Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Posts Tagged ‘Bronfenbrenner Center for Translational Change (+ “CarDI”) at Cornell

‘Human Ecology’ (Colleges of), Psychology, and Cornell. Why The History of the American University System Still Matters.

leave a comment »

Post title with shortlink, started Feb. 17, 2018, published March 4:

‘Human Ecology’ (Colleges of), Psychology, and Cornell. Why The History of the American University System Still Matters. (shortlink ending “-8F5”)   Post is short (about 6,100 words — can you believe it?!)

Subtitle: Some Historic Problems and Design Flaws — or Inherent Design Genius, depending on one’s perspective — with The American University System.

Post Viewing/Navigation: Images which may extend beyond the right margin are probably part of an image gallery.  Click on any one and use the navigation keys.  Unless otherwise notated in a caption and unless your viewing device does this better (as might an iPad or cell phone with touch/swipe functions), outside the galleries, click individual images to enlarge.
Content notes: I show some images or sets of images in more than one section of this post.  Related links: This post came from Where ‘First Five Years’ and the Manic Push for  ever more: Universal Preschool/EARLY Head Start meets the National Fatherhood Initiative’s purposes within TANF …” (a LONG post) and a separate SHORT”preface” page Understanding University Models...”. Those references will be posted again as they come up in their context.

Here, I discuss where “Colleges of Human Ecology and the intent to “develop” human beings from the start,” based on theories from high-profile psychologists such as the late Urie Bronfenbrenner (whom Cornell University’s center named in his honor credits for having founded, or inspired the massive “Head Start” programming itself), funded through their faculty positions meets “the imported university models” meets the “current US size and tax system” (university financing).

Tags:  I added labels (“tags”) for topics in this post, and included this one — though it’s not discussed below — because the post discussing it is related: “FAF Financial Accounting Foundation (estab. by AICPA ca.1971 Norwalk CT set up GASB+FASB who set the guidelines=acctg rules)(see also “CAFRs”)

Regardless of one’s perspective, the American universities both private and public still have a basic design. That design for each has been historically based on a certain model espoused by their founders, reflecting their values and what kind of economic infrastructure those founders wanted for the country.


(Reference added March 5, 2018): Why the Morrill Act Still Matters, July 16, 2012 by Christopher P. Loss in The Chronicle of Higher Education.  Added here because it’s a short narrative and for the 19 comments below arguing pro/con the whole situation.  The comments are generally well-written and interesting.

Basics: Please read (for review, or if it’s not review) Wikipedia on the Morrill Land-Grant Acts.  These involved federal lands to establish state college right about the time of the Civil War (!) and after the Confederate states had seceded (although they later got theirs, too).  On that article, Cornell’s situation is in paragraphs 7 and 10.  Paras. 6, 7 and 10 quoted here.  Relates to Cornell and MIT.

Under the act, each eligible state received a total of 30,000 acres (120 km2) of federal land, either within or contiguous to its boundaries, for each member of congress the state had as of the census of 1860. This land, or the proceeds from its sale, was to be used toward establishing and funding the educational institutions described above. Under provision six of the Act, “No State while in a condition of rebellion or insurrection against the government of the United States shall be entitled to the benefit of this act,” in reference to the recent secession of several Southern states and the contemporaneously raging American Civil War.

After the war, however, the 1862 Act was extended to the former Confederate states; it was eventually extended to every state and territory, including those created after 1862. If the federal land within a state was insufficient to meet that state’s land grant, the state was issued “scrip” which authorized the state to select federal lands in other states to fund its institution.[7] For example, New York carefully selected valuable timber land in Wisconsin to fund Cornell University.[8]p. 9 The resulting management of this scrip by the university yielded one third of the total grant revenues generated by all the states, even though New York received only one-tenth of the 1862 land grant.[8]p. 10 Overall, the 1862 Morrill Act allocated 17,400,000 acres (70,000 km2) of land, which when sold yielded a collective endowment of $7.55 million.[8]p. 8

…With a few exceptions (including Cornell University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), nearly all of the land-grant colleges are public. (Cornell University, while private, administers several state-supported contract colleges that fulfill its public land-grant mission to the state of New York.)

To maintain their status as land-grant colleges, a number of programs are required to be maintained by the college. These include programs in agriculture and engineering, as well as a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program

This situation, as Wikipedia tells it, also supplanted a more egalitarian (among the states) and earlier “Turner Act,” giving preference for the then more populous eastern states.  Overall, the federal lands represent land grabs from Native Americans originally, anyhow, so a case could be made that the entire situation is based on theft and land-grabs.  Anyhow….
Read the rest of this entry »

‘Families Change’ the Sentence? Just a Stronger (It Has a Verb!) Variation on the Familiar, Old “FIT” Tune. But as found on ‘FamiliesChange.xx.GOV’ or “xx.FamiliesChange.ORG” the Statewide Family Law Self-Help Websites (where for ‘xx’ insert a U.S. State Abbreviation) It Definitely Turns Up the Decibels. [Publ. Feb. 14, 2018]

leave a comment »

Title: ‘Families Change’ the Sentence? Just a Stronger (It Has a Verb!) Variation on the Familiar, Old “FIT”* Tune. But as found on ‘FamiliesChange.xx.GOV’ or “xx.FamiliesChange.ORG” the Statewide Family Law Self-Help Websites (where for ‘xx’ insert a U.S. State Abbreviation) It Definitely Turns Up the Decibels.. (short-link ends “-8Cg” posted Feb. 14, 2018).  (Happy Valentine’s Day to you, too). It’s about 8,700 words, including some repeated sections, and plenty of pictures, too.

  • *In the title, “FIT” = “Families In Transition” ” The Family In Transition.”

In California…

Context:  https://pas.familieschange.ca.gov/resources/books;   continuing my Feb. 10, 2018, post “The Missing Link,

It came from Canada. I see Connecticut has been listed, which website I hadn’t yet picked up on. THIS information (see top windowframe for the url) came only from the JES website; not made available readily on the California one, that I could see. Click image to enlarge; pls. read annotations also!

Connecticut’s funding was similar to Vermont’s; I now see that “FamiliesChange.org” (vs. “*.gov” as California has) even has a short drop-down menu at the top, “your state” and lists Connecticut, Maine and Vermont; probably not California because California’s website ended *.gov” and wasn’t a redirect from a legal aid website.  It seems that Connecticut’s creation of this website was, as I showed in related “missing link” post, also funded through a LSC (Legal Services Corporation) Technology Grant, similarly referring to both an on-line legal help website and a statewide legal services (i.e. legal aid) association (Vermont had, as I just posted, Legal Services Law Line of Vermont, which site referred to “FamiliesChange”) and a related entity, Vermont Legal Aid.

(topic a re-post, see also my “Missing Link” 2/11/2018 post) conference featuring type of grant that helped fund FamiliesChange in three states within the USA so far. These conferences started ca. 2000, under different name and logo (says LSC) up through 2017, apparently.

This next image gallery is just to re-emphasize that the phrase “FamiliesChange” is moving into State family court websites, whether directly (as in California) or indirectly, as traffic is directed from legal aid organizations or what seems to be a common situation, their collaborative-effort websites (CTLawHelp.org, etc.). I posted only partial results and am not discussing them further on this post, which shows that “Families In Transition” talk is still “up and running” in other formats, and, in part, who’s been involved in it.

Image gallery below has nine images, shown as a slideshow.  All have captions, most also annotated on each image. Use navigation buttons to move through them either way, or pause. Pls. let me know if there are viewing problems (and from what type of device) if this doesn’t work for you (submit a comment to this post).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

In this family court context and rhetoric, “Families Change” is far more than just a domain name.  It’s also an assertion; a world view, and delivered UP FRONT, FIRST (and a bit subliminally; most people focus on web content — especially ones in as large pictures, bright colors, with cartoon-link graphics as these — not the domain name.  But our minds register it anyhow, whether consciously or not).  Sure, families change, generally speaking — but who, since the creation of the family divisions in various states, if not these courts, are among the major agents of change? However, if such change was a result of natural evolution (like plants growing), then other significant causes and actors allegedly do not change the families.

Want to talk about false allegations of abuse and “differential responses” to it? By now it’s obvious (from conferences featuring the topic dating back to the 1990s, at least, and the “false allegations” part, even further) who does.

But how about this subliminal, but internationally organized INformal digital communication insinuating, at the expense of U.S. taxpayers and as intended to influence various U.S. family court services, that the family courts are just part of the natural landscape and not significant and at times abrupt and violent factors in WHY families change, these days…

Let’s talk about that, honestly.  I’m certainly going to!

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: