The next several paragraphs teaches how to code standards and the objectives so that the Common Core Standards can be duplicated for computer retrieval. This also sets the stage for individual students to be monitored toward meeting those standards. A standards-based curriculum includes learning standards and instructional objectives. The learning standards are the broad descriptions of what all students must know and be able to do at the conclusion of the instructional sequence. The objectives are specific descriptors of knowledge, skills and attitudes that the student must master to attain the standard. The instructional objectives guide curriculum planning and provide a basis for determining specific assessments, instructional strategies and resources validated to meet the standards. Objectives build across grade levels as students advance attaining the appropriate knowledge, skills and attitudes. This is known as scaffolding where all activities are related and controlled toward meeting the standards.
Understanding the Numbering of Standards and the Codes for Computer Retrieval are explained below:
The number for each content standard is composed of four parts, each part separated by a period: the content area codes are LS for Learning Skills and TT for Technology Tools, the letter S, for Standard, the program level, and the standard number.
- Illustration: 21C.S.PK-2.1 (21st Century Standard, Pre-K thru grade 2, content standard #1.)
Numbering of Objectives: The number of each objective is composed of five parts, each part separated by a period: content area code (LS for Learning Skills; TT for Technology Tools), the letter O is for Objective, the program level, the number of the content standard addressed, and the objective number.
Illustration: 21C.O.3-4.1.TT2 (21 Century Objective, grades 3-4, addresses standard #1 in Technology Tools, and is the second objective listed under that standard.)
Unique Electronic Numbers (or UENs) are numbers that help to electronically identify, categorize and link specific bits of information. Each objective will have a Unique Electronic Number (UEN) that will always remain the same. The only additional set of numbers that will be added to each code to formulate its UEN will be a prefix that indicates the year and month. These codes will follow individual student attainment of the Common Core Standards in a longitudinal data base Pre-k through career.
UENs (Unique Electronic Numbers) are unique numbers that facilitate implementation of Standards into Electronic formats such as Databases and XML Files. The WV Department of Education encourages everyone to use the WV Content Standards in any kind of electronic distribution, alignment, or software development to use the UENs so that all efforts can be cross- referenced and there is consistency across initiatives. The key to the transformation is standardization. The standards, the coding, the teaching, the curriculum, the testing, all must conform to the blueprint.
This is the blueprint. So. What will be taught? Let’s fill in the blanks and look at the actual standards:
West Virginia Openly Measures and Molds Student Attitudes: Discussing Affective Issues in Common Core and College and Career Ready Standards
Under the federal Elementary Secondary Education Act, (ESEA) Flexibly Waiver under Title I, a state applying for the grant must meet certain guidelines. A state must also incorporate college and
career ready standards and assessments into their state plan that would align to Common Core Standards.
West Virginia blatantly states what those standards will be. The standard #3, Personal and Workplace Skills in the graph below, proves that students will be forced to change their beliefs and attitudes. The 3rd standard is: “The student will exhibit leadership, ethical behavior, respect for others, accept responsibility for personal actions considering the impact on others, take the initiative to plan and execute tasks, and interact productively as a member of the group.”
Notice in the graph under Learning Skill Objective #1, that the student is being pressured to “go along with the group, even under stress.” The student must work collaboratively. They must “willingly align their personal beliefs and goals to the goals of others,” forcing the student to change through cognitive conflict “under stress” as a positive goal. The standard concludes that the student “derives personal satisfaction from achieving group goals.” This objective creates artificial stress on the student. What if the standard conflicts with what the student believes or what the student has been taught at home? What is the roll and responsibility of a teacher to facilitate changing of these beliefs and attitudes? Does this affect the student’s personality? Are clinical psychologists involved or are school counselors and teachers acting as clinical psychologists?
“Moral issues often involve the examination of authority roles. Classroom discussions of what is right and fair inevitably turn to a questioning of authority relationships in class, school, and family. This is so because our beliefs about authority figures are a vital part of our moral judgment.” (Promoting Moral Growth from Piaget to Kohlberg,” Hersh, Paolitto, Reimer.) What will happen to the rugged individualist? What will happen to the creative child? This example is the most chilling outcome that we could possibly put children through. This is people molding, not teaching and learning. What’s happens to a students’ psyche when there will be continual stress/conflict induced activities? Why are we moving to this type of teaching at school? Is enough stress placed on the child to commit suicide? To commit crimes? Will this technique cause a change in personality? Depression? Are there studies to conclude that these techniques are NOT harmful? What is the end result of standards that force ALL students to specific stimuli? Why MUST these standards and techniques be used in American schools allowing experimentation on our children and why is it so important? Perhaps, American children must think differently and prepare for something their parents are NOT preparing them for. Welcome to the 21st Century Skills for global citizenship.
Stress Induced Belief and Value-Changing Curriculum
Do ‘College and Career Ready Standards’ cause harm? Is this outright abuse? The Common Core, coming to a school near you!
The ‘Common Core’ and ‘College and Career Ready Standards’ outright admit that the objectives are in the affective domain of attitudes, values, and dispositions. What is happening to your child through this process?
What happens when your child’s beliefs are challenged? We, as parents, must oppose the techniques for behavior change that are being used in the classroom and on the computer when standards are diametrically opposed to basic traditional values that are based on our culture and our laws. We must demand to view all testing and assessments. Psychological techniques that are being used to identify and change a child’s attitudes, values, and beliefs unknown to parents must be exposed. Kohlberg defines inducing cognitive conflict as painful when students’ fixed beliefs are challenged. In the teaching of moral development, a student that has moral absolutes are on the first and lowest stage. This is commonly referred to as a ‘rigid’ set of values and beliefs or the authoritarian personality. The idea of cognitive conflict is to make the student question his beliefs so that he/she will progress up the ladder to the sixth stage of universal values. The student goes through periods of doubting of what is right or what is wrong. This method of inducing cognitive conflict creates disequilibrium. The student takes one view, becomes confused by discrepant information which involves a personal crisis and the need to reorder ones’ beliefs to fit into the group.
To resolve the frustration and confusion the child is forced to form a more collective position. The method is also called the dialectic process of Socratic teaching. The students give a view, the teacher asks questions which gets them to see the inadequacies of their views, and they are then motivated to formulate other positions along with the group through peer pressure. This is “the people development business” that Dr. Holliday, Kentucky Commissioner of Education, was referring to in the ‘Innovation Lab Network’ in Obama’s Race to the Top education agenda. We must also remember that computer software is programmed to do the job. There may be teacher directed activities and also differing types of software/curriculum that have been validated to change values and dispositions. Who decides what the answers are when it comes to vague and subjective standards?
The College and Career Ready Standards are vague and subjective, like ethical judgment, honesty, or integrity. How will these affective standards be measured? How will ethical judgment be scored? Dispositions? Adapting to change? Getting along with others? Character? Diversity? Compromising? Argumentation? Persuasion? Citizenship? (Remember, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, NAEP, deceptively defined and measured Citizenship as ‘thresholds of compliance by reward and punishment” in Pennsylvania, not knowledge of government.) Who decides how much change is too much or too little, and who is agreeing as to how those values will be defined? Will teachers grade students through subjective observations or psychological testing? Will attitude testing be done on the computer? Will psychologists test the students? Will the school get informed written parental consent? Is this type of testing and teaching in violation of the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, PPRA? What type of questions are going to be included on tests like Smarter Balanced, PARCC and the ACT test which admits that career pathways will be testing the whole child and behavioral standards beginning in Kindergarten? Who has direct access to this data when FERPA rediscloses personally identifiable information to outside contractors? Foundations? Businesses? Non-Profits? InBloom already disclosed personal data uploaded to a data cloud in New York. New York is also an Innovation Lab Network model. Parents were not happy about the disclosure of personal and sensitive information released on their children and families. Privacy groups are filing suit. Has Obama unlocked data and expanded FERPA to allow this personal data to be distributed for research, with no federal protections? Are children being experimented on for this reason? Will this collection of data that is released to others, be in violation of HIPPA?
Why is government data collection of personally identifiable information a serious issue for parents and students?
Does it really matter that the government is collecting this information on our children?
If you follow the technique of ‘feedback loop control,’ you begin to realize that once the data is collected on students, that is to quantify and document WHAT values the student has, the next step is to implement therapy, activities and techniques to CHANGE the student’s attitudes and values toward whoever decided what the desired standard will be. So the answer is, YES. This system is a decision making model committed to change your child’s attitudes, values, and dispositions. Please re-read the West Virginia standard #3 in Personal and Workplace Skills. Validated techniques will be used to change your students’ behavior. This is an example of how a conflict is created in a classroom setting taken from, “Promoting Moral Growth from Piaget to Kohlberg,” Hersh, Paolitto, Reimer; (page 189) This technique is called, cognitive conflict or cognitive dissonance, or creating a conflict in what the student believes:
Lisa: “The only thing -I can tell you I’m really confused because, since this class I’ve had to consider an awful lot more than I ever would. And I’m so confused as to what is really right and what is really wrong. I feel like in a sense that I know so little about what is right and what’s wrong that I can’t say that Hitler was even bad. Or that we have a right to our own lives. I don’t know.”
Teacher: “One thing, we are making a distinction between whether Hitler was bad or whether he was wrong.”
Lisa: “I don’t really know whether he was wrong. Just because I don’t want to say anything definite. I’m afraid of, somebody could prove me wrong in a different way.”
The dialogue continues about Lisa’s stress and confusion in this episode. There are three areas of values that are usually targeted for behavior change; moral: right-wrong, social: good-bad, and aesthetic: beautiful-ugly. This particular book is a wake-up call for abusive techniques in the classroom implementing moral development. The only statistics you will find in this book is what level and how many students were forced to change their beliefs. Another moral dilemma used was to discuss whether you agree if a man should steal milk for his poor family, from a wealthy home or not, in an eighth grade social studies class. (Page 121). There is no mention of what happens to a student left at a certain level or the stress that is artificially induced. Understanding this technique is crucial, in that, if no conflict is applied, the student will retain their belief about what is right or wrong. If a student is taught that they should not steal, he/she will retain that belief. If cognitive conflict is applied, that student becomes a victim to moral relativism or situation ethics….Is it OK to steal under certain circumstances, or maybe Hitler wasn’t wrong? These types of techniques are imbedded in all subject areas and in many types of activities like a Radical Math class that uses percentages to discuss wealthy areas of the country versus poor and why being rich is unfair. Students will be pressured to change their beliefs according to the standards and the group. The Common Core Standards are just the beginning which will allow government, individual access to your child.
Many of these techniques were developed and researched in the 70’s and 80’s in federally funded research labs. Pennsylvania’s job was testing in the affective domain, or the testing of attitudes in the Educational Quality Assessment, EQA which incorporated affective measures from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) objectives. Michigan was heavily federally funded for teacher training called B-Step, and Sidney Simon’s values clarification. Oregon’s job was to code for computer retrieval, student learning objectives called the Course Goals Collection. Specific states had differing jobs in values testing, value laden curriculum, techniques to change values, and teacher training to teach values education. In 1983 A Nation at Risk was published that falsely determined that America was underachieving nationally and internationally. The controversial 90’s were laden in the Outcome Based Education, OBE, debacle where affective outcomes were being re-introduced and were included in student learning outcomes for graduation requirements. In 1992, the Department of Labor issued the SCANS Report, Secretaries Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, where workplace skills first blatantly appeared that advanced the idea of placing values in workplace skills standards under the Goals 2000 mantra, ‘All Children Can Learn.’ They were introduced in ‘School to Work’ legislation and now they have resurfaced in the 21st Century Skills for a global workforce incorporated into the Common Core Standards as College and Career Ready standards. It is evident that our government continuously created a crisis to come right behind with a new model that did not reflect American values for indoctrinating our students to accept global citizenship.
This is just a glimpse of how many techniques have been validated to change values. The Taxonomies of Educational Objectives of Benjamin Bloom, cognitive domain, (Book I), and David Krathwohl’s affective domain, (Book 2), are incorporated into the Common Core Standards and are being deceptively incorporated into the 21st Century Skills, the “whole child.” The agenda is to mold the child from their earliest years….mind, body, and spirit. Obama has presented new legislation for the federal government to pay for pre-school. This is not coincidental. The younger, the better, to indoctrinate. Nothing is new, again.
*This is Part 2 in a three part series. Read Part 1 here.Facebook and Twitter, and follow our friends at RepublicanLegion.com on Instagram.