Common Purpose

  • 1 Replies
  • 972 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4115
  • +75/-0
Common Purpose
« on: December 24, 2015, 10:08:14 PM »
Here's a little something I happened across yesterday, parts of which I found distasteful to

say the least due to the thinly veiled greed, arrogance and cruelty that much of it seems to

indicate about the writer and this organization in general

 

"If a participant misses any part of the course due to

absenteeism, this may affect whether Common Purpose

confers graduate status upon the participant."

 

Whoever said they COULD 'confer' ANY  status - to anyone - I have to ask myself?!

 

 They also seem to be a Ltd company as well as a 'charity' here too?

 

There is much more of such as the above but I don't wish to wade through any more

of it as in my view, it is just egomaniacal, arrogant trash; and it's little surprise that they don't

want non-CP people to see it!

 

If it is NOT egomaniacal trash, then why would they not want others to see it?

It seems that no other university hides and conceals as they do and genuine universities

are so open that they even post theirs online .... https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/microsite/before-you-arrive/rights-and-responsibilities

 

Merry Christmas to all

 

 

Ray


 

Terms and conditions

These terms and conditions apply to all participants on a Common Purpose course.

Common Purpose UK, Company Limited by Guarantee, Registered Office: Discovery House, 28-42 Banner Street, London EC1Y 8QE  Registered in England 3556983, Registered Charity 1023384

© Common Purpose 2014    Do not reproduce or distribute, in full or in part, without the prior consent of Common Purpose

Attendance and courses 

 A place on the Common Purpose course is subject to review of the application by the Advisory Group, and is not transferable to another individual.

 A participant on a Common Purpose course undertakes to attend the full course.

 If a participant, having started the course, then withdraws from the course for any reason, it is not guaranteed that the participant will be allowed by Common Purpose to resume attendance.

 If a participant misses any part of the course due to absenteeism, this may affect whether Common Purpose confers graduate status upon the participant.

 Common Purpose retains the right to change the advertised agenda for a Common Purpose course or event without notice to the participants.

 Common Purpose will make every effort to give participants reasonable notice in advance if the venue for an event is changed.

Conduct during the course

 When booking and paying for a Common Purpose course or event venue, Common Purpose is acting as an agent on the participants' behalf. Participants will be subject to the terms and conditions of the venue.

 It is the participant's responsibility to ensure that while attending the Common Purpose course and while on any third party premises he or she does not behave in an improper or disorderly manner or in a way which risks or causes damage to property, or in a way which is in breach of the terms and conditions of those premises.

 In the event of such improper behaviour, Common Purpose will have the right to require the participant to withdraw from the course. In such circumstances, Common Purpose will be entitled to retain the course fee.

 The participant will also be liable to indemnify Common Purpose for any expenses or other liability it incurs or suffers as a result of any such improper behaviour.

 All participants are expected to abide by the Common Purpose Conventions (see www.commonpurpose.org.uk).

Payment terms

 Attendance on a Common Purpose course is conditional on receipt in full of the course fee by Common Purpose prior to the start of the course. (This condition also applies in the case of a part fee agreed for a participant who has demonstrated a clear need for financial assistance.)

 Payment terms are 14 days from the date of invoice. The invoice will be issued as soon as the participant has been accepted on the course.

 The person who has signed the application form agrees to these terms and conditions, and has the authority to do so. In the event he/she is not so authorised, he/she will be personally liable for payment of the agreed fee.

Cancellation and refunds

Notice of cancellation must be received in writing by post or by fax and is subject to the following terms:

 where notice of cancellation is received fewer than 30 days prior to the first day of the course, the payer will be liable for 100% of the course fee.

 where notice of cancellation is received between 30 and 56 days prior to the first day of the course, the payer will be liable for 50% of the course fee 

 where notice of cancellation is received more than 56 days prior to the first day of the course, Common Purpose will make a full refund of the fee paid

No refund of fees will be made for absence due to illness or for withdrawal during the course for any reason.

Re-registration Policy

 It is at Common Purpose's discretion to agree with the participant the hours/days required to complete the course (e.g. attending the balance of events, or re-starting the course in its entirety)  in order to be able to achieve graduate status. 

