Tag Archives: TANF

Confused Yet?

***Fourth in a Series Highlighting the 116th Congressional session of federal overreaches in the name of education.

Anti Fed Ed Warriors, over the years we’ve had quite a bit thrown at us in order to confuse us. No where does this seem to reoccur more than Congress. Especially at the CCSS Machine’s direction.

During the past 3 articles, I’ve shown you the massive federal educratic overreaches into our homes, forcing a false ‘choice’ agenda, and, uniting with the (United Nations) UN’s STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and, Math) to basically do the same thing: data track us from cradle to grave. It’s not about academic education, it’s all about jobs and workforce training…just as the UN and the CCSS Machine have been plotting/carrying out.

Thank goodness, that part’s not confusing! So, what is confusing, you may be asking?

Two federal bills with different numbers from the SAME Chamber of Congress!
In the past, on my blog and writing for the
Patriot Institute, I shared with you the long used practice of Congress having ‘sister’ bills, but those would come from BOTH Chambers, not one. (*Note: Congress uses this system, from what I’ve seen in education research to accomplish one goal: get the agenda through from one side or the other.)

Every Congress member should know our position when it comes to fed led education!So, let’s see what these two bills are from the same Chamber.

HR 150 and HR 50:

HR 150, “Grant Reporting Efficiency and Agreements Transparency Act of 2019” aka GREAT Act (12 pages long)
HR 50, GREAT Act aka “Grant Reporting Efficiency and Agreements Transparency Act of 2019” (12 pages long)
Both are sponsored by Rep. Virginia Foxx of NC.
HR 150 has 15 co-sponsors, has had 1 roll call vote and is in the Senate already (Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs).
HR 50 has no co-sponsors, is in the House Committee of Oversight and Reform.

Of the 15 co-sponsors for HR 150, 7 are from the introduction (1/3/19), the others have cosponsored since then. Original House Representatives: Gomez (CA), Quigley and Kelly (IL), DesJarlais (TN), Palmer (AL), and Kilmer (WA). The other 8  Representatives are: Rouda and Harder (CA), Meadows (NC), Norman (SC), Axne (IA), Kline (VA), Stauber and Emmer (MN).

Before we look at the text of HR 150/HR 50, let me remind you of Rep. Foxx’s stance on ‘quality’ education:

What HR 150/50 Say and Do:

Warriors, here’s a list of what we can expect:

1) Either will modernize the federal government’s grant reporting system and ‘other purposes’. What this means is if you received a federal grant or are in a cooperative agreement with the federal government, you’re about to be more data tracked than ever before. How this can related to education is via all the grants, sub-grants, and cooperative agreements mandated in ESSA, Every Student Succeeds Act.


2) An imposition of data standards will be visited upon each recipient and participant of grants, sub-grants, and, cooperative agreements.
3) In charge of the imposition of data standards AND implementing data streams will be the Director of the Office and Budget Management. Why THAT director? To be in compliance with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (31
7 U.S.C. 6101 note).
The purpose? From Page 2 “which includes the development of a ‘‘comprehensive taxonomy of standard definitions for core data elements required for managing Federal financial assistance awards’’ .
How this will play out for you and I is whatever data is taken it will be quicker, less burdensome for P3s (public private partnerships), and better manage us, at least as far as our data.

4) These bills will strengthen the federal government in oversight and management of all the grant recipients and cooperative partners.

5) Both bills will amend Subtitle V (5) of Title 31 of the United States Code by creating a brand new chapter titled “Data Standards for Grant Reporting”. Title 31 deals with money and finance, subtitle V deals with general assistance administration.
Look below at where Chapter 64 would land between:

Within this new chapter you’ll find that ‘core data elements’ mean they aren’t specific to what program, but are still required by the federal government for all or most of all the grants, awards, cooperative agreements, and sub-grants.

You’ll also learn that what the federal government defines as grants, sub-grants, awards, and cooperative agreements isn’t always in money form. As such, it’s up for grabs to be data tracked. While the federal government is setting these data standards, the States must comply. At the bare minimum, unique identifiers for federal awards and their groups will be tracked government wide.

How it is determined which federal agency set these data standards? The Executive agency which has the MOST activity!! What is this? Grade school games?!


Who gets tracked? Basically everybody.

Supposedly whatever data is collected is to be ‘fully searchable and machine readable’ as well as ‘non-proprietary’ overseen by ‘voluntary consensus standards bodies’.

All the while this is going on the U.S. Treasury will act as consultant. Other consultants could include any head of a federal agency (giving the awards), those receiving awards, the private sector experts (including privacy ones), and State/local governments.

6) Guiding all this data collection? The federal government. The federal government will explore new opportunities to involve modern technology in the data collection/sharing. All this is to take place with 2 years of the bills becoming law. Within 3 years, all future data collection/standards/sharing must be in full compliance.

