The False Claim of Sub Bill 181 – House Votes to Perpetuate Ruse

| December 30, 2013 | 1 Comment

On December 11th, the Ohio House voted to advance Rep. Brenner’s Sub Bill 181 and send it over to the Senate. Rep. Brenner along with every member of the House Education Committee received a copy of the testimony linked below along with a highlighted copy of Ohio’s MOU with PARCC and PARCC’s Cooperative Agreement Einstein and truthwith the US Dept of Education which clearly lay out the meaningless and impotent attempt within Sub Bill 181 to address the collection and sharing of our children’s data.  At the close of the oral testimony November 20th, they were each challenged to read the agreements in order to understand the false pretense of Sub Bill 181 given that these binding agreements are not rescinded or addressed within the bill.

It’s rather odd that a bill to address a so-called “non-issue” would receive such an expedited path. Hasn’t the Columbus mantra been that Ohio is different and Ohio Revised Code already prohibits such data sharing? And it seems curious that Chairman Stebelton scheduled six hearings and a vote for such an inconsequential bill while ignoring the 600+ Ohioans who turned out in support of HB237.  It seems more than reasonable to conclude, given their comments and behavior, that the purpose of Rep. Brenner’s bill is to dismiss our concerns and claim they’ve addressed the data privacy threat. In fact, this is going on in state legislatures across the country as politicians scramble to keep their cronies happy and silence the growing Common Core opposition.  It should be noted that Rep. Brenner received this testimony in rebuttal form back in June, prior to introducing the bill to the Education Committee. This rebuttal was prepared due to the very concern that HB181 would falsely lay to rest the data threat and further compromise our children and repeal effort. Short of an initial phone call to ask which other House members had received the rebuttal, Rep. Brenner has yet to reach out to those of us who have done the research and collected the documents. Not only have we done their homework, these same representatives receive their paycheck on the backs of those they dismiss and marginalize. While we stand with facts and documents in hand, we are labeled fringe and nothing more than “a small, vocal minority”.  The same may have been said of the Founders by King George.  You see, the behavior and rhetoric of those who abuse their power is forever predictable, therefore defending truth is forever necessary.  Read full testimony here.

Note – The Education Committee members should be questioned and asked to explain how Sub Bill 181 supersedes Ohio’s Memorandum of Understanding with PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of College and Career) or how Ohio parents and districts can control data being collected via a national assessment consortium that answers to the U.S. Dept of Education and Sec. Arne Duncan. Considering the documents were placed in their hands, their vote can only be described as willful ignorance. ONLY A FULL REPEAL OF COMMON CORE PROTECTS OUR CHILDREN AND OUR PARENTAL RIGHTS, PERIOD.

Enter the text or HTML code here

Tags: , , , , , ,

Category: Common Core State Standards, News, Ohio Education News, Repeal Legislation, Student Data

Comments (1)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Brenner continues to fight his own straw man b/c he has clearly not read any of the RttT documentation in context with the SSF, ARRA, ACA, and all the other “grants” that seeded this boondoggle.

    All progressive policies are “weedy” for a reason. The devil is in the details to hide the fact that the boondoggle will yield the very opposite of its ostensible intent. That’s how progressives work.

    HB 181 breaches the very contracts that Brenner insists prevent us from exiting RttT/CommonCore (lest we give back the money). HB 181 is more egregious in that light.

    Ergo, Brenner and the others who voted for HB 181, are either intellectually incapable of understanding this, or are complicit in its agenda. Both are unacceptable b/c without performing their due diligence, the former begets the latter.

Leave a Reply