 Participants wishing to defer their place and re-register under this policy will be required to complete a short re-registration form outlining the circumstances and context of their request.

 The participant's re-registration form will be considered by the Advisory Group, using the application criteria.  Common Purpose cannot guarantee that an application to defer and re-register will be successful. 

 In cases where a participant wishes to defer their place before the course they have been originally accepted onto has even started, the re-registration fee policy only applies where the request is received fewer than 30 days prior to the first day of the course (hence the full fee for the original course is due in full). 

 Participants can only defer and re-register a course of the same type.  Requests to defer and re-register onto a different course may incur a high fee.

 The 15% re-registration fee can be waived in exceptional circumstances at Common Purpose’s discretion. 

Data protection

Common Purpose UK is the data controller for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 1998. If you have queries relating to the use of your data, please email [email protected]

If accepted as a participant on any Common Purpose course, you are agreeing that Common Purpose or any Common Purpose licencee may use your data for the following purposes: 

• we will use your contact details to send you information relating to the course and to request feedback 

• we may publish your name, job title, employer organisation and course attended as part of our promotional materials  • we may also use your contact details to send you information about other courses and activities we offer (You may opt out during the application process)

• we may publish your contact details to the members of your participant group as part of the information distributed prior to the course (You may opt out during the application process) • we may publish your contact details, including email address, to graduates of Common Purpose worldwide and to members of the Common Purpose advisory groups in the Common Purpose graduate directory. (You may opt out during the application process)

Except in connection with the activities described above or where required to do so by law, we will not disclose your data to third parties without your permission. Common Purpose takes all reasonable precautions to prevent the loss, misuse or alteration of your data. Please see our privacy policy for further details.


 


*

Offline the leveller

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • 4115
  • +75/-0
Re:Common Core in a common purpose and the critical incident technique.
« Reply #1 on: December 24, 2015, 11:14:17 PM »
Common Core in a common purpose and the critical incident technique.



 


The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation didn’t just bankroll the development of what became known as the Common Core State Standards. With more than $200 million, the foundation also built political support across the country, persuading state governments to make systemic and costly changes.

Bill Gates was de facto organizer, providing the money and structure for states to work together on common standards in a way that avoided the usual collision between states’ rights and national interests that had undercut every previous effort, dating from the Eisenhower administration.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bill-gates-pulled-off-the-swift-common-core-revolution/2014/06/07/a830e32e-ec34-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html


 

Pearson Education=David Bell=Common Purpose.
 


Pearson North America, a division of the British Pearson Education publishing and assessment giant, spent at least $120,000 in 2011 and 2012 to lobby on a number of education related issues, including in support of S1740. J.C. Huizenga, who owns the for-profit charter school management corporation National Heritage. 
 

http://www.commoncause.org/states/new-york/research-and-reports/polishing-the-apple-examing.pdf

Gates and Soros......

ONE originated in conversations between Bill Gates and Bono in the early 2000s about the need to better inform Americans about extreme poverty around the world. Together with Melinda Gates, Bobby Shriver, George Soros, Ed Scott, Bob Geldof, and Jamie Drummond, they created an anti-poverty advocacy organization called DATA that focused on deploying celebrities and other influential individuals to urge world leaders to take action on specific development issues.   http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Resources/Grantee-Profiles/Grantee-Profile-ONE
Soros  says:
 

"I do not accept the rules imposed by others.. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don't apply." 

