"Our nation’s replication of the English education system, as proposed by Lamar Alexander
and Chester Finn, coincides with the proclaimed desire of Andrew Carnegie in 1886 to “create
two nations out of one people” (return the United States to the “mother” country—England)."
[Excerpted from 3D pages 356 - 359.]
EXCERPT: the deliberate dumbing down of america, page 357:
NATIONAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION: GOALS 2000 AND SCHOOL-TO-WORK EDITED BY JOHN F. Jennings, general counsel for education for the Committee on Education and Labor of the U.S.House of Representatives (Phi Delta Kappa: Bloomington, Ind., and Institute for Educational Leadership: Washington, D.C., 1995) was published.
" In 1991 Lamar Alexander was appointed secretary of education by President Bush, and he substantially revised the bill that the Senate had killed the year before. Alexander, working with Chester Finn and others who were familiar with the work of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in enacting a national curriculum in England and Wales, convinced Bush to endorse the idea of national standards for education."
From "Charter School Trap", NewsWithViews, Feb. 22, 2011
In a speech to the Soviet Central Committee on November 2, 1987 (published by Novosti Press Agency Publishing House), Mikhail Gorbachev, then General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, said:
“We are moving toward a new world, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.”
What more evidence do we need of the global slide into communism than the remark made by Mikhail Gorbachev in London, England on March 23, 2000 [5] that referred to the European Union (EU) as "the New European Soviet.”[6] If Gorbachev views the EU in that way, it only stands to reason that the North American Union (NAU) -- modeled on the EU, and being implemented as I write – would be the “New American Soviet.”
[Ed. Note from 3D, pages 356-359: Of interest here is that the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) had been working on assessment for many years, dating back at least to 1980, with Clare Burstall of Wales, U.K.] The internationalization of education, with its exchanges of data systems, curricula,methods, technology, teachers, etc., is essential for the implementation of the international socialist management and control system being put in place right now. A fascinating book entitled Union Now: The Proposal for Inter-Democracy—Federal Union (shorter version) by Clarence Streit (Harper Brothers Publishers: New York and London, 1941) described plans for the reunification of the United States and England, the first stage of which is presently being expanded to include the European Community and former (?) communist countries in Eastern Europe. Our nation’s replication of the English education system, as proposed by Lamar Alexander and Chester Finn, coincides with the proclaimed desire of Andrew Carnegie in 1886 to “create two nations out of one people” (return the United States to the “mother” country—England).
Carnegie’s corporation of the same name and all of its subsidiaries have been the principal
organizations in charge of American education. Through funding of the most important entities
controlling American education—the Educational Testing Service, the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, the Education Commission of the States—and through its most important
exchanges with the “former” Soviet Union, Carnegie’s power, influence, and point of view have
been strongly felt throughout this century. Lenin would be pleased indeed with the accomplishments of the Carnegie Corporation in promoting what Lenin referred to as international socialism through the creation of individual regions and later through the amalgamation of those regions into an international socialist system; i.e., one world government.
organizations in charge of American education. Through funding of the most important entities
controlling American education—the Educational Testing Service, the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, the Education Commission of the States—and through its most important
exchanges with the “former” Soviet Union, Carnegie’s power, influence, and point of view have
been strongly felt throughout this century. Lenin would be pleased indeed with the accomplishments of the Carnegie Corporation in promoting what Lenin referred to as international socialism through the creation of individual regions and later through the amalgamation of those regions into an international socialist system; i.e., one world government.
The following quote from Andrew Carnegie’s Triumphant Democracy or Fifty Years’ March of the Republic (Charles Scribners Sons: New York, 1886) is thought provoking:
"Time may dispel many pleasing illusions and destroy many noble dreams, but it shall never shake my belief that the wound caused by the wholly unlooked for and undesired separation of the mother from her child is not to bleed forever. Let men say what they will, therefore, I say, that as surely as the sun in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united, so surely is it one morning to rise, shine upon, and greet again the reunited state, the British-American union."
3D, pages 356-359. Full unedited text of Jennings' article and 3D comments:
NATIONAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION: GOALS 2000 AND SCHOOL-TO-WORK EDITED BY JOHN F. Jennings,general counsel for education for the Committee on Education and Labor of the U.S.
