Archive for the ‘Senator Orrin Hatch’ Tag

VIDEO: Jakell Sullivan on Building Something Better (ABE Conference)   Leave a comment

At this year’s Agency Based Education (ABE) conference, one speaker, Jakell Sullivan, presented the following remarkable research.  Please watch and share.

Oak Norton, founder of ABE, shared this insight in his introduction to Jakell’s video:

“In the Old Testament we read of a curious story where “Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel” (1 Chron. 21:1). David’s temptation caused him to look upon his people as human capital and as a result he brought a severe curse upon Israel. As a result, God took away a portion of David’s “capacity” to build or make war by offering him one of three curses. David chose the shortest curse, pestilence, which brought upon his kingdom a three day plague and killed 70,000 men.

Statewide longitudinal database systems and digital badging are the designated “numbering” systems used by the education system in America today. When Secretary Arne Duncan and others speak about human capital, they are literally engaging in an effort to control and direct the economic future of our nation. Instead of independent thinkers, we have “common” education standards nationwide, with national assessment, tracking, and a host of other programs to bring all children into a standardization to fit them to the economic desires of those in power.

In this presentation, JaKell Sullivan enlightens and exposes what is happening in the White House and departments of education across the nation and how they are dramatically overstepping their bounds. Please watch and share this presentation, and become a member of Agency Based Education today to help support our mission.”

(You might want to tweet it to @OrrinHatch or other D.C. senators who are about to vote about ESEA/ESSA.  Ask them to vote no because the bill hurts Jakell’s cause, the cause of freedom and putting family and individuals first as it entrenches standardization, gives the feds veto power over anything a state wants to do, enriches ed corporations rather than children, accepts as normal the ongoing, unconstitutional federal encroachment into education, and cements the power of student-data mining.)

Thanks, Jakell!

Advertisements

Sen Hatch V. Sen Lee On Fed Ed Over Parental Rights   2 comments

 

hatch

Senator Hatch’s offices better fasten their seatbelts.  They are in for a bumpy ride after messing with family rights in education.  Sen. Hatch voted against Senator Lee’s “Parental Notification and Opt Out Amendment” to the Every Child Achieves Act, S1177 yesterday.

If you call Senator Orrin Hatch’s D.C. offices, or his Salt Lake City offices, you will get an answering machine.  It happens to me every time.  Please call and leave a message anyway.  Ask his staff to call back to account for why Hatch voted against Sen. Lee’s  common sense amendment.  Call 801-625-5672  and 801-524-4380.

If Sen. Lee’s “Parental Notification and Opt Out Amendment” would have passed, we would have upheld the parental right to opt out of federally mandated standardized testing (aka Common Core/SAGE/AIR/SBAC/PARCC testing.)  This would have required schools to notify parents when such testing takes place, effectively killing the creepy new nationwide education trend called embedded curriculum testing, or stealth testing, which erases parental opt out-ability.  But Hatch said no.

I will call his offices every day until I get a response.

Please share the precise bill language in S1177 with all US senators everywhere as they prepare to vote for or against this monster reauthorization of No Child Left Behind today.   Please tell Senators that you expect them to VOTE NO on S1177.

Here’s the link that explains, using the bill’s language itself, why it is clear that people of liberty must vote NO on S1177.

 

amash

Rep. Justin Amash  explained, after he wisely voted NO on the twin bill  to S1177,  House Bill, HR5 “The Student Success Act” (which passed this week) :

“Here are the facts you should know about H.R. 5 and the current status of NCLB:  The funding authorization for No Child Left Behind expired more than seven years ago. Contrary to some statements and press reports, H.R. 5 does not repeal NCLB; it reauthorizes NCLB with modifications. If H.R. 5 becomes law, NCLB will be authorized for the first time since FY 2008.

Why do states and schools continue to act as though No Child Left Behind is current law? Because Congress has continued to appropriate money for NCLB as though the funding authorization never expired! In other words, the program is legally dead, yet Congress continues to send federal funding to schools, with strings attached, as though the law remains in effect.

How should Congress deal with No Child Left Behind? Simply stop funding it.There’s no current authorization for the funding, so the funding needs to stop.