7) On page 9, you’ll find one of those ‘other purposes’ coming to life. It’s called the Single Audit Act. This is where the ‘federal clearinghouse’ for data is dependent on the new Chapter 64 that HR150 and HR 50 put into place.

8) By 4 years after HR 150 and HR 50 become law, data is to be made public. It’s here that you’ll see that the Director of the Office Management and Budget determines ‘reasonable restrictions’ to personal and private data.

Is this determination at the federal government’s definition or of ‘We the People’?

Ah..the answer is whatever’s shareable by the Freedom of Information Act, is what can be shared in the future…

9) On the bottom of Page 10, you’ll find the Director and the Secretary of whichever federal agency gives the most grants, etc. set what data is ‘non proprietary’ or what isn’t. By  the last page of these bills you’ll find a classic federal government CYA statement about no new data which isn’t already fair game for the government will be used.

Warriors, if you’re wondering about the difference of ‘non proprietary’ data as far as the federal government, it means data they produced or generated. However, take into consideration that 9/10 of the data the government collects comes from proprietary (meaning your personal property) data/information.

Again, CONTEXT, Warriors. Think what Chapter 64 means for education. Think about the algorithms needs in those high-stake assessments or behavior interventions. Think about the biometrics involved.

Lastly, note that HR 150 has been slammed through the House and is in the Senate. This Bill needs to be killed. HR 50, needs to die in its Committee. Call, email, text, or use social media. These Bills, HR 150 and HR 50, are data raping pimps to be used by the federal government. Look at the future plans being made here!!!!

Related Resources:

1) To access the 2018 government tracking grant information from a citizen’s aspect (as well as where you’ll find the grant stream picture above), go here.
2) I tried to find a recent list of the top grant awarding federal agencies. The most recent I could find was 2010:

Closing:

Are you confused yet, as to how much the federal government means to track us from cradle to grave? We shouldn’t be, Bills like this exact pair are super dangerous. Let D.C. know you’re not going to allow this!!

My next article in this series will look at the educratic/data rape aspects for Medicaid, TANF, and everyday Moms.

 

Advertisements

FTF: PreK Research: CCSS, CBE, and a Host of Others

To learn more about PreK research, visit: http://nieer.org/
To learn more about PreK research, visit: http://nieer.org/

As anti CCSS Warriors, we’ve heard of educational research on the K-12 level, the higher education level, but did you know there’s an educational research group for those in pre-kindergarten? I first wrote about the National Institute for Early Education Research and their Zero to Three involvement: 
https://commoncorediva.wordpress.com/tag/national-institute-for-early-education-research/
While that article will name the same groups below, this time I’m taking a much closer look at each of the lesser known groups involvement into CCSS aligned preschool. What is interesting, is the NIEER is housed in Rutgers University.

 

NIEER’s Mission:

From the website’s ‘mission statement’, The National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) conducts and communicates research to support high-quality, effective early childhood education for all young children. Such education enhances their physical, cognitive, and social development, and subsequent success in school and later life.”

As part of the Vision/MIssion of NIEER
NIEER also leads the Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes (CEELO), one of 22 comprehensive centers funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education to strengthen the capacity of State Education Agencies to lead sustained improvements in early learning opportunities and outcomes.”


Before we get to HOW the NIEER influences early education, I think you might be interested in what groups fund the National Institute for Early Education Research.

From the website the following pro CCSS groups fund the research. Most of these are well known supporters. The ones you may not recognize have links you can follow to learn more:
U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
The Pew Charitable Trusts 
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation (CCSS/STEM ties can be proven by the Foundation’s paper: http://www.grdodge.org/fileadmin/Dodge_News/Dodge_Foundation_June_2013_Grants_Announcement.pdf {refer to the education paragraph}
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
The Prudential Foundation {see my article from “Prevent Common Core”:
http://preventcommoncore.com/?p=1154 {Prudential’s CCSS ties will be revealed second in the article}

Other funders are below. Are the ‘other funders’ pro CCSS? Great question. Let’s find out!

The Fund for New Jersey, see their 4/2015 pdf document’s section 3 which details NJ education: NJKids (one of the key components? Extended preK to full day classes)
You can also find the Fund for NJ has granted the Education Law Center money to further strengthen public schools and extend preschools to full days. Find that evidence:
http://www.fundfornj.org/grants-awarded/2015 (The Ed Law Center grant is the 2nd one from the top. There are many other education grants as well which are classified by the organization’s name. To see their CCSS support, use the link: http://www.edlawcenter.org/search-results.html; you can see much about not only preschool expansion, but other education levels as well.) Before we leave the Fund for NJ and its grantee, the Ed Law Center, you might find it interesting that one of the Ed Law Center’s initiatives is for the “Great Schools of NJ”. If you didn’t know it, “Great Schools” is very much CCSS aligned/funded. How do I know? After all the “Great Schools of NJ” is a non-profit organization. The Gates Foundation has funded ‘greatschools.org’ for quite a while. You can find that evidence on both the links below:
http://www.greatschools.org/  and http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database#q/k=Great%20Schools

The Schumann Fund for New Jersey, before we delve into their ties, I wanted you to see the screen shot below. The latest grant is to an early education program named “Brick”.
“Brick” stands for “Building Responsible Intelligent Creative Kids”.

