Search

ROPE Report

Tag

grants

Kaiser Partners With OK To Fund Birth To Three ‘Early Education’ Collecting Data On Babies For Tax Dollars To Justify Putting Them In Daycare

Friday, Michael and I had Carolyn McLarty on during the first hour of the podcast to talk about citizen lobbying. It was a great show! I really urge you to check out the whole thing on YouTube or Rumble.

After Carolyn had gone, Michael and I talked about numerous issues, but one of those was about the data being collected on students. In the video below, Michael and I talked about how many apps and computer programs students now use at school and how those are often collecting data from their interaction with the program/application.

This article is from our original blogspot and was written in 2014 when we were trying to stop the State Longitudinal Database. I suggest you at least open it and scan it because it gives some pretty good examples as to how classroom data mining is happening through programs and applications used in the classroom.

Here are Michael and I talking about that very thing on Friday’s show.

This morning, I found a message in my Facebook messenger from an old “common core” friend. She sent me a website – the Kids Count Data Center. I remembered having seen that years ago, but I hadn’t looked into it recently. I scrolled through Oklahoma’s collected data categories and was – once again – completely freaked out by what I found.

The data is apparently provided by the Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF) – a non-profit organization started by the man who created UPS. The AECF credits itself with helping to start the foster care system while moving toward the abolishment of orphanages.

I ran AECF through Data Republican and was not able to find that they take tax dollars of any kind, nor are they granted monies from organizations that take tax dollars. I was able to find some of the organizations they fund, however, and two things are clear; they donate to large organizations that do collect lots of taxpayer dollars and they donate lots of money to leftist, ‘social change’ organizations. This makes me wonder at the reasons for which they are collecting so much data on kids.

From the AECF website I was able to find out that the only grant given in Oklahoma was to the Oklahoma Policy Institute, headquartered in Tulsa. No shock then – after running them through Data Republican – the OPI is funded by a number of leftist organizations including the George Kaiser Family Foundation and the Tulsa Community Foundation.

This is interesting and concerning. Statistics can be made to say whatever the person using the statistic wants them to say. What do leftists want with all this data?

The AECF makes no bones about the fact that they are collecting all their data to influence policy decisions made by legislators.

Here’s a PERFECT example. “The First Eight Years” is a report created by the AECF populated with data collected through the Foundation. Why? To give policymakers reason to FUND early childhood education with tax dollars – tax-funded DAY CARE essentially – on the notion that it’s the “best way to ensure a successful workforce in the future”.

Apparently their strategy has worked in Oklahoma since 2006, when the Oklahoma legislature created OECP – the Oklahoma Early Childhood Program (OECP) – headquartered in…wait for it…TULSA. The OECP is tasked to “improve the quality of early education and expand capacity to serve children from birth through age three statewide.” (bold for emphasis)

According to this 2011 Tulsa Today article, the George Kaiser Family Foundation gave the Tulsa Community Action Project (CAP) 92 million dollars from 2004 to 2011. CAP is an OECP ‘partner’. So is Tulsa Educare – also funded by Kaiser.

Because I was offended by the fact that the AECF would/could collect information on kids NOT IN SCHOOL, I clicked on the data point called, “Young Children Not In School”. This data came from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. So, families actually taking this survey, coughed up to the federal government that their kids weren’t in school and that information was entered into the US Census Bureau database – which is shared with the public and across government databases.

This is the reason the AECF gives for collecting this data on babies.

High-quality prekindergarten programs for 3- and 4-year-olds can improve school readiness, with the greatest gains accruing to the highest-risk children. Head Start and the expansion of state-funded programs since the 1990s have greatly increased access to preschool. But many children, especially 3-year-olds, continue to be left out, exacerbating socioeconomic differences in educational achievement.

What is ‘school readiness’? What is high-risk? Whatever the AECF, CAP, OECP says it is – usually based on a definition created by some group in the ‘get money from tax payers to take babies away from their parents’ scam.

At this point, I’d like to point out information from the OECP’s 2024 Annual Report.

Please note, this is supposed to be a state agency, yet George Kaiser funds the majority, while the state of Oklahoma comes in a paltry second. Also note, wages and benefits are the majority of the spending here because all the staff are involved in thinking about things related to how to grade childcare centers and the children inside. Here are two things the staff did last year.

They determined how attached to the caregiver BABIES and TODDLERS were. Shouldn’t we care more about the fact that these babies are in a place where they are NOT becoming attached to their parents?

