Outcome Based Education
Document: 029.0.1.2 # 11 >>>>Disclaimer: This document may be used as
you will except: If you change anything in the text, remove my name and
other Ident. You may use it without my identification also if you wish...I
only ask that people read it and think...think...think. Sources/Ref's if not
in the text will be found on the last page of Doc 000.0.0.1 and 000.0.6.
CLMsr.<<<<We have a Constitution and our Bill of Rights (the first 10
amendments) that makes us free. Right? Then visit:
http://www.trimonline.org
http://www.getusout.org
http://www.thenewamerican.com
http://www.givemeliberty.org
http://nca.mybravenet.com
http://www.jbs.org
Then take a look at these sites:
http://www.dixierising.com
http://www.dixienet.org
http://www.palmetto.org
http://www.southerncaucus.org
http://www.spofga.org
Part 02. FedEduPrgmPart2 OUTCOME BASED EDUCATION (OBE).
GLOSSARY DEFINITIONS.
Assessments: Methods of measuring student progress - though "assessments"
is a broader and more ambiguous word than tests. It includes tests but also
includes highly subjective evaluations such as rating scales, observation of
behavior, and student opinion. The root meaning of "assess" is to attach a
value to something. Tests, in contrast, are designed to measure knowledge.
The change in language from "tests" to "assessments" is symptomatic of the
shift in education from focusing on knowledge to focusing on values,
attitudes and behavior. (See also: Basic Skills Tests, High-stakes test,
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments, Criterion-referenced test, and
Norm-referenced test.).
Baby Ed: The nickname of a government program that aims to takeover the
education of all infants from birth to kindergarten. It is now being
seriously promoted in Minnesota legislative committees. (More, More, and
Links at http://www.mredcopac.org ).
Basic Skills Tests (Basic Standards Tests): A "high stakes test", a test
that students must pass in order to graduate from a public high school. It
has been described by the DCFL as a "functional literacy test." It is a 6th
grade level test. Under the new system, it is the only test a student must
pass in order to graduate. It is first given in 8th grade for reading and
math, and in 10th grade for writing. Reading and Math tests: administered
in February for all 8th graders and again in April and July for students who
have not already passed. Writing tests: administered in January for all 10th
graders.
Central Planning: Making important, detailed decisions at a centralized
location by a government agency that has the power to enforce the decisions.
Central planning is a key ingredient of socialist economic systems, where
high-level government officials make the important decisions as opposed to
those decisions being made at a local and/or private level.
Certificate of Mastery: Certifies completion of the
vocational and ideological components of the new system of education and is
intended to eventually replace high school diplomas. Yet they differ:
Diplomas emphasize knowledge and academic achievement, while Certificates
emphasize behavior and job skills. Certificates are divided into two types.
The Certificates of Advanced Mastery (CAMs)
are for 12th grade level achievement. The Certificates of Initial Mastery
(CIMs) roughly designate a 10th grade level. Schools will (for the first
time) officially give an award for lower than twelfth-grade achievement.
This is yet another way the system redefines "success" downward.
Throughout the new system - from the Certificates of Mastery, to the
performance packages, to the rubric scoring - there is little attempt to
cultivate academic excellence in students, or to reward it when it arises.
Constructivism: A new-fangled educational theory
where "truth" is believed to be a "social construction." Thus, it believes
that children should be taught to construct "truth", and they should do so
in groups (that's the "social" part). This peculiar philosophy has heavily
influenced the new educational system, with it's emphasis on "self-learning"
and group-learning, and a heavy reduction in direct classroom instruction.
Criterion-referenced test: A test in which scores
are evaluated, not in terms of comparative rankings, but rather, in terms of
the percentage of mastery of a predetermined standard. Examples include
behind-the-wheel driving tests, tests of typing speed and accuracy, tests in
the military for strength, and tests measuring the effects of alcohol on
muscular coordination. Most manual skills tests are criterion-referenced.
Criterion-referenced tests tend to focus on minimum thresholds, such as the
threshold needed to pass a driving test, or to pass for secretarial or
military service - or, in the new education system, to graduate from high
school. The test focuses - not on the best, the median, or the average
students - but on the worst students, those near the minimum threshold. The
new education system mandates the use of criterion-referenced tests (and the
de-emphasis or elimination of the traditional norm-referenced tests such as
ACT, SAT, and Iowa Basic tests), thereby redefining "success". The new
system intends to "hold schools and teachers accountable" (by various
threats and punishments from the government) for failure to meet its
peculiar measure of success. By this means the system compels teachers to
forsake students who are average or better, and focus instead on those
students near the minimum threshold, for that is how teachers and schools
are to be judged. This furthers the twin goals of: (1) educating mostly
just for minimum competencies in specific job skills, and (2) "equalizing"
educational outcomes (not educational opportunities) - while turning a blind
eye to the development and recognition of academic excellence and the
broad-based knowledge needed to keep people free.
Culture: Normally defined as "the ideas, customs, skills, arts, etc. of a
people or group that are transferred, communicated or passed along to
succeeding generations" (Webster's Dictionary). However, Minnesota's DCFL,
says: ". . . feelings and behavior related to sexuality are part of a
larger system of culture." (Minnesota School Health Guide, Published by
Minnesota Departments of Health and DCFL, Ch. 12, p. 20.) By "behavior
related to sexuality" is meant sexual orientation and homosexual activity.
In this way the DCFL smuggles in the study of sexual orientation nd
homosexual activity by disarmingly presenting it as the study of "culture".
Department of Children, Families and Learning (DCFL or CFL): The new state
department in Minnesota created to replace (and vastly expand) its
Department of Education. The new department includes functions that had been
part of other departments, especially in the areas of health care and
welfare. The combined department is a major step toward centralized control,
which they call "one-stop shopping," also called "full-service schools," and
is required by Goals 2000. One-stop shopping is an integral part of the new
system of education. Fifty-six percent of the funding for Minnesota's DCFL
comes from the federal government, which gives another indication of who the
boss is. In the view of most Minnesotans, the published DCFL documents often
use misleading double-speak, and the DCFL officials have been evasive about
explaining the new system it is imposing by stealth on Minnesota. Use
caution when interpreting what the DCFL has to say.
Diversity training: Teaching that values, beliefs and actions are all
equal (as opposed to "equality" which holds that all people are equal). The
key value not tolerated is the idea that there is an objective right and
wrong, that there is objective truth. Diversity also goes by the names of
multi-culturalism, tolerance, inclusion, and inclusive education. Diversity
training divides people into opposing groups, amplifies their differences
and grievances, and instills that a resolution needs the continual
intervention by big government, rather than encouraging reconciliation,
harmony, unity and assimilation of various groups. Diversity is a core
curriculum of the new system of education, where it is pressed into all
subjects, including such unlikely subjects as math. The new system values
diversity highly. Ironically it views diversity of outcome as bad and goes
great lengths to minimize it (see outcome-based education). Big government
wins at both sides of this game. That is, big government is employed to
maintain (and amplify) the differences between sub-cultures, but it is also
employed to equalize their outcomes.
Graduation Standards: Formerly called the "Graduation Rule," they consist
of the new state requirements which specify that to be eligible to graduate
from a Minnesota public high school, students must: (1) pass the Basic
Standards test (which is a 6th grade functional literacy test), and (2)
complete 24 high school level Content Standards which must be done by means
of completing performance packages. Within the performance packages is a
requirement to use its specific (and oftentimes bad) teaching method.
Goals 2000: Refers to the Goals 2000: Educate America Act passed by
Congress in 1994, the last year the Democratic Party controlled both Houses
of Congress and the White House. Goals 2000 created a system of federal
education guidelines and federal grants which states can apply for and
receive if they agree to implement the federal guidelines. [Florida signed
on to the Goals 2000 Program just prior to the Election of Jeb Bush to
Governorship. CLMsr.] Minnesota's Goals 2000 grant application states that
the Graduation Standards are the "centerpiece" of Minnesota's compliance
with the federal Goals 2000 regulations.
High Stakes Test: Two definitions: (1) A test a student must pass in order
to progress from one level to the next, say, in order to graduate from high
school. (2) Any student test used by centralized government control for its
decision-making.
Learning Areas: Replace academic disciplines as the preferred education
categories under the new system. Learning areas are broader and less clearly
defined than the traditional disciplines thereby giving education central
planners wide latitude for including subjects oriented toward behavior,
attitudes, beliefs and values. The Profile of Learning is currently divided
into 10 learning areas:
1. Read, View, Listen; 2. Write & Speak; 3. Literature & the Arts; 4.
Math Applications; 5. Inquiry; 6. Scientific Application
7. People & Cultures; 8. Decision Making; 9. Resource Management; 10.
World Languages (optional).
Lifework Plan (also known as IEP or Individual Education Plan): DCFL
defines it as follows: "A lifework plan is a personal information system
that will benefit decision-making. It is a living document, frequently
revised. The lifework plan should [include] . . . individualized learning
plans and/or career development plans. It should provide a format such as a
portfolio for collecting relevant materials. Most educators foresee a
computer record-keeping system that supplement paper files." The Lifework
Plan is kept by, and required by, the new government-run education system.
It contains very personal information about the student's goals and values,
and provides a key source for the government to make decisions about that
student's further education. The Lifework Plan is begun when the student is
in kindergarten, and to be fully fleshed-in typically by the eighth grade.
The Lifework Plan is the first "performance indicator" of a state's
progress in implementing the federal School-to-Work program.
Local Performance Package: A performance package not written by the
state. According to the new rules, a local performance package must: (1)
have a difficulty level which equals or exceeds the state package; (2)
have essentially the same content as the state package; (3) use
essentially the same methodologies as the state package; and (4) be approved
by a method determined by the state DCFL. The DCFL has the authority to
audit and review local performance packages. DCFL determines how the all
packages must be evaluated. In other words, "local" performance packages
build the illusion that local school districts have "options" to make
serious decisions about what is taught, how it is taught, and how success is
to be measured.
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments (MCA's): An assessment that measures
whether a school is complying with the government mandates. This is not a
high stakes test. There is no pass or fail for the student and there is no
remediation follow-up. Schools are required to give the test to students and
the school is measured by its results. However, there is no requirement that
your child take the test, and no benefit to the student if he/she takes the
test - therefore, to protest the new system and use the time more wisely,
many parents legitimately withhold their children from the MCA's. (Also, see
their invasion of your family's privacy and your options.). The tests are
given to 3rd, 5th and 10th graders. Third and Fifth graders are tested in
reading and math. Fifth graders take a written composition test. The 10th
grade writing test is serving as an MCA in addition to its role as a high
stakes Basic Skills Test.
Reading and math: Administered to all 3rd and 5th graders in March.
Writing: Administered to 5th graders in March and to 10th graders in
January.
Norm-referenced test: This is the traditional academic achievement test
you are familiar with. It is a test in which the scores are evaluated in
terms of their comparative ranking among the other scores on the test. Most
academic achievement tests are norm-referenced. The ACT, SAT, Iowa Basics
and most, if not all, intelligence tests are norm-referenced tests. Scores
on norm-referenced tests take the form of a normal curve and are interpreted
in terms of percentiles, that is, the position of a given score on the
normal curve. In other words, they focus on knowledge, academic
achievement, and the detection of individual differences in these - and none
of that is especially important to the new education system! In fact, the
new system radically de-emphasizes (and in many cases has already
eliminated) norm-referenced testing, in favor of criterion-referenced
testing. This is a key way the new system redefines "success", and
de-emphasizes academic achievement in favor of mere job skills. This shift
is coordinated and driven from the federal level. (Unfortunately, in the
past few years even the traditional norm-referenced tests - such as the Iowa
Basics - are being substantially re-aligned and contaminated by the federal
mandates. So, you cannot necessarily count on these old-reliable tests to
measure real knowledge and academics anymore.)
Outcome-based education (or OBE): An education method driven by the
peculiar political goal of achieving equal outcome. It pursues that goal
in two basic ways: (1) by focusing on the worst students and the minimum
threshold needed to pass, and (2) by largely abandoning students who are
above the minimum threshold. OBE was tried (and rejected) in many school
districts over the past twenty years, and produced falling test scores on
ACT, SAT, and Iowa Basics (which are all norm-referenced tests). When
concerned parents became aware of OBE or the falling test scores, they
strongly tended to vote it out of their district. Nonetheless, the new
education system overrides parents and compels all school districts to use
the OBE method (but without calling it "OBE"), combined with a mandated
shift to criterion-referenced tests (which will blind voters to the failure
of the new system).
Performance-based: Also called "show what you know", this is often passed
off as a "test" or "standard". But since each performance takes several
weeks or months, it is far too time-consuming to be a mere test. In
practice it is a teaching-method that displaces better teaching methods
(such as traditional classroom instruction), especially since the new system
mandates the performance-based method. It is better described as
project-based or task-based. The teacher assigns state-prescribed projects
and tasks called "performance packages", which require the student to
self-learn in small groups or leave the classroom for lengthy forays to
libraries, various local authorities, or job sites. The projects tend to be
low in academics and high in menial job skills, such as making phone calls,
counting the number of cars through an intersection, or using a calculator.
The minimization of classroom instruction frees up the teacher: (1) to focus
on getting the worst students up to the minimum thresholds needed to pass,
and (2) to do the abundant paperwork and subjective assessments mandated by
the new system.
Performance Package: Defined by the new rules as, "a group of assignments
and application activities [exercises] that a student must perform to
demonstrate completion of the specifications of a content standard." DCFL
claims that the performance packages are assessments. This is not true. As
the rules say, they are assignments and exercises. They are also lesson
plans. They are, in effect, a specific, extremely time-consuming, (and
oftentimes bad) teaching method, which push aside other (frequently better)
teaching methods. Performance packages are written by the state, in
compliance with specific requirements from the federal level. Teachers are
required to score them by the rubric system. (See also local performance
package).
Predetermined consensus (and the Delphi Technique): The manipulation of
various committees, task forces or other groups to give the appearance of
group decision-making when the outcome of the group process has been
previously established by those who are setting up the group and
orchestrating its activities. Predetermined consensus is one of the common
strategies of central planners and is used to give the appearance of local
decision-making when none exists. These techniques are used in Saint Paul
for the new education system.
PSEO / AB / IB: Post-Secondary Education Option / Advanced Placement/
International Baccalaureate - which are being de-emphasized and reduced in
the new system, in favor of "equalizing outcomes" and job-training.
Portfolios: Data files of student accomplishments, including numerous
examples of work on performance packages and the students' IEPs or lifework
plans. Portfolios additionally include a variety of other highly personal
student records. The information on the portfolios will be entered into a
centralized computer system connected with DCFL and other school districts.
Numerous federal agencies, as well as potential employers, will have access
to this data. The information will be listed by social security number or by
a number assigned to the student by the school district. There are many
privacy issues involved.
Profile of Learning (also called the "Profile"): The new Minnesota state
mandate that all public schools must teach 78 Content Standards from grades
K-12. The Content Standards can only be met by completing performance
packages. At the 9-12 grade levels, the Profile of Learning requires the
completion of 24 content standards by means of performance packages. It
de-emphasizes knowledge and academic achievement, and emphasizes
subjectivity and skills. The Profile of Learning is not merely a test or
"standard", it is a lengthy, time-consuming, (and oftentimes bad)
teaching-method together with a dubious way of measuring success. Its many
mandates effectively press the better teaching methods out of the classroom.
The Profile of Learning for grades 9 - 12 is the same as the Graduation
Standards, part 2. A highly similar system is being implemented in all 50
states, though under various names.
Remediation: Focusing on educating students in areas in which they have
done poorly. Remediation offers a remedy for lack of sufficient progress.
It may consist of special classes, summer school, tutoring and the like.
Rubrics: The scoring system which DCFL dictates that teachers must use for
the performance packages. Scores range from 1 to 4, with 4 being the highest
and 1 being the lowest. DCFL emphasizes that the 1 to 4 system is not the
same as a letter grading system. Some teachers report that DCFL expects them
to give no more than 5% of packages a score of "4." A "1" score requires
little more than a student's participation. The rubric system compresses
(into 4 levels) the traditional grading system (with 13 levels, such as B+,
B, and B-). This has the tendency of blinding the scoring system to
individual excellence, that is, it tends to bunch all students together more
as equals. This furthers a central goal of the new system - to "equalize"
educational outcomes (if only by blinding us to individual differences). The
1 to 4 rubric system is part of the federal SCANS Report. [In Minnesota and
elsewhere, the system also requires a strong emphasis on scoring subjective
matters, such as behaviors and values, rather than testing for academic
knowledge. For example, blended into the student's math rubric score is an
assessment of how the student shares his/her work-product with others in a
group. This behavioral assessment is blended into each learning area (not
just math), which compounds this de-emphasis of real academic achievement,
in favor of particular behaviors.]
SCANS: Acronym for Secretary's Commission for Achieving Necessary Skills.
SCANS is the 1992 report of the U. S. Secretary of Labor which outlines most
of the new system of education. It also describes the supposed "necessary
skills" required for most lines of employment. Minnesota's School-to-Work
grant application states that the Profile of Learning and School-to-Work are
largely based on SCANS. SCANS is an attempt to standardize job requirements
across the country, so that the new system can educate (more narrowly)
toward those job requirements. [We, the Dept of Labor will decide where you
are needed! CLMsr.]
School-to-Work (STW): Refers to the federal School-to-Work Opportunities
Act also passed in 1994, the last year the Democratic Party controlled both
Houses of Congress and the White House. Like Goals 2000, STW created a
system of federal regulations and grants. States can receive these grants
only if they agree to follow the federal regulations. Minnesota's STW grant
application states that the Graduation Standards are the "cornerstone" of
Minnesota's compliance with the STW guidelines. STW dramatically changes the
nature and purpose of education so that all education becomes vocational in
orientation. Here are some examples. Traditional education emphasizes
knowledge and academic ability, while the new system emphasizes skills, such
as the "skill" of calling an appropriate authority or going to the library
for the answer. Another example is the knowledge of how to do arithmetic,
versus the new emphasis on the "skill" of using a calculator. STW also
emphasizes that far more students should spend significant parts of their
schooling at job-sites, doing job-related work. (This is a major reason
behind "block scheduling", so students can have longer blocks of time away
from school at work-sites.) ...[In Dxxxxxxx, Florida, there is a Kentucky
Fried Chicken Rest. The franchise is owned and operated by a friend. The
local high school has been providing students to the KFC for compliance with
the Florida STW program. All of them have been male and female Negro. This
friend proudly put bright yellow STW compliance stickers in the windows.
When informed of the true goals of the STW program, those stickers
disappeared. The students, all Negro, are still coming, but they are being
informed about the STW program and its true purpose. Most do not want to be
in the food service career field. CLMsr]...STW also sets up a system of
appointed boards (largely immune to voters) which bypass legislators and
local school boards in allocating money and in setting education policy.
These boards will "plan" the types of job needed, and corral students into a
narrow education for those jobs. STW aims to apply to all education,
including graduate, post-graduate, and professional education. In
preparation for this new system, Minnesota colleges have been united under
one (centrally controlled) Minnesota University system. (Also see How the
government sells STW. Also see the Government glossary of STW terms),
we have merely highlighted key portions to help you see the immense size and
reach intended by the new system.
State-approved belief-system: Governmental favoring (and in some cases
requiring) that citizens subscribe to a particular world-view consisting of
identifiable political, ideological and/or religious positions. Goals 2000,
the Profile of Learning and Minnesota's new Teacher Certification Rules
contain a clear state-approved belief-system. The state-approved ideology
includes: big centralized government, diversity training, radical feminism,
radical environmentalism, abortion rights, gay rights, and group
consciousness -along with a de-emphasis of national sovereignty, the
Constitution, privacy, property rights, and the individual. The underlying
theme of all these is to indoctrinate the philosophy and need for big
socialist-style government -and score students by how well they receive it.
Social Engineering: Controlling and shaping people's attitudes and
behavior by techniques of behaviorist psychology as developed by its
founder, B. F. Skinner. Skinner believed that freedom is an illusion and
that all living organisms, including people, are totally controlled by their
environment. Skinner said that the ideal society would be one that is
under complete dictation by a small group of psychologists who would
condition people into believing they were free when they were actually being
controlled by elitist central planners.
Tenth Amendment (to the U.S. Constitution): The 10th Amendment says "The
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or
to the people." The 10th Amendment is brazenly violated by the new
education system and STW. The federal control of education / employment /
economy is unconstitutional.
Emphasis on subjectivity.
Subjectivity versus knowledge:
The new system emphasizes subjectivity, and matters that have no clear-cut
answer. Objective facts and knowledge are de-emphasized, under the view
that it is more important to have the "skill" of knowing who to ask, or
knowing how to use a library reference book to lookup an answer. The
emphasis is on the "skill" or "process" of finding an answer, not on
knowledge itself.
Critics rightly argue that people cannot possibly lookup everything they
need to remain free. A free nation - if it is to remain free - must have a
citizenry broadly educated beyond a mere vocation. The new system delivers
a dumbed-down education likely to keep people subservient to authority,
stuck in jobs for which they have been only narrowly educated. Students
need a core-knowledge base to serve as a 'skeleton' of sturdy ideas on which
to hang the many soft bits of 'fleshy' subjectivity later in life. A
core-knowledge base gives structure to what we know, and gives insight into
the things we don't know, such as which avenues are (and are not) the most
likely paths to solutions, for example.
The effect on teaching :
Because of the new emphasis on subjectivity, test questions are typically
worded so there is no objectively correct answer. There may be many answers
that would qualify as "correct." It is a subjective matter, where opinions
count more than facts. One example is how this plays in math classes, with
the new emphasis on estimating. For example, a correct answer to 3 times 5
may be "approximately 13." Not only are the test answers subjective, but
also necessarily the scoring. The test answers must be subjectively
"assessed" by the teacher, and this lengthens the time needed to score and
correct a given student. The teacher's time is increasingly taken, not with
teaching, but with subjectively assessing the student.
Under traditional tests, with clear-cut correct answers, the teacher knows
quickly when, and how, a student made a mistake. This makes scoring and
correcting a student more straightforward and less time consuming. The
result is clearer, for teacher and student.
Academic excellence is unlikely:
The capable student, who studies and works hard academically, is penalized
many ways and will scarcely be noticed for it. The new system focuses on:
the worst students; labor skills, rather than broad-based knowledge;
minimal requirements; minimal classroom instruction by the teacher;
group-projects, where good students must share their work (and score) with
the worst students; emphasis on behaviors over academics; political
indoctrination and filtering of students; subjective answers and subjective
assessments; and vague and ambiguous Rubric scores.
In this environment, academic excellence is unlikely to arise. If it
happens to arise, it will scarcely be distinguishably reflected in a student
's record.
Excessive Paperwork:
The new system emphasizes subjective issues, behaviors, and performance (of
projects and tasks). All of those require subjective assessments by the
teacher. The system requires teachers to keep copious documentation on each
student. The documentation serves three purposes: 1.It charts a path
through all the necessary subjective assessments. These assessments, by
nature, require far more teacher input than traditional testing; 2.It
documents the student's score, in case there is question about it later.
Because the scoring is so subjective, it requires much more documentation
than the traditional test scores; 3.It documents that the teacher is using
the state-mandated curriculum, teaching methods, and rubric scoring method.
In other words, the documentation is a way to monitor teachers, to see if
they are abiding by the state's demands. These requirements are also backed
by new teacher licensing rules, which grant to the government new means to
filter out resistant teachers. Once again, the new system has predominantly
political goals, and has the means to filter out those who resist, whether
teacher or student.
Teachers rightly object to the excessive paperwork, especially since it
adds little value to real education. To gain support, proponents promise to
tweak the system to require somewhat less paperwork. But that is an
illusion, because excessive documentation requirements are foundational, and
inevitable, in the new system.
Indoctrination and filtering:
The new system politically indoctrinates our children:
The founders of our country saw that a well educated citizenry is essential
to preserving Liberty. Yet they also knew that education ought not be
centrally controlled. For no matter who is in power, those persons will
inevitably impose their particular propaganda onto the schools. For this
reason, the federal government was forbidden (by the Tenth Amendment) from
involving itself in education. Rather, the fifty separate states (not the
federal government) had to assure some means of education, and the control
of education was left strictly to local school districts. In this way
parents could exert an effective influence on what and how their children
are taught. If worse came to worse, they could always 'vote with their feet,
' and move to a different district. In this way, no central authority could
easily use schools for indoctrination. The new system casts all those
warnings aside, and immediately shows its politics within state-required
performance packages:
The New System:
De-emphasizes--- Emphasizes
U.S. Constitution Global government
Constitutionally limited government Centralized control
National sovereignty Government controlled economy
The foundations of our independence Collective rights:
De-centralized Control Group Rights.
Free-market economy Collective Rights.
De-centralized Rights Government Rights.
Rights of the 50 States Group:
Individual rights Group consensus
Private property rights Group responsibility
Privacy rights Group identity
Individual: Dependency
Individual thinking, Subjectivity and Opinion
Individual responsibility History by opinion
Individual identity Multiculturalism & diversity training
Self - reliance Radical environmentalism
Objective truth and knowledge Militant feminism
Factual History Homosexual rights
Unity Alternative lifestyles
Controversial values on sex-ed
These various political themes are not taught once. Rather, they tend to be
dispersed throughout all the course content, giving them a repetition into
each learning area. (This is allowed because the learning areas are now
defined in a vague and ambiguous manner.) For example, multiculturalism and
diversity training are infused into the math curriculum, as well as the
other subjects. (More) Also, the system minimizes classroom instruction (in
which the teacher has some say), and mandates state-prescribed materials.
This gives the state tight control over its political indoctrination in the
schools.
The issue is not whether you agree or disagree with the above political
views. The issue is that centralized control of education is unwise. It is
dangerous for one centralized authority to impel its views onto all public
schools. Such decisions are better made by parents through locally-elected
school boards. We must reject state-controlled education for the same
reasons we reject state-controlled religion.
Group-thinking and filtering of students:
The new system requires students to work within groups, where they 'learn'
together or teach each other. The ignorant - teach the ignorant - no doubt,
in a social way. This mandate is abundant. The better students are required
to 'share' their work with group-mates, who then tend to receive the same
score for it. This is yet another way the Profile equalizes outcomes. The
good student is punished, the bad student is rewarded. But such repeatedly
coerced 'sharing' is not the real thing, it does not cause genuine
compassion. Rather, it is indoctrination into habitual acceptance of having
one's work-product arbitrarily re-distributed. It is also indoctrination
into group-identity and relying on others, rather than on personal
responsibility. Through the years, the system repeatedly and permanently
scores students on their behavioral adherence to this indoctrination. This
score is not given separately, say, as a score on 'group-behavior.' Instead
it is repeatedly melded with other scores (such as the student's math score,
and English score, etc.) in a manner that cannot be easily separated later.
In other words, the system indoctrinates and filters, so as to advance those
students whose behavior conforms to a particular ideology.
Dependency:
The new system has students make many excursions to various government
offices and outlets, to see and experience for themselves. It has students
closely experience an abundance of seemingly "free" services given with no
negative stigma attached. This amounts to a highly seductive advertisement
for the benefits of becoming dependent on government. Rather than teaching
honest self-reliance, the system seduces our children into dependency.
Cat and Mouse:
MrEdCo was at the forefront of exposing the political nature of the
performance packages. In response, the DCFL began re-writing the performance
packages, to slightly reduce its propaganda and help put the new system over
on the public. Thus began a game of cat and mouse, where the DCFL re-wrote
and re-issued its material, all the while claiming they were not mandating a
particular course content. The ever-changing performance packages made a
moving target. The performance packages (especially in their originally
published form) are a monument to why centralized control ought not be
allowed. Such evasive action is predictable, for the time-being. However,
after the centralized-control is consolidated, a propagandized education is
inevitable.
It delivers a dumbed-down education:
At every turn the new system sacrifices academic excellence, in favor of
various political goals (such as equalizing outcomes, subjectivity, and the
political indoctrination and filtering of students. It is no surprise that
education suffers. To make-up for the lower education, the system aims to
narrow the education more toward job skills and vocation. Many people even
hail that as an "improvement," which only shows how far down our education
system has fallen. Indeed, training for a job is the lowest goal an
education system can shoot for, not the best goal. It is unsuitable for
keeping a nation free. Silently, everywhere, Liberty is assaulted by the new
system.
Maple River Education Coalition PAC 1402 Concordia Avenue St. Paul, MN
55104. 651-646-0646. http://MrEdCoPAC.org
February 10, 2000...
Public Collection of Private Data on Students:
Does Minnesota Law allow the DCFL to collect data on your child and place
it in an electronic file and share it with "Stakeholders"?
Following are many government sources that answer, "Yes!" Remember: There
is no state law that restricts the type of data that can be collected on
your child or limits the use of it by the Department of Children, Families,
& Learning. (The DCFL also oversees the entire School-to-Work system in
Minnesota and sixteen other agencies including the Department of
Corrections, Human Services, and Economic Security, so it has a wealth of
areas from which to collect data on you and your child.):
1) From Lifework Planning, document from the Minn. DCFL. The plan is
all-inclusive, invasive into personal matters, and mandatory:
"A lifework plan is a personal information system. It is a
personal plan for the future that takes account of work and other aspects of
a person's life." "A lifework plan should: cover all areas of the learner's
life.... take account of a behaviors and skills.... reflect on the learner's
dreams and ideals...include a record of the past as well as plans for both
the short term and long term future." "Beginning at age 14, every student
must have a written plan for transition that address long and short term
goals and activities in five areas: employment, post-secondary education,
home living, community participation and recreation - leisure." (from pages
B-3 through B-11, Lifework Planning, document from the Minn. DCFL).
Employers cannot ask for that information in job interviews, yet the
schools will now collect it for them.
2) From the 2000 School-to-Work Conference: "Electronic Career
ortfolio - Kathy Bartsias and Rose Marsh, Duluth Public Schools. Looking
for a way to record student's career exploration activities starting with
kindergartners? Then this session is for you. We have developed an
electronic career portfolio, career exploration and information center. A
program that students (K-12), teachers and parents can use to explore and
store student personal information, plus a link to vast information on the
Web. The program can be personalized and adapted to meet your school needs.
The Program can run on one machine, networked or web based." (From a
description of a breakout session at the 2000 School-to-Work Conference,
January 20-21, 2000 in Bloomington, MN. Approximately 500 people attended,
most of them public school teachers.)
3) From Minn. STW Initiative Grant Application to obtain federal STW funds:
"Individualized Lifework Planning and Guidance - All Minnesota learners will
develop a lifework plan which will be included as one component of the
stated Profile of Learning.... The lifework plan includes the following
components:
Learners demonstrated mastery of academic and work skills (a portfolio of
the learners progress);
Special accommodations and/or services a learner may require to
successfully achieve educational and career goals;
A cumulative history of the practical knowledge learners gain in relation
to applied learning and work-based experiences." (pg 20).
4) From the MN Goals 2000 Technology Plan: "To receive a diploma a
student must produce a record of work in a number of content standards.
This record will show a student's achievement in relation to the high
standards. (Profile of Learning].... The purpose of this record is to inform
students, parents, teachers and related services personnel about the
progress of all students. In addition, the record is intended to
communicate student achievement to future employers."
5) From Making Connections: School-to-Work Resource Guide. "The main
priority is to validate performance standards by linking both hiring
decisions and entry into post secondary education to records of student
achievement that make sense to teachers, families and employers." (Making
Connections: School-to-Work Resource Guide, page 21). "The main priority
is" the data record on each student, and its centrality to the state's
goals. By this means the state intends to make its so-called "performance
standards" the centerpiece of hiring and schooling decisions - effectively
to the exclusion of traditional academic standards. Keep in mind that these
records will contain highly personal data, far more invasive than the
traditional academic grades and grade-point averages.
6) Minnesota's Basic Skills Writing Test given to students in January,
2000, asked the following essay question:
"Your teacher has asked you to write about one thing you would like to
change about yourself. Name one thing about yourself and give specific
reasons why you would like to change it. Give enough details so your
teacher will understand your ideas."
This is an invasion of student's personal beliefs, attitudes, and world
views, but flows easily from the new state/school posture toward privacy.
7) From Rules Governing Teacher Licensing: Teacher certification and
license renewal requires teachers to have students do "self-assessments",
and teachers must include attention to a "student's personal family and
community experiences".
"The teacher must. bring multiple perspectives to the discussion of subject
matter, including attention to a student's personal family, and community
experiences and cultural norms." (Standard 2: Student Learning, Subp. 4).
"The teacher must. use varied and appropriate formal and informal
assessment techniques including observation, portfolios of student work,
teacher-made tests, performance tasks, projects, student self-assessments,
peer assessment, and standardized tests." (Standard 3: Diverse Learners,
Subp. 9).
8) Especially see our discussion of the Minnesota Statutes:
Worse for the poor. Many types of knowledge are absorbed directly from one
's parents, vocabulary being a profound example. For poor children, a
teacher is often their only role model for hearing and learning a wide
vocabulary. The new system, however, strongly de-emphasizes classroom
instruction by the teacher, thereby reducing this opportunity to absorb the
teacher's vocabulary. This especially hurts the poor. It robs poor children
of their major opportunity for building vocabulary. This loss of vocabulary
among the poor is especially strong and demonstrable under the new system.
The new system is needlessly costly. The new system is
"performance-based" - it heavily emphasizes projects, tasks, and activities
other than traditional classroom instruction. That increases costs in the
following ways:
1.Projects and tasks (called performance-packages) are assigned to
students, who must complete these typically in small groups. The projects
mandate a large increase in time spent doing out-of-classroom activities,
such as excursions to local authorities, facilities, and job-sites. Because
of the nature and variety of the projects, the excursions are typically not
60 students on a school-bus, rather it is a few students in a car driven by
a parent or student. This adds extra transportation and liability costs,
currently born by the family.
2.The projects require extra materials and supplies beyond the traditional
teaching methods. These vary from special construction materials, all the
way up to electronic components. These material costs are currently born by
the family.
3.The projects are commonly done outside the classroom, and many parents
help with the projects at home. Proponents hail this parental involvement as
a good thing - "more homework and more parental involvement," a "toughening
up" of education, a "nurturing of family involvement." Indeed, that would be
a good thing, except the projects are so non-academic, menial, and
task-oriented. In effect, another chore to be done, but with a dubious value
to education.
4.The new system strongly de-emphasizes classroom instruction (and compels
teachers to focus on the worst students), thus the job of teaching is subtly
off-loaded onto parents. (Notice the explosive growth of Sylvan Learning
Centers and similar tutorial aids in recent years, as parents attempt to
compensate for a failing school system. There has been a simultaneous rise
in private- and home-schooling for similar reasons.) This again is a special
burden on the poor who have little means to cope with it.
5.The various workforce boards and layers of controlling agencies add a
huge extra cost for the new system.
It puts the poor at a special disadvantage. The poor frequently cannot
bear the above costs (the transportation, the supplies, the tutors, or the
extra-time doing education chores with their child). This is a recurring
theme under the new education system - as the system fails, it fails
especially badly for the poor. Also, the new system is performance-based
where much of the "performance" occurs outside the classroom. Therefore it
operates like a take-home test, where the real work can be done by parents
and hired tutors. This again puts the poor at a special disadvantage.
Costs are concealed. The above costs are not tallied onto the public
ledger books. That makes the new system falsely appear less costly than it
actually is. Compared with traditional teaching methods, the new system
delivers a dumbed-down education at a high cost.
The system also penalizes the poor in other ways. Parents are brushed
aside. The new system brushes parents aside, and makes them subservient
"stakeholders" in their own child's education. In a new role reversal, the
system holds parents accountable to the state, for meeting the state's
demands. The system increasingly makes decisions about your child's
education, and your child's medical, "mental," and sexual health, while
keeping extremely personal information about the student and family, and
withholding from parents certain information about the child.
The new system increasingly assumes a staunch authoritarian control over
your child. (See a vivid example below.)
Maple River Education Coalition PAC 1402 Concordia Avenue St. Paul, MN
55104 651-646-0646. http://MrEdCoPAC.org
EXAMPLE: School District lawyers play hard-ball with Texas parents. It's
a foreboding tale of governmental abuse of power.
Parents in the Dallas suburb of Plano, Texas have gone to court over an
issue involving mandated "Connected Math" in the Plano school system. The
"Connected Math" program failed in pilot programs in California, and more
than 200 math experts and three Nobel laureates protested the U.S.
Department of Education's decision to place it on a list of "exemplary
programs."
The Plano parents want their children out of this program. That should end
the matter. It's as simple as 2 plus 2. But that's where the story takes a
dreadful twist. The Plano School District - emboldened by the new education
mandates from the state and federal level -is fighting the parents in court,
and it's using a nasty bag of tricks. The School District shows no interest
in a voluntary mediated settlement, thus forcing the matter into court. The
Plano parents filed suit in federal court in August. The parents want the
matter settled before the 2000-2001 school year begins this coming fall. In
response, the Plano School District lawyers [paid by these same taxpayers
by way of taxes. CLMsr] successfully used delaying maneuvers, setting back
the court date until November 6, 2000, long after parents and students must
sign up for a year's enrollment.
The School District also has refused to agree to a class-action
certification for the more than 600 parents who signed a petition. This
would add extra costs to the parents, because each case would have to be
tried separately. Each parent would have to get their own attorney at their
own expense. While the School District costs are at the taxpayer's expense.
This "divide and conquer" strategy is sometimes attempted in product
liability cases, from the Ford Pinto gas tank, to tobacco. But here it is
used by a tax-funded governmental body against its own citizens. Parents
also say their free speech rights were violated when the district refused to
let parents distribute literature opposing the curriculum in the same public
meetings where the district distributed its material in favor of its
program.
For more details see the article at CNSNews.com: Plano Parents Litigate to
Disconnect from "Connected Math"
The Plano parents formed a non-profit organization called Plano Parental
Rights Council, and has applied for IRS 501(c)3 status. Here is what they
say about "Connected Math". Also, see their March 13 Press Release. Prof.
James Milgram of Stanford has a report on the Connected Math Program (CMP).
He says, "I would like to think my review of CMP is unbiased. There are
some strengths in the program and there are some traditional programs which
are worse. But by and large, the further you get into CMP the more
problematic it becomes. The early sixth grade books are generally not too
bad, but by the time one is doing the late seventh and eighth grade books
the program is seriously flawed and the level is, at best, strongly
remedial. My report points out a number of problems with the program, some
of which are very serious."
Illusions and misleading words. The new system is promoted in misleading
ways. The following gives our experience here in Minnesota, though the
situation is similar in other states.
The Myth of "High Standards". Proponents of the new system say they are
for "High Standards," and demagogue their opponents (us) as being "against
High Standards for our kids." Over and over they repeat these phrases. Even
the media picked up this infuriating misuse of words. Unfortunately, it is
effective at swaying an unwary public. The new system is not merely a
"standard," and when viewed as a standard it is an exceedingly low one:
1.The new system compels teachers to use a specific (and bad)
government-mandated teaching method. The legislation is worded to create the
pleasant illusion that other teaching methods are 'allowed,' 'not forbidden,
' and that teachers have 'options.' But that is scarcely how it works in
practice. The "standard" is not merely a one-day test to see if students are
measuring up. Instead it is a lengthy, time-consuming assessment process
based on performance packages that use up the student's time. That
effectively excludes the traditional teaching methods -but without the
legislation actually saying so. In this way, the legislation creates the
illusion there are options when there aren't. When that is pointed out,
there are frequent denials from proponents (and Minnesota's DCFL).
2.The new system compels the use of government-controlled course content.
This is done through the prescribed performance packages. Once again this
results in denials from proponents, who claim it is only "High Standards,"
and "the state is not dictating curriculum."
3.The new system compels the use of a government-mandated (and bad)
measure of "success", where teachers are to be measured by the performance
of their worst students. When this is forced upon teachers it has nasty
implications for education. The system works the opposite of how the public
has been led to believe.
Phony Options - local districts can 'opt' to raise the standard. The new
system gives local districts the "option to raise the standard higher" - so
long as the nature of the standard is not altered in the slightest. This
creates the impression of options, freedom, and local control, which has
been widely advertised in the media. There is an old joke about Army food:
Army food tastes just like horse-poop - but they make up for it by allowing
ALL YOU CAN EAT! It is the same with Minnesota's "High Standards." It is a
bad way to teach and measure success, and it would be the rare district
indeed that would opt to mandate more of it. The "option" is
pleasant-sounding nonsense.
The Myth of "Local control". Minnesota's DCFL allows local performance
packages, which are created in local school districts. This formally creates
the illusion of "options and local control." But that route is rarely
taken, because of the development costs and requirements imposed by the
DCFL. Moreover, at any time the DCFL can completely control the local
performance packages - the course content - by law.
Shills and figure-heads. Support for the new system generally does not
come from parents, students, or teachers - the people who must live under
it. Rather, the support tends to be artificially manufactured, and does not
represent the general public. Support comes from various government
agencies, administrators, and appointees whose job is to sell the new
system, in other words, our tax dollars are being used to sell this awful
system to us. We have seen the creation of a number of private
organizations that support the new system, but which have little or no
membership and hold no regular meetings. They seem to be shill
organizations whose major purpose is to create the illusion of general
public support for the new system.
One example is M.I.S.S.L.E. (Minnesota Initiative Supporting
Standards-based Learning & Education), as best we can tell, it is one
person.
The teacher's union leadership [totally controlled by the Socialist Party
of America. CLMsr] tends to support the new system. This is contrary to
polls showing that rank-and-file teachers strongly oppose the new system,
especially after they understand it. (Note: Teacher opposition is being
muzzled somewhat by threats that teacher's who do not fully implement the
new system will not have their license renewed. This is allowed under the
new teacher licensing rules.)
Some businesses favor the new system, because they stand to gain in a
perverse way. Businesses in each region are being promised a controlling
interest on the workforce boards that determine how that region's children
will (and will not) be educated. In this way, local businesses will get
worker-bees narrowly educated for local business needs. Local businesses
will get cheap labor trained for doing local jobs -and no other. Our
children will become subservient serfs, immobilized by their narrow
education - stuck - unable to change careers except by difficulty (and by
explicit permission for re-education from the government). Because they are
stuck, they will have to accept low pay, which is precisely why some
businesses favor it. Again we say, this system is unsuitable for a free
people.
MYTH: The feds aren't controlling education in our state! For several
years MrEdCo has warned that Minnesota's new education system is being
driven and controlled from the federal level. It has also been infuriating
for us to watch government committee meetings where legislators and DCFL
officials repeatedly denied this, and called us uninformed. On November 8,
2000 - the day after the year-2000 elections - every public school
superintendent in Minnesota received a letter from the DCFL, stating that
Minnesota schools must use the Profile of Learning, or lose all their
federal education funding. Subsequent testimony by the DCFL showed they were
aware of this key requirement since 1995!
Moreover, in the year-2000, the Minnesota legislature attempted to "fix the
Profile" by allowing teachers in each school district to vote on whether the
Profile would be used in their district. This again created the illusion
that local districts had an "option." Again MrEdCo warned that the option
was phony, and that school districts would risk losing federal funding.
Meanwhile the DCFL again failed to clarify the picture for legislators or
the public. Many legislators believed they were creating a true "option" for
localities to not use the Profile, and that is how the media reported it.
Under the year-2000 law, teachers in a number of school districts voted to
dump the Profile, and were then instructed by the DCFL to reconsider ... or
lose federal funding. Teachers were faced with the predicament of
financially slitting their own throats. When teachers buckled-under to this
naked coercion, it was mis-portrayed to the public that the teachers were
freely "choosing" to use the Profile. (There was also the impending threat
of not renewing teaching licenses for teachers who fail to implement the
Profile.) The public was falsely led to believe that teachers favor the new
system. Such is how coercion is used for political ends.
The Delphi Technique. The Dephi Technique is used by central planners to
create the illusion of general consensus in decision making, when the
outcome was pre-determined by the central planners all along. It creates the
illusion that the public participated in the decision making process. It has
even been used here in Saint Paul to further the radical education reform.
MYTH: Teachers and schools will be "held accountable". Many conservatives
and liberals praise the new system because teachers and schools "will be
held accountable." But that wording gives a false impression, by omitting
the key point. Teachers and schools will be "held accountable" - not to
parents and students - but to the government. Teachers will be held
accountable to the state by means of new teacher licensing rules, which
compel teachers to use:
the government mandated OBE teaching method;
the government mandated curriculum (with its political indoctrination);
the government mandated (and bad) way of measuring success;
the government mandated rubric scoring method;
In Minnesota, all of that is known as the Profile of Learning. If a
teacher fails to employ those, then his or her teaching license will not be
renewed. This is a tool for forcing teachers to comply with the government
imposed political agenda in schools, it has little to do with eliminating
bad teachers. On the contrary, if a teacher complies with these government
mandates, then (together with the [Socialist . CLMsr] teacher's union)
it is nearly impossible to remove a bad teacher. "Accountability" in the new
system is merely a code-word for centralized government control.
Hide the Ball. Proponents of the new system play 'hide the ball' with the
public. They often counter opponents by saying, "The legislation on the
Profile of Learning says no such thing!" and that sounds like a definitive
rebuttal to any criticism. In our experience, that is nothing more than a
tedious technical run-around, whose sole purpose is to tire you out. Because
the key detail may be found in Minnesota's contract with the federal
government (not any particular legislation), or in the School-to-Work
legislation (not the Profile of Learning legislation), or in a particular
agency. And so forth. The new system is so huge and entangled in various
bills, contracts, agencies, and delegated rule-making authority, that few
mortals can comprehend all its legalistic minutiae. So do not be overly
concerned with the technical details, and do not be side-tracked by their
tedious game of 'hide the ball.'
The new system is being installed in many different pieces - like jig-saw
puzzle parts -and few people saw the big picture. Stealth and confusion
provided cover. So focus first on understanding the big picture!
Changing the terminology. MrEdCo warned that School-to-Work is being built
into Minnesota's education system. In response, the legislature passed
legislation to change all occurrences in Minnesota statute of the words
"School-to-Work" to "Career and technical." With this simple wording change
in place, some legislators boldly (and others naively) claimed that
Minnesota is not implementing a School-to-Work system. Despite the facile
wording change, all the legislation for School-to-Work is still in place.
"Best practices". The new system often uses "best practices" (their words)
rather than proven practices. That is because the system is unproven, and
driven instead by philosophical and political goals that the government
defines as "best."
Difficult to escape. The system is designed to be difficult to escape, as
it affects all public schools in the U.S. Previously, if families disliked a
school's policies, they could always 'vote with their feet' by moving. That
will no longer be an escape. The only escape is home-schooling or private
schooling, and those involve real hardship and financial penalty. Those
routes penalize the student in additional ways too, as the new system will
affect access to jobs and higher-education in what its proponents call "a
seamless web" of governmental control. The new system is virtually
inescapable, and about as desirable as a straightjacket.
The Concealment of Taxation. The new system conceals its higher costs
from voters. The taxation needed to run a big centralized government is so
high that citizens would not stand for it, if they knew. Such governments
resort to the concealment of taxation - how to conceal taxation and keep
citizens in the dark. This is increasingly accomplished by taxing
businesses, and by un-funded mandates on businesses. As a simple example,
ask most employees what their FICA tax is, and they will say "seven and a
half percent," when the actual figure is more than twice as high. This is
because most employees are unaware that the employer invisibly takes an
additional tax amount from the employee.
When Minnesota legislators moved to tax your healthcare, they taxed - not
you - but health care providers. This way you pay the tax, but you scarcely
know how much it is. It does not appear on your tax statements. Likewise,
at the core of new government enacted methods of land control are ways to
shift the costs onto you, without you knowing how much. It merely shows up
as higher building and housing costs.
The concealment of taxation now affects most aspects of our lives:
telephone, gas and electricity, auto insurance, healthcare, land, and
housing. It is high taxes directly on businesses, and un-funded mandates
that businesses are compelled to provide. Whenever you hear the term "cost
shifting" it is typically another word for concealment of taxation.
The new system aims to extend that technique to education - including after
high-school gradation and professional education. It aims to takeover all
education, and pay for it through higher taxes on businesses. The goal is to
wrest control of your education away from you, conceal the costs, and make
your education seem "free." That is how the new system cultivates support
from voters.
In turn, the support of businesses is cultivated by promising them a
substantial controlling interest on the workforce boards that decide the
type of education our children will be corralled into.
It is a bad way to govern..
Centralized control is a bad way to govern. It concentrates decisions at
the top, among officials who are most distant from you and your family. They
cannot possibly know your family's situation or love your children as much
as you do. They cannot take care of you more efficiently than you can.
Also, your single vote cannot communicate your views on life's many diverse
issues - foreign policy, the military, abortion, healthcare, and education,
to name just a few. Once government-control gets too centralized, it takes
on a life of its own, largely separated from the will of the people. Your
single vote is too blunt an instrument to affect government in all the many
ways you would like. So you become effectively powerless over your most
personal decisions in life, and over how your tax money is used.
As a simple example: Electing a different U.S. Senator is a stupid way to
choose your child's education.
But it is worse than that. Centralized government offloads much of the key
decision-making to various agencies and appointed officials. Your elected
representatives do not vote on the tough decisions, so they cannot be held
accountable to voters. Meanwhile the appointed officials are quite immune to
your vote. The new system is also designed so it can fund money from the
federal level directly to a local agencies or schools -thereby bypassing any
uncooperative state legislatures and elected school boards! Also, the
various federal controlling boards must "report" to Congress, but by law are
explicitly immune from control or oversight by Congress, the President and
the executive branch.
In these ways the system insulates itself from voters. Under the new
system, teachers are accountable - not to local parents - but to distant,
appointed, un-elected, state and federal officials. This is not an accident,
the system is designed to isolate parents away from the system. The reason
is simple. Once parents understand the new system, they will be furious, and
the system is designed to prevent parents from re-asserting their control
in any effective way.
Do not be consoled that those appointed officials are "also parents, just
like you are." They typically have their children in private schools. Also,
they attain their appointed position through their abiding loyalty to
centralized government control. They believe they can better solve your
problems. But they view the education of your children differently than you
do. They see your children literally as "human resources" - resources like
coal or petroleum - to be developed by the state, to serve a function in
some job, for the state's ends. It is of low concern to them whether your
child gets the education needed to remain free. Under the new system,
Liberty gets last place.
Lastly, centralized control is more prone to corruption, and it effects are
more lasting, widespread, and dismal. Under the new system, the government
will have extensive permanent records on you and your children, including
personal goals and family background, a complete service record (including
the organizations your child donates time to), health records, the slightest
perceived "mental" problems, and how well your child accepted the
state-mandated beliefs and values. Government-run agencies will also
determine who gets what education. This gives the government incredible
coercive power over any individual. If history is any clue, that is
exceedingly dangerous.
029.0.1.2 # 11 End.
"I do verily believe that a single, consolidated government would become the
most corrupt government on earth." Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the
argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt speech to the
House of Commons.
"You shall have one world government, whether or not you like it, by consent
or by conquest." Former FDR aide, James Warburg CFR/TC, in testimony before
the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 17 Feb 1950.