Don’t we need this new bill to stop Common Core? No, we don’t. H.R. 5 reauthorizes No Child Left Behind, which provides federal funding for education. The bill says none of that money may be used (or withheld) to push Common Core. But voting no on H.R. 5 means voting no on the funding authorization that the federal government uses to compel states to adopt Common Core. So, either way, Common Core loses.

Doesn’t this new bill include an amendment to allow parents to opt out of standardized testing? Yes, but it’s H.R. 5 that authorizes federally mandated standardized testing in the first place. Voting no on H.R. 5 means voting no on such standardized testing.

Was there an amendment to allow states to opt out of No Child Left Behind even if H.R. 5 becomes law? Yes. I voted yes on the Walker amendment, but remarkably it failed 195-235 in a Republican-led House of Representatives.”

 

lee

Senator Lee explained to Congress yesterday:

“I’ve heard from countless moms and dads in Utah who feel as though anonymous government officials living and working 2,000 miles away have a greater say in the education of their children than they do.

One of the most frustrating issues for parents is the amount of standardized tests their children are required to take, particularly the tests that are designed and mandated by the federal government.  And it’s not just the frequency of these tests that is frustrating. Too often parents don’t know when these federally-required assessments are going take place, and they don’t find out until after the fact.

…The notion that parents should not be expected to forfeit all of their rights to the government just because they enroll their children in the public school system is not a Democratic idea or a Republican idea. It’s simply an American idea.

That’s why several states – including states as distinct as California and Utah – have passed laws that allow parents to opt out of federally-required tests.

But there’s a problem.  Under current law, states with opt-out laws risk losing federal education dollars if a certain proportion of parents decide opting-out is best for their children, because schools are required to assess 95 percent of their students in order to receive federal funds. I introduced an amendment to protect states from losing federal funding if over 5 percent of parents choose to opt out of federally-required tests. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to pass my amendment.”

Watch the whole video of Senator Lee’s speech here.

How I wish we had dozens of Representative Amashes and Senator Mike Lees in Congress.  Congressmen who understand and apply the Constitution are becoming rare, rare treasures.

 ———————–
Update:  I did hear back from a staffer at Senator Hatch’s office.  I was given talking points and more talking points.  What I want is an actual written conversation using the language of the bill in all its contradictions and oppressions, citing page and section numbers and not avoiding the issues that are uncomfortable, controlling the conversation.  This is what saps constituents of substantive faith in their elected reps:  cut and paste talking points (which sadly, even my own Rep. Jason Chaffetz is handing out on HR5.)  These do not, not impress.

 

 

 

A Titanic NO on Twin Ed Bills – Children Deserve Better Than HR5 and S1177   9 comments

titanic

 

 

You can’t stick corks into the side of the Titanic to save the people on the ship, and you can’t stick amendments into evil bills and then in good conscience vote yes on them. We are building and voting for our own children’s cages in the belly of a sinking ship.

Read the current ed reform bill amendments here; some are dancing about the Zeldin amendment  because it “allows” states to opt out of Common Core. STATES ALREADY CAN do that.  The point is that the feds bribe states not to, and states don’t.  Then the feds push out data systems that nobody is smart enough to not build.

If I sound a little bit angry, that’s because I am typing.  If you were here in the room you would want earplugs.  I am very angry, very disappointed.  Very loud inside my own little furious head and home.

I’m speaking about the twin bills in the House and Senate to be voted on; one today, HR5 which we all shot down in April; the other bill, S1177, will get a vote soon.

See American Principles Project’s excellent, short pdf (with references) on HR5 here;  the their pdf on S.1177 here.

I know I’m not smarter than my senators and representatives.  I can read, and so can they.  So why, why, why are they NOT telling we, the people, who call their offices that they are unequivocally voting NO on these bad twin ed reform bills, HR5 and S1177?  I have to assume that the represenatives are not studying these 300, 600, 800 page monsters; that they are relying on the talking points of the bill’s authors.  If so, the reps are revealing dangerous  incompetence–   carelessness with our precious liberty and our precious children.

I do realize that our representatives are busy.  But these are dire circumstances that affect children so negatively.  We elected and pay these friends.  We entrust them with the futures of our public school children.  Yet, I don’t know if I believe they are reading the bills.  Orrin Hatch is promoting S1177.  But I’m concerned about the entire Utah delegation of senators and representatives -and many others outside Utah.

In what universe is it okay for a senator or a representative to vote yes on a bill that does what HR 5 does?**   It:

  • Cements the unconstutitional Fed Master- State Servant relationship
  • Attacks parental opt out movement – kills parental opt out rights
  • Hacks off religious freedom and autonomy for any private schools that receive federal dollars for any of their programs
  • Pretends that federal FERPA hasn’t been shot full of holes and depends on FERPA for privacy rights (what privacy rights?)
  • Fails to require parental consent for state data mining of children’s personally identifiable data
  • Creates unelected committees that have real power over state citizens who did not elect them
  • Fails to provide enforcement for autonomy which means there won’t be any state autonomy
  • Extends federal tentacles and data collection to preschoolers
  • Reinforces socialist alignment of schools to workforce, putting economy first without regard for students
  • Retains federal testing mandates
  • Promotes psychological profiling of students

**Below, I am posting section numbers for the reference of those who want to see the language with their own eyes.

 

In what universe is it okay for a senator or a representative to vote yes on a bill that does what S1177 does?***

  • Pretends to protect us from federal overreach with redundant, nonhelpful language
  • Aligns us to “college and career ready” standard which ARE Common Core, federally defined elsewhere
  • Cements the unconstutitional Fed Master- State Servant relationship
  • Mandates that States answer to the Feds even on altering state standards
  • Retains federal testing mandates
  • Adds to the list of programs a state must consult and aligns with workforce (socialism) program
  • Dictates types of testing
  • Forces out the parental opt out movement
  • Narrows the definition of “mental health” and “school climate” that reduces student religious and political expression
  • Probes into psychological data collection on children without parental consent
  • Fails to require parental consent for state data mining of children’s personally identifiable data
  • Extends federal tentacles and data collection to preschool

***Below, I am posting section numbers for the reference of those who want to see the language with their own eyes.

The list could go on and on and on.

I don’t get it.  I really do not understand these politicians.  I really do not.

Our children deserve better.  So much better!

I’ll be wasting spending time and breath all day today, again, calling 202-224-3121 to get my senators’ and reps’ attention.  Feel free to join me.  Even though it feels like we are sticking corks into the side of the Titanic.  May God help us.

titanic side

—————————-

“THE STUDENT SUCCESS ACT”

**HR5 section numbers for reference:

  • Master and Servant unconstitutional relationship in cement:

“For any State desiring to receive a grant under this subpart, the State educational agency file with the Secretary a plan,” “Each State plan shall demonstrate [to the federal agents]” – 1111(a)1 –

“Approval: The Secretary shall approve a State plan within 120 days of its submission; disapprove of the State plan only if the Secretary demonstrates how the State plan fails” – 1111(e)1B

“The Secretary [federal] shall have the authority to disapprove a State plan” – 1111(e)2 D

“If a State makes significant changes to its State plan, such as the adoption of new State academic standards or new academic assessments, or adopts a new State accountability system, such information shall be submitted to the Secretary under subsection (e)(2) for approval.” – 1111 (f)

“If a State fails to meet any of the requirements of this section then the Secretary shall withhold funds” – 1111(g)

  • Attack on parental rights via stopping opt out movement:

“Assessments shall… be administered to not less than 95 percent of all students, and not less than 95 percent of each subgroup of students”- 1111(b)(2)(B)(xiii)

 

  • Hacking off religious freedom and autonomy for any private school receiving any federal dollars for programs:

“The control of funds provided under this subpart, and title to materials, equipment, and property purchased with such funds, shall be in a public agency, and a public agency shall administer such funds, materials, equipment, and property…  independent of such private school and of any religious organization.” 1120(d)(2)(B)

  •  Pretending that federal FERPA hasn’t been shot full of holes and depending on FERPA for privacy rights (what privacy rights?)

“Information collected under this section shall be collected and disseminated in a manner that protects the privacy of individuals consistent with section 444 of the General Education Provisions Act and this Act.” – 1111(i)  For more on FERPA’s deliberate loosening (destruction) by the Dept. of Ed, see the E.P.I.C. lawsuit.

  • Failing to require parental consent for state data mining of children’s personally identifable information

Nada.  Do a word search for “SLDS” or “State Longitudinal Database Systems” or “SIF” or “CEDS” and you will find nothing.  There is no protection.  There is no informed consent.  There is no parental-consent requirement–  not here and not in FERPA.

  • Creating unelected committees that have real power over state citizens who did not elect them. (And using these unelected groups to eliminate policies that don’t match federal policies)

“State rules, regulations, and policies… conform to… the committee of practitioners”

“Each State educational agency that receives funds under this title shall create a State committee of practitioners”

“Eliminate the rules and regulations that are duplicative of Federal requirements… identify any duplicative or contrasting requirements between the State and Federal rules or regulations; report any conflicting requirements to the Secretary… (1403)

  • Failing to provide enforcement for autonomy which means there won’t be any state autonomy from the feds.

State autonomy is in no way enforceable by HR5.  It’s not in there.  That is the problem.  It’s just talking points about state’s rights, with no support.

  • Extending federal tentacles and data collection to preschoolers.

“perform child-find screening services for the preschool-aged children of the tribe” – 5133 a

“assessment of  family-based, early childhood, and preschool programs for Native Hawaiians” – 5304 (c) 2

“evaluate the aggregate short- and long-term effects and cost efficiencies across Federal programs… under this Act and related Federal preschool, elementary, and secondary programs”  – 6601

 “improve the identification of homeless children (including preschool-aged homeless children and youths) ” – 702

“Coordinator for Education of Homeless Children and Youths established in each State shall— gather and make publically available… comprehensive information on— the number of homeless children and youths identified… the nature and extent of the problems homeless children and youths have in gaining access to public preschool programs” – 702

collect data for and transmit to the Secretary, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may require, a report containing information necessary to assess the educational needs of homeless children and youths within the State, including data necessary for the Secretary to fulfill the responsibilities… including teachers, special education personnel, administrators, and child development and preschool program personnel – 702

“Plans required:  … how the local educational agency will use funds under this subpart to support preschool programs”  – 1112

  • Reinforcing socialist alignment of schools to workforce, putting economy first without regard for students

“Each State plan shall demonstrate [to the feds] that the State has developed and is implementing a single, statewide accountability system to ensure that all public school students graduate from high school prepared for postsecondary education or the workforce” -1111  (This is repeated and repeated. A word search for “workforce” turns up 22 times in this bill.)

  • Retaining federal testing mandates

“Academic assessments… shall—  be used in determining the performance of each local educational agency and public school… be aligned with the State’s academic standards and provide coherent and timely information about student attainment of such standards… be consistent with… nationally recognized… technical standards… be administered in each of grades 3 through 8 and at least once in grades 9 through 12… in the case of science, be administered not less than one time during—grades 3 through 5;  grades 6 through 9; and in the case of any other subject chosen by the State, be administered at the discretion of the State; measure individual student academic proficiency and, at the State’s discretion, growth…  be administered through multiple assessments during the course of the academic year that result in a single summative score that provides valid, reliable, and transparent information on student achievement … enable results to be disaggregated… be administered to not less than 95 percent of all students, and not less than 95 percent of each subgroup of students described in paragraph (3)(B)(ii)(II); and be the same academic assessments used to measure the academic achievement of all public school students… provide for— the participation in such assessments of all students… produce individual student interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic reports regarding achievement on such assessments in … uniform format…” –1111

  • Promoting psychological profiling of students 

“Assessments … (xi) “produce individual student interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic reports regarding achievement on such assessments” -1111

As American Principles in Action pointed out, “HR5 does nothing to stop NAEP from implementing its planned and unconstitutional affective probing of students’ “mindsets,” “grit,” or other psychological traits.  (To see the Dept. of Education’s recommendation that schools engage in psychological and biometric profiling, read its report here, especially page 44.)

 cry

“THE EVERY CHILD ACHIEVES ACT”

***S1177 section numbers for reference: 

  • Pretending to protect states and parents from federal overreach using redundant, nonhelpful (and contradictory) language

First the bill raises our hopes; the talking points sound good; maybe this won’t be a federal sledgehammer to parents and states.  The bill’s sections 5001-5010 (a large chunk of the very large bill)  even go under the title “Empowering Parents and Expanding Opportunity Through Innovation”.  Sounds nice.  But deep inside, the bill almost conceals ugly and unconstitutional words like this:

“State plan disapproval: The Secretary shall have the authority to disapprove a State plan” –1004

“If the Secretary determines that a State plan does not meet the requirements of this subsection or subsection (b) or (c), the Secretary shall, prior to declining to approve the State plan immediately notify the State of such determination… offer the State an opportunity to revise” –1111

“A State educational agency may use not more than 5 percent of the amount made available to the State… for the following activities…”

“Closing student achievement gaps, and preparing more students to be college and career ready” -2501(4)    (Making everyone common does tend to close the achievement gaps, by slowing those who would otherwise soar ahead of the mediocre and the slow.)

  • Cementing the unconstitutional Fed-Master/State-Servant relationship

“State plan disapproval: The Secretary shall have the authority to disapprove a State plan” –1004

“For any State desiring to receive a grant under this part, the State educational agency shall submit to the Secretary a plan…” – 1111

  • Retaining federal testing and standards mandates

“Same standards: … standards required by subparagraph (A) shall be the same standards that the State applies to all public schools and public school students” –1111   (Do you want to give the feds the authority to dictate uniformity to us?  What if a state wants to be innovative and diverse and various? That won’t be allowed by this federal law.)

“Alignment: Each State shall demonstrate that the challenging State academic standards are aligned with entrance requirements, without the need for academic remediation, for the system of public higher education in the State; relevant State career and technical education standards; and relevant State early learning guidelines” –1111

“Measures the annual progress of not less than 95 percent of all students, and students in each of the categories of students” -1204

“Measure the annual progress of not less than 95 percent of all students and students in each of the categories of students” – 1205

  • Adding to the list of programs States must consult, and aligning with workforce socialism program

“(aa) student readiness to enter postsecondary education or the workforce” -1111  (repeated many times)

“an application … shall include the following: A description of… assets, identified by the State… which shall include— an analysis of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education quality and outcomes in the State…  labor market information regarding the industry and business workforce needs within the State….”  –2504

  • Dictating types of testing– including using nonacademic, interpretive, and diagnostic student reports

“produce individual student interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic reports…  include information regarding achievement on academic assessments aligned with challenging State academic achievement standards… in  uniform format” –1111(b) (2) (B) (vi) (xiii)

“(vi) involve multiple up-to-date measures of student academic achievement, including measures that assess higher-order thinking skills and understanding, which may include measures of student academic growth and may be partially delivered in the form of portfolios, projects, or extended performance tasks” – 1111 (b) (2) (B) (vi)

Assessments must  “be administered through a single summative assessment; or be administered through multiple statewide assessments during the course of the year if the State can demonstrate that the results of these multiple assessments, taken in their totality, provide a summative score” – 1111 (b) (2) (B) (viii)

“(xiii) be developed, to the extent practicable, using the principles of universal design for learning.” – 1111 (b) (2) (B) (xiii)

 

  • Forcing out the parental opt-out movement; also, booting family out and putting government in to the center of the universe.

Crushing opt outs, each state test must “Measures the annual progress of not less than 95 percent of all students, and students in each of the categories of students” -1204

Same:  “Measure the annual progress of not less than 95 percent of all students and students in each of the categories of students” – 1205

Schools to be far, far more than places to learn numeracy and literacy:  “21st Century Learning Centers… an array of additional services, programs, and activities, such as youth development activities, service learning, nutrition and health education, drug and violence prevention programs, counseling programs, art, music, physical fitness and wellness programs, technology education programs, financial literacy programs, math, science, career and technical programs, internship or apprenticeship programs, and other ties to an in-demand industry sector” – 4201

“address family instability, school climate, trauma, safety, and nonacademic learning.”  -7304