House of Representatives (Phi Delta Kappa: Bloomington, Ind., and Institute for Educational Leadership:
Washington, D.C., 1995) was published.48 The following are comments by Mr. Jennings which reveal some heretofore closely guarded secrets related to the roots of Goals 2000 and The School-to-Work Opportunities Act: Now there is a measure of national agreement that there should be voluntary national standards....All the major education organizations, all the major business groups, the nation’s governors, the current Democratic president, and the former Republican president have all advocated this concept. The purpose of this book is to explain why and how this agreement came about by focusing on two major legislative initiatives of the Clinton Administration:the Goals 2000 Act and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. The Clinton initiatives arerooted in the Bush legislation and in the summit conference held by President Bush with the nation’s governors in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 1989, in which then-Governor Clinton
took part. At that event the governors and the President agreed on the concept of national goals for education, the first ever to be devised. While previously there had been some acceptance of the idea that the federal government had a role in dealing with special needs children and with certain problems in education,there had not been agreement in this century that the national government had a legitimateconcern about the general state of education. And,it is important to point out, the governors did not universally endorse the idea of expanding the influence of the federal governmentin education. Some—probably most—hoped that some new way could be found to raise the issue of education to a level of national awareness without relying on such past practices as federal grants. The tension created by trying to find this new way permeated the debatethat took place during the next five years.
President Bush complemented his meeting with the governors by sending to Congress
legislation that he believed would reform education. That bill contained a number of small-scale
programs seeking to change a few schools and practices. The Democratic House and
Senate reluctantly passed a version of Bush’s bill. However, very conservative Republican
senators subsequently filibustered the final bill; and the initial Bush school reform initiative
died in 1990.
took part. At that event the governors and the President agreed on the concept of national goals for education, the first ever to be devised. While previously there had been some acceptance of the idea that the federal government had a role in dealing with special needs children and with certain problems in education,there had not been agreement in this century that the national government had a legitimateconcern about the general state of education. And,it is important to point out, the governors did not universally endorse the idea of expanding the influence of the federal governmentin education. Some—probably most—hoped that some new way could be found to raise the issue of education to a level of national awareness without relying on such past practices as federal grants. The tension created by trying to find this new way permeated the debatethat took place during the next five years.
President Bush complemented his meeting with the governors by sending to Congress
legislation that he believed would reform education. That bill contained a number of small-scale
programs seeking to change a few schools and practices. The Democratic House and
Senate reluctantly passed a version of Bush’s bill. However, very conservative Republican
senators subsequently filibustered the final bill; and the initial Bush school reform initiative
died in 1990.
In 1991 Lamar Alexander was appointed secretary of education by President Bush, and
he substantially revised the bill that the Senate had killed the year before. Alexander, working
with Chester Finn and others who were familiar with the work of British Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher in enacting a national curriculum in England and Wales, convinced Bush
to endorse the idea of national standards for education.
[Ed. Note: Of interest here is that the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
had been working on assessment for many years, dating back at least to 1980, with Clare
Burstall of Wales, U.K.]
The internationalization of education, with its exchanges of data systems, curricula,
methods, technology, teachers, etc., is essential for the implementation of the international
socialist management and control system being put in place right now. A fascinating book
entitled Union Now: The Proposal for Inter-Democracy—Federal Union (shorter version) by
Clarence Streit (Harper Brothers Publishers: New York and London, 1941) described plans
for the reunification of the United States and England, the first stage of which is presently
being expanded to include the European Community and former (?) communist countries in
Eastern Europe.
Our nation’s replication of the English education system, as proposed by Lamar Alexander
and Chester Finn, coincides with the proclaimed desire of Andrew Carnegie in 1886 to “create
two nations out of one people” (return the United States to the “mother” country—England).
Carnegie’s corporation of the same name and all of its subsidiaries have been the principal
organizations in charge of American education. Through funding of the most important entities
controlling American education—the Educational Testing Service, the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, the Education Commission of the States—and through its most important
exchanges with the “former” Soviet Union, Carnegie’s power, influence, and point of view have
been strongly felt throughout this century. Lenin would be pleased indeed with the accomplishements of the Carnegie Corporation in promoting what Lenin referred to as international socialism through the creation of individual regions and later through the amalgamation of those regions into an international socialist system; i.e., one world government.
