Monday, June 30, 2014



On April 23, 2014 the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction was granted special consultative status with he Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC). This decision was based on misleading testimony regarding the nature of their work provided by a Kinsey Institute representative to the United Nations Committee on Nongovernmental Organizations.
From their fraudulent sex research, to their reliance on pedophiles to publish their sex experiments on children, to their promotion of dysfuntional, abnormal sexual behaviors as healthy and normal, which has formed the basis of dangerous sexuality education programs worldwide, the Kinsey Institute has caused incalculable harm to children, adults and families. For this reason the UN’s decision to grant ECOSOC status to the Kinsey Institute has outraged parents, government and civic leaders, lawmakers, researchers, and victims of sexual crimes around the world who understand how harmful the Kinsey Institute’s work has been, especially for the world’s children.

The goal of the Stop Kinsey Coalition is to educate world leaders and citizens about the past and present actions, goals and aims of the Kinsey Institute, and to demonstrate why the Kinsey Institute merits condemnation and censure rather than the legitimacy, prestige and access that UN consultative status affords them and which enables them to perpetuate their harmful work on a much larger world stage.
To learn more read our brief  The Kinsey Institute Exposed:  A Warning to Parents & Governments Throughout the World.
For more information visit our website at
Alfred Kinsey
COMMENTS FROM CHARLOTTE:  The United Nations and UNESCO  have been primary instigators and funders of not only the deliberate dumbing  down of the world's children through the educational system, but possibly even more important, the destruction of traditional morality taught by parents and religious institutions around the world, regardless of each nation's particular religion.

How the Kinsey Institute and the United Nations have gotten away with this deliberate highly-funded and planned destruction of morality and virtue is hard to comprehend. Without Dr. Judith Reisman's remarkable research, over a span of fifty years, on the subject of Kinsey's sexual perversion studies and writings, few persons on this planet would understand this evil agenda. Judith's work stands out as the primary source of information on the tax-funded assault by Kinsey's followers and the UN and public schools on the world's children's morals and values.

As a local school board member in the 1970s I ran across the Comprehensive State Health Education Plan for Maine (The Berkeley Model).  This was foisted on school districts in the State of Maine in 1976. Most Maine citizens believed this curriculum would focus on the very traditional components of health such as nutrition, exercise, human reproduction for high school students, etc. It didn't!

One of the objectives for high school students was that they should understand the three types of sexual intercourse! Including with animals. This extremely controversial and perverted curriculum caused Guardians of Education for Maine (GEM) to go up against the whole curriculum, which was loaded with non-health objectives such as "understanding the importance of United Nations projects, etc.) The program was, if I recall correctly, partially funded by the Kellogg Foundation which also paid for the World Health Organization's headquarters in Washington, D.C. GEM managed to knock it out of at least one third of the school districts in Maine.

Here is an important quote which proves 100% what the goal of the sex education programs rampant in the USA and internationally since 1965 has been: From The School Counselor journal issue dedicated to "Death Education", May, 1977:

Change is evident, and death education will play as important a part in changing attitudes toward death as sex education played in changing attitudes toward sex information and wider acceptance of various sexual practices.

Repeat: "wider acceptance of various sexual practices." Doesn't that cover the whole immoral agenda being foisted on the citizens of this planet TODAY through the schools, community health providers, and the media? (For the entire quote go to page 145 of my book the deliberate dumbing down of america.

Stop The Kinsey Institute | CitizenGO
Petition to: World LeadersStop The Kinsey Institute
30,081 people have signed. Help us reach 50,000 signatures.
For more information and to sign the petition, visit the website at,_Gender,_and_Reproduction



Devastating news. If computers (B.F. Skinner's "box") are used to indoctrinate in globalism/communism, there is no hope for freedom, what little there is left of it.

EU flag

"EU Receives Boost For Global Education, Records $28.5Bn Pledge"

The global partnership for education replenishment conference Thursday received new pledges of over $28.5 billion in additional funding for education for millions of children in more than 60 developing countries....
The funds according to the statement will boost the education resources available to tens of millions of children in developing countries.

Dustin Heuston of the World Institute for Computer-Assisted Teaching said in 1984:
We’ve been absolutely staggered by realizing that the computer has the capability to act as if it were ten of the top psychologists working with one student.... You’ve seen the tip of the iceberg. Won’t it be wonderful when the child in the smallest county in the most distant area or in the most confused urban setting can have the equivalent of the finest school in the world on that terminal and no one can get between that child and the curriculum? We have great moments coming in the history of education. 

The comment regarding the computer’s role as a “top psychologist” is as disturbing as is the idea of “no one getting between the child and the curriculum.” These ideas lay to rest the publicly stated purpose of the words “parent-school partnerships” which represent a superb example of semantic deception.

For complete quote, see my book the deliberate dumbing down of america, page 213.

North Carolina House shields charters

The trust of the innocent parents supporting charters
is the liar's most useful tool.
Lying Quotes

A Report by Wynne Coleman, 3D Research Group  

“NC House votes to block disclosing charter school employees' names with pay."

The above article is from the Charlotte Observer, but also printed in Raleigh’s The News & Observer.

Aside from very important  question regarding traditional public school publication of names of employees' and their salaries, take a look at this:
"The House version of the charter bill also broadly bans discrimination against charter school applicants based on their sexual orientation or other federally and constitutionally protected classes.
Rep. Paul Stam, R-Wake, had questioned an amendment that would have prohibited schools from turning away applicants because of their sexual orientation. Stam said the bill needed to define sexual orientation because he argued that it could include everything from homosexuality to pedophilia if it were left open to interpretation. He was criticized by other lawmakers and gay-rights groups.
The amendment ultimately included in the bill prohibits schools from discriminating against applicants under any category that’s already protected by federal law or the U.S. Constitution. That includes sexual orientation.

“I think it does what we want morally and legally and constitutionally,” said Rep. Rick Glazier, D-Cumberland. “…Which is a recognition that no child should be discriminated against in a charter school for any reason based on their status (or) who they are.”

How can any taxpayer or parent support an agenda that is so full of legal and moral complexities?

If nothing else, this article illustrates how lawmakers must scurry to offer bill amendments that justify the ethics questions accompanying their public-private arrangements.

Tax-funded charter schools which are public schools, but unaccountable to the public (taxpayers) due to being run by unelected councils, will forever be subject to questions of constitutional legality. The legal profession is yet another group to rake in hundreds of millions of tax dollars in fees related to perfectly legitimate lawsuits filed by taxpayers and parents!


"Charter school board members found themselves powerless"

"In its investigation into how Michigan’s charter schools perform and spend nearly $1 billion a year in taxpayer dollars, the Free Press found board members who were kept clueless by their management companies about school budgets or threatened and removed by a school’s authorizer when they tried to exercise the responsibilities that come with their oath of office." SOURCE

A Report by Polly Anglin,  3D Research Group

Michigan has led the way in "REFORM" for YEARS. Taxation without representation.

Here is a direct quote from Vice President of Michigan's State Board of Education, Cassandra Ulbrich:
"These are not publicly elected boards.  They are appointed boards.  And they oftentimes come in and sign a management contract with management company which essentially gives management company full authority, with maybe some small exceptions,  over entire budget of the school. The Board has all of the liability but very little authority to make real  changes.  We know that there have been board members who came forward and said "We tried to make changes to instill our rights as board members overseeing the public schools,  and we have been essentially told to back off and that we don't have the right to do this.  If that is the case, then, you have to question "who is running the show here, because technically and legally it is supposed to be the board." 

SEE: Charter school board members found themselves powerless

This series of articles regarding Charter Schools is important as this is the history of Charters everywhere. SEE: State of charter schools: How Michigan spends $1 billion but fails to hold schools accountable

As president of the board of the Detroit Enterprise Academy, Sandra Clark-Hinton was pressing hard for detailed financial records from a representative of the charter school’s management company.
His response: The documents were “none of the board’s business,” Clark-Hinton told fellow board members at a 2010 meeting, recounting her phone conversation with the company official. She resigned later that night, saying she’d had enough.
Charter school board members are supposed to oversee the finances of their school, maintain independence from their management company and make information available to the public.
That’s the law in Michigan. But it doesn’t always happen.
Full Coverage: Free Press special report: State of charter school

Thursday, June 26, 2014


A Report by Mary Thompson, 3D Research Group

The recent remarks by General Covault about Common Core could lend relevance to that CFR Report of 2012 which recommended charter schools. For background see the blogpost "Tragedy in the Making."

The report "U.S. Education Reform and National Security" was chaired by Condoleezza Rice and Joel Klein. The thrust of the report had to do with schools in context of National Security. In reading the quotes by Covault on the blog HERE, the General's rhetoric somehow sounded familiar. I didn't re-read the entire report which I have in booklet form from CFR (available online as well type in google: "CFR" and  "U.S. Education Reform and National Security"). The report spends a lot of words on assessments then also writes about Common Core. We have used the CFR report to document that school choice is a darling of the Left, but the report also addresses Common Core which we have not mentioned in context of the report itself. The following are just a couple mentions of Common Core in the CFR Report.

"The Task force is aware that ensuring that effectively preparing students will take more than simply  establishing high expectations; effectively implementing the plan is equally important, and implementation requires substantial commitments of both effort and resources.  State and district leaders  should work to ensure that the schools that serve the neediest students receive their fair share of  funding and their fair share of excellent teachers who are capable of implementing the expanded Common Core to its full potential in the classroom.  Changing the way resources are allocated is, of course, much easier to write than to do--but the Task Force does not see it as optional.  Dollars and HUMAN CAPITAL (emphasis added by me) must be allocated consciously and wisely in order to ensure  that all students have access to the high quality, expanded Common Core that the Task Force is urging." (page 48)
Among the list of things the CFR considers crucial is the following: 

"Standards should not be seen as permanent.  They should be routinely evaluated and improved to ensure that the standards are ambitious and functional . The DEFENSE POLICY BOARD (emphasis added) , which advises the Secretary of Defense, and other leaders from the public and private sectors should evaluate the learning standards of education in America and periodically assess whether what and how students are learning is sufficiently rigorous to protect the country's national security interests.  Changing the status quo and ensuring that America's schools do not slip further behind is not a  task for trained educators alone; it is shared responsibility and must be elevated to the highest levels." 

Weeding through the rhetoric, that means "goodbye" to any concept of local elected representation and "hello" top-down direction of schools with military involvement in the orchestrating. This is chilling.

The next heading following that section of the report is: "MAKE STRUCTURAL CHANGES THAT EMPOWER EDUCATORS, FAMILIES, AND STUDENTS TO CHOOSE"

"Today the United States faces even greater pressures on social mobility; particularly from globalization and the technological revolution, which reward high skill levels and brutally punish those who fall behind...."

Choice, charters, etc., are then recommended by the Task Force and here comes a "zinger":

"Most, but not all, members of the Task Force believe that choice should be extended to private K-12 alternatives..." (vouchers, opportunity scholarships, etc.)  (page 51)


"In order to catalyze, reform,  innovate and better safeguard America's national security, it is essential to measure how well students, teachers and schools are measuring up.  It is also clear that simple measuring results is not enough to ensure progress:  accountability must also engender consequences and public awareness."

A repeat reading of that CFR Report: "U.S. EDUCATION REFORM AND NATIONAL SECURITY" may be something on researchers' priority list, and especially those individuals concentrating so strenuously opposing Common Core while ignoring or even promoting school "choice."  As Charlotte Iserbyt and others have pointed out, the specifics of Common Core aren't going away, they are intended to be implemented by any means feasible and as the CFR Report says, "they are not to be considered permanent," .i.e., ever-changing, which will keep single issue opponents busy long term.

A reading or repeat reading of the CFR Report will also document that the CFR is a mighty big elephant in the room advocating school choice, charters, vouchers, opportunity scholarships, etc. Common Core and School Choice are not separate and opposing issues, but deeply entwined as put forth in the report, and when the education system of a nation has the military at the head table, the implications take on a whole new dimension.

A Call To Action!



My position (below) on supporting traditional public schools with elected boards accountable to the taxpayer has nothing to do with my deep concern regarding the "deliberate" dumbing down of those very schools.  It is interesting that the following groups have been involved in the "deliberate" dumbing down" of our children ever since 1945 when the USA joined the United Nations:
  • the  U.S. Office of  Education and U.S. Dept of Education, 
  • the leftist globalist NEA and AFT unions (at the top, not teachers),  
  • the corporations 
  • the tax-exempt foundations.
All support "tax-funded school choice" and have for many years. School choice came from the Left and is now being launched by the Right.

See this example from my book the deliberate dumbing down of america,  page 322:  “TO OBE OR NOT TO OBE?” WAS THE QUESTION POSED BY MARJORIE LEDELL, ASSOCIATE of William Spady’s in his High Success Network, in her article for Educational Leadership’s January 1994 issue. From page 18 we read:
"Finally, raise the real issue and depend on democracy. Don’t let “to OBE or Not to OBE” or “to implement or not implement efforts to improve student learning” cloud the overdue national debate about whether public education should exist or be replaced with publicly funded private education."

We have been victimized. We are caught between a rock and a hard place. What "real" choice do we have? 

Of course, that You Tube video was produced a few years ago before educators and others in New Jersey knew what was coming down the pike... that there wouldn't be any public schools left, at least ones representing the taxpayers!

Look at New Orleans which has become a 100% charter district. The national school charter agenda now being headed up by Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching ex-Vice President-Treasurer John Ayers, brother of Bill Ayers from Chicago, of the 1970s communist "blow up buildings"  Weathermen movement. John Ayers is now an integral part of a the national education restructuring agenda out of Tulane University in Louisiana. No more blowing up buildings; just blow up the traditional education system. New Orleans children will now be marched into workforce training and lifelong community services being implemented across the nation as I write.  Google the Georgia Visions.  A Vision for Public Education

Does anything in this article sound familiar to you? Probably not, since you have been deprived of the history of what has been going on since 1945 by a 100% boycott of the truth... especially since 1980 when this agenda, which came out of my old office in the U.S. Dept. of Education, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) connected with UNESCO and OECD, Paris, was implemented full force. Especially after the Democratic Left in Congress had spent your tax monies on values-destroying programs created by the U.S. Office of Education, since 1965 under the first Elementary and Secondary Education Act!

By 1980 it was time for the Democrats to turn destruction of America, with its elective form of government and pure capitalist economic system, over to the Trotskyite neoconservatives, led by President Reagan who initiated the public/private partnerships through his White House Initiative on the Private Sector in 1982. I was the liaison from my office to the White House. Remember Secretary of Education T.H. Bell's phony plan for children, A Nation at Risk? Superb use of the Hegelian Dialectic. Create illusion there is a test score problem, when there wasn't really one; get people to scream, come to their assistance with "their"  sugar-coated solution... under a so-called conservative President. And we fell for it hook, line, and sinker. The "new" agenda, which was comprised of computer technology for education and assessment (get rid of books!), tax-funded school "choice" (supported by radical right and radical left), the Skinnerian direct instruction/mastery learning method (using operant conditioning) starting with Skinnerian reading instruction (DISTAR) after the true phonics method had been deliberately destroyed by Whole Language, and then Carnegie Corporation's (Marc Tucker/David Hornbeck) corporate school to work agenda, public private partnerships, global education, community education, etc. 

Fifteen years ago the National Alliance of Business called for kindergarten to age 80 workforce training! Read that over and over and ponder the future of your family and our nation.   

Did the reader know that government funded school choice is INTERNATIONAL? Charter schools are international; they are called "contract" schools in Russia. The USA is one of a very few nations, perhaps the only one (?) not to have accepted this totalitarian publicly-funded private education system. "They" at the international level MUST draw us, the most important nation in the world, into the trap.  Otherwise the global computer system won't work. Every child born on this planet must be enrolled in this government-controlled school choice system or the global computer data won't compute. Makes sense doesn't it? How can you have a smoothly operating global workforce training system without "tax-funded school choice"? The money MUST follow the child; each child into the slot designated by the public/private partnership... perhaps "lifelong." This is the Soviet polytechnical system. This is what the late Prof. Eugene Boyce of University of Georgia described so well when he  defined communist polytech education as follows in his book The Coming Revolution in Education, 1983, as quoted in the deliberate dumbing down of america, page 317:

"The communists do not educate people for jobs that do not exist. No such direct, controlled relationship between education and jobs exists in democratic countries.”

By the way, in the 1970s, 19 out of 20 of UNESCO's education advisors came from the Soviet Union and Communist Bloc countries. From which all philosophy and curriculum and assessment in American schools was derived. 


POISON #1: ROCK -- Tax-funded School "Choice" to spin off profits for the global elite, with no say whatsoever in how our tax money is spent: aka taxation without representation. This agenda is supported by President Obama, Secretary of Education Duncan, Lou Gerstner of IBM and Reed Hastings of Netflix (both of whom call for bringing down the public school system with its elected boards), Rockefeller Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Neo-Conservative Heritage Foundation, and most, if not all, of the so-called "Conservative Groups. Especially don't forget the Heritage Foundation drafted the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which has robbed Americans of hundreds of thousands (millions?) of good-paying jobs! It is any wonder that Communist Karl Marx was a great supporter of free trade?

POISON #2:  HARD PLACE -- Back to the local level. Less lethal, mainly since we have an escape valve -- local elected school boards. Retain the traditional public education hierarchical structure, K-12, academic focus, competition, stringent graduation requirements (4 years math, English, history, science, etc.) and get rid of the federally and foundation-funded and developed highly controversial Skinnerian performance-based OBE dumbdown, globalist value-destroying, mental health K-12 curriculum. The U.S. academic education system pre-1965 was known to be the finest in the world. Especially since it attempted and successfully served more young people from all classes and incomes than any other system in the world.

Do the following while you can, before your right to vote has been removed under tax-funded school "choice."
  1. Demand a return to the local level under elected school boards. no more federal or international UNESCO intrusion (control) from departments of education, labor or health and human services in Washington, D.C., or even from your state department of education, etc. A Department of Community Schools could assume the federal role due to heavy federal funding through the years.
  2. Call for a resumption of the 1953 Congressional Investigation of the tax-exempt foundations,. Your job is to find one good senator to craft legislation to resume these hearings. (Read the details at this blogpost.)
  3. There is good local control of curriculum, methodology, and privacy rights legislation crafted by THE PEOPLE LLC and passed and signed by the governor in Louisiana. These bills could be a model in each state for a return of control to the local, to parents and taxpayers who pay for the schools (check them out on the Internet and Facebook). These folks are willing to work with education activists in all states crafting similar legislation. 

THE CATASTROPHE FACING ALL OF US RIGHT NOW HAS BEEN PLANNED SINCE 1948.  THAT PLAN (The Montgomery County Blueprint dated 1948) has been posted at my blog: "THE PLAN: CRADLE TO GRAVE."

This Plan very likely was conceived by the Carnegie Corporation of New York since it was spelled out clearly in Carnegie's little blue book Conclusions and Recommendations for the Social Studies, 1934, which called for using the schools to change America's capitalist economic system to a planned economy (school to work) and even called for the seizure of private property!  You can read that little book at

Road Map for Restructuring Schools


Those involved in support of Common Core, like the retired Generals and Admirals (see this blogpost), should take a look at the following 1990 article from Education Week, especially noting the groups involved in the restructuring of our nation to a communist planned economy, using tax funded private education/school "choice," and other questionable programs, etc. to do so.  They have secretly been implementing this agenda for over one hundred years.  Our recent call for the resumption of the 1953 Congressional Investigation of the Tax Exempt Foundations is 100% justified... the sooner the better. I have bolded the most egregious recommendations:

See my book the deliberate dumbing down of america, pages 270-271 about the ECA's "road map for restructuring schools." The Education Commission of the States (Carnegie funded, ed) and the National Governors Association (Carnegie funded, ed.) Restructuring Workshops were supported by grants from the American Express Foundation, ARCO Foundation, BellSouth Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Control Data Corporation and The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

The retired military supporting Common Core, who think it just sprouted up from the local level and has no connection with the Carnegie Department of Education (thank you, Dr. Dennis Cuddy, for your fine research) may wish to do some research regarding the role of the Carnegie Corporation of New York in the funding and creation of the Education Commission of the States and in the creation and funding of the National Governors Association in 1908. 

IN 1990 THE MARCH 28, 1990 ISSUE OF EDUCATION WEEK RE-PUBLISHED “A ROAD MAP FOR REstructuring Schools,” a one-page list of principles of restructuring and steps for policy makers to use. Developed by the Education Commission of the States (ECS) and the National Governors’ Association (NGA) and signed by Jane Armstrong, director of policy studies for ECS, this “Road Map” was a result of two regional workshops to discuss strategies for redesigning state education systems to meet national performance goals. Excerpts follow:

PRINCIPLES OF RESTRUCTURING... Restructuring requires risk-taking and experimentation in order to transform schools into dynamic, self-renewing organizations....
STEPS FOR POLICY MAKERS TO TAKE... Develop a specific and demanding statement
of what basic skills, thinking skills, knowledge, attitudes and behaviors you want all students to have when they complete school….

• Student outcomes should meet employability criteria suggested by business and industry.
• Build a coalition of business, community, education and political leaders… to bring external pressure on the education system for productive change.
• Sell the agenda to policy makers and the public.
• Identify and train spokespersons to advocate system restructuring.
• Get business and political leaders to carry the restructuring banner.
• Provide flexibility, encourage experimentation and decentralize decision making.
• Use incentives to encourage risk taking and experimentation.
• Decentralize authority by encouraging site-based management.
• Redesign teacher and administrator education.
Redesign teacher education to model instruction for an active learning classroom.
• Develop programs that focus on content knowledge and new forms of pedagogy.
• Link schools with universities and other sources of information to help teachers expand their knowledge of teaching and learning.
• Strengthen the clinical experience by placing teacher candidates in schools that are restructuring.
• Provide time for teacher renewal, collaboration and the acquisition of new skills, understandings and attitudes.
Provide incentives for teachers to receive national board certification.
• Develop multiple ways to measure progress to avoid “high stakes” testing and teaching to a single test.
• Develop “outcomes-based” accreditation procedures.
• Provide rewards for high-achieving schools and sanctions for low-achieving schools.
• Create programs that engage students in community service.
Collaborate with other social service agencies to fully serve the needs of all children.
• Encourage parental involvement.
• Create public school choice plans.
• Provide incentives to reward accomplishments.
• Align and revise state policies to support restructuring.
• Develop business/education partnerships. Use technology to explore new ways to deliver instruction… not as an “add-on” to the traditional lecture, recite, test method of instruction.
• Be prepared to handle policy decisions on jurisdiction over distance learning; i.e., teacher certification, textbook and curriculum approval.
The ECS/NGA Restructuring Workshops were supported by grants from the American Express
Foundation, ARCO Foundation, BellSouth Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York,
Control Data Corporation and The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.




From Cradle...
To Grave...

The Plan: Initiated in 1946, with planning and full pilot implementation 1946-1999, going in nationwide right now. The Plan requires Common Core and tax-funded school choice with no elected boards for workforce training in the global planned economy. The Plan was referred to as the Chinese Communist system by a federally funded community educator at a community education conference in Washington, D.C. 1975. 

History of The Plan circa: 1946---->1999---->2014

The Plan: The Montgomery County Blueprint.  
Excerpt from Community-Centered Schools: The Blueprint, Montgomery County, Maryland Schools, as proposed by Dr. Nicholaus L. Englehardt and Associates, Consultants, and written by Dr. Walter D. Cocking (New York City: April 1, 1946). This was probably the most important blueprint for the nation, although The Hawaii Master Plan [see 1969] certainly follows in
its footsteps. 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.
     The task of the teacher of the future is a greatly different task than that which teachers usually performed in the past. The fundamental equipment expected of the teacher of yesterday was knowledge of the subject he taught. Modern education demands teachers who are acquainted by experience as well as by study with our democratic society and who participate actively in the life of the community.
     They have a broad cultural background and an understanding of world conditions. Teacher educational institutions have not prepared teachers to do these things. Prior emphasis has been upon subject matter and method.
The Blueprint goes on to list the major purposes of a total instructional program “of benefit to
the entire community.” Under “The Educational Program” one finds:

  • continuing and improving the teaching of the cultures of the past;
  • developing the ability to communicate effectively;
  • developing the ability to think;
  • developing desirable personality and character traits;
  • discovering and developing worthwhile interests;
  • developing respect for others, or intercultural relations;
  • protecting and promoting health;
  • developing wholesome home and family life (Other agencies must accept at least some of the responsibilities formerly borne by the family. The school must study the problem intensively. It must experiment.);
  • developing wholesome habits and understanding of work;
  • good members of society cannot be developed if they are ignorant of work and what goes into it. In the years which lie ahead, it would appear that the school is the only agency which society has which can be expected to accept this responsibility.
  • IT MUST BE DONE. [emphasis in the original]
  • developing understanding of economic principles and forces (Emphasis must be placed upon the economic principles and forces which are operating at that time rather than upon those of the past.);
  • developing consumer competence… schools of the future must do much about such things;
  • developing vocational competence;
  • developing social and civic competence—understand obligations as a member of the group;… and to give wholeheartedly and unselfishly service to his local, state, national and world government;
  • developing understanding of, and skill in, the democratic way of life;
  • developing knowledge, understanding of, and skill in, the creative arts;
  • developing understanding of, and skill in, wholesome and worthwhile leisure activities (Much depends upon people discovering and practicing worthwhile leisure pursuits.);
  • developing a well-rounded emotional life with particular attention to moral and spiritual needs. (A well-balanced emotional life is the final test of a well-educated person. It is our belief that all people are religious, that religion finds expression in many different ways. We do not believe in America that they should teach any particular kind or type of religion.) [bullets added for emphasis]
Under “The Service Program” one finds Health and Medical Services. (In the school of the
future, provision must be made not only for children enrolled but to all people, young and
old.) The list is endless and includes the following cradle-through-grave services: recreational,
library, guidance and counseling, child care, demonstration and experimental services,
planning and research, employment, audiovisual, social welfare, group meeting place,
character-building services. The Plan [Blueprint] states further:

The end results are that the school makes itself indispensable to all phases of community life. In the future development of school programs, the service program will receive increasing emphasis until the school becomes in fact the agency to which all the people in the community turn for assistance. [This is Appendix I in the deliberate dumbing down of america.]
The Plan: Together We Can (download HERE)

