No Way ESEA – End Totalitarian Workforce Training -Homeschoolers Are At Risk

American Leadership Fund

ECAA logoCall your Senators ASAP! 202-224-3121 or contact them through the U.S. Senate Directory.

Ask them to vote NO on S1177 – ESEA – Elementary and Secondary Education Act. This is the cradle to grave, totalitarian workforce training bill and if you think you are exempt because you homeschool, you must watch the video and listen to the radio interview below. The vote is scheduled for Monday or Tuesday, July 13-14, 2015.

Please review two assessments compiled by my long-time associates Anita Hoge of Pennsylvania and Charlotte Iserbyt of Maine.

Listen to her recent radio interview where she shares what happened in the House and what’s about to happen in the Senate if we do not take action.

Our elected officials have apparently been given a set of talking points from leadership and the education committees that shows they have no idea that the House just put the NCLB flex waivers into law.  They have been told that Title I portability is a good idea. This must now be debated and defeated in the Senate version.

These are the questions that Anita would like us to ask our Senators before the vote.  These issues will impact the United States if ESEA passes. Anita’s frontal attack on why Obama plans to vote for the compromise, which will be Title I portability and Casey/Murray Universal Pre-K, must be shared with your Senators.

Our representatives that voted “YES” and should have been “No” must also read and understand what they have just done.

They must understand they are voting with Obama.  Please, please, please share this information with your Senators and ask them for answers before the final vote:

Explosive GAO Report Sent to HELP Committee Nov. 2014-URGENT
This exposes Kline and Alexander who know about personally identifiable information of students being shared to 3rd party vendors: Privacy Violations Exposed

Obama’s Equity Plan-Why Obama will NOT vote against Title I portability.

How is America going to Pay For Title I Portability

How Will Title I Impact Your Community

Sen. Casey’s Universal Common Core For Babies (Murray amendment)

Update on HR 5 Vote
Last week the House voted in favor of reauthorizing HR 5 “Every Child Achieves Act – ECAA” We sent out a message to ask them to vote NO. I texted the four representatives in Utah and heard back from two of them.

Here is how the vote went:

HR 5 NO Votes

HR 5 Vote - GOP sell out

If your representative voted NO, thank them. If they voted YES, ask them why. Hold them accountable. Let me know what they tell you by contacting me with their replies at

Here is what two members of the Utah delegation texted to me:

Congressman Jason Chaffetz: “You are wrong on that one. Without this piece of legislation No Child Left Behind would still be the law. I have cosponsored legislation to abolish the Department of Education.”

Congressman Chris Stewart (my opponent when I ran for Congress): “I’m afraid Jason is right. Absent this new legislation, which moves much of the power back to the states, we are left with the current law, which is much worse. Which is why none of the dems supported it, and Obama is threatening to veto. They hate this bill. I’m guessing all of us are cosponsors of the bill to defund dept. of ed.”

Here are the headlines that followed their YES vote.  You have to have a sense of humor to read this one:

House narrowly votes to renew No Child Left Behind after drama

Of course, it is called No Child Left Behind.  And it was first enacted in 1965 as part of LBJ’s “Great Society” which also gave us the companion socialist legislation called Medicaid-Medicare.

I put Congresswoman Mia Love in touch with Anita Hoge earlier during this session while the bills were still in committee, but I did not hear back. As far as I know, neither did Anita.  Mia told me she was working on some amendments, and I don’t doubt she worked hard and is over-worked, but it turned out they were amendments that Republicans were cobbling together and were either weak or made things worse.  I did not get a text reply from her.

The entire “conservative” Utah delegation voted YES. After years of research and collaboration with the finest in the United States, the House’s limited understanding of the history of restructuring was laughable.

I talked to Senator Mike Lee’s (Utah) L.A.- a young woman who has been on the Hill for 18 months.  I’m sure she’s hard-working, but I have little confidence in the research that our elected officials are using – in large part, by young college grads getting their talking points from the think tanks that are equally as uninformed.

Case in point:  At the beginning of this Congressional session, most of the “conservative” think tanks were supporting HR 5 (“Every Child Achieves Act) and the Senate version – ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act).