The following quote from Andrew Carnegie’s Triumphant Democracy or Fifty Years’ March
of the Republic (Charles Scribners Sons: New York, 1886) is thought provoking:
Time may dispel many pleasing illusions and destroy many noble dreams, but it shall never
shake my belief that the wound caused by the wholly unlooked for and undesired separation
of the mother from her child is not to bleed forever. Let men say what they will, therefore, I
say, that as surely as the sun in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united,
so surely is it one morning to rise, shine upon, and greet again the reunited state, the British-
American union. Jennings’s revelations from National Issues in Education continue below:
The governors and the President had agreed on national goals for education in 1989, but
they had not proposed national standards for education. Therefore, Bush’s second reform
plan moved national involvement in education to a more advanced stage….
A Republican president proposing such national standards in education was the education
policymaking equivalent to the reshaping of foreign policy when President Nixon went
to China. Richard Nixon had made a career out of attacking Communism and calling liberals
sympathizers of that ideology; and then he—not a liberal—opened the doors to “Red” China,
the same doors that he had spent 25 years locking.
[Ed. Note: It was also under Nixon’s watch that the National Institute of Education was created
and it was he who carved the nation into ten regions, facilitating the change in our constitutional
governance from a constitutional republic to a participatory democracy—through the regional
government process necessary for world government. The late Senator Edmund Muskie (D.-
Maine), referred to as “Mr. Metro” by those opposed to regional government, said Nixon had
accomplished what several democratic administrations had been unable to accomplish!]
Jennings continued his fascinating account as follows:
Democratic Presidents Kennedy and Johnson had proposed a major expansion of federal aid
to education in the 1960s and had achieved the enactment of historic legislation that created
the current array of federal programs. But they were dogged along the way by criticism from
conservatives who asserted that the liberals were really trying to nationalize education. Now,
25 years later, it was a self-proclaimed conservative Republican, not a liberal Democrat, who
was advocating a monumental movement away from local control of education.
Despite the importance of the second Bush legislation, it ran into the same problem
as the first. A Democratic Congress reluctantly passed the bill in the House and the Senate,
but the conference report again was filibustered by very conservative Republican senators
who were not as impressed as were Bush, Alexander, and Finn with the accomplishments
of Margaret Thatcher in establishing a national curriculum.
[Ed. Note: The writer would like to repeat the quote from Theodore Dalrymple (pen name for
Dr. Anthony Daniels), the British physician who wrote for The Wall Street Journal in 1988 the
following observations concerning the deplorable condition of the English education system
which Bush, Alexander and Finn wished to emulate:
In eight years in medical practice in an English slum (in which lives incidentally a fifth of
a population of the industrial English city where I work) I have met only one teen-ager of
hundreds I have asked who knew when World War II was fought. The others thought it took
place in the 1900s or the 1970s, and lasted up to 30 years.]
National Issues in Education also includes a chapter by U.S. Secretary of Education
Richard W. Riley. Riley provides two delicious morsels regarding the “bipartisan” atmosphere
surrounding the birthing of Goals 2000 and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act:
The National Goals Panel was actively opposed by Congress which felt no ownership and
resented the non-voting status of Congressional members.... (p. 5)
…Truth was the reform movement at the national level had no statutory basis. Even ten
years after the report A Nation at Risk, there had been little federal response. The National
Education Goals, three years after their announcement, had no legal standing of any kind. No
federal initiative, no funding or flexibility had been enacted to provide states, communities,
or schools with the assistance they needed to reach these important goals. Most troubling
of all, as attractive as the goals were, as important as they were, as essential as they were,
in the final analysis they represented nothing more than a political agreement between a
former President and the nation’s governors. We decided to take the seeds of interest we had
inherited and transform them into a national movement—a movement in which states and
local districts with a clear vision of where they wanted to go could count on the American
people and the federal government as partners in the journey. Thus the Goals 2000—Educate
America Act was conceived. (p. 6)
[Ed. Note: The reader by this time recognizes the fact that the American people did not buy
into Goals 2000/School-to-Work, that the government was compelled to use its change agent
manual—the bag of tricks in the Community Action Toolkit— to implement the restructuring
he substantially revised the bill that the Senate had killed the year before. Alexander, working
with Chester Finn and others who were familiar with the work of British Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher in enacting a national curriculum in England and Wales, convinced Bush
to endorse the idea of national standards for education.
[Ed. Note: Of interest here is that the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
had been working on assessment for many years, dating back at least to 1980, with Clare
Burstall of Wales, U.K.]
