Texas Schools Felony Fraud numbers of dropouts

[Greg Hanson]

Did you see the TV story Oct 17 about the ""model"" schools
in Texas getting high marks through fraudulent reports
of dropouts? And the coverups throughout management?
The guy who exposed it from a few levels down had to
go to the media before it exploded.

They were purposefully omitting names and statistics,
altering statistics, and falsely labeling kids as
having transferred to schools - fabricated LIES.

They discovered it has been endemic, many schools
there have been doing this.

The "best schools in the nation" models are less than
advertized.

[Fern5827]

The better to kick students OUT OF SCHOOL.

Especially what the school deems of as UNDESIRABLES.

I mentioned that in my explantion of the teen boy being booted out.


Greg confirms:

>Subject: Texas Schools Felony Fraud numbers of dropouts
>From: (Greg Hanson)
>Date: 10/18/2003 1:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Did you see the TV story Oct 17 about the ""model"" schools
>in Texas getting high marks through fraudulent reports
>of dropouts? And the coverups throughout management?
>The guy who exposed it from a few levels down had to
>go to the media before it exploded.
>
>They were purposefully omitting names and statistics,
>altering statistics, and falsely labeling kids as
>having transferred to schools - fabricated LIES.
>
>They discovered it has been endemic, many schools
>there have been doing this.
>
>The "best schools in the nation" models are less than
>advertized.
>
>
>

[LaVonne Carlson]

Did you know that Texas has one of the lowest high school completion
rates and is one of the highest states to use corporal punishment?
Hummm....what a correlation to defend.

LaVonne

Fern5827 wrote:

> The better to kick students OUT OF SCHOOL.
>
> Especially what the school deems of as UNDESIRABLES.
>
> I mentioned that in my explantion of the teen boy being booted out.
>
> Greg confirms:
>
> >Subject: Texas Schools Felony Fraud numbers of dropouts
> >From: (Greg Hanson)
> >Date: 10/18/2003 1:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >Did you see the TV story Oct 17 about the ""model"" schools
> >in Texas getting high marks through fraudulent reports
> >of dropouts? And the coverups throughout management?
> >The guy who exposed it from a few levels down had to
> >go to the media before it exploded.
> >
> >They were purposefully omitting names and statistics,
> >altering statistics, and falsely labeling kids as
> >having transferred to schools - fabricated LIES.
> >
> >They discovered it has been endemic, many schools
> >there have been doing this.
> >
> >The "best schools in the nation" models are less than
> >advertized.
> >
> >
> >

[bobb]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> Did you see the TV story Oct 17 about the ""model"" schools
> in Texas getting high marks through fraudulent reports
> of dropouts? And the coverups throughout management?
> The guy who exposed it from a few levels down had to
> go to the media before it exploded.
>
> They were purposefully omitting names and statistics,
> altering statistics, and falsely labeling kids as
> having transferred to schools - fabricated LIES.
>
> They discovered it has been endemic, many schools
> there have been doing this.
>
> The "best schools in the nation" models are less than
> advertized.

Though many might disagree, I recall another fraud. It's called grading on
a curve. Way back when, when too many kids were failing cuz they couldn't
answer 75% of the test questions correctly. No one stopped to consider that
the teachers weren't teaching. The grade curve made up for teacher
deficiences. I can recall when answering one-half of the test questions
correctly consituted an A. I disputed this with teachers but got
nowhere.Many kids received credit for one-half of the education they
thought they had acheived. The truth came out only when they had to compete
with others and learned, too late, they were so far behind. So much for the
quality of schools and teachers.

bobb

[Greg Hanson]

They also got in trouble for cherry picking for
educational testing. They weeded out kids
they THOUGHT would not pass the testing.
They put a large block of bad students into
Special Education just to keep them from
taking the standardized testing that the school
is judged on.

More abuse of Special Education or Special Needs.

[Greg Hanson]

LaVonne wrote
> Did you know that Texas has one of the lowest
> high school completion rates and is one of
> the highest states to use corporal punishment?
> Hummm....what a correlation to defend.

Who defended that correlation?
Did you snip some attributes from another newsgroup, LaVonne?
And why did you say "Did you know" if somebody ELSE
was presenting a correlation?

I'm not saying I would defend it unless
and until I see the statistical correlation,
raw data, and account for the other problems
like abject bureaucratic corruption.

[Fern5827]

Did' ja know kids taking the SAT get extra time if they are Special Ed or
special needs?

Special ed can work many ways.

[Donna Metler]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> They also got in trouble for cherry picking for
> educational testing. They weeded out kids
> they THOUGHT would not pass the testing.
> They put a large block of bad students into
> Special Education just to keep them from
> taking the standardized testing that the school
> is judged on.
>
> More abuse of Special Education or Special Needs.

Given that current law labels a school as low performing if their special
needs students don't perform on grade level, putting students in special
education doesn't help at all-and may hurt, if it gets your special ed block
large enough to count under the law. Only 1% of students can be exempted
from the test and given alternative assessments. All other special education
students must take the standard test at their grade level.

The number required for the scores to count differs from state to state. In
TN, it is 45 students in the tested grades, total-which means any school
with any size whatsoever will have such scores count.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Donna Metler" > wrote:

> "Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
> om...
> > They also got in trouble for cherry picking for
> > educational testing. They weeded out kids
> > they THOUGHT would not pass the testing.
> > They put a large block of bad students into
> > Special Education just to keep them from
> > taking the standardized testing that the school
> > is judged on.
> >
> > More abuse of Special Education or Special Needs.
>
> Given that current law labels a school as low performing if their special
> needs students don't perform on grade level, putting students in special
> education doesn't help at all-and may hurt, if it gets your special ed block
> large enough to count under the law. Only 1% of students can be exempted
> from the test and given alternative assessments. All other special education
> students must take the standard test at their grade level.
>
> The number required for the scores to count differs from state to state. In
> TN, it is 45 students in the tested grades, total-which means any school
> with any size whatsoever will have such scores count.
>
>
>

the law is designed to designate most public schools as failures --
they require kids who don't speak English to perform in English at grade
level [the school only has to fail in one category e.g. these ESL kids
to fail as a school] they measure school success with kids who weren't
even there in a high turnover district until the end of the year, they
require retarded kids to score at grade level --- it is part of the GOP
plan to dismantle public schools and channel tax money into religious
schools

[Joni Rathbun]

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, bobb wrote:

>
> "Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Did you see the TV story Oct 17 about the ""model"" schools
> > in Texas getting high marks through fraudulent reports
> > of dropouts? And the coverups throughout management?
> > The guy who exposed it from a few levels down had to
> > go to the media before it exploded.
> >
> > They were purposefully omitting names and statistics,
> > altering statistics, and falsely labeling kids as
> > having transferred to schools - fabricated LIES.
> >
> > They discovered it has been endemic, many schools
> > there have been doing this.
> >
> > The "best schools in the nation" models are less than
> > advertized.
>
> Though many might disagree, I recall another fraud. It's called grading on
> a curve. Way back when, when too many kids were failing cuz they couldn't
> answer 75% of the test questions correctly. No one stopped to consider that
> the teachers weren't teaching. The grade curve made up for teacher
> deficiences. I can recall when answering one-half of the test questions
> correctly consituted an A. I disputed this with teachers but got
> nowhere.Many kids received credit for one-half of the education they
> thought they had acheived. The truth came out only when they had to compete
> with others and learned, too late, they were so far behind. So much for the
> quality of schools and teachers.
>

It was my experience in h.s. that kids often worked the curve
deliberately. Had nothing to do with the teacher (except he was dumb
enough to fall for the trick). Some time into the scam (this was biology),
my friend Kate and I decided to throw the curve and we got 97% or whatever
on the next test - throwing the curve into a nose dive. The other kids
were very angry but it stopped the nonsense and we were able to
get back to what should have been normal.

Then I went to college and my biology professor fell for the same
crud.

[abacus]

"Donna Metler" > wrote in message >...
> "Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
> om...
> > They also got in trouble for cherry picking for
> > educational testing. They weeded out kids
> > they THOUGHT would not pass the testing.
> > They put a large block of bad students into
> > Special Education just to keep them from
> > taking the standardized testing that the school
> > is judged on.
> >
> > More abuse of Special Education or Special Needs.
>
> Given that current law labels a school as low performing if their special
> needs students don't perform on grade level, putting students in special
> education doesn't help at all-and may hurt, if it gets your special ed block
> large enough to count under the law. Only 1% of students can be exempted
> from the test and given alternative assessments. All other special education
> students must take the standard test at their grade level.
>
> The number required for the scores to count differs from state to state. In
> TN, it is 45 students in the tested grades, total-which means any school
> with any size whatsoever will have such scores count.

Hmmm. Somehow I fail to find this argument convincing in a threat
that started with documented lies and deliberate falsification of
numbers in the measurements that are being attempted in the effort to
make our schools more accountable to the citizens who are paying for
them.

While the regulations you are claiming may indeed exist, I have a hard
time having much faith in whatever numbers are being reported
officially. And the average citizens faith becomes, in my opinion, is
the real victim of those bureaurocratic lies. And then people wonder
why so many citizens refuse to vote for tax increases for education.

[dragonlady]

In article >,
toto > wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:57:36 GMT, "bobb" > wrote:
>
> >Though many might disagree, I recall another fraud. It's called grading on
> >a curve. Way back when, when too many kids were failing cuz they couldn't
> >answer 75% of the test questions correctly. No one stopped to consider that
> >the teachers weren't teaching. The grade curve made up for teacher
> >deficiences. I can recall when answering one-half of the test questions
> >correctly consituted an A. I disputed this with teachers but got
> >nowhere.Many kids received credit for one-half of the education they
> >thought they had acheived. The truth came out only when they had to compete
> >with others and learned, too late, they were so far behind. So much for the
> >quality of schools and teachers.
>
> Bobb, you misunderstand the purpose of curving grades and you also
> misunderstand that the facts about it depend on the course and the
> depth of the questions.
>
> While a multiple choice test graded this way might be indicative of
> poor teaching, it also might be indicative of political pressure from
> above to pass students (this does happen and it isn't always the
> teaching that is at fault, though it sometimes is).
>
> When a course, however, is taught on a high level and tests are used
> as learning devices, often a curve in terms of the grades in the
> course is justifiable. My son's honors physics, honors chemistry and
> honors math courses were all graded this way. 60% was a B, 80%
> was an A. He, however, learned all of these subjects to a much higher
> level that any of the kids who earned 90% on tests in the regular
> classes because the questions on his tests required him to come up
> with new ways to use the knowledge he had gained in the class, not
> just to regurgitate facts.
>

If a set percentage was always a B, and a different percentage always an
A, then the course was NOT graded on a curve.

