republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The political “Hot Potato” is testing what shouldn’t
be tested on your children. It is called “Grit”. “Grit”
is the new hot potato. Why? Because it is illegal. It
is based on the Common Core Social, Emotional,
and Behavioral standards that are illegal. This is being done without full disclosure and written
informed parental consent.Parents, the social, emotional, and behavioral aspects of your children are being monitored, evaluated, and CODED. Interventions are being performed without your written permission or consent. Sometimes the names for this are changed to such flowery phrases as mindsets, character development, citizenship, “grit”, or even civics. This tactic effectually catches some parents off guard. Why? Because it sounds so good. Do we really know what is being tested and taught in America’s classrooms? Do you know what data is being collected on your child? Education has moved away from academics. There is now a full focus on personality with teaching and testing. The goal is changing the social, emotional, and behavioral personality traits of your child.
The “whole child” (head, heart, and hand) becomes the focus of the federal government. The recently passed federal ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act) is the latest draconian effort to test and teach values, attitudes, beliefs, and dispositions. This was legislated as the new education law in December 2015. The National Governor’s Association (NGA) and Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), who copyrighted the original Common Core which was developed by ACT, added dispositions (“grit”) to the Common Core. Academics play second fiddle – they are diluted, missing, and dumbed down. The ultimate goal is to squash all individualism in America. Parents beware! This falls under mental health. It is psychological conditioning. It also happens to be illegal the way they are doing this on children in the United States.
The goal of the education elite has always been teaching a mindset called the “whole child.” It includes psychological techniques to change a student’s personality. This is part of Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy. The “whole child” means controlling beliefs, feelings, and behavior. When Bloom said that good teaching was challenging a child’s “fixed beliefs” what did he mean? How would this be done? Here is his definition:
“A large part of what we call ‘good teaching’ is the teachers ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the students’ fixed beliefs… a child is no longer truly using his higher order thinking skills until he no longer believes in absolutes of right and wrong.” ~Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives
Bloom’s “affective objectives” delves into a child’s psychological makeup, emotions and feelings. We have heard the new catch-phrase many times, that teaching is about what a student “will know or can do” which means their beliefs and their behaviors. Webb’s “deeper learning” model is duplicated in the same area. What a child knows to be true, their beliefs, or their feelings and attitudes will result in specific actions or behaviors. Notice that this isn’t about the ABCs.
You can identify these standards appearing in the Common Core classroom when education “elites” like Angela Duckworth and Robert Rothman (below) indicate that these qualities are needed for college and career readiness. These standards include efficacy, cooperation, interpersonal skills, ethical behavior, honesty, responsibility, and adapting to change, all subjectively scored and arbitrarily collected and coded by regular classroom teachers. You might think you know what these words mean, but many of them have been redefined. Furthermore, most people have never seen the criterion or proficiency levels for how these values would be scored, tallied, or given a digital merit badge. The goal of transforming education in the United States is for children to become dumb-downed worker drones. Its time for parents to revolt.
BETRAYAL! By using deceptive words like honesty, grit, and self efficacy, it is much easier to get everyone’s approval. But, can we all agree to one standard for ALL personality traits? How do you measure honesty? Can you trust teachers to collect this subjective data on your child? Obama pushed these non-cognitive standards in the ESEA flexibility Waivers. But ESSA federal legislation has attempted to legalize the measuring and teaching these globalist deceptive standards. This Act was an effort to get parent and statesmen approval for this illegitimate and unethical experimentation.
Recently an article in Ed Week (Aug. 4, 2016) tried to bamboozle readers with the entire psychological agenda by explaining the experimental research that was beginning (not true), and without clarifying the original research already accomplished in multiple experimental models. This marketing agenda is in full force. The article is a complete lie:
The ESSA legislation passed December, 2015, was already set in motion by the 2012 ESEA illegal Flexibility Waivers ushered in by President Obama and Secretary Duncan) which added non-academic social, emotional, and behavioral standards as a requirement to accept funds. It required teachers to be trained in behavioral conditioning, which force teachers to teach Common Core behavioral conditioning or be removed, fired, and/or having no chance of being re-hired. It’s time to look inside your classroom. These conditioning techniques are already being implemented on normal children through teacher training using Special Education teams (CHILD FIND) who are trained in behavior modification techniques that were originally researched to help violent autistic and handicapped children. These techniques are now being implemented in the regular classroom on normal children.
Let’s read further in another article in Ed Week from Robert Rothman (April 25, 2014) titled “The Challenge of Measuring Student Mindsets.”
“One challenge in expanding practices that foster appropriate mindsets to more classrooms is the state of measurement. Measuring mindsets in valid and reliable ways is essential for students and teachers. For one thing, such measures make it more likely that teachers will address these attitudes and behaviors. (What gets measured gets taught, after all.) More importantly, students and teachers need high-quality information on the extent to which students are developing these dispositions so that they can adjust instruction according to student needs.
“For example, student surveys that attempt to get at the extent to which students believe that their hard work in school will pay off are time-consuming and intrusive, and they don’t always yield accurate results. Students might be more likely to tell teachers what they think teachers want to hear, rather than what they actually believe, although research shows that in low-stakes situations students do tend to tell the truth.
“There are technological methods that can measure student dispositions in a non-intrusive and more accurate way. For example, data from computers can show how long students spend on a problem and whether and how they seek help. Biometric devices can track students’ brain patterns and anxiety levels as well.”
Yet as schools develop and implement measures of students’ mindsets, they might face strong opposition from some parents who think that it’s none of schools’ business what students believe. Recently, a U.S. Department of Education report that mentioned some of the biometric measures of persistence and grit generated a social-media flurry suggesting, erroneously, that the Common Core State Standards required measures of student eye movements. And years ago, in the early days of the standards movement, states such as Pennsylvania proposed standards for students’ “self-worth,” adaptability to change, ethical judgments, and the like, and met a wall of criticism from parents.
“So scientists and practitioners need to move cautiously as they work to improve measures of academic mindsets. But the work needs to go on. The research is clear that these dispositions are critical to student SUCCESS, and measuring these dispositions is essential to foster them.” [All emphases added]
Parents, the “CAUTION” sign is being put up by our opponents. Time intensive. Intrusive. Invasive. Not Accurate. Did Mr. Rothman say, ILLEGAL? Well, he should have.
The “wall of criticism” was all about the early days of Outcome Based Education and my all-out campaign to get rid of the psychobabble when I filed my federal complaint against the affective domain standards in Pennsylvania.
Success, defined by education researchers, means your child has met the government collectivist mindset. No child will be allowed to have moral or religious absolutes. These standards are NOT academic. These standards ARE NOT NEW. They are just being reshuffled into a new bag of tricks. Parents Beware! Where are our churches, pastors, and rabbis? (Do not be fooled into thinking that if you pick one of the government-controlled phony “choice” options that you will escape this! Under the ruse of “choice” Common Core follows the child. No child will escape!)
It’s time for all parents to step in and fight. Pennsylvania parents know the ropes.
[See: “Pennsylvania Parents Demand A Moratorium on Data”]
The following non-academic techniques were written into the ESSA legislation to be carried out by funding through IDEA, Special Education: response to interventions, RTI; positive behavior interventions supports, PBIS; multi-tiered system of supports, MTSS; School-wide multi-tiered system of supports, SWTSS; early intervening services, EIS; Specialized Instructional Support Services, SISS; and Universal Design for Learning, UDL.
Parents, are you reading this? Your federal Congressman and Senator passed this legislation mandating your schools apply high-risk psychological techniques in the classroom without your permission, without your consent, AND, with unqualified teachers being trained to identify your normal child with mental health problems.
So, the big CAUTION sign put out by the education “elites” is out there because they have reason to fear that parents might actually wake up – and interfere with this new (old) research being duplicated across America.
Frankly, I think that was an invitation. But realize, this research is being done secretly, marketed and embedded into curriculum, so parents do not realize their kids are being monitored through computer programming, DataMining, and observational data in phone apps like the BOSS phone app. Teachers are OBSERVING student behavior at school and inputting data into the state longitudinal data system. This personally identifiable information, which is data on your child’s attitudes, values, beliefs, and dispositions, is being collected by your local school, digitized and monitored, and sent to the federal government (NCES/IES) through the state longitudinal data system. This is a huge invasion of privacy and betrayal of trust. We must stop the collection of personal data and the abusive tactics to change the dispositions of our children. Your child is at risk of abuse in your neighborhood school.
This can be our “wall of criticism.” Remember, it doesn’t matter if they CAN measure attitudes, values, and dispositions. It doesn’t matter that they WANT to measure attitudes, values, and dispositions. The question is, “Is it legal?” Is it legal to TEST and SCORE attitudes and values in American classrooms?
5 Magic Questions developed by Anita Hoge
It’s up to you parents. Use the 5 Magic Questions I developed to fight subjective and vague Common Core Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Non-Academic Standards. [Link]