Original Post: Schools Don’t Need More Technology–They Need Less.
I was on my high school’s board of education for a year. It was quite an honor, honestly, but I screwed it up. At the time, I was a software […]
Original Post: Schools Don’t Need More Technology–They Need Less.
I was on my high school’s board of education for a year. It was quite an honor, honestly, but I screwed it up. At the time, I was a software […]
Claim: On H.R. 5’s extension of NCLB mandates, A-PLUS itself requires “each State…[to] establish and implement a single system of academic standards and academic assessments.”
Eden has apparently not read the Walker-DeSantis A-PLUS amendment that is pending with the Rules Committee, hopefully to be offered to H.R. 5. There is no such requirement for states to set up a testing system.
Claim: On H.R. 5’s lack of program eliminations, A-PLUS itself does not eliminate programs and amounts to mere consolidation.
A-PLUS is a real block grant to states that allows them to bypass federal mandates. True, A-PLUS itself does not eliminate programs, although Heritage Action believes that is an important aspect of any comprehensive education bill, like H.R. 5. A-PLUS is one part of needed education reform.
Claim: On H.R. 5’s mandate of a statewide accountability system, A-PLUS itself has a mandated statewide accountability system of its own.
H.R. 5 requires a much different sort of statewide accountability system that is designed for “interventions to be implemented at the local level for Title I schools the state determines to be poorly performing.” A-PLUS envisions a different accountability system altogether that is simply designed to give parents information about the progress being made in academic achievement. It has nothing to do with intervening in local schools.
Eden then goes on to criticize our brief for “three misleading claims that Heritage cites and promptly confirms are actually true.” But in doing so, he picks and chooses from our analysis to make his points. The best response is to restate our full points.
Claim: “H.R. 5 eliminates the AYP requirement…”
FACT: H.R. 5 eliminates the AYP requirement, but the bill maintains requirements for states to develop their own “statewide accountability structure, a system of school improvement interventions to be implemented at the local level for…schools the state determines to be poorly performing.
Claim: “H.R. 5 empowers parents with more school choice options by allowing Title I funds to follow children to public or charter schools of their parent’s choice.”
FACT: Adequate portability would extend to private schools of choice, if a state chose. This was an amendment proposed by Rep. Luke Messer (R-IN) in committee before being withdrawn–it is a proposal that deserves inclusion in any NCLB reauthorization.
Claim: H.R. 5 protects against Common Core:
FACT: H.R. 5 prevents future federal government coercion of states into adopting Common Core standards. The bill includes language that prevents the Secretary of Education from imposing conditions on the states, including the adoption of Common Core, and prohibits federal funding from being used to “endorse, approve, develop, require, or sanction” Common Core. [Our point being that while H.R. 5 includes good language on Common Core, the bill does not repeal the standards because states must do that on their own.]
By Mary Byrne
As a member of the Social Studies 6-12 Academic Standards Work Group constituted by HB 1490, I’d like to applaud Representative Swan’s recognition of the need for ensuring students in Missouri understand their history and responsibility as American citizens in our republican form of government; and offer a recommendation to achieve a better educated Missouri student without high stakes testing in citizenship.
HB 578 Section 170.345.3 states,
. . . “The test required under subsection 2 of this section shall use the same one
10 hundred questions used by the USCIS that are administered to applicants for United States
11 citizenship. In order to receive a passing score on the test, the student shall answer at least
12 sixty of the one hundred questions correctly.
As you are aware, Arizona passed a similar bill, and in fact, a national organization, Campaign for Civic Mission of Schools (CCMS), is promoting similar legislation throughout the country. CCMS is partnered with Pearson, a testing corporation that profits from increased testing in schools. The goal is worthy of your attention, however, you may not be aware of background information that, when explained, will support what should be a substantive, long-term alternative to a potentially expensive, high-stakes test.
(1) Please note the unintended negative effects of the testing approach to assuring good citizenship discussed by Peter Levine, associate dean for research at Tufts University’s Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service:
“Requiring students to pass the citizenship exam will reduce both the amount and the quality of civic education in our schools. The test is easy. You can see all the questions and answers in advance and just memorize the right choices. If passing this exam comes to be seen as adequate preparation for citizenship, schools will notice that their students can pass after cramming for a couple of hours. They will cut their semester-long civics courses as unnecessary preparation. They will prefer to dedicate that semester to math or science, which involve much more sophisticated and challenging tests.