If it is graded on a curve, the teacher scores all the tests, and says
the top 5% are A's, the next 10% B's, the next 50% C's (these
percentages are pulled out of the air: different teachers will have
different percentages that the use.) The point is that you don't know
what raw score you have to get to get an A until all the scores are in,
because the teacher "grades on the curve".

There are problems with it -- but there are also problems with a
standard that says some arbitrary percentage is always an A. If, say
100 kids take a class for which they have all met the prerequisites, and
only 1 gets an A while 15 flunk -- then either there was a lousy
teacher, or there was a lousy grading system in place. Not all teachers
seem capable of teaching, and some who teach well seem incapable of
writing a decent test. I see a real problem with different grades
depending upon which teacher you get, right through college: some
teachers grade pretty easy, some grade very tough. Last year my son
took a college chemistry course which had, as a prerequisite, either a
high school chemistry class passed with a C or better, or an intro
college class. Of the 40 or so students who started the class, only 15
finished -- and of those, there was 1 A, a few Bs and C's, and an
astonishing number of F's. The teacher undoubtedly thinks he's a tough
but fair teacher who is weeding out the kids who can't cut it. My son
says he's a jackass who is a crappy teacher and shouldn't be allowed in
a classroom. (For credibility here, I should like to point out that my
son got a B.)

Sometimes I think UC-Santa Cruz has the right answer -- no grades, just
a narrative description of how well the student did and a pass/fail for
every class.

meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[Donna Metler]

"abacus" > wrote in message
om...
> "Donna Metler" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > They also got in trouble for cherry picking for
> > > educational testing. They weeded out kids
> > > they THOUGHT would not pass the testing.
> > > They put a large block of bad students into
> > > Special Education just to keep them from
> > > taking the standardized testing that the school
> > > is judged on.
> > >
> > > More abuse of Special Education or Special Needs.
> >
> > Given that current law labels a school as low performing if their
special
> > needs students don't perform on grade level, putting students in special
> > education doesn't help at all-and may hurt, if it gets your special ed
block
> > large enough to count under the law. Only 1% of students can be exempted
> > from the test and given alternative assessments. All other special
education
> > students must take the standard test at their grade level.
> >
> > The number required for the scores to count differs from state to state.
In
> > TN, it is 45 students in the tested grades, total-which means any school
> > with any size whatsoever will have such scores count.
>
> Hmmm. Somehow I fail to find this argument convincing in a threat
> that started with documented lies and deliberate falsification of
> numbers in the measurements that are being attempted in the effort to
> make our schools more accountable to the citizens who are paying for
> them.
>
> While the regulations you are claiming may indeed exist, I have a hard
> time having much faith in whatever numbers are being reported
> officially. And the average citizens faith becomes, in my opinion, is
> the real victim of those bureaurocratic lies. And then people wonder
> why so many citizens refuse to vote for tax increases for education.

Again, read the federal NCLB law. If less than 95% of the children in a
school don't TAKE the test, the school is considered to be failing. Same
with any sub-group. While frauds have happened in the past, they largely
occurred BEFORE this went into effect, and the requirements for reporting
increased. Believe me, there are so many people scrutinizing our records and
our school now that we trip over them in the halls-precisely because some
schools have done unethical things in the past.

[Tom Enright]

Kane wrote:
>

> Geez! Finally someone else who gets it.
>
> You an trust Jenn on this folks. She is dead on target. That is
> exactly what is happening. And it is carefully executed according to
> plan..yes, that terrible "C" word.
>
> Do you know anything about HSLDA? Look it up, then look into the
> backgrounds of it's principle players, Michael Farris especially,
> former gubenatorial candidate.
>
> Then cross-google on HSLDA and Christian Reconstructionism.
>
> Then take a look at the intervention by HSLDA into lawmaking. It looks
> soooooo good to the politically naive. But it's a large portion of the
> camel besides his nose under the tent. We'll see his fat ass rather
> soon methinks.
>
> We are in for some kinda ride here folks and we may regret for decades
> ever allowing the Bushies into office.
>
> I had forgotten just how self serving and dangerous fundies can be.
> How could I do that? Tsk.

Considering that:

A) All but of a few major urban school boards are dominated by Democrats.
B) The teacher's unions are just an arm of the Democratic party.

The failure of public education belongs firmly on the heads of the Democrats.

Perhaps you should remember how self serving the teacher's unions and the
Democrats can be, sacrificing the education of children and keeping them
trapped in crappy schools, in order to keep a steady flow of contributions
going in one direction and government largess going in the other.

Recently in Detroit, teachers took the day off, that's right, they just
decided to not show-up for work, thus thousands of parents were stuck with
child care issues, in order to travel to Lansing in order to protest the
possibility of the district opening charter schools. A business man was
set to donate $200,000,000 in order to educate the children of Detroit.
The union and the Democrats were dead-set against it. 'Screw the kids,'
is the standard refrain of the Democrats and the unions, unless they can
control the money.

-TOE

"You could take billons of dollars in cash and label it 'Educational Funding'
and set it on fire and the Democrats would complain that the pile is not
big enough."

> Kane

[Greg Hanson]

CPS and schools both exist with a SACRED COW effect.
Every CPS agency in the US failed audits.
They failed to actualize many requirements that have
been in place for over ten years.
Some are measures of safety in state care.
Some are requirements that would preserve more
constitutional and due process rights of families.
Both houses of Congress recently wrote SCATHING
reports about CPS agencies violating families'
constitutional rights. When states fail the audits
they are in breach of a ten year old contract
and their grant money is supposed to be withdrawn.
But what politician wants to have somebody say
PUBLICLY that he is "against Child Protection"?
That is why these Congressional committee reports
are amazing indeed. The bill was signed into law
by the President on June 25th 2003.

But the agencies have NOT had their money withdrawn
for the failures to meet ten year old requirements.

They seem to be DARING governments to cut their
funding for the SACRED COW of Child Protection.

Are schools going to try the same sort of
blackmail?

Will politicians REALLY hold schools accountable
when they fail to perform their required tasks?

Would they really pull funding for such a SACRED COW?

[bobb]

"toto" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 16:57:36 GMT, "bobb" > wrote:
>
> >Though many might disagree, I recall another fraud. It's called grading
on
> >a curve. Way back when, when too many kids were failing cuz they
couldn't
> >answer 75% of the test questions correctly. No one stopped to consider
that
> >the teachers weren't teaching. The grade curve made up for teacher
> >deficiences. I can recall when answering one-half of the test questions
> >correctly consituted an A. I disputed this with teachers but got
> >nowhere.Many kids received credit for one-half of the education they
> >thought they had acheived. The truth came out only when they had to
compete
> >with others and learned, too late, they were so far behind. So much for
the
> >quality of schools and teachers.
>
> Bobb, you misunderstand the purpose of curving grades and you also
> misunderstand that the facts about it depend on the course and the
> depth of the questions.
>
> While a multiple choice test graded this way might be indicative of
> poor teaching, it also might be indicative of political pressure from
> above to pass students (this does happen and it isn't always the
> teaching that is at fault, though it sometimes is).
>
> When a course, however, is taught on a high level and tests are used
> as learning devices, often a curve in terms of the grades in the
> course is justifiable. My son's honors physics, honors chemistry and
> honors math courses were all graded this way. 60% was a B, 80%
> was an A. He, however, learned all of these subjects to a much higher
> level that any of the kids who earned 90% on tests in the regular
> classes because the questions on his tests required him to come up
> with new ways to use the knowledge he had gained in the class, not
> just to regurgitate facts.
>
>
> --
> Dorothy
>
> There is no sound, no cry in all the world
> that can be heard unless someone listens ..
>
> The Outer Limits

I'd have to dig out some old report cards (Yeah, I still have them) but a
74% = F... which is a far cry from an A or B. An A was merited only for
those who scored above 95 or 96%.

Sorry, but I cannot, nor will I accept a B for knowing just 60% or the
required material and it certainly doesn't not merit honors... which is
meaningless these days.

Some 90% of Harvard grads acheived honors last year. That unholy practice
was supposed to end this year...and grade are to be more reflective of true
accomplishment ... not status.

Having reviewed, interviewed, many employment applications from 'college'
students I would suggest they are performing at the high school level. High
school graduates barely read or write at the 8th grade level.

A fraud is being perpetrated on many students for once in the work force
they are unable to compete against those who actually made the grade.

I've also learned good students might well come from bad schools... and bad
students might well come from good schools... it's up to the student... even
with bad teachers. Those who slide along doing less than their best harm no
one but themselves.

I will acknowledge that we need better teachers... teachers who can pass
minimum qualifications... not more pay.

bobb


bobb

[LaVonne Carlson]

Greg Hanson wrote:

> CPS and schools both exist with a SACRED COW effect.
> Every CPS agency in the US failed audits.

Of course you will provide evidence that "every CPS agency in the US
failed audits." I read your entire post which is included below this
message, and I see no support for this claim. I'll wait for your
evidence.

LaVonne

>
> They failed to actualize many requirements that have
> been in place for over ten years.
> Some are measures of safety in state care.
> Some are requirements that would preserve more
> constitutional and due process rights of families.
> Both houses of Congress recently wrote SCATHING
> reports about CPS agencies violating families'
> constitutional rights. When states fail the audits
> they are in breach of a ten year old contract
> and their grant money is supposed to be withdrawn.
> But what politician wants to have somebody say
> PUBLICLY that he is "against Child Protection"?
> That is why these Congressional committee reports
> are amazing indeed. The bill was signed into law
> by the President on June 25th 2003.
>
> But the agencies have NOT had their money withdrawn
> for the failures to meet ten year old requirements.
>
> They seem to be DARING governments to cut their
> funding for the SACRED COW of Child Protection.
>
> Are schools going to try the same sort of
> blackmail?
>
> Will politicians REALLY hold schools accountable
> when they fail to perform their required tasks?
>
> Would they really pull funding for such a SACRED COW?

[ColoradoSkiBum]

What I do is, after the test I go through all the responses and find out how
many kids out of all 120 of them missed each question. Any question that
more than half the kids miss, I figure I obviously didn't cover that well
enough and I throw the question out so it's not counted in the total
possible score. Then the next year before I start teaching the unit, I go
back and look at my item analysis from the previous year, and that gives me
a guideline for what to really focus on or teach in a different way.
--
ColoradoSkiBum

[ColoradoSkiBum]

: The fact is that grades and what they mean is subjective. And not
: only that, but it depends on what the test is like and how it is
: scored.

YES, that is so true. Who the heck decided that 90% and up should be an A?
And that below 60% was an F?

I used to teach AP Chemistry at a high school in the Denver area. It was
very difficult to teach, mainly because the test was so stacked against the
kids. There was just waaaay too much material on it, no way anybody could
actually achieve what would be considered an "A". The multiple choice
section was first, and usually that part was so demoralizing, kids just gave
up after that because they'd finish that and **know** that they had bombed
it. What they couldn't accept was that if they even got *half* of the
multiple choice questions right, then chances were they actually *passed*
that section. These were kids who were used to getting straight A's, so for
them to get finished with a *multiple choice* test and know that they
*might* have gotten half of them right, usually meant they'd completely give
up on the second part.

During the year leading up to the AP exam, I gave many tests on which the
*highest* score in the class was 50%. All tests were comprehensive, so it
only got worse throughout the year. Of course I curved these tests; the
point was to get kids used to scoring *that low* and still "passing" because
that is the reality of the AP exam. Starting second semester, my exams
followed the AP exam format, so they could get used to how the actual test
was set up. But I don't think they ever did get used to getting half of the
problems *wrong.*
--
ColoradoSkiBum

[Donna Metler]

"ColoradoSkiBum" > wrote in message
...
> : The fact is that grades and what they mean is subjective. And not
> : only that, but it depends on what the test is like and how it is
> : scored.
>
> YES, that is so true. Who the heck decided that 90% and up should be an
A?
> And that below 60% was an F?
>
> I used to teach AP Chemistry at a high school in the Denver area. It was
> very difficult to teach, mainly because the test was so stacked against
the
> kids. There was just waaaay too much material on it, no way anybody could
> actually achieve what would be considered an "A". The multiple choice
> section was first, and usually that part was so demoralizing, kids just
gave
> up after that because they'd finish that and **know** that they had bombed
> it. What they couldn't accept was that if they even got *half* of the
> multiple choice questions right, then chances were they actually *passed*
> that section. These were kids who were used to getting straight A's, so
for
> them to get finished with a *multiple choice* test and know that they
> *might* have gotten half of them right, usually meant they'd completely
give
> up on the second part.
This is a big problem on many of the standardized tests. They're so long,
and so comphrehensive that many students won't even finish the section, and
are likely to run into a few things they just don't know. Many students just
give up.Since the tests are changed each year, and the breakdown of the
questions changes each year, you're almost certain to find out that the stem
and leaf plot, which had 5 questions last year, and therefore, the teacher
made sure was covered in exacting detail, has only one question, but there's
4 on box and whisker plots this year (which haven't had any for the last
three years)

I recall one fine arts test which included several questions on
archetectural forms-which hadn't even been mentioned in any outline for the
test, and was not covered in three of the four standard textbooks.

Students are considered proficent on these tests at about a 60% correct
level, sometimes lower. If we teach our students that only perfection is
proficency, we're setting them up for some real problems.


> During the year leading up to the AP exam, I gave many tests on which the
> *highest* score in the class was 50%. All tests were comprehensive, so it
> only got worse throughout the year. Of course I curved these tests; the
> point was to get kids used to scoring *that low* and still "passing"
because
> that is the reality of the AP exam. Starting second semester, my exams
> followed the AP exam format, so they could get used to how the actual test
> was set up. But I don't think they ever did get used to getting half of
the
> problems *wrong.*
> --
> ColoradoSkiBum
>

[bobb]

"Donna Metler" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "ColoradoSkiBum" > wrote in message
> ...
> > : The fact is that grades and what they mean is subjective. And not
> > : only that, but it depends on what the test is like and how it is
> > : scored.
> >
> > YES, that is so true. Who the heck decided that 90% and up should be an
> A?
> > And that below 60% was an F?
> >
> > I used to teach AP Chemistry at a high school in the Denver area. It
was
> > very difficult to teach, mainly because the test was so stacked against
> the
> > kids. There was just waaaay too much material on it, no way anybody
could
> > actually achieve what would be considered an "A". The multiple choice
> > section was first, and usually that part was so demoralizing, kids just
> gave
> > up after that because they'd finish that and **know** that they had
bombed
> > it. What they couldn't accept was that if they even got *half* of the
> > multiple choice questions right, then chances were they actually
*passed*
> > that section. These were kids who were used to getting straight A's, so
> for
> > them to get finished with a *multiple choice* test and know that they
> > *might* have gotten half of them right, usually meant they'd completely
> give
> > up on the second part.

Why is it that a straight A student suddently becomes a 'failure'? Could it
be they came from an inferior teaching environment where grading on a curve
was the norm?


> This is a big problem on many of the standardized tests. They're so long,
> and so comphrehensive that many students won't even finish the section,
and
> are likely to run into a few things they just don't know. Many students
just
> give up.

Hmm... long, comprehensive tests involve reading... as do multiple choice
questions. The better readers will score higher.

Since the tests are changed each year, and the breakdown of the
> questions changes each year, you're almost certain to find out that the
stem
> and leaf plot, which had 5 questions last year, and therefore, the teacher
> made sure was covered in exacting detail, has only one question, but
there's
> 4 on box and whisker plots this year (which haven't had any for the last
> three years)
>
> I recall one fine arts test which included several questions on
> archetectural forms-which hadn't even been mentioned in any outline for
the
> test, and was not covered in three of the four standard textbooks.

I can't speak much on the artsy side of education... it's so very subjective
but you do have a point on text books. There are perhaps two are three
major publishing firms in the U.S. All have become very political in recent
years and many are so inaccurate they cannot no longer be used for resource
material. No one should be surprised to learn of the price gouging when it
comes to purchasing books, either. The same book used in Canada is half the
U.S. cost. Additionally, Texas instruments offered 'rebates' to schools
who required a particular calculator. Education, at least in recent years,
is very political and caters to money influences in almost every area. It
seems to me government should get out of education and let the chips fall
where they may. It's no secret that half the kids in college today do not
have the appitude or the ability to perform at what used to be the college
level and your following statement suggests exactly that. The college
degree has become a substitute for the old high school education.

bobb

>
> Students are considered proficent on these tests at about a 60% correct
> level, sometimes lower. If we teach our students that only perfection is
> proficency, we're setting them up for some real problems.
>
>
> > During the year leading up to the AP exam, I gave many tests on which
the
> > *highest* score in the class was 50%. All tests were comprehensive, so
it
> > only got worse throughout the year. Of course I curved these tests; the
> > point was to get kids used to scoring *that low* and still "passing"
> because
> > that is the reality of the AP exam. Starting second semester, my exams
> > followed the AP exam format, so they could get used to how the actual
test
> > was set up. But I don't think they ever did get used to getting half of
> the
> > problems *wrong.*
> > --
> > ColoradoSkiBum
> >
>
>

[bobb]

"toto" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 01:41:15 GMT, "bobb" > wrote:
>
> >I'd have to dig out some old report cards (Yeah, I still have them) but a
> >74% = F... which is a far cry from an A or B. An A was merited only for
> >those who scored above 95 or 96%.
>
> Oh, forgot. I went to school in a small town in Rockland County, New
> York. At the time, 60% was a passing grade on the regents exams,
> but those of us who took the regents courses in my school rarely
> scored less than 80% which was a B. I scored quite high on the SATs
> too. I was a merit semi-finalist, so the grades of 80 must have been
> pretty good at that time.
>
> The fact is that grades and what they mean is subjective. And not
> only that, but it depends on what the test is like and how it is
> scored.
>
>
> --
> Dorothy
>
> There is no sound, no cry in all the world
> that can be heard unless someone listens ..
>
> The Outer Limits

Took some searching.. but this says a lot about the quality of grades
today....

Grade inflation spurs Harvard changes
April 19, 2002 Posted: 1:23 PM EDT (1723 GMT)


CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (AP) -- Harvard University, addressing
concerns about grade inflation, is considering restoring a B as the average
grade, and clarifying the meaning of each A on transcripts.

The Harvard student-faculty committee, which met this week, also is
considering changes in the way honors are earned, including the elimination
of the honors track for freshmen and sophomores, and the all-honors majors
in some departments.

Last June, a record 91 percent of Harvard seniors graduated with some kind
of honor on their diploma, The Boston Globe reported.
About half the undergraduate grades last year were A or A-minus.

The Globe report on grade inflation led new Harvard president Lawrence H.
Summers to asked faculty members last fall to review their grading
standards.

Most Ivy League and top universities award honors only for outstanding work
in a student's major. Some, including Yale and Princeton, cap total honors
at about one-third of the graduating class.

One of the proposals being considered at Harvard would encourage professors
to give more B grades by narrowing the grade-point gap between an A-minus
and a B-plus. Another would include on transcripts the percentage of A
grades received by students in a given course.

Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

bobb

[ColoradoSkiBum]

: These were kids who were used to getting straight A's, so
: > for
: > > them to get finished with a *multiple choice* test and know that they
: > > *might* have gotten half of them right, usually meant they'd
completely
: > give
: > > up on the second part.
:
: Why is it that a straight A student suddently becomes a 'failure'? Could
it
: be they came from an inferior teaching environment where grading on a
curve
: was the norm?


No. It's because the expectations of the College Board on the AP
exams--especially those in chemistry, physics, and calculus--are so far out
of whack with reality that they completely crush kids. In preparation for
this exam I had to teach kids things that **I** didn't learn in **three
years of college chemistry.*** All that so they could get out of taking
introductory college chemistry.
--
ColoradoSkiBum

[Greg Hanson]

LaVonne wrote
> Of course you will provide evidence that
> "every CPS agency in the US failed audits."
> I read your entire post which is included
> below this message, and I see no support
> for this claim. I'll wait for your
> evidence.

I do hope I didn't keep you waiting too long! :)

This is an ASSOCIATED PRESS story, passed through
Wex and Fern. I assume it is authoritative enough.

But you bring up an even MORE interesting point.
Do any US DHHS sites report that every state failed?
Why do you suppose it's not prominent on the
National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect
Information web site? http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/
If you find a FEDERAL source of such a report,
please let me know LaVonne! :)


From: Fern5827 )
Subject: fw: ALL states FAIL child welfare audit & TEST
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services
Date: 2003-08-20 11:02:07 PST

FWD msg:

Show how really INEFFECTIVE CPS interventions have been, huh?

Subject: States Failing Child Welfare System Test
From: Wex Wimpy
Date: 8/19/2003 12:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time


STATES FAILING CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM TEST
Mon Aug 18, 204 PM ET

By LAURA MECKLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Not a single state has passed a rigorous test of its
ability to protect children from child abuse and to find permanent
homes for kids who often languish in foster care.

The 32 states evaluated so far could lose millions of dollars from the
federal government if they fail to fix problems within a few years.

