Archive for the ‘Education’ Category
Think Common Core State Standards are State led? Get the facts:
• 1988: Marc Tucker became the president of the National Center for Education and the Economy (NCEE) where he joined up with Hillary Clinton, Mario Cuomo, and Ira Magaziner to get states to move away from local control of their schools and migrate to national standards. (link)
• 1990: George H. W. Bush signed an international agreement entitled, “World Education for All (EFA), the result of a United Nations “World Conference on Education for All” summit. (link)
• 1991: Tucker and Lauren Resnick created New Standards that pushed standards-based reform. (link)
• 1992: Tucker writes “Dear Hillary Letter.” This letter, written to Hillary Clinton, addressed Tucker’s ideas for radical education reform after Bill Clinton’s presidential win. The goal is “to remold the entire American system” into “a seamless web that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same systems for everyone,” coordinated by “a system of labor market boards at the local, state and federal levels” where curriculum and “job matching” will be handled by counselors “accessing the integrated computer-based program.” (link)
• 1994: Tucker’s ambitious plan was implemented in three laws passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton: the Goals 2000 Act, the School-to-Work Act Opportunities Act, and the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) called “Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994.” (link)
• 1996: An organization called ACHIEVE, Inc. was formed by the nation’s governors and corporate leaders. (Many of them tied to Marc Tucker and the NCEE). The goals from an Education Summit in Palisades, NY were to ACHIEVE the goals of the 1994 school reform bills. (link)
• 1998: Tucker and Judy Codding created America’s Choice, a comprehensive school reform program, that made sure the national standards were further implemented into schools. (link)
• 2001: George W. Bush renames ESEA “The No Child Left Behind Act” and signed it into law. (link)
• 2004: Microsoft (Bill Gates) contracts with UNESCO (the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) to fulfill part of UNESCO’S Millennium Campaign Goals—universal education and educating for a global economy. A “master curriculum” for teacher training in information technologies based standards, guidelines, benchmarks, and assessment techniques is to be developed. (link)
• 2005: Bill Gates funds the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce—created by Tucker. States begin adopting its education reform initiative, “Tough Choices or Tough Times.” In 2008, Utah’s Governor Huntsman touts it (see video in link below) and joins with 5 others states (Massachusetts, Delaware, Arizona, New Mexico, and New Hampshire) who adopt it in order to “reinvent their educational systems.” (link)
• 2008: Gates Foundation, along with two other foundations, created Strong American Schools (a successor to the STAND UP campaign launched in 2006, which was an outgrowth of UNESCO’s Millennium Campaign Goals for Universal Education). It calls for American education standards. (link 1) (link 2)
• 2008: Gates Foundation funds the International Benchmarking Advisory Group report for Common Core Standards on behalf of the National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers, and ACHIEVE, Inc. titled, “Benchmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-Class Education.” This report shows the United Nations is a member of the International Benchmarking Advisory Group for Common Core Standards. The member of mention is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) which developed UNESCO’s Millennium Declaration—partnering with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. (link)
The report states: While states must take the lead, the federal government can help. And the federal government can do that best by playing an enabling role grounded in a new vision for the historic state-federal partnership in education. (link)
• 2009: Marc Tucker writes a chapter in the book “Change Wars: The Inspiring Future for Educational Change.” One chapter is called International Benchmarking as a Lever for Policy Reform. The book says the UN’s OECD launched Programme for International Student Assessment in 2000 to monitor the outcomes of education. Linda Darling-Hammond also contributes a chapter. Darling-Hammond heads the SBAC (see 2009, December below) (link)
• April, 2009: Gates Foundation members, along with a few dozen others, participate in a Washington conference and produce “Smart Options: Investing the Recovery Funds for Student Success.” These ideas were funded by the 2008 Stimulus (ARRA-American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) and supported Race to the Top. Priority 1: Develop Common American Standards—also called Career-Ready Standards—in most states by January 2012. (link)
• 2009 (summer): Council of Chief State School Officers, National Governors Association, and ACHIEVE, Inc. agree to partner on a common core standards project. (link)
• 2009 (fall): The U.S. Dept. of Ed signals it will fund $360M for summative assessments aligned to Common Core Standards and begins planning meetings. Two consortia begin competing for this funding: Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers. States begin adopting Common Core Standards and join one of the consortia in order to receive No Child Left Behind waivers from the U.S. Department of Education Secretary, Arne Duncan. (link)
• 2009 (December): Utah becomes a governing member state of Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and is obligated to use the assessments created by the SBAC which is led by Bill Ayers’ friend, Linda Darling-Hammond. Judy Park, Associate Superintendent, Utah State Office of Ed, eventually co-chairs the Consortia. (link 1)
• June, 2010: National Governors Association and State Education Chiefs launch Common State Academic Standards. (link)
• April 2011: The SBAC Overview Curriculum and Assessment Conference issues a report stating that governing member states must adopt Common Core by Dec. 31, 2011. (link 1)
• 2011: The American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) education task force calls for the demise of the Common Core Standards, but puts it on hold after receiving a $376,635 grant from the Gates Foundation. (link)
• 2011: Bill Gates speaks at the November G20 Summit in Cannes and issues his report, “Innovation With Impact: Financing 21st Century Development” stating, “My report will address the financing needed to achieve maximum progress on the Millennium Development Goals, and to make faster progress on development over the next decade.” (link)
• 2011: Obama Education Secretary Arne Duncan announces “Today, I promise you that [the Department of Education] will be a committed partner in the national effort to build a more environmentally literate and responsible society… We must advance the sustainability movement through education… Education and sustainability are the keys to our economic future-and our ecological future.” (link)
• 2012: States begin to recognize the loss of local control and enormous cost of implementation of the Common Core Standards. Many states begin pushing back. The Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute call the standards unconstitutional per federal education law.
• 2012: States not on Common Core and not meeting the Annual Yearly Progress requirements of NCLB petition congress for relief. Lawmakers working on options are undercut when the Obama White House circumvents congress to grant waivers from NCLB if states adopt Common Core. (link)
Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott stated that the common standards movement amounted to a “desire for a federal takeover of public education.” Now, additional states (who originally signed on), including Massachusetts, Iowa, Kansas, and Virginia, are expressing concerns about the common standards initiative. (link)
Gov. Nikki Haley just signed a letter supporting legislation in South Carolina to block CCSS implementation stating, “South Carolina shouldn’t relinquish control to a consensus of states any more than the federal government.” (link)
Larry Shumway, Utah state superintendent, a member of the CCSSO Board of Directors, a member of the Board of Directors at West Ed which is the project management partner for SBAC assessments, recommends Utah retain its relationship as a governing member of the SBAC (thus forcing Utah to use their tests).
“I am personally opposed to any changes in Utah’s public education governance, either by constitutional amendment or by statutory revision, that would have the effect of centralizing power and decreasing representation. I oppose changes that would decrease the ability of local boards of education, elected by the citizens of that district, to guide their own schools to meet the needs of their communities as they see it, or that would diminish the ability of 104 elected legislators and 15 elected State Board members to fulfill their responsibilities to lead Utah public education as they represent their constituencies.” -Larry Shumway–State of Education Address October 11, 2011
This seems to me a clear conflict of interest for Mr. Shumway to testify to the Utah legislature on anything related to Common Core or the SBAC.
Gates’ Foundation other contributions during the time frame of consideration and development of the Common Core initiative.
Counsel of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO): 2009–$9,961,842, 2009–$3,185,750, 2010–$743,331, 2011–$9,388,911
National Governor’s Association (NGA): 2008–$2,259,780
Mark Tucker’s NCEE: 2009–$1,500,000
To any who still harbor the illusion that Common Core State Standards were the product of the states simply coming together, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.
Special thanks to the many people involved in digging this information up. Much work has been done by people all around the country to put this information together and help follow the money trail. Please do your part now in passing this information on to everyone you know so they can be educated about what the Common Core Initiative is really all about.
To see where Common Core fits into the scheme of related programs that make up the globalization of education, check out this visual diagram and then other links below.
This chart came from a document prepared by an organization in Oklahoma. You can obtain their full document here which is a comprehensive document entitled “Common Core State Standards and Race To the Top, an Introduction to Marxism 101.“
Wendy Hart on the Alpine School Board has been doing a terrific job this week of posting relevant information on the Common Core. I strongly encourage you to read her posts which you can find at this link. (Common Core State Standards)
Everything is coming together for a total takeover of education by the Feds. This past week a bill at the Utah legislature was thankfully amended to drop a recognition of Common Core from the language, thus leaving things open without codifying Common Core into Utah law. Anyone who looks into Common Core can easily verify the power grab in education by the feds. And yes, homeschoolers are potentially at risk as the Homeschool Legal Defense Association pointed out last November.
Here’s the Borg cube of connections which shows all the various organizations coming together to assimilate the education system. Even though the image above shows federal curriculum as unverified, the reality is that common standards and assessments will drive a perceived need for federal curriculum that matches the rest of the system. Pearson, the Gates Foundation, and others will be more than happy to provide new textbooks everyone is required to switch to.
The Borg was an alien species that threatened the existence of the Federation in the TV show Star Trek. Their race assimilated other races into their collective through hardwired neurological attachments that would reach deep into the mind. Their belief was that central control would raise efficiency. The result was a total loss of individuality and independent thought. What is happening in the education system in this country is very much a parallel to this threat.
Lt. Governor Bell recently praised the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), but there are several important things he and others need to realize.
While the math standards themselves are pretty good (addendum: read better than most states, but not top state standards), the notion that these are not national standards is inaccurate. When you have national organizations (National Governor’s Association and Chief State School Officers) collaborating to create one set of standards, you have de facto national standards.
The claim that the federal government isn’t involved in these standards is laughable. They bribed states to adopt the standards with Race to the Top grants (which would only be available for a handful of states) IF they adopted CCSS. Now, several states have sought waivers on No Child Left Behind’s annual yearly progress and the federal DOE is telling them, “we’ll grant you a waiver, IF you adopt ‘career and college ready standards’ (hint: Common Core).” Why were the Feds so interested in bribing states to get on CCSS even before a final draft was ready? They aren’t involved in this, right?
Why would Lt. Governor Bell say that Utah can adapt the standards to meet our needs and values when we aren’t allowed to modify the standards at all, except to add 15% more to them? How can he say these aren’t national standards?
If the federal government really isn’t taking over education, why have they put millions of dollars into creating assessments with organizations like SBAC, PARRC, and Achieve?
If the federal government isn’t nationalizing education, why have they mandated that states create a database to federally mandated standards to track children on 40 vital factors such as a child’s blood type, what time they get on the bus in the morning, the number of cavities in their mouths, what their religious affiliation is, family voting status, etc…? This is a total invasion of privacy. Is anyone concerned about this?
If the federal government isn’t taking over education, why have they been rewriting the laws at the federal level to strip away state and local control of education and make it look like they’ve always had legal control of education?
Can anyone not imagine the Feds soon telling the states they’ll get no federal funds for education (or perhaps ANY funds) unless they adopt this entire package? Everything is coming together for total federal control and we are embracing the Borg collective! It’s the end of individualism.
