- The Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision allowing the
constitutionality of financial aid to parents which they may use at religious
or private schools, including virtual academy (computer-assisted-instruction)
charter schools available to home schoolers, will result in the deliberate
dumbing down of all education.
-
- In this latter regard, the writer of this article was
told in 1981 by the Director of the Office of Libraries and Learning Technology,
U.S. Department of Education, that "in the future all education will
take place in the home, using computer-assisted-instruction, but that we
will always have the school buildings for 'socialization' purposes."
This is the United Nations lifelong learning/brainwashing concept (international
community education) which places all community services under the umbrella
of the community school. (The National Alliance of Business refers to
this agenda as Kindergarten-Age 80)
-
- The public sector succumbed years ago to federal control
through funding. Now, private schools, willing to go the "voucher"
route in order to get the money to stay in business, will have the opportunity
to be equally dumbed down, denied a liberal arts curriculum, and stripped
of all sound moral education. I can hear the howling from voucher-supporting
conservatives the first time the heavy hand of the federal government
lands on a private school denying it the right to determine "what
is right and what is wrong" in its curriculum, hiring practices,
recital of the Pledge of Allegiance, The Lord's Prayer, etc. Those private
schools which courageously, for reasons of conscience, resist vouchers
will eventually be forced out of business due to their inability to remain
competitive.
-
- Interestingly enough, the blame for this incredibly dangerous
Trojan Horse decision can be laid at the feet of the conservative majority
on the U.S. Supreme Court.
-
- Is school choice a plot to implement the socialist, corporate
fascist, workforce training agenda for the global planned economy?
-
- You 'betcha.
-
- This decision will succeed in carrying out the long-standing
leftist/internationalist goal of total control of all education (public
and private) through the dollar. It provides a classic example of what
the late Senator Edmund Muskie, D, ME. referred to when he described how
the Democrats, when they couldn't get something controversial approved,
would go to the Republicans for action. Muskie, known as "Mr. Metro",
used as an example President Nixon's implementation of metropolitan/regional
government (the carving of the nation into ten regions), something the
Democrats had been unable to accomplish.
-
- The late Robert Hutchins, left-wing educator, former
President of the University of Chicago, and supporter of World Government,
would be ecstatic over the voucher decision. In fact, he could have written
it. In an article by Virgil C. Blum in The Commonweal, January 31, 1964
entitled "Freedom and Equality", p. 513, Blum says:
-
- "Dr. Robert M. Hutchins sees no constitutional difficulty
in federal aid for the education of church-related school children in secular
subjects. The fact that such education 'is permeated by religion' or that
federal aid for such education is an 'aid to religion,' he says 'is immaterial.'
The benefit that accrues to religion, Hutchins argues, is 'incidental to
an overriding public benefit.' Consequently, 'such incidental benefits,'
he reasons 'do not invalidate the legislation'."
-
- It is not difficult to understand why Hutchins would
be supporting aid to church schools. He knew it was not a pot of gold
at the end of the rainbow but government control and therefore, he could
argue that "aid to religion" as a byproduct of government support
for church schools would be 'incidental to an overriding public benefit.'
-
- Why do not more people understand that government control
of private and home school education is exactly what is going to happen?
And why have religious organizations, especially those affiliated with
the Catholic Church, supported this concept when they have so much to lose
once the government controls are implemented?
-
- If the question of school choice is considered in a vacuum,
without the benefit of an in-depth understanding of the history and highly
controversial goals of American public education, if it is considered
simply in the context of providing a better education for low income children,
if it is considered only as an issue of equal funding for all children,
one escapes the very dangerous crux of the matter: ACCOUNTABILITY...
accountability to the government which is granting the voucher or tax credit.
-
- While working in the U.S. Department of Education and
involved in supervising grants and contracts to local schools, government
labs and centers, United States and foreign universities, etc., I had
to make sure that the recipients of the federal grants complied with
federal regulations, guidelines, and criteria for that particular project.
I never questioned the wisdom of such a requirement. Although the U.S.
Department of Education is in itself an unconstitutional entity and should
not exist, it would still have been illegal to allow recipients of federal
money (extracted from the taxpayers) to spend that money as they wished.
There must be accountability as long as we Americans want government to
perform in an orderly, fair manner, and I am sure the reader will agree
with me on that score.
-
- Elected officials and others in supervisory positions,
including public school superintendents who complain about government regulations,
should, when the government honey pot is passed around the board table,
just say "NO". That is the only way to avoid the regulations
imposed rightfully in the name of "accountability, " and to remain
truly a free agent. During my three-year tenure as an elected school board
member I voted "NO" on every single motion to accept federal
curriculum or federal funding.
