The following are a set of excerpts from the ebook ‘The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America’ by Charlotte Iserbyt available free at http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/index.html
. ‘Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the U.S. Department of Education, blew the whistle in the `80s on government activities withheld from the public.’ I know it's long, but hey it's not the 700 pages the ebook is...(A teacher might even read it!) I specifically searched for references to Rockefeller, as this is a particular issue in the UK now, the ‘Institute for Philanthropy’ in London being an offshoot of the Rockefeller Foundation, where those who sponsor schools are being trained. I also suggest you watch: Who controls your children? http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... 09&q=who+c
ontrols+your+children&total=137&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plinde x=9 Also, The E-Files: The Truth About Education www.e-files.org
is very informative.
1874 As briefly stated by Thorndike himself, psychology was the “science of the intellect, character, and behavior of animals, including man.” To further excerpt The Leipzig Connection’s excellent treatment of Thorndike’s background:
Thorndike was the first psychologist to study animal behavior in an experimental psychology laboratory and (following Cattell’s suggestion) apply the same techniques to children and youth; as one result, in 1903, he published the book Educational Psychology. In the following years he published a total of 507 books, monographs, and articles. Thorndike’s primary assumption was the same as Wundt’s: that man is an animal, that his actions are actually always reactions, and that he can be studied in the laboratory in much the same way as an animal might be studied. Thorndike equated children with the rats, monkeys, fish, cats, and chickens upon which he experimented in his laboratory and was prepared to apply what he found there to learning in the classroom. He extrapolated “laws” from his research into animal behavior which he then applied to the training of teachers, who took what they had learned to every corner of the United States and ran their classrooms, curricula, and schools, on the basis of this new “educational” psychology. In The Principles of Teaching Based on Psychology (1906), Thorndike proposed making “the study of teaching scientific and practical.” Thorndike’s definition of the art of teaching is
the art of giving and withholding stimuli with the result of producing or preventing certain responses. In this definition the term stimulus is used widely for any event which influences a person—for a word spoken to him, a look, a sentence which he reads, the air he breathes, etc., etc. The term response is used for any reaction made by him—a new thought, a feeling of interest, a bodily act, any mental or bodily condition resulting from the stimulus. The aim of the teacher is to produce desirable and prevent undesirable changes in human beings by producing and preventing certain responses. The means at the disposal of the teacher are the stimuli which can be brought to bear upon the pupil—the teacher’s words, gestures, and appearance, the condition and appliances of the school room, the books to be used and objects to be seen, and so on through a long list of the things and events which the teacher can control
1896 PSYCHOLOGY by John Dewey, the father of 'progressive education' was published. (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1896). This was the first American textbook on the “revised” subject of education. Psychology would become the most widely-read and quoted textbook used in schools of education in this country. Just prior to the publication of his landmark book, Dewey had joined the faculty of the Rockefeller-endowed University of Chicago as head of the combined departments of philosophy, psychology and pedagogy (teaching). In that same year, 1895, the university allocated $1,000 to establish a laboratory in which Dewey could apply psychological principles and experimental techniques to the study of learning. The laboratory opened in January 1896 as the Dewey School, later to become known as The University of Chicago Laboratory School. Dewey thought of the school as a place where
his theories of education could be put into practice, tested, and scientifically evaluated….…Dewey… sought to apply the doctrines of experience and experiment to everyday life and, hence, to education... seeking via this model institution to pave the way for the “schools of the future.” There he had put into actual practice three of the revolutionary beliefs he had culled from the new psychology: that to put the child in possession of his fullest talents, education should be active rather than passive; that to prepare the child for a democratic society, the school should be social rather than individualist; and that to enable the child to think creatively, experimentation rather than imitation should be encouraged.
20th Century: Seventy years later, the carefully laid plans to change America from a sovereign, constitutional republic with a free enterprise economic base to just one of many nations in an international socialist (collectivist) system (New World Order) are apparent. Only a dumbed down population, with no memory of America’s roots as a prideful nation, could be expected to willingly succumb to the global workforce training planned by the Carnegie Corporation and the John D. Rockefellers, I and II, in the early twentieth century which is being implemented by the United States Congress in the year 1999.
1902 THE GENERAL EDUCATION BOARD (GEB) WAS INCORPORATED BY AN ACT OF THE UNITED States Congress. Approved January 12, 1902, the General Education Board was endowed by Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Sr., for the purpose of establishing an educational laboratory to experiment with early innovations in education.