The solution isn’t found in joining the collective. It’s found in a return to true local control and giving parents MORE responsibility and authority for their children’s education. Each time we remove authority and responsibility from parents over their God-given mandate to teach their children, their interest and involvement lessens because they know, “the schools are going to educate my child.” Until we put the burden back on parents for their child’s success, education will continue to decline.
Links to the above points can be found here: http://www.utahsrepublic.org/dropping-the-common-core-state-standards/
Someone just sent me a link to Lt. Governor Bell’s blog post on the Common Core standards. Here is a link to it with my letter to the Lt. Governor which I sent off.
Dear Lt. Governor Bell,
Having read your blog post on Common Core (http://blog.lg.utah.gov/2012/01/common-sense-on-common-core/), I have a few questions for you.
1) If states joined this initiative without any strings attached, why are some states being forced by the federal government onto the standards if they want a waiver for NCLB and AYP requirements? Why did the federal government offer RTTT incentives to states that signed on? That doesn’t make any sense if you’re right. (see http://www.utahsrepublic.org/jumping-off-the-federal-education-train/)
2) How can you say Utah can adapt the standards to fit our needs and values? We are not allowed to change any of the standards except to add up to 15% more to them. They are not to be changed so they are not Utah standards. By virtue of being mostly nationwide, they are de facto national standards. (http://www.achieve.org/files/15PercentGuideline.pdf)
3) You’re correct the federal government didn’t develop the CCSS, but why are we not worried about the assessments and curriculum efforts they are funding to go along with the CCSS? Why are we not worried about the national database they have developed to track over 40 factors on children in such important ways as tooth decay, blood type, religious consideration, and what time they get on the bus in the mornings?
4) Were you aware that the federal government is rewriting federal education laws to remove state and local education rights and to put the federal government over education? Do you not see this directly related to their effort to get all states on the Common Core standards?
Nobody wants to contemplate jumping off a moving train, but the federal government’s takeover of education is driving state and local control right off a cliff. In several past articles on this site I’ve tried to detail the grab of power the federal government is making. This article (http://www.utahsrepublic.org/dropping-the-common-core-state-standards/) is perhaps the best summary article I can refer to which links to the components of this takeover involving standards, assessments, curriculum, database tracking, and changing of national laws on control of education.
In the past few days, I’ve received articles and insight from a few people that show the feds have become brazenly open in preparing to force states onto its plan.
From an article in the Orange County Register newspaper:
President Barrack Obama on Friday announced that states can opt out of the much-maligned federal accountability system if they agree to implement reforms that include tying teacher and principal evaluations to student test scores, enacting standards to prepare students for college and careers, and adopting national common education standards.
“The federal government really did not cut us a break with this waiver plan. All these reforms will cost schools money they just don’t have,” county Superintendent William Habermehl said. “The better solution would have been for Obama just to give states unconditional relief from NCLB for two or three years while they figure out how to fix the law.”
California’s willingness to even apply for the waivers also remains unclear. State Superintendent Tom Torlakson has already expressed concern over the ability of the cash-strapped state to enact such sweeping reforms.
In other words, if you don’t want to deal with No Child Left Behind Annual Yearly Progress issues, just agree to sign onto the national plan to prepare our children for college and careers which includes CCSS, assessments, and tying school teacher and principal evaluations to those assessments.
The national database will naturally have to be part of this package to track teacher performance and it appears from this article in the NY Post that it was funded in the 2009 stimulus bill.
Under regulations the Obama Department of Education released this month, these scenarios could become reality. The department has taken a giant step toward creating a de facto national student database that will track students by their personal information from preschool through career. Although current federal law prohibits this, the department decided to ignore Congress and, in effect, rewrite the law. Student privacy and parental authority will suffer.
How did it happen? Buried within the enormous 2009 stimulus bill were provisions encouraging states to develop data systems for collecting copious information on public-school kids. To qualify for stimulus money, states had to agree to build such systems according to federally dictated standards. So all 50 states either now maintain or are capable of maintaining extensive databases on public-school students.
The administration wants this data to include much more than name, address and test scores. According to the National Data Collection Model, the government should collect information on health-care history, family income and family voting status. In its view, public schools offer a golden opportunity to mine reams of data from a captive audience.
The feds are putting states on the ropes. If you want federal funding, you either comply with AYP and impossible growth targets, or they’ll grant you a waiver for NCLB if you adopt the Common Core package which includes everything including assessments and database tracking of our children.
There is only one solution I see. Utah needs to save about 10% of its education spending and get off the federal train. Without pretty drastic action, we’re going to have state and local educators whose sole function is an administrative check to make sure everyone is complying with federal mandates on curriculum, standards, assessments, and database reporting. Don’t worry, Washington D.C. is full of people who are confident in their ability to tell you what your child needs in the way of education.
Here’s a great little analogy on the benefits of local control.
Fourth in our series this week exposing BYU’s Education Department connections, today we look at the philosophy embraced by professors and how they are reaching our local school districts with their agenda. This isn’t an indication it’s in every classroom or even most of them. It’s just part of putting people with your philosophy into positions of power, much like President Obama’s cabinet and Czars who are drastically affecting our lives.
The following letter is one I received from someone who wishes to remain anonymous. I interject below.
First, I’d like to give you some background about what I’m uncovering in Canyons District just in case it comes in handy on anything you’re doing.
Alta High’s new principal, Fidel Montero, was hired after the “racist incident” at Alta. He was Timpview’s Asst. Principal. Fox 13 News reported on May 18th, 2011 the following:
The Canyon School District says it chose Montero because of his impressive resume. Before his work as a teacher, Montero consulted inner-city schools in Miami and and Los Angeles.
“He is an expert in multicultural education. He is expert in school reform,” says Jennifer Tumor-Cook, spokesperson for the Canyon School District. “
Canyon’s School Board was also given social-justice educator, Linda-Darling Hammond’s, book “Flat World in Education and How America’s Commitment to Equity will Determine our Future” by our Deputy Superintendent, Ginger Rhodes. Upon reading it, a member of the board, Paul McCarty said, “I see a lot of it as a blueprint for where we are heading in Canyons District.”
Oak note: Linda-Darling Hammond was recommended by Bill Ayers to President Obama to be his Secretary of Education.
After this, Canyon’s District invited the Southern Poverty Law Center to come teach their social-justice program “Teaching Tolerance” to leaders, teachers and student-leaders in the entire district. This infuriated me!
After these tidbits, I looked up Fidel Montero and discovered that he’d come out of the David O. McKay School. And, because I knew what you’d uncovered about their connections to the NNER, I did some research.
The book Fidel co-wrote, Understanding the Whole Student: Holistic Multicultural Education , was co-written with Clifford Mayes, Ramona Cutri, & Clint Rogers (all from the David O. McKay School).
You already know a little about Ramona Cutri, but last night I finally got around to looking into Clifford Mayes. If you don’t already know, his bio describes him as a jungian scholar. This fact will be important as you read further. Here’s the link to his info on wikipedia:
Oak note: from his BYU Vita we find these interests and papers mentioning multiculturalism and Jungian thought.
September 1996-present: Brigham Young University.
Position: Associate Professor of Education (received tenure: 2003; advancement to full professor anticipated in AY 2007)
Duties: Teaching graduate courses in social history of U.S. education, curriculum history and theory, multiculturalism, instructional theory.
Interests: Curriculum theory and history, multiculturalism, (neo-)Freudian/(neo-)Jungian theory and practice in pedagogics.
Mayes, C. (2003). Foundations of an archetypal pedagogy. Psychological Perspectives: A Semiannual Journal of Jungian Thought. C.G. Institute of Los Angeles, 46, 104-116.
Mayes, C. (2005). Ten pillars of a Jungian approach to education. Encounter: Education for Meaning and Social Justice, 18(2), “30-40.
Mayes, C., and Blackwell Mayes, P. (2005) Jung, Mormonism, and the dialectics of exaltation. Psychological Perspectives: A Semiannual Journal of Jungian Thought. C.G. Institute of Los Angeles, 48, 84-107
After reading about his background, and how he developed a new way of teaching called archetypal pedagogy, I decided to look up how Critical Pedagogy related it. Critical Pedagogy is described on wikipedia as this:
Because I’ve now become a skeptic, I started wondering, “Could Clifford Mayes just be using this new term, archetypal pedagogy, to hide the fact that he’s actually teaching critical pedagogy?” So, I looked up jungian pedagogy with critical pedagogy and hit the very sad-jackpot on this BYU Jungian Scholar…
Critical Pedagogy and Cognition: An Introduction to a Postformal Educational —By Curry Stephenson Malott
“A Jungian Pedagogy therefore rejects not only traditional approaches to education that assume that teachers save kids from their inferior cultures by implementing the policies of the superior ruling class, but also the assumption that the only thing that needs to happen for revolutionary change to occur is for dominant institutions to be replaced by ones led by the organic leaders of the oppressed classes. In practice, traditional revolutions follow a hierarchical structure where movement leaders develop vision, agenda, and tactics and an army of activist-pawns carry them out.
A Jungian revolution, on the other hand, would be much more complex involving all members of society engaged in serious, rigorous self-reflection, and theoretical and historical investigations. The new society would emerge out of a rejection of the hegemony collective unconscious and therefore as a byproduct of a mass critical self-awareness that makes decisions not based on externally imposed values, but by those emanating from the internal structure of full consensus.”
So, as you can see, it really is a psychological-warfare marketing campaign for the masses, and far too many Americans are falling for it.
Oak note: Jungian pedagogy is exactly what Bill Ayers has been preaching for decades and is essentially the overthrow of our current government to be replaced by the oppressed “workers of the world uniting.” See these posts for more information on Bill Ayers if you don’t really know his philosophy.
http://www.utahsrepublic.org/bill-ayers-exposed/ (Bill the revolutionary radical Marxist)
http://www.utahsrepublic.org/whats-the-difference-between-john-goodlad-and-bill-ayers/ (a number of quotes from Ayers related to education)
Here’s a link to one (out of several) books on jungian psychology that Clifford Mayes has written:
Jung and Education: Elements of an Archetypal Pedagogy by Clifford Mayes (May 25, 2005)
Also, go to this David O. McKay School link and read about his publications, a few of which mention Social Justice outright:
Oak notes: It is foolishness to assume philosophies from teachers such as these don’t get passed on to students. Everything we are colors everything we do. Multiculturalism from organizations like NAME and the NNER filters to down to students through the teachers who are scholars for these organizations. Those students in turn graduate into positions of authority as administrators and teachers.
Aside from direct classroom instruction/indoctrination, one way this happens at BYU is that CITES (Center for the Improvement of Teacher Education and Schooling) trains teachers and administrators for placement within the Public School Partnership school districts. CITES is run by Steve Baugh, a John Goodlad “Agenda for Education in a Democracy” (AED) scholar. Four out of thirty national AED scholars are in Utah county, two at BYU, two in Alpine School District’s leadership.
I have had several emails asking what can be done. Get your local school board loaded with people that understand the problem and will sever the ties to the Public School Partnership at BYU and when the demand dries up, the supply will too. Your school district is paying a lot of money to CITES and to get teachers trained there. Find alternate sources of teacher training. Stop with the extreme pedagogy training and focus on content. Teachers who know their content are generally far superior teachers of subject matter. Most of all, trust no one. You are responsible for your child’s education. Be aware of the things happening at your school and your children’s classrooms. Times aren’t going to get better. Common Core State Standards will see to that.
Susie Schnell found yet another connection for BYU’s Education Department. This time it’s the organization NRMERA (Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association) and their home page contains this message from the organization’s 2011 president, BYU Education Department professor Pamela Cantrell.
Message From the President:
In deciding our theme for NRMERA 2011, I was very influenced by the following quote by William Ayers:
“Thoughtfulness requires wide- awakeness– a willingness to look at the conditions of our lives, to consider alternatives and different possibilities, to challenge received wisdom and the taken for granted, and to link our conduct with our consciousness.”
Our teaching profession often rallies around the “best practice” cry, framing it as an end result, a set of competencies to be met before best practice can be claimed. Some researchers talk about “owning” a given number of best practice principles and warn that if not perfected, the principles may just become another set of unproductive rituals that are mindlessly applied just to meet best practice criteria. What often happens is these principles are placed on a shelf, we glance at them once in awhile, maybe we take one out for a spin now and then, but we largely ignore them and perhaps feel a bit guilty and overwhelmed by the magnitude of achieving all of them.
What I like about the Ayres quote is that it suggests a willingness to evaluate where we are, and then take action that aligns with our personal philosophies. Those actions may be incremental—moving us step by step at our own pace—guilt-free–toward better alignment between where we are and where we hope to be. In our very busy and productive lives, what I think is needed is a measured personal effort inspired by hope and optimism that will lead us…
Toward Better Practice
Helping to frame our 2011 Conference around this theme will be our Keynote Speaker, Robert V. Bullough, Jr., eminent scholar and colleague, Professor of Teacher Education, Association Director of the Center for the Improvement of Teacher Education and Schooling (CITES), Brigham Young University, and Emeritus Professor of Educational Studies, University of Utah. His most recent books include (with Craig Kridel), Stories of the Eight-Year Study: Reexamining Secondary Education in America (SUNY Press, 2007) andCounternarratives: Studies of Teacher Education, and Becoming and Being a Teacher, also from SUNY Press (2008).
Pamela Cantrell, 2011 NRMERA President
Robert Bullough at BYU, is also good friends with Bill Ayers, pictured here together (Ayers on the left sporting the communist star, Craig Kridel in the center, Robert Bullough on the right):
Why do so many BYU Education Department professors have an infatuation with Bill Ayers and other people who want to tear down our country and our God-centered morals? Yesterday’s post showed BYU’s professors on the board of directors of NAME, an organization that wants to educate children in the classroom in order to END heterosexism. This must end. I’m certainly not perfect, but this whole situation brings to mind this scripture:
Mormon 8:38 “O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies-because of the praise of the world?”
You can’t mix Korihor’s doctrine with Christ’s and come up with a perfect blend of educational ideas.
President Joseph F. Smith said, “There are three dangers that threaten the church from within, and the authorities need to awaken to the fact that the people should be warned unceasingly against them. As I see them, they are flattery of prominent men in the world, false educational ideas, and sexual impurity.”
I have previously posted this quote and declared that the first two of those notions were being fulfilled by BYU’s Education Department’s involvement with John Goodlad’s NNER and the accolades he was bestowing on them to help them continue to feel good about promoting his transformational agenda. With yesterday’s news about NAME’s goals and BYU Education Department professors being on the board of that organization, I have to say all three are now unfortunately in play. Even if BYU’s Education Department says, “oh, we only take the good from these organizations and people and ignore the bad,” they give full credibility to such organizations by lending the name Brigham Young University to the list of institutions partnered with these organizations, sitting on their boards, and presenting at their conferences. Brigham Young must be rolling in his grave along with David O. McKay.
With BYU’s education program training so many teachers who are then placed into our schools, we are seeing the fulfillment of Abraham Lincoln’s statement, “the philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.”
My apologies to anyone in the Education Department at BYU who understands these problems but is silenced by the politics of your own personal situation.
Yesterday’s post exposed that BYU’s Education Department was a member of NAME (the National Association for Multicultural Education) and that this organization is a radical group with ties to Bill Ayers and fully supports the worldwide “Occupy” movements calling for revolution. From the NAME website, Susie Schell found this resolution (all emphasis in red is mine):
Resolution on Heterosexism
WHEREAS heterosexism is the exclusion of lesbians, gay males, bisexuals, transgender, and queer people (LGBTQ) in every aspect of the individual, cultural, and institutional aspects of life, and in policies, procedures, events and activities; and,
WHEREAS heterosexism creates an environment of violence and hatred towards LGBTQ people and their allies, where 83.2% of LGBTQ students report being verbally harassed because of their sexual and/or gender identity; and,
WHEREAS heterosexism is the institutionalization of a heterosexual norm or standard, which establishes and perpetuates the notion that all people are or should be heterosexual; and,
WHEREAS heterosexism hinders the growth of individuals by confining all people to rigid roles of gender and sexual orientation; and,
WHEREAS heterosexism excludes the needs, concerns, cultures, and life experiences of LGBTQ people; and
WHEREAS heterosexism contributes to violence in schools contributing to the increasing risks of the LGBTQ youth population where 58% of LGBTQ youth have substance abuse problems and where 30% of all youth who complete suicide are LGBTQ people; and
WHEREAS heterosexism is oppression;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the National Association for Multicultural Education (NAME) condemns the use of the United States Constitution and the Constitutions of the States within the Union to deny people any rights on the basis of sexual orientation; and
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that members of NAME are committed to eliminating heterosexism through the development and implementation of educational material and programs promoting an inclusive society; and,
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that members of NAME will actively seek to create safe schools for all students; and,
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that NAME partners with other organizations active in the promotion of a multi-sexual oriented society.
