Chidren For Sale (Through Common Core Standards)

Children for Sale
By Alyson Williams

No more decisions behind closed doors!  Let’s get everyone talking about Common Core.
In the spring of 2011 I received a receipt for the sale of my children.  It came in the form of a flyer that simply notified me that my state and thereby my children’s school would comply with the Common Core. No  other details of the transaction were included. The transaction was  complete, and I had no say. In fact, it was the very first time I’d  heard about it.
I know what you’re thinking. That’s outrageous! Common  Core has nothing to do with selling things, especially not children!
Okay, so the idea that the State School Board and Governor who’d made this  decision could be described as “selling” my children is hyperbole. It is an exaggeration intended to convey an emotion regarding who, in this land of the free, has ultimate authority over decisions that directly affect my children’s  intellectual development, privacy, and future opportunities. It is not even an accurate representation  of my initial reaction to the flyer. I say it to make a point  that I didn’t realize until much, much later… this isn’t just an issue of education, but of money and control. Please allow me to explain.
That first day my husband picked up the flyer and asked me, “What is Common Core?” To be honest, I had no idea. We looked it up online.  We read that they were standards for each grade that would be consistent across a number of states. They were described as higher standards, internationally benchmarked, state-led, and inclusive of parent and teacher in-put. It didn’t sound like a bad thing, but why hadn’t we ever heard about it before? Again, did I miss the parent in-put meeting or questionnaire… the vote in our legislature? Who from my state had helped to write the standards? In consideration of the decades of disagreement on education trends that I’ve observed regarding education, how in the world did that many states settle all their differences enough to agree on the same standards? It must have taken years, right? How could I have missed it?
At first it was really difficult to get answers to all my questions. I started by asking the people who were in charge of implementing the standards at the school district office, and later talked with my representative on the local school board. I made phone calls and I went to public meetings. We talked a lot about the standards themselves. No one seemed to know the answers to, or wanted to talk about my questions about how the decision was made, the cost, or how it influenced my ability as a parent to advocate for my children regarding curriculum. I even had the chance to ask the Governor himself at a couple of local political meetings. I was always given a similar response. It usually went something like this:
Question: “How much will this cost?”
Answer: “These are really good standards.”
Question: “I read that the Algebra that was offered in 8th grade, will now not be offered until 9th grade. How is this a higher standard?”
Answer: “These are better standards. They go deeper into concepts.”
Question: “Was there a public meeting that I missed?”
Answer: “You should really read the standards. This is a good thing.”
Question: “Isn’t it against the Constitution and the law of the land to have a national curriculum under the control of the federal government?
Answer: “Don’t you want your kids to have the best curriculum?”
It got to the point where I felt like I was talking to Jedi masters who, instead of actually answering my questions, would wave their hand in my face and say, “You will like these standards.”
I stopped asking. I started reading.
I read the standards. I read about who wrote the standards. I read about the timeline of how we adopted the standards (before the standards were written.) I read my state’s Race to the Top grant application, in which we said we were going to adopt the standards. I read the rejection of that grant application and why we wouldn’t be given additional funding to pay for this commitment. I read how standardized national test scores are measured and how states are ranked. I read news articles, blogs, technical documents, legislation, speeches given by the US Education Secretary and other principle players, and even a few international resolutions regarding education.
I learned a lot.
I learned that most other parents didn’t know what the Common Core was either.
I learned that the standards were state accepted, but definitely not “state led.”
I learned that the international benchmark claim is a pretty shaky one and doesn’t mean they are better than or even equal to international standards that are considered high.
I learned that there was NO public input before the standards were adopted. State-level decision makers had very little time themselves and had to agree to them in principle as the actual standards were not yet complete.
I learned that the only content experts on the panel to review the standards had refused to sign off on them, and why they thought the standards were flawed.
I learned that much of the specific standards are not supported by research but are considered experimental.
I learned that in addition to national standards we agreed to new national tests that are funded and controlled by the federal government.
I learned that in my state, a portion of teacher pay is dependent on student test performance.
I learned that not only test scores, but additional personal information about my children and our family would be tracked in a state-wide data collection project for the express purpose of making decisions about their educational path and “aligning” them with the workforce.
I learned that there are fields for tracking home-schooled children in this database too.
I learned that the first step toward getting pre-school age children into this data project is currently underway with new legislation that would start a new state preschool program.
I learned that this data project was federally funded with a stipulation that it be compatible with other state’s data projects. Wouldn’t this feature create a de facto national database of children?
I learned that my parental rights to deny the collection of this data or restrict who has access to it have been changed at the federal level through executive regulation, not the legislative process.
I learned that these rights as protected under state law are currently under review and could also be changed.
I learned that the financing, writing, evaluation, and promotion of the standards had all been done by non-governmental special interest groups with a common agenda.
I learned that their agenda was in direct conflict with what I consider to be the best interests of my children, my family, and even my country.
Yes, I had concerns about the standards themselves, but suddenly that issue seemed small in comparison to the legal, financial, constitutional and representative issues hiding behind the standards and any good intentions to improve the educational experience of my children.
If it was really about the best standards, why did we adopt them before they were even written?
If they are so wonderful that all, or even a majority of parents would jump for joy to have them implemented, why wasn’t there any forum for parental input?
What about the part where I said I felt my children had been sold? I learned that the U.S. market for education is one of the most lucrative – bigger than energy or technology by one account – especially in light of these new national standards that not only create economy of scale for education vendors, but require schools to purchase all new materials, tests and related technology. Almost everything the schools had was suddenly outdated.
When I discovered that the vendors with the biggest market share and in the position to profit the most from this new regulation had actually helped write or finance the standards, the mama bear inside me ROARED!
Could it be that the new standards had more to do with profit than what was best for students? Good thing for their shareholders they were able to avoid a messy process involving parents or their legislative representatives.
As I kept note of the vast sums of money exchanging hands in connection with these standards with none of it going to address the critical needs of my local school – I felt cheated.
When I was told that the end would justify the means, that it was for the common good of our children and our society, and to sit back and trust that they had my children’s best interests at heart – they lost my trust.
As I listened to the Governor and education policy makers on a state and national level speak about my children and their education in terms of tracking, alignment, workforce, and human capital – I was offended.
When I was told that this is a done deal, and there was nothing as a parent or citizen that I could do about it – I was motivated.
Finally, I learned one more very important thing. I am not the only one who feels this way.
Across the nation parents grandparents and other concerned citizens are educating themselves, sharing what they have learned and coming together. The problem is, it is not happening fast enough. Digging through all the evidence, as I have done, takes a lot of time – far more time than the most people are able to spend. In order to help, I summarized what I thought was some of the most important information into a flowchart so that others could see at a glance what I was talking about.
I am not asking you to take my word for it. I want people to check the references and question the sources. I am not asking for a vote or for money. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. I do believe with all my heart that a decision that affects the children of almost every state in the country should not be made without a much broader discussion, validated research, and much greater input from parents and citizens than it was originally afforded
If you agree I encourage you to share this information. Post it, pin it, email it, tweet it.
No more decisions behind closed doors! Let’s get everyone talking about Common Core
_________________________________
Thanks to Alyson Williams for permission to publish her story.

Common Core -- Orwellian Lessons in Florida By Mary Grabar

Common Core -- Orwellian Lessons in Florida

By Mary Grabar

1/19/2013

Ask any college freshman what he knows about communism and he will likely engage in a word association game. “The red scare, McCarthyism,” he will blurt out, displaying lessons well-learned from his textbooks and teachers.

One way to go beyond the idea of communism as evidence of paranoia, though, is to recall George Orwell’s Animal Farm. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” will be the phrase students recall. Students seem to get that “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” never works out in reality from this fictional work.

This novel shows how literature can sometimes demonstrate historical realities better than many textbooks.

But with the Obama administration’s unconstitutional program of nationalizing education, students will not likely be able to experience the insights and pleasures of novels, like Orwell’s.

In 2009, during the economic “crisis,” states were offered part of the $4.35 billion in stimulus funds in a hurried contest called Race to the Top. After the initial application, they were told that they would have to adhere to national standards and testing called Common Core, sight unseen, and without any legislative input. Forty-eight states signed on initially; today, 45 states are committed to CC—although citizens and teachers are organizing against it.

The standards, now in place for math and English, emphasize “work and career readiness”--that is for workers who see themselves as global citizens unacquainted with their national and cultural heritage. This became apparent as I read the recent article, “Teachers Get Help with Common Core Lessons Through (sic) CPALMS,” at the NPR site. This was also because one of the CPALMS lessons for English/Language Arts was on Animal Farm.

The article explained that as Common-Core aligned assessments and textbooks are being written, the state of Florida is using a federal Race to the Top grant from the Department of Education to develop a site of resources for teachers who are scrambling to adhere to the new standards.

Pinnellas County School Superintendant Mike Grego recently told the Florida State Board of Education that there is “no resistance” to Common Core.

At the same time, Florida’s new state superintendant, Tony Bennett, is steamrolling in the curriculum. Bennett, by the way, lost reelection in Indiana, many believe, because of his support for Common Core.

The lack of “resistance” may very well be due to the behind-the-scenes maneuvering by the Department of Education that bypassed state legislatures and public input, often gaining the support of Republicans with vague promises of “rigor” and uniform “standards.” Most in the politically informed Tea Party Manatee audience before whom I spoke on the evening of January 8 were not aware of this federal takeover of education.

Among the points I made are those from my recent report for Accuracy in Media. National tests (being written by close, like-minded colleagues of terrorist-turned-education-professor Bill Ayers, like Stanford education professor Linda Darling-Hammond) will eventually nullify the idea of private schools and even home schools. Some Catholic and other religious schools are already beginning to adopt Common Core standards as they see college entrance exams being written to CC specifications.

The 45 participating states are also required to keep data bases of students from “cradle to career”--to use Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s favorite phrase--and submit them to the federal government, in effect making a national database.

Some conservative organizations have protested this unconstitutional power grab by the Department of Education.

But the mandate to replace literature in English classes with “informational texts”—with only half the time allotted to literature, and reduced to only 30 percent by the last two years of high school—caught the attention of even the liberal media. They became alarmed that favorites like To Kill a Mockingbird and Catcher in the Rye are to be replaced by such things as EPA directives.

Spokesmen tried to alleviate fears. They directed skeptics to the standards: “the Standards require a certain critical content for all students including classic myths and stories from around the world, America’s Founding Documents, foundational American literature, and Shakespeare.” Plus, they “intentionally do not offer a reading list.”

David Coleman the well-connected new president of the College Board, which writes and administers college entrance exams, has pointed to these caveats, and repeated the claim that the standards call for evidence-based writing instead of writing based on personal experience and feelings. (See the very funny takedown by the Pioneer Institute’s James Stergios of how the advocate of “close reading,” David Coleman, mixed up Federalist 51 and 10 in an instructional video.)

Animal Farm would seem to fall into the category of classical literature that the bureaucrats and educrats refer to in attempts to mollify critics. Those who wrote the ninth and tenth-grade lesson plans for CPALMS (Collaborate, Plan, Align, Learn, Motivate, Share) seemed to have this in mind.

First, the novel is put into the broad category of “fables” from Aesop, with a list of those usually taught to young children like “The Tortoise and the Hare.” In typical Common Core fashion, students are to search out “elements” of a fable and then mechanically fill in a chart that is provided as a hand-out in the lesson plan.

Did anyone consider, though, that the comparison to a fable for preschoolers might be insulting to teenagers? The teacher’s version of the chart has the blanks filled in, with the element of the “problem” described as “Power can make the animals corrupt; they struggle to take care of the farm and with leadership.”

The “resolution” is “The farm ends up being worse with the animals in control because of too much power and corruptness by the pigs.” The “moral/lesson” is “Power Corrupts, and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.” (The source for this quotation, the conservative historian Lord Acton, is not mentioned, however.)

All this is very general. And when one compares it to other sample lessons in Common Core and its standards, one sees that it is deliberately so. While one small mention is made in a sheet on the “elements of a fable” that Animal Farm is “satirized Stalinist Communism, in particular, and totalitarianism, in general” it is clear that the novel is to be taught in a historic vacuum. The pointed criticisms of communism are generalized to an indictment of a vague sense of too much “power.”

This exercise recalls one that gave consternation to teachers when they were instructed to read Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address without emotion and without providing any historical context. Common Core reduces all “texts” to one level: the Gettysburg Address to the EPA’s Recommended Levels of Insulation.

This leveling is demonstrated in another lesson plan at CPALMS that involves the historical young adult novel Kidnapped in Key West, where teachers are told to “avoid giving any background context or instructional guidance at the outset of the lesson while students are reading the text chorally.”

This kind of “close reading” presumably “forces students to rely exclusively on the text instead of privileging background knowledge and levels the playing field for all students as they seek to comprehend the text.”

Leveling the playing field is a primary objective of the Obama Department of Education, and Common Core presents a means to do so by encouraging such “close” or “deep” reading. Reading the “text” “chorally,” which Merriam-Webster defines as "sung," implies reading aloud in unison. It ensures that all students, including struggling readers, are brought along with the group.

Such objectives are in line with Darling-Hammond’s educational agenda. The former Obama education transition team director is in charge of using $176 in Race-to-the-Top funds to develop tests for one of two consortia and is implementing her “five-dimensional grading rubric” of personal responsibility, social responsibility, communication skills, application of knowledge, and critical and creative thinking.

This assessment philosophy had the dubious distinction of placing her Stanford New Schools on California’s list of the lowest-achieving five percent. Now about half of American students will be required to take her tests.

The sample test questions released by her consortia give no indication that acquisition of knowledge is important. As I noted in my other reports, social responsibility is the aim of the new curriculum materials being developed. They follow Arne Duncan’s stated purpose for schools: to be part of the “battle for social justice.”

Many have been fooled by rhetoric that simply repeats the talking points of the Department of Education and the well-connected leftists in the education field who will profit from our tax dollars by selling teacher training, software and hardware, and Common Core-aligned curricula. Bernie Reeves even called David Coleman an “education hero” in American Thinker. I thought it might be a satire, or Newspeak.

Duncan, who worked with Bill Ayers in Chicago on education issues, is on the same page, as is Darling-Hammond. Obama’s signature education initiative has been dubbed “Obama Core” for good reason. It is an Orwellian re-education campaign.

Florida’s sample lesson for teaching, among all things, Animal Farm, provides an illustration of how this is being done.

Mary Grabar earned her Ph.D. in English from the University of Georgia and teaches in Atlanta.

http://townhall.com/columnists/marygrabar/2013/01/19/common-core-orwellian-lessons-in-florida-n1490561

Obama Interested in Allah is God Curriculum--Dangers of Computerization In Schools--Lesson From Texas--This Is Just The Beginning

[Comments from Donna Garner -- CSCOPE is a digitized curriculum used in Texas public schools that can be deleted, changed, or added back “at the click of a mouse.”  SB 6 created this problem in Texas by opening the door for digitized curriculum to replace hardcover textbooks. How can parents know what is being taught to their children when digitized content can be changed instantaneously? 

What’s more, CSCOPE is not even available to parents or to the public to see even though it is they whose tax dollars support the public schools.  Teachers have been forced to sign a gag order to keep the CSCOPE materials from being sent home to parents and/or to the public to read.  

Now because of John Griffing’s excellent investigate journalism, we find out that Common Core Standards is trying to buy CSCOPE as a vehicle to bring Obama’s social justice agenda into the Texas public schools and also into other states.  Texas is one of the few states that said “No” to the Common Core Standards and to the national CCS assessments.

The elected Texas State Board of Education has adopted its own curriculum standards – the most fact-based, articulate, and patriotic standards in the entire country.  By law, these standards are supposed to be taught in all Texas public schools.

CSCOPE and Common Core Standards are trying to make an “end run” around Texas law set by Texas Legislators.  Hopefully the Texas Legislature will respond with legislation to correct the ills of SB 6 and to force CSCOPE to go through the State Board of Education’s public hearings and adoption process. – Donna Garner]   

--------------------------------

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/obama-interested-in-allah-is-god-curriculum/

WND EXCLUSIVE

OBAMA INTERESTED IN 'ALLAH-IS-GOD' CURRICULUM

Source says federal officials pursuing program used in Texas

Published: 1.13.13 -- 3 hours ago

by JOHN GRIFFING Email | Archive

CSCOPE, the controversial online curriculum that taught “Allah is God” and currently is used in 80 percent of Texas school districts, has caught the attention of the Obama administration’s Department of Education.

A source in the Texas education system has told WND that Common Core operatives in the U.S. Department of Education are actively pursuing CSCOPE as a way around the Texas legislative process.

