MENU FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, FASCISM?
(1) Excerpt from “Clusters Promote Community Growth” article below :
“Metro United Way’s vice president of community investments, Geralyn Sheehan, calls the teams a pilot program for the entire nation, teaching residents throughout America how to reconnect with others to build a healthier community.”
(2) Excerpt from last page of this post:
Humphrey-Hawkins Child and Family Services legislation (mid-1970s):
“Mr. Nixon not only vetoed the bill [Humphrey-Hawkins] but also fired off a scathing message to Congress, proclaiming that he would have no part in the “Sovietizing” of American Society. “Good public policy requires that we enhance rather than diminish both parental authority and parental involvement with children.””
Reauthorization of ESEA (SB 106)
(Why would Americans support legislation calling for such a totalitarian unconstitutional system, not just of government by unelected council, but related to education, health, and mental health as well, an agenda clearly spelled out in the above quote from Metro United Way?)
If Americans don’t support such a totalitarian system, they had better immediately email or telephone their Senators and Representatives and say NO WAY ESEA!
For the following reasons:
Senator Lamar Alexander’s bill, which was unanimously passed by the Senate Education Committee, and will be voted on shortly by the full Senate and House, will institutionalize and make mandatory much of which is already going in all over the country, in bits and pieces, as I write, often decided on by unelected regional councils, tax-exempt community groups, etc.
See below for important article entitled “Clusters Promote Community Growth”, by staff writer Laura Ingram, the Gwinnett Daily Post of Lawrenceville, Georgia, dated January 24, 1999, for documentation of what has been going on certainly since 1999 in the United States of America, as many of us were sleeping (?)
Laura Ingram should be congratulated for a first-class job of documenting and reporting the facts related to plans to change our traditional form of government which allows for freedom of the individual to determine his/her own future.
As an appetizer…so you know that the “Student Success Act” does in fact institutionalize much of what is discussed in the “Clusters” article … I am providing a very few direct quotes from SB 106, the ESEA Reauthorization Act, aka “Student Success Act” which relate to information in “Clusters Promote Community Growth” article:
Page 253, line 1: “(iii) Effectively engage parents, families, and community partners and coordinated services between school and community.”
Page 347, Title IV “Safe and Healthy Students.”
Page 350, 1.18 (4) School-based mental health service providers.
Page 364, (B) Programs that support learning activities before and after school, summer, that extend the school day, week, or school year calendar.
Page 364, lines 10-17. Early identification of mental health symptoms and appropriate referrals to direct individual or group counseling services provided by school or community-based mental health services providers.
Page 367, line 3. (J) Schoolwide positive behavioral intervention and supports.
line 11: “Use music, arts”.
Page 368, line 3. Providing integrated systems of student and family supports and building teacher, principal, and other school leader capacity.
Page 368, line 17. PAY FOR SUCCESS…Initiatives that produce a measurable, clearly defined outcome.
The Reauthorization of ESEA, if passed, will institutionalize many, if not all, or possibly even “more” of the activities and programs discussed in the following entry entitled “Clusters Promote Community Growth”, the Gwinnett Daily Post of Lawrenceville, Georgia, dated January 24, 1999, included in the deliberate dumbing down of america, a FREE download at the deliberate dumbing down of america pages 438-443.
SPEAKING OF “LITTLE RED RIDING HOOD,” THE JANUARY 24, 1999 ISSUE OF THE GWINNETT Daily Post of Lawrenceville, Georgia contained an article by staff writer Laura Ingram entitled “Clusters Promote Community Growth.”
Ingram’s article describes a second-step phase of a “systems change” effort outlined in a joint publication from the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Together We Can. The article, which illustrates the shift from representative (elected) government to regional (unelected) governance with its “Big Bad Wolf” use of partnerships to accomplish its goals, is included in its entirety below:
Unique groups called Community Cluster Care Teams were born last April, comprised of 12 Gwinnett communities, and have taken their first steps toward uniting sections of the county into neighborhoods.
“The entire community needs to get involved,” said Suzanne Brighton, coordinator for the teams. “We need to look at the environment we’re raising our children in. Everybody has a responsibility to create a healthy environment where children can grow.” Parents, teachers, senior citizens, clergy, business people, school officials and social service workers first met this new creation April 15 at a conference called “Together We Can,” sponsored by the Gwinnett Coalition for Health and Human Services and BellSouth. The 200 participants split into 12 groups based on high school clusters and came up with particular ways to improve each cluster/community. But they did not stop at just a sketch. The 12 teams continued meeting through out the year, drawing more community members and resources into their group, and creating strategic plans to accomplish their goals and shrink scary statistics that show children finding their way into drugs, pregnancy and violence.
This fall, their imperative to heal and unite their neighborhoods took shape as tree plantings, youth dialogues, new youth basketball teams, grandparent adoptions and bilingual services.
