OPTING-OUT of Smarter Balanced Assessments to Protect your "TEACHERS"

Under NH law each district must adopt a "teacher performance evaluation system."  This was a federal requirement that Rep. Rick Ladd put into legislation in order for the NH Department of Education to obtain its 2013 Waiver to No Child Left Behind, which lasts for two years.  [Who knows what will be required when this Waiver expires.]

Rep. Ladd's legislation, 2013 HB 142 was passed, puting the following language to state law:

School boards shall adopt a teacher performance evaluation system, with the involvement of teachers and principals, for use in the school district. A school board may consider any resources it deems reasonable and appropriate, including any resources that may be provided by the state department of education. In this paragraph, “teacher” shall have the same meaning as in RSA 189:14-a, V.

Looking up the meaning of the work "teacher" in RSA 189:14-a, V:

V. "Teacher'' means any professional employee of any school district whose position requires certification as a professional engaged in teaching. The term "teacher'' shall also include principals, assistant principals, librarians, and guidance counselors.

The federal government wants to tie annual  "teacher" evaluations to student performance on Common Core aligned Smarter Balanced Assessments for Math and English Language Arts.  Will  your "teachers" be considered "effective" if student performance isn't high enough?  Will they  be transferred to another school or fired?

Can anyone tell me why librarians should also be evaluated based upon student scores on these flawed assessments?  Or for that matter, why are history or science teachers being evaluated based upon student scores on these flawed assessments?

When in doubt, parents need to OPT-OUT their children from Smarter Balanced Assessments to protect their "teachers".... which includes all teachers, librarians, guidance counselors, and principals.

Smarter Balanced Assessments: Using Over-the-Ear Headphones can Transmit Lice between Students

Smarter Balanced Assessments are being field tested on students across the country this month.  Many schools will be administering the assessments in an online testing environment.   Each student will use a computer and headphones.

Has anyone considered whether or not it is hygienic to share headphones in schools where head lice is prevalent?

According to city health officials, the Manchester school district typically averages 50 cases of head lice a month. Those numbers are news to parents, thanks to a policy that opts out of informing anyone but those close to the affected student. 

Union Leader, "Manchester parents scratch heads over school lice policy," January 26, 2014

The problem is that over-the-ear headphones could pass along lice. 

The foam covering the headphones could harbor lice. Every minute your child wears the shared headphones would increase his risk of being infected if an infected student previously used those same headphones.

For health reasons parents should refuse to allow their children to wear shared headphones.

Students should bring their own headphones or refuse to be tested.  Parents can opt out their children from Smarter Balanced Assessments, particularly this year (and next) when it's still in the research stage. No individual scores will be returned to students from this year's field testing.

 

Many schools will begin the Smarter Balanced Assessment exams very soon. They are on the computer and students must use a headset to hear the questions. These headsets could pose a greater exposure to head lice.

Does your child's school have enough headsets for each student, or do they store the headsets in plastic baggies after they have been used? With students required to share the equipment, what is the school doing to reduce this risk?

If you're not satisfied with the school's answer, OPT OUT your child from the assessment.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2606080/

Smarter Balanced Assessments are OPTIONAL: Parents May OPT-OUT their Children

No individual student scores will be derived from the the 2014 Smarter Balanced Assessment field tests that are being admininstered in many schools across New Hampshire.  Parents may opt-out their children from these assessments. 

The assessment results are only useful to the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium for purposes of testing the validity of questions, determining the readiness of our technology, familiarizing students and educators with computer adaptive testing, and providing guidance for the setting of “cut scores” and performance levels.  Students are being asked to participate in research. 

By taking the assessments, students are unpaid participants in research for the profit of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortia.  Students will obtain no individual results.  Students will miss valuable instruction time.  Students will not be paid for their efforts.

The field tests also raise issues of data privacy for parents since all the assessment data will be handed over to the Consortia in real-time and shortly thereafter to the US Department of Education.

Parents of students in these schools should be notified and informed that the Smarter Balanced Assessments are not validated.  School districts should seek informed written consent when their minor children are being asked to participate in research.

Alton School District voted against allowing their students to participate in this research.  Nashua School District decided to send letters to parents, informing them that these assessments are optional.

Smarter Balanced field tests slated for spring; specific dates yet to be determined

Nashua Telegraph, Feb. 4, 2014

In Nashua student and parents have the chance to opt-out [of Smarter Balanced Assessments]. Board of Education member Dottie Oden sought specific wording in a letter to parents to make it clear student participation “is optional for students.” 

Since the district has yet to implement Common Core, Oden said it would be “wrong to subject our students to a test that they have not been fully prepared for.”

Please think twice before allowing your child to participate in research where private information can be disclosed without parental consent.

Keep in mind that the Smarter Balanced Assessments will not be validated by 2015 when ALL students are going to be asked to take them.  NH state law requires that all statewide assessments are "valid," "appropriate," and "objectively scored" in accordance to RSA 193-C.  The Smarter Balanced Assessments fail to meet any of these criteria.

Opt-Out of Common Core Aligned Smarter Balanced Assessments Due to "Massive Violation of Ethical Standards"

Psychology clinic urges all parents to Opt Out their children from Common Core testing. Their warning applies to parents in any state which administers Common Core testing, not just Utah, which administers the Smarter Balanced Assessments without Informed Consent.

 

Early Life Child Psychological & Educational Services in Utah:
Until provided peer reviewed evidence otherwise, this State's only free standing Educational Psychology clinic position on SAGE/AIR/Common Core Testing is this:

"We do not support the implementation of a "test" that does not remotely conform to the testing ethics of the APA (American Psychological Association) in terms of design, pilot testing and implementation policy and practices." (See APA Ethics Code 9.02. & 9.03 below, or at http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx?item=12).

"The history in our field has long since recognized the extensive, and sometimes permanent harm caused by playing "fast and loose" with assessment ethics and practices. Fancy rhetoric and propaganda voiced by Utah political and education leaders does not, and cannot, replace the need for ethical practices in the powerful field of assessment."

"Utah education leaders have chosen to ignore the "sacred" tenant in our field of "Informed Consent". Common Core testing practices are neither "informed" per the dictates and requirements of science, nor do they possess the elements of "Consent" to parents as dictated by law and ethics we as private practitioners are sworn to uphold by law."

"The conscious and deliberate choice by USOE and the Utah State Board of Education to eliminate Informed Consent from the testing process has resulted in forcing and manipulating 650,000 public school to participate in psychological experimentation for the economic benefit of their respective political and economic interests. Recent comments and publications by USOE Associate Superintendent Judy Park regarding the issues of opting out of this test are not backed up with evidence, and is a irresponsible and manipulative misuse of power and public trust." (e.g., see "Judy Park Introduces Common Core & Sage Tests To Wasatch School District http://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/judy-park-introduces-common-core-sage-tests-to-wasatch-school-district/).

"Given these, and many other principles not cited in this statement, it is our official position, at this time, to encourage all parents of Utah public school children to "opt out" of Common Core testing until State education leaders have learned, and committed to the practices of Informed Consent and other practices of assessment ethics as outlined by the APA. ".

"We understand the value and need of measuring achievement in public school children. We take no political or public policy stances regarding the administration of high stakes testing to Utah children, whereas such is the privy of politicians and education leaders. However, as local clinical community scientists, HOW these tests are ultimately administered is of primary importance to us, and a area of specific expertise for child psychologists. The harm for children involved in this massive violation of ethical standards are very real for children in the State of Utah, and we are treating the ill effects of such in our clinic. We admonish state leaders to immediately adjusts their practices, or face accountability for the abuse and neglect of school aged children and teens throughout the State of Utah".

American Psychological Association Code:


9.02 Use of Assessments


(a) Psychologists administer, adapt, score, interpret or use assessment techniques, interviews, tests or instruments in a manner and for purposes that are appropriate in light of the research on or evidence of the usefulness and proper application of the techniques.
(b) Psychologists use assessment instruments whose validity and reliability have been established for use with members of the population tested. When such validity or reliability has not been established, psychologists describe the strengths and limitations of test results and interpretation.
(c) Psychologists use assessment methods that are appropriate to an individual's language preference and competence, unless the use of an alternative language is relevant to the assessment issues.


9.03 Informed Consent in Assessments


(a) Psychologists obtain informed consent for assessments, evaluations or diagnostic services, as described in Standard 3.10, Informed Consent, except when (1) testing is mandated by law or governmental regulations; (2) informed consent is implied because testing is conducted as a routine educational, institutional or organizational activity (e.g., when participants voluntarily agree to assessment when applying for a job); or (3) one purpose of the testing is to evaluate decisional capacity. Informed consent includes an explanation of the nature and purpose of the assessment, fees, involvement of third parties and limits of confidentiality and sufficient opportunity for the client/patient to ask questions and receive answers.
(b) Psychologists inform persons with questionable capacity to consent or for whom testing is mandated by law or governmental regulations about the nature and purpose of the proposed assessment services, using language that is reasonably understandable to the person being assessed.

Smarter Balanced Assessments are DESIGNED to "Affect" Student's Values, Attitudes and Interests

 

Bloom's Taxonomy has a major role in the Common Core Standards.

 

In fact, Bloom's Taxonomy was used in the development of the Smarter Balanced Assessments.

On page 12 of Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortia's document on "Mathematics Content Specifications, Item Specifications, and Depth of Knowledge Training Module," notice that their "Cognitive Rigor Matrix" is based upon Bloom's (revised) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.

So what is Bloom's Taxonomy and how does it affect our students?

Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives measure knowledge, skills, and affective goals, or dispositions, which are designed to affect a student's values, attitudes and interests.

Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives

"There are three taxonomies. Which of the three to use for a given measurable student outcome depends upon the original goal to which the measurable student outcome is connected. There are knowledge-based goals, skills-based goals, and affective goals (affective: values, attitudes, and interests); accordingly, there is a taxonomy for each. Within each taxonomy, levels of expertise are listed in order of increasing complexity. Measurable student outcomes that require the higher levels of expertise will require more sophisticated classroom assessment techniques."

Why change our student's values, attitudes and interests?
 
“The ‘Skinner-Box’ School” by Jed Brown, published in the March 1994 issue of
 

According to Observational Learning, people model the behavior of those within their “reference groups.” Under normal conditions, the child’s primary reference group is the family. Nevertheless, children are being conditioned with Classical methods to shift allegiance to their new school family, their new reference group. Once the new group is established, schools use surveys to gauge attitudes and then orchestrate the conditioning process through Observational Learning. Relying almost exclusively on cooperative learning (group learning), OBE reforms unfortunately use Observational Learning to establish and enforce the proper behaviors and attitudes through peer pressure and a forced “group think” process.

The idea that our schools are not dealing in attitudes and values is ludicrous. The psychologists have ripped the schools from parents and teachers alike. Their only objective is to create children who may look different, but behave the same, think the same, and believe the same. They shall create in each child the “perfect child.” Like John B. Watson, they shall create children as they see fit. They shall do it with conditioning, not teaching. Is it any wonder that our schools are failing to educate children when we use rats as the example of exemplary learning? Welcome to the “Brave New World.” Welcome to the “SKINNER BOX SCHOOL.”(pg. A-125)

 

OBE or Outcome-Based Education has been renamed.  It's now called Competency-Based Education and is used in all New Hampshire public schools under the newly approved Education rules, Ed 306, Minimum Standards for Public School Approval. 

The NH Commissioner of Education Needs to Step Down

New Hampshire parents are concerned about their public schools. 

In 2010 the NH Board of Education “adopted” Common Core State Standards.  They did not “endorse” them as the Commissioner now claims.  The Commissioner should know better as she was in attendance when Common Core was adopted.  Two sixty page “final” documents were released on June 2nd of 2010 and the Board quickly held a public hearing on the Common Core English Language Arts State Standards later that same week on June 9th. The public did not weigh in on these standards because the public was not informed and had no time to become informed.

Next the Board scheduled a “special” meeting on July 8th to complete the adoption process to meet the  deadline for the federal Race to the Top grant application. Again the public was not informed and did not participate in this public hearing on the Common Core Math standards.

The former Chairman of the Board John Lyons expressed serious concerns about the centralization that would occur under Common Core State Standards, which he said were being “shoved down our throats” and represented a serious loss of control.  He worried about governance going forward, including what opt-out provisions were available.  Who will be making amendments to these Standards going forward or would they also be forced upon New Hampshire schools?  His concerns were justified given that there was no process by which to amend these copyrighted standards.

The Board should have objected to the entire process, which undermined the ability of the public to participate and usurped local control.  Instead, the Board engaged in a very superficial discussion of the standards without public input and adopted them.  It was the end of a school year.  Teachers were wrapping up their school year.  Families were planning their vacations.

John Lyons objected to the process being used in adopting Common Core State Standards. These standards, he said, will create a blockage to change and innovation once we buy into this process.  Common Core  takes away power from the state of NH and our ability to innovate even though New Hampshire is on the forefront of innovation. We would be lost in the shuffle of a large consortium of states where parents would become irrelevant and lose control. 

Common Core was adopted in an under-the-radar manner.  Its implementation occurred in a similar manner, without the knowledge or consent of the legislature, our school boards, or the public. Parents only now are beginning to wake up and realize what an overreach this decision to adopt Common Core actually was.

There has been little transparency with abridged minutes of these Board meetings.  Only the video recordings are accurate.  While recordings are made of each meeting, none of these have been posted on the Department website for nearly two years now.  This is unacceptable given the magnitude of the changes that are occurring within our schools.

Parents are finally realizing that there is a problem.  Yet the Chairman of this Board now claims "the train has left the station."   Without our knowledge or consent, Common Core has arrived.

Parents asked the legislature to study the actions of the Department of Education because we do not understand how Common Core is already in our classrooms without our knowledge or consent. The Department opposed any study their actions. Who needs transparency in a top-down centralized education system?

Commissioner of Education actually testified that the public is "misinformed."  That's no surprise given the lack of transparency.  Turns out the Commissioner created her own Extended Cabinet with five Regional Liaisons to meet monthly within each district, with our superintendents, principals and curriculum specialists without the knowledge or consent of parents, taxpayers or our school board members. These Regional Liaisons instructed our districts on best practices in the implementation of Common Core without our knowledge or consent.  There are no minutes of these meetings for the public to review or inspect.

Our children are now being confronted with Smarter Balanced assessments administered in their classrooms.  There were no public hearings on the adoption of the Smarter Balanced Assessments.  My district is in an uproar against these assessments.  There are teachers, school board members and union leaders all acknowledging that these assessments are not "appropriate" for our children.

Enough is enough. The Commissioner of Education needs to step down. The public may be "misinformed," but whose fault is that?  Who failed in the process of adopting the standards?  Who failed to inform the public?  Who failed to provide transparency?  Who's unwilling to allow for public scrutiny of the actions of her Department? 

Why was there a Division of Instruction without statutory authority?  Who authorized an Extended Cabinet of Regional Liaisons?  Why is the Department using an assessment that is not "valid," "appropriate," or "objectively scored" are required by state law, RSA 193-C?  How are the dispositional questions going to be removed from these assessments? 

Teachers in Nashua School District complained that these assessments are:

  • Shockingly negative experience;
  • Totally grade level inappropriate;
  • Seems the test was designed more as a psychological or sociological experiment, not as a measure of academic learning;
  • This would be a crushing emotional experience for my students;
  • It is nothing less than child abuse for my special ed students in my classroom; and
  • I refuse to administer this test to my students.

Parents need a new Commissioner, not a lobbyist for federal reforms. They need a Commissioner that encourages transparency in her Department; one that is able to lead, yet understands what it means to serve the people.

Parental Rights: God-given and Unalienable? Or Government-granted and Revocable?


Parental Rights: God-given and Unalienable? Or Government-granted and Revocable?

July 23, 2013   ·   By Publius Huldah   ·  

Our Declaration of Independence says:


“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.– That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…” (2nd para) [emphasis mine]


So!  Rights come from God; they are unalienable; the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us; and when government takes away our God given rights, it’s time to “throw off such Government”.  

That is our Founding Principle.

Let us now compare our Founding Principle with the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  It enumerates 30 some “rights”, among which are:


Article 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 21 … 3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections …

Article 29 … 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” [all boldface mine]


So! Rights are enumerated; they come from man [constitutions or laws]; governments may do whatever a majority of people want them to do [instead of securing rights God gave us]; and rights may be limited by law & are subject to the will of the United Nations [not God].

Now, let’s look at the Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) from the website of parentalrights.org  and compare it with the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights:  1



“SECTION 1

The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.

SECTION 2

The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one’s child.

SECTION 3

Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

SECTION 4

This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.  [all boldface mine]

SECTION 5
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.”

 



So!  Under the PRA, parental rights come from the Constitution – not God.  They are only “fundamental” rights, not unalienable rights.  They are enumerated rights, the extent of which will be decided by federal judges. 2 And these “fundamental” rights may be infringed by law when the government has a good reason for infringing them.

And even though parentalrights.org uses the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child to terrorize parents into supporting the PRA; 3 the PRA itself  is the repudiation of our Founding Principles that Rights come from God and are unalienable, and that the sole purpose of civil government is to secure the rights GOD gave us; and adoption of the U.N. theory that rights come from the State, will be determined by the State, and are revocable at the will of the State.

 
Let’s turn to Michael Farris’ paper posted July 9, 2013 in Freedom Outpost.  His paper followed my initial paper where I addressed, Section by Section, the PRA of which Farris is principal author.  He is also Executive Director of parentalrights.org


1. Mr. Farris’ rationale for the PRA: Scalia’s Dissent in Troxel v. Granville (2000)
 


Farris cites Scalia’s dissent to support his own perverse theory that unless a right is enumerated in the federal Constitution, judges can’t enforce it, and the right can’t be protected.

But Farris ignores the majority’s holding in Troxel, and misstates the gist of Scalia’s dissent.  I’ll show you.

This case originated in the State of Washington, and involved a State Statute (§26.10.160(3)) addressing visitation rights by persons who were not parents.  Two grandparents filed an action under this State Statute wanting increased visitation of their grandchildren.  The mother (Granville) was willing to permit some visitation, but not as much as the grandparents wanted.

This State family law case got to the U.S. supreme Court on the ground that the “due process clause” of the 14th Amendment was at stake.

And what did the supreme Court say in Troxel v. Granville ?


“…In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children…”

“…We therefore hold that the application of §26.10.160(3) to Granville and her family violated her due process right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her daughters.”  [all boldface mine]


Do you see?  The supreme Court has already “discovered”, in Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, a parental right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of children.

Now! In order to understand Scalia’s dissent, one must first learn:

  • That the powers of the federal courts are enumerated and strictly defined; and
     
  • The original intent of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, and how the supreme Court perverted it.

These are explained in detail here: Judicial Abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment: Abortion, Sexual Orientation, & Gay Marriage.   In a nutshell, the linked paper shows that federal courts may lawfully hear only cases falling within the categories enumerated at Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution.  One of these categories is cases:

“…arising under this Constitution…”

In Federalist Paper No. 80 (2nd para), Alexander Hamilton says that before a case can properly be said to “arise under the Constitution”, it must:


“…concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union…” [emphasis added]


So! Does our federal Constitution “expressly contain” provisions about abortion?  Homosexual sex?  Homosexual marriage?  Parental rights?  No, it does not.

Since these matters are not delegated to the federal government, they are reserved to the States and The People (10th Amendment). The federal government has no lawful authority over these issues.

Well, then, how did the supreme Court overturn State Statutes criminalizing abortion and   homosexual sex, and State Statutes addressing parental rights?

They used the “due process” clause of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment to usurp power over these issues.  Section 1 says:


“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [boldface mine]


Professor Raoul Berger proves in his book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and protect them from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship.

Professor Berger also shows (Ch. 11) that “due process” is a term with a “precise technical import” going back to the Magna Charta.  It means that a person’s life, liberty or property can’t be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial!

Professor Berger stresses that “due process of law” refers only to trials - to judicial proceedings in courts of justice.  It does not involve judicial power to override State Statutes!

Justice Scalia understands this.

And now, you can understand Scalia’s dissent.  What he actually says is:

  • Parental rights are “unalienable” and come from God (Declaration of Independence). They are among the retained rights of the people (9th Amendment).   [Parental rights don’t come from the 14th Amendment!]
  • The Declaration of Independence does not delegate powers to federal courts.  It is the federal Constitution which delegates powers to federal courts.
  • It is for State Legislators and candidates for that office to argue that the State has no power to interfere with parents’ God-given authority over the rearing of their children, and to act accordingly. [The People need to elect State Legislators who understand that the State may not properly infringe God given parental rights.]
  • The federal Constitution does not authorize judges to come up with their own lists of what “rights” people have 4 and use their lists to overturn State statutes.  [That is what the supreme Court did when they fabricated “liberty rights” to abortion and homosexual sex, and overturned State Statutes criminalizing these acts.]
  • The federal Constitution does not mention “parental rights” – such cases do not “arise under the Constitution”.   So federal courts have no “judicial power” over such cases.


In his closing, Scalia warns against turning family law over to the federal government:



“…If we embrace this unenumerated right … we will be ushering in a new regime of judicially prescribed, and federally prescribed, family law. I have no reason to believe that federal judges will be better at this than state legislatures; and state legislatures have the great advantages of doing harm in a more circumscribed area, of being able to correct their mistakes in a flash, and of being removable by the people.”  [emphasis mine]


Do you see?  “Parental rights” is a state matter; and parents need to replace bad State legislators.

But the PRA delegates power over “parental rights” to the federal government and makes it an enumerated power.

So!  When Farris says:


“4. The Parental Rights Amendment does not give the Judiciary legislative power but constrains the judiciary’s exercise of its existing power.”


His words are false.  The PRA transforms what is now a usurped power over parental rights seized by the supreme Court by perverting Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment [the majority opinion in Troxel illustrates this],  to an enumerated power of the federal government.


2. The PRA expressly delegates to the federal and State governments power to infringe God-given parental rights!


Mr. Farris asserts that the PRA gives no power to Congress over children because he – the principal author of the PRA – purposefully left out the language which appears in other amendments that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”.

So!  What did Farris put in his PRA?  Look at his SECTION 3:

“Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.” [emphasis mine]

The wording assumes the federal and State governments will be making laws “infringing” parental rights!  And because of the PRA, such laws will be constitutional! 5

The only issue will be whether such acts of Congress [the Legislative Branch of the federal government] “serve the government’s interest”.  And who will decide?  The federal courts [the Judicial Branch of the federal government] will decide.

The same goes for State Statutes and State courts.

Furthermore, Acts of Congress or State Statutes need only recite the boilerplate language that the law “serves the government’s interest, etc.”, and it will go to the courts clothed with a presumption of correctness.



3. The PRA is not “just like” the Second Amendment
 


Mr. Farris says the PRA is


“… just like the Second Amendment in this regard. The Second Amendment gives no level of government the power to regulate guns. (Any such power comes from some other provision of the Constitution [state or federal]). And the Second Amendment is a limitation on the exercise of such powers.”


Rubbish!

WE THE PEOPLE did not delegate to the federal government power to restrict our arms.

The 2nd Amendment shows that WE THE PEOPLE really meant it when we declined to give the federal government enumerated power to restrict our arms.

So!  As shown here, all federal laws and rules of the BATF pertaining to background checks, dealer licensing, banning sawed off shotguns, etc., are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government, and as in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

The PRA is not “just like” the 2nd Amendment because the PRA is an express delegation of power over children and parental rights to the federal and State governments!



4. Pen Names


Publius is the pen name used by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay when, during 1787 and 1788, they wrote The Federalist Papers to explain the proposed Constitution and induce The People to ratify it.

Huldah is the prophet at 2 Kings 22.  The Book of the Law had been lost for a long time.  When it was found, it was taken to Huldah who gave guidance about it to the king and his priests.

Do you see?  And it’s about Our Country – not my personal glory, fame, and fundraising.

My qualifications?  My work speaks for itself.


5. Learn the Constitution and understand the PRA?  Or put your trust in Farris?


My previous paper is about the PRA and our Constitution.  It isn’t about Mr. Farris.

But Farris’ response is about persons:  429 of his 2,044 words are devoted to his illustrious self; 170 words are spent to disparage Publius Huldah.

I teach the original intent of our Constitution so that our People can become what Alexander Hamilton expected them to be:



“… a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority…”  Federalist Paper No. 16 (next to last para)
 


To that end, I have published some 50 papers proving that original intent, using The Federalist Papers as the best evidence of that original intent.  Several are posted here.

We must all do our civic duty and learn our Founding Principles and Constitution so that we can learn to think for ourselves and help restore our Constitutional Republic.

But Farris says you should believe in … him.  He says:


“6. Who are you going to believe—a trusted advocate for parental rights or an anonymous blogger?”


He doesn’t ask you to learn and think – he asks you to believe … in him.


6. An Alternative Organization: National Home Education Legal Defense (NHELD)


NHELD has been warning for years about the Parental Rights Amendment.  NHELD


“…does not believe in blindly following the word of anyone. NHELD … does not believe in just directing families to act in unison on the basis of an opinion that NHELD … has formed on its own. NHELD … believes in an informed, empowered citizenry, who is able to fight for freedom effectively…”


NHELD advises:


“…individuals not to take the word of anyone else about what … legislation says, but to read the text for themselves …”


7. How do Governments “secure” our God given Rights?


Our rights must be “secured” from people & civil governments who seek to take them away.

For an illustration of how the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government enable it to “secure” our God given rights to life, liberty & property, see Nullification Deniers!  This is what James Madison Really Said, under the subheading, Our Founding Principles in a Nutshell. The federal government isn’t to secure these rights in all ways – just in those ways appropriate to the national government of a Federation of Sovereign States.

The powers reserved by The States and The People enable the States to secure these rights in the ways appropriate to States.  States secure our right to life by prosecuting murderers, drunk drivers, quarantining people with infectious deadly diseases, etc.  States secure our property rights by prosecuting robbers; by providing courts for recovery for fraud, breach of contract; etc.

Our federal Constitution secures our God given rights by strictly limiting the powers of Congress, the powers of the President, and the powers of the federal courts.

Civil governments are controlled by limiting their powers.

To delegate to the federal government express power to infringe “parental rights” under the pretext of “protecting” such rights is absurd! But that is Farris’ argument.

Parents!  Justice Scalia gives excellent advice: elect to your State Legislature people who understand that your responsibilities to your children are determined by God alone.

We must stop looking for the magic pill, roll up our sleeves, man up, and fix our own States.



Conclusion



The PRA is a radical transformation of our conception of Rights from being unalienable gifts of God to the UN Model where “rights” are granted by government and revocable at the will of government.  This is being sold to you as a means of “protecting” your parental rights!  But it transfers power over children to the federal and State governments.  You are being told to trust the “experts” and “believe” what they tell you.  But if the PRA is ratified, the federal and State governments will have constitutional authority to infringe your “parental rights”.   And you will have no recourse.