1913 JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER, JR.’S DIRECTOR OF CHARITY FOR THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION, Frederick T. Gates, set up the Southern Education Board (SEB), which was later incorporated into the General Education Board (GEB) in 1913, setting in motion “the deliberate dumbing down of America.” The Country School of Tomorrow: Occasional Papers No. 1 (General EducationBoard: New York, 1913) written by Frederick T. Gates contained a section entitled “A Vision of the Remedy” in which he wrote the following:
Is there aught of remedy for this neglect of rural life? Let us, at least, yield ourselves to the gratifications of a beautiful dream that there is. In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of science. We are not to raise up from among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply.
1914 A RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE NORMAL SCHOOL SECTION OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOciation at its annual meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota in the year 1914. An excerpt follows:
We view with alarm the activity of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations—agencies not in any way responsible to the people—in their efforts to control the policies of our State educational institutions, to fashion after their conception and to standardize our courses of study, and to surround the institutions with conditions which menace true academic freedom and defeat the primary purpose of democracy as heretofore preserved inviolate in our common schools, normal schools, and universities.
1918 CARNEGIE AND ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATIONS PLANNED THE DEMISE OF TRADITIONAL ACADEMIC education in 1918. Rockefeller’s focus would be national education; Carnegie would be in charge of international education.
1921 The late Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University described the CFR as “a front for J.P Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group.” Quigley further commented:
The board of the CFR have carried ever since the marks of their origin…. There grew up in the 20th century a power structure between London and New York which penetrated deeply into university life, the press, and the practice of foreign policy…. The American branch of this “English Establishment” exerted much of its influence through five American newspapers (New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, Washington Post, and the late lamented Boston Evening Transcript).
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., penned a tome entitled A Thousand Days in 1965 in which he wrote that
the New York financial and legal community was the heart of the American establishment….Its front organizations [were] the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations.
ON DECEMBER 15, 1922 THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ENDORSED WORLD GOVERNment.
THE INTERNATIONAL BUREAU OF EDUCATION, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE INSTITUTE JEAN-Jacques Rousseau, was established in 1925 with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. The Bureau became part of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
1932 PRESIDENT HERBERT HOOVER APPOINTED A RESEARCH COMMITTEE ON RECENT SOCIAL TRENDS to implement the planned society in 1932. (In 1919 Franklin Roosevelt had told a friend that he personally would like to see Hoover in the White House.) The Research Committee was not approved nor funded by Congress; it became an Executive Action and was underwritten by the Rockefeller Foundation. No report was made to Congress or to the people during the time it functioned. The work of that committee has been called “a monumental achievement by the largest community of social scientists ever assembled to assess the social condition of a nation.”
1948 To prove the march toward sexual revolution had, indeed, reached the courts, Reisman further quotes Manfred S. Guttmacher, M.D., author of The Role of Psychiatry and Law (Charles C. Thomas: Springfield, Ill., 1968) and special consultant to the American Law Institute Model Penal Code Committee:
In 1950 the American Law Institute began the monumental task of writing a Model Penal Code. I am told that a quarter of a century earlier the Institute had approached the Rockefeller Foundation for the funds needed to carry out this project, but at that time, Dr. Alan Gregg, man of great wisdom, counseled the Foundation to wait, that the behavioral sciences were on the threshold of development to the point at which they could be of great assistance. Apparently, the Institute concluded that the time has arrived.
1953 After the war, the Carnegie Endowment trustees reasoned that if they could get control of education in the United States they would be able to prevent a return to the way of life as it had been prior to the war. They recruited the Rockefeller Foundation to assist in such a monumental task. According to Dodd’s Reece Committee report: “They divided the task in parts, giving to the Rockefeller Foundation the responsibility of altering education as it pertains to domestic subjects, but Carnegie retained the task of altering our education in foreign affairs and about international relations.”
1953 ALFRED C. KINSEY, ALONG WITH WARDELL POMEROY, CLYDE MARTIN, AND PAUL GEBHARD, published Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (W.B. Saunders: Philadelphia, Pa., 1953). According to Professor David Allyn, lecturer in the Department of History at Princeton
University, this book, along with Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, served to solidify the move which changed the way social scientists studied sexuality by breaking from the accepted social hygienic, psychoanalytic, psychiatric and physiological approaches.... [Kinsey’s work] played [a] critical role in the mid-century privatization of morality. In the post-WWII era, experts abandoned the concept of “public morals,” a concept which had underpinned the social control of American sexuality from the 1870’s onward…. In the 1950’s and 60’s, however, sexual morality was privatized, and the state-controlled, highly regulated moral
economy of the past gave way to a new, “deregulated” moral market.... Kinsey’s [work] argued against government interference in private life.