Adopted by the NAME Board of Directors on October 30, 2004 at the NAME Board Meeting in Kansas City, MO.
Reaffirmed by the NAME Board of Directors on Feb. 4, 2006 at the NAME Board Meeting in Phoenix, AZ.
To summarize, NAME believes heterosexism is the root of all evil in schools and children must be taught through “safe schools” (anti-bullying) multicultural programs that a multi-sexual society is not only appropriate, but proper for all people. I’m not sure what BYU’s Education Department values in an association with this organization which is in direct conflict with the LDS church’s Proclamation on the Family which clearly states “gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”
Please note the term “inclusive society” above. In 2006, John Goodlad’s NNER (National Network for Educational Renewal) organization held an Executive Meeting. BYU’s Education Department was a founding member of the NNER and at this particular meeting, Vern Henshaw, Alpine School District Superintendent, and member of the NNER Executive Board was in attendence. The minutes of the meeting can be found at this link but here is the relevant clip.
“Ada Beth Cutler shared copies of an Op Ed that took a stand against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage written by a BYU adjunct faculty member and a newspaper article about the firing of this faculty member for writing the Op Ed piece. She shared her grave concern about BYU’s action and policies that discriminate against homosexuals, given the principles of the Agenda for Education in a Democracy. She asked for discussion on the implications for the NNER and the mission of access and inclusion. Vern Henshaw responded, noting that he was reflecting only his perspective, not representing the larger partnership. He noted that the BYU partnership governing board does not have the authority to change policies at BYU, that the decision and policies do not reflect the actions at the partnership level. He indicated that the partnership co exists with the BYU policies and includes not only BYU but also public school districts that are not bound by the BYU policies.”
The NNER is all about promoting the homosexual agenda. They had an expert panel several months ago discuss how to put the gay agenda into classrooms using the principles of the Agenda for Education in a Democracy which you can read here.
Ada is concerned that the NNER “mission of inclusion,” similar to that of NAME above, is being violated because this non-tenured BYU professor got fired for taking a stance which conflicted with the LDS church policy to protect heterosexual marriage. I’m not sure, but Vern Henshaw, seems to be stating that the Public School Partnership coexists with BYU and can’t directly affect BYU policy, but that the school districts aren’t bound by BYU policy so the NNER mission can go forward. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but that’s sort of how I read the minutes above.
For BYU’s Education Department to belong to two organizations that are all about the social justice redistribution of wealth, the transformation of the American Republic into a Democratic welfare socialist state, implementing the gay agenda into classroom education, maintain close affiliations with Bill Ayer’s the Marxist revolutionary who was the keynote speaker at both organization’s conferences in the last year, and have members of the BYU Education Department sitting on Executive Boards and speaking at these conferences is stunning. But it doesn’t end here. Stay tuned…
In the summer of 2010, BYU’s education department told the Provo Daily Herald they were leaving John Goodlad’s National Network for Educational Renewal for “financial reasons” and said they were leaving other organizations as well. This might be true. They might have been losing donors who had become aware that John Goodlad’s organization was pressuring BYU and they might have told BYU no more money unless they dropped that association. Unfortunately, it looks like that was only one of several questionable memberships for BYU’s Education department.
This past week, I received an email from someone alerting me to BYU’s Education department’s current involvement with NAME, the National Organization for Multicultural Education, which is for “Advancing and Advocating for Social Justice & Equity.” On Nameorg.org’s home page, we find a writeup with this headline, “NAME Statement of Solidarity with Occupy Chicago and the Global Occupy Movement”. You can read their statement of support for the revolution here: http://nameorg.org/ or click the image to enlarge it.
The 2008 NAME conference was titled “Beyond Celebrating Diversity: ReACTivating the Equity and Social Justice Roots of Multicultural Education.” This pretty much sums up the organization but to be totally clear, NAME’s mission statement includes these goals and objective:
Multicultural education is a philosophical concept built on the ideals of freedom, justice, equality, equity, and human dignity as acknowledged in various documents, such as the U.S. Declaration of Independence, constitutions of South Africa and the United States, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations…
…It [a multicultural education] prepares all students to work actively toward structural equality in organizations and institutions by providing the knowledge, dispositions, and skills for the redistribution of power and income among diverse groups. Thus, school curriculum must directly address issues of racism, sexism, classism, linguicism, ablism, ageism, heterosexism, religious intolerance, and xenophobia…
…In addition, teachers and students must critically analyze oppression and power relations in their communities, society and the world…
…Multicultural education requires comprehensive school reform as multicultural education must pervade all aspects of the school community and organization.
Recognizing that equality and equity are not the same thing, multicultural education attempts to offer all students an equitable educational opportunity, while at the same time, encouraging students to critique society in the interest of social justice.
I strongly agree that equality and equity is clearly defined in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. All [people] are created equal and endowed by their creator with unalienable rights. That should be what we teach all children. No one is better or worse than another because of the color of their skin. Everyone has the opportunity to rise to greatness. But that’s it. End of story. No legislating the playing field to give the advantage to anyone including minorities. Just level the playing field and give everyone the opportunity to become what they will.
On the Institutional Memberships page of NAME’s website, we find BYU listed.
Membership in this organization is a small annual fee but one can’t help but wonder why BYU didn’t drop this association when they dropped the NNER membership last year since they said they were dropping “others” at that time.