Anita Hoge, Charlotte Iserbyt, Cindi Weatherly, and Betsy Kraus deserve our thanks for their vigilance over the years and for being the catalysts for that very close vote and hopefully a more successful outcome in the Senate.  I’ve been honored to help with a small portion of that research.

I’ve noted that as this team of researchers produced solid documentation, the conservative groups backed off of their initial support. Sadly, they ended up at the LAST MINUTE in opposition to HR 5 and S 1177 , not enough time to get the few extra votes needed.  This research trickled down to the anti-Common Core state groups, who were listening to the think tanks and supporting these bills, until again, this team’s work made its way down to them.

We again owe so much of what we know about the bad stuff inserted into these bills because of those I mentioned who get little or no recognition. While the important thing is getting the research to the right people (elected officials) and not needing to take credit for it, all too many activists opposing common core reforms – especially policy groups vying for recognition – take bits and pieces of their research and then credit themselves or their organizations.

Well-funded conservative policy groups did some very poor research and then had to mop it up. They are truly responsible for nearly misleading everyone. This isn’t the first time this has happened. It has been a pattern over the years and is why we continue to get more deeply stuck in the mire.  Once again, as the result of their Johnny-come-lately approach, a very bad bill – HR 5 passed by only 5 votes.

If only Utah had voted NO, the bill would not have passed.

Long-Term Background
In 1989 when I was recruited to run for the Richardson Independent School District Board in Dallas, I began a crash course in education restructuring because that was a landmark year.  If you haven’t watched this short clip of Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander (now the chairman of the Senate HELP – education committee and sponsor of S 1177), it is a MUST.

Phyllis Schlafly, a long time mentor, introduced me to Charlotte Iserbyt. Charlotte had been recruited by Reagan to help him dismantle the USED (Department of Education) as s Senior Policy Advisor in the area of research and improvement. As it turned out, she found information within her office that she could not believe – plans in place to totally restructure education and track students into a government-managed workforce with programs that were deliberately dumbing students down, especially minorities in inner cities.

She had the tenacity to copy whole file cabinets-full of information that had never been made public before (of which I was able to get some copies) and leaked a few of them to the media. Her boss was Secretary of Education T.H. Bell, from Utah. It turns out that Utah was a “guinea pig” for these plans to standardize all education and to track students’ values and attitudes through computerized curricula, testing and databases with new “outcomes” (common core standards).

Amazingly, I learned through sad personal experience that government databases are not private and that they can be made public when it is politically beneficial. The liberal teacher’s union and the incumbent board members in Dallas launched an all-out attack against me. An anonymous supporter secured a confidential document published by the Danforth Foundation that was circulating through the school district and delivered it to me. It warned of a group of the “religious right” that was to be feared because we were thwarting their restructuring goals.

In the final days of the election, one of my children’s private school records were circulated for the purpose of discrediting me as a candidate, claiming I was lying. The fact was, the record was incorrect and had not been updated, but we had no time to refute it before election day.

Frankly, I was stunned to know that a private school record could be published a private record for political gain – or for any reason at all. I began to study tracking and databases. I became acquainted with Anita Hoge when Charlotte and several others among the national research team that had assembled met in Pennsylvania with Anita.

Beverly Eakman wrote a book called Microchipped which was among the first to collect stories of database privacy breaches and the dangers ahead.  My story is in it.

Then a representative from Oregon wrote a book on Outcome Based Education and cited the law that I helped craft – Utah’s Family Education and Right to Privacy Act, which was intended to prohibit schools from administering surveys and tests that asked nosey questions and tested for values and attitudes without parental permission. It was the first of its kind, but I had personal disappointment in that it had no “teeth” and had been watered down.  That was 1993-1994.

I gathered 1,200 pages of evidence and our little team shared information. We spoke at several national events on this subject, and showed how the schools were planning to use technology to change behaviors and to turn education into workforce training, under government management.

I helped Charlotte edit an article for our friend Phyllis Schlafly on What’s Wrong with Outcome Based Education.

By the mid-1990s I ended up with several file cabinets full of documentation. So when all the bruhaha about Common Core began, I took a look and instantly knew this was a continuation of the outcome based education of the 1990s.

Anita Hoge wrote a book back then called Womb to Tomb and included a Utah program that would allow school officials and neighbors to snoop on other parents and would provide “mentors” to help parents that weren’t “good” parents benignly called “Parents As Teachers.”  Here’s what she assembled. When you look at this you will be astonished that this has been going on for so long. Especially if you thought this all began with the new common core standards.

Not only did it not begin in the 1990s, Charlotte has enough to show that it began over a century ago. She wrote a definitive letter to our friend Phyllis Schlafly, and explained exactly what was happening and what continues to happen today. Charlotte has meticulously connected the dots on her blog site ABCs of Dumbdown.  She tells it like it is.  Any elected official that does not read this information is wholly unfit to be voting on any federal or state education legislation. Any think tank weighing in on education policy that does not understand this history is wholly unqualified to be advising our elected officials.

Tell your Senators to vote NO S1177 – ESEA and sign the petition to stop nationalized education.  

We appreciate your contributions to help us continue to get these messages out to the grassroots around this nation. You can donate by texting “ALF” to 313131 or send a check to American Leadership Fund, 5202 Saddleback Drive, Salt Lake City, UT.

Donate_NowYou can read more about ALF on this site. If you have questions, email me at


Utah Parents Protest to End NCLB Waiver

American Leadership Fund

NCLB waiver protest

On Friday, August 8, 2014, in Salt Lake City, parents staged a public protest outside the Utah State School Board offices against the renewal of the No Child Left Behind waiver. This is the waiver that has given states the “common core” standards to which all curriculum and testing nationwide is now being aligned. We urge parents in every state to stage similar protests.

Here’s a clip of the protest:

The more parents learn, the more they are fighting back. They want local control. State School Boards insist that the NCLB waiver has given states more local control. That is indefensible. Yet they don’t feel any accountability to the people that elected them and they demonstrated it by completely ignoring the thousands of parents that signed a letter asking them not to renew.  Why is that?

Because in Utah, the people don’t really elect the school board.  The Governor appoints a commission that selects choices for the governor to review, and then he chooses which two go on the ballot in a non-partisan election (Tweedledum and Tweedledee). If your state has this sort of crony election system, get rid of it!

The Board cares about one thing only:  money.  Federal money.  They are addicted, and they are lying that what they are doing is local.

Here’s visual proof that “local control” is being over-ridden, not only by the U.S. Department of Education, but that its tentacles are global.

We also have proof-positive that the very behavioral testing agency, American Institutes for Research, that Utah acquired (and that many other states are also using) is indeed a behavioral testing agency, and that the goal is not to test for academic learning so much as to use the “computer adaptive test” to test for how effectively the tests are changing student attitudes.

My colleagues nationally and I have been following this trend for years, and so while it is nothing new, the technology now matches the goals.

Parents need to ask: “Is THIS local control?” and “Whose attitudes and values are being tested?”

It’s time to end the “NCLB” waivers in every state and to begin the process to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (a goal of Ronald Reagan) and to create state autonomy over education, as it was constitutionally intended to be.

See for yourself.  These slides are from my Three-Part presentation “Beyond Common Core”

You tell me:  Is this LOCAL control? Is the School Board telling the truth? What do YOU think?

The relationship between Utah’s testing agency “AIR” and SBAC (the consortium they told us Utah had abandoned) – from its website:




The relationship between Utah’s testing agency and UNESCO

“Local” Control?




In AIR’s words, from its website.
But Utah’s State Board of Education insists AIR does not do behavioral testing.


AIR Behavioral


Some early comments on how important “computer-adaptive testing”

would be in behavior modification…



These two screen shots from the AIR website show the strong LGBTQ advocacy. The Salt Lake Tribune’s liberal satirist Paul Rolly claims, however, that we are hallucinating.


AIR Screen shot 5 - LGBTQ advocacy

AIR Screen Shot 3 - LGBTQ advocacy

So then we must suggest that AIR’s computer adaptive testing may be

of some influence on students…

and that a computer only is as effective as the programming.




And finally the BIG question…

Whose Attitudes

We’ve been all over the attitudinal testing for over 25 years now.  With the help of several grassroots organizations and good legislators, I was instrumental in putting into place the first state privacy law in 1994 in Utah.  From the outset, American Leadership Fund has helped Utahns Against Common Core with fundraising, and we continue to raise funds to support causes such as this to restore state sovereignty under a constitutional, republican form of government.

Please help us fight back today with a generous contribution of $35, $50, $100, $250, $500, $1,000 or more.


The Global Road to Ruin Through Education – Iserbyt

The author and Grand Dame of exposing The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, former Senior Education Policy Director for the USDOE, Charlotte Isberyt, has now produced an encore with noted colleagues from around the country that have been sounding the alarm for many, many years.

Cindi Weatherly directed the project and they have laid down a superior and comprehensive series of DVD’s charting what has happened to the United States through the Leftist take-over of education – public, private and parochial. Continue reading The Global Road to Ruin Through Education – Iserbyt

Salt Lake Pre-School Proposal Equals Taxation without Representation

The Salt Lake Tribune reported on a pre-school proposal that is gaining momentum in Utah. But beware – the devil is in the details, as they say.

The article identifies a public-private partnership (P3) that is funding this proposal to provide 600 children with funding to attend pre-school. What’s wrong with that, you say? You applaud humanitarianism?

Here’s another look at what has become the standard for supporting government policies that we can’t afford and what it is really costing us:

A P3 is the definition of taxation without representation.  Here’s why: I did not elect a private corporation, in this case Goldman Sachs, and the United Way – a non-profit organization that donates millions to Planned Parenthood (both focusing on reducing the black population worldwide), or any family foundation to impose its “vision” of education in my county.

Yet my taxes (the “public” side of the equation) are paying for this proposal.

With a P3, we lose our voting power because our votes cannot compete with the massive amount of money a private enterprise can funnel into education – or any publicly-funded project.

If a private enterprise wants to fund education, let them do it on THEIR dime, not mine.  That’s called “private education.”  If they want to set up scholarships, that’s where their money would be better spent, but do not include MY money in that scholarship, because that’s a voucher.

School choice and charter schools are also dependent upon P3s and vouchers for their sustenance.  These concepts are killing private and religious education because they can’t compete with the “FREE” option.  This is NOT choice at all.  And it’s definitely NOT free enterprise.

There is a history of this public-private relationship in other countries, and it did not have a happy ending.  Yet, at least two Republican Utah governors have signed an identical letter agreeing to federal funds to support “cradle-to-grave” education, of which this proposal is a part.  This is the loss of local control and representative government, and it’s supported by both parties.

Shame on them.

If you’d like to know more about this topic, contact me. I’m giving presentations LIVE-in person and online and can schedule a time to come to your neighborhood.

Your donations are appreciated so that we can continue to keep the news and information coming to you through this blog site and through the distribution list (sign up above).

School Grades Trump Parental Rights

Today’s the day the Utah school report card is released.  The Utah legislature, dominated by the Republican Party, voted overwhelmingly to force students to take the state/national assessments by putting a 95% cap on how many must, in order for that school to get a good grade.

Todd WeilerOne of the more outspoken legislators is Senator Todd Weiler.  Here is his post defending the right of the legislature and the school to compel such a testing system where truly “No Child Left Behind” is the desired result.

Here is my reply:

I don’t want to have a spitting match about test questions or standards or whose are better or worse. The principles and philosophies to which those who have influenced and who are in controlling positions over the tests (e.g. College Board, AP, SAT, ACT), is a monopoly. No one can get into an accredited college or university without taking one of those tests (GED included).

In concept, why should a parent who does not want their child to take these tests because they are controlled by a philosophy of education they oppose – e.g. educating for the workforce – managed and controlled by government (Dept. of Labor – statistics and workforce tracking through government-run databases), be forced to do so? Whether state or national, the test-writers and curriculum writers are all aligned with workforce management.

How does the legislature plan to protect their parental rights, given the fact that a school now gets a failing grade (or demerit?) if 95% of the school’s students don’t take it? Oh and that includes the supposedly outside-the-box schools, Charters, most of whom do not allow the taxpayers who fund them to have a vote on that school’s board, and many are state-run anyway. How is that “school choice” and “local control?”

And for that matter, could someone here explain where this idea originated? Is there any historical precedent of a school system whose government tracked students into a managed workforce? (This is not a trick question.)