On-line “learning” allows for the full “personalization” of education. The computer/technology is constantly analyzing student data, personalizing the education of each child/person based on the desired outcomes of those designing the system.
So, every child will “receive” an amount from the government for education (and, childcare, too will be included).
How is this “attached/following” money any different from the WELFARE system?
Every child receives a government handout for education/childcare?
There is already a very long list of “risk” categories that result in additional funding to schools for kids falling into those “risk”: categories.
Won’t all of those categories now be specifically assigned to each individual child, resulting in differing amounts “following each child?”
How is this not a gateway to UNIVERSAL INCOME?
Why wouldn’t other “health and wellbeing” factors be added to “education?”
Why not food, housing, healthcare, etc.?
The cost of ALL education will skyrocket, just like all other places that have government supplements and regulations. Think of government healthcare, higher education costs, and on and on.
For all the “education” places that will spring up, do parents think they will automatically be able to have their child attend the place of their choosing? Won’t every physical location have a max capacity?
What will be the entrance and qualification criteria?
Who will be determining the entrance and qualification criteria?
There will be regulations, just like every other government “solution.” NOT ONE “school choice” design or pieces of legislation hasn’t included the following
The necessary accountability measures.
Determinations as to what is eligible and acceptable.
“Qualifying” organizations, scholarships, standards, etc.
Robust systems and administration requirements to oversee (track) it all
How does this not allow for even more re-distribution of income, re-distribution of opportunity?
Some excerpts from Brainwashing by Edward Hunter:
“Learning” and confession are inseparable from brainwashing.
Learning in this sense means only political teaching from the communist standpoint.
Confession is an integral part of the rites.
In China there are no exceptions from it for anyone, any more than for attendance at “learning” classes.
Everyone within reach of Party cadres, security police, and soldiers has to attend, even if a hermit in a cave.
The retention of his own individuality by a single person is recognized as a deadly menace by the whole monolithic structure.
“Learning begins with the study of communist literature, but soon embraces what is called criticism, self-criticism, examination, re-examination, though conclusions, and “learning by doing.”
These are obligatory in schools, factories, government bureaus, army battalions, and prisons.
… language and ideals … were taken over and given new meanings and new interpretations in accordance with communist needs.
Brainwashing is a combination of this face evangelism and quack psychiatry in a setting of false science.
The entire mechanism of brainwashing, so as to condition the patient and to indoctrinate him, … is geared to putting his mind into a fog.
This book was published in 1956.
Below, you will find an article from the Kansas City Star from August 18, 2020:
I’ve been saying it from day one of kids not returning to schools in March. The changes that kids experienced under the guise of “health” and “safety” in response to the overreaction to C19, were just the “next steps” for the direction the state was already taking education.
It’s confirmed in this article from the Kansas City Star. (See attached photos below.)
Just a regurgitation of training for the workforce.
Kids don’t receive an education.
They are merely trained for some trade.
Their attitudes, values and beliefs are what is molded.
Per the article (see attached photos below):
For example, a successful pre-K through second grade student can “recognize characteristics of caring relationships and hurtful relationships and identify trusting adults” and “identify personal strengths and weaknesses.”
Mmmmm…parents send their kids to school to learn arithmetic, reading, writing, etc. Pre-K through second graders already being labeled as to their supposed strengths and weaknesses? Relationship defining? Most school materials do not emphasize a child’s parents as the primary “trusting adult.”
Success is measured by the ability of students to demonstrate “competency” in performing various actions.
If the above are just two examples of the voluminous “competencies” kids must demonstrate, how are each of these “competencies” specifically defined, and HOW will a kid be asked to DEMONSTRATE such?
In a competency approach, less emphasis is placed on the amount of time a student receives instruction.
This really means, that less emphasis is placed on actual academics.
Some Kansas districts are already dabbling in competency-based education as part of KSDE’s efforts to redesign schooling. Kansas Education Commissioner Randy Watson said the pandemic will speed up adoption of competency-based models, though he emphasized the guidance to districts won’t be mandatory.
Again, CONFIRMATION, that the “changes” happening in the schools were just “the next steps,” not a change in direction in response to C19. It won’t be “mandatory,” but it IS the eventual endpoint for schools. So how has this redesign been going for the districts already “dabbling” in it?
Some schools have actually dropped the platform because concerns of the parents. Here in Kansas, there are parents that have fought their school boards over this and some have even moved their children to other school districts! (But, with it being rolled out to more districts, there won’t be any other districts to transfer to.) They all noticed a severe drop in their child’s grades on the platform. There also have been reports of concerns of the personal data that is being shared online with this platform.
If you notice, ACADEMICS are <25% of what he says Kansans say they want for kids’ education.
He stated that it is intended for the REDESIGN to be in ALL Kansas schools via accreditation requirements.
The Commissioner is adept at inserting that this Redesign is uniquely Kansan. It is not. It is ALL training for the workforce. AND, it is NOT NEW. It has an extensive documented history. Global interests, governments, think tanks, and education “designers” have promoted the components of the Kansas Redesign for nearly a century:
Training children (NOT the same as educating them) for the workforce.
Individual Plans of Study (IPS) for EVERY child.
IPS is made capable via the technology in the classroom.
Parents are not inherently allowed to decide if they want their child to use technology.
“Testing” is not the same as “assessing.” Testing determines knowledge acquisition; insuring what you are doing is working. Assessing evaluates worth; whether a child holds acceptable values, beliefs, etc.
Assessing is made capable via the technology in the classroom.
The technology amasses millions of pieces of data on every child, and performs analytics on that data, eventuating in a determination of every child’s future.
State accreditation requires school districts to include Social and Emotional Learning (SEL).
This results in EVERY child having some type of mental health and behavioral scheme applied to him.
Parents are not inherently allowed to decide if they want their child to be socially, emotionally, mentally, or behaviorally assessed.
Workforce training and SEL are necessarily EXPENSIVE.
It takes extensive resources to determine every citizen’s future and foster a compliant citizenry.
A couple years ago, Kansas began appropriating $10 million for a K-2 Mental Health Pilot Program. Schools are focusing more on hiring psychologists, social workers, and counselors. PARENTS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE INFORMED OR CONSENT TO SCREENING DEVICES BEING USED ON THEIR CHILD. “A key component of the pilot project is the UNIVERSAL DATABASE.”
A Kansas Superintendent of a school district implementing SEL stated:
SEL will be integrated in the curriculum; it will not be taught separately. It is not likely that a student could “opt out” of SEL curricular efforts. For to do so, would be to opt out of a majority of the curriculum.
It’s called the Medicalization of Our Schools. Presently, academics are being replaced with wrap-around mental health services and interventions into EVERY child’s personalities, values, beliefs, and dispositions. Personal behavior data is logged by teachers into data systems. Out of this comes curriculum, activities, software, and programming to change the personal qualities of children and their families in order to meet government objectives – the NEEDS you hear about in Commerce and Workforce departments and committees.
Spend some time in the Commerce committees of the legislature. You will hear much about the NEEDS of THE STATE. You will hear children (who are ultimately adult citizens) referred to as HUMAN CAPITAL. We are assessing our children’s worth to the planned economy. Every child monitored and tracked via district technology for distance learning.
Is this the education you desire for your child every day they “go to school?”
Is this – along with all the new C19 “safety” measures awaiting your child – what you want your child to have to navigate beginning in about eight weeks?
As well, contact YOUR Senator and Senate LEADERSHIP, as well as any many HOUSE LEGISLATORS that voted in support of HB 2016.
WHAT TO DO?
*Some will call you back; some won’t.
*Be very clear as to the importance of NOT “balancing” or “compromising” or “reaching across the aisle” when it comes to your INHERENT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
There is NEVER a justified basis for infringement of innate individual rights as is protected by the Constitution. NO “balancing” the safety/health with the rights of individuals.
My health information is PERSONAL and PRIVATE.
NO person or interest beyond my personal doctor should have any of my health information.
NO person should be inquiring as to my whereabouts or associations. EVER.
Anything not conforming to these principles will NOT BE COMPLIED with.
Again, VOTE AGAINST this bill.
Stop insulting Kansans by voting to allow the government to infringe on our innate rights that are protected by the Constitution.
Remind your representative/senator that he SWORE to uphold and defend the Constitution.
Kansans’ ability and right to worship, freely move about, provide for themselves and their families, operate a business, and have privacy and anonymity in their associations, personal information, and doings must NOT be infringed.
HB 2346, regarding standards for school-administered vision screenings, is on the agenda for the Senate Education committee meeting today.
HB 2346 is an example of state accreditation creep.
In summary …
This bill expands the purview of local public schools beyond kids enrolled, assuming an oversight of all kids within its geographic boundaries.
