( -0977 ) (Up-Res) Peg Luksik's Education System Revelation - Illuminati-Hijacked Masonic 'Education' Agenda is the Exposed Tip of a Guarded Ancient Knowledge Reservoir; a Pragmatic Iceberg of Control

( -0977 ) (Up-Res) Peg Luksik's Education System Revelation - Illuminati-Hijacked Masonic Agenda is the Exposed Tip of an Ancient Iceberg

I'm writing this from memory because I watched it over 10 years ago. Apparently this started out with Peg Luksik's own child, and local education board members refusing to explain their practices in regard to this student. Peg learned that although parents were told that these were local policies which parents were influencing at the local level, they were in reality nationally controlled with fake hearings designed to ensure instituting the agenda (while not directly an Agenda 2020 thing, one can see the same types of practices designed to overwhelm local interests in favor of a desired outcome destructive to the students but 'deemed necessary' for social change. If the presented experiences are true, these policies, and Common Core itself, were never about helping students excel. The Department of Labor had access to testing and testing result information that parents weren't allowed to access. Conveniently the testing involved social rather than academic questions designed to bring about social policy impacts (enact social engineering) rather than address needs in learning academic material. Beyond the well-meaning secret societies is a much older, more hidden spiritual conflict in which power chooses what to do with knowledge, and who to share it with. We're led to believe that education (both public and private) is a pure system in most Western countries. We're not taught that it is encumbered with extraneous motives; including motives held by selected elites who can influence it to socially engineer some 'great work'. But fair evidence suggesting this, though very hard to come and relentlessly attacked by so-called debunking of straw-man positions and data, by, does exist. I hope you will take the time to absorb Peg's experience through her fascinating search and discovery.

TRANSCRIPTION:

[ Pause ]
[ Music ]
When I began the process, I just didn't like the regulations
because I thought, well, they're kind of nebulous
and they don't make a lot of sense.
And when we started investigating,
what we found is that the plan is really very organized
and very well put together.
The plan is to move education away
from what we have right now, which is traditional education.
That's-- You have so many Carnegie units, you had four classes
of math and four classes of English and so many classes
of history to graduate
to what is called outcome-based education.
Outcome-based education says
that the student must demonstrate something in order
to meet the goal and be promoted or graduate.
In the traditional system, said this is an A, this is a B,
this is a C, this is a D, this is an E,
and you fit wherever you fit.
Now, you had so much time in order to do that.
So, you know, you had 180 days and then the achievement went
up or down according to that.
In outcome-based education, the theory is everybody gets an A
or everybody gets a B and however long it takes you
to get there is okay.
If you can get there in three days,
then you graduate in three days.
If it takes you 10 years, then you graduate in 10 years.
Everything rides on the goals and on meeting the goals.
So, instead of saying the schools will teach,
the theory now is the student will demonstrate
and so it's a major shift in the way we look at education.
In order to understand that, I want you
to think of a telephone salesman.
They're going to call-- telephone call
from a telephone salesman, pick up the phone
and the salesman says, "Hi."
He asks you three or four questions.
"I'm selling purple shoes tonight, so I want to know,
are you a shoe owner?"
And you say yes or no and I say, "Do you like the color purple?"
And you say yes or no.
"Do you buy your own shoes or does your husband buy your shoes
or your wife buy your shoes or your children buy your shoes
or does some other person buy your shoes for you?"
And you say yes or no.
That's my pre-test.
I have just established the baseline data and now I know
where you are so I can begin teaching you about why you need purple shoes.
That's the pre-test.
Now that I've established that I'm going to do my sales pitch and I'm going
to give you 10 reasons why you really, really need purple shoes
and you're going to-- you can't live without them and you want them.
That's the curriculum.
I have taught you something.
I'm done now.
Would you like to put that, Mrs. Smith, on your visa or on your master card?
That's the post-test.
I am assessing you to see if you have met my goal or not.
My goal is that you're going to buy my shoes.
You say, "Put it on my visa."
You have met the goal.
I'm going to say thank you very much and you may graduate from this conversation
and I'm going to hang up.
You say, "No, you have not met the goal."
I am going to say, "Well, why not?
What is your objection?"
And you're going to tell me and I am going to remediate you.
I'm going to put you through another sales pitch to make you want my purple shoes.
That's remediation.
You're going to walk that loop with me one more time and at the end
of the remediation I'm going to say, "Should I put this on your visa or your master card?"
I'm testing you again.
That's a reassessment.
If you say, "Yes, you have met the goal."
You may graduate from the conversation and I'm going to hang up.
If you say, "No," I'm going to say, "What is your objection?"
And I'm going to remediate you again and test you again.
Now, if you would stay on the phone indefinitely,
I would keep making you walk that remediation loop until you finally said, "Yes,
you're going to buy my shoes," until you meet the goal.
However, in a telephone sales call you can say, "Excuse me, I've been remediated enough.
I'm never meeting your goal."
And you can hang up the phone.
A child in a classroom cannot hang up the phone.
They are going to be remediated again and again and again and again until they meet the goal.
That's outcome-based education.
Everything rests on the goals.
That's the ladder that everything rests on.
So when I started getting involved way back in the fall, I looked at the goals
because that's what everything rests on.
I thought I'd find geography, history, spelling, reading.
I found adaptability to change, ethical judgment, self-esteem, family living,
proper environmental attitudes, understanding and appreciating others.
And I went and met with Mr. Feer, who's the executive director of the State Board
of Education in Pennsylvania, and I said, "Where did you get these?"
And with every goal there was a list of exit outcomes.
That's the specific behaviors that the child has to demonstrate in order
to prove that they met the goal.
The child just can't say, "I met the goal.
I understand others.
Isn't that great?"
The child has a list of behaviors that they have to demonstrate in order
to prove that they met the goal.
So I said to Mr. Feer, "Well, where did you get the goals?
And where did you get these exit outcomes?
Where did they come from?"
And he said, "Oh, we had committees meet all over the state.
And we brought together teachers and parents and other groups, and we got together
and had consensus forming, and we reevaluated them and redid them.
And they came up with over 500 student learning outcomes."
And I said, "Well, okay, what did they base it on?"
He said, "Oh, nothing.
We developed these specifically for Pennsylvania."
I said, "Well, you mean when they went in and sat down, the table was empty?"
"Oh, no, no."
I said, "Well, what was on the table?"
"Connecticut's goals."
"Oh, okay."
So I wrote to Connecticut and said to Connecticut,
"Would you please send me your goals?"
And Connecticut did send me their goals.
And I sat down, and Connecticut's goals, and Pennsylvania's goals were the same goals.
Word for word, the same goals.
Since then, we've gotten the goals from 26 different states.
And this just gives you a little overview of what some of those exit outcomes are
and how close they were.
All students understand and appreciate their worth as unique and capable individuals
and exhibit self-esteem.
That's Pennsylvania's.
Connecticut's.
Each student should be able to appreciate his or her worth as a unique
and capable individual and exhibit self-esteem.
Is that sound familiar?
You can take all the student learning outcomes and match them up.
It doesn't matter what state you're in.
It doesn't matter whose outcomes you're looking at.
If you strip the names of the states, you can't tell whose are whose.
Now, the other states, it passed their goals and their exit outcomes on the first go around.
Pennsylvania, because of the involvement of parents like you and me and other ones
across the state, have been forced to rewrite their student learning outcomes seven times now.
Some of these are from the first set that began, was first published in September.
They published another set on March the 11th.
That set included student learning outcomes that said
that our children would exhibit the proper attitudes to live
in the American constitutional democracy.
We don't have a constitutional democracy.
We have a democratic republic.
The State Board of Education got the form of government wrong.
So I went on the radio in Harrisburg and said the State Board
of Education doesn't know what their government is,
much less what attitudes you need to live in it.
So they rewrote those learning outcomes on March the 12th.
That set lasted 24 hours.
They're in their 7-3 right now of student learning outcomes
and really they haven't changed a bit.
They've combined some, they've rearranged some, they've reorganized some,
but the exit outcomes are still the same.
Now, when you move to outcome-based education, there's a couple questions
that you always have to ask.
Because every child must demonstrate the goal, that means that first of all,
someone has to set a standard for what is mastery of this goal.
How good is good enough?
How much self-esteem is enough self-esteem?
How much adaptability to change is too much adaptability to change.
So first we have to set a standard.
Second, I have to test you in some way.
I have to do an assessment to find out if you met my standard.
Third, I have to remediate you.
If you don't meet the standard, I have to bring in a curriculum or an activity
or a program that will in some way change your behavior to make you meet my standard.
Now, when you look at Pennsylvania's goals, we asked, what standards do you set?
How do you test?
How do you remediate?
The state's response was, well, we're not real sure about that.
So we went looking to see, well, what are you doing right now?
Well, right now, Pennsylvania gives a test and has since the 1960s.
It was called the Educational Quality Assessment or the EQA.
It was given all the way up until 1989 when it was finally pulled.
Each district took the EQA.
It was given in grades 5, 8, and 11.
Districts were required to write their long-range plan from the results of the EQA test,
the Educational Quality Assessment test.
In that plan, each district had to say how they were going to change their curriculum
in order to make the children do better on that assessment the next time.
Now, if you think about it, that makes sense.
You know, if you give the same test in every district and I give it in your district
and your district and your district and you were first and you were second,
but I'm sorry, you were last, what are you going to do?
You're going to change your curriculum so you're not last anymore because that's embarrassing.
So the EQA was the basis for curriculum planning for all the districts in the state.
And it was a mandatory test.
The districts had to take it because they had to base their long-range plan on it in order
to get their state money.
What did the EQA test?
The EQA tested first the 10, then the 12 quality goals of education.
When we looked at the EQA, parents thought it was testing reading,
writing, self-esteem, citizenship.
It tested locus of control, whether you are an internally motivated person
or an externally motivated person, whether you stand up against a crowd,
whether you go with the flow.
And they scored it.
There was a right answer to the attitude questions.
The right answer was go with the flow.
In citizenship, the EQA said it did not test anything in the factual domain.
It didn't matter if you knew what the United Nations was.
It didn't matter if you knew who the president was or what a president was.
Citizenship tested thresholds of behavior.
How do I vary reward and punishment to make you do what I want you to do?
Sample question.
There was an organization called the Midnight Marauders.
They went out at midnight and spray painted all over everybody's walls.
I would join the group if A, my best friend were a member of the group.
Child could say yes, no, or maybe.
The correct answer was yes.
I would join the group if all the popular kids were members of the group, yes, no,
or maybe, the correct answer was yes.
I would join the group if my parents would ground me if they found out.
The correct answer was no.
You are supposed to avoid punishment, but you are supposed to honor commitments
to friends and go with the group.
The goal was collectivism.
The EQA tested for adaptability to change.
What parents were told was, well, you know, our world is constantly changing,
and we want people who are going to be able to go with that and survive that.
We don't want rigid people who can't cope.
Sounds very reasonable.
The EQA tested and scored for rapid emotional adjustment to change without protest.
That was the state desired response.
The EQA just didn't test the attitudes of children.
It scored the attitudes of children.
It was a criterion reference test.
That means there's a right answer and a wrong answer, and I say what it is.
The bottom criteria for the EQA was that students would exhibit what the state called a
minimum positive attitude.
The 11th grade EQA was written on a reading level between 5th and 8th grade.
The EQA, out of over 400 questions, 30 of them were academic, and 385 of them were attitudes.
When the district took the EQA, they got back a list from the state of where they fit
with other districts in the goal.
They had to write their long-range plan in order to change their curriculum to have their
children achieve the minimum positive attitude.
Well, how did they do that?
What did they change?
The state said, "We'll help you," and they brought in technical assistance, either in
person or in what were called resources for improvement packets that the state made available
to the districts.
Those packets included lists of what were called validated programs.
Those are programs from all over the country that had been tested by the federal government
and had been proven to change the behaviors and attitudes of children in a specific subgroup.
All white male children with two parents who make less than $20,000 a year.
All black female children in a single-parent family who make more than $50,000 a year.
They could divide the children up into what were called targeted subgroups based on your
race, on gender, on ability level, on education of the parents, on socioeconomic status.
And the programs were tested and then declared validated, meaning that they were proven to
work to change the behaviors and attitudes of children in that subgroup.
And that's what has been happening in Pennsylvania education since the 1960s.
Our curriculum has been moving away from academics and into minimum positive attitude since the
EQA.
And the EQA is still driving the curriculum because districts used it for long-range planning
up till 1989.
Why did they stop?
They stopped because a mother down in Washington County named Anita Hoag had a son who took
the EQA.
He came home and said, "Mom, this test was really weird."
She said, "You must be wrong.
I'm going to get down to the school and look."
And she went down to the school and she said, "I want to see the test."
And they said, "No."
And she said, "See, I'm the mommy.
I'm allowed to see the test."
And they said, "No, you're not.
It's a secure test.
Nobody's allowed to see it.
Big fine if you see it."
Mrs. Hoag is the type of person that when you say no, she flunked locus of control,
you know, made her want to do it more.
So she wound up writing to the state and finally got a copy of the test and the scoring, which
is how we got it.
She filed a complaint with the federal Department of Education alleging that the EQA was a violation
of the federal Hatch Act, federal law, that it was violating her rights to privacy and
it was against the psychological testing portion of that law and the federal government agreed
with her and said the EQA was a psychological test.
It was in violation of law and Pennsylvania had to enter into a consent agreement with
the federal government, which resulted in policy being issued by our department saying
they wouldn't do it anymore.
So what did Pennsylvania do with the consent agreement?
Well, in 1988, when Mrs. Hoag's complaint began to surface, then Commissioner of Education
Donna Wall issued a memo saying, "We're going to withdraw the EQA until we incorporate it
into the new Pennsylvania assessment system."
In 1990, the Pennsylvania assessment system was first piloted.
The first assessment was called the Pennsylvania Health Assessment.
It says right on it, "This is the revision of the EQA."
This year, the Pennsylvania assessment system tested reading, math, and writing.
Is it the same test?
It has a different name, but their own documents say it's the revision of the EQA.
In that 1988 memo, Mrs. Wall says that by 1993, we will have completed the revision
process.
If you look at the regulations that the state is promulgating right now, it says by 1993,
the state will once again test all the goals.
Timetable hasn't been interrupted at all.
Initially the sentence ended there.
Now because of the involvement of parents, it says, "And parents have the right, they
have to go back to public hearings to do that."
Is that a victory?
Not really.
The regulatory process in our state really isn't controlled by the legislature.
It's controlled by appointed bureaucrats who really don't care what you think.
They sit at the meetings, they follow the letter of the law, they give the time, but
your input is not really input.
Example, in February of this year, the state board held a public hearing on the student
learning outcomes and the regulations.
The room was big enough to hold 80 people, 500 showed up.
They would not move the room.
And we began the meeting with an attorney for the parents saying, "It would really be
helpful to facilitate dialogue and consensus if we could get some really basic questions
answered here."
And the state board said, "We're not here to answer any questions."
And he said, "Okay, I can appreciate that this is a public hearing and this is public
comment and you're not here to answer any questions.
The parents have been asking these questions now for two years.
Where do they go to get the questions answered?"
And the state board said, "That's a matter of public policy, how you get your questions
answered."
And the attorney said, "That's great.
Could you explain the public policy to all these 500 people so they know what to do to
get their questions answered?"
And the state board said, "We're not here to answer any questions."
When you go to hearings, they give you a topic for the hearing.
So one set of hearings is on the student learning outcomes and one set of hearings is on the
goals.
Now if you go in and say, "But the whole program is terrible," they say, "Excuse me.
The topic here is this piece of paper.
So you have to confine your remarks to this piece of paper."
So what happens?
Well, in one of the goals, the original was the personal family and community living
that the students will acquire and use the proper attitudes and behaviors necessary for
successful personal family and community living.
I tested in front of the Senate Education Committee and said, "What is a successful family?
Two people cannot agree.
How are you going to measure the attitudes necessary for it?"
Their response, they took out the word successful.
So in order for parents to make a difference, they need to step outside the regulatory process
and look at where do they go in order to drive the cart the way they want it to be driven.
You go to the legislature.
So in Pennsylvania, we went to the legislature and we asked for a resolution that would ask
the Department of Education to slow down long enough for the House of Representatives to
at least look at the regulations so that everybody could understand them, so there could be some
real input.
And we won that debate by a vote of 150 to 47, which is fairly significant.
And the Department of Education said, "We're doing it anyway."
And they are doing it anyway.
If you got involved now, what they would say to you is, "This is a done deal.
Nothing you can do about it.
It's a done deal."
First of all, that's not true because the student learning outcomes have not been passed
in final form.
No one has signed them.
No one has even seen the final form yet.
And secondly, the legislature has the power to override the bureaucracy if they want to.
And that's where you get involved is at the legislative level.
You ignore the bureaucracy and focus on the elected people.
That's where you need to be involved.
So that's what parents did.
What did the board do?
The board continued to promote the regulations.
And we continue to ask, "Where do these come from?
How come all the goals in all the states are the same?"
We wound up looking at the federal level at what was called the New American Schools Development
Corporation.
New American Schools Development Corporation is part of America 2000.
And it's the funding mechanism for the break-the-mold schools that everybody talks about.
Now, the break-the-mold schools were supposed to be all these new ideas that everybody was
going to have in order to change and make education better.
And it was going to be novel and everyone would have a different idea.
And we started pulling the proposals out of the New American Schools Development Corporation.
There were 486 of them.
We didn't pull them all.
But all the ones we pulled were the same.
Same goals, same method, outcome-based education, same mechanism for working it.
Outcome-based education has some flaws to it.
When we asked the department, "Would you please give us your research base?"
They declined to do that.
They told us that this was the best instincts of educators right now and so we should just
trust them that this was going to make it better.
So we did our own research and we found that in 1987 Johns Hopkins University issued a
study saying outcome-based education doesn't work.
And we found it was real expensive.
Now when you think about that, it makes a lot of sense.
If I took any four people in my classroom, I'm the teacher, I only have four students,
and I teach the lesson and I test you, one of you will pass the test, three of you won't.
That means I've got to go back and re-teach the three who didn't pass the test.
What do I do with that one?
Well, that one can sit and wait.
That one can become a peer tutor and help teach one of the other three or I have to bring
in a second teacher to teach the child who passed the test the first time.
Who pays for that second teacher?
I teach the lesson one more time.
I give the test one more time to the three.
One more passes.
Now I've got one here, one here, two here.
Do I need two more teachers?
Do I have two peer tutors?
Do they sit and wait?
Peer tutoring, I have five children, I did not send them to school to be the teacher,
I sent them to school to be the student.
If they're teaching someone else something they already know, they're not learning something
new, are they?
They're stuck.
So outcome-based education takes the top off of achievement.
In Pittsburgh the other night we had a town meeting and it was more of a debate setting
and one of the presenters for those promoting the idea was a professor from the University
of Pittsburgh and he said the only people objecting to this are people who have good
students in their families.
That's a very telling statement because it brings the achievement down.
Now I thought gee, surely the people promoting this know that this isn't such a good idea.
What are they going to do with all of these kids that eventually I'm going to have 30
children in 30 different places, obviously I can't have 30 teachers in this classroom.
So there must be a plan.
When we started pulling the grants out of the New American Schools Development Corporation
we found out that there was indeed a plan.
It's called computer assisted instruction.
Each child is tied into a computer and the computer will serve up the learning nugget
that the child must master in order to show that they've met the goal and can keep on
going.
Well if you're tied into a computer, who programs the computer?
And how do we know that the computer is serving up the right learning nugget?
When we pulled one of the grants, it was called from the Center for New West Learning.
Here's the learner.
The learner, the query is the question, goes into the computer.
The computer accesses in order to come up with the individualized lesson plan, the computer
accesses biographical data and learning styles, student information module.
I didn't know what that was.
So I decided I should look because what is this computer accessing on my child to serve
up the learning nugget?
What is the learning style?
What is the biographical data?
Where did it go?
Where did it come from and who has access to it?
And what we found out was that in fact the state is compiling data banks at a micro record
level.
That means that it's available on an individual child.
And the state is not doing that by itself.
The data banks are being mandated by the federal government through something called the National
Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data.
This is the federal data bank.
There are ten handbooks.
This handbook is called Student Pupil Accounting.
It was first printed in the 1960s.
It was updated in the 1970s.
This is the 1976 edition, which is the current edition.
We have personal identification, names, student numbers, sex, racial and ethnic group, birth
and age date, minor adult status, family responsibility, citizenship, language considerations, veteran
benefits, family and residence, parents, male parent, female parent, sponsor, that's if someone
sponsored you to come into the country.
Sexual adult of domicile, perhaps you live with your aunt or your uncle or a grandparent
or a brother or sister instead of with your parents.
Brothers and sisters living in household, family economic information, family social
cultural information, residence data, physical health, sensory and related conditions, student
medical record number.
That's the access number to all of the student medical files, including if you've ever been
referred for a condition, all your physical exams.
Did you ever abuse drugs?
Mental, psychological and proficiency test results and related student characteristics.
The federal government defines a psychological test as a test of the student's personal adjustment
and their stand on controversial issues.
Referrals for schoolwork for emotional reasons, any kind of your mental and psychological characteristics,
your effective styles of learning.
All enrollments in any school, all school performance, post school performance, non school performance,
what you do that is not in school.
Transportation data, any special assistance, did you ever qualify for a state or a federal
education program?
Now this was one of ten handbooks.
There was one on staff accounting.
There's one on property accounting and what we found in the property accounting handbook
was that it included a little graph that shows, this is the graph, it shows how all the data
is linked.
The data on the child can be linked to the data on the teacher, can be linked to data
on the curriculum at an individual level so that everything can be tracked.
So I know that if Johnny from this kind of a background is in Mrs. Smith's class who
has that kind of a background with textbook B, this is how Johnny's going to do.
If I want to change Johnny's behavior, I can change his teacher, his textbook or affect
his, try to change something in his background.
All the data is linked.
This was the property accounting handbook.
Now when we first started looking at this, we asked the state and then the federal government
were these used?
And they said, oh no, no, these were never used.
This was just a proposal that we spent all this money printing and it was never used.
It was never part of anything.
One federal official told us this has nothing to do with nothing.
In the meantime, a parent in Pennsylvania had a child in a guidance program.
And the guidance program included an activity on decision making.
And the activity was a paper that the little girl who was in seventh grade had to fill
out and the paper was like a final exam and if she didn't do it, she didn't pass the course.
And the paper said, every family has some people who crave attention.
Who in your family is the loud mouth?
Every family has some people who are very competent.
Who in your family meets that characteristic?
Which would you rather be like?
Why?
The mom wasn't real happy with this particular curriculum thing and so she objected.
And she went to the school and she said, my daughter's not doing this.
She's opting out of this activity and your class.
And the school said, you can't do that because it's a mandated class.
It's mandated by the state.
And she said, oh really?
So she went to the state and she said, I'm opting out.
This is against my principles.
I don't agree with this.
I don't like this.
I'm opting my child out.
And the state said, you can't opt out.
It's mandated by the federal government through something called the Drug-Free Schools and
Communities Act.
Do you remember the drug-free schools?
We all thought that it was stopping drugs.
This is the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act.
These are the 1992 guidelines from the Pennsylvania Department of Education.
They're the same in every state.
The Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act mandates what programming had to be brought in by the
local school district in order to meet the state regulations which came from ultimately
the federal government.
It mandated that guidance services had to be provided.
It mandated that psychological services had to be provided, that decision-making had to
be provided, that self-esteem had to be provided.
These were all mandated services.
And when we look through the book, it gave us a whole list of what were called budget
accounting, little codes with little numbers talking about each of the services that had
to be provided.
So we went hunting for these numbers to see where did they come from.
We found them in the National Center for Education Statistics Staff Accounting Handbook.
It was published in 1974.
And they matched.
Here are some of the Pennsylvania guidelines from the 1992 book.
Budget number 2143, psychological counseling services.
Federal government book, 1974, number 2143, psychological counseling services.
Language is identical.
2144, psychotherapy services.
2144, psychotherapy services.
The only difference is that the 1992 edition has more numbers in it than the 1974 edition
because they've updated the data banks.
So are they using the 1970 National Center numbers?
Yeah, they are.
They are.
Are they tracking our children?
Yes, they are.
The tracking now is in something called the Express.
This is the Express.
It's called the Exchange of Permanent Records Electronically for Students and Schools.
This is the information that they compile on the children.
This says that any education agency, local, state, or national can access the data without
parental knowledge or consent or notification.
The data includes family unit number, all the people in your house, has your child ever
been involved with a social service agency, all medical records.
Includes all performance.
Includes if they've ever had a behavioral problem, a discipline problem, and gives the
receiving agency the name of a contact person and a phone number so they can call back to
get more information that is not included in the data bank without parental knowledge
or consent.
It says that if it goes to a non-school agency, there has to be knowledge and consent.
However, if it's going to an employer and the employer says, "If you don't sign this,
you don't get the job," how many people are going to withhold consent?
This is the 1992 Express.
Why?
Well, if we go back to the New West Learning Center, we go back to the learning styles
and the biographical data and then think about the goals.
Ethical judgment, adaptability to change, self-esteem, family living, understanding
others, proper environmental attitudes, citizenship, which remember the EQA, not factual knowledge.
Proper role for citizenship.
The computer needs to be able to access where your child came from so they know what your
child thinks, what your child believes, and how your child learns.
That's your learning style.
What's the best way to change the behavior?
What's the best way to attack the attitude and serves it back up to the child?
Do you see parents on this graph?
I don't either.
What is the difference between what we had before and what the new regulations are?
Before with the EQA, the state had control down to the district level and could control
curriculum planning, which was aimed at targeted subgroups of children.
But we had children who did not conform.
They said, "No, I won't."
Outcome-based education does not say the school will teach.
It says the student must demonstrate.
And through the computer, the control goes down to the individual child.
Your child will conform or they will not move forward.
They will meet the goal.
So where is it coming from?
Where is the driving force?
As we started tracing back, what we found was a report called the SCANs, Secretary's
Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills.
This is the 1992 edition.
This was not written by the Secretary of Education.
This was written by the Secretary of Labor.
And this, I first saw this report in something I got from the University of Pittsburgh when
they were implementing and teaching the implementation of the Pennsylvania regulations.
And so we went back to the federal government and got the original.
What we found is not being driven by education.
It's being driven by the big, big, big industries.
That's who's driving the changes.
When we read the SCANs, the SCANs talked all about what we need to have the proper worker
of tomorrow.
And the children were not referred to as children.
And they were referred to as human resource material, human capital.
Just like your building and your coal or whatever you would, whatever you're making, your capital.
And this is business telling education what business needs or wants in the worker of tomorrow.
This report says, well, you know, all these things we're talking about here, the necessary
skills.
This isn't pie in the sky.
We're doing this.
And then they gave us a list of the things that they were already doing.
One of the lists that they gave us included a contract called Work Links from Educational
Testing Service.
This is the resume.
This is an electronic computer resume.
Jane Smith is pretend.
There's her workplace competencies, her interpersonal skills.
She takes each test and she has to master the proficiency level, academic.
And here's her personal qualities.
And she's rated.
She's only got a good in honesty.
Jane Smith is 19.
She has not mastered the skills.
So Jane Smith is still in high school.
This is a high school resume.
When I first started debating this issue, I used to say to the press, well, see, this
is not the schools will teach.
This is the student must demonstrate.
So you know, even if it's a value we agree on, like honesty, should the state be able
to set a standard for honesty and test a child's honesty and then deny a child a job or a promotion
because they didn't meet the state's honesty standard?
It was a joke.
And two weeks ago, we found there really is an honesty scale.
We called the Department of Labor.
They said, we're not doing this.
They are.
It's being piloted in the state of Indiana.
They are doing this.
We got it from the University of Pittsburgh.
Again, it's an electronic resume.
And what it says in the scans is that it will go directly from the school district to the
employer.
Now, is a lot of this information probably included in your resume now?
Yeah, you have personal things from your resume now.
But now you have the right to say, I'm going to use you as a reference because you like
me.
But I'm not going to use you because you don't like me.
And so I'm not using you.
We had a bad experience or I was a real pain in your class or in your workshop.
And so I'm not going to use that person as a resume.
We have the right to help shape who sends us on our way.
Under this system, it goes directly from the school to the employer.
Now we don't know who rated, on what scale, what it's based on.
How come Jane only got a good in her honesty scale?
And how come she got an excellent on her self-esteem?
What happens in the classroom to the child?
What kinds of activities is my child going to be subjected to on a regular basis?
You hear a lot of talk about values clarification and there's a lot of controversy about it.
But people don't always understand what's wrong with it.
Those promoting it say, well, we're just trying to help our children to understand their values.
I want you to think of your mind as a computer.
You've all heard the lifeboat story, right?
There's 10 people in the lifeboat.
The lifeboat only holds nine.
Who are we going to throw out of the lifeboat?
And if I told you that story, all of your minds would start thinking, who am I going
to throw out of the lifeboat?
The first time I heard the lifeboat story, I was a grad student.
My degree is in special ed, so I'm a ringer.
And I said to the prof, well, we're not throwing anybody out of the lifeboat.
We'll throw a rope out of the back of the lifeboat and somebody swims for one hour shifts.
There's only ever nine people in the boat and everybody only swims three hours a day,
an hour at a time.
He said, there's sharks in the water.
I said, there's a shark back in the boat.
And the conversation ended, but I was a ringer because I knew that he had controlled the
universe.
He said, who are you going to throw out of your lifeboat?
So all of your minds, because that's how all of our minds work, there's the box and there's
where we go.
Who are you going to throw out of the lifeboat?
If I had said to you, come up with a solution to save everybody, you would have thrown a
rope out the back of the boat.
You would have turned the boat upside down in the water because it's more buoyant.
Put the baby on the top of the boat.
Everybody cling to the boat, no problem.
Everybody take off all their clothes because at this point, nudity is a little, not real
important when we're saving a life.
Throw out everything not necessary in the boat.
We bail for so many hours.
I've heard hundreds of suggestions.
If I had said to you, save everybody in the boat, but I didn't say that.
I said, who are you going to throw out of the lifeboat?
And so your mind went right over here.
Just like a salesman says, do you want it on your Visa or your MasterCard?
He gave you a choice, didn't he?
Is no one of the choices?
Never.
And everybody I know, including me, has bought at least one thing I didn't want because I
answered the question and was three minutes further in the conversation before I realized,
I really did want to say no.
But now I'm too embarrassed to go back and say no because I don't want them to think
that I'm a schmuck.
And we all do that.
It's the same technique that salesmen use all the time.
Would you like a red card or a blue card?
You want that in 10 days or 30 days.
You always get a choice, but I control the universe of choices.
That's how values clarification works.
If I control the universe of choices, I can mold someone's behavior.
And they always think that they thought it up by themselves because they didn't realize
that I controlled the box.
That's why values clarification is wrong because it makes the child think that they made up
their own mind when they really didn't because I gave them some very concrete guidelines
inside of which they had to make up their mind.
And it's a very valid way of changing a behavior.
This is called the Bettendorf Survey.
We found it in Iowa.
It was used this year.
Why is Iowa important?
Remember all the goals in all the states are the same.
And we have validated programs that are the same over the whole country.
This is the Bettendorf Survey.
It goes with understanding and appreciating others.
Are you male or female?
What year are you?
What are your
nationalities?
Which of the above are you most likely to assume does not speak fluent English?
Which of the above do you think is the most likely to have an income of over $50,000?
Which of the above do you think would be most likely to eliminate an entire race?
Who has most influenced the way you feel about other races?
With whose influence have you most strongly disagreed?
If you could eliminate an entire race, would you?
Which one?
The New American Schools Development Corporation, MET.
I told you there were 486 grants given to them.
On July 9th, they gave a list of the places that got the money.
And they gave out 11 grants.
Now, I've been telling you that the grants are the same.
And I've been telling you that this is talking about who owns the children and that, in this
case, business in the state think they do.
And we need to start saying we do.
What kind of programs got the money?
This is the CONECT School, a design for 21st century schools, Massachusetts.
It's for K through 12 inner city children.
The curriculum will be radically transformed.
Portfolios, products, and performance assessment techniques will focus not just on subject
matter but on their abilities, dispositions, and attitudes critical for life and work.
This one is in Minnesota.
It's called the Community Learning Centers of Minnesota.
School service agencies will offer needed services on site at the school, integrating
services with education.
Teachers will retain their school charter only so long as state learning goals are met.
Many times as I've traveled in and talked to people about what's happening in Pennsylvania
education and why parents need to get involved, I get told, "Well, you see, it doesn't matter
to me because my children don't go to the public school.
My children are in parochial school, they're in Christian school, they're in private school,
I home school."
Simultaneously with the new regulation changes, teacher certification is changing.
And in order to be certified, teachers will have to demonstrate that they are competent
in outcome-based education and that that's what the colleges will teach, that's what
the teachers will learn.
Non-public schools have to have certified teachers too.
Education is rolling over away from traditional accreditation into outcome accreditation.
Non-public schools get accredited because it does better for you if you're going to
college if you graduated from an accredited high school.
In outcome accreditation, in order to get it, you must give the accrediting board five
goals, three academic, two attitudinal, and you must demonstrate to them that you have
tracked the change in behavior or attitude in the individual student over time.
Doesn't matter whether you're public or non-public.
The assessment techniques in the new regulations are what's called portfolio assessment.
People think portfolio means a portfolio.
I have an art portfolio, I have a science portfolio, pieces of paper.
It is an electronic portfolio, much like the one we looked at in the work links.
Know that no matter where the child goes, whether you change schools or whether you
don't, the portfolio will follow you.
Please do not think that because your children are not in a public school that you are home
free.
You are not.
The state cannot afford to let a huge bunch of children slip through the cracks because
it will be obvious then who can read and who can't.
One of the things that happens with outcome-based education is when we talk about what happens
with all the kids, achievement goes down.
That doesn't show up because everybody gets an A. It may take you four years to get your
A, but you're going to get an A. In the testimony in front of the House Education Committee,
we asked through representatives, we asked Mr. Feer, "What are the state standards in
math and reading going to be?"
The student learning outcomes say you have to be able to use a calculator.
They don't say you have to be able to do it without one.
The communications learning outcomes don't say literate to an eighth grade level.
They don't say literate to any level.
So what are the standards?
And Mr. Feer said, "Well, every district will decide on their own."
Well that's absurd.
Philadelphia, which has some rather interesting reputations in education in the state, like
terrible, will say, "Well, if you can count to ten, you get a diploma because then we
won't have any dropouts."
That brings our statistic right up.
And Mount Lebanon in Pittsburgh, a very affluent, wealthy district, will say, "You have to be
able to do calculus."
We can't have that.
We can't have 501 different diplomas in the state of Pennsylvania.
That would be ludicrous.
So there have to be standards somewhere.
Where are they?
They won't tell us.
The state says this is all local control, local decisions.
But if you read the regulations, the regulations say that every district must develop a strategic
plan based on the state assessment, which is the EQA revisited, based on the state assessment
that they must use to drive their curriculum.
They also say that every district must include a local district assessment, a diagnostic
assessment to indicate how every child is doing in meeting each of the exit outcomes.
Now I want you to think about an assessment.
Assessment is not easy.
When you do an assessment, the test really means nothing.
It's just a piece of paper with a bunch of stuff written on it.
What's important is what do I want you to know?
What am I testing and how am I going to score it?
And does this piece of paper accurately measure the behavior I want you to show me?
Is it an accurate measurement?
In order to do that, I must first define the behavior and then I must validate the test
and then I must see if it's reliable.
Am I going to get the same numbers over different student populations over time?
That's expensive.
I have to do research to see what kind of instruments and how do I score it and how
do I set standards.
Our districts can't afford that.
So what do they do?
Oh, well, see the regulations say the state will give technical assistance to all the
districts to help them with their diagnostic assessments.
This year when we gave the state assessment system that everybody remember complained
about, one of the things that happened in there was that the state changed testing companies
away from the company that did the old TELS test into a company called Advanced Systems.
And one of the reasons that they changed to Advanced Systems was because Advanced Systems
is an expert in portfolio assessment.
Now, if every district is going to do their own, why does the state care?
Every district can't afford to do their own.
State is going to control it.
The state is going to set the criteria.
So the districts do this diagnostic assessment that the state is really going to do for them.
Then the districts have to justify all their courses against the exit outcomes that the
state mandates.
They have to move away from those.
That's the latter.
Everything is aimed at those exit outcomes, those goals that we talked about in behavior
and attitudes and skills.
Everything is aimed there.
And everything the district does, teacher preparation, coursework, any money that they
spend, what they put in their library, has to be aimed at making sure that every kid
hits those exit outcomes.
The district puts together a team to develop that plan.
Then the school board looks at it.
If there's a discrepancy between the two plans, if the school board doesn't like what the
team said, they have to try to form a consensus.
But both plans, the approved one and the "minority report," which is the unapproved one, go to
the state.
And the commissioner appoints a three-person committee who will recommend which one is
approved.
And if the commissioner says that the district's plan does not meet the state standards, the
state sends it back and says, "Do it over."
And you keep doing it over until you meet the state standards that they won't tell parents
anything about.
Now, in the back of the regulations is a section called curriculum deficiency.
Any time a district does not do well enough in having the children meet the exit outcomes,
the state can come in and force the district to implement what's called a corrective action
plan.
And if after a year it's not good enough, the state can take over.
On top of that, we have Senate Bill 1268 that talks about the academic bankruptcy bill,
under what conditions the state can take over the local district up to and including becoming
the local taxing entity.
There are a list of six.
Any two will do.
One of the criteria says, if a district is below the state average, think about that
sentence.
Average means the middle.
That means by definition, half the districts in the state are automatically below the average.
They've met the criterion before you start because that's what the word average means.
The middle.
One of the other criteria is if they can't pay their bills.
Outcome based education is phenomenally expensive.
The state keeps saying there will be no extra money.
That's because they haven't appropriated any at the state level.
The districts now are starting to do their plans.
We've heard $435,000 the first year, $750,000 the first year.
Six districts in the south side of the Philadelphia area got together and did a five-year plan,
$16 million.
And that did not include student implementation.
Outcome based education is phenomenally expensive.
It will put the districts into bankruptcy.
State can take over.
The goal is not local control.
The goal is state control.
Did the state know that?
Yes, they did.
When the state board put together these regulations, they held a series of forums, educational
seminars where they brought in national experts to talk to them about what this would do.
One of the experts was E.D.
Hirsch from the Cultural Literacy Foundation.
He said, "Putting together a common core set of learning goals will have two problems.
One of them is it will decrease academic knowledge and the second is it will go against
the grain of local control."
The state board did it anyway.
But now they keep telling people, "Well, you've got all this local control, see, because you
can write your plan however you want."
Let's pretend that I come to your backyard and I park a Cessna airplane in your backyard.
And I say to you, "Okay, you can write whatever plan you want as long as when you're finished
you have a Cessna airplane.
And when you're all done, will your plan look like my plan?"
Yeah, or you won't have a Cessna airplane, will you?
No.
So what the state is saying is, "Here's the exit outcomes, here's the Cessna airplane,
you can write whatever plan you want as long as it looks like this when you're done."
There's really only one plan.
There's really only one set of standards.
There's really only one set of goals.
And all the districts are going to look the same or the state has this very big hammer
called academic bankruptcy that can take whatever's left of local control away from the parents.
Remember the drug-free schools, you know, the districts heard that the state did it, but
it really came from the federal level.
And so we have to work through the state up to the federal level because this is really
a push from the federal level down through the states.
When this parent filed her complaint and we wound up finding out that here was the mandate
and the mandate came from the federal level, she complained, she filed a complaint at the
federal level against the curriculum in her local school district.
And what the federal government said was, "We'll see, the federal protection doesn't apply
because there's no federal money at the local district level."
The federal government came to the state and said, "Do you want our money in your block
grant?"
And the state of course said, "Yes."
And the federal government said, "Okay, here's the mandate."
Federal money stopped there.
State took the mandate.
State turned around to school district and said, "Do you want our money in your school
district?"
"Yes."
"Here's the mandate."
The federal money stopped at the state level and so did the protection of federal law.
But the federal mandates are jumping that line.
And so what we have affecting local district policy in many areas is really a federal mandate
and not a state mandate.
It's a civil rights issue.
I had a reporter say to me, "Well, you're just mad because you don't want Marla Thomas
talking to your kids."
And I said, "You know, this system gives whoever is in control of the state the opportunity
to mold the character of the children to their values, whether it's Mother Teresa or Adolf
Hitler is immaterial.
Neither Mother Teresa nor Adolf Hitler should have the right to mold every child in the
state to their particular value system.
That's the role of the families in the state.
Doesn't matter whether you're liberal or conservative.
It's a civil rights issue.
You're right.
Behavior modification is not liberal or conservative.
It changes children to the state-desired response.
And whoever controls the state controls the response.
And one of the ways you do that is to start contacting school board members to allow school
board members to educate them on what's wrong, give them the gamble grams, and encourage
them to stand up as a district and tell the state, "No."
We have districts that are actually considering suing the state.
So if we could get more districts on that, it wouldn't cost any one district a phenomenal
amount of money, and it would help back the state off.
That's a good thing to do.
Working with school board members is an important thing to do.
And standing up for your rights in your own classroom with your own children is also an
important thing to do.
If you lower the standards, the academic standards, then it's easier to get a higher graduate level
so your statistics get better.
And the plans say that you bring all the social service agencies into the school so you have
a lot more control of the children and that pushes more and more of the families away.
One of the things that Boyertown says and that is shown up in all the plans is how they're
going to remediate.
And the way that they're going to remediate is that the children who don't meet the goals
will be the children who are declared special ed.
The special ed regulations are moving away from children who have a specific disability
to children who do not meet the goals.
The Boyertown plan, which is the prototype, says there's going to be an IEP, that's the
special ed plan, for all students.
In the new regulations, all students will achieve all student learning outcomes to the
state standard.
So if you have a child who's very good in science but terrible in art, they're going
to have to be remediated in art.
Where do you get the time?
From science.
So that all the individual differences for kids are eliminated because they all have
to meet all the outcomes at all the level.
So right now we have a bell curve.
We have below average, average, and then above average.
Well, this levels it so everybody's average.
So you take time away from things the child is good at to remediate them and things that
they're not so good at.
One of the things that I keep hearing from the advocates of this is that, well, see,
we have to do this because all the families are doing a terrible job.
And people said, well, how do you argue with that?
I mean, there are two ways to argue it.
First of all, we've got lots of schools that are rotten.
So let's let them clean up their house before they move into my house.
And secondly, schools can't become families.
Schools have a very valid place in the life of a child to teach basic academic skills.
It's something that children need, that is important that schools have to do.
When schools leave that base and try to become a family, for a child at risk, they lose twice
because they didn't have a family.
Now they don't have a school either.
My child loses once because he has a family, but he didn't get a school.
One of the things they say to us is, well, see, we have kids who come to school without
breakfast and kids who are from disruptive families and all this kind of stuff.
And that's true.
But in the Depression, we had kids who came to school without breakfast and without shoes
and were from disrupted families.
And the children who grew up in World War II had all their daddies go to war and lived
in single-parent house where mommy was Rosie Riveter.
And they were latchkey children and they lived in disrupted families.
But the schools said our mission, our goal is to teach academics so that these children,
if they live in poverty, have the tools they need to escape poverty, to get out, to learn
other ways of life.
That's our goal, is to teach those academic skills.
Our kids lose twice now because they're not getting academics and no school can be a family.
The whole issue here is who owns the children.
The more time you spend with the kids, the more control you have over the kids.
It's about control.
That's really what, when you boil it all down, that's what we come down to, is who controls
the children of the next generation.
[ Silence ]
[ Silence ]
[ Silence ]
[ Silence ]
[ Silence ]
[ Silence ]
[ Silence ]
[ Silence ]
[ Silence ]
[ Silence ]
[ Silence ]
[ Silence ]
[ Silence ]
[ Silence ]
[ Silence ]
[ Silence ]
[ Silence ]
Good evening, everyone.
I'm Mark Lagrow.
And on behalf of Liberty Chalk Board, I'd like to welcome you tonight.
What is Liberty Chalk Board?
Who are they and what do they do?
Liberty Chalk Board is a bunch of concerned citizens.
They be concerned as an understatement.
They are thoroughly disenchanted with the education that their children and their grandchildren are receiving.
Or, as the case may be, not receiving.
Liberty Chalk Board's membership consists of former school committee members and elected town officials, scientists, and just regular people who hold that sentiment.
I would like to ask the people from Liberty Chalk Board to please stand up as I call your name.
And stay standing for a moment, please.
We have Agatha Podwell, Dorothy Codemont, Amy Frank, Phyllis Sprout, Pam Vidal.
And don't just get up and sit down. Stand up, please, and stay.
Linda Zern and Marianna Lagrow.
[ Applause ]
Liberty Chalk Board concentrated on Common Core since it reared its ugly head a couple of years ago.
Prior to that, they were interested in civics and in history education, American history education.
And so they produce a variety of pamphlets and other materials.
And you'll find some of those on the rear table back there.
Feel free to help yourself if you haven't already on the way out.
They perform other, or have other activities as well, because they believe in just regular community and community service.
So you'll find the first Friday of every month, we have a free Falmouth movie night.
Sometimes the movies are documentary and educational.
Sometimes they're just fun.
And sometimes we have live performances or other forums like this one.
It turns out on Friday, February 6th, I believe it is, the first Friday of February,
we're going to have a live performance, a musical history of Louisiana and Mardi Gras by Cajun Bob.
So, Falmouth Public Library.
And if you have given your email address at the back table and would like to receive information about that,
we'll send it to you. It's always a good time. A nice bunch of people are here.
So what is the common core? And what are your children learning in school?
Or what are they not learning in school?
Well, you know, I was going to prepare for this a little bit better, and I went to the web,
because I know there are innumerable examples of the goofy math, the tilted history,
and the vacant science that passes for common core.
But it's too preposterous. You wouldn't even believe half of the things that I showed you or told you.
Peg is going to talk about a number of them tonight, I'm sure.
Dr. Peg Luxic is a Pennsylvania teacher with a 35 years of experience at every level, from K through 12 on up.
Preschool, college, she's trained teachers in curriculum and classroom management.
This is only a partial list. I don't want to keep going on.
She's written and evaluated curriculum, authorized several books on education issues,
hosted a nationally syndicated television program on education, served as an advisor to President Reagan's commission on the family,
worked for the U.S. Department of Education, don't hold that against her,
worked for the U.S. Department of Education reviewing education reform initiatives, and it goes on.
Tonight she's going to talk to us about outcome-based education and the common core.
There are not too many people in the country who know as much, who can speak as well to this topic.
So she'll tell you what your children are and are not learning, and maybe even why,
and I'd like to ask you for a nice round of applause for Dr. Peg Luxic.
Good evening. Thank you all for coming tonight.
I live in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, where it's even colder there than it is here, and we have worse snow.
So you should feel lucky because you're practically having a heat wave.
It was negative 22 when I left this morning.
So you guys are calling. Let me begin with the commercial portion of the program because I always forget.
When I've done these presentations, people always say, "You just fed me through a fire hose."
I understand it why you said it, but I know I won't remember it.
Today you have copies. So there are CD copies. They'll be in the back.
There are four different ones. The one is called invalid and unreliable.
The people who do all the testing, like the park test, always talk about how the tests are valid and reliable.
Those words actually mean something.
So I took the definition of valid and reliable and then compared it to the standardized test,
and the standardized