[Ed. Note: The above statement by Allyn was made during a presentation entitled “Private Acts/Public Policy: Alfred Kinsey, the American Law Institute and the Privatization of American Sexual Morality” at the 1995 Chevron Conference on the History of the Behavioral and Social Sciences as part of a special symposium on Alfred Kinsey. Allyn acknowledged the
Charles Warren Center at Harvard University and the Rockefeller Archive Center as providing grants which made his research possible.]
1976 TODAY’S EDUCATION, THE JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, CARRIED an article in the September–October 1976 edition entitled “The Seven Cardinal Principles Revisited.” On page 1 this article stated that:
In 1972, the NEA established a Bicentennial Committee charged with developing a “living commemoration of the principles of the American Revolution.” This 200th anniversary celebration of the Declaration of Independence was to focus on the next 100 years of education in an interdependent global community. The initial work of the Committee culminated in the NEA Bicentennial Idea Book. Among its ideas was that of developing a definitive volume to “contain a reframing of the Cardinal Principles of Education and recommendations for a global curriculum.” After recognizing the importance of the original Cardinal Principles, which were published in 1918, the Committee made the point that “today, those policy statements about education are obsolete, education taken as a whole is not adequate to the times and too seldom anticipates the future.” A report to be issued by the NEA, proposing cardinal premises for the twenty-first century is the direct and immediate outgrowth of the
Bicentennial Committee’s belief that “educators around the world are in a unique position to bring about a harmoniously interdependent global community based on the principles of peace and justice….” Early in September 1975, a 19-member Preplanning Committee began the task of recasting the seven Cardinal Principles of Education by developing 25 guidelines for the project.
[Ed. Note: Members of the Preplanning Committee read like a “Who’s Who of Leading Globalists.” It included: former Secretary of Education T.H. Bell, “Mr. Management-by-Objectives,” who was responsible for the grant to William Spady of the Far West Laboratory to pilot OBE (Outcomes -Based Education) in Utah, with plans to “put OBE in all schools of the nation”; Professor Luvern Cunningham, Ohio State University, who subsequently served as advisor to the Kentucky Department of Education during its education restructuring in the 1990s; Willis Harman, Stanford Research Institute; Robert Havighurst, University of Chicago; Theodore Hesburgh, University of Notre Dame; Ralph Tyler, Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Science; Professor Theodore Sizer, Coalition for Essential Schools, which calls for a “less is more” curriculum and removal of graduation standards (the Carnegie Unit); David Rockefeller; Professor Benjamin Bloom, father of Mastery Learning (the international learning method); the late McGeorge Bundy of the Ford Foundation; and others.]
1981 A STUDY OF SCHOOLING IN THE UNITED STATES BY JOHN GOODLAD, PH.D., DEAN OF THE Graduate School of Education, University of California, Los Angeles and associated with the Institute for Development of Educational Activities (I.D.E.A., funded by Kettering Foundation), was compiled in 1979 after being researched over a period of several years. Under Dr. Goodlad’s direction, trained investigators went into communities in most regions of the country. The sample of schools studied was enormously diverse in regard to size, family income, and racial composition of the student body. The result of the landmark report was A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future (McGraw-Hill: New York, 1984) by Goodlad. [Ed. Note: The reader should keep in mind that Effective School Research has been used over the past twenty years in inner city schools and schools located in the South; that its track record, if judged by academic test scores, leaves much to be desired. In fact, Washington, D.C. and Secretary Riley’s home state of South Carolina—both of which have used Effective School Research—had the lowest academic test scores in the nation, to be followed by many inner city schools, especially those in the southern part of the nation. In this regard, the reader should re-read the 1913 entry containing quotes from Frederick T. Gates, director of charity for the Rockefeller Foundation.]
1986 Mr. Norman Dodd, as research director of the Reece Committee, provided a great service to our nation by exposing the real designs of the tax-exempt foundations, such as, who else but the Rockefeller Foundation, and the bottom line of it is, fundamentally to alter our cultural life so that socialism instead of freedom becomes the American way of life.