The problems of child welfare get periodic attention, usually
following the tragic death of a child. The Child and Family Service
Reviews are the first time federal officials have tried to measure how
well children are faring across state systems created to protect them
— but that often fall short.

The reviews ask whether children are bouncing from one foster home to
the next, never able to put down roots; whether siblings taken from
their parents are kept together or pulled apart; whether it takes a
state too long to finalize adoptions or to send children back to their
biological parents.

Affected are nearly 550,000 children in foster care and an estimated
half million others living at home but under state supervision.

"There is a lot of work to be done," said Joan Ohl, commissioner of
the Administration for Children, Youth and Families. "It's a daunting
task."

In the past, states were evaluated on bureaucratic benchmarks. Now,
the questions are how many children are abused again after entering
the system and whether parents are getting promised help.

The reviews merge dozens of questions into seven "outcomes"
measurements.

Fourteen states have failed all seven. An additional 14, plus the
District of Columbia, have failed six of the seven, and four states
failed five. No state has passed more than two.

"We set a very high bar and we don't apologize for that bar," Ohl said
in an interview.

Problems were found in every state

_In Tennessee, the agency did not respond to abuse reports in a timely
manner nearly 30 percent of the time.

_In Michigan, more than one in four parents with children in foster
care said they had not received needed services such as parenting
classes or drug treatment.

_In Ohio, 27 percent of the time the agency did not make a diligent
effort to help children in foster care maintain connections to family
and community.

The reviews have spurred change.

Georgia began offering assistance to foster parents after it found
more than one child out of every 100 was abused in a foster home,
almost twice the national standard. Initiatives include a telephone
help line, training on dealing with behavior problems and respite care
to give foster parents time without the children.

After California was found to take too long to finalize adoptions, the
state began combining its screening programs for potential foster and
adoptive parents. That means the state will not have to conduct a
second screening if foster parents decide to adopt.

States acknowledge the problems and welcome a clear set of benchmarks
for improvement, said Robert Lindecamp, director of the National
Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators. "States don't have
a problem with having a high standard," he said.

One problem common to all states is the huge load handled by child
welfare caseworkers. The reviews found that families do better when
caseworkers make more visits, but that requires additional money that
budget-strapped states are not inclined to spend.

After the first round of reviews, scheduled for completion next year,
states must write improvement plans. A second round of tests will
determine if states made promised changes. If not, they could lose
some of their federal child welfare money.

While the seven outcome measurements are the heart of the reviews,
states are evaluated on their overall systems — for instance, do
computer systems work and is training done properly. That brings the
number of benchmarks to 14.

Maximum penalties proposed range from $130,000 in Delaware, which
failed six of seven measures, to more than $18 million for California,
which failed all seven.

Whether states will make significant changes is an open question. Ohl
says the examples of innovation by the states "are still more of the
exception than the rule."

"We are still receiving program improvement plans that merely scratch
the surface in terms of the real improvements that must be made," she
said.

Critics, including state officials and outside advocates and experts,
say the reviews themselves are flawed.

The grades are based on statewide data submitted regularly to the
federal government plus in-depth reviews of 50 cases selected randomly
from each state.

Much of the state data is widely considered unreliable. The critics
also say 50 cases, a fraction of any state's caseload, do not
accurately represent the state.

The measurements are essentially snapshots of a moment in time, which
can be misleading, rather than a look at what happens to a child over
years.

For example, the reviews count how many of the children were reunited
with their parents within a year and how many adoptions were finalized
within two years. But neither measure looks at the entire caseload to
calculate the likelihood of reunification or adoption.

Federal officials say the review paints an accurate picture and that
the process marks a turning point in child welfare.

But it will take even well-meaning states a long time to fix the
problems uncovered, said Richard Gelles, dean of the School of Social
Work at the University of Pennsylvania.

"Some state systems are truly horrible," he said, "and no amount of
accountability is going to make them jump from horrible to good in one
leap."

[original links broken already due to age]

[sully's neighbor'sdog]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...

> [original links broken already due to age]

Grrrruuuufffffffff
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20030819/frontpage/79008.shtml

[Donna Metler]

"ColoradoSkiBum" > wrote in message
...
> : These were kids who were used to getting straight A's, so
> : > for
> : > > them to get finished with a *multiple choice* test and know that
they
> : > > *might* have gotten half of them right, usually meant they'd
> completely
> : > give
> : > > up on the second part.
> :
> : Why is it that a straight A student suddently becomes a 'failure'?
Could
> it
> : be they came from an inferior teaching environment where grading on a
> curve
> : was the norm?
>
>
> No. It's because the expectations of the College Board on the AP
> exams--especially those in chemistry, physics, and calculus--are so far
out
> of whack with reality that they completely crush kids. In preparation for
> this exam I had to teach kids things that **I** didn't learn in **three
> years of college chemistry.*** All that so they could get out of taking
> introductory college chemistry.

When I took the music theory AP exam, and started college theory, not only
did it completely cover the first semester of college theory, but most of
the second semester. I ended up taking the second semester independent
study, picking up a few topics my course hadn't had from both semesters, and
starting in the third term.

Since AP exams are meant to prove that a child can get credit at any
college/university, and the sequence of instruction isn't quite the same at
any two schools, the way to get around that is to have everything which
could POSSIBLY be on ANY 1st semester course syllabus on the test, which
leads to a very comphrehensive test.


> --
> ColoradoSkiBum
>

[bobb]

"ColoradoSkiBum" > wrote in message
...
> : These were kids who were used to getting straight A's, so
> : > for
> : > > them to get finished with a *multiple choice* test and know that
they
> : > > *might* have gotten half of them right, usually meant they'd
> completely
> : > give
> : > > up on the second part.
> :
> : Why is it that a straight A student suddently becomes a 'failure'?
Could
> it
> : be they came from an inferior teaching environment where grading on a
> curve
> : was the norm?
>
>
> No. It's because the expectations of the College Board on the AP
> exams--especially those in chemistry, physics, and calculus--are so far
out
> of whack with reality that they completely crush kids. In preparation for
> this exam I had to teach kids things that **I** didn't learn in **three
> years of college chemistry.*** All that so they could get out of taking
> introductory college chemistry.
> --
> ColoradoSkiBum

Could it be that the quality of education is on the rise? Could it be you
were short-changed during your days in school?

Bobb


>

[Greg Hanson]

LaVonne:
Tell me what story should feature more PROMINENTLY
than this one on the US DHHS Clearinghouse site
for Child Abuse Information?

That it's NOT prominent there is either incredibly
bureaucratically stupid or downright sinister.

If you've got an innocent explanation, let me hear it.

Thanks Waffles

The Olympian, Olympia Washington
Tuesday, August 19, 2003

States failing new test of child welfare system
OLYMPIAN STAFF, WIRE SERVICES
WASHINGTON -- Not a single state has passed a rigorous test of its
ability to protect children from child abuse and to find permanent
homes for kids who often languish in foster care.
The 32 states evaluated so far could lose millions of dollars from the
federal government if they fail to fix problems within a few years.

The problems of child welfare get periodic attention, usually
following the tragic death of a child. The Child and Family Service
Reviews are the first time federal officials have tried to measure how
well children are faring across state systems created to protect them
-- but that often fall short.

The reviews ask whether children are bouncing from one foster home to
the next, never able to put down roots; whether siblings taken from
their parents are kept together or pulled apart; whether it takes a
state too long for adoptions.

Affected are nearly 550,000 children in foster care and an estimated
half million others living at home but under state supervision.

"There is a lot of work to be done," said Joan Ohl, commissioner of
the Administration for Children, Youth and Families.

In the past, states were evaluated on bureaucratic benchmarks. Now,
the questions are how many children are abused again after entering
the system and whether parents are getting promised help.

The reviews merge dozens of questions into seven "outcomes"
measurements.

Fourteen states have failed all seven. An additional 14, plus the
District of Columbia, have failed six of the seven, and four states
failed five. No state has passed more than two.

"We set a very high bar and we don't apologize for that bar," Ohl said
in an interview.

Problems were found in every state:

- In Tennessee, the agency did not respond to abuse reports in a
timely manner nearly 30 percent of the time.

- In Michigan, more than one in four parents with children in foster
care said they had not received needed services such as parenting
classes or drug treatment.

- In Ohio, 27 percent of the time the agency did not make a diligent
effort to help children in foster care maintain connections to family
and community.

The reviews have spurred change.

Georgia began offering assistance to foster parents after it found
more than one child out of every 100 was abused in a foster home.

California began combining its screening programs for potential foster
and adoptive parents. That means the state will not have to conduct a
second screening if foster parents decide to adopt.

"States don't have a problem with having a high standard," said Robert
Lindecamp, director of the National Association of Public Child
Welfare Administrators.

Washington is one of 18 states awaiting review of its child welfare
system.

When the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) review
team arrives in November, it plans to look at the state Department of
Social and Health Services Division of Children and Family Services'
offices that serve King County, Clark County and Grant and Adams
counties.

The DHHS Administration for Children and Families team will review
cases and conduct interviews and focus groups to determine if children
and parents are being well-served by DSHS.

"Every child is important to us, and we welcome this unique
opportunity to see how we are doing in meeting the needs and improving
the lives of children, families and communities," said Ross Dawson,
acting assistant secretary for the DSHS Children's Administration.

Before the onsite reviews begin, DSHS will submit a statewide
assessment to DHHS that evaluates child safety, how well the agency is
doing finding permanent homes for children and the overall well-being
of children.

The onsite review will examine actual cases of children receiving
in-home services and those in foster care by studying records and
interviewing family members, caretakers, caseworkers and service
providers.

The reviews are conducted to ensure the states comply with child
welfare requirements that are attached to programs funded by the
federal government. All 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of
Columbia will be reviewed by the spring of 2004.