This bill further expands the heavy hand of state accreditation.
This bill further expands the mission of schools well beyond academics.
This bill expands the data amassed under the “education” umbrella to include medical data.
This bill does not explicitly provide the protections that apply to medical data.
This bill places a medical service under the authority and purview of the state education board and departments.
This bill places parents in more of a subordinate position; having schools complying with government requirements more responsible for implementation, amassing data, and monitoring.
This bill diminishes parent authority.
Many people will say schools have always been doing vision and hearing screenings. Why is this a big deal?
We submit that parents are not fully aware of the impacts of this “free” screening regarding the subjugation of their fundamental rights and authority for their own children, the impacts of the data being amassed on their children, and the lack of privacy protections. This bill also progressively expands the mission and purview of government education into the medical arena. Many would argue that the unrelenting expansion of information available to the government on citizens is continuing down a dangerous course. As well, the consolidation of information from the education, medical, social, and labor areas for all practical purposes results in a government dossier on individual citizens.
This bill would expand state accreditation parameters to place more state programming in nonpublic schools and affect kids in nonpublic schools. It further expands the mission of education into the medical area. This is in keeping with decades-long goals to establish schools as the centers of communities, providing all manner of social services, physical and mental “health” services, fitting in some academics where possible.
When a parent engages the services of a medical professional to provide vision services, that appointment is protected by HIPPA and at the direction of the parent. This bill does not appear to provide the same HIPPA protections.
Based on the reading of this bill, the education institution is the main engager of the services of a vision screener, who is only required to notify the parent in the event of a referral to an ophthalmologist or optometrist. Not only is the school the main initiator of this for the child, rather than the parent, but the data regarding this is all held within education systems.
As well, yet another state level commission would be established within the State Board of Education to monitor the implementation of this act. Again, all of this bill falls under education and not health. Additionally, it establishes yet another state system to collect data on citizens. Schools will at a minimum be collecting information at the individual level. The bill does not specify any restrictions on access to this individual information, nor does it specify whether data reported will be at the individual level.
The cost of this requirement is to be born either by the nonpublic school or local board of the district where a nonpublic school student resides.
These things are not characteristics of America. They are, however, characteristics of other governments not established to ensure maximum individual privacy and freedom.
PLEASE, contact the following Senate Education Committee members and ask them to VOTE AGAINST HB2346.
HB2515, to establish the Kansas Scholarship Act, is on the agenda for the Senate Education committee meeting today.
When did it become and where is it stated in the Constitution that it is the responsibility of government to manage the workforce?
It is NOT CONSTITUTIONAL.
It is NOT a characteristic of a LIMITED GOVERNMENT designed to protect the right and ability of Americans to enjoy lives of maximum individual freedom.
This bill embodies SOCIALIST characteristics.
This bill asks the GOVERNMENT to be involved in INFLUENCING the JOB market.
This is NOT an AMERICAN characteristic.
This bill is just one of several un-American bills that overwhelmingly passed the House. It is sponsored by a House Republican, Representative Tarwater. ONLY SIX representatives VOTED AGAINST it, four of whom were Republicans.
HB2515 provides for the annual COLLABORATION with the Department of Commerce and Kansas business and industry to identify up to ten job fields that currently have the highest need for skilled employees. This is government WORKFORCE development!!!!
Why is it desirous, much less “OK,” for the GOVERNMENT to be determining and attempting to INFLUENCE the vocations of individual citizens?
And, it comes with an estimated hefty SOCIALISTIC cost of $17.3M and the additional cost to the taxpayer to pay administrative costs.
PLEASE, contact the following Senate Education Committee members and ask them to VOTE AGAINST HB2515.
Are you being constantly bombarded with reminders of a “mental health crisis?” A crisis?
Do you view your life and that of each of your children as “individual” free human beings?
Or, do you view your and your children’s lives as being mere elements of and accountable to society’s global systems of education, health (physical and mental), family, vocation, and service?
“Mental health refers to how a person thinks, feels, and acts when faced with life’s situations.” Pretty much encompasses EVERY facet of our lives, doesn’t it?
“’New beliefs’ and ‘new thinking’ are KEY to the global management system. Adults as well as children MUST trade truth, facts and logical thinking for myths, UN values, and the consensus process. The masses must learn to see themselves, not as individuals, but as part of a greater whole: a group, a community, the planet. Finally, the United Nations is nearing its goals: to create a unified, socialist world made up of COMPLIANT work citizens ready to adapt to what Al Gore called a ‘wrenching transformation of society.’”[emphases added]
This all requires systems to MONITOR citizens, beginning at the earliest ages. Think Social Emotional Learning, school mental health programming, technology in the classrooms, surveying, home visits by community agencies, doctor office questions, etc..
Monitoring each child and his “appropriate” mental health progression is essential to managing the masses.
“The challenge to humanity is to adopt new ways of thinking, new ways of acting, new ways of organizing itself in society in short, new ways of living.”20 Our Creative Diversity, UNESCO
Don’t be deceived by nice sounding labels such as Healthy Start, Healthy People, Healthy Families, Healthy Communities, and Healthy Cities. These and other “local” campaigns for public and mental health follow a global blueprint. They all fit into a worldwide system of “health management” and surveillance led by the World Health Organization, a UN special agency that equates faith with hate and truth with intolerance.1 The goal is conditioning the masses to willingly conform to new “universal” values, environmental guidelines, and a global management system.
Dr. David Satcher, U.S. Surgeon-General and Assistant Secretary for Health, gave a progress report at a National Healthy People Consortium in November 1998: “We have a clear blueprint in place,” he announced. “Currently, 47 states are actively involved in Healthy People 2000 and’Healthy City and Healthy Community‘ initiatives are being pursued throughout the country. Hundreds of national organizations have reviewed the Year 2000 objectives and have adopted them as their own.”
Dr. Satcher then drew the connection between Healthy Start, Healthy People, mental health and the World Health Organization:
“Every child should be given the opportunity for a healthy start… No priority yet has generated as much interest and enthusiasm as this one on mental health…” “…our efforts will be focused on maintaining a system of global health surveillance…
“Healthy People 2010 is the United States’ contribution to the World Health Organization‘s call to the nations of the world to renew their commitment to health for all.”
A NEW WAY OF THINKING
In a 1996 speech at The National Children’s Mental Health Initiative, Donna Shalala, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), said,
“From fully immunizing children by age two… to stopping domestic violence, we’re working to improve the lives of young people from the cradle to young adulthood. And a strong part of our vision is the mental health of children. We believe thatmental health is just as important as physical health …maybe even more so…” 5
As head of the DHHS, Shalala helped organize The National Mental Health Services Knowledge Exchange Network (KEN). Ponder its definition for mental health:
“Mental health refers to how a person thinks, feels, and acts when faced with life’s situations. It is how people look at themselves, their lives, and the other people in their lives …and explore choices.” 6
Do you wonder what Dr. Shalala and her network of health planners would consider good thinking? Or bad thinking? This definition doesn’t tell us. How do they want people “to look at themselves” or “explore choices”? The answer is clear when you study UNESCO’s psycho-social strategies for conforming the minds of our children to its anti-Christian world view. But without background information, these ambiguous, open-ended phrases hide the true intentions.
However, Dr. Shalala and other self-proclaimed “change agents” do tell us that the old ways “a person thinks, feels, and acts” must change. They don’t fit the new global ideology or the consensus process. According to Professor Benjamin Bloom, called the Father of OBE, the new “purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students.”7 So it’s not surprising that UNESCO’s Commission on Culture and Development in its report, Our Creative Diversity, wrote that –
“The challenge to humanity is to adopt new ways of thinking, new ways of acting, new ways of organizing itself in society, in short, new ways of living.” 8
Referring to the management and monitoring of its education program, the Kansas State Board of Education made a similar statement, “QPA [Quality Performance Accreditation] is a process which demands new thinking, new strategies, new behavior, and new beliefs.”
“New beliefs” and “new thinking” are key to the global management system. Adults as well as children must trade truth, facts, and logical thinking for myths, UN values, and the consensus process. The masses must learn to see themselves, not as individuals, but as part of a greater whole: a group, a community, the planet. Finally, the United Nations is nearing its goal: to create a unified, socialist world made up of compliant world citizens ready to adapt to what Al Gore called “a wrenching transformation of society.” 9
THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WHO)
In 1946, the first head of WHO laid the foundation for today’s mental health program. Having implied that Christian parents indoctrinated “their defenseless children” with “poisonous certainties” that cause war and conflict, Canadian psychiatrist Brock Chisholm, added,
“The problem is no longer the germ of diphtheria, but rather theattitudes of parents who are incapable of accepting and using proven knowledge…
“Surely the training of children in home and schools should be of at least as great public concern as their vaccination…. Individuals who have emotional disabilities of their own–guilts, fears, inferiorities–are certain to project their hates on to others… [S]uch reaction now becomes a dangerous threat to the whole world….