Requiring the citizenship exam would make sense if our students didn’t already study civics or face tests. It would establish a floor, a minimal level of competence. But more than 90% of recent high school graduates have spent a semester in a civics course, and most have also spent a year on U.S. history. Their teachers gave them tests. In many states http://www.civicyouth.org/maps/state-civic-ed/index.html, they also faced a standardized test on civics or social studies. Then why do so many adults fail basic questions about the U.S. political system? Because we have forgotten what we learned in civics class. Too often, the subject wasn’t inspiring or challenging and didn’t build habits of following and discussing the news. The problem with civics is not that we fail to teach it. The problem is that civics is often viewed as a set of disconnected facts, not as a challenging and inspiring subject that will continue to interest us after high school. Arizona’s measure requiring that students pass the citizenship test will make that problem worse. The citizenship exam requires, for instance, that you know that “27 http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html” is the correct answer when you’re asked how many constitutional amendments have been passed. You don’t need to understand reasons for or against those amendments, or have any sense of why they were important. A month after students pass this test, they will forget the number 27. But they might retain the message that being a good citizen is a matter of memorizing some random information. That seems like an excellent way to turn people off. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/02/08/citizenship-civics-social-studies-editorials-debates/23088621/
(2) No Child Left Behind and it’s testing requirements for federal funding is at least partially responsible for emphasizing two academic subject areas, mathematics and English, while relegating knowledge and skills in history and government to the periphery of K-12 instruction. No state level legislation mandating a 100-question citizenship test will correct the neglect of teaching our children about their history and government in a meaningful way. (See Imperiling the Republic http://pioneerinstitute.org/download/imperiling-the-republic-the-fate-of-u-s-history-instruction-under-common-core/)
(3) Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, Missourians have been misinformed about their government. When the social studies standards were developed, Marc Tucker’s National Center on Education and the Economy, a Carnegie-funded non-governmental organization in Washington, DC provided consultation. The Show-Me Social Studies Standards (See Appendix A attached) expect students to know that the U.S. is a constitutional democracy. Though familiarity with the U.S. Constitution is included in the body of the social studies standards, even teachers are not familiar with Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution that states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, . . . ” Thomas Jefferson said, our form of government was a democratical republic — the emphasis being a republic is representative form of government, rather than a democracy. A most disturbing cause for this misinformation and incorrect teaching of American students about American form of government can be traced to the Carnegie-funded publication of the American Historical Association. (See Report of the Commission of Social Studies (see highlighted sections), and Contrarians Chapter 1 attached). Similar misinformation is perpetuated in the College Board’s newly revised AP American History course. (See President of the National Association of Scholars, Peter Wood’s discussion of the misinformation in AP History http://www.nas.org/articles/the_new_ap_history_a_preliminary_reportand http://www.nas.org/articles/update_on_ap_us_history) Again, no state level legislation mandating a 100-question citizenship test will correct the neglect of teaching our children about their history and government in a truthful and meaningful way.
The Missouri State Board of Education is, at least partially, responsible for ongoing dissemination of misinformation and promulgating sub-standard social studies standards. I am aware of at least one former Missouri school board member who on three occasions contacted the state board of education to put a correction of the standards on the board agenda; however, the correction was never made. I am also aware of another Missouri citizen who contacted DESE about the error, but no remedy was offered. Only in 2015, due to pressure from legislators, instigated by questions from the academic standards work groups in social studies, has the state board made an effort to correct the error of identifying the American form of government as a constitutional democracy. (See January State Board of Ed. agenda — SocStudAcademicStandards attached)
Attached is a Thomas B. Fordham Institute report rating Missouri’s Show-Me Social Studies Standards with an F.(see SOSS MO attached) Although the method of review was not rigorous by research-method standards, competent professionals in history reviewing Missouri’s social studies standards gave them a very poor rating indeed. It should be evident that teaching Missouri’s students using high standards for knowledge and skills in history, government, and American citizenship throughout their K-12 education will produce more substantive and lasting competence for participation in America’s exceptional form of government than the test required in the bill.