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/04/opinion/oe-ehrenfeld4
 

AIR, working with multiple partners, including the Department of Education, United Nations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Open Society Institute (George Soros), to “conduct and apply the best behavioral and social science research evaluation towards improving peoples’ (student's) lives, with a special emphasis on the disadvantaged.” AIR prides itself on its “long history of contributing to evidence-based social change.”  Their founder, John Flanagan, (Common core) a psychologist, started AIR by developing the “critical incident technique ” one of the most widely used behavioral methods that is even now used in assessment models today. ..John Flanagan and a group of other behavioral scientists involving 440,000 high school students, collecting information on “aptitudes, abilities, knowledge, interests, activities, and backgrounds” of each student.  http://www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com/tag/george-soros/

Then the fall-out. ..Law suite against (common purpose) Pearson.
AIR, a nonprofit that administers tests in several states, claims Pearson got an automatic, insurmountable advantage because of the bid’s set up. AIR filed a protest with New Mexico last December, claiming the bidding process unfairly and unlawfully restricted competition. It sent its complaint to the individual identified by the state as the only person testing companies could contact about the process. But some time later – after the deadline for filing a complaint passed – New Mexico told AIR the protest was sent to the wrong office and it missed the deadline. Then it declined to hear AIR’s claim of an illegal bid process. AIR appealed in district court; a hearing is scheduled for later this month.  http://dianeravitch.net/2014/05/07/air-files-lawsuit-against-pearson-multi-billion-contract-to-score-parcc/
 


 

and the critical incident technique.



 


The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation didn’t just bankroll the development of what became known as the Common Core State Standards. With more than $200 million, the foundation also built political support across the country, persuading state governments to make systemic and costly changes.

Bill Gates was de facto organizer, providing the money and structure for states to work together on common standards in a way that avoided the usual collision between states’ rights and national interests that had undercut every previous effort, dating from the Eisenhower administration.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bill-gates-pulled-off-the-swift-common-core-revolution/2014/06/07/a830e32e-ec34-11e3-9f5c-9075d5508f0a_story.html


 

Pearson Education=David Bell=Common Purpose.
 


Pearson North America, a division of the British Pearson Education publishing and assessment giant, spent at least $120,000 in 2011 and 2012 to lobby on a number of education related issues, including in support of S1740. J.C. Huizenga, who owns the for-profit charter school management corporation National Heritage. 
 

http://www.commoncause.org/states/new-york/research-and-reports/polishing-the-apple-examing.pdf

Gates and Soros......

ONE originated in conversations between Bill Gates and Bono in the early 2000s about the need to better inform Americans about extreme poverty around the world. Together with Melinda Gates, Bobby Shriver, George Soros, Ed Scott, Bob Geldof, and Jamie Drummond, they created an anti-poverty advocacy organization called DATA that focused on deploying celebrities and other influential individuals to urge world leaders to take action on specific development issues.   http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Resources/Grantee-Profiles/Grantee-Profile-ONE
Soros  says:
 

"I do not accept the rules imposed by others.. And in periods of regime change, the normal rules don't apply." 

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/04/opinion/oe-ehrenfeld4
 

AIR, working with multiple partners, including the Department of Education, United Nations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Open Society Institute (George Soros), to “conduct and apply the best behavioural and social science research evaluation towards improving peoples’ (student's) lives, with a special emphasis on the disadvantaged.” AIR prides itself on its “long history of contributing to evidence-based social change.”  Their founder, John Flanagan, (Common core) a psychologist, started AIR by developing the “critical incident technique ” one of the most widely used behavioural methods that is even now used in assessment models today. ..John Flanagan and a group of other behavioural scientists involving 440,000 high school students, collecting information on “aptitudes, abilities, knowledge, interests, activities, and backgrounds” of each student.  http://www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com/tag/george-soros/

Then the fall-out. ..Law suite against (common purpose) Pearson.
AIR, a non profit that administers tests in several states, claims Pearson got an automatic, insurmountable advantage because of the bid’s set up. AIR filed a protest with New Mexico last December, claiming the bidding process unfairly and unlawfully restricted competition. It sent its complaint to the individual identified by the state as the only person testing companies could contact about the process. But some time later – after the deadline for filing a complaint passed – New Mexico told AIR the protest was sent to the wrong office and it missed the deadline. Then it declined to hear AIR’s claim of an illegal bid process. AIR appealed in district court; a hearing is scheduled for later this month.  http://dianeravitch.net/2014/05/07/air-files-lawsuit-against-pearson-multi-billion-contract-to-score-parcc/
 


 



 
Share this topic...
In a forum
(BBCode)
In a site/blog
(HTML)


SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk