Central Wisconsin Tea Party

Editor's Comments

26 Mar 2014

BELOW IS A LINK TO A VIDEO TITLED:   I. THE GREAT CLIMATE DEBATE, HOPEFULLY TO BE FOLLOWED  BY II. AND III.

http://marshfieldtv.pegcentral.com/player.php?video=73323d8aa75b1a1b642b78bede059bb5


27 Feb 2014

AN ORIGINATOR OF GREENPIECE FINDS THE TRUTH ABOUT ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING:

Confessions of a ‘Greenpeace Dropout’ to the U.S. Senate on climate change

Posted on February 26, 2014 by Anthony Watts

Update: I’m making this a top “sticky post” for a couple of days, new stories will appear below this one.

Our friend Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, went before the U.S. Senate yesterday to tell his story as it relates to global warming/climate change. It is well worth your time to read. WUWT readers may recall that since Dr. Moore has decided to speak out against global warming and for Golden Rice, Greenpeace is trying to disappear his status with the organization, much like people were disappeared in Soviet Russia.

Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight

February 25, 2014

“Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies”

Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing.

In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace.

After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likelythat human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)

“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.

Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.

Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5°C. This compares with a low of about 12°C during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22°C during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent Ice Age. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical, from pole to pole. As recently as 5 million years ago the Canadian Arctic islands were completely forested. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

Moving closer to the present day, it is instructive to study the record of average global temperature during the past 130 years. The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5°C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57°C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.

The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910- 1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910- 1940?

It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2°C rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing. It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age. It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.

I realize that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our climate that is bandied about today. However, I am confident that history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future, and the fact that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species.

If we wish to preserve natural biodiversity, wildlife, and human well being, we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends. We do not know whether the present pause in temperature will remain for some time, or whether it will go up or down at some time in the near future. What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this important subject.

Attached please find the chapter on climate change from my book, “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”. I would request it be made part of the record.

 

 

 


26 Feb 2014

 Feb. 26, 2014:  I am placing a series of editorials on the CWTP website regarding the current debate in the WI Legislature and Office of DPI relating to the future of COMMON CORE in Wisconsin.  sej

Why is Wisconsin school Superintendent Tony Evers getting in the way?

Wisconsin school Superintendent Tony Evers has been using the headquarters of the Department of Public Instructions to lobby against Senate Bill 619. Why?

Why would the DPI want to halt legislation that would establish an oversight committee on state educational standards? SB 619 is pretty straightforward. It puts the superintendent in the driver's seat and allows him or her to have control of the proposed Model Academic Standards Board. The bill describes a board that would consist of teachers, parents and superintendents from across the state. At a time when taxpayers are being asked to foot the bill for yet another brainstorm coming down the federal pipeline, you would think we could at least be granted a seat at the table in which our investment could be monitored.

So why is Evers in such an uproar at the prospect of a Model Academic Standards Board? In addition, why is the suggestion of developing exceptional Wisconsin standards so out of the question?

Could it be he is apathetic to the breach he caused between school boards and ordinary citizens with his method of implementing Common Core State Standards? Why did Common Core get put into operation without public hearings at the district level? Did Evers advise districts to hold public hearings? Public opinion becomes unnecessary when elected officials can avoid community input.

Perhaps administrators across the state knew they would have a hard time selling their constituents on a federal takeover of education and on relinquishing local control of schools. This is exactly what Common Core will end up doing.

Who misled school administrators to believe they would lose state and federal funds if they did not implement Common Core? This has been proven untrue. Districts can replace Common Core and keep state and federal funds, though dozens of administrators reported this was not their understanding.

The office of DPI can now be labeled as an out-of-control, top-down hierarchy. Evers is trying to rally his subordinates to save a sinking ship that had never been proven seaworthy. While the Wisconsin Constitution grants authority to the DPI, it did not establish a king. One person should never be the sole decision-maker for the future of Wisconsin's children.

Evers worked with great rigor and adopted standards that were unproven. Taxpayers have not been told how much implementation will cost. Many taxpayers have not even heard of Common Core. Was this a prudent decision made for each and every child in Wisconsin by one elected official? Should we be considering just how much power the state school superintendent should be allowed to possess?

When a person of authority rejects opportunities to form a coalition that would improve the quality of education in Wisconsin, I am perplexed.

The job of state school superintendent is to provide Wisconsin's children with the best educational opportunities. The DPI is to assure our teachers that they have the freedom to excel and perform as respected professionals. The DPI is to respect the rights of parents to make educational decisions for their children.