“We must be prepared to sacrifice much…. If it cannot be done gently, it may have to be done roughly or even violently…” 10
Half a century has passed since Dr. Chisholm called for UN controls that would abolish divisive Christian “certainties”. Today, WHO commands an international networking agency that helps nations around the world change and monitor the ways their people think, choose, and act. Called Nations for Mental Health, it links each member state to the UN agenda and promises to steer each nation toward the UN goal:
“Governments will be assisted to formulate, implement, monitor and evaluate mental health policies.
“Mental health policies should enable all individuals whose mental health is disturbed or whose psychological balance may be compromised to obtain services adapted to their needs, and to promote the optimal development of the mental health of the population.” 11
To develop “the mental health of the population” and to prevent dissent and conflict from blocking progress, everyone must participate in the consensus process. Assessments for all — young and old — will show who might be “at risk” of not meeting the new mental standards for healthy communities.
For a glimpse at the vast network already in place, look at some of the mental health partners in the WHO agenda:
World Health Organization (WHO)
Nations for Mental Health
Dept. of Health and Human Services
National Mental Health Services Knowledge Exchange Network (KEN)
Children, in private as well as government schools, practice compliance by signing the Healthy Practices Pledge. It sounds innocuous at first — just promise to “brush with a fluoride toothpaste,” choose “snacks such as fruits and vegetables,” and “make our home a smoke-free zone,” then sign the pledge. But the contract is open-ended. It suggests that other “healthy” behaviors will be added later. 12 What if the next contract adds “cooperation with” and “tolerance for” something that conflicts with a child’s faith? What if a refusal to sign the contract brings ridicule and persecution? Is your child ready to follow God, even when pressured to conform?
HEALTHY CITIES AND COMMUNITIES
The Healthy Cities project was launched by WHO in the early eighties. Its web site explains its purpose: “The Healthy Cities Project helps change the ways in which individuals, communities, private and voluntary organizations and local governments think about, understand and make decisions about health.”13
Today, its guidelines are followed by leaders across America — whether they use the label “Healthy City” or not. Remember Dr. Satcher’s report at the 1998 Healthy People Consortium:
“‘Healthy City and Healthy Community‘ initiatives are being pursued throughout the country. Hundreds of national organizations… have [adopted] the Year 2000 objectives… Healthy People 2010 is the United States’ contribution to the World Health Organization‘s call to the nations of the world to renew their commitment to health for all. 14
It’s no accident that the last three words, “health for all,” sound like UNESCO’s 1990 World Conference on Education for All (EFA). The latter introduced the same six education goals President Bush announced in 1991. EFA’s counterpart in the health arena is WHO’s Health for All (HFA). And, like Goals 2000, the US branch of UNESCO’s outcome-based education system, “a Healthy City is defined in terms of process and outcome.”
WHO’s Healthy Cities program works with America’s Coalition for Healthier Cities and Communities, whose members may or may not use the WHO labels. But they must all follow the Total Quality Management process which calls for continual monitoring of change and progress. They must also agree to:
“measure our progress. “
“address the root causes of problems.”
“promote a broader definition of health that includes physical, mental, social, and spiritual dimensions.”
“focus on prevention, wellness and change incentives.”
PREVENTING CONFLICT AND MENTAL PROBLEMS
The key to prevention is continual and controlled training, monitoring, and remediation.15 As Clinton suggested at the 1997 White House Conference on Hate Crimes,
“There would almost have to be some sort of club or organization at the school, because if you think about it, your parents are still pretty well separated … We have to find a disciplined, organized way out of this so that we reach every child in an affirmative way before something bad happens.”
In the UN plan for Healthy Cities, prevention becomes a personal duty. Since the group counts more than the person, friends and neighbors would be asked to report on one another — just as in Nazi Germany.
“I challenge our young people to realize their important role in this seamless system,” said Donna Shalala. “Many times, you as friends are the strongest link in the chain of contact. You know best when your brother, your sister or your friend is facing problems…”5
President Clinton suggested the same tactic during the above hate-crimes conference: “The Justice Department will make its own hate crimes training curriculum available. A lot of hate crimes still go unreported... If a crime is unreported, that gives people an excuse to ignore it.” Then he announced a Justice Department website which invites children to tell “trusted adults” about “hateful” or exclusive attitudes they see in their relatives at home or in friends in school.
Hard to believe? It all makes sense when you consider the United Nations’ hostility toward traditional values. Ponder the words of Federico Mayor, Director-General of UNESCO:
“The mission of UNESCO… is that of advancing… international peace and the common welfare… We have witnessed… the resurgence of nationalism, the growth offundamentalism and of religious and ethnic intolerance. The roots of exclusion and hatred have shown themselves even deeper and more tenacious than we had feared… Peace… requires, in the words of the Constitution, ‘the intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind’.”16
MOLDING THE MINDS OF THE MASSES
Children who refuse to conform may be considered handicapped. According to a Teacher Training Manual from the National Training Institute for Applied Behavioral Science,
“Although they appear to behave appropriately and seem normal by most cultural standards, they may actually be in need of mental health care in order to help them change, adapt, and conform to the planned society in which there will be no conflict of attitudes or beliefs.”17
Conflict must be replaced with solidarity, and — as in the USSR — everyone must be monitored for compliance with the new global beliefs and values. Such a surveillance system is at the heart of President Clinton’s Executive Order 13107 (See “Trading U.S. Rights for UN Rules.” It establishes “an Interagency Working Group on Human Rights Treaties”, and its functions include:
the monitoringof the actions by the various States for their conformity with relevant treaties,
the provision of relevant information for reports and other monitoring purposes, and
the promotion of effective remedial mechanisms;” 18
Monitoring the progress of mental Health for All (HFA) is essential to the process of managed change. Non-compliance or dissent must be spotted, reported, and corrected before it spreads. Even “a substantial risk” of failure to conform could bring preventative correction. Remediation, conflict resolution, and other mind changing strategies include these steps:
challenge traditional values
evoke strong feelings
produce cognitive dissonance, a form of mental and moral confusion
dialogue to consensus
elicit a response that
1. demonstrates a change in attitude
2. can be measured
3.becomes part of a child’s individual electronic data file
The goal of brainwashing in the Soviet Union was to create the new “Soviet Man.”19 The UN goal is to mold global citizens so committed to the new ideology that they cannot be turned back even by the most logical arguments. UNESCO’s 1995 report, Our Creative Diversity, said it well:
“Education must inform… but it must also form, it must provide them with a sense of meaning to guide their actions…
“Education should promote ‘rational understanding of conflict, tensions, and the processes involved, provoke a critical awareness… and provide a basis for the analysis of concepts that will prevent …chauvinist and irrational explanations from being accepted.’…
“Its primary task is to provide information, explain and analyze problems and subject them to criticism… “It should cover adults as well. The principle of lifelong education should be the aim of all societies.” 20
Edward Hunter wrote the book Brainwashing, an insightful report on the experience of prisoners who survived Soviet brainwashing strategies in Communist Countries during the fifties. His warnings should shine a red light into our foolish presumptions that this process couldn’t be used in our nation. 21 Compare his words with the above UNESCO report written over four decades later:
“Even when he stands by himself, the truly indoctrinated communist must be part of the collective. He must be incapable of hearing opposing ideas and facts, no matter how convincing or how forcibly they bombard his senses. A trustworthy communist must react in an automatic manner without any force being applied.” 22
Having learned to process away facts and fear truth, these conditioned masses would resist logic and hate God’s Word. It’s natural. After all, “the whole world is under the control of the evil one.” (1 John 5:19) Therefore, Jesus warned His disciples long ago, “If they persecute me, they will persecute you. for they do not know the One who sent me.” Are you and your children ready to face hostility and rejection for your faith? If so, you will delight in this promise:
“Blessed are you when men hate you exclude you, and revile you, and cast out your name as evil for the Son of Man’s sake. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, for great is your reward in heaven.” Luke 6:22-23
For practical information about the consensus process and other psycho-social strategies, read chapter 3 in Brave New Schools. To understand the worldwide feminist movement’s goals and influence on mental health regulations, read chapter 9 of A Twist of Faith.
1. See “Clinton’s War on Hate Bans Christian Values”
2. Healthy Start was summarized by Robert Holland in his article, “Statists Seek to Monitor All Newborns and Train Their Parents”, Richmond Times Dispatch (February, 1999): “Armed with backing from private foundations and the federal government, advocates of Hillary Clinton’s It-Takes-a-Village ideology are beginning to implement a plan for cradle-to-grave tracking of the newborns of first-time parents.
Part of the scheme entails sending agents into private homes to “train” parents for up to 50 visits annually per family. Expectant parents are enlisted by being asked to sign permission forms at the hospital, where amid all the excitement of a first birth they may not be aware of the implications for their privacy and parental rights.
Information that the agents collect from families will be put in a nationwide system called the Program Information Management System (PIMS), which will contain medical and psychological entries and observations on family relationships. PIMS’ tracking of newborn’s development could easily be linked with other preschool and public-school databanks currently being expanded. Eventually the information in a comprehensive, permanent record could be shared with employers when an individual applies for a job.”
17. B-Step, Teacher Training Manual, National Training Institute for Applied Behavioral Science, 1240 North Pitt, Suite 100, Alexandria, VA 22314 (800-777-5227). (Was in Bethel, ME) Cited by Cherrilyn Gulbrandson, 183.
CONTACT KDHE (Phil Griffin Phillip.Griffin@ks.gov) and your state legislators (especially Representative Eplee, 163 Deer Run, Atchison, KS 66002, Phone: 913-367-2382, Email: email@example.com) to PROTEST the ATTACK on YOUR PARENTAL RIGHT to act in the best interest of your own child.
Blue Valley USD229 in the Kansas City, KS, area is often a spring board for what other districts in Kansas will soon try themselves. Therefore, Kansas parents should be watchful for this coming down the pike. If your school, like Blue Valley, already has this, then it’s time to return the device and contact your local administration, and all Kansans should contact their Kansas representatives to express concerns and to tell the legislator to stop funding these things.
Kansas TAXPAYERS FOOTING THE COST of supplying kids technology devices – not just for school, but for outside school … including the SUMMER months’ break: “students will be taking their district-provided devices home with them over the summer break.”
(At the end, are two communications from the Blue Valley school district.)
The school district assumes the SUPERIOR AUTHORITY over the parent, first by directing only one possibility (NO CHOICE) of the student/parent having and using the devices over summer break, and then by DIRECTING PARENTS how to interact with their own child and instructing of a weekly action that must be taken. The school district even places its own expectations to be those of the parent.
· Prior to the end of school, we want to encourage parents to speak with their children about expectations related to technology use over the summer, as well as remind students of proper care for these devices …
· We encourage you to speak with your child about your expectations related to technology use over the summer, as well as remind students of proper care for these devices
· We want to communicate a protocol that all students and staff should make part of their MBA routine: RESTART THE DEVICE ON MONDAY MORNINGS
ALL SUMMER LONG, the school district will be monitoring and tracking both the device and any usage 24/7.
Will my child’s district-provided device continued to be filtered over the summer?
Yes – all district-provided devices are protected 24/7 by our cloud-based filter, Securly, both at school and beyond.
The school district refers to the Orwellian program, Securly, as a “filter.” It does much more than sift or strain. The school and the providers OWN ALL THE DATA, not the student or parent. (The following detail has not been communicated to parents.)
1. It tracks the device 24/7.
2. It amasses data:
b. All actions/keystrokes made by a student
i. Length of time visiting a website
ii. Links clicked
iii. Messages sent or posted
c. Info on the student’s PERSONAL computing device
i. Browser type and browser language
ii. Operating system
iii. IP address
d. Websites visited (including Gmail monitoring)
3. It applies analytics and AI to the data:
a. Looks for and flags social media for any signs of bullying or self-harm
b. Creates a DIGITAL FOOTPRINT on every student
c. Analysts – with PSYCHOLOGY backgrounds, analyze the content and context of student usage
d. Determines whether a student is playing games or doing homework
e. Google Analytics, etc.
4. It provides schools with data and alerts
a. ALERTS SCHOOL personnel if “self-harm” is detected
b. Works with school personnel on “how to proceed”
5. It provides parents with data on their children
a. Usage reports
b. Parents are encouraged to sign up with the Securly parent portal
c. Parent usage of Securly is also tracked and analyzed, as well
Parents not only DO NOT direct what happens with their children at school.
Now, they are NOT the determiners of what happens with their children outside of school.
The school district offers no options to parents in regard to whether their own children have and use technology devices.
AND — look at the email wording!!!! The-BVH-Family!!!!!!!
