Leviathan-----first, we want to remind from yesterday's discussion of HOBBES/LEVIATHAN/pre-Christian NERO/CATO/SENECA -----which is why we have been shouting this these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA-----EUGENICS what is sometimes called SOCIAL DARWINISM is used by a small group of people made paranoid by sacking and looting civil societies lying, cheating, stealing having attained extreme wealth extreme power. That is what MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD has brought these several decades. EUGENICS is defined by setting standards of what makes people GENETICALLY INFERIOR. ASIAN OLD WORLD KINGS use EUGENICS-----ARABIAN OLD WORLD KINGS use EUGENICS ----EUROPEAN OLD WORLD KINGS use EUGENICS.
The goals of global banking 1% back in early 1900s with education testing was only EUGENICS in that US citizens involved in research and development of testing were taken from our US MILITARY ----then almost all white 99% of WE THE SOLDIERS.
We need to be careful when global banking 1% tries to sell EDUCATION TESTING/DNA TESTING -----as RACIST.
No matter how often the far-right wing says EUGENICS was firmly implanted in US in early 1900s----that would be LYING. Throughout several centuries of left social progressive LOCKEAN morals and ethics HOBBES and the SOCIAL DARWINIST EUGENICS crowd were marginalized. EUGENICS and racism are two different things.
Stanford’s history with eugenics
by Claire Wang
December 7, 2016
Jordan Hall is named after the University's first president, a prominent eugenics proponent (RYAN COHEN/The Stanford Daily).
Evidence that Stanford’s founding president David Starr Jordan, as well as former professors Lewis M. Terman and Elwood P. Cubberley, were active supporters of the eugenics movement have resurfaced amid recent efforts to rename schools in the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD).
Eugenics and Stanford
According to Mary Rorty, clinical associate professor at the Stanford Medical Center and fellow at the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, the growth of the eugenics movement had both scientific and social implications.
As a scientific movement, Rorty said that eugenics was founded in “epidemiology, the development of the social sciences, and the expanding — and increasingly important — science of human (and animal) genetics.”
As a social movement, positive eugenics encouraged individuals deemed ‘fit’ – those who were the most physically attractive, healthy, and/or successful – to marry and have enormous families, while negative eugenics discouraged “the birth of children with heritable, potentially undesirable characteristics,” Rorty explained.
Even before the rise of Hitler and Nazism, perhaps its most infamous proponents, eugenics as a movement was highly popular in both America and Europe and was supported by prominent and respected figures in society such as George Bernard Shaw, Theodore Roosevelt, Margaret Sanger, Calvin Coolidge and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Support for the movement began to die in the 1930s as many people witnessed the horrors of Nazi-led mass sterilization, and scientific advances revealed errors in many of the founding principles behind eugenics.
Beginning in 1906, David Starr Jordan was chair of the Eugenics Section of the American Breeders Association, a member of the Human Betterment Foundation, and an advisory council member of the Eugenics Committee of the American Eugenics Society. In a 1902 publication titled “The Blood of the Nation: A Study in the Decay of Races by the Survival of the Unfit,” Jordan publicly advocated eugenics as a practice and suggested that talent and poverty could be inherited via blood.
“For a race of men or a herd of cattle are governed by the same laws of selection. Those who survive inherit the traits of their own actual ancestry,” Jordan wrote. “If we sell or destroy the rough, lean, or feeble calves, we shall have a herd descended from the best.”
Lewis M. Terman, also known as the father of modern IQ testing, was an early psychologist who conducted a study named Genetic Studies of Genius to examine intelligence in children. According to Rorty, he also served on the boards of several eugenics associations and may have been in favor of compulsory sterilization.
“It is more important,” Terman wrote in 1928, “for man to acquire control over his biological evolution than to capture the energy of the atom.” After the emergence of Nazism in the 1930s and the exposure of the scientific inaccuracies behind eugenics, Terman expressed his regret for his statements about “inferior races,” though he never publicly recanted like other prominent eugenics supporters such as psychologist Henry Goddard and SAT creator Carl Brigham.
Elwood P. Cubberley, a professor and eventual dean of the Stanford Graduate School of Education, was also a proponent of eugenics. As an educator, Cubberley believed that children deemed to have greater ability than their peers should be allocated more resources, while the resources given to children with learning and physical disabilities might detract from the goal of cultivating the most “able.”
Like Jordan and Terman, Cubberley’s writings also revealed a racially-tinged view of humanity and nationhood. In her book “Eugenics and Education in America: Institutionalized Racism and the Implications of History, Ideology, and Memory,” Anne Gibson Winfield cited Cubberley’s claim “east European immigrants were ‘of a very different sort’ and were ‘wholly without Anglo-Saxon conceptions of righteousness, liberty, law, order, public decency, and government.’” He added that their immigration would corrupt American politics and “dilute” the population as a whole.
The renaming movement: “Honor role models, not California’s leading eugenicists!”
In the PAUSD as well as on Stanford campus, several landmarks bear Jordan, Terman and Cubberley’s names. Among others, Jordan Hall and Cubberley Auditorium were named in honor of the early school leaders.
While a University committee is working on recommendations for renaming buildings named after Junípero Serra following student objections last year, the buildings named after Jordan, Terman and Cubberley are not directly under consideration. According to Lisa Lapin, vice president for University Communications, the committee is still working on their report about the buildings named after Serra, which may yield guiding principles for similar cases.
Meanwhile, the PAUSD has seen a vocal campaign to rename David Starr Jordan Middle School, Terman Middle School, and Cubberley Community Center. Several parents and other members of the PAUSD have expressed their concern to the school board and held a petition and a town hall to address the possibility of renaming the buildings.
Lars Johnsson, who has three children attending schools in the district, has been a particularly outspoken advocate of renaming and has started an online petition on Change.org that has garnered over 400 supporters.
“David Starr Jordan and Lewis Madison Terman do not represent the values of 21st-century Palo Alto and the mission of its Unified School District,” Johnsson wrote in the petition.
WE KNOW WHAT IS SILICON VALLEY IS THE WORST OF MOVING FORWARD DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE-----GMO HUMANS----NO EDUCATION FOR YOU RACE TO TOP COMMONER CORE.
Johnsson pointed out that the PAUSD’s mission was fundamentally egalitarian, aiming to ensure that “every student has the opportunity and access to programs, practices, and personnel that will empower every child to attain his or her highest intellectual, creative, and social potential.”
Two members of the Stanford community were asked to speak on a panel at the Nov. 7 Palo Alto town hall meeting regarding the controversy over renaming efforts. Rorty and Joseph Brown Ph.D. ’00, who serves as associate director of Stanford’s Diversity and First Generation (DGEN) Office, offered differing views on the drive to rename the buildings.
Brown emphasized the importance of naming in the psychology of stigma, stereotyping and prejudice.
“Renaming the schools [would create] an opportunity to engage in a process that would … convey to all students that they … are respected and valued members of the community,” he said.
Rorty agreed that students would be harmed by prejudice, but questioned whether the name of the school amounted to disrespect.
“Any form of incivility and denigration has a negative effect on our children,” she said. “I’m not sure that the name of the school they attend rises to that degree of disrespect, especially in light of the national ranking of Palo Alto schools.”
Beyond renaming: grappling with eugenics today
Ultimately, both Rorty and Brown thought that the problem at hand lies beyond the renaming of schools.
“Renaming or not renaming can’t be the only options,” Rorty said.
She encouraged members of the PAUSD to take an active role in researching the students’ views on the names of their schools, and to implement a curriculum unit that addresses “all the things these three men did, the good and the bad – and about the history of – both [the scientific and social] stories of the eugenics movement.”
Brown agreed that educating students and educators through “a complex, nuanced, open discussion of these historical figures” was necessary to deal with the implications of eugenics for the present day.
In fact, Brown suggested that the troubling ideas behind eugenics have not been safely relegated to the past, but continue to influence society today.
According to Brown, the concept of “gifted children” — children who are identified at a young age as intellectually superior to their peers — can have damaging long-term effects on women, low-income students, first-generation college students, and students from underrepresented minorities who have to face stereotypes about their intellectual potential.
In 1920, Cubberley wrote that “one [child] of superior intellectual capacity … may confer greater benefits upon mankind” than “a thousand of the feeble-minded children upon whom we have recently come to put so much educational effort and expense.”
Together with Jordan and Terman, one of the early pioneers of IQ testing, Cubberley was part of a movement that worked to distribute resources towards those they deemed able rather than those they deemed needy. While the PAUSD movement shows that most people would now judge their beliefs to be extremist and inegalitarian, the eugenics movement also shared some basic beliefs with the meritocratic ideal that underpins present-day America.
ACTUALLY, THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT BEING THOSE GLOBAL BANKING 1% SHIP OF FOOLS KILLED THE MERITOCRATIC IDEAL OF AMERICAN LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVISM BY INSTALLING THESE FEW DECADES OF CRONYISM.
“Those ideas that come from eugenics are woven into the fabric of our educational system,” Brown said. “I don’t believe that it should be just about the naming of a new school. I believe that it should be part of a campaign and an effort.”
As an institution of elite higher education, perhaps the larger question for Stanford is whether or not the systems of education shaped by these individuals — Jordan, Terman and Cubberley — are ever truly free of the foundational legacies they left behind.
We discuss often how for thousands of years global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS worked hard to identify genius to bring them under that OLD WORLD KINGS' control. That is what medieval trade guild workshops did----that is what global MITRE corporation does----and that was the goal of EDUCATION TESTING in early 1900s. Again, it focused on our US 99% WE THE WHITE citizens because of its research ties to the military.
The goals of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE has always been -----ending our US and Western European AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT PUBLIC EDUCATION for all------and return to only educating those identified as most GIFTED.
REMEMBER, GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS COULD CARE LESS IF A GENIUS IS BLACK, WHITE, OR BROWN -----NO RACISM IN THIS SEARCH.
Tying education testing to SAT and COLLEGE ENTRANCE simply persuaded our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE to be willing to install these tests in US K-UNIVERSITY. SAT was a selling point for MOVING FORWARD this goal of developing a system to identify genius.
Is Your Child Gifted? What to Look for, Why You Should Know
Traditional screening methods aren't the only way to identify a gifted kid.
Posted May 01, 2011 PSYCHOLOGY TODAY
Gifted children's abilities may be related in part to these enhanced neural connections, either because:
- They were born with a denser than normal thicket of neural connections associated with the traits in which they are gifted, and had the right kind of experiences to allow them to use and retain, or further develop, these connections; or
- They were born with a sufficient amount of neural connections and had ample opportunity to form more and more efficient connections through an enriched environment.
Below, I'll review some traits that gifted children may possess. But keep in mind that trying to identify gifted children by comparing their behaviors and traits against lists such as those presented here can be tricky. After all, many or even most children will show a lot of these same characteristics. The most important thing to do when considering your own child is to look at him or her in the context of other children of the same age. If there are consistent, noticeable differences, then advanced mental abilities may be present. Another clue may be that others — friends, relatives, teachers, neighbors — notice and comment on the same traits that you're seeing.
While most children are able to form recognizable sentences and understand complex language by about 2 years of age, gifted children often reach these milestones earlier. As they approach school age, other language skills may appear advanced or sophisticated.
Some of the traits of giftedness to look for when considering your child's language development in relation to others of a similar age include:
- A highly developed vocabulary and the ability to learn new words easily
- The tendency to speak quickly
- The early use of longer, more complex sentences while using appropriate grammar
- Early reading, if given some instruction and opportunity (Many gifted children have already learned how to read before entering school.)
- Continually asking questions about what they see and hear, and wanting to receive thorough responses and explanations
- The ability to understand and carry out multi-step directions at an early age (e.g., Go to the dining room, get the blue book on the table, and put it back on the shelf in your room, then bring me the clothes on your bed so I can wash them).
- The ability to understand and participate in adult conversations (Gifted children often pick up nuances or double meanings early on — so watch what you say!)
- The ability to change the language they use when speaking to different audiences (For example, a 4-year-old gifted child might use more advanced words and sentence structure when speaking to adults or older children, and then talk in a simpler, more childlike way when addressing his 3-year-old cousin.)
All children (all people, really, big and small) have an inborn desire to learn about the world around them — to seek out new experiences, figure out the relationship between themselves and their surroundings, to discover, and to learn. What distinguishes gifted children from others is the apparent natural ease and joy with which they go about doing this. Their brains appear to be mental sponges, effortlessly absorbing and incorporating new information and ideas.
Many gifted children are natural learners who show some of the following characteristics:
- The ability to learn quickly and efficiently — to pick up ideas and skills effortlessly
- A tendency to become highly focused on certain areas of interest (e.g., bugs, space, animals) and independently seek out information on these topics
- The ability to ask questions that show advanced insight or understanding
- A deep fund of knowledge — They know more about the world around them than you would expect
- Excellent memory and easy recall of what they previously heard, saw, or learned
- A tendency to read often on their own and to frequently prefer reading to more physical activities
- Little need for direction or instruction when beginning a new activity, learning a new game, or acquiring a new skill — They may also insist on doing things on their own, or in their own way.
- Early development of motor skills involving balance, coordination, and movement — Gifted children may also be advanced in some purposeful fine-motor activities, such as assembling small objects (e.g., legos, transforming toys, blocks) or putting puzzles together. However, other fine-motor skills may not be advanced. Some gifted children are poor at handwriting, although this may be more related to a lack of attention to detail or impatience with the slow and tedious task of handwriting practice than to problems with fine-motor control.
- Pleasure in talking to older children and adults about topics that interest them
- An understanding of their own thinking and learning processes — They may have preferred ways of learning and resist using other methods suggested by a teacher or adult. They are able to sense how much and what kind of studying they need in order to master a skill or topic.
- Creative thinking — Gifted children may enjoy coming up with their own ways to solve problems and take delight in complexity and making connections between seemingly unrelated ideas or concepts.
- The ability to concentrate on a topic of interest for an unusually long period of time — However, gifted children may quickly shift their attention or appear unfocused when doing something they perceive as unchallenging or uninteresting.
- An inclination to see learning as fun — They take joy in discovering new interests or grasping new concepts.
Gifted children are often more emotionally intense than others. They can also be more sensitive to others' feelings and circumstances, and may display a great deal of empathy in situations where others their age appear indifferent.
Other emotional or behavioral traits to look for include:
- A high activity level — Gifted children can appear to have an endless source of energy, constantly moving, talking, asking, and exploring.
- The tendency to think and talk fast — Because they may be trying to speak as quickly as they think, gifted children are often asked to "slow down" so that the listener can understand them. They can also become frustrated when they feel that others are talking too slowly or taking too long to "get to the point."
- Strong leadership qualities — Gifted kids often make natural leaders who take charge and guide others in new directions.
- Ability to relate to older kids and adults — Because their cognitive skills and interests can be advanced for their years, gifted kids have an easier time connecting with and learning from those older than themselves.
- Enjoyment of alone time — While gifted children may enjoy spending time with others, including mental mates (whether their own age or adults), they can also enjoy spending time on more solitary activities, such as reading, writing, daydreaming, observing, or just thinking.
- Appreciation of natural beauty and — Gifted children may particularly enjoy being around and pointing out trees, sunsets, flowers, the ocean, animals, and other things of inherent beauty. They can also show a deep interest in certain forms of art (paintings, sculptures, or music, for example).
Some gifted children show only a few of the signs listed above, or show traits that are quite the opposite of what you'd expect. For example, some will start to speak late rather than early, some will be emotionally reserved rather than intense, and some appear to think and speak slowly rather than quickly.
Also, keep in mind that there are children who show gifted qualities when it comes to language or emotional traits, but who do not appear exceptional when it comes to learning or academics. While some of these kids may have a specific learning disability getting in the way of their performance at school, others may have learned early on to hide their abilities in order to better fit in with others their age, or to avoid the pressures of higher expectations. And of course there are children who show many of the signs here who do not measure in the gifted range once they are tested. Does that mean they are not gifted? Not necessarily. Many kids don't shine on IQ tests due to test anxiety — or sometimes because of the very qualities associated with giftedness. For example, IQ tests typically have timed subtests, meaning that the faster a child responds or correctly completes a task, the more points she earns. However, gifted children who are perfectionists may respond more slowly than others, taking their time, working carefully and methodically, and checking their responses for accuracy. A gifted child with a high energy level who has a hard time focusing attention on structured tasks may also be at a disadvantage when it comes to performing in the rigidly structured atmosphere of an IQ test.
In addition, it's true that children can be gifted in one area (verbal skills, for example), but show only average ability in others (such as perceptual or nonverbal reasoning skills, which are important for math achievement). While these children's full-scale IQ score might not measure in the gifted range, they may still demonstrate some common traits of giftedness. For example, a verbally gifted child with average nonverbal reasoning skills may still be emotionally sensitive and have an excellent memory.
Identifying giftedness can be tricky, particularly regarding those who test right around that "magic" cutoff point of 130 or so. And IQ tests are certainly imperfect instruments and only one piece of the puzzle. Your insight and instincts, along with those of your child's teachers, can often be the most important pieces needed to truly understand your child's unique gifts and potential.
How do you tell if your child is gifted?
Schools that have programs for gifted students are often able to identify them by using traditional screening methods, like group IQ tests, review of achievement test scores and past grades, observation, and getting input from teachers and parents. So, when it comes to discovering if your own kid is gifted, one option is to wait and see whether teachers or others at your child's school recommend testing for a gifted education program.
Yet you shouldn't be entirely dependent on the schools when it comes to identification. Keep in mind that many teacher training programs require little (if any) course work in giftedness, so some teachers and school administrators may not have all the information they need to recognize gifted children. For this reason, your insights are important, and the more knowledge you have, the better position you're in to partner with others when selecting the best programs for your child.
In fact, parents should become familiar with the signs of giftedness even before their child starts school. Most school districts do not even start identifying children for gifted programs until the second or third grade, and parents of exceptionally bright or gifted children may want to consider private testing or alternative placement options (such as a private preschool school program or early grade acceleration) before that time.
Early testing and identification can be a controversial subject, but many advocates of gifted children believe that they should be identified as soon as possible, so that their unique needs and talents can be acknowledged and nurtured right from the start.
Early identification is also important when a young child is showing behavioral or social differences — not fitting in, being highly focused on unusual interests, appearing more distractible or inattentive than others of the same age — and parents want to understand the cause.
These characteristics may be features of giftedness, or they may be signs of an emotional problem, a condition like Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), or an Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD), such as Asperger's Syndrome. Knowing a child's IQ can allow insight into their atypical development and help to avoid potentially harmful misdiagnoses.
Some gifted children may not be particularly high achievers in the classroom. These students may have problems with attention (which may or may not be related to ADHD), have poor organizational skills, or simply not "mesh" with the teaching style in the classroom, and therefore may be overlooked when it comes to the selection of gifted program candidates.
I recall one boy I tested privately at the request of his mother. The boy, Mike, was in the fourth grade at the time. His mother was concerned, because Mike was getting poor grades, having conflicts with the teacher, and becoming more and more disinterested in school. He was having social conflicts too, being teased and picked on by other students who liked to see his "overreactions" when they provoked him. It had gotten to the point where home schooling was being considered, since it was getting harder to even get Mike out the door to go to school, which he considered "torture."
The school had never tested Mike for giftedness. Whatever screening process was in place had missed him. Possibly because he didn't fit the high-achieving, cooperative, wunderkind image that some teachers look for when making recommendations for gifted screening. Yet it turned out that his IQ measured in the in the Exceptionally Gifted range (fewer than 1 of 1000 kids score this high on an IQ test). His problems at school were not atypical for such children. Had he been identified earlier and placed in an alternative program, many of his academic and social problems might have been avoided. At the very least, Mike's parents and teachers would have had a better understanding of his problems and been able to collaborate from a more informed perspective to come up with solutions.
These types of scenarios are not unusual. In fact, some estimate that the majority of gifted children in the schools are never identified. That may not be a tragedy for some, but it very well could be for others, like Mike, who truly need special programming and support to get through school successfully.
Parents who are aware of the signs of giftedness can better collaborate with the schools to help assure that their own child's potential and learning needs are not overlooked.
How Can You Tell If Your Child Is Gifted?
As you've probably guessed, without proper assessment, there is no easy answer. There are no universally accepted traits that you can look for and no definitive signs that will tell you for sure whether your child is gifted. However, many gifted children share some common characteristics, and knowing these is a good place to start.
The reason for these common traits may have a lot to do with the physical characteristics of the brain. Giftedness is the result of both environmental and genetic factors, and both of these influences can lead to differences in the way that the brain works and develops. Some researchers believe that gifted children's advanced cognitive skills actually result — at least in part — from the ability of their brains to process information faster and more effectively than others their age.
The brain is made up of billions of nerve cells, or neurons, which communicate with each other by releasing and receiving chemicals called neurotransmitters. These chemicals travel through dendrites, root-like structures which branch out and seek connections with nearby neurons at junctures called synapses. The more of these dendrites and synapses we have, the greater our "brain power" — our ability to process information, to perceive, interpret, reason, problem-solve, remember, and do all kinds of tasks associated with learning. It appears that every time we do or experience something — read a book, have an emotion, look at a picture — a specific group of neurons associated with that activity "lights up," stimulating the growth of more dendrites and "exercising" those already in place, making them better processors of information. All else being equal, the denser and more efficient these neural connections, the easier it is to do the thing that is associated with that area of the brain.
EDUCATION TESTING back in early 1900s advances the same goals of MOVING FORWARD as today's DNA testing. Where EDUCATION TESTING was enfolded in the hopes of going to college------DNA testing is ROMANTICIZED by selling to our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE----it's all about finding our roots.
GENETIC LITERACY PROJECT THINKING EUGENICS IS OK------SAME MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD STANFORD/BRIGHAM YOUNG.
There is far more EUGENICS tied to DNA-TESTING than was ever in EDUCATION TESTING.
The research of finding how our brain developed---as DARWIN'S research on EVOLUTION was driven mainly by AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT KNOWLEDGE---it is a very small group of people who then use that research to twist it into SOCIAL DARWINISM.
REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES loved research tied to understanding how our body and brain works-----today we do not like it because we have FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% who DO want to use this information for EUGENICS.
When the US allowed our BASIC RESEARCH to be taken by far-right wing-----CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----we went from being a DR GOOD nation---to being a DR NO nation. Taking a break from basic research until we get rid of far-right wing global banking 5% freemason/Greek players is NOT A BAD IDEA.
'Instead of being driven by a desire to “improve” the species, new eugenics is driven by our personal desire to be as healthy, intelligent and fit as possible'
DNA screening is part of the new eugenics—and that’s okay
Jon Entine | Genetic Literacy Project | July 8, 2013
A provocative, heartfelt but ultimately misguided article in the Denver Post decried “the rise of a new eugenics.” It was written by two prominent, thoughtful people, Lloyd Lewis and Julie Reiskin, officers with the Colorado Cross Disability Coalition (CCDC).
My issue is not with their stated mission to advocate for social justice for people with all types of disabilities—but with their simplistic and counterproductive demonization of DNA screening tests reflected in this opinion piece. Their premise is this: Over the past decade, technological advances have led to the development of simple and inexpensive genetic screening tests that can determine whether a fetus has a genetic disorder. If a disorder is identified—and if the laws of the state or country in which the pregnant woman resides allow—the fetus can be aborted. This is all very much like amniocentesis, which is widely embraced around the world. The CCDC focuses on fetuses with Down syndrome (DS) to argue that modern DNA screening techniques (but not amniocentesis) present a moral hazard.
Abortion is a prickly issue, contentious and personal, entangled with legal and moral standards that vary from community to community. Lewis and Reiskin advance a moral argument as a backdoor way to promote changes in the legal landscape, and I believe they do so disingenuously. If successful, their efforts would lead to curtailments in abortion rights and limit genetic health screens.
Amniocentesis, abortion, and DNA screening
Almost all communities in the United States, Europe and most other Western countries allow for the termination of pregnancies when the mother is found to be carrying a fetus with a genetic disease. The raw truth is that prospective parents would prefer having children with no genetic defects. As the Denver Post article states, 80 to 90 percent of women who receive a positive amniocentesis test for DS choose to terminate their pregnancy.
There is already broad national support for screening fetuses to determine whether they contain genetic abnormalities: amniocentesis. It involves inserting a needle through the uterus to withdraw fluid and fetal cells from the amniotic sac. Although controversial in its early days, it’s now a broadly accepted procedure that ultimately results in the termination of tens of thousands of pregnancies every year. But amniocentesis is an invasive test; some women refuse to ask for it for that reason alone.
The CCDC’s opposition to genetic screening is based on its belief that because genetic screening is a non-invasive technique (and now booming in popularity), it will result in even more terminations. “To be blunt, this test will likely result in a rapidly decreasing population of people with DS,” write Lewis and Reiskin. That’s almost certainly accurate.
It appears the CCDC is a responsible organization that promotes the rights of the disabled. They are good guys. Most of the people linked to CCDC have or are associated with children with one form of genetic disability or another, often DS. They have a compelling, deeply personal moral argument that’s not unlike the one promoted by anti-abortion groups—terminating human life in any form and at any stage of development is wrong. The CCDC however appears to take no position on abortion—which means in effect it voices no concerns about terminating healthy pregnancies—but it wants to establish unique moral and legal rights for fetuses with genetic defects.
Lewis, Reiskin, and the CCDC have the right to advance any policy position. Their engagement is part of how democratic societies have chosen to work through this moral thicket. But positions should be based on sound science and reasoning, not on appeals to emotion and hyperbole.
Playing the anti-biotechnology hysteria card
My concern is that the CCDC’s framing of the issue undermines support for genetic testing, particularly pre-conception. Lewis and Reiskin deploy the word “eugenics” as if it’s a synonym for genocide. It’s a reckless, socially fraught way to manipulate historical facts, and is an all-too-common distortion of the social history of genetics policy in the United States. They write:
“Adolf Hitler’s embrace of eugenics would discredit the movement, but unfortunately it didn’t disappear… Today, in fact, we see the rise of a new eugenics, made possible by the rapid development of bioscience and biotechnology, especially from the mapping of the human genome. This is obviously technology and philosophy that the American eugenicists in the 1920s would have embraced, along with their counterparts in Nazi Germany.”
The authors are either ignorant of history or willing to misrepresent it to promote their cause. Eugenics is typically portrayed as morally repugnant by today’s standards, but classical eugenics (meaning “good genes”) has its roots in the progressive era at the turn of the twentieth century, not in Hitler’s twisted vision of a Final Solution. The scientists who formulated these ideas were very much mainstream, and their proposition sounded reasonable to an American and European establishment trying to come to terms with waves of ill-educated immigrants from Southeastern Europe.
Scientists offered what they considered to be a progressive solution: “positive eugenics,” which focused on better pre-natal and natal and health and encouraged society’s healthiest citizens to have more children, thus improving the overall health of society. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, along with many major Protestant and Jewish clergy were eager proponents of positive eugenics. Those eugenic views remain a central tenet of modern society today.
The “negative” wing of eugenics, which was popular in the late 20s and early 30s but never widely embraced, wanted to legally prevent the mentally ill, poor, immigrants and non-whites from having children. Some Social Darwinists also propagated the belief that progress could only be attained by phasing out “undesirable genes.” Again, we practice mild versions of this today—that’s what amniocentesis accomplishes. It was only later however, that ideologues of the far right twisted eugenics to justify Nazism and genocide. Their exploitation and abuse of the concept led to the “eugenics movement,” but this movement casts a shadow over the modern focus on improving individual and societal genetic health in a non-coercive way.
Nathaniel Comfort, professor at the Institute of the History of Medicine at The Johns Hopkins University, addressed many of the complicated moral and legal issues raised by in the eugenics movement his book The Science of Human Perfection: How Genes Became the Heart of American Medicine, published last year. As Comfort argues, the impulse to use genetic screening reflects complex motivations:
“The eugenic impulse drives us to eliminate disease, to live longer and healthier, with greater intelligence and a better adjustment to the conditions of society. It arises whenever the humanitarian desire for happiness and social betterment combines with an emphasis on heredity as the essence of human nature. It is the aim of control, the denial of fatalism, the rejection of chance. The dream of engineering ourselves, of reducing suffering now and forever.”
We are in the “second age of eugenics” wrote Discover blogger Razib Khan, citing the growth in the number of terminated DS pregnancies. Because of advances in genetic screening, we are in a position to reduce the prevalence of many Mendelian diseases caused by single gene mutations (e.g. sickle-cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, PKU, Huntington’s disease). The mostly small, start-up genetics companies that Lewis and Reiskin mischaracterize as “Wall Street backed corporations” are actually marshalling their resources to educate the public on these thorny issues. For example, we are now able to identify mutation carriers before conception so diseased embryos are never conceived and abortion is never a question. And yes, that would mean fewer babies born with Down syndrome.
New eugenics, old fears
The potential power of the “new eugenics” has put both the far left and right on edge. They share a quasi-religious belief that nature and life should be considered inalterable. Pro-life groups and activist groups on the left that argue for the dignity of people with disabilities often campaign vigorously against aborting fetuses known to carry debilitating diseases.
Their case has been taken up by activist writer Alex Knapp who holds that no one is “eugenically unfit” and society has advanced too far scientifically and morally to allow such practices. He focuses solely on negative eugenics and not the positive impact that family planning and genetic screening have already had on society.
His focus on negative eugenics is rampant on the hard-edged ideological left, promoted most vociferously by the Center for Genetics and Society, which considers itself a progressive advocacy group but is actually the opposite on many genetics issues. It takes every opportunity to conflate prenatal testing and gene therapy with negative eugenics, arguing that it is socially and ethically reprehensible to alter the genes that we pass on to our children.
It’s an odd argument given that CGS supports planned parenting—which attempts to achieve the same goal as preventative screening but with far less precision and more unintended consequences. Their fear stems as much from the tool itself (biotechnology) than its intended consequences.
The limits of eugenics
Scientist and blogger Gerhard Adams, writing last year at Science 2.0, raised more sophisticated cautions about eugenics and genetic fetal screenings. The concept itself is potentially flawed, he maintains, because there is no way to determine whether what appears to be a negative mutation may confer unexpected or unknown benefits. The sickle cell mutation, for instance, protects people from contracting malaria. Eliminating the mutation entirely would put many populations at suddenly increased risk of malaria infection.
“Some may argue that we have plenty of evidence from our experiences in animal domestication,” he writes, “yet who would claim that these results are an improvement of the original species? The modifications [may] have made these animals more compliant with human demands, but improved the original species?” If given a choice, he writes, humans will converge toward genetic homogeneity—which is also bad for the species.
One key problem with Adams’s line of reasoning is that screening and abortions do not necessarily eliminate a trait—it would be very difficult to actually wipe out many genetic diseases. Eugenics-inspired screening in the Jewish community has all but ended Tay Sachs among Orthodox Jews, but the frequency of the mutation in the larger non-Jewish population has not changed. Furthermore, Down syndrome is a spontaneous, not inherited, trait—screening and abortions would have no direct impact on its prevalence.
The Gattaca argument: more “fi” than “sci”?
In the grand scheme, the biggest bugaboo haunting personal genomics is the specter of Gattaca: as more people adopt genetic screening, the choice to use it could become less voluntary—or at least harder to turn down. Science 2.0 founder and editor Hank Campbell argues that once it becomes possible to engineer “superior” qualities in human beings, then a parent’s only moral choice would be to have genetically superior children. That’s the ominous theme behind the Lewis and Reikin’s Denver Post opinion piece.
It may sound like a real argument but it’s sci-fi in the extreme. The CCDC, Knapp, CGS and Campbell may believe they are warning against Big Brother but their positions would seem to favor Big Brother-like restrictions.
Should we limit personal choice, including the right of prospective parents to terminate their pregnancies? In a post from last year about prenatal sex selection and reproductive rights, science blogger Cameron English struck a sensible balance:
“There’s no doubt that we need to consider the difficult ethical questions that arise as our ability to manipulate nature improves… But making ominous predictions and restricting personal choice shouldn’t be a part of that discussion, at least not without evidence.”
Modern eugenic aspirations are not about the draconian top-down measures promoted by the Nazis and their ilk. Instead of being driven by a desire to “improve” the species, new eugenics is driven by our personal desire to be as healthy, intelligent and fit as possible—and for the opportunity of our children to be so as well. And that’s not something that should be dismissed lightly.
Here is the same STANFORD UNIVERSITY today ------that is where ROOSEVELT INSTITUTE was founded------the source of using EDUCATION TESTING-----SAT to limit who goes to college last century now having the TALKING POINT of leading COLLEGE FOR ALL.
FDR'S NEW DEAL built public schools and universities across the nation. Not every child has the ability of HIGHER EDUCATION. We paid the TRADES a good salary to adjust for this two-tiered education system. Some children are good with TRADES----some children good with ACADEMICS. All last century our US public universities were doing research into how humans learn-----we created tests----but we have that HOBBES KRACKEN in former US IVY LEAGUES----so EDUCATION TESTING research used by left social progressives to lift all 99% of WE THE PEOPLE into a professional status ------had its STANFORD/BRIGHAM YOUNGS only seeking to cull the GENIUSES.
So, EDUCATION TESTING last century had left social benefit goals ------but those marginalized SOCIAL DARWINISTS were indeed advancing research MARGINALIZE. Global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA------brought what were marginalized SOCIAL DARWINISTS to capture our US government. Who led this capture by FAR-RIGHT WING global banking 1%-----OLD WORLD KINGS KNIGHTS OF MALTA---TRIBE OF JUDAH. Who is tied to STANFORD/BRIGHAM YOUNG? SAME very small group of 1000BC corrupted DNA----SHIP OF FOOLS.
STANFORD is not working to open college for all----it is MOVING FORWARD the end of our K-high school structure replacing it with DARK AGES K-career child apprenticeships. This is FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% dismantling our US left social progressive K-UNIVERSITY public school system.
This is the OUR REVOLUTION for only the global 1% crowd------MOVING FORWARD depopulation will use lots of EUGENICS.
College for All: Creating a New Deal in Higher Education
EducationFinance & WealthRoosevelt @
By Aman Banerji
“Higher education” is a vague term. It describes a sector that is hardly uniform, with over 4,000 degree-granting institutions eligible for federal funding but serious disparities among them. A college education from one of these institutions continues to serve as a prerequisite to moving up the income ladder in our narrative about economic mobility. Yet, this narrative assumes that a degree from the University of Phoenix delivers the same returns as one from Harvard University or your local community college, despite the fact that each offers radically different opportunities for mobility.
The large disparities in outcomes across the institutions that make up “higher education” as a field demonstrate that the industry suffers from monopoly pressures. Consider, for example, that just 25 institutions hold about half of the total endowment assets in the industry. Or that:
Investments from community colleges’ endowments, combined, earn $27.6 million a year, according to the American Association of Community Colleges. That’s how much Harvard alone makes from its $32.7 billion endowment about every two and a half days.
Further, the overwhelming majority of low-income students do not attend the few well-endowed private sector institutions that almost guarantee a path to the middle class. In fact, a new study finds that ‘less than one-half of 1 percent of children from the bottom fifth of American families attend an elite college’. Moreover, the share of students from the bottom 40% at elite universities has remained relatively stable over the last decade. Low-income students overwhelmingly attend public schools, despite narratives that admission is based purely on merit.
After these few decades of attacks on our US public K-university by CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA ----yes, our US public schools have been left decayed and dysfunctional---the poor always get the worst of this.
Meanwhile, vast declines in state and national appropriations have imperiled the public university system. State appropriations accounted for just 24% of median public university revenue in 2016. That’s a historically low level—between 1989 and 2014, state and local governments decreased spending per student by 25 percent on average (adjusted for inflation). In response to declining funding, public schools meet funding shortfalls directly out of the pockets of their students. Average net tuition and fees for full-time in-state undergraduate students at public four-year institutions soared by 54.6% from 1996-2016.
The concentration of private monopoly power in the industry ensures that few private practitioners hold the keys to the to the American dream of middle class status—and they dole out that access to a select few, usually those with racial and class privilege. This prevents higher education from truly being a “public good.” A public good, like access to water, heat, or electricity, is one that is meant to be “non-excludable,” or universally accessible, and “non-rivalrous,” where use by one party does not limit access to the good by another. It’s time that we stopped building a system where access to the public good of quality college education is limited to only the top private schools.
How then do we fight the large inequities built into today’s higher educational system? We ought to heed the lessons from progressive reformers a century ago. One of the key approaches they used to counter the issue of overwhelming private power for public goods was to strengthen the public option. As Roosevelt’s Sabeel Rahman emphasizes, ‘a high quality public option would provide more equitable and accessible alternatives that compete with private companies and induce higher standards for nondiscrimination, fair prices, and openness.’ A focus on drastically improving the infrastructure and support for public and community colleges, and their students, ought to be our prime response to this crisis of monopoly power.
TEDDY ROOSEVELT AKA ECONOMIC PROGRESSIVES ARE THE OPPOSITE OF FDR LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE PUBLIC K-UNIVERSITY. SO, THE CONSTANT CALL FOR MORE PUBLIC OPTIONS IS A GLOBAL BANKING 1% MARKET POLICY-------AS SEEN BELOW
That’s why we at the Roosevelt Institute are excited to see the rapidly growing interest in proposals for free public higher education through the College for All Act sponsored by Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Pramila Jayapal in the Senate and House respectively. This legislation would eliminate tuition and fees at public four year colleges and universities for families making up to $125,000, and would make community college tuition and fees entirely free for all. Increasing accessibility to a high quality, accessible public education, as the Act proposes, would ensure that public university students are less mired in debt and more likely to graduate as a result. A 2015 Federal Reserve board survey finds that student debt was the cause of 24% of college dropouts. Just as importantly, creating a real public option for higher education could reduce the discrimination and barriers to entry plaguing the private education sector. It could even trigger the demise of the predatory for-profit educational industry, which profits from the fact that college degrees are necessary in our economy but largely inaccessible to most. The for-profit industry has been exposed for its exploitation of students of color in particular.
Sanders’ bill does not just offer tuition support, it creates structural changes within the increasingly corporatized higher education industry.
AS WE CONTINUE TO SHOUT-----THE ROOSEVELT INSTITUTION TIED TO STANFORD UNIVERSITY IS NOT A PUBLIC GOOD NGO AND BERNIE SANDERS AND HIS OUR REVOLUTION FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1% KNOW THIS
The bill sets up a host of federal funding requirements for public universities, including maintaining spending on academic instruction and need-based aid; reducing reliance on adjunct faculty; and preventing the use of funding toward administrator salaries, merit based aid, and construction of non-academic buildings like stadiums. Here, it appears, the bill attempts to counter some of the most destructive trends in higher education, including the severe tilt toward insecure, poorly compensated labor through adjuncts, the ballooning of administrator salaries, and the shift in funding priorities toward non-instruction related activities. For instance, more than half of all interest spending on paying down debt at public institutions in 2012 fell into two Department of Education categories: ‘student services’ and ‘auxiliary services,’ which are those that include stadiums, cafeterias, and recreation centers. These trends are part of the reason college has become so unaffordable for the vast majority of the student population, and it is commendable that the bill addresses them.
The College for All Act provides a vital framework for curbing the vast inequality across public and private sectors in our higher educational system. Moving forward, key avenues for future reform must focus on ensuring equity in refinancing across student loan borrowers, building a wider conception of student costs beyond tuition and fees (cost of college textbooks, for instance, have increased by 73% in the past ten years) into progressive reform models, and focusing on desegregating the higher education sector through an explicit racial equity lens. Yet, by reminding us of higher education’s value as a public good freely accessible and available to all, the College for All Act is a huge step in pushing us along this path.
ATLAS SHRUGGED ----the AYN RAND crowd were of course those FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS ------STANFORD/BRIGHAM YOUNG EUGENICS crowd-----this article about AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT ---JEFFERSON written as JEFFERSON the humanist.
Jefferson promoted the policy of equal opportunity and access PUBLIC EDUCATION and proposed a two-track system which became our US K-university/vocational/academic higher education. Those graduating high school wanting TRADES were open to MASTER TRADES classes---those wanting academic professions were open to public universities. EDUCATION TESTING had widespread support becausse of the need to identify the 5Ws of opening equal opportunity to all 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
So, EDUCATIONAL TESTING WAS NOT EMBRACED FOR EUGENICS/RACIAL DISCRIMINATION/SOCIAL DARWINISM----IT WAS SIMPLY CO-OPTED BY GLOBAL BANKING 1% TO DO SO MOVING FORWARD.
We take the time to discuss these policies broadly because when we rebuild our public K-UNIVERSITY we do not want to throw these policies out because they were corrupted by a few people on FAR-RIGHT WING.
The Life-Centered Philosophy of Thomas Jefferson
April 01, 2003
Robert James Bidinotto
In Atlas Shrugged, Dr. Robert Stadler finds it "outrageous" that a genius such as John Galt would have "performed a major revolution in the science of energy, just as a means to an end." "Why," Stadler demands, "did he want to waste his mind on practical appliances?" Dagny Taggart answers: "Perhaps because he liked living on earth."
That reply summarizes the attitude of the American Enlightenment, most especially the attitude of the man whose birthday we celebrate on April 13: Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson is best known as the leading "classical liberal" in American history. As the author of the Declaration of Independence, he outlined the political principles that launched the new nation. As the framer of the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty, he spearheaded early efforts to separate church and state. As president of the United States, he fostered the fledgling country's continental expansion, setting the stage for America to become a global power.
Jefferson was America's first life-centered philosopher.
But Jefferson was much more than a philosopher and statesman of freedom. His omnivorous appetite for the facts of nature (including human nature) is reflected in his only book, Notes on the State of Virginia , which contains exhaustive observations on every aspect of his state's natural and social environment: its flora, fauna, populations, mountains, rivers, geology, manufactures, and laws.
Even as president, Jefferson conducted botanical expeditions on which "he would climb rocks, or wade through swamps to obtain any plant he discovered or desired and seldom returned from these excursions without a variety of specimens." In his Washington residence "we see him not only with his beloved flowers, plants, books, and pet mocking-bird, but also with carpenter's tools, garden implements, maps, globes, charts, a drafting board, and scientific instruments" (I. Bernard Cohen, Science and the Founding Fathers , New York: Norton, 1995, p. 64). The East Room was cluttered with a huge fossil collection, while on the lawn frolicked young grizzly bears brought back by Lewis and Clark.
But this is not to say Thomas Jefferson was a scientific dilettante or dabbler. Far from it. After all, Jefferson is surely the only president who read Newton's Principia in Latin and could correct the leading astronomer of his day on its interpretation. But Jefferson liked to live on earth, and whenever he writes of his scientific activities, one is struck by the predominantly practical rather than contemplative cast of his mind.
Thus, what one sees at Jefferson's Monticello estate is a powerful mind bent to practical difficulties. An indefatigable gadgeteer, Jefferson filled Monticello—which he himself designed—with mechanical innovations: a complex clock in the front hallway, dumbwaiters, a revolving bookstand, a portable writing table, an invention to duplicate letters as he wrote, even a special ventilation and cooling system. The surrounding grounds serve as an elegant showcase for his interests in botany and scientific agriculture.
This very Jeffersonian attitude—that knowledge should enhance human life—was more broadly an Enlightenment attitude. Thus, in the year of Jefferson's birth, Benjamin Franklin established a "philosophical" organization with a strikingly life-centered agenda: to conduct "all philosophical Experiments that let Light into the Nature of Things, tend to increase the Power of Man over Matter, and multiply the Conveniences or Pleasures of Life." In 1769, this scientific organization became the American Philosophical Society.
From Jefferson, the society received designs for new inventions, observations on establishing weights and measures, and correspondence on everything from meteorology to fossils. He was perfectly at home discussing the heavens or mechanics with David Rittenhouse, an ingenious inventor and America's foremost astronomer; medicine and anatomy with the peerless Dr. Benjamin Rush; flora and fauna with Benjamin Smith Barton, the nation's leading botanist and anthropologist; or chemistry, physic, and electricity with the renowned Joseph Priestley.
Jefferson came to be held in such esteem by these eminent scientists that he was elected the society's president in 1796, a post they then refused to let him quit for nearly two decades. Historian Daniel J. Boorstin writes that this "was simple recognition of his leadership in American intellectual life" ( The Lost World of Thomas Jefferson , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948, p. 23).
Why did this generalist command the enduring respect of specialists? Why, as Boorstin puts it, was Thomas Jefferson "the human magnet who drew them together and gave order and meaning to their discrete investigations" (p. 23)? Because Jefferson "possessed a mind more catholic than theirs and better able to see nature as a whole. Being a statesman, he persistently demanded the human implications of their science" (p. 23).
It is precisely because of his concern with the "human implications" of intellectual pursuits that Thomas Jefferson became the leader of the American Enlightenment. In countless arenas—scientific, cultural, and political--he focused the thinking of the nation's best and brightest toward the task of advancing not pure reason, but human life as an end in itself.
So, on his birthday this month, let us remember him not just as a Founding Father, architect, inventor, or scientist. Thomas Jefferson was all that, and something more. He was America's first life-centered philosopher.
REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE LOCKEAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS began with US FOUNDING FATHERS who were indeed 'elitists'----they found themselves as leaders of a colonial state because they were connected to OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS. The policies taking hold in US in colonial years as a result of AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT were expanding this educational ELITISM ------to all citizens under EQUAL PROTECTION/EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.
Whether a JEFFERSON actually said 'racking a few geniuses from the rubbish' is as questionable as if he is tied to compulsory attendance and literacy tests. Remember, back in early sovereign US our 99% WE THE PEOPLE were largely uneducated and policies back then were used to encourage PUBLIC LEARNING. So, as the history of JEFFERSON as AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT father of US public education seems to be a bit REVISIONIST these few decades by the FAR-RIGHT WING------the goals of EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND ACCESS started with JEFFERSON'S understanding that America would need public education for both TRADES AND ACADEMICS.
The US went through all of last century having those two tracks in high-schools. Our TRADES were valued as much as our ACADEMICS -----our TRADES were paid a strong wage -----our TRADES had higher-education through MASTER TRADES higher education as academics attended university.
'Jefferson’s attitude toward compulsory attendance laws — a cornerstone of modern public education — is worth noting. Some historians have maintained that Jefferson, in his early proposals, implicitly favored compulsory attendance for three years of elementary education. But Jefferson never said this, and it cannot legitimately be inferred from his words'.
Where today GOGGLING JEFFERSON and PUBLIC EDUCATION will lead to lots of far-right wing LIBERTARIAN writing revisionist goals -------below is what our REAL US history gave as the goal of US PUBLIC K-UNIVERSITY.
Rather than squabbling, Adams and Jefferson knew that public education was at the heart of democracy. “The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it,” wrote Adams
MASONRY back in early colonial America was filled with those OLD-SCHOOL MASONS and those global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS FREEMASONRY-----so, please do not allow the REAL goals of our US public education be corrupted in today's myth-making and propaganda.
Founding Fathers agreed: Funding public education is not a debate
- Brad Desnoyer
- Mar 10, 2014
Two of our greatest Founding Fathers, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, were fierce political adversaries. But in the first years of our nation, these rivals — with vastly different backgrounds and disparate political views — shared common ground. They both believed in the importance of funding public education.
Rather than squabbling, Adams and Jefferson knew that public education was at the heart of democracy. “The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it,” wrote Adams.
“There should not be a district of one mile square, without a school in it, not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves.”
Jefferson, witness to the Revolution, drafter of the Declaration of Independence, and founder of the nation’s first public university, rightfully believed that it was the government and citizenry’s duty to invest tax dollars in public education: “[T]he tax which will be paid for this purpose [education] is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.”
More than 200 years later, Missouri currently underfunds education based upon the very funding formula our fiscally conservative Legislature created. And the school year has been bizarre at best: Unaccredited Normandy and Riverview Gardens are busing students to neighboring school districts. The entire Kansas City School District is unaccredited, and current proposals call for the dissolution of the KCSD so that it may be replaced by private entities.
Gov. Jay Nixon recently proposed increasing state spending for K-12 education, moving us closer to meeting the state’s education funding formula. And yet certain members of the Legislature are resisting. Sen. Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, called the budget proposal “bloated” and questioned the need for more spending.
There has always been fear of bloated government. There will always be concerns of over-encroaching authority. Rightfully so. And there is a valid argument that our modern schools have failed at their mission, with high dropout rates and graduates who are barely ready for college. There is some truth to this: In recent years, American schools have been surpassed by other nations’. But a big reason for this is inequality — the wealthiest students from the wealthiest school districts still perform well. The poorest students from the poorest school districts — and there are a lot more of them — bring the average way down.
The distress of our underfunded districts does not dismiss our Founding Fathers’ call for public education. Rather it highlights the need for citizens at every level to revitalize public education. This includes parents and lawmakers, teachers and students. It includes taxpayers. And it is in everyone’s self-interest. As Adams wrote, “[E]ducation of youth, especially of the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful, that, to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant.” Benjamin Franklin put it more succinctly: “An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest.”
Public schools by their nature require tax dollars. Spending money on public schools does not inherently make them bloated, it makes them public. And while money is not the sole solution, funding will benefit our children. Any time an issue requires tax dollars, the Legislature instinctively screeches, “Money won’t help!” They are right that money alone will not miraculously fix our schools. It is not the magic cure. But necessary public funds will help our students to receive the education they, as American citizens, deserve.
Sadly lawmakers favor talking points to wisdom. They seek arguments with their supposed rivals, even in matters that great adversaries like Adams and Jefferson would never spar over — not when our children’s future is the collateral damage of their political battles.