The internationalization of education, with its exchanges of data systems, curricula,
methods, technology, teachers, etc., is essential for the implementation of the international
socialist management and control system being put in place right now. A fascinating book
entitled Union Now: The Proposal for Inter-Democracy—Federal Union (shorter version) by
Clarence Streit (Harper Brothers Publishers: New York and London, 1941) described plans
for the reunification of the United States and England, the first stage of which is presently
being expanded to include the European Community and former (?) communist countries in
Eastern Europe.
Our nation’s replication of the English education system, as proposed by Lamar Alexander
and Chester Finn, coincides with the proclaimed desire of Andrew Carnegie in 1886 to “create
two nations out of one people” (return the United States to the “mother” country—England).
Carnegie’s corporation of the same name and all of its subsidiaries have been the principal
organizations in charge of American education. Through funding of the most important entities
controlling American education—the Educational Testing Service, the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, the Education Commission of the States—and through its most important
exchanges with the “former” Soviet Union, Carnegie’s power, influence, and point of view have
been strongly felt throughout this century. Lenin would be pleased indeed with the accomplishements of the Carnegie Corporation in promoting what Lenin referred to as international socialism through the creation of individual regions and later through the amalgamation of those regions into an international socialist system; i.e., one world government.
The following quote from Andrew Carnegie’s Triumphant Democracy or Fifty Years’ March
of the Republic (Charles Scribners Sons: New York, 1886) is thought provoking:
Time may dispel many pleasing illusions and destroy many noble dreams, but it shall never
shake my belief that the wound caused by the wholly unlooked for and undesired separation
of the mother from her child is not to bleed forever. Let men say what they will, therefore, I
say, that as surely as the sun in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united,
so surely is it one morning to rise, shine upon, and greet again the reunited state, the British-
American union. Jennings’s revelations from National Issues in Education continue below:
The governors and the President had agreed on national goals for education in 1989, but
they had not proposed national standards for education. Therefore, Bush’s second reform
plan moved national involvement in education to a more advanced stage….
A Republican president proposing such national standards in education was the education
policymaking equivalent to the reshaping of foreign policy when President Nixon went
to China. Richard Nixon had made a career out of attacking Communism and calling liberals
sympathizers of that ideology; and then he—not a liberal—opened the doors to “Red” China,
the same doors that he had spent 25 years locking.
[Ed. Note: It was also under Nixon’s watch that the National Institute of Education was created
and it was he who carved the nation into ten regions, facilitating the change in our constitutional
governance from a constitutional republic to a participatory democracy—through the regional
government process necessary for world government. The late Senator Edmund Muskie (D.-
Maine), referred to as “Mr. Metro” by those opposed to regional government, said Nixon had
accomplished what several democratic administrations had been unable to accomplish!]
Jennings continued his fascinating account as follows:
Democratic Presidents Kennedy and Johnson had proposed a major expansion of federal aid
to education in the 1960s and had achieved the enactment of historic legislation that created
the current array of federal programs. But they were dogged along the way by criticism from
conservatives who asserted that the liberals were really trying to nationalize education. Now,
25 years later, it was a self-proclaimed conservative Republican, not a liberal Democrat, who
was advocating a monumental movement away from local control of education.
Despite the importance of the second Bush legislation, it ran into the same problem
as the first. A Democratic Congress reluctantly passed the bill in the House and the Senate,
but the conference report again was filibustered by very conservative Republican senators
who were not as impressed as were Bush, Alexander, and Finn with the accomplishments
of Margaret Thatcher in establishing a national curriculum.
[Ed. Note: The writer would like to repeat the quote from Theodore Dalrymple (pen name for
Dr. Anthony Daniels), the British physician who wrote for The Wall Street Journal in 1988 the
following observations concerning the deplorable condition of the English education system
which Bush, Alexander and Finn wished to emulate:
In eight years in medical practice in an English slum (in which lives incidentally a fifth of
a population of the industrial English city where I work) I have met only one teen-ager of
hundreds I have asked who knew when World War II was fought. The others thought it took
place in the 1900s or the 1970s, and lasted up to 30 years.]