-
- So, why is it that those promoting tuition tax credits
and vouchers have missed this point of accountability? Is it because it
is too simple to understand? Is it because they feel that the need to
level the field for low income children should take precedence over accountability
requirements and that accountability requirements are not to be feared?
Read on...
-
- In 1982, while working on a U.S. Department of Education
technology grant to the Association for Educational Computing and Technology,
a spin-off of the National Education Association, I was shocked by some
internal comments in an early draft of the grant. Although I was not working
in an "Eyes Only" position for the CIA or Defense Department,
but for an agency which supposedly exists to provide a beneficial service
to parents, children, and teachers, this paper was stamped CONFIDENTIAL!
On one page there appeared the following information:
-
- "PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES: What We (the U.S. Department
of Education) Can Control or Manipulate? Under that incredible question
the following items and activities were listed: State participation/selection
process, role of advisors, content of program, training of state leaders,
resource people utilized, basic skills content areas emphasized, perception
of need to use technology." The main reason I gave that document
to the press, for which I was subsequently relieved of my duties, was that
I was appalled at the blatant attitude of the federal government regarding
the national public school system. Do the five justices who ruled favoring
school choice proposals live in such a dream world that they believe the
government will require less regulation of the private and home schools
than it requires of the public schools?
-
- There is a certain naivety, Alice in Wonderland attitude,
amongst those who should know better regarding what will happen to private
schools and home school entities which accept vouchers. Did the Supreme
Court majority not study the catastrophic history of school choice in France
which resulted, in 1983, with the socialist French Government under Mitterand
assuming control of all private and religious education which received
government funding?
-
- The conservative Mayor of Paris, Jacques Chirac, said
the takeover threatens "the free choice of schools by parents, the
basic character of private education, the freedom of management of these
establishments."
-
- The conservative Paris newspaper, LeFigaro said it was
worse than that: "Private schools are no longer threatened. The propositions
of Education Minister Alain Savery on the future of private education are
equivalent to a sentence of death."
-
- It is understandable that parents are desperate to find
a solution to the devastating problems facing their children in the public
schools. However, they should realize that the despicable situation has
been planned for over 150 years (the dumbing down was deliberate...the
Hegelian dialectic at work), in order to get the parents to call for and
accept what is being sold to them as a solution providing freedom of choice,
which in fact is what the internationalists, especially the Carnegie Corporation,
has had planned for at least 75 years. The Carnegie Corporation's plan
to change our economic system from free market to collectivist was published
in 1934 in its little book "Conclusions and Recommendations for the
Social Studies". Not only did President Reagan in 1985 sign agreements
with President Gorbachev to merge the United States and Soviet education
systems; the Carnegie Corporation signed even more extensive agreements
with the Soviet Academy of Science to carry out the same agenda.
-
- Let me warn parents and private school administrators:
"Freedom to choose" is exactly the opposite of what they and
the private sector will receive if they take one penny of federal, state
or local tax money to educate children. Believe it or not, slavery is
right around the corner, since once the private sector is controlled through
vouchers, thereby creating a partnership with government (corporate fascism),
students, having been psychologically profiled, will be tracked into specific
training at an early age and later into job slots to suit the needs of
the corporate sector and the global economy. This is the failed international
socialist quota system that in essence provides NO CHOICE! Our children
will have no freedom to choose what they want for their futures. This
is going on right now in the public school sector due to Goals 2000, the
School to Work Opportunities Act, and the reauthorization of the ESEA (S.1,
the Bush-Kennedy "No Child Left Behind Act.") Some bright 9th
graders are spending 3 out of 5 days a week at the job site, rather than
studying math, science, literature, history, foreign languages, art, music,
etc. which would give them a liberal arts education, indispensable for
upward mobility, freedom, and an understanding of the world in which they
live.
-
- Ah.....would that Aristotle, 384-322 B.C., could return
to express his displeasure with this latest development. He said "Educated
men are as much superior to uneducated men as the living are to the dead."
-
- What school choice is all about is not giving parents
a real choice without strings attached; it is about controlling all children
(referred to as "human resources"), everywhere on this planet,
in order to implement the corporate fascist global economy, with 100%
participation in the global computer!
-
- Why, otherwise does one find most of the major players
and promoters of school choice coming from the corporate sector, with the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce as the largest and loudest supporter of all?
TIME magazine, 6/8/92, owned by Time-Warner came close to the truth when
it said "...the Bush Administration strongly supports the concepts
that underlie the Edison Project...Many observers believe Whittle's long-term
plan anticipates the use of these (voucher) funds. If adopted, the reform
(vouchers) could funnel billions of public dollars into private schools..."
And NEWSWEEK, 6/8/92, not to be outdone by TIME, said "There's no
question that Whittle schools could be extremely rewarding...if Congress
approves a voucher system..." Are we so naive that we believe big
business really cares about our children's futures? It cares, and rightfully
so, about big profits. That's perfectly fine, but not at the expense of
our children's freedom to choose their futures.
-
- Conservatives have a problem understanding the overt
and heavily-funded position of the teachers' unions in opposition to school
choice, and refuse to understand or accept the NEA and AFT leadership's
covert position of support. The unions would be pretty stupid not to
support vouchers when they know that the international education agenda
calls for such "choice" in order to implement the global workforce
training agenda and that their membership will be called upon to staff
the training sites. It is the average traditional classroom teacher who
opposes school choice for reasons, some of which are cited in this article.
The following quotes substantiate the above conclusion:
-
- the late Albert Shanker, President, American Federation
of Teachers--"It may be that we can't get the big changes we need
without choice."
-
- President George Bush, Sr.-- "Choice is the one
reform that drives all others."
-
- Former U.S. Secretary of Educatin Lauro Cavazos--"President
Bush and I are determined to use the power of choice to help restructure
American education."
-
- To illustrate how the promoters of this totalitarian
agenda know full well what they are doing, one need go no further than
to the writings of major education change agent Chester Finn, who was once
opposed to school choice but is presently a supporter of the concept.
(Finn assisted in the development of the National Institute of Education
in 1970, served under Secretary William Bennett as Assistant Secretary,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement in the mid-eighties, and
was the author of America 2000, renamed Goals 2000 during the Clinton Administration.
-
- Finn also serves on the National Governing Board for
the National Assessment for Educational Progress. The NAEP is the tool
for measuring accountability to politically-correct goverment viewpoints
(60 percent of the the test items measure political correctness and school-to-work
readiness). The administration of the NAEP which President Bush has mandated
be administered in all schools, will determine not only curriculum, but
compliance with accountability standards and therefore will be essential
in the determination of which private schools and home schoolers will receive
vouchers. That is the reason this decision will do away with private
and home schooling education as they are presently constituted.
-
- In an article he wrote entitled "Public Service,
Public Support, Public Accountability", March, 1982, National Association
of Secondary School Principals' Bulletin, p. 69, Finn said:
-
- "Some to be sure, like to think they can have it
both ways; i.e. 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."
-
- And, in American Education, May, 1982, "Public Support
for Private Education," Part 1, p.5, Finn said:
-
- "Short of scattering money in the streets or handing
it out to everyone who wants some, the funding agency must define elegible
recipients...This means, in a word, 'regulation,' the inevitable concomitant
of public financial support."
-
- The other side of the coin, Finn 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., 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."
In returning to this most bizarre Supreme Court Decision, something comes
to mind. Why did Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recently attend
a conference in Europe to familiarize herself with World Court decisions
and how they might play out in the United States, under our present Constitution?
Could this school choice decision, in the future, have anything to do
with world court decisions, universal/global education, public private
partnerships, global work force training etc.?
-
- Remember, it was Karl Marx who called for a "combination
of education with industrial production." And the global government
being implemented today is nothing more nor less than what Lenin called
for: international socialism.
Why did the majority of our elected officials in Congress and appointees
on the Supreme Court allow these radical changes to take place, changes
which will forever effect the futures of our children and the special nature
of the greatest, freedom-loving country in the history of the world?
-
- Because they no longer represent the best interests of
their constituents. Their allegiance is to the globalist elite at the
United Nations and elsewhere, from whom they receive their marching orders.
Or, especially in the case of our elected officials, they have been so
dumbed down in the public schools that they didn't even know what form
of government and economy they swore to uphold when they assumed office.
-
- Our government, through this latest decision, has placed
the last nail in the coffin of "freedom". This decision finalizes
the exchange of our highly successful free market system and republican
form of government for a failed "ism" form of government. Whether
our new government form will be corporate fascism, socialism, or communism
(all of which differ only in minor ways), remains to be seen.
Note: Credit for some of the research in this article goes to Barbara
M. Morris who wrote the indispensable book on the dangers of school choice:
"Tuition Tax Credits...A Responsible Appraisal", 1983, and to
Billy Lyon who wrote a fascinating treatise "Connections and Conflicts
of Interest (Or, There Ought to Be an Investigation!) 1992, which documents
the role of conservatives, liberals, corporations, foundations, etc. in
the promotion of school choice and the school-to-work agenda.
-
- ___
-
- Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor,
U.S. Department of Education, and author, the deliberate dumbing down of
america...A Chronolological Paper Trail, 1999, 3rd printing, 2001. www.deliberatedumbingdown.com
|
