|It took 69 years (1946-2015)...not Dr. Mort's calculated 50 years.|
See Mort quote below.
Thanks everyone out there who fought this communist takeover of America through the schools, fought right through to today, December 9, 2015, and allowed American children and teachers to have at least an extra 19 years of so-called traditional academic education and some hope for life in a free America.
Quote from 3D, published in 1999:
ESEA Is The Final Chapter Of The Montgomery County Plan From 1946!!!
Dr. Paul Mort’s statement below is right on target. It took exactly fifty years to implement “The Blueprint” in every school of the nation. Letter of transmittal states:
[The] program should be put into operation gradually… and Dr. Paul Mort and others have accumulated evidence which shows a period of almost fifty years between the establishment of need (need assessment, etc.) and the school programs geared to meet it. If the school as an agency of society is to justify itself for the period ahead of us, it must be accepted that its fundamental function is to serve the people of the entire community, the very young children, the children of middle years, early adolescent youth, older youth and the adults as well.
http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com , pages 62-65:
And now, a bit more history, and a thank you to a great American, the late Congressman John Ashbrook, OH, who warned Americans regarding federal control/takeover of education and loss of local control.
GOD BLESS THE LATE JOHN ASHBROOK!!!!!!
ON JULY 18, 1961, CONGRESSMAN JOHN M. ASHBROOK DELIVERED A SPEECH BEFORE CONgress entitled “The Myth of Federal Aid to Education without Control” (Congressional Record: pp.1186811880). Excerpts from his very important speech, which documented and exposed the plans for the internationalization and transformation of American education, follow:
That there was any doubt of the Federal bureaucrats’ intentions in this matter was laid to rest with the discovery of a Health, Education, and Welfare publication, A Federal Education Agency for the Future, which is a report of the Office of Education, dated April 1961.... I feel that its pronouncements are a blueprint for complete domination and direction of our schools from Washington. The publication was not popularly distributed and there was some difficulty in obtaining a copy.
Fifty-six pages of findings contain recommendations which call for more and more Federal participation and control and repeatedly stress the need for Federal activity in formulating educational policies. It recommends a review of teacher preparation, curriculum and textbooks. It calls for an implementation of international education projects in cooperation with UNESCO in the United Nations, and ministries of education abroad. Of course, it recommends an enlarged office of education and the use of social scientists as key advisers.... It places stress on “implementing international educational projects in the United States and bringing maximum effectiveness to the total international educational effort.” Would not the Communists, with their footholds and infiltrations in these organizations, love this? No detail has been overlooked—“curriculum will have to undergo continual reshaping and upgrading; and new techniques and tools of instruction will have to be developed” and “teacher preparation, textbooks, and the curriculum in these subject fields must be improved in the decade ahead.” In the report… we find the vehicle for Federal domination of our schools. …The battle lines are now drawn between those who seek control and uniformity of our local schools and those who oppose this further bureaucratic centralization in Washington. It is my sincere hope that the Congress will respond to this challenge and defeat the aid to education bills which will implement the goals incorporated in A Federal Education Agency for the Future. Ashbrook went on to point out that [Under] The Mission [as stated in the report]… the basic mission of the Office [of Education]to “promote the cause of education” remains unchanged since its establishment in 1867.
…What is meant when he [Sterling M. McMurrin, Commissioner of Education] says, “I anticipate that much of this activity will take place through normal administrative processes within the Office and the Department”? In the jargon of Washington bureaucracy this means that the report will be largely implemented on the administrative level without Congressional action and approval.
The House Committee on Education and Labor recently voted out H.R. 7904 which would extend the National Defense Education Act.… It is evident that the administration has chosen this vehicle for enacting piecemeal the recommendations of A Federal Education Agency for the Future.
Ashbrook continued to quote from Agency for the Future which he said “laid bare the real nemesis of the Federal bureaucrats—the tradition of local control.” The report stated, “The tradition of local control should no longer be permitted to inhibit Office of Education leadership.”
The Committee on Mission and Organization called for [An] Office of Educational Research that would administer a separate program of extra-mural contracts and grants for basic and experimental research in disciplines bearing upon the educational situation, and would serve the other parts of the Bureau with advice on research problems…. Since it is presumed that the Centers, oriented to education as it is organized and administered, will deal with educational problems directly confronting schools and colleges, it is believed desirable that extra-mural research be significantly attentive to basic problems of human development, training and teaching, regardless of whether or not they are acknowledged as immediately pressing problems by educators. In short, some research should be conducted precisely because it challenges the assumptions upon which practicing educators are proceeding.
The above is obviously a reference to behavioral sciences research which, until that time, had not found a permanent home at the local school educator level nor was there the need to conduct such research in order to challenge the “assumptions upon which practicing educators are proceeding.” Attached to the Committee’s report were appendices from which the following excerpts are taken:
The Mission of the Office of Education in the 1960s
The schools of tomorrow must prepare their students for living in a world of continuous and rapid change, presenting them with unprecedented social, economic, and political problems. We must, in fact, give to education a character that will initiate and support a process of lifelong learning if Americans are to keep abreast of the accelerating advent of new knowledge and of the increasing complexity of modern life. These prospective conditions are already suggested in part by the rapidly increasing demand for highly specialized and professional skills. During the coming decade, new means must be developed for identifying and releasing student potential; curriculums will have to undergo continual reshaping and upgrading; and new techniques and tools of instruction will have to be developed.…
• Education is basic to effort to bring about an enduringly peaceful world.
• Next decade will bring closer and multiple relationships with Ministries of Education
abroad and international organizations, such as UNESCO, the Organization of
American States, International Bureau of Education.
• Variations among States and school districts in standards of instruction, facilities,
staff, and services expose serious inadequacies. Our progress toward the ideal of
equality of educational opportunity is tragically uneven.
• In the area of international educational cooperation, in particular, it must play the
major role, since only the Federal Government can enter into agreements with other
governments. Along with these responsibilities should be included that of stimulating
and participating activity in the process of formulation, examination, and reformulation
of the goals of our national society in terms of educational objectives.
• The development of uniform, consistent and compatible statistical data in all States
and in all institutions of higher education will call for both technical and financial
assistance to these sources from the Office of Education….
• Economists, sociologists, and other social scientists will be needed on the staff to
assist in dealing with educational problems in their total context.
National Defense Education Act (NDEA) Amendment of 1961—Additional Views, which accompanied H.R. 7904, included very important testimony regarding the dangers of the NDEA and the recommendations made in the above Agency for the Future report. A discussion of the dangers of federal control follows:
We [the undersigned] reject, furthermore, the philosophy that there can exist Federal aid to any degree without Federal control. We further hold that there should not be Federal aid without Federal control. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to so supervise and control its allocations that waste and misuse is kept to a minimum. Since we do not desire such federal control in the field of public education, we do not desire Federal aid to education.
We should never permit the American educational system to become the vehicle for experimentation by educational ideologues. A careful analysis of the writings and statements of vocal and influential spokesmen in the governmental and educational fields indicates a desire on the part of some of these individuals to utilize the educational system as a means of transforming the economic and social outlook of the United States.
We point to a statement by Dr. Harold Rugg, for many years professor of education at Teachers College, Columbia University, who declared in Frontiers of Democracy on May 15, 1943 (pp. 247254) concerning the teachers’ colleges:
Let them become powerful national centers for the graduate study of ideas and they will thereby become forces of creative imagination standing at the very vortex of the ideational revolution. Let us make our teacher education institutions into great direction finders for our new society, pointers of the way, dynamic trailblazers of the New Frontiers.
We could supply pages of documentation analyzing the type of new frontier planned. It is indeed a Socialist frontier. It had been hoped that the philosophy of education expressed by Dr. Rugg and his cohorts back in the early forties, had long since been repudiated. However, in April of 1961, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare published a booklet entitled A Federal Education Agency for the Future. Anyone who doubts that the Federal aid to education bills now before Congress would mean eventual Federal control of education, should carefully read and analyze for himself what the Office of Education is planning for tomorrow’s schools. They openly predict their “need” for new powers on the passage of the multimillion-dollar aid legislation now before us. They recommend that their Office of Education be elevated to the status of U.S. Education Agency, “to reflect the more active role of this unit of Government.” They envision the new Agency’s mission as one of “leadership” (p. 42), “national policy making” (p. 43), “national planning” (p. 47), “to prepare students to understand the world of tomorrow” (p. 40). The Office of Education writers further say “along with these responsibilities should be included that of stimulating and participating in the process of formulation, examination, and reformulation of the goals of our society in the terms of educational objectives” (p. 43).
[Ed. Note: A careful warning was sounded through the National Defense Education Act Amendment of 1961—Additional Views when the Congressmen said, “We reject that there can exist Federal aid to any degree without Federal control. We further hold that there should not be Federal aid without Federal control.” This applies as well to all of the voucher and tax credit proposals before us today (in 1999) flying under the banner of “choice.” The Mission Statement of the Office of Education clearly called for the establishment of the National Center for Education Statistics, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and the “wholistic” approach to education through the inclusion of social scientists in the education process—a clear departure from academically oriented educational pursuits into intrusive areas totally unrelated to education.
Even taking into account the collectivist direction taken by radical educators in the first half of this century, this movement could not have borne fruit had it not been for President Dwight Eisenhower’s Commission on National Goals which produced Goals for Americans in 1960. These goals, along with the implementation of PPBS and Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, seem to have provided the catalyst for the “planned economy” being implemented in the United States in 1999.]
House ESEA Roll Call Vote:
FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 665
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)
S 1177 YEA-AND-NAY 2-Dec-2015 7:18 PM
QUESTION: On Agreeing to the Conference Report
BILL TITLE: To reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to ensure that every child achieves
---- YEAS 359 ---
Boyle, Brendan F.
Doyle, Michael F.
Johnson, E. B.
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Luján, Ben Ray (NM)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Hice, Jody B.
---- NOT VOTING 10 ---