Thank you, Senator Hatch   Leave a comment

Dear Mrs. Swasey:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). It is good to hear from you.
As you may know, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the CRPD in 2006 and President Obama transmitted it to the Senate earlier this year.  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held only one hearing on this treaty and quickly reported it to the full Senate.  As one of the principle authors of the Americans with Disabilities Act, I support this treaty’s general goal of promoting the rights and opportunities of persons with disabilities but believe that an international treaty is the wrong means of achieving that goal.
The CRPD would authorize a United Nations committee of individuals chosen by foreign countries to evaluate whether, in its opinion, a ratifying country is complying with the treaty.  If the United States ratified it, this committee would scrutinize our political, social, cultural, and even family life.  Since a ratified treaty has the same legal status as the Constitution itself, this treaty undermines American sovereignty and self-government.
With these concerns in mind, I voted against the CRPD on December 4, 2012. The 61-38 vote was fewer than the 2/3 margin that the Constitution requires for ratification.  However, I will continue to support legitimate ways of promoting the rights and opportunities of persons with disabilities.
Once again, thank you for writing.
Your Senator,
Orrin G. Hatch
United States Senator

No Real and Certain Rights for Parents in U.N. Treaty Text   Leave a comment

 Compiled by LeNell Heywood

“Children are treated much, much better in the special needs setting whenever their parents have real and certain rights. Those rights are gone if this Senate ratifies this treaty.”

— Michael Farris

 

From Concerned Women for America

http://www.cwalac.org/printer_1189.shtml

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is a treaty that undermines U.S. sovereignty. Despite its name, it does little to advance the needs of people with disabilities. This treaty is unnecessary and will surrender American power into the hands of a foreign entity.


Overview:

  • Americans with disabilities are already protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act and other federal laws.
  • America is already the leading example for the world, providing freedom and justice for persons with disabilities.
  • Advocates of the Treaty argue that if the U.S. signs on it will send a strong message to other countries to do the same.
  • Those opposed to the Treaty understand the error of signing onto a Treaty where U.S. power is emasculated.

 

Excerpts from Michael Farris’ address to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/REVISED_Michael_Farris_Testimony.pdf

The way for the United States to continue to lead the world in this area is to ensure that American law and practice live up to the promises of the Declaration of Independence rather than the amorphous standards of a committee of 18 experts in Geneva.

 

The UNCRPD follows the trend of the second generation of human rights treaties which promote the idea that government, not parents, have the ultimate voice in decisions concerning their children.

 

Early human rights instruments were very supportive of the rights of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children.

 

All of the rights that parents have under both traditional American law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act will be undermined by this treaty.

 

Children are treated much, much better in the special needs setting whenever their parents have real and certain rights.

 

Those rights are gone if this Senate ratifies this treaty.

 

Americans should make the law for America—we do not need a committee of experts in Geneva to look over our shoulders to help us determine what kind of policy we need to best protect Americans with special needs and disabilities.

 

It was American self-government and not international law that led to the significant advancements that this nation has seen in the appropriate law and policies concerning persons with disabilities.

 

International law has no track record of success that could lead any reasonable person to believe that international law would have any claim of superiority over American self-government.

 

We should pass whatever laws we need to ensure proper policies and practices for Americans with disabilities. But we should not give away our policy prerogatives to the superintendence of a committee of UN experts sitting in Geneva.

 

Treaty Text:

http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml

Be aware that the UN has its own language. Reading these documents having never read them before might not raise any red flags. We know from experience how the mere mention of treating people equally, especially in “developing nations” can mean a mandate to the wealthy nations to redistribute their funds to those nations, either through more foreign aid (hidden international tax) or through a direct international tax, which has been on the table for some time.

 

UT Senator Mike Lee is trying to stop this! Please thank him! UT Senator Hatch voted yes on the Motion to Proceed after committing to Senator Lee that he would vote no. Senator Hatch needs to hear from you. 

The vote for ratification is tomorrow.

 

Please read this information and contact your U.S. Senators today (number and locator link below) and pass it on. The vote will take place tomorrow at noon.

 

Ask them to oppose UNCRPD (U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

 

Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121

 

Find your senators here:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

—————————————————————————-

The author of this blog thanks LeNell Heywood for compiling this information.

%d bloggers like this: