Tag Archives: education

Republican Heresy? Get a R.O.P.E!

Kaye Beach

Oct 19, 2011

Jenni White, President of R.O.P.E (Restore Oklahoma Public Education) asks;

Am I A Republican Heretic?       

Why would she ask such a thing?

ROPE endorsed Republican Janet Barresi for State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Many of us actually campaigned for her.

White believed like many other Republicans that Barresi would be a better choice for conservatives dissatisfied with the decidedly leftist direction of public education than Democrat, Susan Paddock.  That logic is straightforward enough but has it held up in reality.

Unfortunately, that answer is no.

ROPE lists just some of the items that evidence reason for conservative disappointment.

I took the time to watch the videos of the Oklahoma interim study on the Common Core State Standards held a couple of weeks ago and what I found most amazing is the behavior of Ms. Baressi herself.

If you did not know, the ladies from ROPE are ordinary Oklahomans who have invested a great deal of time, care and energy in serving as a watchdog for busy moms and dads.  They have devoted no less than one year to the research that was presented at the interim study.  They do all of this one reason.  They care about this state and the children of this state.  The ladies of ROPE do not get paid to lobby, study legislation or present their findings to the policy makers and the public.  I feel safe in stating that these women do not expect any thanks for their advocacy but I am sure they do not deserve the disrespect demonstrated by Baressi.

An interim study is just that-a study.  Ideally all sides of an issue should be aired and policy makers get the opportunity to ask questions.  Barresi showed claws and precious little to refute any of the facts brought before the panel. It was poor form on her part to say the least.  Barresi responded to the ROPE presentation and by extension, since she was presenting similar facts, the presentation of a Senior Policy Analyst with the Heritage Foundation, with a sweeping dismissal.  “We are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts”

Barresi did take the opportunity during her remarks to say that the Common Core State Standards are not mandated by the federal government.

“This is a state led, voluntary effort” says Baressi

http://www.youtube.com/user/RestoreOKPublicEd#p/u/6/z4-FstHrXbk

State led?    Two national, non-governmental organizations, The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, developed the standards behind closed doors.

“State led”, especially when coupled with the word “standards” really means federally controlled.  It’s just that the states are being good little troopers and doing Big Momma Gov’s work for her.

Barresi is simply mincing her words.  The old ‘carrot and stick method’  is being employed with nationalizing education just as we have seen with every other sector of our society.

Utah’s Republic asks; “Still think the Common Core Standards are just a state initiative? Ask yourself these questions and think again.” And shares some valuable insight;

  1. What do you call it when standards are adopted from a national body and a state isn’t allowed to modify anything they just adopted except to add up to 15%? De facto federal/national standards
  2. What do you call it when national assessments funded by the federal government and led by a Marxist researcher will measure the effectiveness of common core standards? National assessments overseeing national standards
  3. What do you call it when national tracking is done on both academic and non-academic factors to ensure that students are scoring well on these assessments? A massive violation of privacy and national assessments and standards
  4. What do you call it when the federal government engages with textbook publishers to create curriculum based on common standards? A national curriculum and national standards
  5. What do you call it when federal dollars for state education come from countries like China and states like California? Immoral because our grandchildren will pay for their parents education
  6. What do you call it when the federal department of education rewrites the laws on the books to eliminate and redirect local and state control of education to the federal government? Tyranny and national control of education
  7. What do you call it when state officials and agencies fail to connect the dots on these items? A tragic lack of foresight

Barresi offers nothing but her ire to refute the opposing presentations which is a sure sign that she is up against the wall and cannot form a rational argument to the facts that were presented.

The debate over federal coercion with the Common Core Standards is a lively one to put it mildly, but suffice it to say that with adopting the Common Core State Standards comes more federal control over our schools than any conservative ought to be comfortable with.

And this leads us back to Jenni White’s question;

Am I A Republican Heretic?       

If Republicanism is a religion that operates on faith in whoever happens to pin an “R” by their name, then the answer is; Yes my dear, you are.

 

Advertisements

America is open for business! US-China Conferences in Utah

Kaye Beach

July 20, 2011

“In welcoming China, Europe is swimming with the tide of history; America is struggling against it.”

That is the most coherent quote from this tail-chasing article from the Economist on Chinese direct investments abroad.  The article mostly seems to argue that Americans ought to get over it like the Europeans have and welcome our communist friends in with open arms.  Of course, the article then goes on to admit the English (that is the people of England!) find getting into bed with China almost as distasteful as their American counterparts.You can read that article, Welcome, bienvenue, willkommen, here

Should we welcome China with open arms?  I remain unconvinced.

After reading this report written by Amanda Teegarden, Executive Director of OK-SAFE (Oklahomans for Sovereignty and Free Enterprise) who was our eyes and ears at  the recent US-China Conferences held last week in Utah, I am even less enthusiastic.

Exclusive reporting by OK-SAFE;

Imagine “The Best Little Whorehouses in…uh, Utah?” U.S.-China 2011 Conferences

“On behalf of the people of Utah, I beg you for your continued partnership with Utah” Utah Governor Gary Herbert to the Chinese officials and business interests present at the U.S.-China 2011 Trade, Education & Culture Conference, 7-14-11

Read the report

爱达荷华人社区 Is America being Shanghaied? AxXiom For Liberty Radio Tonight

Friday, June 17, 2011

Tonight on AxXiom For Liberty Radio with Kaye Beach and Howard Houchen,

爱达荷华人社区 Is America being Shanghaied?

Shanghaied-to put by trickery into an undesirable position.

Listen Live from 6-8 pm CT on Rule of Law Radio

First, we will be speaking to Ron Black, conservative media commentator (best know as the 400 lb Gorilla of Oklahoma Media) about  Oklahoma’s Jam in June to Benefit Bikers Against Child Abuse

“As China seeks to make inroads in becoming an economic power inside the United States, they are not just planning to build factories and hire workers, but instead create whole cities and economic zones based on what has already been done on the mainland of ChinaLink

We are pleased to bring you two very knowledgeable guests to discuss this important issue.

Vicky Davis, former systems analyst and investigative researcher located in the soon to be People’s Republic of Idaho.

See-Foreign Trade Zones Inland Ports Trojan Triangles for Vicky’s research
You can find all of Vicky’s work at http://www.channelingreality.com/

And

Amanda Teegarden, the Executive Director (and highly regarded researcher in her own right) of OK-SAFE, Oklahoma’s ever reliable advocates of sovereignty and free enterprise.  http://www.ok-safe.com

Idaho has been all over the news recently as Americans discover that,

“China Wants To Construct A 50 Square Mile Self-Sustaining City South Of Boise, Idaho”

Vicky Davis has been on top of this situation since the start.  Back in January Vicky joined Howard and I on Axxiom For Liberty to talk about Idaho’s Gov. Butch Otters deal making with the Red Chinese or  “Trojan Triangles”  as she describes the plan.

see Jan 14th SHOW NOTES or listen to the podcast here

China seeks to build a city and economic zone in the state of Idaho

June 13, 2011 Kenneth Schortgen Jr   Finance Examiner

As manufacturing and American jobs continue to flow out of the US and into foreign countries offering better tax incentives, regulations, and cheaper labor, one place in America is offering China the opportunity to bring their model of planned economy to our borders.

That place is the state of Idaho, and plans are being made right now to build a 50-mile self sustaining city and economic zone that has the approval of the state’s Governor.

The US government has already created up to 257 foreign trade zones in America, and besides the one being planned in Idaho, Chinese companies are also currently in talks with the states Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania 

Perhaps the most famous of these “special economic zones” is Shenzhen.  . . .If the Chinese have their way, we will soon be seeing these “special economic zones” pop up all over the United States. –. – Idaho Statesman via End of the American Dream

Read more

We were warned.

More about Shenzhen’s special economic zone-

Excerpts from China’s All Seeing Eye by Naomi Klein 2008

Thirty years ago, the city of Shenzhen didn’t exist. Back in those days, it was a string of small fishing villages and collectively run rice paddies, a place of rutted dirt roads and traditional temples. That was before the Communist Party chose it. . .to be China’s first “special economic zone,” one of only four areas where capitalism would be permitted on a trial basis.

The theory behind the experiment was that the “real” China would keep its socialist soul intact while profiting from the private-sector jobs and industrial development created in Shenzhen.

. . .China today, epitomized by Shenzhen’s transition from mud to megacity in 30 years, represents a new way to organize society. Sometimes called “market Stalinism,” it is a potent hybrid of the most powerful political tools of authoritarian communism — central planning, merciless repression, constant surveillance. . .

Like everything else assembled in China with American parts, Police State 2.0 is ready for export to a neighborhood near you.

Read more


We have experienced very pointed efforts by security technology peddlers to prevent laws from being passed in Oklahoma that would protect the people in this state from the very same repressive technology that the same organization is peddling in China.

What is good enough for Communist China is good enough for Oklahoma

May 17, 2010 By Kaye Beach

Why was HB 2569, a good bill that would have protected Oklahoma residents from the risks and insecurities of RFID technology embedded in required identification documents such as state driver’s licenses and state ID cards vetoed?             

It appears as though the same industry lobbyists that are helping China to enslave its citizens are also involved in killing HB 2569.  Here is the letter Richard Chace, the CEO of the Security Industry Association, wrote to Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry urging him to veto the bill.  And here is SIA’s press release bragging about their successful intervention in state politics to further their cause.

Read more

But Oklahoma officials would never do to our state what is being done to the people in Idaho, would they?  Read on.

Sleeping with the Enemy – U.S. Governors to Pair Up with Chinese Officials

OK-SAFE wrote this interesting article yesterday that informs us that on July 15-17, 2011 Governor Fallin will be pairing up one on one with Chinese dignitaries to talk about issues like job creation, education and health at a US-China Governors Forum in Salt Lake City Utah.  If you are very curious about just what will be going on at this meeting you are going to have to stifle it.  This is to be a closed door meeting.  No media or public will be permitted to attend.

Read more

Oklahoma: The Reddest State Gets a Little Redder

. . .Here is a  press release regarding an recent visit to the Oklahoma State Capitol by dignitaries from the Chinese Consulate. The article was published on the website for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China but I didn’t see this in the local news.

The press release says that Gov.Fallin  and Lt.Gov Todd Lamb met with three Chinese Consulate dignitaries including Consul General  Gao Yanping at the Oklahoma Capitol to discuss “exchanges and cooperation between China and Oklahoma in all fields”

Apparently Gov. Fallin has been very enthusiastic about China-U.S. exchanges ever since she was the Lt. Gov.

The meeting in Utah between our state Governors and Chinese provincial party secretaries and Governors will be the first of two according to OK-SAFE who is has filed a Freedom of Information request in order to locate documents that should be publicly available in order to find out more.

We need to be asking some questions about this.

Sleeping with the Enemy – U.S. Governors to Pair Up with Chinese Officials

Tulsa International Airport National Opt Out Day

Majority of Americans Now Oppose Body Scanners and TSA Pat Downs

A new poll by Zogby International finds that 61% of Americans polled between Nov. 19 and Nov. 22 oppose the use of full body scans and TSA pat downs.  Of those polled, 52% believe the enhanced security measures will not prevent terrorist activity, almost half (48%) say it is a violation of privacy rights, 33% say they should not have to go through enhanced security methods to get on an airplane, and 32% believe the full body scans and TSA pat downs to be sexual harassment. The Zogby Poll is the most recent survey of American opinion on the new airport screening procedures. Combined with earlier polls by USA Today and the Washington Post-ABC News, the Zogby Poll reflects declining support for the TSA program.

If you would like to participate in educating travelers on passenger security tomorrow, please refer to guidelines provided by TUL;

Tulsa International Airport Permission and Rules for Leafletting 11-24-2010

Wednesday, November 24, 2010 anytime between 5 AM an 10pm

Where: Tulsa International Airport
7777 E. Apache St.
Tulsa, OK 74115

MAP

Find out more

EPIC

http://wewontfly.com/
Flyers

Tips for helping you Survive Your Government Grope

NOTE: Even if you choose to go through a scanner (which will produce a picture of you naked and subject you to radiation)* you still may get pulled out for an “Enhanced Pat Down Search.”  Before a TSA employee puts their hand on you – insist that they put on a clean gloves. Here is a short list of parasites and infections that could be transferred from an earlier passenger to you:

(* The only people who say that the scanners are safe are the government and the companies

selling the machines. BUT both made sure you could not sue them when you get cancer before they would put the machines in airports: www.SafteyAct.gov).

National Opt Out Day TSA Flyer

Link  http://wewontfly.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/YouHaveTheRight.pdf

What the TSA Isn’t Telling You

Transforming Education Marc Tucker’s “Dear Hillary” Letter

This is one of the documents discussed Friday Sept 24th Guest Beverly Eakman: Why our Kids are “Walking Targets”

From EdAction  http://www.EdAction.org

Marc Tucker’s “Dear Hillary” Letter
Marc Tucker is president of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). He wrote an 18-page letter, now famous as Marc Tucker’s “Dear Hillary” Letter, to Hillary Clinton a week after the Clintons were first elected President. At the time Hillary served with Tucker on the Board of NCEE, they were (and remain) comrades.

The letter lays out the master plan of the Clinton Administration to take over the entire U.S. educational system so that it can serve national economic planning of the workforce. The letter makes it clear that Hillary participated in the development of that plan some time before the election, though it was scarcely reported at the time. The plan is sweeping in scope, and largely signed into law in 1994 by Clinton’s Democratically controlled Congress (in the Goals 2000 Act, the School-to-Work Act, and the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act). That legislation continues to move our system today, and is being implemented in all fifty states, driven by money and mandates from the federal level.
The letter reveals the goals and methods, the who, how, and why. The infamous letter was placed into the Congressional Record (on Sept. 25, 1998, by Rep. Bob Schaffer), and is now widely displayed on the Internet.

_______

11 November 1992

Hillary Clinton
The Governor’s Mansion
1800 Center Street
Little Rock, AR 72206

Dear Hillary:

I still cannot believe you won. But utter delight that you did pervades all the circles in which I move. I met last Wednesday in David Rockefeller’s office with him, John Sculley, Dave Barrab and David Haselkorn. It was a great celebration. Both John and David R. were more expansive than I have ever seen them – literally radiating happiness. My own view and theirs is that this country has seized its last chance. I am fond of quoting Winston Churchill to the effect that “America always does the right thing – after it has exhausted all the alternatives.” This election, more than anything else in my experience, proves his point.

The subject we were discussing was what you and Bill should do now about education, training and labor market policy. Following that meeting, I chaired another in Washington on the same topic. Those present at the second meeting included Tim Barnicle, Dave Barram, Mike Cohen, David Hornbeck, Hillary Pennington, Andy Plattner, Lauren Resnick, Betsy Brown Ruzzi, Bob Schwartz, Mike Smith and Bill Spring. Shirley Malcolm, Ray Marshall and Susan McGuire were also invited. Though these three were not able to be present at last week’s meeting, they have all contributed to the ideas that follow. Ira Magaziner was also invited to this meeting.

Our purpose in these meetings was to propose concrete actions that the Clinton administration could take – between now and the inauguration, in the first 100 days and beyond. The result, from where I sit, was really exciting. We took a very large leap forward in terms of how to advance the agenda on which you and we have all been working – a practical plan for putting all the major components of the system in place within four years, by the time Bill has to run again.

I take personal responsibility for what follows. Though I believe everyone involved in the planning efforts is in broad agreement, they may not all agree on the details. You should also be aware that, although the plan comes from a group closely associated with the National Center on Education and the Economy, there was no practical way to poll our whole Board on this plan in the time available. It represents, then, not a proposal from our Center, but the best thinking of the group I have named.

We think the great opportunity you have is to remold the entire American system for human resources development, almost all of the current components of which were put in place before World War II. The danger is that each of the ideas that Bill advanced in the campaign in the area of education and training could be translated individually in the ordinary course of governing into a legislative proposal and enacted as a program. This is the path of least resistance. But it will lead to these programs being grafted onto the present system, not to a new system, and the opportunity will have been lost. If this sense of time and place is correct, it is essential that the administration’s efforts be guided by a consistent vision of what it wants to accomplish in the field of Human Resources Development, with respect both to choice of key officials and the program.

What follows comes in three pieces:

First, a vision of the kind of national – not federal – human resources development system the nation could have. This is interwoven with a new approach to governing that should inform that vision. What is essential is that we create a seamless web of opportunities to develop one’s skills that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone – young and old, poor and rich, worker and full-time student. It needs to be a system driven by client needs (not agency regulations or the needs of the organizations providing the services), guided by clear standards that define the stages of the system for the people who progress through it, and regulated on the basis of outcomes that providers produce for their clients, not inputs into the system.

Second, a proposed legislative agenda you can use to implement this vision. We propose four high priority packages that will enable you to move quickly on campaign promises:

  1. The first would use your proposal for an apprenticeship system as the keystone of a strategy for putting a whole new postsecondary training system in place. That system would incorporate your proposal for reforming postsecondary education finance. It contains what we think is a powerful idea for rolling out and scaling up the whole new human resources system nationwide over the next four years, using the (renamed) apprenticeship idea as the entering wedge.
  2. The second would combine initiatives on dislocated workers, a rebuilt employment service and a new system of labor market boards to offer the Clinton administration’s employment security program, built on the best practices anywhere in the world. This is the backbone of a system for assuring adult workers in our society that they need never again watch with dismay as their jobs disappear and their chances of ever getting a good job again go with them.
  3. The third would concentrate on the overwhelming problems of our inner cities, combining elements of the first and second packages into a special program to greatly raise the work-related skills of the people trapped in the core of our great cities.
  4. The fourth would enable you to take advantage of legislation on which Congress has already been working to advance the elementary and secondary reform agenda.

The other major proposal we offer has to do with government organization for the human resources agenda. While we share your reservations about the hazards in bringing reorganization proposals to the Congress, we believe that the one we have come up with minimizes those drawbacks while creating an opportunity for the new administration to move like lightning to implement its human resources development proposals. We hope you can consider the merits of this idea quickly, because, if you decide to go with it or something like it, it will greatly affect the nature of the offers you make to prospective cabinet members.

THE VISION

We take the proposals Bill put before the country in the campaign to be utterly consistent with the ideas advanced in America’s Choice, the school restructuring agenda first stated in A Nation Prepared and later incorporated in the work of the National Alliance for Restructuring Education, and the elaboration of this view Ray and I tried to capture in our book, Thinking for a Living. Taken together, we think these ideas constitute a consistent vision for a new human resources development system for the United States. I have tried to capture the essence of that vision below.

An Economic Strategy Based on Skill Development

  • The economy’s strength is derived from a whole population as skilled as any in the world, working in workplaces organized to take maximum advantage of the skills those people have to offer.
  • A seamless system of unending skill development that begins in the home with the very young and continues through school, postsecondary education and the workplace.

The Schools

  • Clear national standards of performance in general education (the knowledge and skills that everyone is expected to hold in common) are set to the level of the best achieving nations in the world for students of 16, and public schools are expected to bring all but the most severely handicapped up to that standard. Students get a certificate when they meet this standard, allowing them to go on to the next stage of their education. Though the standards are set to international benchmarks, they are distinctly American, reflecting our needs and values.
  • We have a national system of education in which curriculum, pedagogy, examinations and teacher education and licensure systems are all linked to the national standards, but which provides for substantial variations among states, districts and schools on these matters. This new system of linked standards, curriculum and pedagogy will abandon the American tracking system, combining high academic standards with the ability to apply what one knows to real world problems and qualifying all students for a lifetime of learning in the postsecondary system and at work.
  • We have a system that rewards students who meet the national standards with further education and good jobs, providing them a strong incentive to work hard in school.
  • Our public school systems are reorganized to free up school professionals to make the key decisions about how to use all the available resources to bring students up to the standards. Most of the federal, state, district and union rules and regulations that now restrict school professionals’ ability to make these decisions are swept away, though strong measures are in place to make sure that vulnerable populations get the help they need. School professionals are paid at a level comparable to that of other professionals, but they are expected to put in a full year, to spend whatever time it takes to do the job and to be fully accountable for the results of their work. The federal, state and local governments provide the time, staff development resources, technology and other support needed for them to do the job. Nothing less than a wholly restructured school system can possibly bring all of our students up to the standards only a few have been expected to meet up to now.
  • There is a real – aggressive – program of public choice in our schools, rather than the flaccid version that is widespread now.
  • All students are guaranteed that they will have a fair shot at reaching the standards; that is, whether they make it or not depends on the effort they are willing to make, and nothing else. School delivery standards are in place to make sure this happens. These standards have the same status in the system as the new student performance standards, assuring that the quality of instruction is high everywhere, but they are fashioned so as not to constitute a new bureaucratic nightmare.

Postsecondary Education and Work Skills

All students who meet the new national standards for general education are entitled to the equivalent of three more years of free additional education. We would have the federal and state governments match funds to guarantee one free year of college education to everyone who meets the new national standards for general education. So a student who meets the standard at 16 would be entitled to two free years of high school and one of college. Loans, which can be forgiven for public service, are available for additional education beyond that. National standards for sub-baccalaureate college-level professional and technical degrees and certificates will be established with the participation of employers, labor and higher education. These programs will include both academic study and structured on-the-job training. Eighty percent or more of American high school graduates will be expected to get some form of college degree, though most of them less than a baccalaureate. These new professional and technical certificates and degrees typically are won within three years of acquiring the general education certificate, so, for most postsecondary students, college will be free. These professional and technical degree programs will be designed to link to programs leading to the baccalaureate degree and higher degrees. There will be no dead ends in this system. Everyone who meets the general education standard will be able to go to some form of college, being able to borrow all the money they need to do so, beyond the first free year.

This idea of postsecondary professional and technical certificates captures all of the essentials of the apprenticeship idea, while offering none of its drawbacks (see below). But it also makes clear that those engaged in apprentice-style programs are getting more than narrow training; they are continuing their education for other purposes as well, and building a base for more education later. Clearly, this idea redefines college. Proprietary schools, employers and community-based organizations will want to offer these programs, as well as community colleges and four-year institutions, but these new entrants will have to be accredited if they are to qualify to offer the programs.

Employers are not required to provide slots for the structured on-the-job training components of the programs but may do so, because they get first access to the most accomplished graduates of these programs, and they can use these programs to introduce the trainees to their own values and way of doing things.

The system of skill standards for technical and professional degrees is the same for students just coming out of high school and for adults in the workforce. It is progressive, in the sense that certificates and degrees for entry level jobs lead to further professional and technical education programs at higher levels. Just as in the case of the system for the schools, though the standards are the same everywhere (leading to maximum mobility for students), the curricula can vary widely and programs can be custom designed to fit the needs of full-time and part-time students with very different requirements. Government grant and loan programs are available on the same terms to full-time and part-time students, as long as the programs in which they are enrolled are designed to lead to certificates and degrees defined by the system of professional and technical standards.

The national system of professional and technical standards is designed much like the multi-state bar, which provides a national core around which states can specify additional standards that meet their unique needs. There are national standards and exams for no more than 20 broad occupational areas, each of which can lead to many occupations in a number of related industries. Students who qualify in any one of these areas have the broad skills required by a whole family of occupations, and most are sufficiently skilled to enter the workforce immediately, with further occupation-specific skills provided by their union or employer. Industry and occupational groups can voluntarily create standards building on these broad standards for their own needs, as can the states. Students entering the system are first introduced to very broad occupational groups, narrowing over time to concentrate on acquiring the skills needed for a cluster of occupations. This modular system provides for the initiative of particular states and industries while at the same time providing for mobility across states and occupations by reducing the time and cost entailed in moving from one occupation to another. In this way, a balance is established between the kinds of generic skills needed to function effectively in high performance work organizations and the skills needed to continue learning quickly and well through a lifetime of work, on the one hand, and the specific skills needed to perform at a high level in a particular occupation on the other.

Institutions receiving grant and loan funds under this system are required to provide information to the public and to government agencies in a uniform format. This information covers enrollment by program, costs and success rates for students of different backgrounds and characteristics, and career outcomes for those students, thereby enabling students to make informed choices among institutions based on cost and performance. Loan defaults are reduced to a level close to zero, both because programs that do not deliver what they promise are not selected by prospective students and because the new postsecondary loan system uses the IRS to collect what is owed from salaries and wages as they are earned.

Education and Training for Employed and Unemployed Adults

The national system of skills standards establishes the basis for the development of a coherent, unified training system. That system can be accessed by students coming out of high school, employed adults who want to improve their prospects, unemployed adults who are dislocated and others who lack the basic skills required to get out of poverty. But it is all the same system. There are no longer any parts of it that are exclusively for the disadvantaged, though special measures are taken to make sure that the disadvantaged are served. It is a system for everyone, just as all the parts of the system already described are for everyone. So the people who take advantage of this system are not marked by it as damaged goods. The skills they acquire are world class, clear and defined in part by the employers who will make decisions about hiring and advancement.

The new general education standard becomes the target for all basic education programs, both for school dropouts and adults. Achieving that standard is the prerequisite for enrollment in all professional and technical degree programs. A wide range of agencies and institutions offer programs leading to the general education certificate, including high schools, dropout recovery centers, adult education centers, community colleges, prisons and employers. These programs are tailored to the needs of the people who enroll in them. All the programs receiving government grant or loan funds that come with dropouts and adults for enrollment in programs preparing students to meet the general education standard must release the same kind of data required of the postsecondary institutions on enrollment, program description, cost and success rates. Reports are produced for each institution and for the system as a whole showing differential success rates for each major demographic group.

The system is funded in four different ways, all providing access to the same or a similar set of services. School dropouts below the age of 21 are entitled to the same amount of funding from the same sources that they would have been entitled to had they stayed in school. Dislocated workers are funded by the federal government through the federal programs for that purpose and by state unemployment insurance funds. The chronically unemployed are funded by federal and state funds established for that purpose. Employed people can access the system through the requirement that their employers spend an amount equal to 1 1/2 percent of their salary and wage bill on training leading to national skill certification. People in prison could get reductions in their sentences by meeting the general education standard in a program provided by the prison system. Any of these groups can also use the funds in their individual training account, if they have any, the balances in their grant entitlement or their access to the student loan fund.

Labor Market Systems

The Employment Service is greatly upgraded and separated from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. All available front-line jobs – whether public or private – must be listed in it by law. This provision must be carefully designed to make sure that employers will not be subject to employment suits based on the data produced by this system – if they are subject to such suits, they will not participate. All trainees in the system looking for work are entitled to be listed in it without a fee. So it is no longer a system for just the poor and unskilled, but for everyone. The system is fully computerized. It lists not only job openings and job seekers (with their qualifications) but also all the institutions on the labor market area offering programs leading to the general education certificate and those offering programs leading to the professional and technical college degrees and certificates, along with all the relevant data about the costs, characteristics and performance of those programs – for everyone and for special populations. Counselors are available to any citizen to help them assess their needs, plan a program and finance it, and, once they are trained, to find an opening.

A system of labor market boards is established at the local, state and federal levels to coordinate the systems for job training, postsecondary professional and technical education, adult basic education, job matching and counseling. The rebuilt Employment Service is supervised by these boards. The system’s clients no longer have to go from agency to agency filling out separate applications for separate programs. It is all taken care of at the local labor market board office by one counselor accessing the integrated computer-based program, which makes it possible for the counselor to determine eligibility for all relevant programs at once, plan a program with the client and assemble the necessary funding from all the available sources. The same system will enable the counselor and client to array all the relevant program providers side by side, assess their relative costs and performance records and determine which providers are best able to meet the client’s needs based on performance.

Some Common Features

Throughout, the object is to have a performance- and client-orientated system to encourage local creativity and responsibility by getting local people to commit to high goals and organize to achieve them, sweeping away as much of the rules, regulations and bureaucracy that are in their way as possible, provided that they are making real progress against their goals. For this to work, the standards at every level of the system have to be clear; every client has to know what they have to accomplish in order to get what they want out of the system. The service providers have to be supported in the task of getting their clients to the finish line and regarded when they are making real progress toward that goal. We would sweep away means-tested programs, because they stigmatize their recipients and alienate the public, replacing them with programs that are for everyone, but also work for the disadvantaged. We would replace rules defining inputs with rules defining outcomes and the rewards for achieving them. This means, among other things, permitting local people to combine as many federal programs as they see fit, provided that the intended beneficiaries are progressing toward the right outcomes (there are now 23 separate federal programs for dislocated workers!). We would make individuals, their families and whole communities the unit of services, not agencies, programs and projects. Wherever possible, we would have service providers compete with one another for funds that come with the client, in an environment in which the client has good information about the cost and performance records of the competing providers. Dealing with public agencies – whether they are schools or the employment service – should be more like dealing with Federal Express than with the old Post Office.

This vision, as I pointed out above, is consistent with everything Bill proposed as a candidate. But it goes beyond those proposals, extending them from ideas for new programs to a comprehensive vision of how they can be used as building blocks for a whole new system. But, this vision is very complex, will take a long time to see, and will have to be revised many times along the way. The right way to think about it is as an internal working document that forms the background for a plan, not the plan itself. One would want to make sure that the specific actions of the new administration were designed, in a general way, to advance this agenda as it evolved, while not committing anyone to the details, which would change over time.

Everything that follows is cast in the frame of strategies for bringing the new system into being, not as a pilot program, not as a few demonstrations to be swept aside in another administration, but everywhere, as the new way of doing business.

In the sections that follow, we break these goals down into their main components and propose an action plan for each.

MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM

The preceding section presented a vision of the system we have in mind chronologically from the point of view of an individual served by it. Here we reverse the order, starting with descriptions of program components designed to serve adults, and working our way down to the very young.

HIGH SKILLS FOR ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS PROGRAM

DEVELOPING SYSTEM STANDARDS

  • Create National Board for Professional and Technical Standards. Board is private not-for-profit chartered by Congress. Charter specifies broad membership composed of leading figures from higher education, business, labor, government and advocacy groups. Board can receive appropriated funds from Congress, private foundations, individuals and corporations. Neither Congress nor the executive branch can dictate the standards set by the Board. But the Board is required to report annually to the President and the Congress in order to provide for public accountability. It is also directed to work collaboratively with the states and cities involved in the Collaborative Design and Development Program (see below) in the development of standards.
  • Charter specifies that the National Board will set broad performance standards (not time-in-the-seat standards or course standards) for college-level Professional and Technical certificates and degrees in not more than 20 areas and develop performance examinations for each. The Board is required to set broad standards of the kind described in the vision statement above and is not permitted to simply reify the narrow standards that characterize many occupations now. (More than 2,000 standards currently exist, many for licensed occupations – these are not the kinds of standards we have in mind.) It also specifies that the programs leading to these certificates and degrees will combine time in the classroom with time at the work-site in structured on-the-job training. The standards assume the existence of (high school level) general education standards set by others. The new standards and exams are meant to be supplemented by the states and by individual industries and occupations. Board is responsible for administering the exam system and continually updating the standards and exams.

Legislation creating the Board is sent to the Congress in the first six months of the administration, imposing a deadline for creating the standards and the exams within three years of passage of legislation.

[Commentary:

The proposal reframes the Clinton apprenticeship proposal as a college program and establishes a mechanism for setting the standards for the program. The unions are adamantly opposed to broad based apprenticeship programs by that name. Focus groups conducted by JFF and others show that parents everywhere want their kids to go to college, not be shunted aside into a non-college apprenticeship “vocational” program. By requiring these programs to be a combination of classroom instruction and structured OJT, and creating a standard-setting board that included employers and labor, all the objectives of the apprenticeship idea are achieved, while at the same time assuring much broader support for the idea, as well as a guarantee that the program will not become too narrowly focused on particular occupations. It also ties the Clinton apprenticeship idea to the Clinton college fund proposal in a seamless web. Charging the Board with creating not more than 20 certificate or degree categories established a balance between the need to create one national system on the one hand with the need to avoid creating a cumbersome and rigid national bureaucracy on the other. This approach provides lots of latitude for individual industry groups, professional groups and state authorities to establish their own standards, while at the same time avoiding the chaos that would surely occur if they were the only source of standards. The bill establishing the Board should also authorize the executive branch to make grants to industry groups, professional societies, occupational groups and states to develop standards and exams. Our assumption is that the system we are proposing will be managed so as to encourage the states to combine the last two years of high school and the first two years of community college into three year programs leading to college degrees and certificates. Proprietary institutions, employers and community-based organizations could also offer these programs, but they would have to be accredited to offer these college-level programs. Eventually, students getting their general education certificates might go directly to community college or to another form of college, but the new system should not require that.]

COLLABORATIVE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

The object is to create a single comprehensive system for professional and technical education that meets the requirements of everyone from high school students to skilled dislocated workers, from the hard core unemployed to employed adults who want to improve their prospects. Creating such a system means sweeping aside countless programs, building new ones, combining funding authorities, changing deeply embedded institutional structures and so on. The question is how to get from where we are to where we want to be. Trying to ram it down everyone’s throat would engender overwhelming opposition. Our idea is to draft legislation that would offer an opportunity for those states – and selected large cities – that are excited about this set of ideas to come forward and join with each other and with the federal government in an alliance to do the necessary design work and actually deliver the needed services on a fast track. The legislation would require the executive branch to establish a competitive grant program for these states and cities and to engage a group of organizations to offer technical assistance to the expanding set of states and cities engaged in designing and implementing the new system. This is not the usual large scale experiment, nor is it a demonstration program. A highly regarded precedent exists for this approach in the National Science Foundation’s SSI program. As soon as the first set of states is engaged, another set would be invited to participate, until most or all the states are involved. It is a collaborative design, rollout and scale-up program. It is intended to parallel the work of the National Board for College Professional and Technical Standards, so that the states and cities (and all their partners) would be able to implement the new standards as soon as they become available, although they would be delivering services on a large scale before that happened. Thus, major parts of the whole system would be in operation in a majority of the states within three years from the passage of the initial legislation. Inclusion of selected large cities in this design is not an afterthought. We believe that what we are proposing here for the cities is the necessary complement to a large scale job-creation program for the cities. Skill development will not work if there are no jobs, but job development will not work without a determined effort to improve the skills of city residents. This is the skill development component.

PARTICIPANTS:

  • volunteer states, counterpart initiative for cities.
  • 15 states, 15 cities selected to begin in first year, 15 more in each successive year.
  • 5 year grants (on the order of $20 million per year to each state, lower amounts to the cities) given to each, with specific goals to be achieved by the third year, including program elements in place (e.g., upgraded employment service), number of people enrolled in new professional and technical programs and so on.
  • a core set of High Performance Work Organization firms willing to participate in standard setting and to offer training slots and mentors.

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION

  • strategies for enriching existing co-op, tech prep and other programs to meet the criteria;
  • commitment to implementing new general education standard in legislation;
  • commitment to implementing the new Technical and Professional skills standards for college;
  • commitment to developing an outcome- and performance-based system for human resources development system;
  • commitment to new role for employment service;
  • commitment to join with others in national design and implementation activity.

CLIENTS

  • young adults entering workforce
  • dislocated workers
  • long-term unemployed
  • employed who want to upgrade skills

PROGRAM COMPONENTS

  • institute own version of state and local labor market boards. Local labor market boards to involve leading employers, labor representatives, educators and advocacy group leaders in running the redesigned employment service, running intake system for all clients, counseling all clients, maintaining the information system that will make the vendor market efficient and organizing employers to provide job experience and training slots for school youth and adult trainees.
  • rebuild employment service as a primary function of labor market boards.
  • develop programs to bring dropout and illiterates up to general education certificate standard. Organize local alternative providers, firms to provide alternative education, counseling, job experience and placement services to these clients.
  • develop programs for dislocated workers and hard-core unemployed (see below)
  • develop city- and state-wide programs to combine the last two years of high school and the first two years of college into three-year programs after acquisition of the general education certificate to culminate in college certificates and degrees. These programs should combine academics and structured on-the-job training.
  • develop uniform reporting system for providers, requiring them to provide information in that format on characteristics of clients, their success rates by program, and the costs of those programs. Develop computer-based system for combining this data at local labor market board offices with employment data from the state so that counselors and clients can look at programs offered by colleges and other vendors in terms of cost, client characteristics, program design, and outcomes, including subsequent employment histories for graduates.
  • design all programs around the forthcoming general education standards and the standards to be developed by the National Board for College Professional and Technical Standards.
  • create statewide program of technical assistance to firms on high performance work organization and help them develop quality programs for participants in Technical and Professional certificate and degree programs. (It is essential that these programs be high quality, non-bureaucratic and voluntary for the firms.)
  • participate with other states and the national technical assistance program in the national alliance effort to exchange information and assistance among all participants.

NATIONAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPANTS

  • executive branch authorized to compete opportunity to provide the following services (probably using a Request for Qualifications):
  1. state-of-the-art assistance to the states and cities related to the principal program components (e.g., work reorganization, training, basic literacy, funding systems, apprenticeship systems, large scale data management systems, training systems for HR professionals who make the whole system work, etc.). A number of organizations would be funded. Each would be expected to provide information and direct assistance to the states and cities involved, and to coordinate their efforts with one another.
  2. it is essential that the technical assistance function include a major professional development component to make sure the key people in the states and cities upon whom success depends have the resources available to develop the high skills required. Some of the funds for this function should be provided directly to the states and cities, some to the technical assistance agency.
  3. coordination of the design and implementation activities of the whole consortium, document results, prepare reports, etc. One organization would be funded to perform this function.

DISLOCATED WORKERS PROGRAM

  • New legislation would permit combining all dislocated workers programs at redesigned employment service office. Clients would, in effect, receive vouchers for education and training in amounts determined by the benefits for which they qualify. Employment service case managers would qualify client worker for benefits and assist the client in the selection of education and training programs offered by provider institutions. Any provider institutions that receive funds derived from dislocated worker programs are required to provide information on costs and performance of programs in uniform format described above. This consolidated and voucherized dislocated workers program would operate nationwide. It would be integrated with Collaborative Design and Development Program in those states and cities in which that program functioned. It would be built around the general education certificate and the Professional and Technical Certificate and Degree programs as soon as those standards were in place. In this way, programs for dislocated workers would be progressively and fully integrated with the rest of the national education and training system.

LEVY-GRANT SYSTEM

This is the part of the system that provides funds for currently employed people to improve their skills. Ideally, it should specifically provide means whereby front-line workers can earn their general education credential (if they do not already have one) and acquire Professional and Technical Certificates and degrees in fields of their choosing.

Everything we have heard indicates virtually universal opposition in the employer community to the proposal for a 1 1/2% levy on employers for training to support the costs associated with employed workers gaining these skills, whatever the levy is called. We propose that Bill take a leaf out of the German book. One of the most important reasons that large German employers offer apprenticeship slots to German youngsters is that they fear, with good reason, that if they don’t volunteer to do so, the law will require it. Bill could gather a group of leading executives and business organization leaders, and tell them straight out that he will hold back on submitting legislation to require a training levy, provided that they commit themselves to a drive to get employers to get their average expenditures on front-line employee training up to 2% of front-line employee salaries and wages within two years. If they have not done so within that time, then he will expect their support when he submits legislation requiring the training levy. He could do the same thing with respect to slots for structured on-the-job training.

COLLEGE LOAN/PUBLIC SERVICE PROGRAM

We presume that this program is being designed by others and so have not attended to it. From everything we know about it, however, it is entirely compatible with the rest of what is proposed here. What is, of course, especially relevant here, is that our reconceptualization of the apprenticeship proposal as a college-level education program, combined with our proposal that everyone who gets the general education credential be entitled to a free year of higher education (combined federal and state funds) will have a decided impact on the calculations of cost for the college loan/public service program.

ASSISTANCE FOR DROPOUTS AND THE LONG-TERM UNEMPLOYED

The problem of upgrading the skills of high school dropouts and the adult hard-core unemployed is especially difficult. It is also at the heart of the problem of our inner cities. All the evidence indicates that what is needed is something with all the important characteristics of a non-residential Job Corps-like program. The problem with the Job Corps is that it is operated directly by the federal government and is therefore not embedded at all in the infrastructure of local communities. The way to solve this problem is to create a new urban program that is locally – not federally – organized and administered, but which must operate in a way that uses something like the federal standards for contracting for Job Corps services. In this way, local employers, neighborhood organizations and other local service providers could meet the need, but requiring local authorities to use the federal standards would assure high quality results. Programs for high school dropouts and the hard-core unemployed would probably have to be separately organized, thought the services provided would be much the same. Federal funds would be offered on a matching basis with state and local funds for this purpose. These programs should be fully integrated with the revitalized employment service. The local labor market board would be the local authority responsible for receiving the funds and contracting with providers for the services. It would provide diagnostic, placement and testing services. We would eliminate the targeted jobs credit and use the money now spent on that program to finance these operations. Funds can also be used from the JOBS program in the welfare reform act. This will not be sufficient, however, because there is currently no federal money available to meet the needs of hard-core unemployed males (mostly Black) and so new monies will have to be appropriated for the purpose.

COMMENTARY:

As you know very well, the High Skills; Competitive Workforce Act sponsored by Senators Kennedy and Hatfield and Congressmen Gephardt and Regula provides a ready-made vehicle for advancing many of the ideas we have outlined. To foster a good working relationship with the Congress, we suggest that, to the extent possible, the framework of these companion bills be used to frame the President’s proposals. You may not know that we have put together a large group of representatives of Washington-based organizations to come to a consensus around the ideas in America’s Choice. They are full of energy and very committed to this joint effort. If they are made part of the process of framing the legislative proposals, they can be expected to be strong support for them when they arrive on the Hill. As you think about the assembly of these ideas into specific legislative proposals, you may also want to take into account the packaging ideas that come later in this letter.

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION PROGRAM

The situation with respect to elementary and secondary education is very different from adult education and training. In the latter case, a new vision and a whole new structure is required. In the former, there is increasing acceptance of a new vision and structure among the public at large, within the relevant professional groups and Congress. There is also a lot of existing activity on which to build. So we confine ourselves here to describing some of those activities that can be used to launch the Clinton education program.

STANDARD SETTING

Legislation to accelerate the process of national standard setting in education was contained in the conference report on S.2 and HR4323 that was defeated on a recent cloture vote. Solid majorities were behind the legislation in both houses of Congress. While some of us would quarrel with a few of the details, we think the new administration should support the early reintroduction of this legislation with whatever changes it thinks fit. This legislation does not establish a national body to create a national examination system. We think that is the right choice for now.

SYSTEMIC CHANGE IN PUBLIC EDUCATION

The conference report on S.2 and HR 4323 also contained a comprehensive program to support systemic change in public education. Here again, some of us would quibble with some of the particulars, but we believe that the administration’s objectives would be well served by endorsing the resubmission of this legislation, modified as it sees fit.

FEDERAL PROGRAMS FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

The established federal education programs for the disadvantaged need to be thoroughly overhauled to reflect an emphasis on results for the students rather than compliance with the regulations. A national commission on Chapter 1, the largest of these programs, chaired by David Hornbeck, has designed a radically new version of this legislation, with the active participation of many of the advocacy groups. Other groups have been similarly engaged. We think the new administration should quickly endorse the work of the national commission and introduce its proposals early next year. It is unlikely that this legislation will pass before the deadline – two years away – for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, but early endorsement of this new approach by the administration will send a strong signal to the Congress and will greatly affect the climate in which other parts of the act will be considered.

PUBLIC CHOICE, TECHNOLOGY, INTEGRATED HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, CURRICULUM RESOURSES, HIGH PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The restructuring of the schools that is envisioned in S.2 and HR 4323 is not likely to succeed unless the schools have a lot of information about how to do it and real assistance in getting it done. The areas in which this help is needed are suggested by the heading for this section. One of the most cost-effective things the federal government could do is to provide support for research, development and technical assistance to the schools on these topics. The new Secretary of Education should be directed to propose a strategy for doing just that, on a scale sufficient to the need. Existing programs of research, development and assistance should be examined as possible sources of funds for these purposes. Professional development is a special case. To build the restructured system will require an enormous amount of professional development and the time in which professionals can take advantage of such a resource. Both cost a lot of money. One of the priorities for the new education secretary should be the development of strategies for dealing with these problems. But here, as elsewhere, there are some existing programs in the Department of Education whose funds can be redirected for this purpose, programs that are not currently informed by the goals that we have spelled out. Much of what we have in mind here can be accomplished through the reauthorization of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Legislation for that reauthorization was prepared for the last session of Congress, but did not pass. That legislation was informed by a deep distrust of the Republican administration, rather than the vision put forward by the Clinton campaign, but that can and should be remedied on the next round.

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

The president-elect has committed himself to a great expansion in the funding of Head Start. We agree. But the design of the program should be changed to reflect several important requirements. The quality of professional preparation for the people who staff these programs is very low and there are no standards that apply to their employment. The same kind of standard setting we have called for in the rest of this plan should inform the approach to this program. Early childhood education should be combined with quality daycare to provide wrap-around programs that enable working parents to drop off their children at the beginning of the work day and pick them up at the end. Full funding for the very poor should be combined with matching funds to extend tuition paid by the middle class parents to make sure that these programs are not officially segregated by income. The growth of the program should be phased in, rather than done all at once, so that quality problems can be addressed along the way, based on developing examples of best practice. These and other related issues need to be addressed, in our judgment, before the new administration commits itself on the specific form of increased support for Head Start.

PUTTING THE PACKAGE TOGETHER:

Here we remind you of what we said at the beginning of this letter about timing the legislative agenda. We propose that you assemble the ideas just described into four high priority packages that will enable you to move quickly on the campaign promises:

  1. The first would use your proposal for an apprenticeship system as the keystone of the strategy for putting the whole new postsecondary training system in place. It would consist of the proposal for postsecondary standards, the Collaborative Design and Development proposal, the technical assistance proposal and the postsecondary education finance proposal.
  2. The second would combine the initiatives on dislocated workers, the rebuilt employment service and the new system of labor market boards as the Clinton administration’s employment security program, built on the best practices anywhere in the world. This is the backbone of a system for assuring adult workers in our society that they need never again watch with dismay as their jobs disappear and their chances of ever getting a good job again go with them.
  3. The third would concentrate on the overwhelming problems of our inner cities, combining most of the elements of the first and second packages into a special program to greatly raise the work-related skills of the people trapped in the core of our great cities.
  4. The fourth would enable you to take advantage of legislation on which Congress has already been working to advance the elementary and secondary reform agenda. It would combine the successor to HR 4323 and S.2 (incorporating the systemic reforms agenda and the board for student performance standards), with the proposal for revamping Chapter 1.

ORGANIZING THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH FOR HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

The issue here is how to organize the federal government to make sure that the new system is actually built as a seamless web in the field, where it counts, and that the program gets a fast start with a first-rate team behind it.

We propose, first, that the President appoint a National Council on Human Resources Development. It would consist of the relevant key White House officials, cabinet members and members of Congress. It would also include a small number of governors, educators, business executives, labor leaders and advocates for minorities and the poor. It would be established in such a way as to assure continuity of membership across administrations, so that the consensus it forges will outlast any one administration. It would be charged with recommending broad policy on a national system of human resources development to the President and Congress, assessing the effectiveness and promise of current programs and proposing new ones. It would be staffed by senior officials on the Domestic Policy Council staff of the President.

Second, we propose that a new agency be created, the National Institute for Learning, Work and Service. Creation of this agency would signal instantly the new administration’s commitment to putting the continuing education and training of the “forgotten half” on a par with the preparation of those who have historically been given the resources to go to ‘college’ and to integrate the two systems, not with a view to dragging down the present system and those it serves, but rather to make good on the promise that everyone will have access to the kind of education that only a small minority have had access to up to now. To this agency would be assigned the functions now performed by the assistant secretary for employment and training, the assistant secretary for vocational education and the assistant secretary for higher education. The agency would be staffed by people specifically recruited from all over the country for the purpose. The staff would be small, high powered and able to move quickly to implement the policy initiatives of the new President in the field of human resources development.

The closest existing model to what we have in mind is the National Science Board and the National Science Foundation, with the Council in the place of the Board and the Institute in the place of the Foundation. But our council would be advisory, whereas the Board is governing. If you do not like the idea of a permanent Council, you might consider the idea of a temporary President’s Task Force, constituted much as the Council would be.

In this scheme, the Department of Education would be free to focus on putting the new student performance standards in place and managing the programs that will take the leadership in the national restructuring of the schools. Much of the financing and disbursement functions of the higher education program would move to the Treasury Department, leaving the higher education staff in the new Institute to focus on matters of substance.

In any case, as you can see, we believe that some extraordinary measure well short of actually merging the departments of labor and education is required to move the new agenda with dispatch.

GETTING CONSENSUS ON THE VISION

Radical changes in attitudes, values and beliefs are required to move any combination of these agendas. The federal government will have little direct leverage on many of the actors involved. For much of what must be done, a new, broad consensus will be required. What role can the new administration play in forging that consensus and how should it go about doing it?

At the narrowest level, the agenda cannot be moved unless there is agreement among the governors, the President and the Congress. Bill’s role at the Charlottesville summit leads naturally to a reconvening of that group, perhaps with the addition of key members of Congress and others.

But we think that having an early summit on the subject of the whole human resources agenda would be risky, for many reasons. Better to build on Bill’s enormous success during the campaign with national talk shows, in school gymnasiums and the bus trips. He could start on the consensus-building progress this way, taking his message directly to the public, while submitting his legislative agenda and working it on the Hill. After six months or so, when the public has warmed to the ideas and the legislative packages are about to get into hearings, then you might consider some form of summit, broadened to include not only the governors, but also key members of Congress and others whose support and influence are important. This way, Bill can be sure that the agenda is his, and he can go into it with a groundswell of support behind him.

That’s it. None of us doubt that you have thought long and hard about many of these things and have probably gone way beyond what we have laid out in many areas. But we hope that there is something here that you can use. We would, of course, be very happy to flesh out these ideas at greater length and work with anyone you choose to make them fit the work that you have been doing.

Very best wishes from all of us to you and Bill,

(signed Marc)

Marc Tucker

Show notes-Friday Sept 24th Guest Beverly Eakman: Why our Kids are “Walking Targets”

**Notes Added Below**

Beverly K. Eakman will be my guest this Friday, Sept. 24 at 6pm CST on AxXiom For Liberty.  You can listen in live on the internet at Rule of Law Radio. http://www.ruleoflawradio.com

Recently in PA at the “Freedom Action Conference” I had the pleasure of meeting Beverly Eakman in person and even got to visit with her a little on air

I was already glancingly familiar with Beverly Eakman through some of her writing that I encountered when doing my own research on the  on the Texas Medical Algorithm Project or TMAP’s (I hate to use the word “scandal’ because it simply  does not do this sinister program justice.)

(My writing on the program and what I found out by going to my daughters school here in Oklahoma;  Public Schools, Signs of Suicide and New Freedom for All )

This lady bowled me over with her fluid and agile intelligence and expressiveness.  After speaking with her for a few moments, I proceeded to buy every book on her table. It didn’t take me long after cracking one of her books for me to recognize what I was reading.

Earlier today I posed this question;

Oklahoma Schools: Data Collecting or Dossier Building?

and provided a little information about Oklahoma schools that gives me pause for thought.  This information wouldn’t necessarily give most people pause for thought which is why I want you to hear more about what Beverly has to say.

Why am I making the connection between school mental health screenings, Oklahoma’s new student information sharing system and fusion centers?

I mentioned my interest in initiatives to screen our  children for mental illness in public schools.  While I don’t doubt that most of the administrators of this program are well intentioned I also know for a fact that the pharmaceutical companies and some of the “non-profit” organizations’ interest is purely profit driven.  Lawsuits and tragedies continue to emanate from these mental health partnerships with schools and  Medicaid funds are central to the scheme.

I know from visiting my own school that a up to date  rolodex with numbers for area psychiatrists is a key portion of the’ Signs of Suicide’ program. I also know that your notification about  and consent for your child’s participation in the screening is handled as below the radar as possible.  “Consent” is given by default and if you should fail to follow the instructions given to you by your child’s school, DHS is to be notified.

I have also spent many, many hours studying Fusion Centers, down to the technical aspects of system interoperability and software capability. I even went to testify at one of the MIAC (a Missouri State Fusion Center) committee hearing in Missouri.  And what I recognized in Beverly’s books was the same sort of data collection, merging and sharing and profiling that is at the heart of the Fusion Process.

There are efforts underway to systemically share data  between law enforcement, mental health and public schools (and much much more!) What does this indicate to people, I wonder.

To me, it doesn’t matter the rational or what good things could possibly come fro it because the potential for harm is too great.

What I see is an astonishing degree of database merging throughout the public and private sphere that in no way benefits us or our children.  Health, welfare, education and law enforcement to name but a few sectors, are getting together and what that portends for our personal security and for individual freedom is terrifying.

South Carolina has a data integration system that simply floors me!

I have just finished Beverly’s  meticulously researched book, The Cloning of the American Mind, and this is information that is both extremely important and not widely known.  You can Find Beverly’s books at Midnight Whistler  Publishers and needless to say, I can’t recommend them highly enough.

Beverly gave a speech in 2008 on the “Education’s Role” and I think what she covered in this  speech will help illustrate what has me so concerned.

I think it is important to note that this  speech was chosen to be placed into Vital Speeches of the Day which  is THE premier speech publication in America, possibly the world. Vital Speeches of the Day chose Beverly Eakman’s speech as the Dec 2008 Speech of the Month for their print publication which goes to all federal agencies, libraries and more.  It was also published online.

Some  excerpts of that speech are included here  but you can read it in its entirety at the end of this post.  (it is the last speech in the document)

In her speech Beverly explains how predictive analytics apply to our public schools.  She said;

“Today, hundreds of seemingly unrelated pieces of data that reveal political leanings and parental views are fed into a “predictive” computer algorithm. What’s a predictive computer algorithm? Well, it’s a mathematical formula that sifts masses of information, then predicts what a person will probably do, given various hypothetical scenarios.

What this all alludes to Beverly sums up this way;

Most hot-button topics of the day—from global warming to globalization—are first tested in the educational marketplace by psychologists using predictive computer technologies.

Disinformation is thriving in the nation’s classrooms. Today, I will present proof-positive that schools were used as the prototype for data-mining throughout the entire U.S. population. I will show you how government helps ensure—and enforce— the radical changes of ideals and attitudes and thus bring about a universal code of thought that others, including myself in past years, have alluded to. I am going to show you how unique ID numbers are assigned to each child, ostensibly by the state, but under the auspices of a federal mandate; how each state pretends to craft its own ID procedures, then transmits to the federal government for cross-matching with other federal data.

This technique is called “psychographics” You may be more familiar with the term “data-mining” which is the same thing. Here is an  explanation of psychographics from Beverly’s website;

Webster’s New World Communication and Media Dictionary defines psychographics as “the study of social class based upon the demographics … income, race, color, religion, and personality traits.” These are characteristics, says the dictionary, which “can be measured to predict behavior.”

And this quote from Beverly pretty much encapsulates the issue that I am trying to bring to the fore regarding the efforts to collect and share student data that is going on in Oklahoma and other states across the country;

The psychological questions and self-reports with which schools today inundate pupils comprise a specialized area known in the world of advertising as “psychographic data-gathering.” Psychographics is closely related to mass mental health screening, a highly controversial new initiative coming down the pike, as well as to “risk” analysis, which is turning into a dangerous political weapon.

I will continue to post information about Oklahoma’s  Race to The Top and the various other programs of concern but until then, please join me Friday on Rule of Law Radio Network to find out more about this very important subject.

______________________________________________

Show Notes Sept 25, 2010

Show Notes from Friday Sept 24th Guest Beverly Eakman: Why our Kids are “Walking Targets”

See Beverly Eakman’s books

Documents of interest;

•       Oklahoma’s Race to the Top

•       Race to the Top Technical Review Form – Tier 1

Oklahoma Application #5280-0K-1 (March 2010 evaluation)

•       CHILDREN’S EDUCATIONAL RECORDS AND PRIVACY 2009

•       Oklahoma Receives First Ever SIF Award Public Schools

•       Oklahoma Deploys the Nation’s First Fully Implemented Statewide SIF-Based Data Collection Model

•       US DOE Guide FERPA

•       ACE Implementation Guide Revised July 2010  ACE

Professor Chester M. Pierce, M.D., Professor of Education and Psychiatry at Harvard, has this to say, “Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our Founding Fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well — by creating the international child of the future.

A post about the Parental Rights Amendment

Group Manipulation Tactics-Thwart the The Delphi Technique


Beverly Eakmam was sounding the alarm about or schools using marketing techniques to psychologically profile school children back in 1991.

In 1981 she had resigned from teaching in sheer frustration, but she didn’t lose her sense of humor;

ODE TO A SCHOOLTEACHER AT YEAR’S END

(a.k.a. Letter of Resignation to the Clear Creek School District, League City (Houston), Texas, May 1981)

The kids bought their way out of class period five And they burned all the bathrooms down third; The school bus was late, Forty minutes past eight. Not a teacher all morning was heard.

Then class was dismissed for a game. Exams? Too bad! What a shame! “The children don’t need ’em!” “School officials won’t heed ’em!” “Let’s pass them for knowing their names!”

You see, the cost was only one dollar To go out and have a good holler. Coaches advertised passes To get out of classes, And my group became suddenly smaller.

Left were four Vietnamese refugees (Who hadn’t the one dollar fees), All eager to try it In a room that was quiet, Asking: “Please, may the testing proceed?”

Then a latecomer entered the room, And proceeded the cuss, yell and fume Because most of the class Had bought a red pass And he was stuck here the whole afternoon.

Kids complain that they can’t buy supplies, That prices are simply too high. But just let it be cash To get out of class And watch how fast money flies!

I’m told kids won’t be so obtuse The day we just let ’em “hang loose,” And pay less attention To silly conventions Like putting one’s brain to good use.

So important is public relations! And politically correct celebrations! They say the public supports Only schools that hype sports, Not grammar, and like, abominations.

So here’s an idea that’s fantastic: Keep dropouts in school shooting baskets! Bring class head counts down By fooling around; Keep everyone drugged or distracted!

Just why should I play the good teacher When I can spend all day long in the bleachers? Pupils know when we gruel ’em We’re only just foolin’; That we’d flunk ’em They can’t even feature!

Comparing home and alternative schools, I know they don’t play by such rules. They don’t take education Turn it into vacation And turn out generations of fools.

So…in light of the above-stated factors, I think I’ll seek out greener pastures. Still young and gung-ho It’s the right time to go. May this school enjoy happy hereafters.

Read the entire article

The following is a selection of information and links, no narrative but much of the information speaks for itself.

We are the biggest potential political striking force in this country, and we are determined to control the direction of education.” NEA president Catherine Barrett 1972

“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly view their role as the proselytizers of a new faith… The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new; the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of Humanism…”  – John J. Dunphy, A New Religion For A New Age, in The Humanist, January/February 1983 edition

FORDHAM CENTER ON LAW AND INFORMATION POLICY

CHILDREN’S EDUCATIONAL RECORDS AND PRIVACY:

A STUDY OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL STATE REPORTING SYSTEMS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Among state departments of education there has been a growing trend to establish statewide longitudinal databases of all K-12 children within a state in order to track students’ progress and change over time. This trend is accompanied by a movement to create uniform data collection systems so that each state’s student data systems are interoperable with one another. These two trends raised privacy concerns that we examine in this study. First, we were concerned with the way states were ensuring the privacy of their K-12 students. Specifically, our goal was to investigate what type of data was being collected and whether children were protected legally and technically from data misuse, improper data release, and data breaches. Second, we were concerned with the ease with which individual interoperable state data systems could potentially be combined to create a national database of all K-12 children.

INTEGRATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT INTO SCHOOL SAFETY:  THE MILWAUKEE INITIATIVE 2001-2003

This project (Integration of Law Enforcement in School Safety) was funded by the National Institute of Justice and awarded to the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS)

Research literature has begun to address the nexus of law enforcement and school safety from various perspectives. The literature reports a number of potential and actual types of interface, collaboration, or partnerships However, this project was envisioned and implemented in a manner and with a scope of collaboration not previously reported.

Data on student incidents, office referrals, and administrative actions, which were reported across all middle and high schools over a five-year period These student incidents included such activities as classroom disruption, non-compliant behavior, disorderly conduct, battery and assault, and others.

Community Partners is a Weed and Seed operation in which partners are assigned specific sectors of the city to identify community problems, identify at risk behaviors, and provide information to law enforcement. (Emphasis mine)

•       “. . .quantitative data failed to document any major changes.”

•       “While police data documented the nature of these problems and increased police activity, there were no major changes in the trends observed.”

•       “. . .quantitative data did not underscore dramatic changes during Phase Two. . .”

The direction taken in this project should be considered in future initiatives focusing on school safety. In sum, the objectives of this project were achieved and could be enhanced and replicated in other settings.

Read the Report

Creating an effective partnership between law enforcement and a school system is a challenging yet essential process that requires focus on a common goal of education and safety for youth.

http://www.schoolengagement.org/TruancypreventionRegistry/Admin/Resources/Resources/LawEnforcementandSchoolPartnershipasaSolutiontoTruancyRecommendationsfromGulfton%E2%80%99sTruancyReductionProgram.pdf

Oklahoma is the first state to become fully SIF compliant and the first state to do so legislatively.

•        70 OKLA. STAT. tit. 70, § 3-161 (2007), available at http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/OK_Statutes/CompleteTitles/os70.rtf (Student Tracking and Reporting (STAR) Pilot Program)

•       Oklahoma’s state legislature enacted the Achieving Classroom Excellence (ACE) Act in 2005 to provide a framework under which schools can implement the new standards and associated assessments

•       Through (Senate Bill (SB) 982 known as the “Achieving Classroom Excellence Act”, ACE  changed the curriculum, testing and graduation requirements for students in all Oklahoma public schools .  In 2006 in 2006. SB 1792 amended and further clarified the ACE act.

Oklahoma-The WAVE

The Wave is a state-of-the-art customized and secure electronic statewide student information system that can be utilized for eliminating duplication of reporting and accountability efforts, streamlining research and decision-making capabilities, and providing dynamic accurate and reliable information.

The Wave was developed utilizing Schools Interoperability Framework technology for providing the State Department of Education a utility to accept data from diverse applications – allowing school districts to select software that best fit their business needs – while implementing quality data collection standards.   The Wave operates in real-time, receiving and responding to electronic messages/data instantaneously.

Key Oklahoma leaders contributed expertise in management and information technology as the state’s Department of Education worked to determine the feasibility of this effort.  The Schools Interoperability Framework (SIF) standards were updated and released in April 2007. Oklahoma student information system vendors updated their applications as required by law (Title 70 O.S. § 3-160) and are certified via the SIF 2.0r1 specifications and the Oklahoma SIF Profile. For certified vendors, please visit the SIF Web site http://www.sifinfo.org.

Implementation of the Wave will position Oklahoma in the forefront of the movement to bring education accountability in obtaining information regarding student enrollment, graduation, dropout, mobility, and a variety of student demographics.

The Wave is for everyone.   The Wave is the system of the future, implemented today

Read More

Oklahoma is an active participant in the Common Core Standards Initiative, a consortium of 48 states, two territories, and the District of Columbia. The Initiative is coordinated by the National Governors Association and the Council for Chief State School Officers. The standards that are being developed will be internationally benchmarked. (source Race the the Top Technical Review Form) All states curricula standards are posted at the International Bureau of Education

DOJ OJJDP 2006 Report

Concurrently, policies and service approaches for at-risk youth and juvenile offenders increasingly were moving toward the coordination of multiple agency efforts. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), and other federal departments such as the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the U.S. Department of Education, were promoting information sharing among juvenile justice, education, and other youth-serving agencies to support a comprehensive continuum of care and services.

Safe Schools/Healthy Students

The Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative is an unprecedented grant program created and administered by three Federal agencies-the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, and Justice-designed to prevent violence and substance abuse among our Nation’s youth, schools, and communities. Funding supports the implementation of comprehensive programs that address the following six elements:

A safe school environment

Violence, alcohol, and drug abuse prevention and early intervention programs

School and community mental health preventive and treatment intervention services

Early childhood psychosocial and emotional development services

Supporting and connecting schools and communities

Safe school policies

Eligible grantees are school districts in partnership with law enforcement officials, local mental health authorities, and often with juvenile justice officials and faith-based and other community organizations. Click here to learn more about this program.

http://www.justice.gov/archive/fbci/progmenu_atrisk.html

Information Sharing to Prevent Juvenile Delinquency: A Training and Technical Assistance Project 2009

Recent developments in the National Juvenile Information Sharing (JIS) Initiative will be tested in two sites in FY 2009 – the Jefferson County Juvenile Assessment Center (JCJAC) in Lakewood, Colorado and the Colorado Children Youth Information Sharing (CCYIS) collaborative. Program evaluators will examine the capacity for successful cross-agency information sharing by testing the OJJDP Guidelines for Juvenile Information Sharing model components.

Findings will result in the development of a juvenile information sharing implementation strategy for state, local and tribal governments.

The implementation strategy will assist in the development and implementation of cross agency information sharing procedures that promote efficient collaboration, privacy protections and technological infrastructures.

As the National JIS Initiative advances, it will be introduced into other states that illustrate a readiness for JIS implementation. Data exchanges developed in the testing environment of the JCJAC have been completed and additional exchanges will be developed and implemented this fiscal year.

Plans for piloting and testing the latest version of the National Juvenile Information Sharing (JIS) Initiative Juvenile Justice XML Data Model (JJXDM) will continue this fiscal year. The JJXDM has been developed using the National Information Exchange Model – NIEM.
Additionally, an expanded webpage will be tested within the JIS website – http://www.juvenileis.org/nationaljis.asp. When complete, it will allow summary reports and progress reports to be posted and viewed by the pilot sites and other interested viewers. The Center for Network Development (CND) is hosting a forum for the pilot sites that will also allow document sharing and multiple discussion

Read more

Public School Health Clinics

SEATTLE — The mother of a Ballard High School student is fuming after the health center on campus helped facilitate her daughter’s abortion during school hours.

The mother, whom KOMO News has chosen to identify only as “Jill,” says the clinic kept the information “confidential.” “She took a pregnancy test at school at the teen health center,” she said. “Nowhere in this paperwork does it mention abortion or facilitating abortion.”

Jill says her daughter, a pro-life advocate, was given a pass, put in a taxi and sent off to have an abortion during school hours all without her family knowing.

“We had no idea this was being facilitated on campus,” said Jill. “They just told her that if she concealed it from her family, that it would be free of charge and no financial responsibility.”

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/88971742.html

__________________________

Coming up on AxXiom For Liberty-

Oct 1st-Jordan Page Oct 8th-Galen Chadwick and Ruel Chappell founders of The Well Fed Neighbor

The Dark Side of Nationwide Tests

This article is from waaaay back in 2001 but don’t disregard it because of that.  The information here is invaluable to understanding what is going on in our public schools.

This will help catch us up or refresh our memories about  the transformation of public education that began in earnest in the 1960’s.  This transformation today is just about complete and Oklahoma (you know the “reddest state in the nation”)  is leading the way, Numero Uno in fact,  on a new public education policy that is anything but conservative.  More about that soon.

There is  reason I am pulling things out of the way back machine (and I will be going even further back before I’m done with this story so humor me for a bit) is that without a little bit of history, some of the changes taking place in our state will be hard to fathom for many.  I have had to go back and retrace our steps to even begin to grasp it.

This particular article “The Dark Side of Nationwide Tests” was written by Beverly Eakman.

________________________________________

The following article from Insight magazine addresses the testing component of the federal education legislation now before Congress. These federal testing requirements were first put in place in 1994, part of the Goals 2000/School-to-Work package.
The case against standardized tests hinges on the quantum leap in data-gathering, cross-matching and information-sharing capabilities, with all the accompanying problems associated with data-trafficking, invasion of privacy and consumer profiling. Barely a week goes by that a publication somewhere doesn’t carry a story detailing a new affront to what used to be considered “nobody’s business.”

OK-SAFE Positions on Oklahoma’s State Questions 2010

OK-SAFE, Inc.
Updated: September 1, 2010
State Questions for General Election, November 2, 2010 Ballot

Freedom Action National Conference offers a Bargain!

The Freedom Action National Conference is sponsored by Tom DeWeese and the American Policy Center and 23 co-sponsoring organizations and will take place August 12, 13 and 14 at Valley Forge, PA.

29 Leading spokesmen of the Freedom movement; including Thomas Woods, Sheriff Richard Mack, Michael Badnarik; and workshops for local action; networking; organizing; preparing to limit the power and growth of the Federal government to restore the Republic. Join us!

You can attend for just $100!

Click on the link for details and to register for the conference.

Hurry, savings will expire!

In Defense of Liberty,
Tom DeWeese

P.S. If you cannot attend the live event in PA, we are also offering a Live Video Stream from the conference. Get all the details here: http://freedomactionconference.com/live-stream

OKC Action Forum Thursday Nov. 12- Fusion Centers

Thursday, Nov. 12th, 2009

Time: 6:45 pm to 8:15 pm

Subject: A power point presentation entitled Fusion Centers, or I Spy  for the Intelligence Enterprise.

A fusion center is defined as a “collaborative effort of two or more agencies that provide resources, expertise, and information to the center with the goal of maximizing their ability to detect, prevent, investigate, and respond to criminal and terrorist activity.” Among the primary focuses of fusion centers are the intelligence and fusion processes, through which information is collected, integrated, evaluated, analyzed, and disseminated. Nontraditional collectors of intelligence, such as public safety entities and private sector organizations, possess important information (e.g., risk assessments and suspicious activity reports) that can be “fused” with law enforcement data to provide meaningful information and intelligence about threats and criminal activity. It is recommended that the fusion of public safety and private sector information with law enforcement data be virtual through networking and utilizing a search function. Examples of the types of information incorporated into these processes are threat assessments and information related to public safety, law enforcement, public health, social services, and public works.

Data fusion involves the exchange of information from different sources—including law enforcement, public safety, and the private sector—and, with analysis, can result in meaningful and actionable intelligence and information. The fusion process turns this information and intelligence into actionable knowledge. Fusion also allows for relentless reevaluation of existing data in context with new data in order to provide constant updates. The public safety and private sector components are integral in the fusion process because they provide fusion centers with crime-related information, including risk and threat assessments, and subject-matter experts who can aid in threat identification.

Source-OK-SAFE.com

More on Fusion Center’s from OK-SAFE

Location

Village Library

10307 N Pennsylvania Ave.
Oklahoma City, OK 73159
405-755-0710

Action Forums are open to the public and free to attend.
Please RSVP to: oksafe@windstream.net

ok-safe.com

Additional information;

Source Documents, testimony and articles related to Fusion Centers