Per an information technology professional:
You’re asking my opinion about a company that deliberately misspells a word to create their company name and then sells that product to schools?
EVERY piece of your kid’s internet usage will be collected/owned and monitored by the school system and all its partners (providers, the state education system, etc.)
I wouldn’t use this product in a million years.
Parents can expect phone calls from schools/authorities asking why their kid is going to certain websites, or communicating/messaging in “unacceptable” ways, or worse.
But, if you’re a parent that wants The State to parent and control your kids – have at it.
The attack on parent authority and families continues to be unveiled. It will only grow, unless parents refuse to comply with this.
LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS and EDUCATION “INTERESTS” strongly and intentionally lobby state legislators regarding lack of funding and support lawsuits against the state for inadequate funding. In fact, the school districts push to burden every citizen (and business) with higher and higher taxes in order to MONITOR and CONTROL EVERY PART OF PEOPLE’S LIVES. In this case, the lives of CHILDREN.
These are NOT attributes of a society of FREEDOM or LIBERTY.
The bill diminishes parent authority regarding their own child by promoting PASSIVE parenting rather than active parenting. Those voting for this change to the Student Data Privacy Act, are intentionally pushing for LESS parent authority.
The bill allows for EVERY child, K-12, to be asked questions regarding both the CHILD AND PARENTS’ PERSONAL BELIEFS OR PRACTICES ON SEX, FAMILY LIFE, MORALITY, RELIGION.
The bill allows for school COUNSELORS and other MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS to be EXEMPT from any administration requirements. Therefore, PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION may be collected, students NEED NOT BE INFORMED that the survey is voluntary, parents NEED NOT BE INFORMED regarding the administration of the survey to their own child, and the data doesn’t have to be reported at the aggregate level.
The state is constructing an individual STUDENT MENTAL HEALTH DATABASE.
YOUR CHILD is being SOLD for his DATA.
The 12+ organizations lobbying legislators to pass this bill overwhelmingly spoke regarding “the ability of school districts to secure grant funds” due to “the lack of information” due to reduced survey participation when parents exercise their authority.
YOUR CHILD is LESS IMPORTANT than the COMMUNITY.
PARENT AUTHORITY is LESS IMPORTANT than COMMUNITY/SCHOOL programs, intervention, and services.
From the note: “…the results of the surveys serve as a valuable tool for schools and communities to build support programs, interventions, and services for students to help make progress toward important physical and mental health outcomes and to guide decision making …”
School employees can administer whatever test, questionnaire, survey or examination (survey) on YOUR CHILD, without your knowledge or permission. The result of which can RESULT in YOUR CHILD being recommended for “services” which you, the parent, must comply with.
Want a “simple” questionnaire, based on personality questions, (somehow “determining”) and LABELING children who are PRE-DISPOSED to alcoholism, based on a couple of “personality traits,” and placing them in BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTION? Your child could be labeled an ALCOHOLIC without ever having a drink!
How about government-funded Pre-K/early-childhood “education” SCREENING PRESCHOOLERS for early signs of mental illness (a “healthy kids check”), with children determined to have “troubling behavior markers” referred to psychologists, etc.?
How about 12 year olds being allowed to consent to medical treatments?
HB2361, amending the Student Data Privacy Act, was passed out of the KS House Committee on Children and Seniors, with the deciding vote cast by Rep. Concannon after the committee vote ended in a tie.
This bill received quick handling as it was hurriedly introduced on a Friday in February and heard the following Wednesday. The committee didn’t make the turnaround deadline for the bill, so House Leadership acted to refer the bill to the Committee on Appropriations (so it would be “blessed” and not die) and then refer it back to the Committee on Children and Seniors. Eight of the thirteen members of the committee are Republicans.
In the Supplemental Note to the bill, prepared by Legislative Research:
1. Specifically, the bill would remove a requirement the parent of the student be notified the survey is to be administered and give written permission (opts in) for such student to take the survey.
2. [The survey, test, questionnaire, or examination (survey) may contain] questions about a student’s personal beliefs or practices on sex, family life, morality, or religion, or concerning the student’s parent’s views on these subjects, to a student enrolled in kindergarten or grades 1 through 12.
3. Further, the bill would extend the exception from these requirements [for administration of the surveys to students] for school counselors to other school-based mental health professionals with regard to the administration of tests and forms part of a school counselor’s or other school-based provider’s student counseling services.