1988 DR. SUE E. BERRYMAN, DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE ON EDUCATION AND THE ECONOMY AT Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, presented a paper entitled “Education and the Economy: A Diagnostic Review and Implications for the Federal Role” at a seminar on the federal role in education held at the Aspen Institute, Aspen, Colorado on July 31–August 10, 1988. Under acknowledgments one reads:
This Seminar was sponsored by The Carnegie Corporation, The Ford Foundation, The Hewlitt Foundation, The Primerica Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation. This paper is based heavily on, and could not have been written without, research conducted under the auspices of The National Center on Education and Employment, funded by the Office of Research, Office of Educational Research and Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education. The paper also relies on research funded by the National Assessment of Vocational Education.
An excerpt from Dr. Berryman’s resumé, which was attached to her paper, follows:
1973–1985 Behavioral Scientist, Behavioral Sciences Department, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, California, and Washington, D.C. Analyzed individuals’ educational and employment choices and the nature and consequences of military, corporate, and federal human resource policies.
1992 JOHN CHUBB: Team member John E. Chubb, senior fellow with the Brookings Institution, was a participant at the 1989 White House Workshop on Choice in Education at which he also introduced speaker Governor Rudy Perpich of Minnesota. Chubb is on the Executive Committee of the Center for Educational Innovation, “an independent project of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research... [whose goal]... is to improve the educational system in America by challenging conventional methods and encouraging new approaches... seeks to accomplish this through... research, discussion and dissemination directed at a broad public audience. The Center’s work is made possible by grants and gifts from the following: Karen and Tucker Anderson, The Chase Manhattan Bank, Exxon Education Foundation, The Lauder Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation and others.” (From “Education Policy Paper, Number 1, Model for Choice: A Report on Manhattan’s District 4, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research” included in the notebook entitled Choosing Better Schools, Regional Strategy Meetings on Choice in Education which came from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs, Jack Klenk, special advisor.) John Chubb is one of a 14-member task force who issued a study that “proposed a set of bold, innovative solutions designed to bring about... improvements in Texas public schools,” entitled Choice in Education: Opportunities for Texas (March, 1990). In addition to Chubb, “Members of the Task Force producing this study included... Dr. John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, Dallas; Allan Parker, associate professor of law, St. Mary’s University, San Antonio; Dr. Linus Wright, former under secretary of education; Dr. Kathy Hayes, associate professor of economics; and Fritz Steiger, president, Texas Public Policy Foundation.” (Texas Public Policy Foundation REPORT, Summer, 1990, Vol. 11, Issue 11, pages 3–4.) check the former Dallas Eagle Forum also reportedly co-sponsored the John Chubb-Terry Moe conferences in March, 1990....
1992 VOUCHERS (“CHOICE”), EDISON PROJECT AND NASDC DESIGN TEAMS:
Since vouchers (educational “choice”) are important to the success of this scheme to “privatize” and “decentralize” education through “Design Teams,” the Edison Project and other private programs, with the assistance of waivers and “flexibility,” vouchers need to be examined in the new context.... Mainstream news sources have pointed out that vouchers will benefit Chris Whittle’s Edison Project, as well as any “privatized” school projects. Examples are:
NEWSWEEK (6/8/92)—”There’s no question that Whittle schools could be extremely rewarding... if Congress approves a voucher system....”
TIME (6/8/92)—[owned by Time-Warner]—”...the Bush Administration strongly supports the concepts that underlie the Edison Project.... Many observers believe Whittle’s longterm plan anticipates the use of these (voucher) funds. If adopted, the reform (vouchers) could funnel billions of public dollars into private schools....”
1992 CHUBB & CONSERVATIVES:
Most conservatives have been conspicuously silent on John Chubb’s partnership in The
Edison Project, and the benefits to be accrued from government voucher assistance. Many call this “privatization” of education, leaving the impression that it is “free market enterprise,” which is absolutely ridiculous since the venture is taxpayer funded and, consequently, government controlled! Chubb’s role may now be an embarrassment to those, who with great fanfare and publicity, sponsored his tour around the country extolling the virtues, but not the consequences, of education “choice.” Nor were people informed of Chubb’s liberal connections. And, only later did people learn of the other “designs” on “choice” money which came to light with the introduction of America 2000, The Edison Project, and the other for profit programs. The Design Teams projects were probably part of a veiled plan that drove the promotion of vouchers to begin with—from top down. Before letting the cat out of the bag, however, it was necessary to garner support for the strategy, especially from Christian conservatives. “Choice” had to be sold to them as beneficial. And, so it was. Many fell for it, following certain leaders. John Chubb was at the top of the sales team.... [John Chubb is also a supporter of the Skinnerian DISTAR/Reading Mastery program developed by Siegfried Engelmann and thoroughly discussed in this book, ed.]
1992 LAYING THE GROUNDWORK
Regional strategy meetings on choice in education were held in the fall of 1989, following the White House Workshop on Choice in January, where John Chubb, Dennis P. Doyle, Joe Nathan, Governor Rudy Perpich of Minnesota, Governor Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin, and then-Governor of Tennessee Lamar Alexander were speakers. At the strategy meetings, research papers, position statements, and policy analyses were presented and the information compiled in a large notebook entitled, Choosing Better Schools: Regional Strategy Meetings on Choice in Education. The notebook contained two “Education Policy Papers,” from the Center for Educational Innovation (CEI), a project of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. The list of CEI Executive Committee members included John Chubb, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, and Joe Nathan, Senior Fellow, Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. Among the CEI supporters were... The Chase Manhattan Bank, Exxon Education
Foundation... The Rockefeller Foundation.... (THIS ISN’T GRASSROOTS CONSERVATISM, FOLKS!) CEI’s Education Policy Paper #2, “The Right to Choose,” contained presentations by John Chubb, Joe Nathan, Chester Finn, Jr., and James S. Coleman. James S. Coleman has been busy, too. His work penetrates the entire educational environment, including restructuring. He’s been quoted in educational materials for at least 25 years. Recently, a paper by Coleman, entitled “Parental Involvement in Education,” was included with the America 2000 issues paper, “What Other Communities Are Doing, National Educational Goal #1,” distributed after the third America 2000 satellite town hall meeting (7/28/92).... Coleman gives yet another reason for approving “choice,” one less publicized. He said that the “choice system” would give the school more authority, making it possible to require more of parents and children by having them accept and obey a set of rules as a condition of entering and continuing in the school....
1992 PRIVATE VOUCHERS:
Does the information just presented tell us something about the evolution of arguments for vouchers; from one of assisting those in private schools to that of aiding the poor who can’t afford a private school? Does it explain why all voucher legislation/amendments are directly or indirectly connected to Title I, Chapter I of ESEA, which addresses the “Disadvantaged”? Does it suggest that the purpose of the whole scheme is “homogenization” through more integration, economically and socially... for total equality through redistribution of wealth and children, via vouchers?
1992G.I. BILL FOR CHILDREN, OR INTEGRATION BY VOUCHER?
Recall these statements: Albert Shanker, American Federation of Teachers—”It may be that we can’t get the big changes we need without choice.” President George Bush—”Choice is the one reform that drives all others.” Former U.S. Secretary of Education Lauro Cavazos—”President Bush and I are determined to use the power of choice to help restructure American education.”
1992 ON NOVEMBER 11, 1992, SEVERAL DAYS AFTER THE 1992 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, MARC Tucker, director of the National Center on Education and the Economy in Rochester, New York, wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton on NCEE letterhead in which he outlined a lifelong, (socialist) workforce agenda, most of which—interestingly enough—had no problem being approved by a Republican-controlled Congress within three years. 24 (See Appendix XV and XVIII.) The letter’s introductory paragraph stated:
I still cannot believe you won! But utter delight that you did pervades all the circles in which I move. I met last Wednesday in David Rockefeller’s [Jr.] office with him, John Sculley [Apple Computer executive] et al. It was a great celebration. Both John and David R. were more expansive than I have ever seen them—literally radiating happiness. My own view and their’s is that this country has seized its last chance... . …We propose, first, that the President appoint a national council on human resource development.... It would be established in such a way to assure continuity of membership across administrations, so that the consensus it forges will outlast any one administration....Second, we propose that a new agency be created, the National Institute for Learning, Work and Service.
1992 MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH WAS DELIVERED REGARDING THE NATIONAL Youth Apprenticeship Act (House Doc. #102–320, The Congressional Record) on May 3, 1992. Excerpts follow:
I am pleased to transmit herewith for your immediate consideration The National Youth Apprenticeship Act of 1992.... This legislation would establish a national framework for implementing comprehensive youth apprenticeship programs.... These programs would be a high-quality learning alternative for preparing young people to be valuable and productive members of the 21st century work force.... There is widespread agreement that the time has come to strengthen the connection between the academic subjects taught in our schools and the demands of the modern, high technology workplace.... Under my proposal, a student could enter a youth apprenticeship program in the 11th or 12th grade. Before reaching these grades, students would receive career and academic guidance to prepare them for entry into youth apprenticeship programs.... A youth apprentice would receive academic instruction, job training and work experience.... Standards of academic achievement, consistent with voluntary national standards, will apply to all academic instruction, including the required instruction in the core subjects of English, mathematics, science, history, and geography. Students would be expected to demonstrate mastery of job skills.... My proposal provides for involvement at the Federal, State and local levels to ensure the success of the program. Enactment of my proposal will result in national standards applicable to all youth apprenticeship programs. Thus, upon the completion of the program, the youth will have a portable credential that will be recognized wherever the individual may go to seek employment or pursue further education and training... .I believe that the time has come for a national, comprehensive approach to work- based learning. The bill I am proposing would establish a formal process in which business, labor, and education would form partnerships to motivate the Nation’s young people to stay in school and become productive citizens.... I urge the Congress to give swift and favorable consideration to the National Youth Apprenticeship Act of 1992.
1992 AN ARTICLE BY LAURA ROGERS ENTITLED “IN LOCO PARENTIS, PART II—THE ‘PARENTS AS Teachers’ Program Lives On” was published in the September 1992 issue of Chronicles.23 Ms. Rogers rendered all Americans a great service by providing a seminal work on this totalitarian program. Excerpts from her excellent article follow:
For the uninitiated, the PAT [Parents as Teachers] program was begun in Missouri in 1981, ostensibly for the purpose of curbing the high dropout rate and winning back parental support for the public school system. In 1985 the state legislature mandated that the PAT program be offered to all schools and children in Missouri and since then the PAT program has been proposed in at least forty other states. Simply put, the program pivots on assigning to all parents and children a “certified parent educator.” This state employee evaluates the child (under the guise of educational screening), assigns the child a computer code classification, and initiates a computer file that the state will use to track the child for the rest of his or her life. All of the computer code designations label the child to some degree “at risk,” and there is no classification for “normal.” The state agent conducts periodic home and school visits to check on the child and the family, dispensing gratis such things as nutritional counseling, mental health services, and even food. Schools under the PAT program provide free day and overnight care. The “certified parent” might forbid the biological parents to spank their child, and might prescribe, if the child is deemed “unhappy,” psychological counseling or a drug such as Ritalin. If the parents refuse the recommended services or drugs, the state may remove the child from the home, place him in a residential treatment center, and force the parents to enroll in family counseling for an indefinite period.
1992 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS AFFILIATE, THE PHILADELPHIA FEDERATION OF TEACHers, stated its opposition to Outcome-Based Education (OBE) in a November 20, 1992 letter to Pennsylvania state senators as follows:
OBE should be a pilot project at best, and tested in several schools as a welcome addition to the existing Carnegie Units. It should not be implemented statewide because it could be a costly disaster. OBE has no grade designations. OBE has minimal “benchmark” designations. There are no time designations. For example, a student completes all English requirements in one and one-half years. This student is not required to further develop English skills in the remaining two and one-half years of his/her high school career. There are NO safety nets for students. OBE is really non-graded schools and non-graded classrooms. It is a very dishonest approach to slipping this whole structure into place. Parents, teachers, and students have a right to honestly discuss these very important educational plans. We would appreciate your support in the closing days of this legislative session to block any implementation of Outcomes-Based Education here in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
As an example of the above collaboration toward global workforce training taking the place of education, please refer back to the 1976 entry for NEA’s “Cardinal Principles Revisited, 1976,” which included on its panel: David Rockefeller, Chase Manhattan Bank; McGeorge Bundy, Ford Foundation; Francois Blanchard, Syndicat National des Enseignements de Second Degre (France); Lester Brown, Worldwatch Institute; Willis Harman, Stanford Research Institute; Fred Jarvis, National Union of Teachers (England); Sally Swing Shelley, United Nations; Sir Walter Perry, The Open University (England); and Joe H. Foy, Houston Natural Gas Co. The author has selected the above, primarily non-educator individuals, from a lengthy list to help the reader understand how the education establishment at the very top is “in bed with,” or more likely controlled by, leading international think tanks and multinational corporations.