 
Endnotes:

1 Craigers61 pointed out that Section 3 of the PRA is a paraphrase of [Article 29] of the UN [Declaration] in which:


“… all of the rights “given” by the UN earlier in the document can be taken back if any right goes against the UN’s “mission.” It’s a big finger on the chess piece in which the Political power can take back the right granted at any time they deem…

…Also, do you see the other problem here? The STATE grants the right to the parents! … In classical liberalism, the philosophy that founded the USA, all rights are INALEIANBLE! They reside in the human being themselves! They cannot be given, they cannot be taken and they cannot be circumscribed by the STATE…”


2 Bob in Florida asks Farris:


“But, what you say we must do – pass the Parental Rights Amendment – to defeat the Scalia argument that there is no legal text to cite to allow parents to have rights to direct their children’s education, medical care, etc., requires that we do exactly what the writers of the Constitution did not want to do – enumerate each and every right we have.

Their reason was that this would require that we enumerate each and every right and to leave one out would imply we don’t have that right. Their chosen approach was to only define the powers given to the government and all others were reserved to the States or the People.  [emphasis mine]

Are you not advocating we do exactly what they didn’t want to do – enumerate each and every right?”


3 Congress may lawfully ratify only treaties which address enumerated powers. Since “parental rights” & “children” are not enumerated powers, any ratified treaty addressing such would be a proper object of nullification.  But if the PRA is ratified, then these will be enumerated powers, and the Senate will have lawful authority to ratify the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child.

4 It is GOD’s prerogative to decide what Rights we have.  Not mans’.

5 Un-anonymous blogger Doug Newman pointed out four years ago that:


“…The PRA actually puts a constitutional blessing on federal intrusion into parenting…”  


This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.


 

The NH Department of Education Should Defer to Districts on Common Core & Smarter Balanced Assessments

The NH Department of Educationhas lost all credibility.  It failed to provide transparency or take public input in it's rush to implement Common Core and to collect federal funds.  

Not a single member of the public attended or testified at the two rushed Public Hearings that the Department held to discuss the Common Core Math and English Language Arts State Standards back in June and July of 2010. 

Why wasn't time taken to inform the public and obtain their input?  Why did former NH Board of Education Chair John Lyons state that these Standards were being "shoved down our throats"?

Why wasn't there any Public Hearings on the adoption of Smarter Balanced Assessments?

Next the Commissioner of Education established an Extended Cabinet, without any statutory authority, which includes five federally-funded Regional Liaisons who were tasked to meet monthly with each District superintendent, principals and curriculum specialists in order to implement Common Core. There are 172 Districts in New Hampshire.  That's a whole lot of monthly meetings! There are no minutes of these meetings for the public to review and inspect.

Common Core was implemented by stealth: avoiding public comment and scrutiny and deliberately sidestepping any discussion with our elected school board members .... until after Common Core was being implemented in our public schools!

It's time to restore transparency to public education. The public has the Right-to-Know and be fully informed that what is going on and whether or not it is appropriate for their children.

It's time to terminate the NH Department of Eductation's participation in Common Core.  The department failed in its duties.  The Commissioner of Education stated that the public is “misinformed,”  yet she avoids further scrutiny of her department. This is not how a responsible public servant behaves.

Let the Districts determine whether Common Core and the aligned assessments are best for their children.  Let them make these determinations in an open and fully transparent manner.

 

HB 1508

AN ACT terminating state participation in the common core educational standards.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Paragraph; State Board of Education; Duties. Amend RSA 186:11 by inserting after paragraph XXXVI the following new paragraph:

XXXVII. Common Core Standards. Terminate all plans, programs, activities, and expenditures relative to the implementation of the common core state educational standards which have been adopted or may be adopted by the state board, including any assessments and instruction based upon such standards.

 

Please find and contact individual members of the House :

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/members/housemembers.html

or contact all members at once:

HReps@|eg.state.nh.us

The Amended HB 1432 Does not Delay Smarter Balanced Assessments

HB 1432 was amended to propose that the Smarter Balanced assessments continue for the next two years without impediment.  After that point approval by a legislative Oversight Committee established in RSA 193-C:7 will be needed for Smarter Balanced assessments to continue.

During these first two years administering Smarter Balanced assessments a Study will be formed by the NH Department of Education, which believes parents are "loud" and "misinformed," to determine whether these Smarter Balanced assessments are appropriate.  Their findings will need approval by the Oversight Committee members to allow the Smarter Balanced assessments to continue indefinitely. 

Under this bill New Hampshire parents will have no voice.  The outcome is pre-determined. The Department will approve its own actions in this matter.

Rep. Arsenault and Rep. Ladd are on the House Education Committee; they voted against HB 1397, a proposal to study whether or not the NH Department of Education is overreaching its authority.  They believe the Department is acting within its authority. 

