Common core dumbing down the US? | Page 8 | INFJ Forum

Common core dumbing down the US?

I solved that problem in a dyslexic form of math compared to the route they intended. 316 + 100 = 416 +10 = 426 + 1 = 427. I was always taught to visualize the 1's, 10's 100's and so on. Also a reason, as you mentioned, I can do binary in my head. Common core seems aimed at slowing people down and punishing those who can do it faster, better and more naturally.

Exactly.

For example: what if the number line were like this:

)!@#$%^&*( given that !-!=)

&-!=^
*-@=^
(-*=!

What does that teach you? Not a lot unless you already understand number theory, right??

This because a base 10 number line is secretly base 10 by rote, not by theory. Any kind of number line relates to itself by rote unless you grasp the theory. If you grasp the theory, it doesn't matter what the numerals are.
 
Last edited:
Common Core tests laced with corporate slogans: are children being indoctrinated?

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/044982_C...slogans_product_placement.html##ixzz30qejeruT

All across the state of New York, this year's Common Core English tests have been featuring a host of brand-name products like Barbie, iPod, Mug Root Beer and Life Savers. In addition, for clothing giant Nike, some tests even included the shoe company's well-known slogan, "Just Do It."

According to Fox News and other sources, the brand names appeared on tests that more than 1 million students in grades three through eight were required to take in April, "leading to speculation it was some form of product placement advertising."

State education officials and the publisher of the test say the brand references were not paid product placements but just happened to be included in previously published packages selected for the tests.

But some critics aren't sold on that explanation. They have questioned why specific brand names would have to be mentioned at all.

"It just seems so unnecessary," Josh Golin, associate director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, which monitors marketing directed at children, told the news channel.

"It would be horrible if they were getting paid for it," he said. "But even if they're not, it's taking something that should not be a commercial experience and commercializing it."

'Why are they trying to sell me something?'

The test questions have yet to be made public. Teachers and principals, meanwhile, are barred from discussing them.

However, teachers who have posted anonymously on education blogs complained that some students became confused by the brand names, which were accompanied with their respective trademarked symbols.

As reported by Fox News:

The Nike question was about being a risk taker and included the line, "'Just Do It' is a registered trademark of Nike," according to students who took the test.

Sam Pirozzolo, of Staten Island, whose fifth-grader encountered the Nike question, said there was apparently no reason for such a specific brand.


"I'm sure they could have used a historical figure who took risks and invented things," Pirozzolo said. "I'm sure they could have found something other than Nike to express their point."

West Hempstead, Long Island, resident Deborah Poppe said her eighth-grade son was also puzzled by a question, which spawned complaints for a second year in a row, about a busboy who failed to clean some spilled root beer -- Mug Root Beer, to be exact, which is a registered trademark of PepsiCo.

'"Why are they trying to sell me something during the test?'" she quoted her son as saying. "He's bright enough to realize that it was almost like a commercial."

Use of brand names was just one of numerous complaints about Common Core that have been raised by parents across New York and around the country. The standards are allegedly intended to increase academic rigor, but the product naming sounds more like brand indoctrination than anything else.

Some who have complained about the testing say questions are too difficult and they don't actually measure what a student is learning.

As for the branding, that appears to be endemic to New York, at least for now.

'Branding on tests in inappropriate'

New York State Education Department officials, along with Pearson -- the education publishing giant with a $32 million five-year contract to develop New York's tests, said companies did not pay to be put on tests.

"There are no product placement deals between us, Pearson or anyone else," said Tom Dunn, an Education Department spokesman. "No deals. No money. We use authentic texts. If the author chose to use a brand name in the original, we don't edit."

Stacy Kelly, a spokeswoman for Pearson, told Fox News that neither her company nor the NY state education department received any compensation for the product mentions. And if any brand happens to come up in the testing, "the trademark symbol is included in order to follow rights and permission laws and procedures."

Some advertising experts criticized the idea of product placement on tests, saying it was inappropriate.

"If any brand did try to place there, what they would lose from the outrage would surely trump any exposure they got," Michal Ann Strahilevitz, a marketing professor at Golden Gate University, told Fox.

Sources:

http://dailycaller.com

http://www.foxnews.com

http://www.dailymail.co.uk


 
Common Core tests laced with corporate slogans: are children being indoctrinated?

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/044982_C...slogans_product_placement.html##ixzz30qejeruT

All across the state of New York, this year's Common Core English tests have been featuring a host of brand-name products like Barbie, iPod, Mug Root Beer and Life Savers. In addition, for clothing giant Nike, some tests even included the shoe company's well-known slogan, "Just Do It."

According to Fox News and other sources, the brand names appeared on tests that more than 1 million students in grades three through eight were required to take in April, "leading to speculation it was some form of product placement advertising."

State education officials and the publisher of the test say the brand references were not paid product placements but just happened to be included in previously published packages selected for the tests.

But some critics aren't sold on that explanation. They have questioned why specific brand names would have to be mentioned at all.

"It just seems so unnecessary," Josh Golin, associate director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, which monitors marketing directed at children, told the news channel.

"It would be horrible if they were getting paid for it," he said. "But even if they're not, it's taking something that should not be a commercial experience and commercializing it."

'Why are they trying to sell me something?'

The test questions have yet to be made public. Teachers and principals, meanwhile, are barred from discussing them.

However, teachers who have posted anonymously on education blogs complained that some students became confused by the brand names, which were accompanied with their respective trademarked symbols.

As reported by Fox News:

The Nike question was about being a risk taker and included the line, "'Just Do It' is a registered trademark of Nike," according to students who took the test.

Sam Pirozzolo, of Staten Island, whose fifth-grader encountered the Nike question, said there was apparently no reason for such a specific brand.


"I'm sure they could have used a historical figure who took risks and invented things," Pirozzolo said. "I'm sure they could have found something other than Nike to express their point."

West Hempstead, Long Island, resident Deborah Poppe said her eighth-grade son was also puzzled by a question, which spawned complaints for a second year in a row, about a busboy who failed to clean some spilled root beer -- Mug Root Beer, to be exact, which is a registered trademark of PepsiCo.

'"Why are they trying to sell me something during the test?'" she quoted her son as saying. "He's bright enough to realize that it was almost like a commercial."

Use of brand names was just one of numerous complaints about Common Core that have been raised by parents across New York and around the country. The standards are allegedly intended to increase academic rigor, but the product naming sounds more like brand indoctrination than anything else.

Some who have complained about the testing say questions are too difficult and they don't actually measure what a student is learning.

As for the branding, that appears to be endemic to New York, at least for now.

'Branding on tests in inappropriate'

New York State Education Department officials, along with Pearson -- the education publishing giant with a $32 million five-year contract to develop New York's tests, said companies did not pay to be put on tests.

"There are no product placement deals between us, Pearson or anyone else," said Tom Dunn, an Education Department spokesman. "No deals. No money. We use authentic texts. If the author chose to use a brand name in the original, we don't edit."

Stacy Kelly, a spokeswoman for Pearson, told Fox News that neither her company nor the NY state education department received any compensation for the product mentions. And if any brand happens to come up in the testing, "the trademark symbol is included in order to follow rights and permission laws and procedures."

Some advertising experts criticized the idea of product placement on tests, saying it was inappropriate.

"If any brand did try to place there, what they would lose from the outrage would surely trump any exposure they got," Michal Ann Strahilevitz, a marketing professor at Golden Gate University, told Fox.

Sources:

http://dailycaller.com

http://www.foxnews.com

http://www.dailymail.co.uk



Just imagine if Nike sponsored sex ed: Just Do It!
 
  • Like
Reactions: muir
http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultu...e-approved-textbooks-rewrite-second-amendment

[h=2]Common Core-approved Textbooks Rewrite Second Amendment[/h]Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.

As the grassroots revolt against Common Core grows stronger, attention to lessons contained in textbooks approved for use within the Common Core curricula is increasing, as well.
One of the chief criticisms of the standards mandated as part of the Common Core education program is that it is one-size-fits-all, federally funded, and permissive of fundamental errors that affect the quality of education of students.
Such errors include those found in history textbooks approved by the Common Core State Standards Initiative — the official name of the scholastic standards copyrighted by the Washington, D.C.-based National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO).


In a textbook approved by Common Core for use by students studying for the Advanced Placement (AP) history exam, the Second Amendment is defined this way: "The Second Amendment: The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."
Another book that received the Common Core stamp of approval informs students that the Second Amendment “grant citizens the right to bear arms as members of a militia of citizen-soldiers.”
Then, there is a worksheet reportedly approved by Common Core for use by history teachers in preparing lessons on the Bill of Rights that “informs” students, “The Government of the United States is currently revisiting The Bill of Rights. They have determined that it is outdated and may not remain in its current form any longer.”
Actually, the statement is not a statement of fact, but an introduction to a proposed lesson asking the students to “prioritize, revise, prune two and add two amendments to The Bill of Rights.”
Finally, there is the description of the Second Amendment published in a book approved by Common Core for use in elementary schools.
Regarding the Second Amendment, the authors of the book state:
This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register them and they have not been in prison. The founding fathers included this amendment to prevent the United States from acting like the British who had tried to take weapons away from the colonists.
During an interview on Fox News, the superintendent of an Illinois middle school that is using this book, Bob Hill, defended its warped retelling of history: “What happens with the right to bear arms in the context of 2014, is the right to bear arms in reality, not as written in the Constitution, but in reality is it in any way abridged and the answer is ‘yes, in some places by the need to register guns or gun owners’ and so on.”
In other words, it's not the position of Common Core that its approved texts must teach the Constitution as it is written; rather, the authors can foist as facts any falsehood, no matter how removed from “reality.”
Regardless of such admissions, constitutionallyaware parents will instantly recognize several serious misstatements of fact in that little blurb intended to “educate” their children.
First, there is nothing in the Second Amendment that excludes ownership of certain weapons from within its protection. In fact, the text of the Second Amendment is very clear regarding the government’s ability to qualify this most basic liberty: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Next, the subtle message in the definition provided by this book indoctrinates unsuspecting children with the belief that the government has the right to give and take away the right to own firearms depending on whether the person has complied with federal guidelines. This is treachery!
Although Americans have allowed this right to be redefined by Congress, the courts, and the president, the plain language of the Second Amendment explicitly forbids any infringement on this right that protects all others.
Finally, the reason for inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights had little to do the British and more to do with future attempts by an out-of-control, all-powerful central authority disarming the American people as a step toward tyranny. Take, for example, theses statements by our forefathers regarding the purpose of the passage of this amendment:
In commenting on the Constitution in 1833, Joseph Story wrote:
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
In his own commentary on the works of the influential jurist Blackstone, Founding-era legal scholar St. George Tucker wrote:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
Writing in The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton explained:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state.
There is perhaps no usurpation of the national rulers more egregious and more dangerous than the establishment of the Common Core Standards. As the examples above demonstrate (in addition to the hundreds more that could have been included), young children, unaware they are being fed a steady diet of falsehoods, grow up to be adults who accept the government’s gradual grab of all power, including the power to define civil liberties and give them and take them away as these despots see fit.
In an article examining the “real agenda” of the coalition forcing the adoption of the Common Core Standards, The New American’s Alex Newman observed:
Totalitarian leaders from Hitler to Stalin and everywhere in between have always sought to centralize and control education. The reason is simple: Whoever molds the minds of the youth can eventually dominate the population, even if it takes a generation or two. That is why tyrants in recent centuries have demanded compulsory, government-led education. Hitler made clear that he wanted to use “education” as a tool to mold German children in accordance with the National Socialist regime’s despotic and murderous ideology. So did Stalin, and numerous other infamous tyrants and mass-murderers. As Karl Marx noted in his Communist Manifesto, government-controlled schooling is essential to achieving the goals of socialism.

In his masterpiece On Liberty, renowned British philosopher and parliamentarian John Stuart Mill succinctly explained the inherent problems with government schools. “A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government ... it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body,” he wrote.
Although the uprising against adoption of the Common Core standards has caused many wary state lawmakers to propose bills repealing its acceptance, at least 46 states remain committed to implementing the curricula.

Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com.
 
http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/education-no-its-about-data-mining/

[h=1]Education? No, it’s about data-mining[/h] [h=2]‘Opt out’ movement surges in response to Common Core[/h]
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/education-no-its-about-data-mining/#Y2lQ3WqBXpjTzhpA.99


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.
no_to_common_core.jpg

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.
Common-core-protest.jpg
Florida protest against Common Core (Photo: The Florida Stop Common Core Coalition)

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.
school_lunch.jpg

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.
newtown_schoolbus.jpg

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.’”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/05/education-no-its-about-data-mining/#Y2lQ3WqBXpjTzhpA.99
 
http://www.thenewamerican.com/cultu...09-common-core-architect-now-dumbing-down-sat

[h=2]Common Core Architect Now Dumbing Down SAT[/h]
Even as the unprecedented uprising continues to grow against the Obama administration-pushed Common Core nationalization of education, one of the key “architects” of the controversial national standards announced an overhaul of the SAT that has critics up in arms. In addition to dumbing down the important test, one of two main standardized exams generally used by colleges for admissions, analysts say the revisions will play a key role in imposing Common Core on all American students — even children who are homeschooled, private-schooled, or in states that have officially resisted the widely criticized national standards.
The revamping of the SAT was announced last week by David Coleman, a controversial figure widely described as the “architect” of Common Core, who in 2012 became president of the College Board, which controls the tests. Among the biggest changes are the removal of the essay requirement and an end to penalties for incorrect answers aimed at discouraging guessing. Also sparking alarm among experts concerned about the ongoing dumbing down of American education is the fact that the SAT will be drastically scaling back and simplifying the vocabulary and math requirements.
“By changing the exam’s focus, we change the learning and work the SAT invites. Today, many students who are terrified they will be tested on lots of SAT words have one recourse: flashcards,” Coleman said in a statement about the changes to the tests, set to go into effect by 2016. “Every educator knows flashcards are not the best way to build real word knowledge, but when the SAT rolls around they become the royal road. Students stop reading and start flipping.” Speaking in Austin, Coleman also said the SAT should offer “worthy challenges, not artificial obstacles.”


Another key emphasis in the new SAT will be “fairness,” reducing “inequality,” and “providing opportunity” by, for example, partnering with the Khan Academy to help students prepare for the tests. College Board officials and Common Core proponents have claimed repeatedly in recent days that financially better-off students are able to do better on the exam because they can pay for tutors or preparation lessons. With the revamped SAT and its relationship with Khan to provide test-takers with free preparation, supporters of the changes hope to reduce that alleged unfairness.
Plenty of analysts have highlighted the fact that SAT has been losing market share to another college admissions test known as the ACT, which recently overtook the College Board’s exam in terms of the number of participating students. That may well be a factor in the latest announcement. For critics, however, one of the most important reasons for the changes — aside from artificially boosting student scores by removing harder vocabulary words and math problems, for instance — is an underhanded attempt to foist Common Core on America by stealth.
As The New American warned last year in a major report on Common Core, despite proponents’ claims that the radical standards are “voluntary,” the alignment of national college-entrance exams with Common Core is an effort to deceitfully ensnare every student in the United States in the Obama administration’s education “reform” regime. With the SAT aligned with the standards, even homeschooling families and students at private schools will be under heavy pressure to submit to Common Core.
None of it is really a secret. In fact, even the establishment press is trumpeting the new SAT’s role in foisting the standards on an increasingly outraged America. “In the process, it will help to cement the Common Core standards, which Mr. Coleman was integral in developing into the public education system as the path to college,” the New York Times said about the coming changes. The ACT, which is reportedly already coming into alignment with Common Core, will do the same, the Times noted.
Critics of the nationalization of education, though, were not pleased. “It’s a roundabout way to put pressure on states that opted out of Common Core,” said grassroots director Whitney Neal with Freedom Works, one of the myriad organizations working to stop the nationalization of education by the Obama administration and its establishment allies. “If you are legislator from Virginia let’s say, this will put pressure on you obtain material to make your district more appealing especially to homebuyers. SAT averages are often included in realtor information and high school success rate is always a selling point.”
Much of the ongoing transformation has only succeeded due to Americans being kept in the dark about what is happening, he continued. “What we have seen is that most people have no idea of most of these changes being made,” Neal was quoted as saying by Fox News in an article describing the SAT changes as a “blow” to Common Core foes. “That allowed them to make these changes without much of the general public even realizing that they did.”
Indeed, until very recently, the overwhelming majority of Americans had never heard of Common Core, much less that some 45 state governments had accepted massive taxpayer-funded bribes from the Obama administration in exchange for adopting it. Opposition is spreading across America like wildfire, with unions, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, teachers, parents, lawmakers, experts, and more all decrying the dubious standards. Now, though, even students in non-Common Core states and schools may be prodded into submission — at least if they want to be familiar with the material covered by the SAT.
Aside from imposing Common Core by stealth on an increasingly outraged public, another reason cited by analysts for dumbing down the SATs is to prevent parents and taxpayers from understanding the severity of the plummeting quality of education in America. The fact is that despite soaring costs paid by taxpayers, students are learning less and less, with tens of millions now functionally illiterate. The trends have actually been accelerating, with critical thinking skills and reading abilities plunging fastest.
It would hardly be the first time the SAT was revised to conceal the disaster that U.S. government schools have become behind a bogus façade of relatively steady scores on dubious standardized tests. By 2011, SAT reading scores had reached their lowest point in almost 40 years, according to the College Board. Incredibly, the SAT had even been “re-centered” about two decades earlier in an effort to boost plunging average scores and conceal the fact that students were scoring worse and worse. The test was most recently revised less than a decade ago.
Countless education experts have pointed out that the ongoing dumbing-down of education and national tests is hardly an accident. In fact, whistleblowers from the U.S. Department of Education and prominent researchers have documented a deliberate, decades-old effort — much of it led by the federal government and the “progressive” education establishment — to dumb down American students. The U.S. government, of course, has no constitutional authority to meddle in education at all. However, its unconstitutional machinations have been worse than counter-productive, and with Common Core, the troubling trends look set to accelerate.
As criticism of the revisions was building, a spokesperson for the College Board quoted in media reports defended the changes to the SAT. “The focus of the assessments is to measure what is essential for college and career readiness, not any one set of standards,” the spokesperson claimed in a widely quoted statement. “The College Board assessments measure the knowledge and skills that research shows to be essential for college and career readiness and success.”
With education quality plummeting nationwide combined with the Obama administration’s hostile and unconstitutional takeover of K-12 schooling, American families are being left with fewer and fewer options to obtain a proper education for their children that will train them to be critical thinkers. The recently announced SAT changes will only solidify that phenomenon — unless, as some advocates hope, the controversial dumbed-down test eventually becomes obsolete. However, regardless of what happens, advocates for critical thinking and classical education have not lost hope yet.
“We have said from the beginning that Common Core was just the camel's nose under the tent,” said Alan Scholl, executive director of FreedomProject Education, an online K-12 school dedicated to providing classical education with Judeo-Christian values. “This is now permeating the entire educational spectrum. The damage from these SAT changes illustrate a critical element for people to understand — these flawed, politically correct standards are going to be impressed like a stamp on everything. There are people who think they're immune, but we're already seeing the permeation of Common Core even through homeschool and private school curricula. We've had to work very hard to keep our educational programs entirely free from these left-leaning standards.”
Not only are there still options available, with the rollout of Common Core sparking unprecedented opposition from across the political spectrum, the broader failure of government education is increasingly in the spotlight. An excellent first step to restoring proper schooling and a well-educated public so necessary to preserving liberty is to get the federal government out of education entirely by abolishing the Department of Education and restoring local control over schools. After that, communities can see what works and what does not — and act accordingly.
Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, politics, education, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com.
Related articles:
Common Core: A Scheme to Rewrite Education
Orwellian Nightmare: Data-mining Your Kids
New York Revolts Against Common Core
Under Pressure, Largest N.H. School District Looks Beyond Common Core
Common Core National Education Outrages Teacher Coalition
At Wisconsin Hearing, Educators Blast Common Core Education
Educators Expose Dangers of Common Core National Education
Lawmakers and Activists Rally to Stop Obama-backed “Common Core”
GOP Blasts Obama-backed National Education Standards
Parent Dares Challenge Common Core, Hauled Away in Handcuffs
Debunking Myth of Common Core Education as “State Led”
Common Core: People vs. Big Government, Big Business, and Billionaires
Top Catholic Scholars Slam Common Core