Grants for Early Education can be found: http://foundationcenter.org/grantmaker/schumann/early_childhood.html
Grants for Early Education can be found:
http://foundationcenter.org/grantmaker/schumann/early_childhood.html

Want to learn more about “Brick”? After all it’s targeting early learners. Be sure to visit:
http://bricknewark.org/curriculum-and-instruction/ (look at the formative assessments, the digital technology that’s been tied to CCSS before)
There are other grants this Foundation you’ll want to investigate. As well. Especially their support of the ‘Grantmakers for Education’ which is tied to  the Fordham Institute, as well as others. To see for yourselves, visit:  http://www.edfunders.org/ (scroll down to see the logo for Fordham) As far as the Grantmakers members list? It’s massive AND very CCSS Machine connected. See all the member organizations:  http://www.edfunders.org/our-community/member-organizations

Smith Richardson Foundation, you can find out more about this Foundation at their website, https://www.srf.org/
That stated, here’s an excerpt about education from their ‘domestic public policy’ page,
In terms of human capital development, the Foundation has been supporting work to identify how schools can become more productive by, for example, increasing the quality of the teacher workforce or adopting more effective curricula.  Because success in the contemporary economy requires individuals to acquire education and training beyond high school, the Foundation is building a portfolio of projects on post-secondary education.”
Among the past grant recipients are the pro CCSS groups: Brookings Institute and  Harvard University (well documented ties to CCSS)
You can also find the the CCSS tied Urban Institute among the Smith Richardson Foundation’s grants.(see their 2010 publication, where they go into detail about early education success for immigrants via CCSS on page 7: 412330-Young-Children-of-Immigrants-and-the-Path-to-Educational-Success) Then, contrast that with their other 2010 publication, http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/901345-Will-We-Ever-Learn-What-s-Wrong-With-the-Common-Standards-Project.pdf
Urban’s Board of Directors and you’ll find members from PBS, Bank of American, the University of NC, Harvard University, and MIT.
Each of these groups have support for the CCSS alignment. See the Board:
http://www.urban.org/about/board-of-directors

 The Smith Richardson Foundation has other groups with grants you need to read to believe. You will see a wide variety of educational levels from preschool to GED and everything else in between. Visit their entire ‘education’ grants,
https://www.srf.org/page/1/?s=Education&post_type=grant&s_type=standard#038;post_type=grant&s_type=standard

Tulsa Community Foundation, their website: https://tulsacf.org/  Their ties to early education, CCSS alignment? See below:
tulsaschools

What you see above is from the Coalition for Community Schools. I’ve covered this Coalition in previously published articles. However, I’m including the most relevant one.
https://commoncorediva.wordpress.com/2015/06/19/fom-a-new-ccs-coalition-for-community-schools/

To access the Tulsa Community video featured in the screen shot: http://www.communityschools.org/about/early_childhood_education_news.aspx

To access the Coalition’s ‘perfect fit’ article where they connect early education and CCSS:
http://coalitionforcommunityschools.blogspot.com/2012/04/early-childhood-linkages-with-community.html

To see how the current Tulsa CCSS alignment efforts grew from an earlier Tulsa Community Foundation movement, TulsaCommunityFoundation (scroll to the bottom of page 50 and look on the right hand side for “Step Up Tulsa!”)

 

Back to NIEER:

I found buried in their publications and research this document which was presented in the ‘resources’ section of their newsletter detailing the re-authorization of the ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act). This document was published by the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP). The topic? “Making PreK to 3rd Grade Assessments Matter”. You won’t believe what you read. It is full of CBE (competency based education). CBE is a huge portion of not only CCSS, but CTE (Career Tech Education).
To access the document: leading-pre-k-3-learning-communities-executive-summary
You really should look at the entire July 2015 newsletter. Why? You’ll find a global investment summit where the topic was early childhood education; you’ll find a federal budget for early childhood learning; you can find studies, and links galore.
To access the NIEER newsletter: http://nieer.org/publications/online-newsletters/volume-14-issue-14

As far as the NIEER state by state yearbook (the original screen shot of this article), you’ll want to investigate that, too. CCSS is listed in the glossary of abbreviations. You’ll also see Title One funding and TANF funding (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). I was able to tie abuse of TANF funds by CCSS in the states in my previous article, https://commoncorediva.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/ftf-more-tracking-the-workforce-aligned-society/ 
To access the 2014 Yearbook: Yearbook2014_full2_0