Metro United Way’s vice president of community investments, Geralyn Sheehan, calls the teams a pilot program for the entire nation, teaching residents throughout America how to reconnect with others to build a healthier community.[Ed. Note: To further illustrate what the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services book Together We Can: A Guide for Crafting a Pro-family System of Education and Human Services (Contract #RP912060001: Prism DAE, a division of DAE Corporation: Chevy Chase, Maryland, 1993) outlined as a blueprint to follow for “local systems change,” the writer will offer some excerpts from this publication. Jointly signed by Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley and Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna E. Shalala, the foreword to this book reads:
This book was developed jointly… to help communities improve coordination of education, health and human services for at-risk children and families. Together We Can: A Guide for Crafting a Pro-family System of Education and Human Services reflects the work and experience of a study group of researchers and front-line administrators and practitioners working with promising programs that link education and human services. Together We Can leads the reader through a five-stage collaborative process with milestones and landmines portrayed through vignettes and case studies describing the personal experiences of the study group members.]
Together We Can is a practical guide that can assist local communities in the difficult process of creating a more responsive education and human service delivery system. The guidebook emphasizes the effective delivery of supports for families, a crucial step toward assuring the future success of America’s children. Recognizing that the current system of programs serving children is fragmented, confusing and inefficient, the guidebook advocates a radical change in the service delivery system. It encourages a holistic approach in treating the problems of children and families; easy access to comprehensive services; early detection of problems and preventive health care services; and flexibility for education, health and human services. We believe this guide is a practical tool for the many communities that are working to create more comprehensive, family-focused service delivery systems for children and their families.[Ed. Note: This is pure, unadulterated “communitarianism,” which is defined as: “communitarian—a member or advocate of a communistic community” (p. 288) and “ism”—a doctrine, theory, system” (p. 474) in Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language (William Colliers—World Publishing Co., Inc.: New York, 1976.), the system we have been told is “dead.”]
In the preface to Together We Can we find the following:
Across America, people are recognizing that all of the institutions and agencies whose mission is to nurture and strengthen children and families must collaborate….
The U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services charged the School-Linked Integrated Services Study Group with capturing the experiences of collaborative endeavors across the country and creating a guide for integrating services….
Basic to the guide is the concept of systems change [emphasis in original]. We define systems change as a revision of the ways that people and institutions think, behave, and use their resources…. The Study Group believes collaborative strategies [emphasis in original] are the key to systems change…. Collaborative strategies, in which partners share a vision, establish common goals, and agree to use their power to achieve them are necessary; commitment of resources and willingness to alter existing policies are a vital part of such strategies. Most importantly, the children and families who participate in our education and human service systems are essential to its reinvention. They are indispensable partners with educators, human service professionals, business leaders, civic and religious leaders, leaders of community-based organizations, and other citizens in creating the pro-family system that the guide envisions.
The School-Linked Integrated Services Study Group consisted of representatives of: “Institute for Educational Leadership,Washington, D.C.; Florida International University Human Resource Service Professional Development Center, Miami, Florida; Walbridge Elementary School, St. Louis, Missouri; National Center on Adult Literacy, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Center for Collaboration for Children of California State University, Fullerton, California; Prince Georges County Public Schools, Suitland, Maryland; San Diego City Schools, San Diego, California; Public School 146M, New York City; Savannah-Chatham County Youth Futures Authority, Savannah, Georgia [Anna Casey grant recipient which promoted school-based clinics]; School of Education at Stanford University, Stanford, California; Early Childhood and Family Education division of North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, Oak Brook, Illinois; Danforth Foundation, St. Louis, Missouri; Cities in Schools, Charlotte, North Carolina; Community Education Leadership Project of the Institute for Educational Leadership, Washington, D.C.; Better Boys Foundation, Chicago, Illinois; National Center for Services Integration of Mathtech, Inc., Falls Church, Virginia; Community Schools of Rochester City School District, Rochester, New York; Clinic Services/Family Counseling Center of the Massachusetts Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Boston, Massachusetts; Lansing School District, Lansing, Michigan; Parent Action, Baltimore, Maryland; New Jersey Department of Human Services, Trenton, New Jersey; School of the Future of El Centro Familiar Office of the Family Service Center, Houston, Texas; New York State Department of Education, Brooklyn, New York; Walbridge Caring Communities Program, St. Louis, Missouri; and a practicing psychologist.”
[Ed. Note: In the interest of fully informing the reader of just exactly what these projects are about and hope to accomplish, the writer is including highlights of a two-part appendix which are so totally invasive and frightening in their implications that they should relegate George Orwell’s 1984 to the “light reading” stacks!]
Process for Crafting a Pro-family System of Education and Human Services
Stage One: Getting Together
• Has a small group decided to act?
• Do the players meet the following criteria for membership in the collaborative:
• Are the right people involved…
• Have partners reflected on their work and celebrated their accomplishments?
Stage Two: Building Trust and Ownership
• Has the collaborative conducted a comprehensive community assessment that…
___produces a profile of child and family well-being in the community; …
• Have partners defined a shared vision and goals for changing education and human services?…
Stage Three: Developing a Strategic Plan
• Has the collaborative narrowed its focus to a specific neighborhood for launching a service delivery prototype?