The Wisconsin DPI is not to be a shill for the federal government. Common Core will change Wisconsin education forever. The taxpayer should have been consulted.

If the DPI, administrators, teachers, school board members and parents will be represented on Model Academic Standards Board, and the shared objective is to offer children the finest education available, why is Evers standing in the way? Why is he trying to silence citizens by opposing these bills? Why is Evers unwilling to discuss superior Wisconsin standards for our children?

Kim Simac is a North Woods business owner, author, mother and grandmother.



Read more from Journal Sentinel: http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/why-is-wisconsin-school-superintendent-tony-evers-getting-in-the-way-b99213331z1-247165881.html#ixzz2uTJidH00 

Follow us: @JournalSentinel on Twitter 


26 Feb 2014

26feb2014

Wisconsin Students Deserve Wisconsin Standards 

A Column by Rep. Jeremy Thiesfeldt 

 Imagine a scenario where an employer crafts and institutes a set of policies. Within a 

short time, all parties involved agree the policies are ineffective and increasingly in need 

of revision. Next, imagine that these policies were created in 1998 and only recently 

were they partially revised. This setting is the story of Wisconsin’s K-12 academic 

standards. 

 

No organization can successfully operate being so slow to react to the needs of its 

constituency. In this light, Senate Bill 619 (SB619) would provide a framework and 

timetable for revising academic standards. Even though such a process represents solid 

public policy and is generally supported by superintendents across the state, Wisconsin 

has never instituted such a system. SB619 would provide transparency, professional 

participation, public involvement and legislative oversight to the revision process. As 

Chairman of the Assembly Select Committee on Common Core Standards I support this 

approach. 

 

The most recent set of standards adopted by the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) 

were for mathematics and language arts in 2010 as part of a national movement called 

Common Core Standards (CCS). Being the first in the nation to do so, State 

Superintendent Evers unilaterally adopted CCS. He did this after having jettisoned the 

solid work done by Wisconsin educators in creating our own highly-acclaimed standards 

in 2009. Those standards sit unused in a filing cabinet at the DPI. 

 

There has been growing controversy over CCS nationwide. Many doubt the ability of the 

standards to improve K-12 education. As a result, in October 2013, the leadership of the 

state legislature established select committees to examine CCS. This effort received the 

backing of the governor. These committees have since completed their duties and given 

recommendations. Legislation is now pending. 

 

SB619 would create a standards board of 15 specific, education-minded appointees, 

chosen by the governor, the DPI, and legislative leadership. No legislators may serve on 

the board. This board would appoint experts to a subject-specific subcommittee tasked 

with revising standards. Once completed, the standards would be sent to the board for 

their endorsement, and then to the DPI which may choose to make further revisions. 

When the DPI has completed its work, the standards would then be submitted to a joint 

committee of the legislature for approval. If approved by the joint committee, the Page 2 

standards would be adopted by the state. If rejected, it is only at this point that the 

legislature could amend the standards. 

 

SB619, like most critical legislation, is the result of an agreement crafted among key 

lawmakers--some of whom have had second thoughts. I welcome the opportunity to 

improve it. It is important to note that school boards still maintain authority to adopt any 

standards despite any recommendations of the DPI. 

 

The DPI is fighting a turf war to avoid its power being curtailed by SB619. DPI has 

particularly targeted the end of the proposed revision process in which legislators could 

potentially debate and amend the standards. While conceivable, I believe such an event 

would be unlikely, and I don’t know a legislator who aspires to reach that point. 

 

Had SB619 been in place years ago, education in Wisconsin would be in a better place. 

The state constitution clearly allows legislative oversight of academic standards, but no 

official process is in place. Without a process establishing at least minimal legislative 

oversight, the slow revision of the 1998 standards and the bungled adoption and 

implementation of CCS will be repeated. 

 

The federal government is no doubt delighted, if not scheming, to control our schools 

through national standards and Superintendent Evers has complied. Our children deserve 

standards created by those who know them best. Wisconsin students need Wisconsin 

standards.  


26 Feb 2014

February 25, 2014 Contact: Jason Rostan 
For Immediate Release (608) 266-2512 
 
 letterfrom Senator Vukmir
Governor Cuomo, Welcome to the Tea Party 
 
(Madison, WI) - New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has recently joined the long list of 
individuals who have major concerns about the implementation of the Common Core State 
Standards. Senate Bill 619, authored by Senator Leah Vukmir (R-Wauwatosa), has been 
dismissed as a product of the right leaning Tea Party. Unfortunately for the media and the State 
Superintendent, Governor Cuomo would never be confused as a Tea Party activist. 
 
“Opponents of Senate Bill 619 don’t want to debate the bill on its merits,” said Vukmir. “It has 
become a personal dismissal of the opponents of Common Core by painting it as an effort of 
right wing radicals. This couldn’t be further from the truth. When you look at other states, this 
effort transcends the political spectrum. Liberals, moderates and conservatives have voiced their 
concerns over this one-size fits all solution to education.” 
 
Governor Cuomo has joined the New York Teacher Union in raising concerns over the adoption 
of Common Core in New York, stating the implementation has “failed utterly.” His voice has 
been echoed by the country’s largest teacher’s union, the NEA. The National Education 
Association has been particularly pointed with their comments calling for amending a number of 
the standards and changing the test with teacher input. 
 
In Nashua, New Hampshire, the teacher’s union and a middle school principal have both raised 
concerns that have been heard all over the country. In a letter to the New Hampshire Department 
of Education, the Nashua Teacher’s Union described the Smarter Balance Assessment as 
“confusing, poorly worded, obviously more designed for adult learners rather than for children, 
and overly tedious and cumbersome.” 
 
“Some of the loudest rebukes of the Common Core have come from groups that are ideological 
opposites of the Tea Party,” Vukmir stated. “There are very few issues that can bring these two 
groups together, but top-down solutions to education is one of them. Some of the greatest 
innovations in education happen at the local school district level and in the classroom. We need 
standards that will promote that innovation, not trample on it.


26 Feb 2014

HERE IS A DECEMBER 2013 RELEASE BY SEN. PAUL FARROW. I HAVE READ HIS MOST RECENT STATEMENT BUT DO NOT HAVE ELECTRONIC ACCESS.

"Common Core standards are working; keep them." That was the headline on the editorial in the Dec. 26 edition of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. I would be interested in seeing the results used to determine that the standards are working.

In June 2010, state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers signed a document making the Common Core State Standards the guiding force for Wisconsin's K-12 education system. For the Editorial Board of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, there is no problem — we're raising standards, benchmarking against the best school districts in the nation and the world. It appears there should be no questions.

The editorial quoted Evers as saying that he was not "coerced" by the federal government and that all the uproar is "all about what's going on in Washington," inferring that any differing opinion must be purely political.

I will agree that the Common Core State Standards are more rigorous than the existing standards. After listening to hours of testimony at public hearings across Wisconsin, I believe almost any standard that provided guidelines for all grades would be considered more rigorous. The real question is: Should Wisconsin be willing to accept a set of standards that were developed by organizations that may have been influenced by individuals who would profit from having a "common doctrine" for our children to follow?

These standards will be the driving force behind how our children will be taught throughout their entire academic careers. If you follow the timeline of the development and implementation of the Common Core State Standards in Wisconsin, I believe it tells more about the lack of effort by the Department of Public Instruction to maintain an effective set of standards. The standards in place were written in 1998. The DPI didn't begin looking at new standards until 2006. Then, after officials had submitted new standards for review, they disbanded all attempts to adopt a state-based standard and adopted the Common Core State Standards instead.

The Common Core standards were not directly written by the U.S. Department of Education. But, as so many say, "follow the money."

The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, the two organizations that were the driving force behind the Common Core State Standards, are both funded by the federal government. Testing and curriculum development companies were involved in writing the standards and support these two entities. The U.S. Department of Education has provided over $100 million to two consortiums to develop academic tests that will be implemented in the 2014-'15 school year.

These tests are based on the Common Core State Standards. Wisconsin is a governing state in the Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium. As such, we were required to adopt the Common Core State Standards. It's interesting for people to say these standards are working when the test has yet to be implemented. Some districts have utilized pilot questions or potions of tests, but our students have not yet been given a full test.

Currently, there are 18 states looking at putting the implementation of the Common Core standards on hold. Massachusetts, for example, has decided to not use the new test. Why? Because the test will be the basis for school report cards, teacher evaluations and other student performance criteria. Officials there want to be sure it isn't flawed before they begin using it. That's exactly what Wisconsin will be using these tests for. Why should we jump in before knowing how chilly the water is?

Another issue no one seems to be considering is: If these standards are all about college and career readiness, do we really believe that all the kids need to know is English and math? These standards, and the tests, do not provide for science and other critical thinking skills employers are looking for. How can we say we are providing for career readiness when we leave out a large amount of knowledge the workforce will need?

It's a shame that the Editorial Board of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Evers believe this is all "politics" and not people questioning the process or an intrusion into what should be local control. Education is not only the concern of the educrats but of all of us, particularly parents.

State Sen. Paul Farrow (R-Pewaukee) is chairman of the Senate Committee on the Review of Common Core Standards Initiative.

The Editorial Board regularly published opinions in this space that either disagree with our own view or offer a fresh perspective.



Read more from Journal Sentinel: http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/there-are-plenty-of-good-reasons-to-put-common-core-on-hold-b99175122z1-238524061.html#ixzz2uTYWpXJm 
Follow us: @JournalSentinel on Twitter

 


20 Nov 2013

20nov13.  This link from the DOD gives a list of the dead.

These deaths may be deliberate.  Who gave the orders?

You may wish you did not open the link

sejohnson 

http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14728


10 Nov 2013

THE HOMEPAGES FOR WISCONSIN TEA PARTIES ARE LISTED NUNDER LINKS AS OF NOV. 10, 2013


02 Oct 2013

The New American has an article written by Alex Newman on Common Core, that explains ths program in detail. This was referred by Steve Katona,CWTP Board Member.;

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/16192-common-core-a-scheme-to-rewrite-education


30 Sep 2013

A letter to Secretary of State John Kerry regarding his recent statement about global warming caused by Humans

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/30/open-letter-to-the-honorable-john-kerry-u-s-secretary-of-state/#more-94896


02 Sep 2013

 Richard S.Lindzen, Ph.D.. is an emeritus professor of Atmospheric Sciences at The Massachusetts Institute of Technology: he writes here about Global Climate Alarmism.

http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf


28 Jul 2013

HERE IS ANOTHER PIECE BY CHUCK BOYD

EPA, PRESIDENT OBAMA’S WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION

Last year I described how the U.S. Supreme Court (five scientifically clueless lawyers assenting) made the purely scientific decision that the EPA must treat CO2 and other Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), as “pollutants” and then carryout an analysis to determine whether the increasing concentrations in atmospheric CO2 may reasonably be anticipated to endanger human health and welfare. One of the dissenting justices commented brilliantly that: “Regulating CO2 as a pollutant makes about as much sense as regulating Frisbees as a pollutant.” And how did this super-critical economy destroying scientific decision come into the purview of the United States Supreme Court? The ultra-leftist state of Massachusetts had sued the EPA for an alleged future injury:

“The State of Massachusetts would in the future lose land due to the catastrophic rising of the sea resulting from anthropogenic global warming.” So an ultimately loony, frivolous lawsuit is the “smoking gun” evidence for the birth of this devastating EPA insanity.

The Court did not mandate regulation; rather it mandated that EPA go through an Endangerment Finding process.  The EPA did perform a ridiculously bogus scientific analysis and published its ruling in December 2009 that CO2 must be regulated by the government as a pollutant. This EPA finding and associated rulings were immediately challenged in the DC Circuit Court and the DC Circuit Court ruled on June 26, 2012 in favor of the EPA. (More scientifically clueless lawyers making incorrect scientific decisions.)

Two things stood in the way of Obama’s plan to use the EPA to destroy the economy:

1.    Dr. Allan Carlin (scientist employed 35 years by the EPA) submitted his 98 page technical review report on the draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment (TSD) on March 9, 2009. In that report Dr. Carlin strongly criticized the TSD for its dependence on the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC which had been so totally debunked. Obama cleverly removed this obstacle by having EPA Director Lisa Jackson fire Dr. Carlin after 35 years of service.

2.    The EPA’s own Inspector General issued a report critical of how the EPA conducts “science” and reaches its already-determined “findings.” In that report the inspector general found that the EPA failed to follow the Data Quality Act and its own peer review process when it issued the determination that greenhouse gases cause harm to “public health and welfare.” The IG report recommends that “the EPA revise its assessment factors guidance to establish minimum review and documentation requirements for assessing and accepting data from other organizations.” (ie. IPCC) This IG report was essentially ignored and subsequently closed out by the issuance of a “white wash” acknowledgement letter which vaguely promised future compliance. 

So armed to the teeth with his own uncontrolled weapon of mass economic destruction, the EPA, Obama is once again babbling the idiocy about saving the planet for our children by killing all aspects of the fossil fuel industry including the total destruction of the U.S. coal industry, stopping the Keystone pipeline project, and massive inhibitive moves against utilization of our abundant oil shale resources.  

