Friday, October 20, 2017

Beware of Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

July 11, 2010 by  
Filed under Articles, Education Articles

Paul Cates, Ph.D.

The strength of this country has always been directly related to the vitality of the traditional family unit. The authority and responsibly to raise and nurture children has always been reserved for the parents. Regardless of personal religious beliefs, society has historically upheld the concept of parental and family preeminence. Notable among exceptions to this rule are those periods of history when a despot has feared a strong and cohesive community standing in opposition to a tyrannical government, i.e., Hitler, Stalin, etc. The process has been remarkably similar in execution…redefine the “traditional” family, separate children from parental morals and values, encourage civil and social disruption, and then offer to solve the resulting chaos.

The U.S. Supreme Court has accomplished the process of redefining traditional family and social values, and Congress has now come forward with the legislation “to solve the resulting dilemma.”

An example of our Congress and legislation “to solve the resulting dilemma” is “Parents as Teachers” (PAT). It was piloted in Missouri, and has the parents of the state in an uproar. The basic idea of this program is to identify “at-risk” children as soon as possible, which is probably why PAT initiated children and parents into the program before a child is born by recruiting pregnant women to prenatal clinics and private doctor’s offices. If they slip through the net there, the Department of Education of Missouri has a mandatory video tape advertising the program to new parents in the hospital before they take their baby home.

What determines “at-risk” children? Twelve computer code definitions which includes over-weight parents, adverse functioning family (death in family, loss of a job, moving to a new home, parent that travels frequently), family history of hearing loss and very few toys in home. There is no code for normal!

To summarize, if a child isn’t happy at school or acts up, talks to much or otherwise misbehaves, the “certified parent educator” may prescribe mental health services, or perhaps a drug like Ritalin. Missouri Division of Family Services states that one reason for a child abuse hotline call is “refusal to take recommended services.”

If the parent refuses the recommended service, the state can remove the child from the home, place him in a residential treatment center and force the parent to take psychological counseling for an indefinite period. Even if the child is allowed to return home, the state may choose to retain legal custody and control.

Another example of our Congress and legislation is Goals 2,000. It emphasizes more spending and regulation.

It allows Federal school-reform funds to be used for anything “reasonably related to reform.” It claims to allow public school choice, but the actual language merely promotes magnet schools. It allows Federal funds to be used for school-based clinics – coordination of health and social services. It allows Federal funds to be used for Outcome-Based Education, psychological testing and values manipulation. It promotes “parents as teachers” meddling, that is, invading the home to tell parents how to parent through Parental Information and Resource Centers. It potentially paves the way to race the norming of educational tests (Se 213 (f) (2) (B) (ii) and employment tests (Sec. 403 (d) (1) (B) (ii) (lll).

This bill allows no parental opt-out right. No Parental privacy provisions. It creates a new national school board, the National Educational Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC), to develop mandatory national opportunity to learn standards, set “voluntary” national curriculum content and performance standards, and devise national testing systems. We don’t need national curriculum content and performance standards. God made us as individuals, not with a cookie cutter or on a mass assembly line.

It creates a union-dominated National Skills Standards Board to develop “voluntary” national skills standards to be used by industries in hiring. the next step, will be “mandatory”. Although children that are home schooled or attend a private or religious non-funded school are exempt from this bill, it still is detrimental to those who must attend our “public” schools.

Another problem that is creeping up on many of us and we are unaware of it is the changes in requirements for teacher certification. Many of our colleges are going along with this “hook, line, and sinker.”

The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards was established in 1987 as an outgrowth of a Carnegie Corporation initiative. Teachers and others have wondered just exactly what standards and criteria would be used in judging qualification for teacher certification.

The independent national NBFTS board is made up of a majority of classroom teachers, but is not accountable to the voting public.

Another entity, the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASCTEC), has been working on the new “standards” for teaching being developed by the NBPTS. It is evident from a review of their literature that the teacher of the future will be measured and evaluated according to OBE standards. Predictably, teachers will be required to exhibit the politically correct attitudes and beliefs. More importantly, these attitudes and beliefs will be measured by the extent to which these teachers engage in politically correct behaviors in the classrooms.

The “mission of NASDTEC is to assist individual states in developing essential standards required for the initial professional teaching certificate and entry into the teaching profession.” This is stated clearly as “outcome-bases teacher education and certification.” In this process, NASDTEC “expects to respond to the needs of states” methods to measure the “knowledge, professional skills and attitudes” of prospective teachers. It is quite clear: O.B.E. for teachers will also require the “correct” attitudes just as it does for students.

To underscore this, the document states: “The focus is on what the beginning teacher should be able to do, think, and feel; not on what the prospective teacher should study.”

The “underlying assumptions” for teaching O.B.E. mirror those of Spady and Marshall (1991). According to this draft, “This means that curriculum content is no longer the grounding and defining element of outcomes (Spady and Marshall). NASDTEC outcomes are role performances derived from job analyses of beginning teachers…”

The child is referred to repeatedly throughout as the “Client.” This is a term that means teachers will be certified based on a model that the child is a “client-driven person… and he must fit the needs of the society that is using him… implementing this is part of teacher certification.” This is Hitler’s technique refined in 1994 terms.

Standards suggested from NASDTEC Annual Conference held June 1993 in Orlando, Florida are:

Standard 1.0: Readiness for High School means that “the beginning teacher must support all adolescent students as they assume greater responsibility for their own learning and planning career goals.” …To conduct research on the students to know who has the “characteristics” of dropouts. The teacher must identify students who have “negative self-concepts and peer relations.”

Standard 2.0: Student development requires the teacher to make accommodations for adolescents’” “intellectual, physical, emotional, psychological and social developmental characteristics,” which includes “attitudes towards learning” and conduct a survey of students to profile “their academic, social, recreational, and career needs.”

Standard 3.0: Curriculum brings in the “developmentally appropriate, culturally sensitive, higher order, challenging, and integrated subject matter” which includes some content like math, science and history, but also includes “healthy lifestyles.”

Standard 4.0: Instruction includes the same things listed above, but for the purpose of “responsible citizenship, employment in a global, knowledge-based economy, and lifelong learning.” The teacher must analyze “effective instructional strategies used in other countries.” She must “focus groups of student” to identify needs and organize teams of students to solve a real world problem.”

Standard 5.0: Assessment bring in “classroom, district, state, national, and international assessments.” The teacher is required to use portfolios, criterion-references tests and field-tested performance tasks on students.

Standard 6: School improvement asks the beginning high school teacher to identify, interpret, generate and measure group and individual student development data to improve “the school’s culture, climate, and mission.” The high school improvement plan of this teacher must be based on “shared values,” among other things. “Service learning activities” and “mentors” are suggested for the new teacher.

Standard 7.0: Home, school and community means that the teacher should engage in “home-school- community partnerships’ plans” and contribute to the ”social and emotional” needs of parents, as well as “fostering family involvement in adolescents’ education at home.” This requires a belief in “collaboration” between these three institutions. It is suggested that the teacher use a “parents needs survey instrument.”

Standard 8.0: Technology requires the teacher “to use technology as a motivation for higher order learning, and to produce computer-assisted solutions to real-world problems.” The teacher could make use of an “international information network” such as Internet.

Standard 9.0: Support services states that adolescents and their families need to “access discrete or integrated support services from health, social, juvenile, human resources, and other community agencies,” such as Planned Parenthood. Therefore, the teacher must recognize these needs and refer “students and their families to available in-school and community support service agencies.” Included in this is “in-school health clinics, counselors, and school-based assistance teams… multi- service centers, drug and pregnancy prevention progress, employee assistance services and recreation centers.” The teacher, it is suggested, could conduct a “survey of an in-school health clinic to determine levels of use and levels of student satisfaction with the services.”

Standard 10.0: Resource management means that the teacher will be competent and an effective manager of people, resources and community partners. One suggestion involves “relations to environmental problems.”

Standard 11.0: Youth Service is mandatory/voluntary community service for youth. The teacher is required to organize, operate, and continuously improve “a youth service program” for the purpose of developing “positive self concepts and an awareness of and concern for others and to become productive, caring and effective citizens” in the students. The teacher is supposed to develop “personal values, beliefs and strategies about service” and develop “empathy for people who could benefit from such activities.” The students are expected to gain a “sense of personal effectiveness” by doing this. One suggested activity is to guide “a student through a reflection activity (guided imagery) of what was accomplished in a service activity.”

Standard 12.0: Workplace know how requires the teacher to translate and align “classroom expectations, climate, and instructional practices with workplace competencies, skills, and personal qualities.” One sample portfolio entry, assessments, could require the teacher to analyze “student performances on local and state performance assessments.”

It is readily apparent from the above examples, after wading through the jargon, that teachers of the future will be required to fit the “role performance” in order to obtain and renew certification. This “role” may be odious to some teachers. They will be expected to go with the flow and fit the new mold of the reinvented school of education reformers’ dreams. They will be required to violate their conscience and convictions in numerous instances outlined above, such as demonstrating that they know how to refer their students to the local in-house or down-the street school-based sex clinic for condoms and abortion referrals.

Teachers will have to demonstrate by measurable behaviors exhibited in portfolios that they are going along with all of the outcomes for students and doing their best to implement them. They are required to analyze, survey, assess and respond to students’ personal values, beliefs, attitudes and behavior.

In the near future, teacher certification will not be possible for the true God-fearing, Bible believing Christians.

In part two of this article, I will cover the topics of The Ungraded Classrooms, Whole Language Approach and Year Round Schooling.

Share