Sen. Stiles and Sen. Kelly are on the Senate Education Committee.  They also support all the actions of the Department in implementing Common Core and Smarter Balanced assessments.

 

Committee Members  
 
Beth Arsenault  - House Nancy Stiles  - Senate
Rick Ladd  - House Molly Kelly  - Senate
Susan Ford  - House Bob Odell  - Senate

 

 

Rep. Murotake, Hills. 32

March 5, 2014

2014-0892h

04/09

Amendment to HB 1432

Amend the title of the bill by replacing it with the following:

AN ACT  relative to the implementation and administration of certain statewide assessments in the public schools and requiring the department of education to study the statewide assessment process.

Amend the bill by replacing all after the enacting clause with the following:

      ­1  Implementation and Administration of Smarter Balanced Assessment.  The Smarter Balanced Assessment planned for the spring of the 2014-2015 school year for grades 3 through 8 and grade 11, as referenced in the New Hampshire common core state standards implementation framework shall not be implemented or administered as a mandatory statewide assessment after June 30, 2016 or upon approval of the report of the study required in section 2 of this act by the legislative oversight committee established in RSA 193-C:7, whichever occurs first.  The department of education, in coordination with the United States Department of Education, shall make any necessary adjustments to the implementation framework in compliance with RSA 193-C and shall provide one or more alternative summative annual assessments for use by a school district in compliance with RSA 193-C.

      ­2  New Hampshire Department of Education; Study of Smarter Balanced Assessments.

            I.  The department of education shall conduct a study of the Smarter Balanced Assessment for grades 3 through 8 and grade 11, and shall review and make recommendations regarding the statewide summative assessment program for public schools.  The study shall:

                  (a)  Determine whether the Smarter Balanced Assessment fulfills the aims, assessment tasks, criteria, and generates data for the established goals of the statewide educational improvement and assessment program pursuant to RSA 193-C:3.

                  (b)  Review the statewide education improvement and assessment program required under RSA 193-C to determine how and by what indicator all academic areas identified in RSA 193-C:5, including, but not limited to reading and language arts, mathematics, science, history, geography, civics, and economics are assessed.

                  (c)  Determine if the annual statewide summative assessment process is pedagogically appropriate, cost effective, and if the statewide summative assessment process and increased classroom instructional time can be realized through another grade level assessment system and testing configuration for use in levels such as grades 4, 6, 8, and 11.

                  (d)  Determine if the Smarter Balanced Assessment is designed and aligned with New Hampshire’s content-specific concepts, skills, and knowledge standards, and ensure that no portion of the Smarter Balanced Assessment includes questions designed to determine or measure student dispositions.

                  (e)  Determine how a statewide education improvement and assessment system such as the Smarter Balanced Assessment will produce data (including student achievement data and student growth data) used to inform determinations related to school effectiveness, individual principal and teacher effectiveness for purposes of evaluation, principal and teacher professional development and support needs, and teaching, learning, and program improvement.

                  (f)  Review privacy concerns relative to assessments, including the Smarter Balanced Assessment tests, high school graduation equivalency assessments including the GED, and college readiness assessments including the SAT and ACT, ensuring student and family privacy are preserved consistent with state law and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. section 1232g, in light of available technologies.  If such assessments are found to be non-compliant with state or federal privacy laws and regulations, the department shall recommend legislation requiring that alternative assessments complying with privacy requirements be provided, adjustments be made to statewide testing policies requiring parental notification, and an “opt-in” procedure for non-compliant tests be implemented.

                  (g)  Identify funding requirements and fiscal impacts associated with initial implementation and subsequent annual costs associated with statewide education assessments.  The department shall make recommendations as to whether or not such costs constitute a “mandated program” under Part I, Article 28-a of the New Hampshire constitution, for the purposes of the state obligation to municipalities supporting local school districts.

            II.  The department shall issue a report of its findings and recommendations for proposed legislation to the speaker of the house of representatives, the president of the senate, the house clerk, the senate clerk, the governor, the state library, and to each member of the legislative oversight committee established in RSA 193-C:7 on or before September 1, 2015.  The legislative oversight committee shall review the report and shall, upon approving the report, notify the commissioner of the department of education of its approval.

      ­3  Effective Date.  This act shall take effect upon its passage.

2014-0892h

AMENDED ANALYSIS

      This bill allows for the implementation and administration of the Smarter Balanced Assessment, subject to certain circumstances.  The bill also requires the department of education to study the statewide assessment process and requires the legislative oversight committee to review the study report.

 

2014

Volume 5

Syndicate content

User login