On the Utah Chapter of NAME’s website, I discovered more BYU involvement on the board and in other supportive roles.
The email I received pointed out:
Alta High’s new principal was hired by Canyon’s District because he is a multicultural educator. He is out of the David O. McKay School, and received NAME’S 2011 Educator of the year award. He cowrote a book “Holistic Multicultural Education: Pedagogy for the 21st Century” with three others at BYU, one being Ramona Cutri—a current professor at the McKay school and 2009 President of NAME’s Utah Chapter.
Like John Goodlad’s NNER conference last year where Bill Ayers was the keynote speaker, Bill Ayers was the keynote speaker for NAME’s national conference last month (November 2011), and just like the good old days of BYU’s Education department involvement in Goodlad’s NNER, two BYU education professors were presenters at the conference (link to a review of the conference, Ayers on page 1 & BYU on page 6).
One presentation I found on the Utah NAME chapter website from March 2010, entitled “Making the Case for Multicultural Education in Utah” was from BYU Professor Ramona Maile Cutri. Among the slides I found this representative of what this organization is about.
BYU Education Department has a webpage (maybe more) devoted to diversity activities including how to incorporate multiculturalism into your classroom.
Membership in an organization promoting the downfall of America: CHECK
Membership in an organization with ties to Bill Ayers: CHECK
Membership in an organization promoting the gay agenda: CHECK
Membership in an organization promoting social justice: CHECK
Membership in an organization promoting redistribution of wealth: CHECK
Can we get a complete audit of BYU’s Education Department memberships and associations?
Also sent to me was a 2007 working document where BYU’s education department was performing a John Goodlad NNER “Equity Self-Study” evaluation related to the Public School Partnership. The PSP is how BYU relates everything they are doing and pushes it into the PSP school districts. This first page of the document shows Steven Baugh, director of CITES (the teacher and administrator training/indoctrination facility for the PSP); Richard Young, from BYU’s Education Department; and other representatives such as Alpine School District’s Superintendent Vern Henshaw, were major players in creating this document. The document shows political ideology in a phase called “sustaining progress.”
Further down this chart is a line item called “Sexual Orientation” which is in the “Beginning to Implement” column. The two sets with footnotes in this column are written up as follows.
Xa) Language, Locality, Race, and Socioeconomic Status—We are beginning to implement a number of
programs/initiatives in these areas. Specifics are listed below entitled “Programs/initiatives to promote equity.” As
a general statement, we are sustaining progress in these areas.
Xb) Sexual Orientation—The School of Education has identified the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that every
teacher candidate should possess to assist all students in the schools to access a quality education regardless of
sexual orientation, disability, gender, etc. The primary place for teaching this is designated for the multicultural
classes required of all teacher candidates. In addition, all teacher candidate course work and field experience is
undergirded by the moral dimensions of teaching.
NAME is evidently the organization BYU choose to partner with to better indoctrinate teacher candidates in multicultural classes. The “moral dimensions of teaching” is the buzz-phrase from John Goodlad which includes the “Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy.” Both the NNER and NAME organization are in favor of overturning our system of government and moving toward a socialist state.
MAKE NO MISTAKE, if your child is in one of the PSP school districts which include Provo, Nebo, Alpine, Wasatch, Jordan, and probably Canyon now, your teachers are receiving this garbage as part of their training. Your administrators are being indoctrinated in it. It may take time to trickle down and some teachers will wisely filter out the garbage from their own mind, but at some point they will be held accountable to new standards which call for implementing these things in the classroom.
The dangers of BYU professors associating with Bill Ayers and other revolutionary minded people is most disturbing when parents think they are sending their children to a university with a belief that the U.S. Constitution was divinely inspired and their children are going to learn a love and respect for our country. Instead, children are being indoctrinated through these programs to promote people based on characteristics other than individual skill and effort, and to tear down our country and replace it with a direct democracy and moral relativism. If your child has an interest in becoming a teacher, I would strongly suggest avoiding BYU and urge everyone to not donate to BYU unless it’s to a specific department other than a teacher preparation department such as the Education and Math Education departments.
Dealing with Korihor
ASD’s Democracy Explained (Helping people understand progressives’ definition of Democracy)
I recently posted a question on a Facebook group page asking people to consider why Karl Marx included free public education in his 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto. Someone soon came along and posted this:
“Please attempt to have a discussion about education that does not use comparisons to communism and/or Karl Marx. Attempting to demonize opposing views just shows a complete lack of desire to have civil dialog.”
“Who is demonizing…? Are you saying people who discuss education must stick their head in the sand and avoid some of the elephants in the room? Why can’t a person bring up an obvious point and have it considered rationally without being accused of demonizing?”
I thought the purpose of critical thinking skills that educators always talk about is being able to dissect and understand a topic by honest questioning. So why did Karl Marx include free public education as one of his 10 planks?
To understand this, one has to understand the foundation of the Manifesto’s goal. Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto to lay out a plan for the destruction of private property. Only with the destruction of private property can you have a communist way of life. From H. Verlan Anderson’s book, “Many are Called, but Few are Chosen,” we read this explanation:
“Not only does the Manifesto declare its main purpose to be the destruction of private property, but it contains a detailed plan by which this is to be accomplished in a nation such as the United States whose laws and constitutions were designed to protect this right.
The method proposed is not violent and bloody revolution (at least at the outset) but the peaceful and legal process of inducing the citizens of the United States and other nations to destroy the right themselves with their own legislatures, courts, and executives. We are to adopt a series of laws which will inevitably have this result. Listen to the Manifesto as it unfolds its plan:
‘We have seen above that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to establish democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest by degrees all capital from the bourgeoisie (property owners), to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state.’