CERTIORARI, OUR LAST HOPE

It is recognized that this hideous economic atrocity is justified by a group of brilliant lawyers in the DC Circuit and Supreme Courts (all of whom have zero background in science.) A group of eminent climate scientists known as the Amici curiae has filed on April 19, 2013 a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. (a writ issuing from a superior court calling up the record of a proceeding in an inferior court for review.) The petition says the following:

Amici curiae are well qualified climate scientists. Amici include respected professors and scientists who have worked for government agencies, universities, and businesses. These highly regarded scientists have expertise in a wide array of fields implicated by this rulemaking, including climate research, weather modeling, physics, geology, statistical analysis, and engineering. They have many publications in peer-reviewed journals and are respected in their fields of expertise by their peers.

Amici wish to present to this Court scientific data that bear directly on the underlying rulemaking. Specifically, amici submit that EPA’s finding of human-caused global warming is not supported by the evidentiary record that was before EPA.

“Amici believe that no scientists have devised an empirically validated theory proving that higher atmospheric CO2 levels will lead to higher Global Average Surface Temperature, (GAST). Moreover, if the causal link between higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations and higher GAST is broken by invalidating each of EPA’s three lines of evidence, then EPA’s assertions that higher CO2 concentrations also cause sea-level increases and more frequent and severe storms, floods, and droughts are also disproved. Such causality assertions require a validated theory that higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increases in GAST. Lacking such a validated theory, EPA’s conclusions cannot stand. In science, credible empirical data always trumps proposed theories, even if those theories are claimed to (or actually do) represent the current consensus.”

“In short, EPA’s process was far less rigorous than it should and could have been. And the court of appeals erred in failing to recognize the deficiencies in it.”

CONCLUSION

“For these reasons, and those discussed more fully in the petitions, amici urge the Court to grant the petitions for a writ of certiorari.”

(On June 6, 2013 the court ordered further extension of the time to file response to petition to and including July 22, 2013, for all respondents.)

With the Supreme court experiencing extreme pressures and intimidation from the Obama administration it is most likely that the petition will be denied, allowing the EPA to continue its evil campaign to destroy our economy. Many economists agree that the damage incurred by Obama and his EPA through 2016 would take decades to repair if at all possible. 

 


15 Jul 2013

 15 JULY 13:  COMMON CORE IS IN THE NEWS IN WI. TWO COALITIONS WANT IT REDCINDED. Here is an article by Karen Schroeder on the estimated cost of Common Core. The goal of common core is indoctrination and control of our youth...sej

 

Thursday, July 11, 2013

COMMON CORE: A SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLAR SCAM


Many legislators, parents, and taxpayers have been given the false impression that Common Core State Standards and the International Baccalaureate programs will reform and improve education. But these two newest educational policies are an extension of the old policies that created weaknesses in the current American educational system. In 1956, that system was shaped in part by Benjamin S. Bloom’s taxonomy. CC and IB emphasize Bloom’s goal of guiding American students to develop a world view while repeatedly sacrificing an educational system that had been admired around the world.

Educational expert Benjamin S. Bloom claimed in his Handbook I: Cognitive Domain that educators are to classify “the intended behaviors of students — the ways in which individuals are to act, think, or feel as the result of participating in some unit of instruction.” Bloom’s Handbook II: Affective Domain explains that education is to control “much of the individual’s behavior” and to integrate “beliefs, ideas, and attitudes into a total philosophy or world view.” Academics are secondary.

The taxonomy helped define “Ten Goals of Quality Education” generated in the Study of Quality Education by the Pennsylvania State Board of Education. These goals were: 1) self-understanding, 2) tolerance of others, 3)basic skills, 4)attitude toward school, 5-7) attitudes associated with responsible citizenship, health, creativity,  8) vocational preparation, 9) intellectual achievement, 10) and life-long learning. The focus on academics was lost in the 1950s and has become less relevant with each new federal policy.

In the 1960s, B.F. Skinner incorporated operant conditioning methods with the Bloom taxonomy and tried to involve these philosophies in all phases of education. The program was rejected by teachers and parents. Progressives simply changed the name to Behavioral Objectives and increased an emphasis on changing the social and political values of American students. Behavioral Objectives soon became Outcome-Based Education, then Mastery Learning, then Direct Instruction and now Common Core State Standards and International Baccalaureate. Yes, the government is planning to spend about 16 BILLION dollars to implement a program that is basically Bloom’s taxonomy with fangs.

During the early 1970s, many legislators expressed concerns about the decline of academic standards in education. When California Assemblyman Robert H. Burke wrote “Education from The Acquisition of Knowledge to Programmed, Conditioned Responses”, he claimed that the changes or innovations in education required high school graduates to meet academic standards that were little more than previously required to graduate from eighth grade; but much time had been spent developing the student’s “social maturity”. Assemblyman Burke explained that the current trend of “educating the whole child” and the “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives” were the culprits undermining academic progress for our children. 

How do the educational goals defined by Bloom in 1956 compare to Common Core State Standards?

According to experts in English and math, the skills as presented in the Common Core curricula are “soft”. What was required by a math program for students in third grade are now required one year later! Another lowering of academic standards so schools have more time to focus upon changing the social and political beliefs and values of American children.

According to the International Baccalaureate Organization’s 2012 paper “An IB position paper on the Common Core State Standards CCSS”,  the IB and Common Core State Standards share an international mission and standards.

A Continuum of International Education written by the IBO explains their educational goals in “Criteria for an International Continuum: Developing Citizens of the World—Culture, Language and Learning to Live Together.” Their objectives are: Developing citizens of the world — culture, language and learning to live together, Building and reinforcing students’ sense of identity and cultural awareness, Fostering students’ recognition and development of universal human values,Stimulating curiosity and inquiry in order to foster a spirit of discovery and enjoyment of learning,Equipping students with the skills to learn and to acquire knowledge, individually or collaboratively, and to apply these skills and knowledge accordingly across a broad range of areas,Providing international content while responding to local requirements and interests, Encouraging diversity and flexibility in pedagogical approaches, Providing appropriate forms of assessment and international benchmarking (federally or internationally created testing tools).

These objectives are an expansion of Bloom’s goals expressed in educational jargon.  How many of these goals are academic and how many influence social or political change?

This IBO document explains that world citizenship needs to begin early through development of an understanding of the nature and value of one’s own culture as a starting point to create a more compassionate population. Bloom’s goal of developing a world view is being aggressively implemented through CCSS and IB to prepare students for social and political change.

By demanding that those federal dollars previously spent on education be reallocated to the state, by requiring a return to state autonomy, and by insisting that local control of schools be reinstated, the states would be able to shape the curriculum to meet the academic needs of their students. Taxpayers must commit time and energy to establishing real educational reform.  Sign our petition to eliminate federal intervention in education. Visit the Advocates for Academic Freedom home page and click on the PETITION FOR PROGRESS button. Sign the petition electronically.

 


30 Jun 2013

SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT PUBLIC POLICY (SEPP) IS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, NOT FALSHOODS  AND MISLEADING INFORMATION LIKE COMES FROM THE EPA AND PRESIDENT. HERE IS THERE LATEST REPORT:

PSEUDOSCIENCE AND PROGRESSIVE POLICY


23 Jan 2013

CWTP IS PLACING THIS BOOKLET BACK ONTO THIS WEBSITE BECAUSE OF IT`S EXPLANATION OF THE PRESIDENT`S STYLE AND AGENDA. THIS IS MADE AVAILABLE AT THE HOROWITZ WEBSITE, AND IS WRITTEN BY HIM, USING SAUL ALINSKY`S "RULES FOR RADICALS"...sej

http://frontpagemag.com/upload/pamphlets/Rules-for-Revolution-Alinsky.pdf


20 Sep 2012

WHY ARE WE AFRAID?: A 1400 YEAR YEAR OLD SECRET.

BY DR. BILL WARNER, COPIED FROM THE WEBSITE AMERICAN THINKER. HE PRESENTS WHAT HE CLAIMS TO BE OVERLOOKED HISTORICAL FACTS ABOUT ISLAM.

PLACED ON THIS WEBSITE BY S. E. Johnson. M.D. 

http://www.americanthinker.com/video/2012/09/why_we_are_afraid_a_1400_year_secret_by_dr_bill_warner.html


08 Sep 2012

8SEPT 12. LIBERTY COUNSEL HAS RELEASED THIS VIDEO MESSAGE REGARDING THE PRESIDENT`S ISLAMIC BACKGROUND.THIS HELPS TO EXPLAIN HIS STATEMENT THAT AMERICA IS NO LONGER A CHRISTIAN NATION, AND HIS FAILED MID-EASTERN POLICIES.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/QXEoQJ7ZMZs?feature=player_detailpage