And then there’s this:

Yes, Oklahoma is measuring the literacy of babies and toddlers and the state of Oklahoma is using tax dollars to do this, while partnering with an Obama donation bundler.

And let’s think on this just a minute. According to the OECP annual report, 3,666 children were ‘served’ by this program. Do the math. That’s an expense of almost ELEVEN THOUSAND dollars a child – for DAY CARE that the state and its private partners have dubbed EARLY EDUCATION.

In closing (for now), I’m going to add the diagrams I created while studying the State Longitudinal Database back in the 20-teens. THIS is why all this data collection is a problem. Once the data is collected, it goes everywhere and everywhere it goes, it populates databases that follow kids throughout their public school and work careers. Hopefully, it’s obvious why this is bad. Hopefully, it’s obvious why we need our lawmakers to protect our kids from this kind of intrusive nonsense that does nothing but build reasons for taking more and more tax dollars from citizens to fund more and more ways to take their tax dollars – and babies.

Community Schools Are The Marxist Solution For Oklahoma Schools – Vote NO on HB1467 by West

Wednesday of this week (2.12.25) Representative Tammy West’s bill to “authorizing the State Board of Education to assist in establishing Community School pilot projects” is once again being heard in the Common Education Committee.

This is a national move to create schools that are all things to all parents – they would include everything from health care to psychological counseling. Here is a screenshot from the front page of their website.

Below is a one-pager I wrote when this bill first came up in 2022. In fact, that should say something in and of itself. Representative West keeps introducing this bill and it keeps getting voted down. Is it because our schools are already socially Marxist? Why does she keep bringing this up?

But then what do we know? When we wrote to the Common Education Committee members to ask them to vote against the bill, Former Senate author for West (and no longer in the senate) Dewayne Pemberton, assured members that he had been to a Community School in Tulsa (which made one of our points by the way) and that he hadn’t seen Karl Marx hiding behind the shrubs.

What Are Some Concerns With Community Schools?

HB3374 – Tammy West and Pemberton (Senate) – Community schools; authorizing the State Board of Education to assist in establishing community school pilot projects

(2025 BILL IS HB1647)

1.  President Obama placed Full Service Community Schools into the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2016.  They are called “full service” schools because they provide every need for a child that a family/parent would including education, counseling services, healthcare and nutrition. (https://www2.ed.gov/programs/communityschools/index.html)

2. The Biden Administration provided grants for Full Service Community Schools programs (https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-discretionary-grants-support-services/school-choice-improvement-programs/full-service-community-schools-program-fscs/) through President Obama’s reauthorization of ESEA – the Every Student Succeeds Act. 

3.  There are two national organizations which help support the Community Schools model – Community Schools (communityschools.org) and the National Center For Community Schools (nccs.org)

            a. Community Schools have an agenda called “Policy by The People” the tenets for which they are lobbying Congress (https://www.communityschools.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/01/2021-01-13_IEL_PolicybythePeopleagenda_FINAL.pdf).  Here are a few points from their agenda which essentially involves expanding government programming and funding of every service involving children:

                        – Prioritization of populations that have historically experienced systemic racism, discrimination, and/or disinvestment

                        – End the school to prison pipeline/school pushout crisis through stronger enforcement of civil rights protections and incentives for a restorative approach including restorative justice, trauma-informed practices, and hiring additional school counselors, social workers, and psychologists

                        – Raise the minimum wage to $15/hour and/or establish a universal basic income

            b. National Center For Community Schools follow three principles: Transformation, Equity and Excellence.  The ‘Equity’ portion of the website says the following:  Strong community schools counter systemic racism, increase opportunity, and move society toward equity and justice.  Too many children are expected to overcome structures designed to diminish them. Schools should model anti-racism, not perpetuate systems that divide us and limit opportunity.  We want students to feel not just welcomed, but valued for their race, religion, identification, origin, family, and community.

4.  Community Schools follow the model proposed by John Dewey (a socialist with Marxist views often considered the father of modern education) of a ‘democratic school-based social center’ where the school provided every possible need for students.  An article in the AFT’s American Educator Magazine in Summer of 2009 – “The Enduring Appeal of Community Schools” – provides a quote from Dewey’s 1902 address, “The School as Social Centre”, “The conception of the school as a social centre is born of our entire democratic movement. Everywhere we see signs of the growing recognition that the community owes to each one of its members the fullest opportunity for development.”  This, a quote which can’t help comparison to the quote of Marx, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.

5.  Enshrining a Community Schools pilot program in law while allowing the OSDE to create rules for that program is a recipe for creating further progressive, leftist inroads into the education of our children.