National Issues in Education also includes a chapter by U.S. Secretary of Education
Richard W. Riley. Riley provides two delicious morsels regarding the “bipartisan” atmosphere
surrounding the birthing of Goals 2000 and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act:
The National Goals Panel was actively opposed by Congress which felt no ownership and
resented the non-voting status of Congressional members.... (p. 5)
…Truth was the reform movement at the national level had no statutory basis. Even ten
years after the report A Nation at Risk, there had been little federal response. The National
Education Goals, three years after their announcement, had no legal standing of any kind. No
federal initiative, no funding or flexibility had been enacted to provide states, communities,
or schools with the assistance they needed to reach these important goals. Most troubling
of all, as attractive as the goals were, as important as they were, as essential as they were,
in the final analysis they represented nothing more than a political agreement between a
former President and the nation’s governors. We decided to take the seeds of interest we had
inherited and transform them into a national movement—a movement in which states and
local districts with a clear vision of where they wanted to go could count on the American
people and the federal government as partners in the journey. Thus the Goals 2000—Educate
America Act was conceived. (p. 6)
[Ed. Note: The reader by this time recognizes the fact that the American people did not buy
into Goals 2000/School-to-Work, that the government was compelled to use its change agent
manual—the bag of tricks in the Community Action Toolkit— to implement the restructuring
and get key legislation passed. (See Appendix XIV.)
For Carnegie researchers: please go to 3D (free download) and check out the following Index entries:
Carnegie, Andrew, 357–358
Carnegie Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 255
Carnegie Corporation, 7, 30, 72, 73, 161
and “America 2000 Plan,” 278–279
Conclusions and Recommendations for the Social Studies,
265
and David W. Hornbeck, 273
and Educational Testing Service (ETS), 38
Education Commission of the States (ECS), 91
funding of projects/organizations, 21, 23, 210, 245, 271,
357–358
and John Gardner, 376
and A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century, 287
Project Read, 82–83
Soviet Academy of Science, 229–230
Carnegie Corporation British and Colonies Fund, 12
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 11, 36, 38, 42,
47–48
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 235–236,
255–256
Carnegie Foundation, 12, 18
control of education, 10, 11, 13
Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, 35
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 8,
73, 91, 210
and David W. Hornbeck, 204–205, 241–243
and Ernest Boyer, 80, 217
grant to Lee Shulman, 241
“Carnegie Foundation Selects a New Leader,” 80
Carnegie National Alliance for Education and the Economy,
355
“Carnegie Report on Education: ‘Radical Blueprint for Change’”
(Nancy Garland), 236
Carnegie-Soviet Education Agreement, 36, 45, 235, 261–262
extent of damage resulting from, 290–291, 309, A139
opposition to, 294
“Carnegie Teaching Panel Charts ‘New Framework’—Grants
Totaling $900,000 Made to Press Reforms,” 235–236
Carnegie Unit, 154, 302
possible removal of, 69, 83, 141, 190
requirements of, 429
“Carnegie Unit: An Administrative Convenience, but an Educational
Catastrophe (The)” (Carl W. Salser), 98
Carnegie Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 255
Carnegie Corporation, 7, 30, 72, 73, 161
and “America 2000 Plan,” 278–279
Conclusions and Recommendations for the Social Studies,
265
and David W. Hornbeck, 273
and Educational Testing Service (ETS), 38
Education Commission of the States (ECS), 91
funding of projects/organizations, 21, 23, 210, 245, 271,
357–358
and John Gardner, 376
and A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century, 287
Project Read, 82–83
Soviet Academy of Science, 229–230
Carnegie Corporation British and Colonies Fund, 12
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 11, 36, 38, 42,
47–48
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 235–236,
255–256
Carnegie Foundation, 12, 18
control of education, 10, 11, 13
Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, 35
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 8,
73, 91, 210
and David W. Hornbeck, 204–205, 241–243
and Ernest Boyer, 80, 217
grant to Lee Shulman, 241
“Carnegie Foundation Selects a New Leader,” 80
Carnegie National Alliance for Education and the Economy,
355
“Carnegie Report on Education: ‘Radical Blueprint for Change’”
(Nancy Garland), 236
Carnegie-Soviet Education Agreement, 36, 45, 235, 261–262
extent of damage resulting from, 290–291, 309, A139
opposition to, 294
“Carnegie Teaching Panel Charts ‘New Framework’—Grants
Totaling $900,000 Made to Press Reforms,” 235–236
Carnegie Unit, 154, 302
possible removal of, 69, 83, 141, 190
requirements of, 429
“Carnegie Unit: An Administrative Convenience, but an Educational
Catastrophe (The)” (Carl W. Salser), 98