Texas is one of the few states still resisting implementation of Common Core, Obama’s national standards initiative, which many feel is a transparent attempt to nationalize education and progressively control classroom content with minimal parental oversight.

Implementation of Common Core is known to have been made a condition of school systems’ receipt of federal dollars under Obama’s “Race to the Top” program.

CSCOPE recently has come under fire for evidence of what sources claim to be radical content and secrecy. Now new information of such a radical agenda has surfaced showing CSCOPE connections to Obama mentor and self-acknowledged terror group member Bill Ayers.

WND has documented a strong link between Ayers and CSCOPE heavyweight and Common Core advocate Linda Darling-Hammond.

An unrepentant terror group member (and known Obama supporter, financier, and ghost-writer), William “Bill” Ayers was part of the notorious Weather Underground which attempted to bomb the Pentagon in the seventies. After 9/11, Ayers was interviewed by the New York Times, and was quoted as saying he had “no regrets.”

Ayers gave Darling-Hammond an enthusiastic endorsement for education secretary when Obama was first elected. Ayers has worked extensively with Darling-Hammond on many of the same projects, even editing her work. Both are part of what some education experts have termed the “small schools movement,” which allegedly emphasizes “emotional” responses and output over factual mastery.

Darling-Hammond is mentioned throughout CSCOPE literature, has given innumerable lectures on behalf of CSCOPE, and was part of Obama’s educational transition team. She is a primary advocate and proponent of Common Core in Texas, and observers see the acquisition of CSCOPE by the U.S. Department of Education as a logical next step.

This scenario has alarmed those concerned about classroom content accountability. Previously, WND reported how CSCOPE lessons promote Islam, teaching conversion methods and presenting verses from the Quran that denigrate other faiths. In CSCOPE curriculum, the Boston Tea Party is likened to an act of terrorism on par with 9/11. In the wake of the Newtown massacre, the Second Amendment is portrayed as a “collective,” not an individual right, despite the Supreme Court’s recent rulings to the contrary.

The CSCOPE website has posted a response to concerns about certain lesson plans, including an extensive discussion of the Boston Tea Party. But critics say that such lessons should never have appeared in the first place.

Sources within the Texas education system recently informed WND that Wicca, thought by many to be akin to witchcraft, was being taught in CSCOPE curriculum alongside Christianity, but was removed before the news media could access it, a fact which represents one of the biggest concerns for followers of CSCOPE.

CSCOPE apparently immediately deletes controversial content once leaked, making it impossible at any one time to know exactly what students are learning and in what order. Defenders of this process say that this responsiveness to public scrutiny is a form of self-auditing. Others have said that it simply leaves parents, teachers and those in charge of curriculum oversight powerless to stop agenda-driven lesson plans and the damage the ideas therein might do to students.

WND has documented numerous instances of lessons being deleted after their use in classrooms.

When it was discovered that Islam was being given preferential status as a part of a study on the world’s major religions, CSCOPE administrators deleted the lesson plan and associated PowerPoint in the presence of two sources, leaving no trace online.

However, through available technology, documentation of this lesson plan and other such controversial content has been retained and reviewed by Texas educators and WND.

See the lesson.

In CSCOPE World History/Social Studies, Lesson 2, Unit 3 under the heading, “Classical Rome,” students are told that Christianity is a “cult,” and given a link to a BBC article saying the early Christians were “cannibals,” i.e. the Eucharist, which students are then led to conclude is the reason for Roman persecution.

See the lesson.

This lesson has since been removed, but documentation in WND’s possession confirms that the lesson existed. Critics contend that this ability to change content on a whim to evade scrutiny or accountability is a persistent risk with a system like CSCOPE. An organic curriculum – if regulated – might be advantageous, but without transparency, these types of occurrences will likely be more frequent, critics say.

Speaking with WND, Texas Sen. Dan Patrick, new chairman of the education committee, communicated his intent to hold high-profile hearings and investigate CSCOPE.

Sen. Patrick noted, “Any system where the chairman of the state board can’t get a password to explore their site in detail for six months, requires teachers to sign an agreement that could subject them to criminal penalties, and is not easily transparent to parents, needs to be closely examined by the legislature.”

When asked if he would support placing CSCOPE under state oversight and/or local school board oversight, Sen. Patrick answered carefully, explaining,

“We will make that decision after our hearings. However, I have concerns of any curriculum program that is in the majority of our school districts without some level of oversight by either the SBOE, TEA, or the legislature.”

Patrick, along with many other Republicans, supported the 2011 legislation that took power over Internet curriculum review away from the SBOE, though this provision was admittedly ill-understood in its implications and was originally intended to reduce the cost-burden to school districts in obtaining and distributing the curriculum. While reducing costs, this move also created the basis of the current controversy.

Opponents of CSCOPE, on the other hand, desire a lawsuit. They do not want to wait for hearings. As they contend, CSCOPE is already violating Texas public statutes, which require all “instructional materials” to be available to parents. CSCOPE places all primary content – apart from summaries – behind a pay wall.

Texas Education Service Center Curriculum Collaborative (TESCCC) Governing Board minutes, obtained only by Texas Public Information Act request, reveal that even the governing board in charge of CSCOPE may not be fully aware of CSCOPE content issues.

Minutes for the meetings covered show that governing board members were told by CSCOPE Executive Director Wade Labay that they will only be involved in content-related issues if “politically sensitive,” what Labay calls “’911′ type messages or those deemed critical.” In other words, in addition to the absence of state oversight, corporate oversight within CSCOPE might be lacking.

The fears of some that CSCOPE is replacing textbooks, a claim denied by Texas SBOE member Thomas Ratliff, would appear justified if governing board minutes are considered.

In addition to outlining when and under what circumstances CSCOPE would communicate with the TESCCC governing board, pending textbook alignments with Pearson, McGraw Hill, et al., were discussed and delayed with the support of governing board members. Some attendees lamented even having to align CSCOPE content with textbooks, since “the mission of CSCOPE is to change instruction in the classroom.”

TESCCC has now asked the Texas Attorney General to make its minutes exempt from public information requirements.

Stand In The Gap For Our Children--Conference Feb 9th

Henry Burke and Common Core Standards--States Price Tags

States' Taxpayers Cannot Afford Common Core Standards

by Henry W. Burke

10.15.12

INTRODUCTION

The total nationwide cost for 7 years of the Common Core Standards Initiative is $15.8 billion.  This includes the cost to states of CCS Testing, Professional Development, Textbooks, and Technology.  (Other costs not shown in this report would be the cost to set up and administer a nationalized teacher evaluation system and a national student/educator database.)

The taxpayers in each of the 45 states (and D. C.) that have committed to the Common Core Standards Initiative (CCSI) will be left "holding the bag" because our federal government with a national debt of $16 trillion cannot come in and alleviate the cost to the states.

Because it will cost California $2.2 billion to implement the Common Core Standards but California only received $104 million ($0.1 billion) from the federal government for competitive Stimulus awards, the taxpayers of California will have to come up with $2.1 billion out of their state coffers.

With California on the brink of bankruptcy, where would their taxpayers come up with $2.1 billion?  (Please see Table 1 at the end of this report for a complete listing of CCS losses per state.)

Where would other states such as the ones listed below find the extra funding to implement the Common Core Standards? 

Illinois  -- $733 million

Pennsylvania  -- $647 million

Michigan -- $569 million

As a block, the states will spend $16 billion and get only $5 billion in federal grants.  Why would the states change to a system that costs several times what they will receive in return?  That does not sound like a very good deal to me. 

The cost for CCS does not suddenly end at Year 7.  The ongoing cost for Year 8 and after will be $801 million per year.

The up-front, one-time cost for CCS implementation is two-thirds (67%) of the Total Cost for 7 years. 

This report will focus primarily on the cost of implementing the Common Core Standards in each of the 46 states (45 states plus D.C.).

*A very helpful compilation of Anti-CCSI Resources has recently been posted at:   

http://educationviews.org/list-of-anti-common-core-resources/

Background on Common Core Standards and RTTT

Picture this scenario: You are the CEO of a large company.  An outside company offered your company an incentive to persuade you to convert to their system.  Would you change the main system in your company if you knew it would cost more money to convert than the amount of the incentive? 

That is what 45 states (and the District of Columbia) did in adopting the Common Core Standards Initiative (CCSI).  Under the U.S. Department of Education's Race to the Top program (RTTT), states competed for $4.35 Billion in federal grants. 

In exchange for the potential funds, states had to drop their own state education standards and adopt the Common Core Standards Initiative  (a.k.a., CCS) -- nationalized curriculum standards, nationalized curriculum, nationalized assessments, a nationalized teacher evaluation system, and a nationalized database.  

Under the $787 billion Stimulus measure, money was set aside for RTTT funding.  About $3.9 billion was awarded in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of RTTT in 2010; since then, an additional $1.5 billion has been granted.  This brings the total competitive awards to $5.4 billion.

Cost to Implement CCS

How about the costs?  One reliable estimate places the nationwide cost of implementing CCS at $15.8 billion.  Another estimate pegs the total CCS cost at $30 billion.

As a block, the states will spend $16 billion and get $5 billion in federal grants.  Why would the states change to a system that costs several times what they will receive in return?  That does not sound like a very good deal to me. 

When the states were competing for those coveted federal dollars, they were not calculating realistic costs for the conversion.  Theodor Rebarber, CEO and founder of AccountabilityWorks, explained: “States did almost no costs analysis” when they signed on to adopt the Common Core standards.  They sorely needed the money and viewed CCS through the proverbial "rose-colored glasses." 

If the RTTT grant money were the chief reason that states adopted the Common Core Standards Initiative (the nationalization of the public schools), would they drop out of CCS if the conversion costs were significantly higher than the RTTT funds received from the federal government?  That is a good question.

This report will briefly cover the federal RTTT awards; however, the major emphasis will be on the cost side of the equation.  I think many states will "get off the national standards train" once the real costs are known.

When I was searching for reliable cost estimates on implementing the Common Core Standards, I found an excellent White Paper report published by the Pioneer Institute entitled National Cost of Aligning States and Localities to the Common Core Standards by AccountabilityWorks, No. 82 - February 2012.

http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/120222_CCSSICost.pdf

My report is based almost entirely on this outstanding Pioneer Institute White Paper.

Quality of the Standards

I think it is obvious that money was the chief reason that the states gave up their own state standards and adopted the Common Core Standards (CCS). 

People might try to argue that the national standards are an improvement over the states' standards.  Numerous education experts certainly do not think the Common Core Standards are an improvement over the state standards.

Two of these experts are Dr. Sandra Stotsky and Ze'ev Wurman.  The Pioneer Institute included these statements on page 4 of the report:

            Pioneer Institute retained experts with knowledge of the subject matter to develop a series of white papers that provided specific recommendations for improvement and, ultimately, questioned whether states with highly regarded standards (e.g., Massachusetts and California) would benefit from replacing their current standards with the new Common Core standards.

            Ze’ev Wurman and Sandra Stotsky questioned the academic rigor, as well as a perceived lack of transparency and the accelerated nature of the development process, charging that it didn't permit sufficient time for public or other expert review and comment.

http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/120222_CCSSICost.pdf

On 5.20.10, The Pacific Research Institute released its report on the national standards:

'These proposed national standards are vague and lack the academic rigor of the standards in Massachusetts and a number of other states,' said Pioneer Institute Executive Director Jim Stergios. ‘The new report shows that these weak standards will result in weak assessments.  After so much progress and the investment of billions of tax dollars, it amounts to snatching mediocrity from the jaws of excellence.’

 http://pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/100520_emperors_new_clothes.pdf

Dr. R. James Milgram and Dr. Sandra Stotsky issued another report on the national standards for math and English.  The title best captures their overall sentiments: Fair to Middling: A National Standards Progress Report.  Stotsky determined that the elements were too broadly worded, and explicit goals were not established.  Also the literature standards were deemed to be very weak.  Dr. Milgram made these comments about the Mathematics standards:

            The proposed standards are, however, very uneven in quality and do not match up well either with the best state standards or with international expectations.

http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/100402_fair_to_middling.pdf 

Texas wisely shunned the national standards movement and devoted considerable energy into writing its own standards.  The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) adopted excellent standards documents during the last four years for English / Language Arts / Reading (ELAR), Science, Social Studies, and Mathematics.  Many experts deem these four standards documents to be the best in the country!

Pioneer Institute White Paper Report

National Cost of Aligning States and Localities to the Common Core Standards, A Pioneer Institute and American Principles Project White Paper, No. 82 - February 2012

http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/120222_CCSSICost.pdf

The Pioneer white paper provides a thorough analysis of the cost of implementing the Common Core Standards.  The report states: 

            The goal of this analysis  was to develop a 'middle of the road' estimate of the 'incremental' (i.e., additional) cost of implementing the Common Core standards based, as much as possible, on actual state or local experience implementing similar initiatives.

Please note that the Pioneer Institute report gives the incremental or additional expenses borne by the states for implementing CCS during the 7-year period.

I strongly urge the readers to study the Pioneer Institute report.  Also, a wealth of information is included in the Appendices to the Pioneer white paper.  The Appendices provide enrollment numbers and detailed cost breakdowns for every state. 

http://www.accountabilityworks.org/photos/Appendices.Common_Core_Cost.AW.pdf 

Analysis of the Pioneer CCS Information

My goal has been to utilize the research done by the Pioneer Institute but to go one step further by calculating (1) the cost for each CCS category in each state, and (2) the total CCS cost for each state.

The Pioneer Institute white paper includes costs for four categories: Testing, Professional Development, Textbooks, and Technology.  The Appendices to the Pioneer Institute report provide dollar figures for Textbooks and Technology for each state.  I derived the Testing costs and Professional Development costs for each state from the Pioneer white paper Figure 2B (Table 5) and the Pioneer report's assumptions.

http://www.accountabilityworks.org/photos/Appendices.Common_Core_Cost.AW.pdf

Highlights from CCS Tables

CCS Loss Per State  (Please refer to Table 1)

1.  California will lose $2,084 million ($2.084 billion) on CCS implementation.  (Translation: California taxpayers will have to take $2.1 billion from their state coffers to pay for CCS.)

2.  Illinois will lose $733 million on CCS implementation.

(Translation: Illinois taxpayers will have to take $733 million out of their state coffers to pay for CCS.)

3.  Pennsylvania will lose $647 million on CCS implementation.

4.  Michigan will lose $569 million on CCS implementation.

5.  New Jersey will lose $564 million on CCS implementation.

6.  Indiana will lose $387 million on CCS implementation.

7.  Arizona will lose $349 million on CCS implementation.

8.  Missouri will lose $336 million on CCS implementation.

9.  Washington will lose $331 million on CCS implementation.

10.  Wisconsin will lose $313 million on CCS implementation.

11.  Six states show a gain (the federal awards are more than the expenditures for CCS implementation and administration). 

12.  Tennessee has the largest CCS gain, with $145 million; the District of Columbia has the second largest gain, at $76 million. 

13.  Maryland has the smallest gain, with $7 million.

CCS Cost Per Student  (Please refer to Table 2)

1.  In Vermont, the cost per student to implement and administer CCS will be $433.

2.  In the District of Columbia, the CCS Cost per Student will be $425.

3.  In North Dakota, the CCS Cost per Student will be $424.

4.  In New Jersey, the CCS Cost per Student will be $419.

5.  In Maine, the CCS Cost per Student will be $418.

6.  In New York, the CCS Cost per Student will be $411.

7.  In Wyoming, the CCS Cost per Student will be $410.

8.  In Rhode Island, the CCS Cost per Student will be $406.

9.  In New Hampshire, the CCS Cost per Student will be $404.

10.  In Arkansas, the CCS Cost per Student will be $403.

11.  The CCS Cost per Student varies from $337 (in Utah) to $433 (in Vermont); the average CCS Cost per Student for the 46 states is $379.

Nationwide CCS Costs and Percentages  (Please refer to Table 4)

1.  The largest category is Technology, at $6.9 billion; this is 43% of the $15.8 billion Total Cost.

2.  The second largest category is Professional Development, at $5.3 billion; this is 33% of the Total Cost.

3.  The third largest category is Textbooks, at $2.5 billion; this is 16% of the Total Cost.

4. The smallest category is Testing, at $1.2 billion; this is 8% of the Total Cost.

Nationwide CCS Cost  (Please refer to Table 5)

1.  The Total Nationwide Cost for 7 years of CCS implementation is $15.835 billion.

2.  The up-front, one-time cost for CCS implementation is $10.5 billion; this is two-thirds (67%) of the Total Cost of $15.8 billion for 7 years.

3.  The cost for Year 1 operations is $503 million.

4.  The ongoing annual operational costs for Years 2-7 are $801.5 million.  [$801.5 million  x  6 years = $4.809 billion]

5.  The cost for CCS does not suddenly end at Year 7.  The ongoing cost for Year 8 and after will be $801 million per year.

Competitive Stimulus Awards  (Please refer to Table 8)

1.  Average Grant per State (51 States) = $105,430,332

2.  Average Grant per State (First 41 States) = $131,145,047

3.  Average Grant per Student (51 States) = $109

4.  Average Grant per Student (First 41 States) = $121

5.  Median Grant per Student (51 States) = $24

6.  Median Grant per Student (First 41 States) = $33

Description                             Total Awarded          Enrollment     Grant Per Student

Total for 51 States                 $5,376,946,918           49,181,237                  $109

Total for First 41 States        $5,376,946,918           44,522,237                  $121

CONCLUSION

The main reason that the states gave up their standards and adopted the Common Core Standards was the potential money offered under the Race to the Top program.  Unfortunately, that federal ploy of the "carrot and stick" has worked wonderfully; 45 states (plus D. C.) have signed on to the national standards.

The quality of the national standards is questionable and unproven.  The Common Core Standards have not been piloted under controlled research standards and have not been internationally benchmarked.  No one knows whether or not students will actually increase their academic achievement by being taught the CCS. 

The 45 states (and D. C.) committed to adopt the CCS before the standards documents (English and Math) were even completed and made public.  Several states blindly dropped their stellar standards in favor of the mediocre national standards.

The Pioneer Institute published a commendable breakdown of the cost to implement CCS.  

I expanded upon Pioneer's work to produce detailed CCS costs for every state.

Most states will lose money when they fully implement the national standards in their state.  California stands to lose a whopping $2 billion on CCS!  Illinois will lose $733 million; and Pennsylvania will lose $647 million.  Those states' taxpayers will have to make up for the differences from their state coffers.

The average cost per student for the implementation of CCS in the 45 CCS states (plus D. C.) is $379.  The costs varied from a low of $337 to a high of $433 per student.

However, the average amount of federal funding granted to the states was $109 per student. 

The decision by these 45 states (and D. C.) to adopt CCS will be terribly expensive indeed!

The Conclusion to the Pioneer Institute white paper provides these insights:

            While a handful of states have begun to analyze these costs, most states have signed on to the initiative without a thorough, public vetting of the costs and benefits.

            In particular, there has been very little attention to the potential technology infrastructure costs that currently cash-strapped districts may face in order to implement the Common Core assessments within a reasonable testing window.

I believe that when the states become aware of the high cost of implementing the Common Core Standards, they will seriously want to consider their options.  If a state is truly concerned about protecting the taxpayers, the state will opt out of the costly national standards.

===========================================

TABLES

Table No.                 Description

Table 1                      CCS Loss Per State

Table 2                      CCS Cost Per Student

Table 3                      Total CCS Cost

Table 4                      Nationwide CCS Costs and Percentages

Table 5                      Nationwide CCS Cost (Pioneer Figure 2B)

Table 6                      Students and Teachers (CCS States)

Table 7                      Students and Teachers (Non-CCS States)

Table 8                      Competitive Stimulus Awards

Table 1-- CCS Loss Per State

($ Millions)

The following table (in millions of dollars) shows the difference between the amount of RTTT grant funds a state received and the total cost of implementation of CCS.  The states with the plus signs have a "gain" on cost minus awards.  All of the other states have a loss and will have to make up the difference out of their state coffers.

State Abr.	State	Total Cost	Federal Competitive Awards	State Loss (Cost - Awards) (+ = Gain)
AL	Alabama	281.693	0	281.693
AZ	Arizona	374.704	25.263	349.441
AR	Arkansas	193.529	9.833	183.696
CA	California	2,188.494	104.208	2,084.286
CO	Colorado	304.494	73.779	230.715
CT	Connecticut	226.215	4.473	221.742
DE	Delaware	48.892	119.122	+ 70.230
DC	District of Columbia	29.331	105.253	+ 75.922
FL	Florida	1,024.163	905.838	118.325
GA	Georgia	646.622	404.691	241.931
HI	Hawaii	67.556	74.935	+ 7.379
ID	Idaho	99.246	3.700	95.546
IL	Illinois	799.021	65.610	733.411
IN	Indiana	386.623	0	386.623
IA	Iowa	192.565	9.035	183.530
KS	Kansas	185.515	11.180	174.335
KY	Kentucky	256.754	4.999	251.755
LA	Louisiana	270.086	30.072	240.014
ME	Maine	79.189	7.315	71.874
MD	Maryland	327.234	334.284	+ 7.050
MA	Massachusetts	377.294	310.588	66.706
MI	Michigan	591.593	22.730	568.863
MS	Mississippi	187.300	7.570	179.730
MO	Missouri	362.058	26.531	335.527
MT	Montana	56.208	0.520	55.688
NV	Nevada	151.051	0	151.051
NH	New Hampshire	79.715	0	79.715
NJ	New Jersey	563.657	0	563.657
NM	New Mexico	128.751	10.727	118.024
NY	New York	1,088.436	845.659	242.777
NC	North Carolina	576.903	427.081	149.822
ND	North Dakota	40.281	0	40.281
OH	Ohio	662.048	468.320	193.728
OK	Oklahoma	246.387	15.466	230.921
OR	Oregon	201.964	19.937	182.027
PA	Pennsylvania	705.985	58.840	647.145
RI	Rhode Island	58.883	75.000	+ 16.117
SC	South Carolina	273.045	22.122	250.923
SD	South Dakota	49.301	19.684	29.617
TN	Tennessee	373.326	518.492	+ 145.166
UT	Utah	196.306	24.900	171.406
VT	Vermont	39.995	0	39.995
WA	Washington	365.092	34.330	330.762
WV	West Virginia	109.957	0	109.957
WI	Wisconsin	331.092	17.952	313.140
WY	Wyoming	36.163	0	36.163
	Totals	15,834.717	5,220.039	10,614.678

Table 2 -- CCS Cost Per Student

(Total Cost in $ Millions)  [Cost per Student in dollars as shown]

State Abr.	State	Total Cost	Students	Cost per Student
AL	Alabama	281.693	748,889	$376
AZ	Arizona	374.704	1,077,660	348
AR	Arkansas	193.529	480,088	403
CA	California	2,188.494	6,257,082	350
CO	Colorado	304.494	832,368	366
CT	Connecticut	226.215	563,985	401
DE	Delaware	48.892	126,801	386
DC	District of Columbia	29.331	68,984	425
FL	Florida	1,024.163	2,634,522	389
GA	Georgia	646.622	1,667,685	388
HI	Hawaii	67.556	180,008	375
ID	Idaho	99.246	276,299	359
IL	Illinois	799.021	2,104,175	380
IN	Indiana	386.623	1,046,661	369
IA	Iowa	192.565	491,842	392
KS	Kansas	185.515	470,057	395
KY	Kentucky	256.754	679,717	378
LA	Louisiana	270.086	690,915	391
ME	Maine	79.189	189,225	418
MD	Maryland	327.234	848,412	386
MA	Massachusetts	377.294	956,231	395
MI	Michigan	591.593	1,634,151	362
MS	Mississippi	187.300	484,467	387
MO	Missouri	362.058	917,982	394
MT	Montana	56.208	141,807	396
NV	Nevada	151.051	428,469	353
NH	New Hampshire	79.715	197,140	404
NJ	New Jersey	563.657	1,344,785	419
NM	New Mexico	128.751	334,419	385
NY	New York	1,088.436	2,650,201	411
NC	North Carolina	576.903	1,482,859	389
ND	North Dakota	40.281	95,073	424
OH	Ohio	662.048	1,764,297	375
OK	Oklahoma	246.387	653,118	377
OR	Oregon	201.964	582,839	347
PA	Pennsylvania	705.985	1,783,502	396
RI	Rhode Island	58.883	145,118	406
SC	South Carolina	273.045	723,143	378
SD	South Dakota	49.301	123,713	399
TN	Tennessee	373.326	972,549	384
UT	Utah	196.306	582,793	337
VT	Vermont	39.995	92,431	433
WA	Washington	365.092	1,035,347	353
WV	West Virginia	109.957	282,662	389
WI	Wisconsin	331.092	872,436	380
WY	Wyoming	36.163	88,155	410
	Totals	15,834.717	41,805,062	$379

Table 3 -- Total CCS Cost

($ Millions)

The column that is particularly significant is the far-right column -- Total Cost. This is the Total Cost (in millions of dollars) that each state will have to bear to implement the CCS.

State Abr.	Testing Cost	Prof. Dev. Cost	Textbook Cost	Technology Cost	Total Cost
AL	22.225	91.707	44.643	123.118	281.693
AZ	31.982	100.310	64.482	177.930	374.704
AR	14.247	71.910	28.151	79.221	193.529
CA	185.690	605.938	374.295	1,022.571	2,188.494
CO	24.702	94.735	48.476	136.581	304.494
CT	16.737	84.178	33.132	92.168	226.215
DE	3.763	16.684	7.608	20.837	48.892
DC	2.047	12.300	3.647	11.337	29.331
FL	78.184	354.970	155.810	435.199	1,024.163
GA	49.492	223.838	97.932	275.360	646.622
HI	5.342	22.021	10.784	29.409	67.556
ID	8.200	29.353	16.515	45.178	99.246
IL	62.445	267.411	121.910	347.255	799.021
IN	31.062	120.220	62.427	172.914	386.623
IA	14.596	69.211	28.483	80.275	192.565
KS	13.950	67.006	27.758	76.801	185.515
KY	20.172	85.680	39.328	111.574	256.754
LA	20.504	95.866	39.771	113.945	270.086
ME	5.616	31.427	11.221	30.925	79.189
MD	25.178	112.452	49.594	140.010	327.234
MA	28.378	134.994	56.056	157.866	377.294
MI	48.496	178.986	97.181	266.930	591.593
MS	14.377	63.922	28.961	80.040	187.300
MO	27.243	130.914	53.930	149.971	362.058
MT	4.208	20.316	8.502	23.182	56.208
NV	12.716	42.683	25.557	70.095	151.051
NH	5.850	29.913	11.717	32.235	79.715
NJ	39.909	222.544	79.168	222.036	563.657
NM	9.924	43.880	19.729	55.218	128.751
NY	78.650	414.787	157.198	437.801	1,088.436
NC	44.007	202.844	87.607	242.445	576.903
ND	2.821	16.155	5.689	15.616	40.281
OH	52.359	215.071	104.702	289.916	662.048
OK	19.382	82.411	37.024	107.570	246.387
OR	17.297	55.518	33.932	95.217	201.964
PA	52.929	252.930	106.979	293.147	705.985
RI	4.307	21.946	8.655	23.975	58.883
SC	21.461	90.718	42.110	118.756	273.045
SD	3.671	18.009	7.409	20.212	49.301
TN	28.862	126.212	57.696	160.556	373.326
UT	17.295	49.190	34.563	95.258	196.306
VT	2.743	16.865	5.302	15.085	39.995
WA	30.726	103.208	61.909	169.249	365.092
WV	8.389	39.197	16.233	46.138	109.957
WI	25.891	112.821	50.023	142.357	331.092
WY	2.616	13.838	5.299	14.410	36.163
Totals	1,240.641	5,257.089	2,469.098	6,867.889	15,834.717

Notes on Table 3:

1.  Testing -- The Testing cost for each state was determined by multiplying the number of students in the state by $29.6768 per student.  My total Testing cost of $1,240.641 million is identical to Table 5 (Pioneer's Figure 2B).

2.  Professional Development -- The Professional Development cost for each state was determined by multiplying the number of teachers in the state by $1,931 per teacher.  My total cost for Professional Development is consistent with the total number of teachers in the 46 CCS states (2,722,470 teachers).  My total Professional Development cost of $5,257.089 million is slightly under the Table 5 amount (Pioneer Figure 2B). 

3.  Textbooks -- The Textbook costs for each state were taken directly from the Pioneer report Appendix.  My total Textbook cost of $2,469.098 million is identical to Table 5 (Pioneer Figure 2B).

4.  Technology -- The Technology costs for each state were obtained directly from the Pioneer Appendix.  My total Technology cost of $6,867.889 million is identical to Table 5 (Pioneer Figure 2B). 

Table 4 -- Nationwide CCS Costs and Percentages

Cost Category	Cost ($ Millions)	Percentage
Testing	$1,240.641	8 %
Professional Development	$5,257.089	33 %
Textbooks	$2,469.098	16 %
Technology	$6,867.889	43 %
Totals	$15,834.717	100 %

Table 5 -- Nationwide CCS Cost (Pioneer Figure 2B)

Overview of Projected Costs to Implement Common Core Standards

Cost Category	One-Time	Year 1 Operations	Years 2-7 Ongoing Operations (Annual)	Total of One-Time & 7 Operational Years
Testing	$0	$177,234,471	$177,234,471	$1,240,641,297
Profess. Dev.	$5,257,492,417	$0	$0	$5,257,492,417
Textbooks	$2,469,098,464	$0	$0	$2,469,098,464
Technology	$2,796,294,147	$326,042,312	$624,258,785	$6,867,889,169
Total Costs	$10,522,885,028	$503,276,783	$801,493,256	$15,835,121,347

Source:  Pioneer Institute report (page 2)

Table 6-- Students and Teachers  (CCS States)

State Abr.	State	Student Enrollment	Total Teachers	Students per Teacher
AL	Alabama	748,889	47,492	15.8
AZ	Arizona	1,077,660	51,947	20.7
AR	Arkansas	480,088	37,240	12.9
CA	California	6,257,082	313,795	19.9
CO	Colorado	832,368	49,060	17.0
CT	Connecticut	563,985	43,593	12.9
DE	Delaware	126,801	8,640	14.7
DC	District of Columbia	68,984	6,370	10.8
FL	Florida	2,634,522	183,827	14.3
GA	Georgia	1,667,685	115,918	14.4
HI	Hawaii	180,008	11,404	15.8
ID	Idaho	276,299	15,201	18.2
IL	Illinois	2,104,175	138,483	15.2
IN	Indiana	1,046,661	62,258	16.8
IA	Iowa	491,842	35,842	13.7
KS	Kansas	470,057	34,700	13.5
KY	Kentucky	679,717	44,371	15.3
LA	Louisiana	690,915	49,646	13.9
ME	Maine	189,225	16,275	11.6
MD	Maryland	848,412	58,235	14.6
MA	Massachusetts	956,231	69,909	13.7
MI	Michigan	1,634,151	92,691	17.6
MS	Mississippi	484,467	33,103	14.6
MO	Missouri	917,982	67,796	13.5
MT	Montana	141,807	10,521	13.5
NV	Nevada	428,469	22,104	19.4
NH	New Hampshire	197,140	15,491	12.7
NJ	New Jersey	1,344,785	115,248	11.7
NM	New Mexico	334,419	22,724	14.7
NY	New York	2,650,201	214,804	12.3
NC	North Carolina	1,482,859	105,046	14.1
ND	North Dakota	95,073	8,366	11.4
OH	Ohio	1,764,297	111,378	15.8
OK	Oklahoma	653,118	42,678	15.3
OR	Oregon	582,839	28,751	20.3
PA	Pennsylvania	1,783,502	130,984	13.6
RI	Rhode Island	145,118	11,365	12.8
SC	South Carolina	723,143	46,980	15.4
SD	South Dakota	123,713	9,326	13.3
TN	Tennessee	972,549	65,361	14.9
UT	Utah	582,793	25,474	22.9
VT	Vermont	92,431	8,734	10.6
WA	Washington	1,035,347	53,448	19.4
WV	West Virginia	282,662	20,299	13.9
WI	Wisconsin	872,436	58,426	14.9
WY	Wyoming	88,155	7,166	12.3
	Totals	41,805,062	2,722,470	15.4

Notes on Table 6:

1.  The Pioneer Institute report Appendix includes a table on student enrollment in each state.  The information was obtained from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES); figures are for the 2009 - 2010 School Year. 

2.  The figures in Table 6 were taken from the Pioneer Appendix.  The Appendix lists the Student enrollment for each grade and the total for all grades.  The Appendix table also shows the number of teachers and the students-per-teacher ratio for each state.

Table 7-- Students and Teachers  (Non-CCS States)

To date, 45 states plus the District of Columbia have officially committed to follow the CCSI.  The following states have not committed to the CCSI: Alaska, Minnesota, Nebraska, Texas, and Virginia.

State Abr.	State	Student Enrollment	Teachers	Students per Teacher
AK	Alaska	131,661	8,083	16.3
MN	Minnesota	837,053	52,839	15.8
NE	Nebraska	295,368	22,256	13.3
TX	Texas	4,850,210	333,164	14.6
VA	Virginia	1,245,340	70,827	17.6
	Totals	7,359,632	487,169	15.1

Table 8 -- Competitive Stimulus Awards

(States Ranked by Total Grants Awarded, Per Student)

Table 8 emphasizes the Grant per Student.  Please notice how few dollars the states actually received per student; yet to receive the money, states completely aligned their education policies in accordance with the U. S. Department of Education's requirements.  In other words, for a pittance per student, states gave up control of their schools and put that control into the hands of the federal government.

Rank No.	State	Total Grants Awarded	Student Enrollment	Grant Per Student
1.	District of Colum.	$105,253,403	68,681	$1,533
2.	Delaware	$119,122,128	125,430	$950
3.	Tennessee	$518,492,264	971,950	$533
4.	Rhode Island	$75,000,000	145,342	$516
5.	Hawaii	$74,934,761	179,478	$418
6.	Maryland	$334,284,329	843,781	$396
7.	Florida	$905,838,204	2,631,020	$344
8.	Massachusetts	$310,588,393	958,910	$324
9.	New York	$845,659,232	2,740,805	$309
10.	North Carolina	$427,081,423	1,488,645	$287
11.	Ohio	$468,320,080	1,817,163	$258
12.	Georgia	$404,690,965	1,655,792	$244
13.	South Dakota	$19,683,676	126,624	$155
14.	Colorado	$73,778,692	818,443	$90
15.	Virginia	$81,070,962	1,235,795	$66
16.	Utah	$24,900,456	559,778	$44
17.	Louisiana	$30,072,268	684,873	$44
18.	Maine	$7,315,000	192,563	$38
19.	Oregon	$19,936,755	563,295	$35
20.	Pennsylvania	$58,840,473	1,769,789	$33
21.	Washington	$34,329,658	1,037,018	$33
22.	New Mexico	$10,727,264	330,245	$32
23.	Illinois	$65,609,983	2,119,707	$31
24.	South Carolina	$22,121,832	718,113	$31
25.	Missouri	$26,530,835	917,871	$29
26.	Oklahoma	$15,465,616	645,108	$24
27.	Kansas	$11,180,442	471,060	$24
28.	Arizona	$25,262,809	1,087,631	$23
29.	Minnesota	$17,411,488	836,048	$21
30.	Wisconsin	$17,952,005	873,750	$21
31.	Arkansas	$9,832,689	478,965	$21
32.	Iowa	$9,035,380	487,559	$19
33.	California	$104,207,642	6,252,031	$17
34.	Mississippi	$7,569,716	491,962	$15
35.	Michigan	$22,730,464	1,659,921	$14
36.	Idaho	$3,699,882	275,154	$13
37.	Texas	$57,586,897	4,752,148	$12
38.	Connecticut	$4,473,481	567,198	$8
39.	Kentucky	$4,999,458	670,030	$7
40.	Alaska	$835,470	130,662	$6
41.	Montana	$520,443	141,899	$4
42.	Wyoming	$0	91,000	$0
43.	West Virginia	$0	282,000	$0
44.	Vermont	$0	89,000	$0
45.	North Dakota	$0	93,000	$0
46.	New Jersey	$0	1,373,000	$0
47.	New Hampshire	$0	190,000	$0
48.	Nevada	$0	458,000	$0
49.	Nebraska	$0	298,000	$0
50.	Indiana	$0	1,044,000	$0
51.	Alabama	$0	741,000	$0

Sources for this report:  Education Week, "Competitive Stimulus Grants: Winners and Losers," September 21, 2012; and U.S. Department of Education.

http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/infographics/stimulus_competitive.html

Table taken from "Do Not Let the DOE Nationalize the Schools in Your State," by Henry W. Burke and Donna Garner, 9.23.12.

http://educationviews.org/do-not-let-the-doe-nationalize-the-schools-in-your-state-2/

============================

Bio for Henry W. Burke

Henry Burke is a Civil Engineer  with a B.S.C.E. and M.S.C.E.  He has been a Registered Professional Engineer (P.E.) for 37 years and has worked as a Civil Engineer in construction for over 40 years. 

Mr. Burke had a successful 27-year career with a large construction contractor. 

Henry Burke serves as a full-time volunteer to oversee various construction projects. He has written numerous articles on education, engineering, construction, politics, taxes, and the economy.

Henry W. Burke

E-mail:  hwburke@cox.net

 _____________________________________

Food for thought for those who do not wish to vote:

An elderly German man who lived through the Holocaust tells the following story:

I always considered myself a Christian. I attended a church since I was a small boy. We had heard the stories of what was happening to the Jews; but like most people in America today, we tried to distance ourselves from the reality of what was really taking place. What could anyone do to stop it?

A railroad track ran behind our small church, and each Sunday morning we would hear the whistle from a distance and then the clacking of the wheels moving over the track. We became disturbed when one Sunday we heard cries coming from the train as it passed by. We grimly realized that the train was carrying Jews.

Week after week that train whistle would blow. We would dread to hear the sound of those old wheels because we knew that the Jews would begin to cry out to us as they passed our church. It was so terribly disturbing! We could do nothing to help these poor people, yet their screams tormented us. We knew exactly at what time that whistle would blow, and we decided the only way to keep from being so disturbed by the cries was to start singing our hymns. If some of the screams reached our ears, we'd just sing a little louder until we could hear them no more.

Years have passed, and no one talks about it much any more; but I still hear that train whistle in my sleep. I can still hear them crying out for help. God forgive all of us who called ourselves Christians, yet did nothing to intervene.

Link to speech by Ronald Reagan in Bergen-Belsen about one of these youths cut down by the tyranny:

 http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/3412

Ronald Reagan quotes these words from Anne Frank:

Just 3 weeks before her capture, young Anne wrote these words: "It's really a wonder that I haven't dropped all my ideals because they seem so absurd and impossible to carry out. Yet I keep them because in spite of everything I still believe that people are good at heart. I simply can't build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery, and death. I see the world gradually being turned into a wilderness. I hear the ever approaching thunder which will destroy us too; I can feel the suffering of millions and yet, if I looked up into the heavens I think that it will all come right, that this cruelty too will end and that peace and tranquility will return again."

How Can Parents Fight For The Right Education Goals? It Starts With Wisdom--Get Informed By Comparing The Two Education Philosophies Presented Today

Hear interview with Mrs. Donna Garner on this at 12:30 PM Central Time Wednesday 5/23/12 (see player on Home Page of this site and note recording is available soon after program to share with others).  A must hear for children's sake...

“Two Education Philosophies with Two Different Goals”
by Donna Garner
3.26.12


In education there are basically two different philosophies of education, and each type has a different end goal.

Type #1’s end goal is academic achievement. Type #2’s end goal is the indoctrination and manipulation of students’ minds:

Type #1 Philosophy of Education: Knowledge-based, academic, clearly worded, grade-level-specific content that is tested largely through objectively scored tests -- These standards are built from K through Grade 12 and are taught mostly through direct, systematic instruction.

Type #1 standards could be referred to as the traditional method – the method of teaching that people perhaps 50 years old and older experienced when they were in school. This included the teaching of phonics, grammar, correct usage/spelling, cursive handwriting, classical literature, expository/persuasive/research writing, the four math functions taught to automaticity, fact-based and discreet courses in Algebra I, Algebra II, Geometry, Calculus, U. S. History, World History, Botany, Biology, Physics, and Chemistry.

The English / Language Arts / Reading (ELAR) curriculum standards document that our group of Texas classroom teachers wrote in 1997 called the Texas Alternative Document (TAD) followed the Type #1 philosophy but was not adopted by the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) in July 1997 because politics trumped education; our Governor was running for the Presidency; and any controversy had to be squelched immediately.

Therefore, the following philosophy of education (Type #2) was adopted when the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) voted on the curriculum standards called the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) in 1997.

The TAKS tests were built upon the Type #2 TEKS adopted in 1997.

It was that wrong-headed philosophy which prevailed in our Texas public schools until May 2008 when the new-and-improved English / Language Arts / Reading (ELAR) TEKS document with the Type #1 philosophy was adopted.

Since May 2008, new-and-improved Science and Social Studies TEKS have also been approved; and much improved Math TEKS will be adopted by the Texas State Board of Education in the next couple of months.

All four core curriculum areas (ELAR, Science, Social Studies, Math) are built upon the Type #1 philosophy of education in which the curriculum standards (and the new STAAR/End-of-Course tests aligned with them) are explicit, grade-level-specific (or course specific), fact-based, academic, and measurable (most test questions have objectively scored, right-or-wrong answers).

Type #2 Philosophy of Education -- Project-based, subjective (emphasize cognitive domain – beliefs, opinions, emotions), subjectively assessed based upon the value system of the evaluator -- emphasize multiculturalism, political correctness, environmental extremism, diversity, social justice agenda -- These standards are built backwards from Grade 12 down to K (similar to trying to build a house from the roof down) and are taught mostly using the constructivist (project-based) approach.

The Type #2 Philosophy of Education was adopted when the July 1997 TEKS were passed by the SBOE. These TEKS (and similar curriculum standards adopted across the United States during the late 90’s) opened the door for the social justice agenda to begin to move into our public schools. Type #2 primed the “social justice” pump.

Now Obama’s Common Core Standards (Type #2) are being forced into our public schools (except for states such as Texas, Alaska, South Carolina, Virginia, Minnesota, and Nebraska that refused to commit to CCS) and will follow the Type #2 philosophy of education in which the process will be emphasized more than the correct answer, and the social justice agenda will become more important than academic achievement.

Obama’s social justice agenda includes an emphasis on subjectivity, feelings, emotions, beliefs, multiculturalism, political correctness, social engineering, globalism, evolution, sexual freedom/contraceptives instead of abstinence, environmental extremism, global warming, victimization, diversity, an acceptance of the normalcy of the lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender lifestyle, redistribution of wealth, a de-emphasis on factual knowledge, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Founding Fathers, and American exceptionalism.

The Obama social justice agenda will be enmeshed into students’ curricula by way of math word problems, textbook examples, practice sets, questions at the end of chapters, informational text selections, essay assignments, student projects, formative and summative assessments (written and scored at the national level), community service at nationally approved sites, etc.

A GRAPHIC THAT ILLUSTRATES THE CCS TYPE #2 SOCIAL JUSTICE AGENDA

[The arrows mean “lead(s) to.”]

National standards → national assessments → national curriculum → teachers’ salaries tied to students’ test scores → national teacher evaluation system → teachers teaching to the test each and every day → national indoctrination of our public school children → national database of students and teachers including student/teacher identifiable data


===========================
Type #1 Philosophy of Education: Please look at Texas’ new-and-improved curriculum standards (TEKS) in English / Language Arts / Reading (ELAR) – K-12:
http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter110/index.html


The Texas ELAR’s in the early grade levels emphasize phonemic awareness/decoding skills (i.e., phonics) and literary as well as informational text. Instead of the personal essay, Texas’ public schools are now emphasizing expository/persuasive/research writing starting in the early grade levels clear through high school. Texas also has a well-developed strand K-12 on Oral and Written Conventions (e.g., grammar, usage, spelling, handwriting including cursive, capitalization, punctuation).

Now let’s compare Texas’ ELAR/TEKS to the Obama administration’s Common Core Standards:

First, notice that Texas’ ELAR/TEKS are explicit and grade-level-specific all the way from K through Grade 12. In high school, Texas has English I, English II, English III, and English IV; each grade level is distinct from the previous ones with the skills learned in the earlier grades forming the prerequisites for the higher grade levels.

To view a sample grade level, please go to the Texas ELAR’s for English IV:

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter110/ch110c.html#110.34


Now let’s compare the Texas ELAR’s for English IV to the Common Core Standards for English IV. Problem! Right off we notice that there is not a distinct set of curriculum standards for English I, English II, English III, and English IV. The Common Core Standards are grouped in high school in clusters of (English 9 through 10) and (English 11 through 12). This means that high-school teachers and students in the capstone levels of English do not have explicit and clearly worded goals to meet at each grade level. The lack of explicitness and specificity in the CCS will create confusion and will also cost the taxpayers large amounts of money because of all the “consultants” who will have to be hired to “interpret” the CCS and work out the vertical and horizontal alignment for the classroom teachers.

CCS English 9 and 10 -- http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/english-language-arts-standards/writing-6-12/grade-9-10/

CCS English 11 and 12 -- http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/english-language-arts-standards/writing-6-12/grade-11-12/

DIRECT COMPARISON OF WORDING IN GRADE 7 – ELAR’S TO CCS

Now let’s do a direct comparison of one strand to show the differences between English 7 ELAR and English 7 CCS:


TEXAS ELAR -- ORAL AND WRITTEN CONVENTIONS – ENGLISH 7

http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter110/ch110b.html#110.19

(19) Oral and Written Conventions/Conventions. Students understand the function of and use the conventions of academic language when speaking and writing. Students will continue to apply earlier standards with greater complexity. Students are expected to:
(A) identify, use, and understand the function of the following parts of speech in the context of reading, writing, and speaking:
(i) verbs (perfect and progressive tenses) and participles;
(ii) appositive phrases;
(iii) adverbial and adjectival phrases and clauses;
(iv) conjunctive adverbs (e.g., consequently, furthermore, indeed);
(v) prepositions and prepositional phrases and their influence on subject-verb agreement;
(vi) relative pronouns (e.g., whose, that, which);
(vii) subordinating conjunctions (e.g., because, since); and
(viii) transitions for sentence to sentence or paragraph to paragraph coherence;
(B) write complex sentences and differentiate between main versus subordinate clauses; and
(C) use a variety of complete sentences (e.g., simple, compound, complex) that include properly placed modifiers, correctly identified antecedents, parallel structures, and consistent tenses.
(20) Oral and Written Conventions/Handwriting, Capitalization, and Punctuation. Students write legibly and use appropriate capitalization and punctuation conventions in their compositions. Students are expected to:
(A) use conventions of capitalization; and
(B) recognize and use punctuation marks including:
(i) commas after introductory words, phrases, and clauses; and
(ii) semicolons, colons, and hyphens.
(21) Oral and Written Conventions/Spelling. Students spell correctly. Students are expected to spell correctly, including using various resources to determine and check correct spellings.


====================
Commmon Core Standards -- Conventions of Standard English – English 7 http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/english-language-arts-standards/language/grade-7/

Conventions of Standard English
L.7.1. Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English grammar and usage when writing or speaking.
Explain the function of phrases and clauses in general and their function in specific sentences.
Choose among simple, compound, complex, and compound-complex sentences to signal differing relationships among ideas.
Place phrases and clauses within a sentence, recognizing and correcting misplaced and dangling modifiers.* L.7.2. Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English capitalization, punctuation, and spelling when writing.
Use a comma to separate coordinate adjectives (e.g., It was a fascinating, enjoyable moviebut not He wore an old[,] green shirt).
Spell correctly.
=================
ACTION STEPS

Every parent and every taxpayer in every state that has committed to the Common Core Standards should listen to the following video entitled “Two Moms Against Common Core Standards.” Even though this video is specifically directed at Utah, the concerns voiced are the same concerns that people all across this country should be voicing.

ObamaCare is the federal takeover of our healthcare system, but the Common Core Standards Initiative is the federal takeover of something even more precious – our children!

“Two Moms Against Common Core Standards” – link to video:

http://www.utahsrepublic.org/two-moms-against-common-core-video/

=======================
The following article by Sherena Arrington offers even more information about the Common Core Standards:

3.19.12 -- An Uncommon Approach to Costly Common Core Education Standards

http://www.talkgwinnett.net/main/section/6-guests/2529-an-uncommon-approach-to-costly-common-core-education-standards



Donna Garner
Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

The Nation Needs To Remember The Old Deluder Act--It Is Important Today As Children Are Being Destroyed in Body, Mind and Soul

As In The Beginning--Christians must be involved in the schools--The Old Deluder Act that started the first schools

"It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former times by keeping them in an unknown tongue, so in these latter times by persuading from the use of tongues, that so that at least the true sense and meaning of the original might be clouded and corrupted with false glosses of saint-seeming deceivers; and to the end that learning may not be buried in the grave of our forefathers, in church and commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors.

It is therefore ordered that every township in this jurisdiction, after the Lord hath increased them to fifty households shall forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all such children as shall resort to him to write and read, whose wages shall be paid either by the parents or masters of such children, or by the inhabitants in general, by way of supply, as the major part of those that order the prudentials of the town shall appoint; provided those that send their children be not oppressed by paying much more than they can have them taught for in other towns.

And it is further ordered, that when any town shall increase to the number of one hundred families or householders, they shall set up a grammar school, the master thereof being able to instruct youth so far as they may be fitted for the university, provided that if any town neglect the performance hereof above one year that every such town shall pay 5 pounds to the next school till they shall perform this order. "

It is time folks for the Body of Christ to take the premiere fighting position they did as said in the above The Old Deluder Act.  Below is a re-print of an earlier article from a great fighter for our children today- Mrs. Donna Garner.

Losing Our Right To Express Our Opinions"

by Donna Garner

9.23.21

Two days ago FoxNews and other media highlighted an incident in the Ft. Worth School District in which a high-school student was suspended for expressing his opinion that homosexuality is wrong.  (I have posted the article at the bottom of this e-mail.) 

How did we get to this point in America where our First Amendment rights are being shattered? 

What I have attempted to do in this report is to piece together various articles that show the clear progression which has occurred in our country under the Obama administration. 

The following articles provide sufficient documentation to prove that the Obama administration’s Common Core Standards (CCS) are meant to promote homosexuality in our nation’s public schools.   

Please scan through each article to track how this agenda is being implemented widely in the 46 states that have committed to adopt the CCS.  

Then toward the end of this compilation, please read two articles that give the latest alarming data on the spread of HIV/AIDS and other STD’s among the homosexual population, particularly between the ages of 13 and 24 years.

“85 % of all HIV cases among young adults and adolescents were caused by homosexual activities and/or drug use…Among males diagnosed with HIV infection from 2005-2008, 70% were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact. The percentage of diagnosed HIV infections attributed to male-to-male sexual contact was even larger (85%) among males aged 13 to 24 years.” 

*It is possible that a few links in this report are no longer accessible, but they were when I wrote the original articles.

================================

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99560

Sunday, May 31, 2009 WorldNetDaily Exclusive 'Gay' activist to oversee public classroom 'safety' Homosexual group founder handed federal Education Department post Posted: May 29, 2009 11:45 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh WorldNetDaily The founder of the homosexual activist group GLSEN, which promotes homosexual clubs in high schools, middle schools and grade schools and is the driving force behind the annual "Day of Silence" celebration of homosexuality in many districts, has been handed a federal appointment where he will be responsible for overseeing "safety" in the nation's public schools. Linda Harvey of Mission America, which educates people on anti-Christian trends in the nation, said it is nothing more than a "tragedy" for an open homosexual who has "had an enormously detrimental impact on the climate in our schools" to be in such a position. The appointment of Kevin Jennings was posted – with little fanfare – on a government list of federal jobs recently. He was named by U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan to be the Assistant Deputy Secretary in the Office of Safe Schools.   He previously worked to raise money for the presidential campaign for President Obama. In the new post, he'll be working on "safe schools" programs for educational institutions nationwide, said Harvey.   "In his own writings and books listed on the GLSEN [Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network] Website, I've reported, Kevin Jennings has given tacit nods of approval to sex between young teens and adults," Harvey told WND. "In addition to that, the writings and books, many of which I've read and are incredibly graphic, seem to normalize early teen same-sex sexual behaviors." "It is unconscionable. This is educational malpractice and child corruption," she said. On Jennings' own website, a biographical sketch talks about how his work as an activist started when he used a school assembly in a district where he was a teacher to announce his homosexuality.   He soon started the GLSEN activist group and, the report said, "has spent the last 12 years building GLSEN into a national organization at the forefront of a bold movement that now works with over 3,000 Gay-Straight Alliances." But a blogger who calls himself Beetle Blogger cited another statement from Jennings about his early promotion of homosexuality in schools. The blogger quoted Jennings saying, "We immediately seized upon the opponent's calling card – safety – and explained how homophobia represents a threats to students' safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report, 'Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,' we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This … short-circuited their arguments and left them back-peddling from day one." Harvey said the appointment really is not surprising, given the pro-homosexual position adopted by Obama and Jennings' fund-raising for the Democrat. But she warned when "safe" is combined with "LGBT" as is happening at the federal agency, "What you have is the silencing of any conservative opinion. That's what they consider safety." "This is an outrageous 'in-your-face, take this, we don't care about your version of safety' for kids," she said. She also cited the introduction in Congress of H.R. 2262 by U.S. Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., which is "to amend the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act" to include pro-homosexual language that could use the issue of bullying to force indoctrination sessions for both students and teachers.   The proposed training would relate to "real or perceived" sexual orientation and gender identity, she said.   "How does this work? Well, let's look at an example from a state that already passed a similar law. In Iowa, teachers in some school districts endure the most outrageous in-service training imaginable. The Council Bluffs, Iowa, school district, Loess Hills Area Education Agency 13, gives a two-day teacher training course called 'How to Make My Classroom Safe for LGBT Students.' As part of the training, 'Videos will be used from Anderson Cooper 360, 'Will & Grace,' and several popular film segments like 'Brokeback Mountain' and 'Latter Days,''" Harvey said. "This man's work [Jennings] and his agenda are exactly why we've seen the radical pro-homosexuality curriculum pushed across California. He is now more strongly positioned to implement his agenda nationwide," said Karen England, executive director of Capitol Resource Institute. In Duncan's announcement appointing Jennings, he said GLSEN "works to make schools safe for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity."   =============================================================== http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2008/12/16/obamas-pick-for-education-secretary-pushed-for-gay-high-school.aspx  Dec. 16, 2008:  Obama’s Pick for Education Secretary Pushed For Gay High School by David Brody Obama’s new pick for Education secretary is Arne Duncan, head of Chicago Public Schools. He’s been pushing for Chicago to start their first gay high school. Not kidding... The Chicago Public Schools' first high school designed for gay, lesbian and transgender teens is among 20 new schools recommended to the school board today by CPS Chief Arne Duncan...  "If you look at national studies, you see gay and lesbian students with high dropout rates...Studies show they are disproportionately homeless," Duncan said. "I think there is a niche there we need to fill."  ...Opponents have called the move a misuse of public funds. At a recent public hearing on the proposal, some gay rights advocates have said the move would segregate these students and said the district should work more on fostering acceptance by mainstream students, teachers and other school officials.  Look, I know how this will be spun. Some will say this isn’t really a “gay high school.” It’s really more a safe place and an educational environment that will cater towards gays and lesbians. But folks, let’s be real here. It’s a high school for gay students. Plain and simple. While the idea of a gay high school may be troubling for some, the problem for Obama is that a pick like this doesn’t portray him in such a centrist way. It gives the impression that he’s nominating wild liberals to his Cabinet. Arne Duncan may have the total package and be a great Education secretary, but pushing ideas like a gay high school will make social conservatives wonder what he will be pushing next.

========================

"Hard To Believe"

by Donna Garner

10.22.09

I know it is hard to believe that such perversion exists in our country, and we all want to just look away and pretend it is not there.  However, now that Kevin Jennings is the "Safe Schools Czar" in the U. S. Dept. of Education and he has helped to fund a bizarre "Act Up" exhibit currently at Harvard University, we cannot continue to ignore the issue. 

The good people at MassResistance (MR) have worked to expose this kind of perversion for many years; and they have battled Kevin Jennings' organization called Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN, founded by Kevin Jennings) as its tentacles have reached into hundreds of public schools by way of  "Gay Clubs."

The link posted below by MR indicates how despicable and perverted this Act Up exhibit is, and an actual program from the exhibit clearly shows Kevin Jennings' name as a proud donor. 

I am sure that MR hates to be the organization whose job it is to expose the rest of us to Kevin Jennings' world; but MR knows that the common, ordinary citizen would never believe MR's accusations unless photographic evidence were produced. (America did not believe how corrupt ACORN was either until James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles had the courage to film the evidence.)

Please make sure that only mature adults see this link and keep this information away from your children.  I suggest you merely glance at the Act Up displays very quickly so that you can verify for yourself what real perversion looks like, confirm that Kevin Jennings' name is on the Act Up exhibit program, and then do everything in your power to get Kevin Jennings fired from the U. S. Dept. of Education. 

If you parents stand back and allow your children to be subjected to Kevin Jennings and the programs he places into your children's schools, you yourself are contributing to child abuse!

WARNING: Several photos are offensive and pornographic 

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09d/harvard_actup/index.html

Parents who care about their children also need to make a donation to MassResistance to help them continue their difficult work:

https://www.massresistance.us/cc_donations.html

Another organization that has been battling the homosexual agenda in this country is Americans for Truth whose president is Peter LaBarbera. AFT has also done much to uncover Kevin Jennings and to warn parents that their public school children are in danger with Jennings in control of school programs and educator training.  You can donate to AFT at the following link:

http://americansfortruth.com/donate/   

==========================

[Obama’s Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings (homosexual, founder of Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network from 1995-2008) has let the cat out of the bag.  The Common Core Standards that are supposedly meant to raise the academic achievement of all our public school children are really a ploy to infuse social justice, diversity, multiculturalism, and social engineering into our public school children’s lives. This is exactly why so many parents fear national standards, national tests, national curriculum, and a national database. According to this article, their fears are justified. --- Donna Garner]

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2010/02/bait_and_switch_on_common_standards.html

Bait and Switch on Common Standards?

By Rick Hess on February 19, 2010 7:05 AM

We've been told time and again that the current common standards push is guided by the mantra "fewer, clearer, and higher" standards. That's a good thing, since efforts to craft expansive standards tend to crumble under their own weight. Recall what happened to the national history standards panel back in the 1990s, when disputes over who and what should be in and out led the U.S. Senate to resoundingly reject its handiwork.

I've previously written about why it is so tough in the U.S. to craft standards outside of math and language arts that don't devolve into culture clashes, or piles of mush (and even in math and language arts, we know that good standards are no picnic). This has made the "fewer, clearer, and higher" mantra most welcome and suggested that advocates have learned from past mistakes.

So, imagine my surprise when I read this interview with Secretary Duncan's anti-bullying chief Kevin Jennings in the February Phi Delta Kappan magazine.

Jennings, who directs the Department of Education's Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, first tells PDK editor Joan Richardson that no student should worry about "find[ing] something written on your locker or if you're going to be called names in the hallway...Then we also need to make sure that all kids feel like they belong." Fair enough. Jennings elaborates, "Just as we have standards around academic goals, we need standards around school climate...And we need a data system so parents know what kind of environment a kid will encounter in a school." Well, okay.

And then it gets weird. Phi Delta Kappan asks, "So, you want to include this in the Common Core standards?"

Jennings says, "Yes. If we don't get this one right, the other ones don't matter. Right now, they're really focused on the academic standards. This one is much newer. We have to build understanding of the concept first." He went on: "We're not first up to bat, and I'm not troubled by that. The Common Core movement is right to start on the things where there's already widespread agreement. We're way down the road."

Seriously? A high-ranking administration official is telling us that the common standards being financed by $350 million in Race to the Top funds "start" with academics but will eventually encompass "school climate" standards too? Jennings raises further red flags when he concedes that we have not determined "the definition of school climate," though he says it "does not include air conditioning" but does include kids feeling "emotionally safe." Maybe it's my cynical streak, but that sounds like a summons to social agendas, culture clashes, and political fisticuffs. In other words, the stuff that sinks standards.

Mr. Jennings' remarks raise concerns about the old bait-and-switch. If he is speaking for Secretary Duncan and the President, they seem to have been less than truthful so far when discussing their vision for common standards. If not, a President seeking bipartisan comity might want to encourage Mr. Jennings not to suggest that the Department is covertly planning to drive a massive 48-state effort into a familiar ditch...or to turn it into a Trojan Horse.

===============================

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/education/26bully.html?_r=2&ref=education

Help Stop Bullying, U.S. Tells Educators

By SAM DILLON

Published: October 25, 2010

 

In a 10-page letter to be sent on Tuesday to thousands of school districts and colleges, the Department of Education urges the nation’s educators to ensure that they are complying with their responsibilities to prevent harassment, as laid out in federal laws.

The letter is the product of a yearlong review of the federal statutes and case law covering sexual, racial and other forms of harassment, officials said. Issuing the letter took on new urgency in recent weeks because of a string of high-profile cases in which students have committed suicide after enduring bullying by classmates, the officials said.

In one case, Tyler Clementi, an 18-year-old Rutgers University freshman, jumped from the George Washington Bridge in an apparent suicide last month, days after his roommate, according to prosecutors, streamed over the Internet his intimate encounter with another man.

The department issued the letter to clarify the legal responsibilities of the authorities in public schools and in colleges and universities under federal laws, the officials said. Certain forms of student bullying might violate federal anti-discrimination law.

“I am writing to remind you that some student misconduct that falls under a school’s anti-bullying policy also may trigger responsibilities under one or more of the federal anti-discrimination laws,” says the letter, signed by Russlynn H. Ali, assistant secretary for civil rights.

According to data collected by the department’s research wing last year, one-third of all students ages 12 to 18 felt that they were being bullied or harassed at school, Ms. Ali said in an interview.

“Folks need to wake up,” Ms. Ali said. “We have a crisis in our schools in which bullying and harassment seems to be a rite of passage, and it doesn’t need to be that way.”

“Harassing conduct may take many forms, including verbal acts and name-calling; graphic and written statements, which may include use of cellphones or the Internet; or other conduct that may be physically threatening, harmful, or humiliating,” the letter says. “Harassment does not have to include intent to harm, be directed at a specific target, or involve repeated incidents. Harassment creates a hostile environment when the conduct is sufficiently severe, pervasive, or persistent so as to interfere with or limit a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or opportunities offered by a school.”

Harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex or disability it violates the federal civil rights laws, the letter said.

============================

“Open Letter to Parents, Legislators, School Personnel:  Which Policy Are You Going To Promote?”

by Donna Garner

11.7.10

Parents, legislators, school personnel, and the public, you need to be gearing up to take a stand about the type of policies and curriculum school districts should promote to address the bullying issue because the Obama administration has co-opted this issue to drive its lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender agenda right straight into every school in America.  

On October 26, 2010, the U. S. Department of Education with homosexual Kevin Jennings in charge of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools initiative sent a 10-page LGBT-supportive document to “all public and private schools, colleges, and universities, including the country’s 15,000 school superintendents.”  This document threatens schools, K-16, with litigation and loss of federal funds if the schools do not promote and accept LGBT behavior. 

Please read the details of this aggressive initiative as explained in my article posted on EdWeek.org on 10.27.10: http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/opinions_on_education/101979.html

Which approach should legislators and schools develop to address the bullying issue?  Which approach would be fair and healthy for all students? 

You decide:

(1)  The first is my recommendation. 

(2) The second recommendation comes from Thomas Schanding, an assistant professor at the University of Houston who chairs the National Association of School Psychologists' Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning (GLBTQ) committee.  His approach is explained in an article in the 11.6.10 Houston Chronicle (posted below my recommendations).  

==================================

(1)  Recommendation from Donna Garner:

On 10.28.10, the Washington Times carried an article that explained the various types of anti-bullying laws being considered and/or passed across the country: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/28/dc-mulls-anti-bullying-law/

Here is the anti-bullying law that the D. C. council is considering:  “...place special emphasis on gender-related characteristics, including gender, sexual orientation, gender expressions and gender identity…[examples enumerated by Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN).”  

This is what Missouri has passed: "Each district's antibullying policy shall be founded on the assumption that all students need a safe learning environment. Policies shall treat students equally and shall not contain specific lists of protected classes of students who are to receive special treatment. Policies may include age-appropriate differences for schools based on the grade levels at the school. Each such policy shall contain a statement of the consequences of bullying [including] cyberbullying, e-mails as acts of bullying, intimidation and harassment.”

If parents really care about their children, they must get highly involved with their local school districts to fight off the LGBT pressure and intimidation of the U. S. Department of Education.

To do this, parents are going to need alternatives that they can present to their local school districts that would help to diminish the anti-bullying problems that definitely are occuring among students.

As alternatives to curriculum proposed by the LGBT organizations, I encourage schools to develop their own curriculum utilizing:

(1) the True Tolerance website (http://www.truetolerance.org/ ) which is full of good ideas and information.

(2) the Scott & White Worth the Wait® sex education curriculum (http://www.worththewait.org/index.html ).  Yes, S&W teaches teen abstinence;  but it also contains many student activities that emphasize healthy personal relationships.

Several years ago, I was the writer/researcher for the S&W program; and each of the four notebooks (Grades 6, 7, 8, and High School) begins with an emphasis not on sex education but on establishing healthy personal relationships based upon positive personal character traits. 

In other words, the foundation for the S&W program is to help students to value other people and to honor their personhood. This is exactly the kind of curriculum schools should present to help prevent bullying.

The activities found in S&W help students to recognize each person’s uniqueness and to treat others with dignity and worth.  The activities help students to learn to identify positive personal character traits in others and then to learn ways to infuse those traits into their own lives.

Because the units are stand-alone, educators are free to pick and choose the age-appropriate activities that emphasize strong, healthy relationships.  The activities are fun, and they increase students’ abilities to communicate effectively with one another.

To view sample lessons of the Scott & White Worth the Wait® curriculum, please go to the following links, allowing time for each to load.

Grade 6:  Go to Lesson 1, “Positive Personal Character Traits and Emotional Needs”: http://www.worththewait.org/p/pdf/WTW_6thcurrsample.pdf  

Grade 7:  Go to Lesson 2A&B, a unit on friendships, emotions, and making good choices:  http://www.worththewait.org/p/pdf/WTW_7thcurrsample.pdf

Grade 8: Notice the lessons on emotional needs, peer pressure, relationships and marriage:   http://www.worththewait.org/p/pdf/WTW_8thcurrsample.pdf

High School:  Notice the Table of contents and how many lessons there are on character development and developing healthy relationships:  http://www.worththewait.org/p/pdf/WTW_HScurrsample.pdf

High School:  Go to Section 5, “Considering Health Risks”: http://www.worththewait.org/p/pdf/section%205.pdf

High School:  Notice Section 8, “Developing Healthy Relationships”: http://www.worththewait.org/p/pdf/section%208.pdf

If parents (and the public) are going to go to their school officials and object to the USDOE’s push to get all students to accept LGBT activities as normal, parents must be able to offer alternatives to school officials.  I hope that the above-mentioned alternatives will equip parents (and the public) with the ideas and materials they need to build a strong defense for their children.

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

=================================================================

(2)  Thomas Schanding’s recommendation: 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7282868.html

Professor tries to get to the root of bullying

Study finds gender roles can be behind harassment toward the LGBT community

By CINDY GEORGE
HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Nov. 6, 2010, 8:32PM

Torment from his classmates drove Cy-Fair ISD middle-schooler Asher Brown to kill himself in September, his parents say. The 13-year-old's mother and stepfather say he was "bullied to death," partly because of his homosexuality. Physical and verbal harassment, including bullying, is routinely experienced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students, according to a national school climate survey from the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. It's not just one's espoused or perceived sexuality, but gender expression that may cause LGBT children to be targeted by bullies, said Thomas Schanding, an assistant professor in the University of Houston's school psychology program. He also chairs the National Association of School Psychologists' GLBTQ committee, which focuses on the issues faced by gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth in public and private schools. Schanding spoke recently with Chronicle reporter Cindy George about bullying. 

Q: What is bullying?

A: It could be the snide comment, the name calling, the texts, the post on the wall of your social media. It's almost always evolving because kids find new ways to push buttons. It's cyber-bullying, verbal harassment, physical harassment, physical assault and sexual harassment.

Q: How did you get interested in studying LGBT bullying?

A: Since I got into graduate school at the University of Southern Mississippi. When I was there, I worked at (a high school in the Hattiesburg, Miss., area) and, at one point, we had the issue of a few girls who came out as bisexual. There were a lot of fights and a lot of harassment surrounding those girls, from guys saying: "Well, I can turn you straight — you don't need a girl." And then the girls who were dating would break up and date other girls and they would start fighting. It was just kind of a mess. When I tried to talk to the principal at the school, he said: "This is not for us to address," and that we weren't going to deal with those types of things. I was interested in how schools are dealing with this and what we really could do. There aren't as many researchers out there that really get into this because it is really kind of an invisible topic within schools.

Q: Describe your research on the issue.

A: I have a handout that was accepted for the Helping Children At Home and School third edition. It's a guide for parents about how to support a gay or lesbian child. Another project that I'm doing right now is looking at the intersection of biological sex, gender identity and sexual orientation and which of those factors seems to put someone more at risk for being victimized, having self-esteem issues or school problems. Some of the research that I've looked at shows that it may not necessarily be your sexual orientation that may set you up for rejection from peers or bullying, but that it may be that you're not conforming to your gender role.

Q: How are you conducting your study?

A: One of the measures that I used was created by a researcher in Boston - a conformity to masculine norms inventory and a conformity to feminine norms inventory. It's a survey that basically gives you a score. It's my proxy for how you are gender conformity-wise. This study is looking at 12- to 19-year-old students. I also ask them about physical harassment and assault. It's a crude measure of how much victimization and bullying that they might have experienced.

Q: Do adults bully these youth?

A: Yes. This would take the form of an adult telling you "You're not man enough" or "You're too manly" if you're a girl. I've heard stories of teachers who've told students: "This is not how you're supposed to be" and "This is what boys do" and "Don't do this."

Q: What should adults - teachers, parents or administrators - do about a kid being ostracized because of gender identity or sexual orientation?

A: I would hope an adult would take a stand for that kid, confront the aggressor to give support to the kid who's being victimized and to tell that other kid that's not acceptable behavior. Also, make sure school officials are aware so they can go back and think about the school's policies on bullying.

Q: What if you're the target of LGBT bullying?

A: They need to know that adults will support them and that they can go to them to talk. That was one of the findings out of the GLSEN survey: 62 percent who were harassed don't even report that harassment to adults and of those who do, 34 percent said the adults don't do anything about it. That perception needs to change so that kids know if I do tell you, things are going to change, it is going to be addressed and I can be safe here at school.

Q: What about the bullies?

A: For the perpetrators of that violence, they need to have some type of intervention as well. The problem is that there aren't a whole lot of intervention programs out there that necessarily show success, so we need to have more research in that area and more discussion about how we change these attitudes and deter someone from engaging in this sort of aggression towards others.

Q: What's your advice to the parent of a child who is being bullied because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity?

A: If this is occurring at the school, they have to get in touch with the school and they have to take a stand with the administration and say: "You will make sure my child is in a safe, respectful environment because that is their right."

cindy.george@chron.com

=================================================================

“Bullying -- an Agenda”

by Donna Garner

10.26.10

For some time, many of us have been warning America about Kevin Jennings who was Obama and Arne Duncan’s choice at the U. S. Department of Education for the position of Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools. 

Jennings is the founder of Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and was the director until 2008.  GLSEN is the organization that was responsible for transporting public school students during the school day (March 25, 2000) to a conference where they were taught about “fisting.”  (To find out what this disgusting term means, please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisting .)  GLSEN is also the organization behind the Day of Silence in the public schools.  

Kevin Jennings promotes homosexuality in K-12 and is doing so under the guise of the “bullying” curriculum that is permeating our public schools.  

Today’s article (posted below) shows how the Obama administration is deliberately taking the Title IX federal law and distorting the verbiage to include gender identity. 

Title IX does not include gender identity; it says that harassment based on race, color, national origin, sex, or disability violates the federal civil rights laws.  The Obama administration, however, has taken it upon themselves to include lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender under the word “sex.”

Now the Obama administration is threatening public school educators with the USDOE’s misinterpretation of the Title IX law and making educators fear prosecution unless they promote the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) lifestyle as normal.

Yes, all students should be taught to treat others with dignity; and bullying is a terrible problem.  But forcing students to accept a perverse lifestyle that leads students into sexually transmitted diseases and early death is not something that schools should be advocating.   

Tolerance is a good thing to teach students, but educators should not be intimidated into forcing students to accept perversity.

Please go to my article entitled “What Is the Centers for Disease Control?” published on 10.23.10 in which I lay out the disturbing data on the increase of HIV among young men ages 13 to 24 years:

From 2005-2008…Most (74%) diagnoses of HIV infection in adults and adolescents were in males. Among males diagnosed with HIV infection from 2005-2008, 70% were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact. The percentage of diagnosed HIV infections attributed to male-to-male sexual contact was even larger (85%) among males aged 13 to 24 years.  http://www.educationnews.org/breaking_news/health/101841.html )

Knowing that the Obama administration is sending its 10-page LGBT-supportive document to  “all public and private schools, colleges, and universities, including the country’s 15,000 school superintendents” should justifiably make concerned parents furious and should give them an extra reason to get out and vote on Nov. 2, 2010. 

We simply must send the liberal Democrats home and replace them with conservative candidates who honor traditional marriage, healthy lifestyles, and the right of parents to rear their children to believe in normal sexual relations within the sanctity of marriage.  

Once we have achieved victory on Nov. 2, 2010, we can turn our efforts to sending Obama, his appointees, his czars, and his administration back home in 2012.

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com

================================================================

http://www.keennewsservice.com/2010/10/26/fed-to-schools-law-requires-actions-against-bullying/

Fed to schools: Law requires actions against bullying

By Dana Rudolph on October 26, 2010  

The U.S. Department of Education is issuing guidance to school officials today (October 26), reminding them that federal law requires schools to take action against bullying—including gender-based and sexual harassment of LGBT students.

This is the first time the department has detailed the responsibilities educators have to protect LGBT students against such harassment, which is forbidden by Title IX and enforced by the department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). Title IX prohibits discrimination “based on sex” in federally funded programs.

“We think this could not be any more timely or important,” said Russlynn Ali, Assistant Secretary for OCR, at a press briefing Monday. “If students don’t feel safe in school, they simply cannot learn.”

The announcement comes after widespread media coverage in September and October of a string of bullying-related suicides by LGBT students or those perceived to be. But it also fulfills a promise to issue such guidance –a promise made by U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan in early August at the department’s first-ever Bullying Prevention Summit.

The 10 pages of guidance make clear that, although current laws enforced by OCR do not explicitly address harassment based on sexual orientation, they do prohibit sexual harassment and gender-based harassment directed at LGBT students or those perceived to be.

The approach is similar to that taken by the administration elsewhere. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in July issued guidance explaining how gender and disability discrimination protections may cover gender-identity discrimination or discrimination based on real or perceived HIV/AIDS status—even though the Fair Housing Act (FHA) does not explicitly cover sexual orientation- or gender identity-based housing discrimination.

The U.S. Justice Department also intervened in January in the case of a New York teen who was bullied and physically hurt for being effeminate. Justice Department lawyers argued that the federal law against gender-based discrimination also applied to gender expression. In an out-of-court settlement, the school district agreed to pay the boy $50,000, legal fees, and the cost of therapy.

Tuesday’s guidance is being issued in the form of a “Dear Colleague” letter from Ali to administrators at all public and private schools, colleges, and universities, including the country’s 15,000 school superintendents. It reminds them of their obligations to protect students from discrimination based on sex (Title IX), race, color, or national origin (Title VI), and disability (Section 504 and Title II), all statutes enforced by OCR.

The Department also plans to hold workshops around the country in early 2011 to train educators about their obligations and the resources available to help them.

Kevin Jennings, Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS) at the Department of Education, said at the press briefing that they would also be conducting a grassroots campaign to inform educators and others through community-based groups and the Web site Bullyinginfo.org.

If schools violate the anti-discrimination laws enforced by OCR, said Ali, the Department could withdraw all federal funds or place conditions upon them. She noted, however, that the Department has not done so with any school district in the last decade, for any type of civil rights violation, “because they usually come into compliance during negotiation.”

She also noted that the Department has not received any complaints in recent years on LGBT harassment. But Jennings suggested the lack of complaints may have been “because people have not seen federal authorities as a receptive audience” and because of the lack of a federal civil rights law that includes sexual orientation.

The guidance is the latest in a series of Department of Education moves to address school bullying—moves initiated even before the recent suicides. In addition to the August 2010 Summit, the Department in 2009 formed a federal task force on bullying, with representatives from the Departments of Justice, Health and Human Services (HHS), Agriculture, Defense, and Interior.

The Department also announced October 4 the awarding of $36 million in grants to 11 states from a new Safe and Supportive Schools program. The states must survey students, family, and staff about school safety issues, including bullying, and direct grant money at the problems where students say there is the biggest need.

It has also worked with HHS on a Stop Bullying Now campaign that is being expanded from middle school students to elementary school students.

And early next year, the White House plans to host a conference to raise awareness about bullying and harassment and share resources for students, parents, educators, and others.

Two bills in Congress, however, seek to provide greater protection for LGBT students, beyond bullying that is based on sexual harassment or gender stereotyping. The Student Nondiscrimination Act (SNDA) would prohibit discrimination—including harassment—on the basis of real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity in any program receiving federal funds. The Safe Schools Improvement Act (SSIA) would require schools receiving federal funds to implement and report on LGBT-inclusive anti-bullying programs. Versions of both bills are still pending in House and Senate committees.

Federal departments and their employees are prohibited by law from lobbying Congress about specific legislation, but Ali said Monday that the Department supports the goals of both bills. She said that, as the Department works to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the major act guiding educational policy, “we will certainly use all of the policy tools within our disposal to try and prevent this kind of harassment from occurring.”

She noted that the guidance issued Tuesday is “about using the tools within our disposal now.”

Jennings said the new guidance was the first step to letting people know that, “in this administration, we plan to apply the letter of the law to the fullest extent of the law in order to extend the greatest level of protections humanly possible to LGBT students.”

===============================

http://www.educationnews.org/index.php?news=105680

The Obama Administration’s Bullying Agenda

09/01/2010 10:34:00 Henry W. Burke

Henry W. Burke - In three articles written during October and November, Donna Garner predicted that the U.S. Department of Education would use their bullying agenda to promote homosexual rights. (Donna Garner is an experienced Texas teacher who writes extensively on education issues.)

Sure enough, the U.S. Justice Department went into a high school in Silver Spring, MD on Tuesday, 1.04.11, and told the students, “If you have been targeted for harassment or bullying because of your sexual orientation, because of your gender identity or expression, or simply because your classmates see you as different, I am here to tell you that the Civil Rights Division will not stand for it.”  (CNSNews.com,  1.05.11).

This should not surprise us.  Kevin Jennings, Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools, is an avowed homosexual and founder of Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).  He is promoting homosexuality in K-12 schools under the guise of the “bullying” curriculum.

The referenced articles are included below.

Henry W. Burke
Omaha, NE
E-mail:  hwburke@cox.net

 ==========================

http://www.cnsnews.com:80/news/article/bullied-school-being-gay-us-justice-depa< /b>

Bullied at School for Being Gay? The U.S. Justice Department 'Won't Stand for It,' High School Students Told

Wednesday, January 05, 2011

By Susan Jones

(CNSNews.com) – The U.S. Justice Department went into a public high school on Tuesday with a message for students: If you’re “different,” if you’re gay, and if you’re being bullied – don’t feel alone, don’t be ashamed, and don’t hesitate to call on the federal government for help if your school doesn’t stop the bullying.

“If you have been targeted for harassment or bullying because of your sexual orientation, because of your gender identity or expression, or simply because your classmates see you as different, I am here to tell you that the Civil Rights Division will not stand for it,” Tom Perez, the assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, told students at James Hubert Blake High School in Silver Spring, Md.

As part of the event – sponsored by the school’s administration and its gay-straight alliance – Perez played a videotape in which mostly gay and lesbian Civil Rights Division employees (and one who identified herself as intersex) shared their stories of being bullied at school. They also offered supportive messages to those who are being bullied now:

“You do have allies -- we are here for you,” one Civil Rights Division employee says in the video.

“If you can find some hope in the fact that you have a whole community of people out here – people who you’ve never met, and we’ve never met you, but we think of you and care about you and want you to be safe and want you to be happy,” another employee says.

“Being different is cool,” another employee says.

“When I was in grade school and high school, I was bullied. But now I prosecute bullies,” says yet another employee.

“Don’t be ashamed of who you are, just keep on being yourself.”

The video was produced by the Civil Rights Division staff for submission to the national “It Gets Better” Project, which was launched after a string of suicides of homosexual students who reportedly had been bullied. The project is intended to reassure LGBT youth that life gets better after high school.

Following the assistant attorney general’s remarks and the video presentation, students at Blake High School were invited to sign the “It Gets Better” Pledge, which reads as follows: “Everyone deserves to be respected for who they are. I pledge to spread this message to my friends, family and neighbors. I'll speak up against hate and intolerance whenever I see it, at school and at work. I'll provide hope for lesbian, gay, bi, trans and other bullied teens by letting them know that ‘It Gets Better.’"

According to a blog on the Justice Department’s Web site, Perez told students that in addition to the Civil Rights Division bringing cases against bullies, “we also need to address the attitudes and behavior that lead to bullying.”

Perez gave the students examples of how the Justice Department has intervened in cases of bullying – including the case of an openly homosexual teenager in New York who “failed to conform to gender stereotypes.”

A settlement reached in that case requires the school district to, among other things, retain an expert consultant to review policies related to harassment, and train faculty and staff annually on discrimination and harassment.

=====================================================

"Nat. School Bd. Assoc. Upset with USDOE over Bullying Agenda"

12.15.10

On 12.15.10, EducationWeek published an article that indicates the attorney for the National School Boards Association (NSBA) is questioning the over-reaching of the U. S. Department of Education’s “bullying agenda.”

===============================

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/school_law/2010/12/school_boards_group_questions.html

School Boards Group Questions U.S. Guidance on Bullying

By Mark Walsh on December 15, 2010 10:02 AM

The general counsel of the National School Boards Association is warning the U.S. Department of Education that recent federal guidance to schools on bullying and harassment expands the standard of liability for school officials and "will invite misguided litigation."

"The expansive position on what conduct constitutes 'harassment' protected by federal civil rights laws and what remedial measures are legally required will unnecessarily complicate investigations and possibly expose school districts to liability beyond that envisioned by the Supreme Court," says the Dec. 7 letter from Francisco M. Negron Jr., NSBA's top lawyer, to Charles P. Rose, the Education Department's general counsel.

Negron stresses in the letter that the NSBA shares the Education Department's interest in reducing bullying and harassment in schools. But he cites several concerns about the Oct. 27 "Dear Colleague" letter that went out from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali.

Education Department Press Secretary Justin Hamilton said officials have had conversations with NSBA since receiving the letter.

"We believe that the guidance is clear and lays out what all of our collective responsibilities are to protect the interests of students," Hamilton said in an interview Wednesday.

In the October guidance from the Office for Civil Rights, Ali said certain peer harassment in schools based on sex-role stereotyping or religious differences may amount to violations of existing federal civil rights laws. (Education Week had this story.)

Negron said the OCR letter "significantly expands" the standard of liability for schools over peer harassment beyond the standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1999 case, Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education. In that case, the court said schools could only be held liable for peer sexual harassment when they had "actual knowledge" of the harassment, and the activity was so "severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive" that it effectively barred the victim's access to an educational program or benefit.

By contrast, the OCR letter, Negron asserts, potentially would hold a school district liable for harassment about which "it knows or should have known," and covers harassment that is "severe, pervasive, or persistent" and that merely "interferes" with or limits participation in an educational program. Each prong of OCR's guidance softens the Davis standard, Negron said.

Negron raises several other concerns about the OCR letter. The letter states that school districts are required to eliminate harassment and the hostile environment it creates, and to prevent it from recurring. But the Supreme Court's Davis decision explicitly rejected the idea that schools must "remedy" peer harassment, Negron said.

Negron also says the OCR letter only "minimally" recognizes the First Amendment free speech rights of students and fails to recognize the constitutional limitations on school districts' ability to discipline students for protected speech.

Negron called on the Education Department it issue a document clarifying that schools must operate under multiple local, state, and federal legal requirements on harassment and bullying.

"It is our hope that through this letter, we have addressed what we see as some unintended legal and practical challenges arising from the [Dear Colleague letter]," Negron wrote.

Negron's letter was first reported this week by the NSBA's Legal Clips web site and its School Board News newspaper.

[UPDATE 11:30 a.m.] In a telephone interview Wednesday morning, Negron confirmed that he has had conversations with the Education Department since the letter. Negron described the conversations about the guidance as "constructive."

"I think we're in a cooperative position," Negron said, although he is awaiting a more detailed reply in writing from the department. "I think our questions were legitimate and they needed some clarification."

==================================

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/06/29/3189815/fort-worth-school-district-expands.html

Fort Worth school district expands anti-bullying policy to protect 'gender identity and expression'

Posted Wednesday, Jun. 29, 2011

By Eva-Marie Ayala

eayala@star-telegram.com

FORT WORTH -- The Fort Worth school district has expanded its anti-bullying policy to protect students who express themselves -- including their sexuality -- in nontraditional ways, a move that gay-rights advocates say is positive and progressive.

The amended anti-harassment policy now includes "gender identity and expression" protection for students and was approved without discussion by trustees Tuesday. The school district is believed to be the first in the state to adopt such a policy.

A similar policy was adopted for employees in January.

Supporters say the change is progressive in that it prohibits bullying based on how students express their sexuality -- such as a boy who wears nail polish.

The policy change came on the second anniversary of the controversial bar check at the Rainbow Lounge, a gay club in Fort Worth, in which patrons said law enforcement officers used excessive force.

Some say the school district's expanded anti-bullying policies are the result of heightened awareness in Fort Worth to address concerns in the gay community in the wake of the incident.

"The Rainbow Lounge incident was an unfortunate incident, but it gave us the opportunity to change things for the better in Fort Worth," said Trustee Carlos Vasquez, who is gay. He noted, however, that the new policy's adoption on the anniversary of the raid was a coincidence.

Not everyone supports such policies, saying they tear down traditional family values. Pat Carlson, president of the conservative Texas Eagle Forum and a Fort Worth resident, said the goal seems to be to confuse children on sexuality and gender roles.

"I have to wonder, Where does this stop?" Carlson said. "What about those students that are Christian students ... and there is a boy that comes dressed as a girl? Wouldn't that create an offensive environment for those Christian students? Where is their protection?"

Bertha Whatley, the school district's attorney, said the policy change is intended to protect all children.

"We want all students to know that Fort Worth ISD is a learning community that values them," Whatley said.

Barbara Williams, a spokeswoman with the Texas Association of School Boards, said a quick search found several school districts that prohibit bullying or discrimination based on sexual orientation, but none that address gender identity.

Sarah Warbelow, state legislative director for the national Human Rights Campaign, said she was also unaware of any Texas district having such an expanded policy.

"It is honorable that Fort Worth chose to set an example of what they can do to protect students, and I hope that other cities across the state and country will see it as a model to emulate the hard work Fort Worth has put into it," Warbelow said.

The policy change comes months after Fort Worth City Councilman Joel Burns gained national attention for an anti-bullying speech he delivered in council chambers, and after U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said schools that fail to address the bullying of gay students could lose federal dollars

With all the focus being put on gay issues and bullying -- at the local, state and national levels -- it has created an environment for change, said Thomas Anable, president of Fairness Fort Worth, a group that formed after the Rainbow Lounge incident to address equality issues.

In March, for example, Tarrant County College approved changes to its anti-discrimination employment policy that include sexual orientation, he noted.

But Anable said the Fort Worth school district's policy change is one of the most progressive to protect any gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender students. "If students are being bullied, no one can learn," he said.

Staff writer Diane Smith contributed to this report, which includes information from the Star-Telegram archives.

Eva-Marie Ayala, 817-390-7700

Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/06/29/3189815/fort-worth-school-district-expands.html#ixzz1Qv7XQSIS

==============================

http://www.omaha.com/article/20110710/NEWS01/707109937

Published Sunday July 10, 2011

OPS buys 8,000 diversity manuals

By Joe Dejka
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

The Omaha Public Schools used more than $130,000 in federal stimulus dollars to buy each teacher, administrator and staff member a manual on how to become more culturally sensitive.

The book by Virginia education consultants could raise some eyebrows with its viewpoints.

The authors assert that American government and institutions create advantages that “channel wealth and power to white people,” that color-blindness will not end racism and that educators should “take action for social justice.”

The book says that teachers should acknowledge historical systemic oppression in schools, including racism, sexism, homophobia and “ableism,” defined by the authors as discrimination or prejudice against people with disabilities.

The authors argue that public school teachers must raise their cultural awareness to better serve minority students and improve academic achievement.

The Omaha school board approved buying 8,000 copies of the book — one for every employee, including members of the custodial staff — in April. The decision to buy the book was made 11-0, with board member Mary Ellen Drickey passing on the vote.

Janice Garnett, OPS assistant superintendent of human resources, said she could not recall another time that the district had bought copies of the same book to give to every staff member.

Employees will be asked to read a couple of chapters each quarter and then meet in study groups to discuss the book using a study guide produced by the district, she said. For teachers, the study sessions will be a part of their professional development.

School board President Sandra Jensen said the district doesn't endorse everything in the book, nor does she expect employees to adopt the authors' positions. The book is intended to open a dialogue, she said.

“The purpose of providing this resource is to help staff see that people come from a multitude of different backgrounds which cause them to respond differently to the same set of facts, depending on their personal perspectives,” she said in a statement. “Recognition that one might have a certain perspective is critical to treating all people equally.”

Representatives of other large Nebraska school districts — Lincoln, Millard, Papillion-La Vista and Bellevue — said they have not used the book for training teachers, nor have the Council Bluffs Community Schools and Des Moines Public Schools.

Lincoln officials bought copies of a different cultural proficiency book to train administrators later this summer, according to spokeswoman Mary Kay Roth.

The book that OPS bought, “The Cultural Proficiency Journey: Moving Beyond Ethical Barriers Toward Profound School Change,” includes a worksheet for teachers to score themselves on a continuum of cultural sensitivity. The continuum ranges from “cultural destructiveness,” as evidenced by genocide and ethnocide, to “cultural proficiency,” depicted as the highest level of awareness.

Only those educators who acknowledge the existence of white privilege in America, that “white” is a culture in America and that race “is a definer for social and economic status” can reach proficiency, the authors contend. Those who score poorly on the worksheet are asked in the book what they will do “to align yourself with the values expressed.”

Jensen said the district will not use the book to evaluate or judge employees.

The book says teachers must overcome irrational fear of homosexuality and reject the “color-blind” approach to teaching in which teachers treat all children the same. Instead, the group identity of students of color should be recognized and esteemed, the authors say.

The authors ask readers to reflect on several hypothetical cases, including that of a gay “teacher of the year” afraid to post family photos of his male partner for his school's Family Day, an African-American parent upset by a sixth-grade Early-American Day because African-Americans were enslaved in those days, and a principal whose attempt to reach out to Muslim students backfires when he announces over the intercom that students should welcome Muslims though they “might believe in violence.”

The authors — Franklin and Brenda CampbellJones and Randall B. Lindsey — all former teachers, write that their intent in the book is “to prepare educators to unshackle themselves from tradition and become facilitators for reconciliation of historical injustices.”

Franklin CampbellJones said in an interview that although some issues in the book are considered “challenging” and “taboo,” discussing them is important to break down barriers to educating every child.

He said the book has been well-received by other school districts using it, including San Diego and Atlanta, and districts in Maryland and Canada.

The push for cultural proficiency, sometimes referred to as cultural competence, is a trend across the country, though what's meant by these terms varies. Definitions range from encouraging teachers to understand the cultural backgrounds of students to more aggressive efforts to rewrite curricula and adapt school systems to immigrant cultures.

A primary concern of critics is that schools and universities could use cultural proficiency as an ideological litmus test and that the money put toward such programs could be better spent directly on academics.

In 2009 the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities drew criticism when a task force proposed introducing cultural competency requirements for its teacher candidates.

The task force proposed that future teachers, in order to be recommended for licensure, should “recognize and demonstrate understanding of white privilege,” fight for social justice and take tests to measure their “intercultural sensitivity” and “cultural intelligence.”

Among the critics were the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit watchdog group advocating individual rights at America's colleges and universities, which argued that the proposals intruded on matters of individual freedom and conscience.

The Nebraska Board of Education is considering drafting teacher standards that call for teachers to be “culturally competent,” a move spokeswoman Betty VanDeventer said is intended to make teachers more aware and respectful of children of all cultures. Last winter, board members authorized a 41-member committee of teachers, principals, parents and others to draft the standards.

The proposed standards call upon teachers to, among other things, connect with a student's traditions to move him toward academic success, use “culturally appropriate instructional strategies” and make sure tests are valid and address the diversity of students.

The draft standards do not include any of the social justice goals contained in the book acquired by OPS.

The state plans to hold forums this summer and fall on the draft standards. The Nebraska standards would be voluntary. Local districts could decide whether to adopt them.

Paul Peterson, director of the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University, and a senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution at Stanford University, said cultural proficiency is part of a broader agenda advocated by people “who think that we should have a teaching force that has a certain political perspective.”

About OPS spending stimulus money on the book, he said: “That must be a wealthy school district.”

Stimulus rules allowed districts to spend money on teacher training, but Peterson suggested the money would be better spent on academic training.

“I would like to know whether the teachers are proficient in the subject they're going to be teaching,” he said. “It would be nice, if they're going to be teaching science, to be proficient in science; or math, to be proficient in math.”

Peterson said it's important that teachers be aware of the traditions a child brings to the school, and to take those into account when working with the pupil and deciding how to engage and motivate him or her.

He is concerned, however, about the book's general statements about the white population. That kind of generalization can be “extremely misleading” and “it would seem it would not be the kind of book you would distribute,” he said.

Jensen said there's no hidden agenda with the book study. She said she had started reading the book before the board voted to approve the purchase, and she intends to finish it and participate in the sessions.

Asked last week if she believes white privilege exists in Omaha, Jensen said: “That depends on the cultural lens that one looks through.”

The Omaha school district has a racially diverse enrollment. Last year the enrollment was 35.7 percent Caucasian, 29.9 percent Hispanic, 29.7 percent African-American, 3.1 percent Asian-American and 1.6 percent American-Indian. Students speak 93 different languages, Omaha Public Schools officials say.

The district, like most across the country, has struggled to close stubborn achievement gaps between whites and minorities.

Garnett, with OPS, said the district will use the book as a conversation starter on topics such as social equity, cultural understanding and racial justice.

“We're not saying that every idea in that book you have to accept,” Garnett said. “Not at all. What we're saying is let's explore this whole concept and see where we want to be as a school district when it relates to the diverse student population we now serve.”

Teachers will be asked to reflect on the book this year, and then next year the district will look for ways to apply some of the concepts in the classroom and workplace, she said.

That will include looking at “culturally responsive teaching” as a way to improve achievement for kids, Garnett said.

In defense of the district's purchase, OPS spokeswoman Luanne Nelson pointed to a study released by two Latino advocacy groups in Massachusetts calling for cultural proficiency in that state's schools.

When there are gaps in achievement between whites and minorities, schools need to identify obstacles to learning embedded in school culture, policies and practices, according to the study released by the Sociedad Latina and the University of Massachusetts' Mauricio Gaston Institute for Latino Community Development and Public Policy.

Nancy Edick, dean of the College of Education at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, said it is “imperative” that teachers are prepared for increasingly diverse schools.

Edick has trained Millard Public Schools teachers in culturally responsive teaching.

The hope is that teachers develop an understanding and appreciation for diversity in the classroom, school and community, and that they see “the increasing diversity we're all experiencing is not a threat, it's an opportunity,” she said.

“The rich life experiences of a diverse classroom contribute to an excellent education. It's an education that helps prepare our kids for a world they're going to live in, an increasingly diverse world,” Edick said.

Contact the writer: 402-444-1077, joe.dejka@owh

======================

(Excerpts from this article)

Government Schools as Propaganda Mills

By Doug Patton,

…In Nebraska, the board of education of the Omaha Public School district has taken another brazen leap toward brainwashing the thousands of children they hold captive. Using $130,000 of Obama stimulus money, this board has voted to buy 8,000 copies of a book called “The Cultural Proficiency Journey: Moving Beyond Ethical Barriers Toward Profound School Change.”

Three former teachers, Randall B. Lindsey, Franklin Campbell-Jones and his wife, Brenda Campbell-Jones, wrote this propaganda manual; and thanks to the Obama administration, every Omaha public school teacher, administrator and staff member — even custodians! — will get a copy. At $16.25 each. Paid for with your tax dollars.

The authors of the book claim that their intent is “to prepare educators to unshackle themselves from tradition and become facilitators for reconciliation of historical injustices.”

What exactly does that mean? Well, here are a few excerpts from their manual:

• "The government and social institutions in the United States have created advantages that disproportionately channel wealth, power and resources to white people."
• "Colorblindness will not end racism. Pretending race doesn’t exist is not the same as creating equality."
• "It is common for teachers to proclaim they do not see color in children. What this communicates to children of color is that their experience, in a racialized society, is to be discounted."
• "One is compelled to recognize that oppressed groups seeking equality needed to be amended into the Constitution in their quest for justice. On the other hand, heterosexual white men as a group, the unstated norm, have never needed to be amended into the Constitution."
• "It is common to see historically oppressed populations of children — African-American, Latino and Native-American — clustered in low-level academic courses, while upper-level courses are filled with historically advantaged groups, primarily Euro-American. The clear distribution of academic benefits for Whites and lack thereof for people of color is evident in the achievement data reported over the past two decades."
• "We need to recognize and dismantle historical forms of oppression that are operational in schools. Schools can, by tradition, institutionalize sexism, racism, ethnocentrism, ableism, and homophobia, to list a few, through organizational policies and practices."

I know. I, too, was ignorant of this latest lingo. Having lived in politically correct America for more years than I care to contemplate, I was more than acquainted with what the ridiculous radical left means when they whine and scream about sexism and racism. I was even familiar with their other silly terms, such as homophobia and ethnocentrism. But “ableism”? That was a new one — one of which I’m sure the three eggheads who wrote this tripe are very proud. It means discrimination or prejudice toward the disabled. Okay.

Lincoln was right. It is long past time we realize that tomorrow’s leaders are in the hands of Marxists who, from top to bottom, now permeate our education establishment. Our children will one day rule this nation. God help us if we do not rescue them from those who would indoctrinate their minds and crush their spirits.

- - - -

Doug Patton describes himself as a recovering political speechwriter who agrees with himself much more often than not. Now working as a freelance writer, his weekly columns of sage political analysis are published the world over by legions of discerning bloggers, courageous webmasters and open-minded newspaper editors. Astute supporters and inane detractors alike are encouraged to e-mail him with their pithy comments at dougpatton@cox.net.

============================

EducationNews.org

Tuesday, August 30, 2010

“What Is the Centers for Disease Control?”

By Donna Garner

http://www.educationnews.org/breaking_news/health/101841.html

We taxpayers pay for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and part of the job of this government agency is to collect infectious disease data from across the country.

Since January 2005, thirty-seven states have had laws that require them to report HIV infections through confidential, name-based mechanisms.

It is no secret; the medical data is clear.  Male-to-male sex is what is spreading HIV/AIDS, and to me the following is one of the most worrisome statistics: 

From 2005-2008…Most (74%) diagnoses of HIV infection in adults and adolescents were in males. Among males diagnosed with HIV infection from 2005-2008, 70% were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact. The percentage of diagnosed HIV infections attributed to male-to-male sexual contact was even larger (85%) among males aged 13 to 24 years.”

This indicates that the homosexual agenda is making inroads with the young and vulnerable males in our society. 

I believe this has come through the constant drumbeat of homosexual characters on TV, the movies, and in the school anti-bullying curriculum that is permeating students’ classrooms under the auspices of Obama’s Kevin Jennings, the Safe Schools Czar at the U. S. Department of Education.  

Kevin Jennings is openly homosexual and is the founder of Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).  This is the organization that led students during the school day in Massachusetts to learn about “fisting.”  

We adults who should be countering the indoctrination by the homosexual community of our young people have been intimidated into silence by political correctness/social justice.

Why not put the CDC’s medical data out there and make sure that our young people know how very dangerous homosexual activities really are?  

No empirical research exists to show that homosexuality is inherent (inborn); therefore, young people do have a choice.   

We also know that Exodus International and other organizations have proven that people involved in homosexual activities can change their lifestyles.

However, when children are told at a young age that they have a proclivity to be homosexual and that “it is perfectly normal,” many of them become entrapped with the homosexual lifestyle and do not know how to get out of it.

They end up being dragged deeper into perversion and the very harmful medical conditions that follow, sometimes ending in early death.  

To find out for yourself what the CDC’s medical data shows, please follow these directions:

Please click on the following site (http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/msm/index.htm ). 

Then notice where it says, “Download the complete slide set.”  I chose “18 Slides in Adobe PDF Format.”  Then just scroll down the slide set, making sure that you read what is in the Presentation Notes at the bottom, right side of each slide.

These slides cover HIV Surveillance in Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) and have been updated with information from the “2008 HIV Surveillance Report: Diagnoses of HIV Infection and AIDS in the United States and Dependent Areas.”

PRESENTATION NOTE FOUND ON ONE OF THE SLIDES

From 2005-2008, an estimated total of 161,795 adults and adolescents were diagnosed with HIV infection in the 37 states and 5 U.S. dependent areas with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting since at least January 2005. 

Most (74%) diagnoses of HIV infection in adults and adolescents were in males.

Among males diagnosed with HIV infection from 2005-2008, 70% were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact.

The percentage of diagnosed HIV infections attributed to male-to-male sexual contact was even larger (85%) among males aged 13 to 24 years.

During 2008, male-to-male sexual contact was the most frequently reported transmission category—accounting for 54% of all diagnoses of HIV infection that year.

The following 37 states have had laws or regulations requiring confidential name-based HIV infection reporting since at least January 2005: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The 5 U.S. dependent areas include American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Data include persons with a diagnosis of HIV infection regardless of stage of disease at diagnosis. All displayed data have been estimated.  Estimated numbers resulted from statistical adjustment that accounted for reporting delays and missing risk-factor information, but not for incomplete reporting.

Data on male-to-male sexual contact exclude men who reported sexual contact with other men and injection drug use.

PRESENTATION NOTE ON ANOTHER SLIDE

In 2008, an estimated 72% (22,810) of all diagnosed HIV infections among adult and adolescent males were attributed to male-to-male sexual contact.

Heterosexual contact was the second largest transmission category among males, at nearly 15% of diagnosed HIV infections… 

Heterosexual contact is with a person known to have or to be at high risk for HIV infection.

[Notice this statistic:  HIV -- 72 % of 2008 cases caused by MSM activities; 15 % from heterosexual contacts]

==========================================

[10.22.10 -- This CDC medical data should also be the basis for decisions on “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military. -- Donna Garner]

Facts for the Day — 9.30.10

HIV is an “equal opportunity provider.”

HIV is not politically correct. 

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) just released today (9.30.10) a report on HIV infections from January 2005 through 2008. 

The report is called “Epidemiology of HIV Infection” and can be found at the following link:

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/slides/general/slides/general.pdf

Through numerous slides, this report graphically shows that HIV is being spread by:

72 % — male-to-male (MSM) sexual contact

9 %  – injection drug use  

4 %  – male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use

Conclusion:  85 % of all HIV cases among young adults and adolescents were caused by homosexual activities and/or drug use. 

These are all preventable activities.

HIV increased among MSM from 50 % in 2005 to 54 % in 2008.  The more the homosexual agenda is being pushed in the U. S. culture, the higher the rates of HIV are climbing.

The slides clearly show that the biggest percentage of HIV cases is occurring among Black/African-Americans.  

This CDC information was gathered from only 37 states (those that had laws or regulations requiring confidential name-based HIV infection reporting since at least January 2005).

However, here is the alarming news:  The following states are not included in the CDC’s data. 

If these states (many of which are considered to be havens for homosexuals because of local and state laws) had been included in the CDC data, just think how much higher the national HIV/MSM/Injected Drug Use numbers and percentages would have been!

California

Delaware

District of Columbia

Hawaii

Illinois

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Montana

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Vermont

Washington

It is the CDC’s latest figures that led to the 9.23.10 Reuters report saying that 1 in 5 gay, bisexual men in US cities has HIV; and it is these figures that led me on 8.31.10 to write an open letter to Glenn Beck, Kenneth Mehlman, Ed Gillespie, Ann Coulter, Michael Steele, Dick Cheney, Lou Dobbs, almost all Democrats, and others who have indicated that they do not think we should care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms:

I believe it is actually everybody’s business what homosexuals and/or drug users choose to do in the privacy of their bedrooms because we taxpayers get left paying for their STD’s and drug treatments.  Sixty-five per cent of all HIV cases are from people who are homosexuals and/or drug users. (Source: Centers for Disease Control)

Also, those STD’s can and do get transmitted to other innocent people such as wives.  I have two long-time friends whose husbands were involved in bisexual relationships.  Both of these faithful wives have been left FOR LIFE with STD’s that they got from their husbands. Both of them had no idea that their husbands were bisexual and were involved in perverse relationships.  Both of these women have had to have serious surgeries within this last year because of the STD’s that were transmitted to them by their bisexual husbands. 

I have not even mentioned other STD’s besides HIV/AIDS such as viral hepatitis.  In 2006,  nearly 1 in 10 men diagnosed with hepatitis A reported engaging in homosexual behavior.

Other STD’s that are transmitted throughout the gay population are urethral Chlamydia and gonorrhea. 

In one year, the rate of fluoroquinolone-resistant gonorrhea increased from 29% to 39% among men who have sex with men (MSM).

The number of new syphilis cases, driven by gay and bisexual men, has doubled in recent years in such places as Los Angeles County and San Francisco.  Men who have sex with men (MSM) accounted for approximately 64% of the reported cases of P&S syphilis in the United States during 2006.  (Source: Centers for Disease Control)

I also have not mentioned the prevalence of tuberculosis that is spread among homosexuals who have HIV/AIDS.  They contract TB and other diseases because their immune system has been compromised by the HIV/AIDS.  

TB and many other diseases are contagious, and we in the general population are put at risk by what homosexuals and/or drug users do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

Now the homosexual movement is pressuring the Red Cross to change their blood collection policies because gay men have been banned from giving blood since 1985.  The gays say this is “discriminatory.” If the gays win their “social justice” argument and are allowed to pollute our blood supply with their STD’s, then the chances of an innocent person contracting an STD “for life” from a homosexual will be greatly increased.

Also, there is the matter of cost.  Please be sure to study this link

( http://fairfoundation.org/update.htm ) where it shows how much per patient we taxpayers spend on HIV compared to other conditions such as cardiovascular conditions and cancer.

What is occurring is that because of the strong political support for the gay agenda, huge amounts of money are being spent by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on HIV/AIDS that should be going toward helping to alleviate other conditions/diseases that people develop NOT based upon their sexual choices.  

In fact, it is not a stretch to say that we might have had more breakthroughs on solving cancer, heart, diabetes, prostate, and Alzheimer’s if the NIH had not spent so much time and money on HIV/AIDS research. 

Yes, it actually does matter to the rest of us whatever people do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

==============================

7.1.11

Enhanced Comprehensive HIV Prevention Planning and Implementation for Metropolitan Statistical Areas Most Affected by HIV/AIDS

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/nhas/echpp/index.htm?source=govdelivery

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/nhas/echpp/dallas.htm

Texas Department of State Health Services

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/nhas/echpp/pdf/echpp-dallas.pdf

 The Enhanced Comprehensive HIV Prevention Plan for The Dallas Metropolitan Division

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the Dallas MD, approximately 15,957 people are living with HIV, and approximately 900 new cases of HIV have been identified annually. 83% of people with HIV in the Dallas MD reside in Dallas County. Gay men and other men who have sex with men (MSM) account for 67% of those living with HIV and represent 70% of all new diagnoses.

Black MSM alone account for 25% of people living with HIV in the Dallas MD.

Heterosexual transmission is the second largest exposure category for people living with HIV and females comprise 77% of these cases.

…as many as 1 in 4 black gay men in Dallas may be HIV positive.

==================

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/nhas/echpp/pdf/echpp-chicago.pdf

In Chicago, 70% of all diagnosed cases of HIV are among men, with male-to-male sexual contact being the leading mode of transmission across all ethnic groups. Among men who have sex with men (MSM) diagnosed with HIV in 2008, 51% are black. In 2008, blacks accounted for 66% of AIDS diagnoses while whites and Hispanics represented 15% and 17% of the diagnoses respectively.

=====================

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/nhas/echpp/pdf/echpp-houston.pdf

Houston

 A closer look at HIV/AIDS prevalence in Harris County shows that the epidemic continues to be predominantly among males (74%), specifically among men who have sex with men (43%) and among people of color (70%).

=================

7.1.11

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:  HIV among Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM)

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/msm/index.htm

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)1 represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV and are the only risk group in which new HIV infections have been increasing steadily since the early 1990s. In 2006, MSM accounted for more than half (53%) of all new HIV infections in the United States, and MSM with a history of injection drug use (MSM-IDU) accounted for an additional 4% of new infections. At the end of 2006, more than half (53%) of all people living with HIV in the United States were MSM or MSM-IDU. Since the beginning of the US epidemic, MSM have consistently represented the largest percentage of persons diagnosed with AIDS and persons with an AIDS diagnosis who have died. The Numbers New HIV Infections2 In 2006, more than 30,000 MSM and MSM-IDU were newly infected with HIV. Among all MSM, whites accounted for nearly half (46%) of new HIV infections in 2006. The largest number of new infections among white MSM occurred in those aged 30–39 years, followed by those aged 40–49 years. Among all black MSM, there were more new HIV infections (52%) among young black MSM (aged 13–29 years) than any other racial or ethnic age group of MSM in 2006. The number of new infections among young black MSM was nearly twice that of young white MSM and more than twice that of young Hispanic/Latino MSM. Among all Hispanic/Latino MSM in 2006, the largest number of new infections (43%) occurred in the youngest age group (13–29 years), though a substantial number of new HIV infections (35%) were among those aged 30–39 years. Estimated Number of New HIV Infections among Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM), by Race/Ethnicity and Age Group, 2006 Source: CDC. Subpopulation Estimates from the HIV Incidence Surveillance System—United States, 2006. MMWR. 2008; 57(36):985–989. HIV and AIDS Diagnoses3 and Deaths A recent CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection. In this study, 28% of black MSM were HIV-infected, compared to 18% of Hispanic/Latino MSM and 16% of white MSM. Other racial/ethnic groups of MSM also have high numbers of HIV infections, including American Indian/Alaska Native MSM (20%) and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander MSM (18%). In 2007, MSM were 44 to 86 times as likely to be diagnosed with HIV compared with other men, and 40 to 77 times as likely as women. From 2005–2008, estimated diagnoses of HIV infection increased approximately 17% among MSM. This increase was likely due to a combination of factors: increases in new infections, increased testing, and diagnosis earlier in the course of infection; it may also have been due to uncertainty in statistical models. In 2008, an estimated 17,940 MSM were diagnosed with AIDS in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the US dependent areas—an increase of 6% since 2005. By the end of 2007, an estimated 282,542 MSM with an AIDS diagnosis had died in the United States and 5 dependent areas. Prevention Challenges The high prevalence of HIV infection among MSM means they face a greater risk of being exposed to infection with each sexual encounter—especially as they get older Many MSM with HIV are unaware of their HIV infection, especially MSM of color and young MSM. A recent CDC study found that among urban MSM in 21 cities in 2008 who were unaware of their HIV infection, 55% had not been tested in the previous 12 months. Low awareness of HIV status among young MSM likely reflects several factors: they may have been infected more recently, may underestimate their personal risk, may have had fewer opportunities to get tested, or may believe that HIV treatment minimize the threat of HIV. CDC recommends that all MSM get tested for HIV once a year— and more often if they are at higher risk. MSM at higher risk includes those who have multiple or anonymous sex partners or use drugs during sex.

Last Modified: September 23, 2010 Last Reviewed: September 23, 2010 Content Source: Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention

=============================

Ft. Worth ISD Student Suspended for Saying Gay Is Wrong

Published : Wednesday, 21 Sep 2011, 4:48 PM CD

Lari Barager
FOX 4 News

Adapted for Web by Tracy DeLatte | myFOXdfw.com

FORT WORTH, Texas - A Fort Worth high school student was sent to the principal’s office earlier this week for telling another classmate he believes homosexuality is wrong.

Fourteen-year-old Dakota Ary spent most of the day Tuesday serving an in-school suspension. It was punishment for discussion in his German class at Fort Worth’s Western Hills High School.

“We were talking about religions in Germany. I said, ‘I’m a Christian. I think being a homosexual is wrong,’” he said. “It wasn’t directed to anyone except my friend who was sitting behind me. I guess [the teacher] heard me. He started yelling. He told me he was going to write me an infraction and send me to the office.”

An assistant principal called Ary’s mother at work to let her know he was in trouble.

“At first I was in disbelief. My son is on the honor roll with great grades. I don’t have any problems out of him,” Holly Pope said.

After hearing Ary’s explanation of what happened, the assistant principal reduced the original suspension from two days to one. But Pope was not satisfied with that.

“He was stating an opinion. He has a right to do that. They punished him for it,” she said.

Attorney Matt Krause joined Ary and his mom at a Wednesday morning meeting with the principal. They asked for the blemish to be taken off his record and reassurance there would be no retaliation.

“Students don’t lose their first amendment rights just because they go in the schoolhouse door,” Krause said.

District spokesman Clint Bond said the Fort Worth Independent School District does not comment on specific employee or student-related issues.

“We are following district policy in our review of the circumstances and any resolution will likewise be in accordance with district policy,” Bond said.

If Ary continues taking German he’ll have to learn from the same teacher who punished him. His mom is relying on faith that things will work out.

“I want to believe the school will make the right decision. That’s something the school will need to handle,” she said.

Read more on myFOXdfw.com: http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/education/092111-student-suspended-for-saying-gay-is-wrong#ixzz1YkM2BdFV

==========================

Donna Garner

Wgarner1@hot.rr.com