6.  Oklahoma communities HAVE BEEN creating their own Community Schools independent of state law.  The only reason to pass a state law, then, would be to allow the growth of the Community Schools movement throughout Oklahoma and provide the necessary validation for the Federal Government to provide tax dollars for these schools.  Federal/State tax dollars should NOT be provided for socialist, progressive education efforts in this country, let alone this state.


Please write the members of the Common Education Committee and ask for their NO vote on HB1467 by West. Just copy and paste the block of addresses and put them into your ‘to’ field.

dick.lowe@okhouse.gov, danny.sterling@okhouse.gov, chris.banning@okhouse.gov, chad.caldwell@okhouse.gov, rob.hall@okhouse.gov, molly.jenkins@okhouse.gov, ronny.johns@okhouse.gov, cody.maynard@okhouse.gov, ellen.pogemiller@okhouse.gov, jacob.rosecrants@okhouse.gov, mark.tedford@okhouse.gov

How To Know Carbon Capture Is a Scam

So, before I was an education activist – and now a liberty activist – I was a biologist.

I actually have a BS (yes, I’m full of that! LOLOL) in Biology and a Master’s in Biology, both. In fact, I had intended to go on to get a Doctorate and teach, but once I found out that – in my experience – college professors were a bunch of big jerks I decided that wasn’t for me. Instead, I taught college as a TA and then after graduation, high school, middle school, my own kids and homeschool COOP kids.

Thus, I’ve been able to be fairly knowledgeable about issues we’ve covered that include science topics, like the Climate Change scam and all its universe of associated garbage.

Recently, I found out that Oklahoma had the second largest carbon capture facility in the world and the largest in the United States. I also found, as I asked around, that no one in Osage County (where the facility is located) seemed to know anything about it. This forced me – and our new writer Shane Smith – to do some research on carbon capture policy and what we found is that there really isn’t any policy other than no policy for green businesses, which doesn’t protect Oklahoma citizens at all. If you haven’t read our blog on the topic, you really should.

Last Friday, NeeAnn Clinton of Enid, in Garfield County, was on our podcast to tell us about a lawsuit residents have had to file against their Metropolitan Planning Commission for not upholding zoning laws in the case of a proposed 5000 acre solar facility just north of the city.

Though we kept trying to talk about solar, I kept inserting information about carbon capture because there were so many overlapping issues – mainly the lack of regulation.

At one point in the conversation I brought up a bit of biology…have a listen.

The slides embedded in the video came from the NOAA fisheries website. Go figure. I had learned about phytoplankton and blue-green algae when I was a student in college. So what? Now we don’t know this anymore? We’ve dumbed down our students so far in biology that not only do they NOT know the Carbon Cycle, but they don’t know what green plants/organisms do at all?

The schematic below shows specifically how oceanic environments SEQUESTER CO2 all by themselves without any help from carbon capture facilities.

In addition, just think of this one thing. What does the second largest carbon capture facility in the world run on? Electricity. Where does electricity come from? In Oklahoma, coal-fired electrical plants. So. Make sense of that. You can’t. It’s stupid.

This writer says, in an article actually titled, “The Great Carbon Capture Scam“,

Running a carbon capture system is incredibly energy-intensive, essentially requiring building a new power plant to run the system. This obviously creates another new source of air and carbon pollution since the U.S. no longer builds nuclear plants and even when it did never built them that small. This extra energy use undermines the whole goal of capturing carbon in the first place. Indeed, while the U.S. emits roughly 5 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, removing 1 billion tons of that through direct air capture would require nearly the entire electricity output of the nation, according to research published in Biophysical Economics and Sustainability.

In fact, the carbon capture scam is SO BAD that Rex Weyler of GREENPEACE FOR PETE SAKES, though he believes that Climate Change is a thing, and big oil is the devil, he does believe this:

The swindle appears simple: Pretend to help solve a problem, while making the problem worse, socialize the costs and liabilities, and privatize the profits. Clever.

Weyler’s article is really very good – lots of great information on all the failed CO2 capture attempts through today – but people won’t like it because it points to big oil as the generator of the scheme for regeneration of spent oil fields and our Governor won’t like it because it basically echoes what Michael says in the clip above – it’s all about the Benjamins. Period.

Oklahoma shouldn’t perpetuate scams on the back of their citizens and taxpayers, so you’d better let your legislator know you won’t put up with giving these private companies carte blanche to wreck your back yard and kill you with a CO2 pipe break and you’d better do it NOW!

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