(4) Also of note is that coursework in American history, government, and civics is not expected in the liberal arts education of postsecondary education program. If America is to cultivate well-educated leaders for future service in our government (which is the purpose of publically funded education as per our Missouri Constitution Article IX, Section 1a), state boards of education must ensure that a liberal arts education includes substantive study of the unique history and structure of our American government. (Losing America’s Memory attached).
Conclusion: Though HB 578 is well-intended, the requirement to make high school graduation contingent on a test for assessment knowledge of citizenship will not likely achieve the intended goal; and potentially has unknown costs to school districts as students take the test multiple times to get a passing score.
Recommendations for improving Missouri students’ knowledge and competence in citizenship are:
1. development of social studies standards that expect accurate and factual knowledge as well as competence in research skills from K through 12; and
2. work to reduce federal intrusion in state education testing and develop statewide testing that emphasizes history and civics throughout grades K-12 along with reading, math, and science;
3. exit from College Board’s AP course in American history which omits important information about events and values that are the foundation of American liberty and government;
4. postsecondary coursework in American history and government for a liberal arts education of all postsecondary undergraduates.
I am pleased to answer any questions you may have regarding my testimony. Thank you for your consideration of this information.
Mary Byrne, Ed.D.
Please be aware that Pearson, a testing and publishing corporation, is a major influence in promoting legislation that will increase testing (especially multiple opportunities of testing, which increases the cost to school districts)
Pearson partners with the Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools, an organization promoting the national campaign for high stakes testing in citizenship
As the House and Senate consider a reauthorization of No Child Left Behind, lawmakers should not let the opportunity pass to advance a bold conservative vision for education policy. For far too long, the federal government’s expansive reach into education has gone unchecked. Now is the time for Congress to restore federalism in education, empower parents and students instead of bureaucrats and unions, and remove archaic obstacles that have prevented true opportunity for all.
Moving forward, there are five principled criteria that Congress should meet in any reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), currently known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). These include the following:
Regardless of the quantifiable data supporting its success, homeschooling, or as I and my friends like to call it, parent led education, isn’t really very well appreciated across the American culture. And because of that, homeschoolers face persecution of all sorts. I can personally attest to that as I home schooled my own children.
EAGnews.org reports a Virginia couple will go before their local school board, tomorrow, to address a new policy, which requires their children and any prospective home schooled 14 year olds . . .
"Why? Why do I need to know what so & so did x hundred years ago?!"If the answer they give you is only that it's for you to learn 'important and and useful cultural references', you might want to consider leaving. If their answer is 'to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past', you should probably go ahead and get up and start for the door. If their answer is 'to get an appreciation for diverse points of view', I suggest burning rubber to get out of there.
"Napoleon Chagnon’s Noble Savages is the remarkable memoir of a life dedicated to science—and a revealing account of the clash between science and political activism.He expected to find a Noble Savage? Really? In a place he thought of as not having a developed civilization, he expected to find one of the finest fruits of civilization? Would you?
When Napoleon Chagnon arrived in Venezuela’s Amazon region in 1964 to study the Yanomamö Indians, he expected to find Rousseau’s “noble savage.” Instead he found a shockingly violent society. He spent years living among the Yanomamö, observing their often tyrannical headmen, learning to survive under primitive and dangerous conditions. When he published his observations, a firestorm of controversy swept through anthropology departments. Chagnon was vilified by other anthropologists, condemned by his professional association (which subsequently rescinded its reprimand), and ultimately forced to give up his fieldwork. Throughout his ordeal, he never wavered in his defense of science. In 2012 he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences."
[Hey kids, what is the value of an education that tells you so little about your fellow man or even about your own self? Same answer: little or nothing at all.]More evidence of this can be found in what it was that Chagnon considered to be such a noteworthy discovery: finding that in his observations of the stone age Yanomamö, and soon afterwards with the technologically advanced tribes of Academia, that,
“I discovered that maximizing political and personal security was the overwhelming driving force in human, social and cultural evolution. My observation is based not only on what we have thus far learned from political science and anthropological field reports, but also on a lifetime of experience living with native Amazonian tribesmen who chronically live in what Hobbes called in his major treatise, Leviathan (1651), a condition of war. He likened war to foul weather - not just a shower or two, but a persistent condition for extended periods of time, something chronic. The Yanomamo among whom I lived were constantly worried about attacks from their neighbors and constantly live in fear of this possibility.While it's good that he realized that Hobbes missed a few points and Rousseau was whacked, he shouldn't have needed to take such a long, dangerous expedition to discover what he could have, should have, learned from a basic study of Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy & Tacitus in the comforts of a classroom under a teacher who already understood both them and the common errors students make, before ever having graduated from college. That he didn't, that should tell you something of the historical wasteland of wacademia, and that was from back before the storm of the 1960's broke upon us.
Neither Hobbes nor Rousseau ever saw people like Yanomamo tribesmen living in a "state of nature." Their philosophical positions about Man in a state of nature were derived entirely from speculation. It is therefore astonishing that some cultural anthropologists cling to the Nobel Savage view of human nature when ours is the profession that collected almost all of the empirical data on tribesmen and what social life was like under "pristine" or "Stone Age" conditions. Thus anthropologists should be the most likely people to arrive at a highly informed, empirically defensible view of human nature using the evidence from generations of anthropological research. ”
Just because a society develops more efficient technologies and stylized habits of dress, shelter and customs, that does not prevent them from behaving just as savagely as the Yanomamö; technology, social norms and a modern fashion sense, aren't key to what makes the difference between nobility and savagery, and if you do make the mistake of thinking that tweed jackets & mahogany libraries either make someone noble or rid one them of their savagery, then you too will be in for a surprise every bit as large as Chagnon's was, when he found the behaviors of the Yanomamö reflected in his fellows of Academe.
- Firstly, that savagery is normal - or at least easy - for human beings,
- Secondly, that it is not only natural, but deeply tempting for people seek to use, and to excuse, the use of power to maximize their political and personal security,
- Thirdly, that neither primitive mud huts, modern campuses nor royal palaces are reliable indicators of whether or not the people living within them are savages themselves.
- and Fourth, that there is something which some societies do develop, which lifts them above that baseline; What that is should be a constant question for anyone who doesn't wish to remain a savage
1) The issue here is that the state of Missouri recently passed a law, HB1490, to undertake the significant task of rewriting our educational curriculum standards.The sole reason why this law was passed, was because of DESE's ham-fisted and incompetent attempts over the last several years to roll-out their pet Common Core standards by steam rolling them over any and all questions, debates, and opposition. That behavior infuriated both parents and teachers alike and caused the Missouri Legislature, Left and Right, to pass HB1490 into law, stating that our curriculum standards will be written by representatives from across the state of Missouri, selected from experienced teaching professionals and parents selected by Missouri's Governor, Lt. Governor, Speaker of the House and Senate Pro Tempore.
- Why do we have work groups to write our curriculum standards.
- Were the work groups convened with an eye towards success.
- If not, why.
- What does DESE need for a win.
- What does Missouri need for a win.
, and so forth.
- Kick it off by gathering all parties together in one place for a launch meeting,
- giving leaders from the various stake holders involved an opportunity to set the general tone and key points for the project;
- clarify your project's purpose and getting understanding and buy in from the various departments and people involved.
- let participants know who they'll be working with and making them aware of any slots yet to be filled,
- establish clear channels for coordinating efforts and preserving communication between the several groups,
- informing all of who will be attending meetings, who to contact with questions,
3) We don't need to turn the clock back very far to figure out why they might not want HB1490 to proceed according to the intent of the law. Try looking at the 'talking tour' they conducted across the state last year, this format of 'permitting' people to speak under very controlled circumstances, and breaking people up into groups without allowing the comparing of notes or receiving direct answers to questions, was and is standard fare for DESE: to divide, to take control of communication and so conquer, which is the same strategy they employed last week, and show every sign of intending to continue.
- they refused to have a plenary 'kick off' meeting,
- they refused to allow the meetings to be convened in a manner conducive to unity and success,
- most of those involved were given last minute notification - if at all - that they were being called together from across the state of Missouri to attend two days of meetings in Jefferson City (The MO House & Senate leadership deserves heavy criticism for their lack of leadership in this area as well).
- there were no clarifying speeches or discussions,
- there were no introductions of the different teams to each other,
- there were no clear explanations of what it was we were to accomplish,
- the posted meeting places were in multiple buildings around the capital and were even moved, without notice or note, at the last minute, leaving the members to track down the correct meeting room after having been directed to the wrong one.