• Has the collaborative conducted a neighborhood analysis…
• Has the collaborative defined the target outcomes?…
• Is a mechanism in place for using program-level intelligence to suggest system-level changes?…
Stage Four: Taking Action
• Is the collaborative evaluating progress by:
___using process evaluation techniques; and
___measuring outcomes? (Poster’s comment: Prof .B.F. Skinner, total quality management)
• Have partners reflected on their work and celebrated their accomplishments?
Stage Five: Going to Scale
• Has the collaborative built a formal governance structure?…
• Is the collaborative promoting change in the federal government’s role in delivering services for children and families?
• Is the collaborative continuing to reflect and celebrate as it “climbs the mountain” of systems change?
Indicators of Systems Change
Are agency agreements in place?…
Do program-level information and intelligence trigger policy-level changes across multiple systems?…
Have partners developed shared information systems?
• Is there ready access to each other’s records? …
• Have agencies replaced separate in-house forms to gather the same kind of information with a common form used by all members or other organizations to establish program eligibility? Assess case management needs? Develop case plans? Have partner agencies incorporated the vision and values of the collaborative at their administrative and staff levels?
• Have partners altered their hiring criteria, job descriptions, and preservice or in-service training to conform to a vision of comprehensive, accessible, culturally appropriate, family-centered, and outcome-oriented services? …
• Are outcome goals clearly established?
• Has the collaborative used its data collection capacity to document how well children and families are faring in their communities and how well agencies and child-serving
institutions are meeting their mandates? …
• Are outcomes measurable? Do they specify what degree of change is expected to occur in the lives of children and families during what period of time?
• Is shared accountability a part of outcomes that reflect education, human service, and community goals and objectives? Has the collaborative devised a financing strategy to ensure long-term funding? (Poster’s note: Watch out taxpayers!)
Has the collaborative gained legitimacy in the community as a key vehicle for addressing and resolving community issues regarding children and families? (Poster’s Note: Definition of “gaining legitimacy…” = BRAINWASHING.)
• Are the collaborative’s positions on community issues supported by commitments from public and private service providers, the business community, and the church and neighborhood based organizations whose members are often most directly affected by collaborative decision making?”
National Center for Services Integration
The National Center for Services Integration (NCSI) was established in late 1991 with funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and private foundations to improve life outcomes for children and families through the creative integration of education, health and human services. The center itself is a collaboration of six organizations: Mathtech, Inc.; the Child and Family Policy Center; National Center for Children in Poverty; National Governors’ Association, Policy Studies Associates; and the Yale Bush Center.
It also receives guidance from distinguished advisors knowledgeable about the issues and institutions concerned with service integration. The primary purpose of NCSI is to stimulate, guide, and actively support service integration efforts throughout the entire country. To accomplish its mission, NCSI has undertaken a variety of activities through its Information Clearinghouse on Service Integration and a Technical Assistance Network. The Clearinghouse, which is operated by the National Center on Children in Poverty at Columbia University, collects and disseminates information and materials on service integration issues and related topics. They have developed a computer directory of service integration programs, a separate directory of organizations, and an extensive research library collection that can provide information and support to community-based programs. Individuals, organizations, and localities can access any of the Clearinghouse services.…The Technical Assistance Network, which is operated by Charles Bruner of the Child and Family Policy Center [Kids Count] and Mathtech [government contractor for the evaluation of sex education programs], brings together leading service integration planners, practitioners, administrators, and experts to exchange ideas and information, to develop written resource materials for communities and practitioners and to convene working groups composed of persons in the forefront of particular issues to develop strategies for successfully resolving some of the challenges facing communities and governmental entities involved in service integration efforts.] [Ed. Note: If the reader has any questions about why school-based clinics, school-to-work, community education programs, year-round schools, one-stop training centers, and all of the other “locally conceived” programs have come into their communities with such force and fundamental support, the above federally funded and conceived plans should answer them. Together We Can brings together national and international plans for socializing all services to our citizenry. One example is the International Year of the Child proposals which originated in 1979 and are hereby funded, formatted, and fulfilled in Together We Can’s “how-to” instruction manual. These are the processes necessary to create the “perfect human resource”—the global worker. President Nixon vetoed the child and family legislation encompassing all of the above activities (the Humphrey-Hawkins Child and Family Services Act) in the mid–1970s, calling it the most socialistic legislation he had ever seen. The New York Times carried an article by Edward B. Fiske entitled “Early Schooling Is Now the Rage” in its April 13, 1986 issue which explained:
Mr. Nixon not only vetoed the bill (Humphrey-Hawkins] but also fired off a scathing message to Congress, proclaiming that he would have no part in the “Sovietizing” of American Society. “Good public policy requires that we enhance rather than diminish both parental authority and parental involvement with children.”
This comprehensive program links almost every entry in this book, from cradle to grave. None of this could have been accomplished without the use of behaviorist methods and change agent tactics carefully documented in this book. Americans would not have willingly turned over decision making in these areas unless manipulated into doing so; no one ever voted to conduct our government in this manner. The Montgomery County Blueprint of 1946—fifty-plus years ago—spelled out this approach. In the Blueprint Paul Mort pointed out that it takes fifty years to accomplish “systems change.” He was right on target.]