,” she said. “Parents have for years opted their children out of sex ed classes and this is no different.”

Desperate times

Estrada also believes desperate times call for desperate measures, and it’s about time the American people wake up and realize that local control of schools is slipping away.

“That’s the silver lining with Common Core. We are seeing something we haven’t seen in a long, long time, and that is parents standing up and saying ‘these are our children and we’re tired of the elites telling us how to educate them,’ and I think if we stay with this we could win,” he said. “And that’s why we see the intensity of the opposition. They’re used to parents just rolling over and giving up. And that’s just not happening on Common Core.

“I think they’re forgetting who the child belongs to. Children are not the little subjects of the state, and if the state says they should all get in line like good little soldiers, we have to realize that children are too important for that. These young people are more than just a data point. That’s why this battle must be fought and more power to the parents who are saying ‘we’re fed up and we’re going to opt them out of the test.’”


Why are the cops punishing Common Core opponents?

Robby Soave

A school district asked the police to prohibit certain students from setting  foot on school property because their parents had privacy concerns about Common  Core-aligned standardized testing, and wished to opt their kids out.

The incident happened at Marietta City Schools in Marietta, Georgia. The  Finney family didn’t want their three children — in third grade, fifth grade and  ninth grade — to participate in the state-mandated Criterion-Referenced  Competency Tests, partly because of the vast amounts of data the government is  collecting about their children, and partly because they think the tests don’t  serve a compelling educational interest, according to The Marietta Daily Journal.

Their sentiments are shared by a growing number of parents around the  country, who increasingly see standardized tests as a costly bureaucratic tool  that allows the government to gather personal information about kids. Criticisms  of the tests are closely linked to criticisms of Common Core, the new national  education curriculum standards that are fiercely opposed by both conservative  grassroots and teachers unions.

“They are collecting data on our children,” said Mary Finney in a statement.  “Now, with Common Core there is such a large amount of information and data  collected on children. People don’t realize it. We don’t want to sound like  we’re wearing tin-foil hats, but they want to track our kids from kindergarten  through college.”

The Finney family attempted to opt out of the tests, but administrators were  unsure whether they were legally permitted to do so.

Read more:

The New Orleans Archdiocese Hypocrisy Between Bill Gates Planned Parenthood And Common Core

Nathan Laurenson

I’m a Catholic who actively attends a church and whose child attends a school  within the archdiocese of New Orleans. Like many parents I send my child to a Catholic school to get an education that is above and beyond the Government brainwashing centers so when I found out we where being signed onto The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation backed common core I felt very betrayed.The number of archdiocese that have signed on is about 100 so if not all the archdiocese signed on their was a choice and the parents who pay a very pretty penny to send their children to these schools weren’t involved in this decision.Most parents don’t like common core because of the standards, text books or how it changes  the way our children think and do math problems and I totally agree with everyone of those points but I want to bring to light another point, that one of the main backing forces is The Bill and Melinda       Gates  foundation. I know most of of you reading this is asking the question so what they give alot of donations to a whole plethora of causes but the one donation  that causes the most concern to me and should to most Christians is planned parenthood.



Planned parenthood spawned from Margaret Sangers  American Birth Control League which was founded in 1921. This isn’t the only  eugenics based organization  The Bill and MelindaGates Foundation backs.What about the polio vaccines which have paralyzed 47500 Indian children and  then there is Monsanto(GMOs). Mr Gates is involved with various anti life organizations and has openly admitted at the TED conference about population reduction with vaccines(/


In 2013  the New Orleans Arch Bishop Gregory Aymond protested the opening of a planned parenthood clinic in a New Orleans neighborhood and led a boycott which I fully supported.This is where the hypocrisy lies in one hand wont support planned parenthood backed by Gates how can you back another Gates backed program. Being Catholic there is no way I can support anyone who supports any anti life anti human organizations so I feel we’ve  been sold out by  the leadership of our beloved New Orleans archdiocese.I ask you how and why Arch Bishop Aymond  would you support common core that’s being pushed by an anti life, globalist who doesn’t believe in GOD and whose children attend a school that doesn’t participate in this atrocity which is aimed to dumb our children down. Mr Gates if all lives are created equal you would want your children to participate in common core and you wouldn’t fund eugenics based abortionists in poor minority areas.


“All lives—no matter where they are being led—have equal value.” — From the “Our Values” section of the Web page of the Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation







Common Core Assignment Asks Kids To Solve Unsolvable Math Problem

Common Core Assignment Asks Kids To Solve Unsolvable Math Problem

They ask her to count and write 20. So she counts, counts again, and again, and says ‘mom, there’s only 19′”

Mikael Thalen April 2, 2014

Kindergarten students in Columbia, Ohio are being asked to solve a math problem that does not allow them to provide the correct answer.countto20IW Mina Boyd, whose kindergartener came home with a Common Core math workbook this week, noticed her daughter’s unusual frustration regarding one lesson entitled “Count and Write 20.”

“They ask her to count and write 20. So she counts, counts again, and again, and says ‘mom, there’s only 19,’” Boyd explained on a Facebook post.

To her surprise, the workbook indeed only included 19 countable apples despite the assignment proclaiming 20 to be present.

According to Kyle Olson, founder of the Common Core watchdog site Education Action Group, the workbook is produced by a well known publisher with deep Common Core ties.



Common Core Potent Election Issue

Common Core emerges as potent election issue for fed-up parents

Parents across the country may hold the key to this year’s mid-term elections as they vent their anger over the implementation of a controversial education achievement measure called the Common Core State Standards Initiative.

Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have adopted the initiative in a bid, they say, to improve education standards in Math and English, and give new life to what many view as a sagging education system. Indiana recently voted to back out of Common Core.

But many parents see the initiative as a bid by the federal government to take over the education system. They are also angry over the “data mining” of students’ personal information, and say the stepped-up standards are not age-appropriate and are leading to anxiety and depression in their children.

Analysts warn the parental opposition could spill over into the November elections.