So let me end with a few talking points in hopes of reaching wary lawmakers: Funding our public schools is the duty of our state. At the founding of this nation, the Framers of the Constitution believed in publicly educating our children. Those wise men knew funding public education was an investment in our democracy and in our future. To argue against adequately funding our schools rejects Adams and Jefferson and Franklin. Failing our students in this way is simply un-American.
So, what did global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS----STANFORD/BRIGHAM YOUNG do with education testing research? They made it into global education testing corporations sent overseas to look for all those GENIUSES. Meanwhile, our US public schools where being used as CASH-COWS for a corrupted goal of education testing. None of this is the original goal of REAL left social progressive research and development of how our children learn.
OBAMA era super-sized this far-right wing use of education testing as simply a CASH COW with RACE TO TOP COMMONER CORE. This saturation of education testing was done to make our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE move away from K-UNIVERSITY public education.
Are SAT educational tests RACIST? Any of our new to US IMMIGRANTS coming from third world nations would find it hard to jump right into US HIGHER EDUCATION.
PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW GLOBAL BANKING 1% GOALS OF MAKING PARENTS/STUDENTS HATE PUBLIC SCHOOLS INCLUDE THE IDEA THAT EDUCATION TESTING DID HAVE A REAL LEFT SOCIAL BENEFIT GOAL AS WELL.
So, STANFORD and global banking 1% took their brand of EDUCATION TESTING overseas in search of global black, white, and brown GENIUSES and left our US public schools with CORRUPTED GOALS IN EDUCATION TESTING------using our schools as CASH COWS.
Study says standardized testing is overwhelming nation’s public schools
By Lyndsey Layton
October 24, 2015
The number of standardized tests U.S. public school students take has exploded in the past decade, with most schools requiring too many tests of dubious value, according to the first comprehensive survey of the nation’s largest districts.
A typical student takes 112 mandated standardized tests between pre-kindergarten classes and 12th grade, a new Council of the Great City Schools study found. By contrast, most countries that outperform the United States on international exams test students three times during their school careers.
In a video posted to Facebook by the White House on Saturday, President Obama pledged to take steps to reduce testing overload.
In “moderation, smart, strategic tests can help us measure our kids’ progress in school, and it can help them learn,” Obama said. “But I also hear from parents who, rightly, worry about too much testing, and from teachers who feel so much pressure to teach to a test that it takes the joy out of teaching and learning, both for them and for the students. I want to fix that.”
The heaviest testing load falls on the nation’s eighth-graders, who spend an average of 25.3 hours during the school year taking standardized tests, uniform exams required of all students in a particular grade or course of study. Testing affects even the youngest students, with the average pre-K class giving 4.1 standardized tests, the report found.
The study analyzed tests given in 66 urban districts in the 2014-2015 school year. It did not count quizzes or tests created by classroom teachers, and it did not address the amount of time schools devote to test preparation.
It portrays a chock-a-block jumble, where tests have been layered upon tests under mandates from Congress, the U.S. Department of Education and state and local governments, many of which the study argues have questionable value to teachers and students. Testing companies that aggressively market new exams also share the blame, the study said.
“Everyone is culpable here,” said Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools. “You’ve got multiple actors requiring, urging and encouraging a variety of tests for very different reasons that don’t necessarily add up to a clear picture of how our kids are doing. The result is an assessment system that’s not very intelligent and not coherent.”
Ahead of the study’s release, the U.S. Department of Education offered a mea culpa of sorts, issuing a 10-page “action plan” to states and local districts that spells out ways to reduce redundant and low-quality testing. The department pledged to make money and staff available to help and promised to amend some of its policies.
“At the federal, state and local level, we have all supported policies that have contributed to the problem in implementation,” Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a statement. “We can and will work with states, districts and educators to help solve it.”
The agency is recommending that states cap the amount of time devoted to test-taking to no more than 2 percent of class time. A similar proposal is part of the bill pending in the Senate to replace No Child Left Behind. Casserly cautioned against an arbitrary limit, saying he is concerned that states would indiscriminately lop off tests to meet a federal testing cap. A better approach, he said, would be a coordinated effort among all players — federal, state and local — to come up with a more thoughtful system.
The council’s report adds fuel to the national debate about testing that has spurred various “opt out” movements among parents and students and has put growing political pressure on Congress and state legislatures to cut back.
In one of the most notable attempts to reduce testing, Miami-Dade County Public Schools Superintendent Alberto Carvalho earlier this year cut the number of district-created end-of-course exams from 300 to 10 and eliminated them entirely for elementary schools.
“I believe in accountability,” said Carvalho, who runs the nation’s fourth-largest school district. “But fewer assessments of higher quality are better. . . . What we have now across the country is confusing, hard to navigate and, I believe, abusive of both teacher and student time.”
California eliminated its high school graduation test three weeks ago, joining Minnesota, Mississippi, Alaska, Rhode Island and South Carolina. Virginia has reduced its number of state-level tests, and Montgomery County, Md., last month put an end to its high school final exams.
Standardized testing has caused intense debate on Capitol Hill as lawmakers work to craft a replacement for No Child Left Behind. Testing critics tried unsuccessfully to erase the federal requirement that schools test in math and reading. Civil rights advocates pushed back, arguing that tests are an important safeguard for struggling students because publicly reported test scores illuminate the achievement gap between historically underserved students and their more affluent peers.
But even testing supporters agree about an overload.
“For those of us who support annual assessments, it doesn’t mean we support this craziness,” said Kati Haycock, president of the Education Trust, an advocacy group focused on reducing the achievement gap. “There’s a clear problem here.”
Testing tends to be concentrated between February and May. The council’s study found numerous examples of redundancy, with students often taking an end-of-course test, an Advanced Placement test and a final exam for the same course.
In 40 percent of districts surveyed, test results aren’t available until the following school year, making them useless for teachers who want to use results to help guide their work in the classroom, Casserly said.
Jeffrey Cipriani teaches second grade at Orchard Gardens K-8 Pilot School in Boston. Even though his students are not in a grade that is required by federal law to be tested, the Boston Public Schools has him administer reading tests to his students three times a year. Because the tests are individual and can be as long as 90 minutes, it takes Cipriani about three weeks to test the whole class.
“It’s a colossal amount of time,” he said. “I probably spend about 60 hours not teaching reading but just sort of giving those assessments. They’re valuable but not that valuable.”
The study found no correlation between the amount of testing in a district and the way its students perform on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a federal test given every two years that is the only consistent measure of student achievement across state lines.
“We can’t assess our way to academic excellence,” Carvalho, of the Miami-Dade school system, said.
While public schools have been administering standardized tests for generations, the current buildup began after Congress passed No Child Left Behind in 2001 and required states to test all students in math and reading annually from third grade through eighth grade, and once in high school.
States that failed to make academic progress faced a series of consequences. States and districts responded by adding new tests during the school year to ensure students were on track.
“You prepare for the test to prepare for the test to prepare for the test,” said Robert Schaeffer of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, a nonprofit organization critical of standardized testing.
And, the study found, Obama administration policies have escalated the issue.
To win a grant under the competitive Race to the Top program, or to receive a waiver from No Child Left Behind, states had to evaluate teachers based in part on student test scores. Since federal law required standardized tests only in math and reading in certain grades, states added tests in social studies, science, languages — even physical education — to have scores they could use to evaluate teachers.
“Many of the appalling things reported on here are the direct result of the way the federal government has approached this,” said Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy. “The accountability system is what’s driving this and it’s fundamentally flawed.”
In its new guidance to states, the U.S. Department of Education tries to soften its emphasis on using test scores to evaluate teachers and urges states and local districts to cut down on redundant and low-quality tests.
The agency also pledged to work with states to amend waivers they have received under No Child Left Behind “to reduce testing in grades and subjects that are not subject to federal testing requirements and/or find alternative ways” to judge student achievement and use that to evaluate teachers.
“The time is now to take some new and meaningful steps to help schools deal with testing where it is unnecessary,” said John King, who is slated to succeed Duncan in January. “This is something the president and I have talked about, and it will be a key priority for me in our work with states and districts over the next 14 months.”
As throughout these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA far-right wing global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS neo-liberals and neo-cons were simply using policy to send as much US Federal spending to global corporations as possible---anyway they could. Whether US Federal public school funding were illegally rerouted to building global private education corporations or whether creating more and more reasons to TEST CHILDREN expanding education testing to INDIVIDUALIZED/PERSONALIZED education----the corruption of EDUCATIONAL TESTING from early 1900s to today ----went from wanting to find GENIUSES----to creating policy to make our US Federal agencies CASH COWS for global educational testing corporations.
THAT WAS THE GOAL OF RACE TO TOP ---COMMONER CORE----MAKING OUR US 99% WE THE PEOPLE AND STUDENTS SICK OF WHAT WAS THE BEST IN WORLD HISTORY REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE PUBLIC K-UNIVERSITY SYSTEM.
Not racist---not eugenics----just yet another way of LYING, CHEATING, and STEALING our US Federal agency funding directing it to global MITRE EDUCATION TESTING CORPORATIONS.
Obama’s real education legacy: Common Core, testing, charter schools
By Valerie Strauss
October 21, 2016
President Barack Obama pretends to take a selfie during an event at Benjamin Banneker Academic High School on Oct. 17, 2016, in Washington, D.C. President Obama delivered remarks to highlight the progress he has made to improve education across the country, including a rise in high school graduation rates. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
President Obama went to a high-performing D.C. high school this week to tout the “progress” his administration has made in public education, America’s most important civic institution. To mark the legacy moment, he brought along the two men who have served as his education secretaries — Arne Duncan and John King Jr., along with D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, D.C. Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, and Gen. Colin Powell and his wife Alma.
It’s what he didn’t say that was most revealing. A fuller evaluation of the Obama education legacy would look somewhat different from the one he offered.
Obama charmed the student audience at Benjamin Banneker Academic High School, joking with them and telling them he remembers some of the awkward social moments of being a high school student. As the White House text shows:
So, by now you’ve settled into the new year. Right? Adjusted to classes. You’re preparing for Spirit Week. (Applause.) Learning how to ballroom dance. (Laughter.) I remember having to do that. Getting the nerve to text that cute girl or boy in your English class. (Laughter.) I don’t remember that; we did not have texts. We had to send little notes. And then we used to actually have to go up to somebody if we liked them and talk to them. So that may happen to you someday. (Laughter.)
He reminded the kids that he had visited Banneker in 2011 and was so impressed that he wanted to return “because you’re an example of a school that’s doing things the right way.” Later he said he wanted every school to be “as great as this one.”
Students take photos of U.S. President Barack Obama following remarks at Benjamin Banneker Academic High School in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 17, 2016. (Photo by Nikki Kahn/The Washington Post)There’s no denying that Banneker is a top-performing school in the nation’s capital, and that 100 percent of its seniors graduate. But it’s unclear if Obama knows that if every school did what Banneker does, the high school graduation rate might plummet. That’s because Banneker is a magnet school where students must apply to get in — but the only entry grades are ninth and tenth. And they must maintain a B- average to stay. Kids who can’t cut it leave, but that attrition isn’t counted against the school’s graduation rate.
Obama did touch on graduation rates, touting the newly announced, highest-ever national high school graduation rate of 83 percent. He noted that “D.C.’s graduation rates grew faster than any other place in the country” this past year. He didn’t say that that “fastest-growing” designation would include D.C. charter schools in the mix with traditional public schools, perhaps because he didn’t mention charter schools at all.
Why is that strange in a speech dedicated to talking up his education legacy? Because the growth of charter schools was a key priority in his administration’s overall school reform program. Promising to promote the expansion of charter schools was one of the ways that states could win some of the money in Obama’s signature $4.3 billion Race to the Top funding competition. Today, 6 percent of U.S. public school students attend charter schools, up from about 3 percent when he took office in 2009. (It was 2 percent in 2004.) And he was standing in a city that has one of the most successful charter school sectors in the country.
Charter schools — which are funded by the public but allowed to operate outside traditional districts — have become highly controversial in the world of education, with supporters saying they promote educational equity by giving students in failing systems an alternative, and opponents saying that they operate without accountability to the public and rob traditional schools of resources they need to educate the neediest students, which charters don’t enroll in the same percentages.
While some charter schools do an excellent job, scandals — especially with for-profit companies allowed to operate charters — have become common in the sector because of little or no oversight by states. A recent audit by the Education Department’s Inspector General’s Office found that the department — which awards multi-million-dollar grants to states for the creation and expansion of charters — had failed to provide adequate oversight of some of its relationships with charter management organizations.
Meanwhile, as charter schools grow with administration support, charter supporters and opponents are in a scorched-earth war of words, with both sides claiming the civil rights mantle and accusing the other of harming children. When the NAACP, the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, last week ratified a referendum calling for a moratorium on new charters until new accountability measures can be instituted, critics accused of it being no better than the racist former governor of Alabama, George Wallace.
That wasn’t the only controversial subject Obama barely mentioned. He did not mention by name the Common Core State Standards initiative, another big priority for the administration during Duncan’s seven-year tenure running the Education Department, during which he wielded more power than any previous education secretary while also attracting more opposition than his predecessors.
Adopting common standards was also on Race to the Top’s list of preferred reforms Duncan sought from applying states, and the administration spent some $360 million for two multi-state consortia to develop new Core-related standardized tests. Duncan himself promised that the new tests would be “an absolute game-changer” in public education.
It didn’t work out that way. The tests were nowhere as sophisticated as originally promoted. The rush to get them into schools led to computer troubles in some states, some of them severe. One of the tests, known as PARCC, was abandoned by most of the states that had agreed to use it, and the overall idea behind the standards and aligned testing — that test results would be comparable across states — has not been accomplished.
The Education Department’s ties to the Gates Foundation, which funded the creation and implementation of the Core, also sparked criticism that the administration was too close to wealthy philanthropists who were intent on driving their own personal vision of school reform.
Another priority of the administration’s was creating teacher evaluation systems that were linked to student standardized test scores — yet another part of Race to the Top. This policy was also part of waivers that the Education Department gave to states seeking to avoid the most onerous parts of the flawed No Child Left Behind law. If a state wanted a waiver, it had to agree to specific reforms, including linking educator evaluations with test scores.
High-stakes tests for students are questionable enough, but the idea of putting a teacher’s job and salary at risk based on how well their students do on test scores raises a host of other problems. Assessment experts have repeatedly warned that methods used to link student test scores to teacher evaluations are largely unfair and invalid. Those experts include the American Statistical Association, the largest organization in the United States representing statisticians and related professionals, as well as the Board on Testing and Assessment of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences.
But the administration pushed the practice anyway and the problems that developed would be amusing if the consequences weren’t so serious.
Remember that kids are tested in English Language Arts and math. So how do teachers of other subjects get linked to test scores? Some districts considered and even experimented with standardized tests in other subjects; in North Carolina, one district even tried a test in Yearbook class.
Another method was to evaluate teachers in non-tested areas by exam averages of their entire school — or by either English or math test averages. As a result, many teachers were evaluated in part on how well students they didn’t teach do on exams, as well as on test scores from subjects they didn’t teach. One superintendent lauded by the Obama administration was Michelle Rhee, who led D.C. Public Schools from 2007 to 2010 and was a pioneer in test-based assessment systems.
She was so enamored with test scores that she required every adult in every school building — including the custodians and lunch ladies — to be evaluated in part by them. Duncan liked her so much that when rumors rose that she was quitting in 2010, he (unsuccessfully) tried to get her to stay.
The elevation of standardized test scores as the chief accountability metric had other insidious consequences. Under a philosophy that nearly every student could and should take some version of a standardized test to show progress, some kids were forced to take tests who couldn’t possibly know what was going on. That included a boy in Florida named Michael who was born with a brain stem but not a complete brain, who was forced to “take” an alternative version of the standardized Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. Blind and unable to talk or understand basic information, his state-funded teacher literally moved his hand to the right answers. While Michael’s disability was exceptional, he was not the only child with extremely severe disabilities to be forced to take tests because Education Department officials decided every student should be assessed with a standardized exam.
The administration’s obsession with standardized tests led to a rebellion by parents, students, teachers, principals and even superintendents. Many spoke out against testing policies — and many parents refused to allow their students to take exams mandated by states for federal accountability purposes. In New York, with the most active movement, 22 percent of students “opted out” of at least one test, and opt-outs were reported in numerous other states. It was only after the “opt out” movement began to grow that the administration conceded that kids were being tested too much.
The New York State commissioner of education who pushed the test-based teacher accountability system — which has been crashing and burning for years — was John King Jr., who left the job early after 3 1/2 years, essentially getting a public shove by Gov. Andrew Cuomo not only for the teacher evaluation fiasco but for a botched implementation of Common Core. The reason this is worth mentioning is that King — who has an inspirational personal story — is now Obama’s second education secretary.
Such micromanaging of education by the administration — traditionally seen as a local function — is what led Congress, in November 2015, to pass a successor to NCLB, called the Every Student Succeeds Act. Obama did mention the new law in his speech at Banneker:
So teachers deserve more than just our gratitude — they deserve our full support. And we’ve got to make their lives easier, which is why we enacted a law to fix No Child Left Behind, which gives teachers more flexibility to spend more time teaching creatively than just spending all their time teaching to a test. Give your teachers a big round of applause. (Applause.) They deserve it.
What he didn’t mention was that Congress was finally inspired to replace NCLB — eight years after it was supposed to be rewritten — because members of both parties wanted to stop the administration’s unprecedented exercise of federal power in education. Sen. Lamar Alexander, the Tennessee Republican who heads the Senate education committee and was a prime mover behind the new law, called the Education Department under Duncan “a national school board.” By exercising federal power in questionable ways, the administration gave an opening to Congress to send back a great deal of education of power to the states, many of which never covered themselves in glory in how they approached public education.
The notion of giving teachers “our full support” is likely welcome to them, many of whom have felt they were being targeted by the Obama administration. The 2012 MetLife Survey of the American Teacher found that teacher job satisfaction had plummeted from 62 percent of teachers feeling “very satisfied” in 2008 to 39 percent by 2012. This was the lowest in the 25-year history of the survey.
And the percentage of students who apply for teacher preparation programs has significantly dropped in recent years. He told the students to appreciate their teachers:
You all know how hard they work. They stay up late grading your assignments. That’s why you got all those marks all over your papers. They pull sometimes money out of their own pockets to make that lesson extra special. And I promise you, the teachers here and the teachers around the country, they’re not doing it for the pay — because teachers, unfortunately, still aren’t paid as much as they should be. They’re not doing it for the glory. They’re doing it because they love you, and they believe in you, and they want to help you succeed.
Actually, teachers who use their own money for their classrooms usually aren’t doing it “to make that lesson extra special.” They are doing it because without it, their kids might not have paper or books or other essentials. Equitable school funding, however, wasn’t a priority of the administration in a country where funding is largely based on property taxes, leaving school systems in wealthy areas with more to spend on education than districts in poor areas, where kids need more support. For that matter, Obama did take note of the administration’s interest in early childhood education — though he didn’t mention that it became a priority only in his second administration, by which time there was little surplus money to spend on it.
When Obama first took office, many of the people who voted for him had hoped he would make educational equity the focus of school reform policy. His selection of Stanford University Professor Linda Darling-Hammond, an expert on equity and teacher preparation, as the education leader of his transition team was a hopeful sign.
OH, REALLY????? STANFORD AS A SOURCE OF EQUITY IS A HOPEFUL SIGN! THAT IS REALLY FAKE NEWS
Then, instead of naming her as education secretary, as many believed would happen, he instead selected Duncan, a friend from Chicago who was deeply steeped in the corporate reform movement that embraced the Core standards, tests, data and school “choice” as the way to close the achievement gap. Darling-Hammond wrote a book, “The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future,” about authentic educational equity and had two copies printed in hardback, one for her and one sent to President Obama, an effort to try to steer his reform policies toward equity.
The White House did not answer a query about whether he ever read it.
Corporate reform didn’t work as planned, and perhaps that is why Obama’s speech meant to talk about his education accomplishments didn’t mention it in a substantive way. His major educational initiatives were around standards, testing and charter schools — not the kind of broad-based school reform that attempts to meet the most basic needs of students, many of whom come to school hungry, exhausted and sick. What happens in classrooms is indeed important, but reform critics argued that schools cannot systemically overcome the effects that poverty have on children.
Obama summed up his legacy this way:
So bottom line is: higher graduation rates, higher college attendance rates, more money for Pell grants and work to make sure that the interest rate on student loans haven’t gone up; working to expand early childhood education and preschool; continuing to watch and work with states as they try to implement reforms to make K-12 better; holding colleges more accountable for giving information so that students can make good decisions. We’ve made a lot of progress. We have made a lot of progress in terms of making sure that young people across the country get the kind of great education that you’re getting here at Banneker.
That’s not the important education legacy many Obama supporters had hoped he would leave.
The goals of ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE 3000BC HINDI BRAHMIN are to depopulate EARTH and doing it with EQUAL OPPORTUNITY for all global 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens. HOBBES and pre-Christian OLD WORLD KINGS NERO/CATO/SENECA never cared who was taken down in continuous wars---sacking and looting civil societies----if people were taken down they were not FIT FOR SURVIVAL. EUGENICS is used to create social tensions------the goals are to marginalize one population then another and the far-right wing global corporate FASCIST using EUGENICS do not need EDUCATIONAL TESTING or DNA TESTING to create a system of HATE, FEAR, IDENTIFYING 'FEEBLE-MINDED/FEEBLE-BODY' in depopulation.
The goals of MOVING FORWARD are for global 1% OLD WORLD KINGS not to have to rely on a global 2% or 5% freemason/Greek PLAYER to hold power and wealth-----that is why they are building DEEP, DEEP, REALLY DEEP STATE SMART CITIES. This eliminates the need for ANY PLAYERS. The second goal of MOVING FORWARD is to eliminate any need to identify GENIUSES -----they are building the super-duper big dead head to be that TEMPLE PRIEST GENIUS.
ANYONE THINKING THE GOALS OF GLOBAL BANKING 1% ARE TIED TO RACISM-----EUGENICS-------ARE LOOKING FOR EXCUSES TO FEEL THEIR POPULATION GROUP WILL BE 'WINNERS'. THERE WILL BE NO WINNERS IN MOVING FORWARD ONE WORLD FOR ONLY THE GLOBAL 1% EXCEPT-----GLOBAL 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
All of this MYTH-MAKING AND PROPAGANDA surrounding goals of social Darwinism or eugenics is simply FOOLING population groups into thinking they will be WINNERS in MOVING FORWARD.
Survival Theories Social Darwinism and Eugenics
GMO HUMANS is the opposite of eugenics and social Darwinism------which identifies natural human deficiencies--------MOVING FORWARD GMO HUMANS builds that ideal of what a perfect human will be
So, GMO HUMANS end the need for global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS to search for that genius with EDUCATION TESTING----it ends the need for thinking about SOCIAL DARWINISM---EUGENICS------it does not matter----the genetic manipulation of what will be test tube sperm and egg fertilization will have no need for our 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
The goals of DEPOPULATION include all 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens-----it will unfold in coming throwing of global banking 5% freemason/Greek players under the bus------getting rid of those talented in lying, cheating, and stealing------it will unfold in continuous wars civil unrest civil war WW3----it will unfold in capturing billions of people to these SMART CITIES FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES----and finally, it will unfold when ROBOTICS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE is fully installed making all 99% of WE THE PEOPLE ------UNNECESSARY. That goal has its timeline as the 21ST CENTURY ECONOMY.
Genetically Modified Humans Are Coming:
U.S. Scientists Just Backed Permanent Gene Editing In Humans
February 16, 2017By
“Genetically modified humans” sounds like a term that belongs in Hollywood, but it’s actually a very real possibility, and one that’s being heavily discussed in the scientific community. Contributing to one of the most controversial topics to date, a panel of science experts in the U.S. just examined and gave their support for germline editing. This means that in the future, parents will likely be able to tamper with the genetics of their children pre-birth.
Germinal choice technology refers to reprogenetic technologies that enable parents to alter the genetic constitutions of their children. One of the ways this can be done is through germline editing, which is a fancier term for human genetic engineering. Germline editing alters the genes of a sperm or an egg, but it then changes the future DNA of every single cell in the embryo. This means that the genetic changes made to the embryos will then affect all future generations within that family lineage.
Germline Editing Will Likely Be an Option in the Future
The panels were made up of experts from two of the most prestigious scientific institutions in the U.S., both of which recommended that germline editing be viewed as a serious option in the future and not be prohibited outright (source).
This is a dramatically different stance than the last assessment given in December 2015 by an international summit of scientists, who stated that it would be “irresponsible to proceed” with germline editing given the controversy surrounding the subject and the safety issues involved, all of which have yet to be resolved.
The panels’ discussions can be further analyzed in a report released earlier this week by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine. The panel recommended that germline editing of early embryos, eggs, or sperm should only be permitted to prevent serious disease or disability if there’s significant scientific evidence illustrating that the procedures are safe.
“Human genome editing holds tremendous promise for understanding, treating, or preventing many devastating genetic diseases, and for improving treatment of many other illnesses. . . . However, genome editing to enhance traits or abilities beyond ordinary health raises concerns about whether the benefits can outweigh the risks, and about fairness if available only to some people,” explained Alta Charo, co-chair of the study committee and Sheldon B. Lubar Distinguished Chair and Warren P. Knowles Professor of Law and Bioethics, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
One of the illnesses the panel specifically mentioned that germline editing could be used to prevent is Huntington’s disease, a progressive brain disorder that can result in uncontrollable movement, emotional issues, and loss in cognition, most commonly appearing in a person’s thirties or forties. However, the panel was quick to note that with these alterations could come some very serious side effects.
One of the potential risks includes developing new conditions, diseases, or mutations. If this happened, parents would have no idea until their babies are born and begin to mature.
Perhaps the most obvious risk is the societal implications associated with the genetic engineering of humans. If it’s an expensive process, meaning it will likely only be made available to upper class citizens who can afford it, it could create a “designer class” of babies with preferred qualities and genes.
“These kinds of scenarios used to be science fiction; they used to be seen as far-off hypotheticals… But actually, right now, I think they’re urgent social justice questions,” said biotechnologist Marcy Darnovsky from the Center for Genetics and Society to Rob Stein at NPR.
“[W]e’re going to be creating a world in which the already privileged and affluent can use these high-tech procedures to make children [with] biological advantages,” she continued. “And the scenario that plays out is not a pretty one.”
“Previously, it was easy for people to say, ‘This isn’t possible, so we don’t have to think about it much,’ ” said MIT researcher Richard Hynes, who helped lead the committee, to The New York Times. “Now we can see a path whereby we might be able to do it, so we have to think about how to make sure it’s used only for the right things and not for the wrong things.”
Will Genetic Engineering Mark the Birth of Transhumanism?
Transhumanism is a futuristic ideology which purports that humans will be altered and improved using sophisticated technologies in the future to upgrade our intellectual, physical, and mental capabilities. Many scientists are actually in favour of this, especially as we become more technologically advanced, making this seem more realistic.
Elon Musk supports this movement, in fact, as he believes that human beings will eventually use technology to enhance our inherent natural capabilities.
“Over time we will see a closer merger of biological intelligence and digital intelligence. It is all about the band width of the brain,” Musk said.
“Some high band width interface to the brain will be something which helps achieve symbiosis between human and machine intelligence, which solves a control and usefulness problem,” he continued.
Musk has spoken about this topic on several occasions. For example, last year he explained that we should consider getting brain implants in the future because, without them, we may not be able to compete with artificial intelligence (AI). He also has strong opinions about AI, arguing it could pose a threat to us if we become too dependent on it (source).
I believe that genetically engineering human beings could serve us in a way, but it could also do more harm than good. Germline editing could seriously improve the lives of many if it could prevent certain diseases, but at what cost?
In addition, the fact that a man and a woman can mate and create offspring together that’s made up of a mixture of their genes is truly beautiful. Do we really want to alter something that’s already such an incredible gift in nature?
I don’t think there’s a right or a wrong answer here. However, there are certainly some risks involved with genetically modifying humans. It’s easy to imagine how the elite could use this to further manipulate the general population, or how it could create an even greater divide between high income and low income families. The idea of creating an Aryan or superior race could even be proposed again, which would only further perpetuate the illusions of separatism and hierarchy.
Then again, it could potentially help us further advance our consciousness and awaken our inner capabilities, especially if the technology or alterations have absolutely no health risks (zero radiation/EMF exposure, no increased risk in disease, etc.).
In either case, I believe our time would be better spent further advancing our collective consciousness. If that can be done through AI, then that’s incredible and I’m all for it. However, we must remember that, if we truly dial in and get in touch with ourselves energetically, we have the power to heal ourselves from within. We don’t need to rely on technology to save us and prevent diseases. Yes, technology plays an important role in society, but that doesn’t mean we should let it overshadow our own capabilities as spiritual beings.
The idea global banking 1% is interested in creating an ARYAN RACE of GMO HUMANS is ridiculous-----they are gender-blending---race-blending away all those natural human differences
'The idea of creating an Aryan or superior race could even be proposed again, which would only further perpetuate the illusions of separatism and hierarchy'.
THERE IS NO EUGENICS OR SOCIAL DARWINISM AT PLAY IN GMO HUMANS---ALL 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE WILL BE DEEM UNNECESSARY BLACK, WHITE, AND BROWN CITIZENS.
Eugenics - Wikipedia
Positive eugenics is aimed at encouraging reproduction among the genetically advantaged; for example, the reproduction of the intelligent, the healthy, and the successful. Possible approaches include financial and political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilization, egg transplants, and cloning.
As global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS like to say----they are not going to wait around for NATURAL SOCIAL DARWINISM. This is why global banking 1% are recruiting 5% freemason/Greek players as the WE DON'T CARE crowd-----
Social darwinism | Define Social darwinism at Dictionary.com
Social darwinism definition, a 19th-century theory, inspired by Darwinism, by which the social order is accounted as the product of natural selection of those persons best suited to existing living conditions and in accord with which a position of laissez-faire is advocated.