To accomplish that, and subvert HB1490, DESE took immediate control of the narrative with their first 'press release' for the upcoming work groups, securing a controlling role for themselves, while minimizing the perception of the power those in the work groups would have, in relation to DESE. This line in particular sums it up:
- control the narrative,
- minimize objections,
- make the objections and those objecting seem unreasonable,
- control the presentation of how the standards are discussed, enabling them to retain as much of the Common Core standards as possible,
- If the standards work groups fail, DESE will implement the standards they choose - Common Core.
"The meetings are open to the public; however, seating is very limited. Spectators will be provided comment cards if they wish to leave feedback. Only members of the work groups will be given the opportunity to speak during the meetings."[emphasis mine]Members of the work groups were to be 'Given', the opportunity to speak?In our own meetings? So you tell me, reading that, does it seem to you that DESE's intention is to see to it that autonomous work groups will be convened so as to define the standards that DESE would then have the job of implementing? Or does it seem more as if DESE intends to see these groups as working under the control and guidance of DESE? Add to that the fact that they scheduled the eight work groups in different buildings around the capital, keeping the members as far apart as possible and with as little awareness of each other and those they would be working with, of who and what to expect, and who best to ask questions of, other than DESE themselves, and it's clear that they mean to be the only ones in control of the process.
"Well you should have done what we did, we said ___", and they stared at us in annoyance and answered "We did!". And to each additional
"Oh, well then did you ___?"of ours, they answered "We did!"
Take a look at these two videos. The first lays it out the points you should be looking for, and in the second video, the second shows it in real time action, how difficult it is to prevent their taking control, even though you know what to look for.
Watch the Social Studies K-5, 9/22/14 AM session, and I'll bet that you won't see what's being done to the participants until it's already been done - it was decided in the first minute of their meeting, by letting the DESE facilitator start their meeting. They assumed the sale, took possession of the floor, and having taken the floor, it became theirs.
|They began their presentation, nicely, politely, asking for introductions, walking participants through their slides... and so assumed and kept control of the meeting from that point on. Despite the valiant efforts of the two members who had no other connection to MO Ed than being parents - indeed, because of their opposition - the nice facilitators gained more power with every objection they made, seeming more and more reasonable, while the objections, and those making them, seemed more and more small and unreasonable.|
"The DESE facilitator cannot control this meeting, we of this work group will do that...", but that is in fact exactly what happened. Having been able to start the K-5 session, the DESE facilitator didn't just take control, they were assumed to have it, and those who work in one aspect or another of the state schooling industry, felt themselves to have the upper hand along with them, and they never let it go.
“HB1490 was designed to vest in the Education Work Groups the power to shape recommendations for academic standards absent influence from bureaucrats and politicians. Under the law, after DESE convened the initial meeting, the power shifts to the groups alone to guide themselves each month with the goal of delivering their best academic standards recommendations by Oct. 1, 2015. There exists no authority in the statute for DESE to dictate the deliberations of these work groups, nor even to guide their deliberations after the initial organizing meetings held yesterday, unless invited to do so by individual work groups.”, but really, it was no more helpful than the work group participants questions and statements.
Anyone who reads the plain language of the Constitution and the writings of James Madison would come away with the unambiguous impression that the Founders vested the federal government with very few powers – powers that they felt could only be executed by a central government. Much of what the federal government does in this post-constitutional era is not only superfluous but deleterious to economic growth and free market fairness.
However, there are other functions that are vital and important, albeit best left up to state and/or local governments to administer. On this day 88 years ago, President Calvin Coolidge delivered a speech at the College of William and Mary echoing this very sentiment:
“We must also recognize that the national administration is not and cannot be adjusted to the needs of local government …
The States should not be induced by coercion or by favor to surrender the management of their own affairs.
The Federal Government ought to resist the tendency to be loaded up with duties which the States should perform.
It does not follow that because something ought to be done the National Government ought to do it.”
Two major issues that fit into this category are authority over transportation and education. Both of those issues are in the news today, and conservatives should take note if they plan to effectively advance a conservative reform agenda in the coming years.
With regards to transportation, once again the Senate is doubling down on the failed transportation policy of the federal sinkhole. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved a $265 billion highway bill, which dictates full control over transportation policy for all 50 states. Each state has its own unique population, geography, topography, and transportation needs, yet it is all centrally planned in one 5-year bill from Washington. Naturally, when you couple the inefficiencies with federal labor and environmental mandates, along with $43 billion spent on mass transit, the revenue collected from the federal gasoline tax can no longer cover the full cost.
Instead of taxing or borrowing our way out of the quicksand of inefficient federal policy, we should devolve most transportation authority to the states. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA) have companion bills (S. 1702/ HR 3264) to do just that. Each state would levy its own tax to purvey highway projects and can easily prioritize the level of taxation and spending based upon its needs. This is not even a left or right issue. More liberal states would naturally levy a higher gas tax to fund infrastructure projects, while conservatives would cut other functions deemed unnecessary or harmful. But that should not be decided by the federal government.
Education is also an important function that should be controlled by those closest to the classroom, particularly local governments. While our ultimate goal must be to remove the federal government from K-12 and higher education altogether, there are two promising bills from Senator Lee that would empower state and local governments with control over some aspects of education.
After a half century of producing no positive results, Senator Lee and Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) want to devolve the $8.6 billion budget for the Head Start program to the states (S. 2119/HR 4481). The program has done nothing but self-perpetuate and create jobs for special interests. There is certainly nothing to lose by letting the states experiment with the money already appropriated.
Another bill (S.1904), sponsored by Senator Lee and Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), would reform accreditation for institutions of higher education.
One of the major problems with the Department of Education is that is distorts the “education market” much like any other government intervention in the private economy. The current higher education accreditation system is controlled by the federal government and creates a one-size-fits-all system that is heavily slanted towards conventional four-year college degrees. This system does not work for everyone, but the accreditation process has forced many people into this framework, even if they would like to pursue other educational training. In turn, it has contributed to the “education bubble,” in which federal bureaucrats work with leaders of higher education to over-utilize and over-emphasize the current system, thereby driving up the cost of an education – and by extension – student loan debt.
Senator Lee’s Higher Education Reform and Opportunity [HERO] Act would allow states to create their own system of accreditation, which could grant students the same benefits and status for pursuing alternative coursework, apprenticeships or vocational training.
Every Republican publicly decries the growth of the federal government, but many decline to divulge which functions they would eliminate other than rooting out waste and fraud. Senator Lee’s bills on education and transportation provide conservatives with a solid opportunity to advocate limited federal government, federalism, and changing course from decades of failed policies by the federal government.
It’s an admonishment you’ve heard dozens of times. Dr. Benjamin Franklin left the Constitutional Convention on September 17th, 1787 and was met by a woman who asked, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Dr. Franklin replied, “A republic, madam – if you can keep it.”
I’ve investigated a dozen different school districts from Denver to Richmond, and at the earliest of ages (kindergarten and first grade), our children are being indoctrinated into the false teaching that America is a Constitutional Democracy. Of course, they want to say “Constitutional Democracy” since the vast majority of educrats are liberals and Democrats… …and Democracy sounds like Democrats. A republic, well, sounds like those ‘evil Republicans’.
Our Constitution and Freedoms are under constant attack, and even after we gave the Republicans all the power they need to stop the out-of-control spending, force massive reduction in the size of the Federal Government, and enjoin it to live within the confines of the document which they swore an oath to defend, the train continues full-steam towards the edge of the cliff.
We save the republic.
Ask Thomas Jefferson…
“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their controul with a wholsome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. this is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” [sic]
The people have given up control of the ultimate powers of the society. It’s time to take it back. And, citizens across the nation are doing just that.
Isn’t it about time YOU did something?
Join other patriots this Saturday April 26th 10:00am – 6:30pm in training to gain the knowledge, skills, and abilities to articulate your desire to make the policy changes necessary to restore our governments to their proper roles! Current liberty-minded civics training only teaches theory. This is application training, practical exercises, and instruction to turn you into a Citizen Lobbyist with the skills to affect the direction of your local government as well as state and federal government.
For more information on the Saturday April 26th class, click here.
For more information, on the Center for Self-Governance, click here.
Original Post: Rockwood School Board Quid Pro Quo?.
From the “see, I told ya so” file . . . Rockwood NEA President Suzanne Dotta worked hard to influence the recent school board election. The candidates Ms. Dotta pushed won. The new board hired Ms. Dotta as Director of Professional Learning within 72 hours of the election. I expect Ms. Dotta to teach Rockwood’s…