This naked appeal to the selfishness of the voter to use the government as an instrument of plunder is nothing but a proposal for legalized theft.”
The reason the communists promote Democracy is because once you establish class warfare to the point that the majority vote themselves property from the minority, the destruction of private property is ensured. The people will continue to vote socialist minded people into office to pass laws guaranteeing for themselves anything they desire. This is where we find the quote often attributed to Alexander Tytler so applicable.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”
Can anyone argue we don’t have loose fiscal policy and we’re not headed for a dictatorship? If you don’t believe it, you’re not watching the mandates and sidestepping of the legislative process the President is engaged in.
So now why did Karl Marx declare free public education in government schools as one of his 10 main objectives to destroy private property? Here are three reasons I can think of.
1) Getting people without children to pay for the education of people with children, via compulsory taxation, takes the personal property of those who may not want to or be able to give, in order to pay for a good or service for someone else. This is a tremendous injustice to those without children. Parents, never having to write a check or make a payment for the service, cease to concern themselves with what their child is being taught or if waste is occurring in the system. There is no competition, just apathy. Some will say that paying for the education of other children is for the benefit of society, however, one could say that about almost anything. It never used to be this way till Marx and Horace Mann came along and got us into this model.
2) In a state school funded with public tax dollars, the lowest common denominator prevails meaning those who believe least (atheism) trump those who believe most (in God). Free government education is a way to destroy public morality and a belief in God, which was one of Marx’s goals to establish atheism. Our Christian founders wanted to have strong morals taught in schools from the Bible. Not sectarian beliefs, but morals grounded in God’s commandments which ultimately lead to the happiness of the people.
3) It removes from parents the authority and responsibility of being the primary educator of their children. The state takes an interest and with government money paying for the education, the government can create mandates on everything in the system including curriculum, testing, standards, teachers, administrators, etc… Parents lose the ability to control their child’s education.
Until parents directly pay for at least a portion of their child’s education, they will never take an interest in how funds are being spent and what their children are being taught.
From the Latter-Day Conservative website I got this excellent quote.
“God finds His glory, as Joseph Smith said, in providing laws by which other beings can come to enjoy the same perfections and glory He possesses. Our view and motivations should be the same. Rather than seeing law as an instrument of domination, it is our mission to use it as an enabling power to help men and women achieve greater independence and ultimate potential. We do so by acting to have our earthly governmental and legal systems mirror as closely as possible the divine order. – ”
(“Law and Becoming”, Elder D. Todd Christoffersons. Fireside presented to the J. Reuben Clark Law Society, February 4, 2011. Published in the Clark Memorandum, Spring 2011.)
What is the divine order? It is founded upon the principle of agency, or choice. One must choose to become educated. One must choose to be charitable. One should be able to choose the educational environment for their children. Government run public schools funded by tax dollars, forcing children to learn what the state tells them and in the manner in which they tell them, is a factory conveyor belt model for things that are to be acted upon like a raw material, not a place for sentient beings that need to learn to act and use choice or agency to put themselves into motion to accomplish great things. When responsibility is removed from people, even in education, apathy sets in and we become nothing more than drones. Parents and children should be active participants in the education process. When they are not, they relinquish their right to agency and personal growth.
What the “Occupy Wall Street” Democracy-lovers would do to us today is destroy private property in the name of immoral corporations. However, the problem isn’t with capitalism, it’s with morality. Our Founders said only a moral and religious people could maintain a free republic. With each action of government in removing God and religion in our daily lives, individuals have lost their moral anchor and believe they can take advantage of their neighbors to get ahead without any consequences. The problems in Wall Street, Washington, and everywhere else won’t be solved by more laws that force people into good behavior. New laws are the result of lost morals because everyone wants to clamp down on bad behavior. The solution to society’s ills can only be found in a return to God-centered morals. Only then will people treat each other with honesty and charity and cease taking advantage of each other through dishonest business practices, or plunder made legal through our process of lawmaking.
Perhaps the best statement I’ve read explaining this is from Howard W. Hunter, a past president of the LDS church, who said:
“What is the real cause of this trend toward the welfare state, toward more socialism? In the last analysis, in my judgment, it is personal unrighteousness. When people do not use their freedoms responsibly and righteously, they will gradually lose these freedoms . . ..
If man will not recognize the inequalities around him and voluntarily, through the gospel plan, come to the aid of his brother, he will find that through “a democratic process” he will be forced to come to the aid of his brother. The government will take from the “haves” and give to the “have nots.” Both have lost their freedom. Those who “have,” lost their freedom to give voluntarily of their own free will and in the way they desire. Those who “have not,” lost their freedom because they did not earn what they received. They got “something for nothing,” and they will neither appreciate the gift nor the giver of the gift.
Under this climate, people gradually become blind to what has happened and to the vital freedoms, which they have lost. (Speeches of the Year 1965-1966, pp. 1-11, “The Law of the Harvest.” Devotional Address, Brigham Young University, 8 March 1966.)”
Every violation of the constitution that provides a socialistic program to the public (yes, including public education), encourages the slide into the destruction of private property. The rallying cry of socialists is “Democracy” because it is through majority votes of the “have nots” that they take from the “haves” and the ongoing, systematic destruction of our economy creates more “have nots.” We must understand, respect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and honor the laws that protect our life, liberty, and property, or Democracy will be the downfall of this nation.
Hopefully this gives new perspective to why there is such a danger in our schools adopting slogans like “Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy.” This is simply a restatement of the communist goal to establish a democratic welfare state which serves to destroy morality and private property through the votes of a growing immoral majority.