Public and private school choice proposals, being promoted by the Obama Administration, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and the neoconservative Trotskyite/corporate conglomerate, if implemented, will spell the end of traditional education in the United States. Tax-supported school choice proposals affecting public, private, religious, and home school education are the vehicle to change not only the right of Americans to choose what kind of education they wish for their children, but may also result in changing our representative form of government to an “unelected council form of government” due to one form of school choice, charter schools, run by “unelected councils.”
Under the proposed school choice proposals, including Parent Trigger laws, education is being surreptitiously converted from academics to socialist work force training, necessary for the United States imminent merging into a global, collectivized economy.
Please see Marc Tucker’s letter to Hillary Clinton, 1998, and also a portion of the text of Carnegie Corporation’s 1934 plan to bring about a planned economy through the schools, as well as the information in this article explaining the history of this conversion to a “womb to tomb” totalitarian society. Authentic documentation for the content of this article can be obtained here and here. (The latter contains a Free Download of the out-of-print 700-page “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America“). A new abridged and updated (1999-2012) version of the original 1999 copy is available at Amazon.com. The updated version deals with corporate involvement in school to work plans, school choice, International Baccalaureate, the substitution of computers for academic teachers and traditional book learning, UN Agenda 21 (Sustainable Development), and the century-long use of values-destroying mental health programs, etc.
The research used in this article documents the plan to change America from a free enterprise competitive economic system to a planned economy necessary for United States membership in the global economic system. The plan is being implemented in every state in the nation right now! It seems ALL state governors are on board, including Maine’s Governor LePage, who we traditional conservatives (NOT Trotskyite neoconservatives) worked our hearts out to get elected as a so-called traditional conservative. LePage was co-opted, prior to his election, by The Maine Heritage Policy Center (affiliated with the national neoconservative Heritage Foundation which has affiliates in most states). Maine Heritage manipulated Governor LePage into supporting all forms of school choice which are essential for work force training.
How many of the Heritage Foundation’s supporters (good Americans) realize that the Heritage Foundation came up with the idea for the North American Free Trade Agreement which has resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs? The 1993 Annual Report of the Heritage Foundation of Washington, D.C. dedicated to their twentieth year celebration, revealed the following:
“The idea of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) originated with Heritage Fellow Richard Allen and has long been advocated by Heritage policy analysts…The idea of creating a North American free trade zone from the Yukon to the Yucatan was first proposed by Heritage Distinguished Fellow Richard Allen in the late 1970s, refined by then Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, and further developed in a major 1986 Foundation study.” (p. 4)
What we are looking at now in education is a result of NAFTA which got the ball rolling in the development of work force skills standards by the National Skills Standards Board, endorsed by the U.S. Labor Department Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS). This study originated under Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole in 1990, and eventually led to the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, and the dumbing down of American education curriculum for workforce training. (Foregoing information on role of the national Heritage Foundation in creation of NAFTA and educational restructuring can be found here. page 304).
The above-mentioned types of school choice will be tax-supported, with the tax money following your child. Each child, regardless of type of “choice” education, will have an individual education plan (IEP). This will be determined by decisions made by the school/business partnerships (for which kind of workforce training “they” have determined your child’s intelligence/talents are best suited, for their own profit-seeking purposes.) This is the failed communist/socialist job quota system from which millions of foreigners escaped. These immigrants, the backbone of our nation, made enormous sacrifices (some dying on the way!) to come to the United States of America in order to enjoy the upward mobility guaranteed by our free (unplanned) economic system.
Professor Eugene Boyce, University of Georgia, said in regard to the above communist education system: “They (communists) do not educate for jobs that don’t exist.” No matter what your child wants to be/do in the future (welder or ballet dancer) his freedom to pursue his dreams will be limited by whether he is included in the school/business partnership’s “quota” for training. Example: If he wants to be a welder at the shipbuilding company in your town, he will only be able to get training if he is fortunate enough to be included in the training quota. If the company only needs ten welders, and your son/daughter is No. 11 on the list, he/she will NOT receive training. Ask yourself what this socialist system will do to the spirit of entrepreneurship for which America is so well known?
The choice proposals being recommended by most state Governors will ultimately destroy all forms of education: public, home school, private, and religious. The most lethal form of education choice is tax-supported public schools (charter schools) which have no elected school boards resulting in “taxation without representation.” This is an oppressive system which caused our nation to revolt and declare war against the British (the American Revolution, 1776). What is to keep Americans from accepting the unelected council form of government at all levels of government once one of the major sections of our economy (education) is being run by unelected councils? Do Americans think giving up their representative/elective form of government is a good idea? I doubt it.
The Carnegie Corporation’s agenda, which has been in effect since its first experiment with Outcomes/Performance-Based Education, known as “The Eight Year Study” (1933-1941), has been, and is continuing its agenda to destroy the traditional hierarchical public school with its elected school boards and its K-12, A,B,C,D,F grading system which focused on individual academic excellence. The latter description represented our formerly excellent public education system until passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), in 1965, when education became Skinnerian/Pavlovian “outcomes/performance-based” rather than “brain-based.” This “new” system is so focused on academic dumbing down it will allow students to graduate at 14 or 21! Google Reinventing Schools Coalition (RISC) to find out what is in store for you and your children, and teachers! You will find out what the reformed education (training) system looks like, giving “successful” (define, please!) schools the Malcolm Baldridge Quality Management Award. This award is traditionally given to corporations like Cadillac! Are our teachers and children to be educated using the same system used to manufacture cars? RISC is already spreading across Maine, and probably across the rest of the states as well.
So…not only will private education be destroyed…yes, home schoolers…you too are part of this wicked web. The tax money, if you accept it, will follow the child and that means “your child,” not just your neighbor’s child, who goes to public, private, or religious school. You had better read the research regarding what is planned for you with virtual (computer) education. Former Secretary of Education William Bennett’s Virtual Academy (computer-assisted-learning for home schoolers) is part of the switch from book learning to computer learning. It MUST administer the federal National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test, the focus of which is at least 50% “politically correct,” since it is a charter school and is federally funded. Wake up home schoolers! You are going to be connected with the central education/training unelected “community chief’s” computer, just as will be the case with private and religious schools that accept federal money.
All education will/must be sucked into the computerized global system called for by Carnegie in 1934 and Carnegie’s minion, Marc Tucker, in the nineties and now. Malcolm Davis, Director of the Office of Libraries and Learning Technology in my old office, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Dept. of Education, told me in 1981, when I commented to him that computers could allow students to be educated at home: “In the future all education will take place in the home, but we will always have the schools for ‘socialization’ purposes.” What Davis is referring to is the lifelong Womb-to-Tomb education/training/health care/leisure services, etc. system, under the supervision of the unelected “Community Planner/Commissar” and his unelected council. (Does the UN Agenda 21 ring a bell?) Most (old) dictionaries define “council” as a “soviet.” Or look up Soviet, and you’ll find “unelected councils.” See Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary.
Massive documentation exists to substantiate this description of Americans’ futures IF they fall for the school choice proposals. This unconstitutional unelective system is known as “regional government.” It has been described as “communism” by Morris Zeitlin, a sociologist, in an article he wrote in The Communist Daily World, 1976.
Chester Finn, noted neoconservative education “change agent,” is deeply involved in the school choice/work force training agenda. He was the former Assistant Secretary in my old OERI office. Regarding control, following the receipt/taking of tax money, he said in 1982: “Short of scattering money in the streets or handing it out to everyone who wants some, the funding agency must define eligible recipients…. This means, in a word, ‘regulation,’ the inevitable concomitant of public financial support.”
Finn also believed the government is obligated to recognize that the private schools it
helps support are different from public schools—that it is this “differentness” that makes them supportable. “The other side of the coin,” he says, “is the obligation of private schools to recognize certain limits to their differentness and certain ways they must conform to the norms and expectations of a society that values and supports them….”
Some, to be sure, like to think they can have it both ways; i.e., they can obtain aid without saddling themselves with unacceptable forms of regulation. But most acknowledge the general applicability of the old adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune, and are more or less resigned to amalgamating or choosing between assistance and autonomy.
(Quote taken from Finn’s article entitled “Public Service, Public Support, Public Accountability”, March, 1982 issue of the National Association of Secondary School Principals’ Bulletin. Reprinted in “Tuition Tax Credits…A Responsible Appraisal”, The Barbara Morris Report, Upland, California, 1983).
This is Part One in a Two Part Series.