[sully's neighbor'sdog]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
m...
> LaVonne:
> Tell me what story should feature more PROMINENTLY
> than this one on the US DHHS Clearinghouse site
> for Child Abuse Information?
>
> That it's NOT prominent there is either incredibly
> bureaucratically stupid or downright sinister.
>
> If you've got an innocent explanation, let me hear it.
>
> Thanks Waffles

Woofy-woof, no problem Greegor. I doubt if they will answer you. We hope you
get your daughter home soon. Hang tough avoid egg of porcupine.
Wag
>
> The Olympian, Olympia Washington
> Tuesday, August 19, 2003
>
> States failing new test of child welfare system
> OLYMPIAN STAFF, WIRE SERVICES
> WASHINGTON -- Not a single state has passed a rigorous test of its
> ability to protect children from child abuse and to find permanent
> homes for kids who often languish in foster care.
> The 32 states evaluated so far could lose millions of dollars from the
> federal government if they fail to fix problems within a few years.
>
> The problems of child welfare get periodic attention, usually
> following the tragic death of a child. The Child and Family Service
> Reviews are the first time federal officials have tried to measure how
> well children are faring across state systems created to protect them
> -- but that often fall short.
>
> The reviews ask whether children are bouncing from one foster home to
> the next, never able to put down roots; whether siblings taken from
> their parents are kept together or pulled apart; whether it takes a
> state too long for adoptions.
>
> Affected are nearly 550,000 children in foster care and an estimated
> half million others living at home but under state supervision.
>
> "There is a lot of work to be done," said Joan Ohl, commissioner of
> the Administration for Children, Youth and Families.
>
> In the past, states were evaluated on bureaucratic benchmarks. Now,
> the questions are how many children are abused again after entering
> the system and whether parents are getting promised help.
>
> The reviews merge dozens of questions into seven "outcomes"
> measurements.
>
> Fourteen states have failed all seven. An additional 14, plus the
> District of Columbia, have failed six of the seven, and four states
> failed five. No state has passed more than two.
>
> "We set a very high bar and we don't apologize for that bar," Ohl said
> in an interview.
>
> Problems were found in every state:
>
> - In Tennessee, the agency did not respond to abuse reports in a
> timely manner nearly 30 percent of the time.
>
> - In Michigan, more than one in four parents with children in foster
> care said they had not received needed services such as parenting
> classes or drug treatment.
>
> - In Ohio, 27 percent of the time the agency did not make a diligent
> effort to help children in foster care maintain connections to family
> and community.
>
> The reviews have spurred change.
>
> Georgia began offering assistance to foster parents after it found
> more than one child out of every 100 was abused in a foster home.
>
> California began combining its screening programs for potential foster
> and adoptive parents. That means the state will not have to conduct a
> second screening if foster parents decide to adopt.
>
> "States don't have a problem with having a high standard," said Robert
> Lindecamp, director of the National Association of Public Child
> Welfare Administrators.
>
> Washington is one of 18 states awaiting review of its child welfare
> system.
>
> When the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) review
> team arrives in November, it plans to look at the state Department of
> Social and Health Services Division of Children and Family Services'
> offices that serve King County, Clark County and Grant and Adams
> counties.
>
> The DHHS Administration for Children and Families team will review
> cases and conduct interviews and focus groups to determine if children
> and parents are being well-served by DSHS.
>
> "Every child is important to us, and we welcome this unique
> opportunity to see how we are doing in meeting the needs and improving
> the lives of children, families and communities," said Ross Dawson,
> acting assistant secretary for the DSHS Children's Administration.
>
> Before the onsite reviews begin, DSHS will submit a statewide
> assessment to DHHS that evaluates child safety, how well the agency is
> doing finding permanent homes for children and the overall well-being
> of children.
>
> The onsite review will examine actual cases of children receiving
> in-home services and those in foster care by studying records and
> interviewing family members, caretakers, caseworkers and service
> providers.
>
> The reviews are conducted to ensure the states comply with child
> welfare requirements that are attached to programs funded by the
> federal government. All 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of
> Columbia will be reviewed by the spring of 2004.

[ColoradoSkiBum]

: >No. It's because the expectations of the College Board on the AP
: >exams--especially those in chemistry, physics, and calculus--are so far
out
: >of whack with reality that they completely crush kids. In preparation
for
: >this exam I had to teach kids things that **I** didn't learn in **three
: >years of college chemistry.*** All that so they could get out of taking
: >introductory college chemistry.
:
: I disagree with this entirely. The AP exams are a good indicator of
: whether the kids have learned the ideas and can apply them. They
: are not memory oriented and thus many straight A students have
: trouble because they have not had classes their memory could not
: take them through before.

You've actually taken the AP Chemistry exam then??
--
ColoradoSkiBum

[ColoradoSkiBum]

: >You've actually taken the AP Chemistry exam then??
:
: My son did.

How did he do? (Personally I am SO GLAD I no longer teach AP Chemistry. It
was waaaay too stressful for the kids.)
--
ColoradoSkiBum

[Denise]

"ColoradoSkiBum" > wrote in message
...
> : >You've actually taken the AP Chemistry exam then??
> :
> : My son did.
>
> How did he do? (Personally I am SO GLAD I no longer teach AP Chemistry.
It
> was waaaay too stressful for the kids.)
> --
>

I got a 3. It wasn't that bad, really.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

[Greg Hanson]

Regarding all 50 States FAILING Federal Audits for compliance
with Child Protection rules:

> > LaVonne:
> > Tell me what story should feature more PROMINENTLY
> > than this one on the US DHHS Clearinghouse site
> > for Child Abuse Information?
> >
> > That it's NOT prominent there is either incredibly
> > bureaucratically stupid or downright sinister.
> >
> > If you've got an innocent explanation, let me hear it.

THIS IS HOW CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES AGENCIES AND JUVENILE
COURTS OPERATE ALSO. THE PUBLICS RIGHT TO KNOW IS DISRESPECTED.
IN JUVENILE COURT THEY VIOLATE PEOPLES RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE
DOCUMENTS IN THE COURT FILE BUT KEPT SECRET.
LAWS AND LOOPHOLES IN THE LAWS ARE USED LIKE A GIANT SWINDLE.

http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7272
Justice e-censorship gaffe sparks controversy
By Kevin Poulsen, SecurityFocus Oct 22 2003 3:46PM

A government watchdog group Wednesday accused the Justice Department
of improperly censoring portions of a key report on internal workplace
diversity, after online activists successfully unmasked the
blacked-out portions of an electronic copy of the document.

The 186-page report was released to the public under the Freedom of
Information Act last week and posted to Justice Department's website
in Adobe's "Portable Document File" (PDF) format. But the department
blacked out vast portions of the document's text, citing an exemption
to FOIA that permits agencies to keep internal policy deliberations
private.

The text didn't stay concealed for long. On Tuesday a website called
the Memory Hole, dedicated to preserving endangered documents,
published a complete version of the report, with the opaque black
rectangles that once covered half of it completely removed. Memory
Hole publisher Russ Kick won't say how he unmasked it, but
experimentation shows that the concealed text could be selected and
copied using nothing more than Adobe's free Acrobat Reader. Once
copied, the text is easily pasted into another document and read.

It turns out the report began its life as a Microsoft Word document,
and whoever was in charge of sanitizing it for public release did so
by using Word's highlight tool, with the highlight color set to black,
according to an analysis by Tim Sullivan, CEO of activePDF, a maker of
server-side PDF tools. The simple and convenient technique would have
been perfectly effective had the end product been a printed document,
but it was all but useless for an electronic one. "Using Acrobat, I'm
actually able to move the black boxes around," says Sullivan. "The
text is still there."

In 2000, the New York Times made a similar error in publishing on its
website a classified CIA file documenting American and British
officials' engineering of the 1953 coup that overthrew Iran's elected
leadership. Before releasing the document as a PDF file, the paper
blacked out the names of Iranians who helped with the plot. But online
intelligence archivist John Young published an unsanitized version of
the report after discovering that the opaque black lines and boxes
concealing the names could easily be removed.

Both cases demonstrate that what you see is not always what you get in
electronic documents. Censors could have more effectively eliminated
the text by deleting it, rather than painting it over. Additionally,
commercial software is available that's designed specifically to help
government agencies redact PDF files for release under FOIA and the
Privacy Act. Pennsylvania-based Appligent even sells its "Redax"
Acrobat plug-in to the Justice Department. "The amazing thing is that
there are different divisions in the Department of Justice that are
using our software, so it's a little shocking that they would do this
in Word," says company president Virginia Gavin.

Denuded of its censorious kludgework, the report -- produced last year
by KPMG -- reveals much about the Justice Department's gender and
ethnic diversity issues. But, significantly, it also shows that the
department is overly aggressive in cutting documents for public
release, according to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). On
Wednesday FAS wrote a letter to the Justice Department's Office of the
Inspector General -- the DoJ's internal investigators -- urging a full
investigation into officials' "unauthorized withholding of
information."

"Too much information was withheld," says FAS's Steven Aftergood.
"Information that was purely factual was censored as if it were
deliberative...We want agencies to be able to discuss different policy
options and to make recommendations outside of a charged political
environment, and the deliberative exemption allows them to do that.
But the exemption does not apply to factual material."

For example, a section of the text notes, "sexual harassment is not
perceived by attorneys to be a problem in the Department, but racial
harassment is." That should never have been cut from the public
version, says Aftergood. "That's something that ought to be made
publicly available."

Much, if not most, of the scores of blacked out pages should have been
released under law, Aftergood says. He credits the PDF blunder with
exposing a systemic problem in the Justice Department's FOIA
compliance, and he hopes an internal review will result in an overhaul
of the system. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on
the matter, and the almost-censored document disappeared from the
department's website Wednesday afternoon.

[Greg Hanson]

Regarding the big story that the Child Protective Services
agencies of every state in the USA failed Federal Audits.
The DHHS term for these audits is "Child Welfare Review".

> > LaVonne:
> > Tell me what story should feature more PROMINENTLY
> > than this one on the US DHHS Clearinghouse site
> > for Child Abuse Information?
> >
> > That it's NOT prominent there is either incredibly
> > bureaucratically stupid or downright sinister.
> >
> > If you've got an innocent explanation, let me hear it.

(Also see other thread about US DOJ FOIA hanky panky.)

[LaVonne Carlson]

Greg,

Still trying to get you to answer to question.

LaVonne

Greg Hanson wrote:

> Regarding the big story that the Child Protective Services
> agencies of every state in the USA failed Federal Audits.
> The DHHS term for these audits is "Child Welfare Review".
>
> > > LaVonne:
> > > Tell me what story should feature more PROMINENTLY
> > > than this one on the US DHHS Clearinghouse site
> > > for Child Abuse Information?
> > >
> > > That it's NOT prominent there is either incredibly
> > > bureaucratically stupid or downright sinister.
> > >
> > > If you've got an innocent explanation, let me hear it.
>
> (Also see other thread about US DOJ FOIA hanky panky.)

[LaVonne Carlson]

Greg Hanson wrote:

> Regarding all 50 States FAILING Federal Audits for compliance
> with Child Protection rules:
>
> > > LaVonne:
> > > Tell me what story should feature more PROMINENTLY
> > > than this one on the US DHHS Clearinghouse site
> > > for Child Abuse Information?
> > >
> > > That it's NOT prominent there is either incredibly
> > > bureaucratically stupid or downright sinister.
> > >
> > > If you've got an innocent explanation, let me hear it.
>
> THIS IS HOW CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES AGENCIES AND JUVENILE
> COURTS OPERATE ALSO. THE PUBLICS RIGHT TO KNOW IS DISRESPECTED.
> IN JUVENILE COURT THEY VIOLATE PEOPLES RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE
> DOCUMENTS IN THE COURT FILE BUT KEPT SECRET.
> LAWS AND LOOPHOLES IN THE LAWS ARE USED LIKE A GIANT SWINDLE.

If you have an innocent explanation, let me hear it.

LaVonne

>
>
> http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7272
> Justice e-censorship gaffe sparks controversy
> By Kevin Poulsen, SecurityFocus Oct 22 2003 3:46PM
>
> A government watchdog group Wednesday accused the Justice Department
> of improperly censoring portions of a key report on internal workplace
> diversity, after online activists successfully unmasked the
> blacked-out portions of an electronic copy of the document.
>
> The 186-page report was released to the public under the Freedom of
> Information Act last week and posted to Justice Department's website
> in Adobe's "Portable Document File" (PDF) format. But the department
> blacked out vast portions of the document's text, citing an exemption
> to FOIA that permits agencies to keep internal policy deliberations
> private.
>
> The text didn't stay concealed for long. On Tuesday a website called
> the Memory Hole, dedicated to preserving endangered documents,
> published a complete version of the report, with the opaque black
> rectangles that once covered half of it completely removed. Memory
> Hole publisher Russ Kick won't say how he unmasked it, but
> experimentation shows that the concealed text could be selected and
> copied using nothing more than Adobe's free Acrobat Reader. Once
> copied, the text is easily pasted into another document and read.
>
> It turns out the report began its life as a Microsoft Word document,
> and whoever was in charge of sanitizing it for public release did so
> by using Word's highlight tool, with the highlight color set to black,
> according to an analysis by Tim Sullivan, CEO of activePDF, a maker of
> server-side PDF tools. The simple and convenient technique would have
> been perfectly effective had the end product been a printed document,
> but it was all but useless for an electronic one. "Using Acrobat, I'm
> actually able to move the black boxes around," says Sullivan. "The
> text is still there."
>
> In 2000, the New York Times made a similar error in publishing on its
> website a classified CIA file documenting American and British
> officials' engineering of the 1953 coup that overthrew Iran's elected
> leadership. Before releasing the document as a PDF file, the paper
> blacked out the names of Iranians who helped with the plot. But online
> intelligence archivist John Young published an unsanitized version of
> the report after discovering that the opaque black lines and boxes
> concealing the names could easily be removed.
>
> Both cases demonstrate that what you see is not always what you get in
> electronic documents. Censors could have more effectively eliminated
> the text by deleting it, rather than painting it over. Additionally,
> commercial software is available that's designed specifically to help
> government agencies redact PDF files for release under FOIA and the
> Privacy Act. Pennsylvania-based Appligent even sells its "Redax"
> Acrobat plug-in to the Justice Department. "The amazing thing is that
> there are different divisions in the Department of Justice that are
> using our software, so it's a little shocking that they would do this
> in Word," says company president Virginia Gavin.
>
> Denuded of its censorious kludgework, the report -- produced last year
> by KPMG -- reveals much about the Justice Department's gender and
> ethnic diversity issues. But, significantly, it also shows that the
> department is overly aggressive in cutting documents for public
> release, according to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). On
> Wednesday FAS wrote a letter to the Justice Department's Office of the
> Inspector General -- the DoJ's internal investigators -- urging a full
> investigation into officials' "unauthorized withholding of
> information."
>
> "Too much information was withheld," says FAS's Steven Aftergood.
> "Information that was purely factual was censored as if it were
> deliberative...We want agencies to be able to discuss different policy
> options and to make recommendations outside of a charged political
> environment, and the deliberative exemption allows them to do that.
> But the exemption does not apply to factual material."
>
> For example, a section of the text notes, "sexual harassment is not
> perceived by attorneys to be a problem in the Department, but racial
> harassment is." That should never have been cut from the public
> version, says Aftergood. "That's something that ought to be made
> publicly available."
>
> Much, if not most, of the scores of blacked out pages should have been
> released under law, Aftergood says. He credits the PDF blunder with
> exposing a systemic problem in the Justice Department's FOIA
> compliance, and he hopes an internal review will result in an overhaul
> of the system. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on
> the matter, and the almost-censored document disappeared from the
> department's website Wednesday afternoon.

[Greg Hanson]

LaVonne: Do you dispute the two news stories
submitted as proof that all 50 states failed
child safety audits?

Or are you trying to get the US DHHS to
pull the info out of whatever pidgeon hole
they hid it in?

IA DHS held public comment sessiona all over
the state map. They scheduled a date when
they would release a summary of these comments.
After they got a LARGE turnout and a lot of
ANGRY comments about agency abuses of families,
for SOME REASON the summary of public comments
never becaame publicly available as scheduled.

This sort of behavior is repeated by these
agencies over and over.

[bobb]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> LaVonne: Do you dispute the two news stories
> submitted as proof that all 50 states failed
> child safety audits?
>
> Or are you trying to get the US DHHS to
> pull the info out of whatever pidgeon hole
> they hid it in?
>
> IA DHS held public comment sessiona all over
> the state map. They scheduled a date when
> they would release a summary of these comments.
> After they got a LARGE turnout and a lot of
> ANGRY comments about agency abuses of families,
> for SOME REASON the summary of public comments
> never becaame publicly available as scheduled.
>
> This sort of behavior is repeated by these
> agencies over and over.

The Chicago Tribune printed an article noting that of 39 states recently
audited... each failed. I take issue with the evaluation criteria and the
manner it was applied but for better or worse there are those who are
finally taking notice of the deplorable system CPS has evolved into.

I suspect the federal government is trying to find a way to cut the costs of
child care business and return authority, and costs, to the states. As many
here have already noted, the welfare of the children is not paramount....
it's all about money otherwise the system would probably remain status quo.
Money has been the sole contributor to the evil perpetrated by CPS on
families.

bobb

[Kane]

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 15:01:02 GMT, "bobb" > wrote:

>
>"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
>> LaVonne: Do you dispute the two news stories
>> submitted as proof that all 50 states failed
>> child safety audits?
>>
>> Or are you trying to get the US DHHS to
>> pull the info out of whatever pidgeon hole
>> they hid it in?
>>
>> IA DHS held public comment sessiona all over
>> the state map. They scheduled a date when
>> they would release a summary of these comments.
>> After they got a LARGE turnout and a lot of
>> ANGRY comments about agency abuses of families,
>> for SOME REASON the summary of public comments
>> never becaame publicly available as scheduled.
>>
>> This sort of behavior is repeated by these
>> agencies over and over.
>
>The Chicago Tribune printed an article noting that of 39 states
recently
>audited... each failed. I take issue with the evaluation criteria
and the
>manner it was applied but for better or worse there are those who are
>finally taking notice of the deplorable system CPS has evolved into.

This has been a matter of contention between the states and the feds
for some time now. ASFA: PL 105-89 is the subject of much social work
program study. For one thing it had a tremendous impact on ICWA,
Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. (1978) Public Law 95-608. There is
apparently some conflict.

And that should be a clue that ASFA either was not intended to do what
it stated, or that it is, as you are examining below, being used for
something else entirely.

>I suspect the federal government is trying to find a way to cut the
costs of
>child care business and return authority, and costs, to the states.

And here is were we part company on opinions. I contend it is just the
opposite. The current Republican administration (if you can even call
them Republicans without that appilation "CONSERVATIVE RIGHT WING")
are simply extending the intent of the liberal Democrats...that is to
take over more and more state authority.

If there is anything I dread more than this administration continuing
its obvious right wing agenda by winning another term in office it is
the spector of liberal Democrats fielding a presidential candidate
that the electorate can swallow and them winning.

The stage is set for a huge increase in centralized control and our
issue over the adventure in family intrusion is but one small but
vital part in that larger goal.

I'm thought to be a promoter of CPS and the state...being
misunderstood of course. What I AM a promoter of is state authority
over federal authority.

The feds are currently playing a wonderfully sly game with families as
the pawns.

>As many
>here have already noted, the welfare of the children is not
paramount....
>it's all about money otherwise the system would probably remain
status quo.

Actually it would have been more likely that we would have had the
small evils of state authority as compared to the greater ones of
federal control.

>Money has been the sole contributor to the evil perpetrated by CPS on
>families.

And where is the controlling center in all this?

Can you see now how ASFA is being used to wrest control away from the
states and vest it in the federal pickpockets that use our own money
against us?

And the solution put forward by many of the stupid in this ng, or
those with questionable ethics and their OWN agendas, is to make MORE
federal law.

When will you wake up?

There is only one cure for ASFA: Repeal.

We seem to not be going in that direction.


>bobb

Kane

[bobb]

<snip>
>
> There is only one cure for ASFA: Repeal.
>
> We seem to not be going in that direction.
>

ASFA needs to be repealed, and and this you and I agree. In recentl years,
probably because of the media interjecting what they see as inconsistancy
between state in just about every matter, the states have lost a great deal
of authority yet the are obligated to assume responsibility.

The big break for the federal government was the legal black-mail they
imposed on the states to lower the speed limits to 55 mph or lose government
funding in favored programs. The courts agreed such action was legal. Well,
AFSA is the same thing. States do not have to abide by federal law but
they will suffer great fiancial losses... which lawmakers cannot afford.

bobb


bobb


>
> >bobb
>
> Kane

[Greg Hanson]

Why repeal ASFA without repealing CAPTA first?

Here's a link for various and sundry DHHS news items
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/acf_news.html

[Greg Hanson]

Why didn't you answer it in the same thread?
Why did you make a new thread?
Intentional or accidental?

[Dan Sullivan]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
m...
>
> Why didn't you answer it in the same thread?

Answer what?

> Why did you make a new thread?

Read the Subject.

> Intentional or accidental?

I think you were accidental.

Dan

[bobb]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> Why repeal ASFA without repealing CAPTA first?
>
> Here's a link for various and sundry DHHS news items
> http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/acf_news.html

Your right.. I just mde a rush to judgement.

bobb

[Greg Hanson]

Oh. I honestly thought maybe you had some reason
to get rid of one without the other.

I still like the expert idea to scrap it and start
over much smaller, forget the need for hugeness,
stay out of the piddly cases and concentrate
on the more serious stuff. Start over on a lean scale.

My understanding is that ASFA was a partial repair
of failings in CAPTA.

I still haven't had time to study the NEW law signed
by the President June 25, 2003. "Children and Families"
As much as I don't like big government, I can't
say for sure that Federalizing the whole thing
would be a bad idea. Could it really be much worse?

Kane sounds like he's pulling for state budgets,
for the state CPS against the idea of Federalization.
Why would most citizens care if it was Federalized?

Actually, wouldn't it be neat if the Feds could
invade all of the state CPS agencies and run them
for a year to force them into compliance with
everything protecting rights? And then hand them
back to the states after they operate right...

regime change for these agencies?

Could they do something like that as a condition for
any more Federal Money? :)

bobb Wrote
> "Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Why repeal ASFA without repealing CAPTA first?
> >
> > Here's a link for various and sundry DHHS news items
> > http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/acf_news.html
>
> Your right.. I just mde a rush to judgement.
>
> bobb

[Kane]

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message >...
> Oh. I honestly thought maybe you had some reason
> to get rid of one without the other.

Don't know who you are addressing but I DO have a reason to get rid of
one and not the other: there is a need for child protection.

In addition I am opposed to the intrusion into families and into the
states on the level CAPTA and ASFA has openned the door to.

It works like this: States may be good or bad in different areas of
the body politic but they should answer primarily to their own
citizens, locally, and not be beholden to the feds on certain issues.

Were states and the feds DO need each other would be in area such as
commerce and transportation, but in matters of personal issues NOT a
matter of civil rights (and you all blow hard over this one when it
comes to families) the feds need to butt out.

Citizens of a state have far more influence and power locally than
they do in DC. Get the picture?

> I still like the expert idea to scrap it and start
> over much smaller, forget the need for hugeness,
> stay out of the piddly cases and concentrate
> on the more serious stuff. Start over on a lean scale.

But you expect to get that by going to the feds?

You are politically naive.

> My understanding is that ASFA was a partial repair
> of failings in CAPTA.

No, actually it was much more about the rising incidents of more and
more severe abuse and neglect pegged to the extreme rise in drug and
alcohol use. Contrary to the lies being told in this ng there is an
extremely serious flood of drug and alcohol effected children as well
as more severly abused children dating from the mid 60s to the
present.

> I still haven't had time to study the NEW law signed
> by the President June 25, 2003. "Children and Families"
> As much as I don't like big government, I can't
> say for sure that Federalizing the whole thing
> would be a bad idea. Could it really be much worse?

Watch your cronies here celebrate, and watch me knash my teeth at
their stupidity. I've read it and I know what it means...and it MORE
of the same. MORE intrusion by the feds, MORE definition of what
family is or isn't and in a very short time MORE constraints on how
families raise their children.

That's always been the goal, whether from the political right or left
they are all invested in control of the citizen from cradle to grave,
and the first 10 year or so are critical.

> Kane sounds like he's pulling for state budgets,
> for the state CPS against the idea of Federalization.
> Why would most citizens care if it was Federalized?

Because we have almost ZERO chance of fighting abuses by the feds.
Shall I offer you a list or will one item alone wake you up.

Noam Chomsky, not my favorite political commentator, but nontheless
correct in his veiw, explains well in the War on Drugs issue.

And I'll add: whenever the fed gets it **** covered nose into any
major issue there are those that will build industries on it.

If you think the War on Drugs was and is a costly fiasco wait until
you better understand the War on Families as conducted by the feds.

http://www.deoxy.org/usdrugs.htm

> Actually, wouldn't it be neat if the Feds could
> invade all of the state CPS agencies and run them
> for a year to force them into compliance with
> everything protecting rights? And then hand them
> back to the states after they operate right...

RRRRRR, it was effectively accomplished already with ASFA. You really
are dumb.

And it's NOT to the benefit of families that the feds did that...what
makes you think it would change if they laid on a deeper layer of
bureaucracy yet?

No, it would get worse. When the taking of our tax dollars by the
feds, and the feeding OUR own money back to us with spending
performance criteria ends we will end the abuses, and not until.

> regime change for these agencies?

Bull****. Just break the financial ties and the bureacracies will
change without a single person being replaced. All agencies of all
kinds, not just human service ones, jump to the funding tune. Always
have. Alway will, and it's nothing I would change....I HATE bloody ego
driven reformers. They are the most dangerous people on the planet.

> Could they do something like that as a condition for
> any more Federal Money? :)

Now you are talking......out your ass as usual. It's already done.
Been in the works since ASFA.

> bobb Wrote
> > "Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Why repeal ASFA without repealing CAPTA first?
> > >
> > > Here's a link for various and sundry DHHS news items
> > > http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/acf_news.html
> >
> > Your right.. I just mde a rush to judgement.
> >
> > bobb

Who knows. Maybe people will start to think about this one day with
some intelligence and leave off their emotional rantings.

Kane

[bobb]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> Oh. I honestly thought maybe you had some reason
> to get rid of one without the other.
>
> I still like the expert idea to scrap it and start
> over much smaller, forget the need for hugeness,
> stay out of the piddly cases and concentrate
> on the more serious stuff. Start over on a lean scale.
>
> My understanding is that ASFA was a partial repair
> of failings in CAPTA.
>
> I still haven't had time to study the NEW law signed
> by the President June 25, 2003. "Children and Families"
> As much as I don't like big government, I can't
> say for sure that Federalizing the whole thing
> would be a bad idea. Could it really be much worse?

Yes.. it can get much worse.. CAPTA should be gone as well as ASFA. We
really need to get the federal government out of family life and state law.

>
> Kane sounds like he's pulling for state budgets,
> for the state CPS against the idea of Federalization.
> Why would most citizens care if it was Federalized?
>
> Actually, wouldn't it be neat if the Feds could
> invade all of the state CPS agencies and run them
> for a year to force them into compliance with
> everything protecting rights? And then hand them
> back to the states after they operate right...
>
> regime change for these agencies?

You forget that is exactly what is happening now. The feds have invaded all
of the state CPS agencies and created much of the mess we are in. Each
state should be able to create and fund programs to meet their own needs.
The one shoe-fits-all mentality doesn't work.

Additionally, it's far easier to fight, or correct, the system at the local
(state) level than trying to take on the federal government. By the way,
have you ever seen the federal goverment, or any governement, give up
control of anything?

bobb

>
> Could they do something like that as a condition for
> any more Federal Money? :)
>
> bobb Wrote
> > "Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Why repeal ASFA without repealing CAPTA first?
> > >
> > > Here's a link for various and sundry DHHS news items
> > > http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/acf_news.html
> >
> > Your right.. I just mde a rush to judgement.
> >
> > bobb

[Greg Hanson]

Greg wrote
> > Could they do something like that as a condition for
> > any more Federal Money? :)

Kane wrote
> It's already done. > Been in the works since ASFA.

Yes, as you say "in the works" but never REALLY done.

For example, TEN YEARS AGO Every state was told to
have at least one, and in most cases 3 or more,
Citizens Review Boards over CPS case problems.

Not just over Foster Care, over CPS malfunction.

Iowa DID have a CRB two years ago which was all
loaded with Child Protection workers and
contractors, which by the way was against regulations.

Now there is NO CRB except over Foster Care.
( CRB combined with FC Review Board, now ICFCRB )

So, with something as cut and dried as the CRB
requirement not properly implemented, the money
has never been cut off.

> You forget that is exactly what is happening now.
> The feds have invaded all of the state CPS
> agencies and created much of the mess we are in.
> Each state should be able to create and fund
> programs to meet their own needs.
> The one shoe-fits-all mentality doesn't work.

I agree that the Feds would probably only make it worse.
And I hate the way the Feds imposed this crappy
system onto the states by BUYING states rights
with the grant money. I vaguely recall hearing
something about one state actually deciding
to completely FOREGO all Federal Grant money for this.

I basically don't think ANY government, Fed or State
should be getting involved unless there is some
VERY serious reason to override CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

For the Federal OR State government to invoke
Parens Patriae, they need to:

1. Prove at least a reasonable ability to parent.
So far they have failed MISERABLY, generally
doing WORSE than many of their supposedly
failing parents. It's like the Hog calling
the Horse dirty.

2. Stop calling every little nit-picky thing
"Imminent Danger" to trick around that requirement.
(Hint: State Care presents imminent danger also!)

3. True Judicial oversight. Stop allowing Juvenile
Courts to be complete Rubber Stamps for caseworkers.
This defeats the entire purpose of Juvenile Court.
Juvenile Court exists to keep caseworkers from
violating the rights of families and kids.
This one-sided rubber stamping and even polarized
bias has to stop. They ignore motions from parents
for reasonable, basic and required fairness and
protection of rights.

4. Citizens Review Board,

ACYF-CB-PIQ-83-04(10/26/83) regarding 45 CFR 205.10
Grievance process on Services problems and

Administrative Appeal on Registry
are all broken or dead ended here.

If ANY government fails to provide these required protections, they
are guilty of emotional and psychological abuse of children and
parents, and failure to protect citizens rights to due process.
Parens Patriae is NOT just about kids. Our governments make LOUSY
parents to citizens in general, and kids.

My family has been betrayed for almost 3 years by corrupt State
officials.
The remedy for this bad treatment of citizens probably won't come from
the State, and citizens have to beg the Federal Courts to protect them
from bad State Government officials.

This overriding by the Feds should not be necessary.
The States fail to protect their own citizens and
The Feds fail to protect citizens from bad state actors.

The HYSTERIA has to stop and RIGHTS need
to be put back on a pedestal.

I charge them both with "failure to protect" in this regard.

[Dan Sullivan]

"Greg Hanson" > wrote in message
om...
> Oh. I honestly thought maybe you had some reason
> to get rid of one without the other.
>
> I still like the expert idea to scrap it and start
> over much smaller, forget the need for hugeness,
> stay out of the piddly cases and concentrate
> on the more serious stuff. Start over on a lean scale.

What's in place now as far as the system goes isn't bad.

The problem is the people at CPS who choose to go after families who should
be left
alone or referred to a different agency.

Dan

[Kane]

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message >...
> Greg wrote
> > > Could they do something like that as a condition for
> > > any more Federal Money? :)
>
> Kane wrote
> > It's already done. > Been in the works since ASFA.
>
> Yes, as you say "in the works" but never REALLY done.

The "already done" referred to the money connection, but then you knew
that.

> For example, TEN YEARS AGO Every state was told to
> have at least one, and in most cases 3 or more,
> Citizens Review Boards over CPS case problems.

I have a little surprize for you. It was NOT a mandate. It was a
suggestion. You see, the problem is that CRBs are NOT funded. They are
staffed by volunteers. I and I believe others have in these very ngs
asked people with a supurating outgrowth of CPS hatred to actually do
something about it and go and volunteer.

Nope, just a lot of bull**** that they wouldn't be a part of it.

So, not willing to be part of the very oversight you assholes scream
for?

Oh goody.

> Not just over Foster Care, over CPS malfunction.

And if there are no volunteers? And if the volunteers are ignorant and
stupid as you and your Plant friend are?

> Iowa DID have a CRB two years ago which was all
> loaded with Child Protection workers and
> contractors, which by the way was against regulations.

Yes. But they are REQUIRED TO ATTEND, dummy, if it's their agency and
them being examined by the CRB. How stupid are you anyway?

Who SHOULD be there, dummy?

Who would they ask questions of?

> Now there is NO CRB except over Foster Care.
> ( CRB combined with FC Review Board, now ICFCRB )

Oh, you finally have something right. I'm shocked.

> So, with something as cut and dried as the CRB
> requirement not properly implemented, the money
> has never been cut off.

You cannot force someone to recruit volunteers. You can tell them to
do it but you cannot force...or it wouldn't be volunteer.

> > You forget that is exactly what is happening now.
> > The feds have invaded all of the state CPS
> > agencies and created much of the mess we are in.
> > Each state should be able to create and fund
> > programs to meet their own needs.
> > The one shoe-fits-all mentality doesn't work.
>
> I agree that the Feds would probably only make it worse.

Then why do you not come out and bray a little when your cronies here
stump so vigorously for just that?

> And I hate the way the Feds imposed this crappy
> system onto the states by BUYING states rights
> with the grant money.

Ah. Now tell me. Where is the money going to come from...and I'll save
you the trouble and answer.

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO KEEP THE FEDS FROM GETTING OUR TAX DOLLARS. So
they got us by the short hairs. Now when you and other assholes like
you learn to read, to understand, and to vote with political will and
knowledge such things will start to slow, and in time the assholes
that run for office with get the message.

Break the tax hold and you break the federal hold over the states and
its citizens.

Too complex for you?

> I vaguely recall hearing
> something about one state actually deciding
> to completely FOREGO all Federal Grant money for this.

Probably have less of a problem to deal with, or don't give a ****. I
know of such states.

> I basically don't think ANY government, Fed or State
> should be getting involved unless there is some
> VERY serious reason to override CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

It used to be the counties, universally, that rode herd on child
welfare. If you want to see corruption go back to the county system.
Many services were contracted out, as the states are going back to
(much to the delight of some of your cronies here). Now there was a
sick system.

California still works on a county system for the most part, and you
know the story there, don't you?

County commissioners don't have enough exposure to control very well.
They are ripe for cronieism. State legislators, on the other hand, are
of great interest to the media and the lobbiests who can afford to be
there.

It's the place to bring the most pressure the most effectively.

>
> For the Federal OR State government to invoke
> Parens Patriae, they need to:
>
> 1. Prove at least a reasonable ability to parent.

They have no such need or requirement, nor is it logical. They are not
in the business of parenting. They are in the business of either
helping families parent safely or barring that finding families that
will.

> So far they have failed MISERABLY, generally
> doing WORSE than many of their supposedly
> failing parents. It's like the Hog calling
> the Horse dirty.

No government agency is designed for parenting. It would be stupid to
try. One can't hire, train, and pay someone to parent effectively over
the long run. Foster parenting is temporary by design. It stops
becoming strictly speaking, "foster" parenting when it becomes long
term. Ask any foster parent. Most know the difference and that
fostering a child long term is "foster" only in the spoken sense, not
in real life.

> 2. Stop calling every little nit-picky thing
> "Imminent Danger" to trick around that requirement.
> (Hint: State Care presents imminent danger also!)

That was one of the points of ASFA and CAPTA. Limit the time a child
was in care.

> 3. True Judicial oversight. Stop allowing Juvenile
> Courts to be complete Rubber Stamps for caseworkers.
> This defeats the entire purpose of Juvenile Court.
> Juvenile Court exists to keep caseworkers from
> violating the rights of families and kids.
> This one-sided rubber stamping and even polarized
> bias has to stop. They ignore motions from parents
> for reasonable, basic and required fairness and
> protection of rights.

You have a perception problem brought on by propaganda and your desire
to cover-up your treatment of the mother and child you have betrayed.

They ignore stupid little assholes like you and parents that have
stepped over the line (and even then they actually read the
motions...thus not actually ignoring them, other than to fall over
laughing).

>
> 4. Citizens Review Board,
>
> ACYF-CB-PIQ-83-04(10/26/83) regarding 45 CFR 205.10
> Grievance process on Services problems and
>
> Administrative Appeal on Registry
> are all broken or dead ended here.

So what have you to say, ignorantly as usual, about CRBs?

Why don't you do some actual research and stop snipping out just what
you want to believe and posting it over your ignorant claims?

> If ANY government fails to provide these required protections, they
> are guilty of emotional and psychological abuse of children and
> parents,

Which protections?

> and failure to protect citizens rights to due process.

Rarely happens. When it does it's the very best of events for those
that know how to use it to get their children back. It is wonderful
also for those that don't really want the children back and wish to
abuse and exploit the family themselves for their own ends.

In your case it was the careful attention to due process, and the
child's rights, that nailed your ass and that of your increasingly
stupid looking fiance. I can't imagine anyone would prefer you to a
dog let alone their own child.

> Parens Patriae is NOT just about kids. Our governments make LOUSY
> parents to citizens in general, and kids.

You are really hung up on your latin, aren't you?

It's you that have a Parens Patrieae situation with your fiance. She
is taking care of you like a child instead of her child.

> My family has been betrayed for almost 3 years by corrupt State
> officials.

No it hasn't. You don't have a family. You didn't marry the mother and
you still haven't. That shows clearly you won't even do that,
something you claim to want, that would help convince the court you
are sincere.

> The remedy for this bad treatment of citizens probably won't come from
> the State, and citizens have to beg the Federal Courts to protect them
> from bad State Government officials.

Waaa, waaaa, waaaa, waaaa. Crocodile tears. You love what has happened
to your fiance and her daughter. You wouldn't have the soft spot
you've got without it.

> This overriding by the Feds should not be necessary.
> The States fail to protect their own citizens and
> The Feds fail to protect citizens from bad state actors.

You are babbling again. Your weak submerged conscience must have tried
to surge upward again.

We get these posts from you quite often and it's becoming pretty
apparent that you can't hide from the truth of your brutality to the
child and her mother.

>
> The HYSTERIA has to stop and RIGHTS need
> to be put back on a pedestal.

The only sign of hysteria I see is your posting this drivel.

> I charge them both with "failure to protect" in this regard.

How might they protect you, Greegor the Whore? You think they should
pay for you to live there? That state monies should be used to store
your trashy belongings?

Kane

[Greg Hanson]

Dan wrote
> What's in place now as far as the system goes isn't bad.
> The problem is the people at CPS who choose to
> go after families who should be left alone or
> referred to a different agency.

Do you mean what IS in place or what is SUPPOSED
to be in place? Ten year old required processes
designed to protect family rights are either
not in force, broken, or twisted and rigged to be
a complete dead end.

> What's in place now as far as the system goes isn't bad.

Not bad for who?
Whose bread is getting buttered by this broken mess?

Certainly the kids and families are not
benefitting from this "AMERICAN GULAG".

Some people once sent folks to camps that were
stated to be "HEALTH AND WORK PROGRAMS". A slogan
about that remained over the gate to the camp
until liberated near the end of World War II.

Ireland's ""POTATO FAMINE"" was a complete myth
that is still perpetuated to this day. In truth,
Great Britain's warships drained the country of
foodstuffs and resources at gunpoint and hauled
it away to feed the rest of the U.K. There is a
map online of where the garrisons were, naming the
ships and some inventory information is known.
In recent history, inventory and lading info for
the ships was made to disappear from archives
because of the embarassing truth. Nonetheless,
some records do survive, and one in particular
reveals that Ireland was intentionally starved
to reduce population. In a move that ties back
to CPS activities, Great Britain received large
quantities of foreign aid from around the world
intended to help Ireland.

Greg wrote
> For example, TEN YEARS AGO Every state was told to
> have at least one, and in most cases 3 or more,
> Citizens Review Boards over CPS case problems.
>
> Not just over Foster Care, over CPS malfunction.
>
> Iowa DID have a CRB two years ago which was all
> loaded with Child Protection workers and
> contractors, which by the way was against regulations.
>
> Now there is NO CRB except over Foster Care.
> ( CRB combined with FC Review Board, now ICFCRB )
>
> So, with something as cut and dried as the CRB
> requirement not properly implemented, the money
> has never been cut off.

[...]

> I basically don't think ANY government, Fed or State
> should be getting involved unless there is some
> VERY serious reason to override CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
>
> For the Federal OR State government to invoke
> Parens Patriae, they need to:
>
> 1. Prove at least a reasonable ability to parent.
> So far they have failed MISERABLY, generally
> doing WORSE than many of their supposedly
> failing parents. It's like the Hog calling
> the Horse dirty.
>
> 2. Stop calling every little nit-picky thing
> "Imminent Danger" to trick around that requirement.
> (Hint: State Care presents imminent danger also!)
>
> 3. True Judicial oversight. Stop allowing Juvenile
> Courts to be complete Rubber Stamps for caseworkers.
> This defeats the entire purpose of Juvenile Court.
> Juvenile Court exists to keep caseworkers from
> violating the rights of families and kids.
> This one-sided rubber stamping and even polarized
> bias has to stop. They ignore motions from parents
> for reasonable, basic and required fairness and
> protection of rights.
>
> 4. Citizens Review Board,
>
> ACYF-CB-PIQ-83-04(10/26/83) regarding 45 CFR 205.10
> Grievance process on Services problems and
>
> Administrative Appeal on Registry
> are all broken or dead ended here.
>
> If ANY government fails to provide these required protections, they
> are guilty of emotional and psychological abuse of children and
> parents, and failure to protect citizens rights to due process.
> Parens Patriae is NOT just about kids. Our governments make LOUSY
> parents to citizens in general, and kids.
>
> My family has been betrayed for almost 3 years by corrupt State
> officials.
> The remedy for this bad treatment of citizens probably won't come from
> the State, and citizens have to beg the Federal Courts to protect them
> from bad State Government officials.
>
> This overriding by the Feds should not be necessary.
> The States fail to protect their own citizens and
> The Feds fail to protect citizens from bad state actors.
>
> The HYSTERIA has to stop and RIGHTS need
> to be put back on a pedestal.
>
> I charge them both with "failure to protect" in this regard.

[doo-wah ryder]

"Dan Sullivan" > wrote in message
t...
> What's in place now as far as the system goes isn't bad.
>
> The problem is the people at CPS who choose to go after families who
should
> be left
> alone or referred to a different agency.
>
> Dan

Boy, you just making more of your Hoo-haw noise, apologizing for the cps.
Why you make apologies for cps for? If you work for the cps you just come
out and say it boy. Elsen, it's just more Hoo-haw STOP IT.

Doo-Wah