...THE JANUARY 24, 1999 ISSUE OF THE GWINNETT Daily Post of Lawrenceville, Georgia contained an article by staff writer Laura Ingram entitled “Clusters Promote Community Growth.” This article describes a second-step phase of a “systems change” effort outlined in a joint publication from the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Together We Can. The article, which illustrates the shift from representative (elected) governance to regional (unelected) governance with its... use of partnerships to accomplish its goals, is included in its entirety below:
Unique groups called Community Cluster Care Teams were born last April, comprised of 12 Gwinnett communities, and have taken their first steps toward uniting sections of the county into neighborhoods.
     “The entire community needs to get involved,” said Suzanne Brighton, coordinator for the teams. “We need to look at the environment we’re raising our children in. Everybody has a responsibility to create a healthy environment where children can grow.”
     Parents, teachers, senior citizens, clergy, business people, school officials and social service workers first met this new creation April 15 at a conference called “Together We Can,” sponsored by the Gwinnett Coalition for Health and Human Services and BellSouth.
     The 200 participants split into 12 groups based on high school clusters and came up with particular ways to improve each cluster/community. But they did not stop at just a sketch.
     The 12 teams continued meeting throughout the year, drawing more community members and resources into their group, and creating strategic plans to accomplish their goals and shrink scary statistics that show children finding their way into drugs, pregnancy and violence.
     This fall, their imperative to heal and unite their neighborhoods took shape as tree
plantings, youth dialogues, new youth basketball teams, grandparent adoptions and bilingual services.
     Metro United Way’s vice president of community investments, Geralyn Sheehan, calls the teams a pilot program for the entire nation, teaching residents throughout America how to reconnect with others to build a healthier community.
[Ed. Note: To further illustrate what the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services book Together We Can: A Guide for Crafting a Profamily System of Education and Human Services (Contract #RP912060001: PrismDAE, a division of DAE Corporation: Chevy Chase, Maryland, 1993) outlined as a blueprint to follow for “local systems change,” the writer will offer some excerpts from this publication. Jointly signed by Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley and Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna E. Shalala, the foreword to this book reads:

This book was developed jointly... to help communities improve coordination of education, health and human services for at-risk children and families. Together We Can: A Guide for Crafting a Profamily System of Education and Human Services reflects the work and experience of a study group of researchers and front-line administrators and practitioners working with promising programs that link education and human services. Together We Can leads the reader through a five-stage collaborative process with milestones and landmines portrayed through vignettes and case studies describing the personal experiences of the study group members.
This federally-funded "blueprint" book continues as follows:
Together We Can is a practical guide that can assist local communites in the difficult process of creating a more responsive education and human service delivery system. The guidebook emphasizes the effective delivery of supports for families, a crucial step toward assuring the future success of America’s children. Recognizing that the current system of programs serving children is fragmented, confusing and inefficient, the guidebook advocates a radical change in the service delivery system. It encourages a holistic approach in treating the problems of children and families; easy access to comprehensive services; early detection of problems and preventive health care services; and flexibility for education, health and human services.
We believe this guide is a practical tool for the many communities that are working to create more comprehensive, family-focused service delivery systems for children and their families.
[Ed. Note: This is pure, unadulterated “communitarianism,” which is defined as: “communitarian—
a member or advocate of a communistic community” (p. 288) and “ism”—a doctrine, theory, system” (p. 474) in Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language (William Colliers—World Publishing Co., Inc.: New York, 1976.), the system we have been told is “dead.”]

In the preface to Together We Can we find the following:

Have partners developed shared information systems?
• Is there ready access to each other’s records? ...
• Have agencies replaced separate in-house forms to gather the same kind of information with a common form used by all members or other organizations to establish program eligibility? Assess case management needs? Develop case plans?
Have partner agencies incorporated the vision and values of the collaborative at their administrative and staff levels?
  • Have partners altered their hiring criteria, job descriptions, and preservice or inservice training to conform to a vision of comprehensive, accessible, culturally appropriate, family-centered, and outcome-oriented services? ...
  • Are outcome goals clearly established?
  • Has the collaborative used its data collection capacity to document how well children and families are faring in their communities and how well agencies and child-serving institutions are meeting their mandates? ...
  • Are outcomes measurable? Do they specify what degree of change is expected to occur in the lives of children and families during what period of time?
  • Is shared accountability a part of outcomes that reflect education, human service, and community goals and objectives?
Has the collaborative devised a financing strategy to ensure long-term funding? Has the collaborative gained legitimacy in the community as a key vehicle for addressing and resolving community issues regarding children and families?
  • Are the collaborative’s positions on community issues supported by commitments from public and private service providers, the business community, and the church and neighborhood-based organizations whose members are often most directly affected by collaborative decisionmaking?
The above activities are advocated and coordinated through a center which was established
with taxpayers’ money and is described in the following explanation of its activities:


 National Center for Services Integration
The National Center for Services Integration (NCSI) was established in late 1991 with funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and private foundations to improve life outcomes for children and families through the creative integration of education, health and human services. The center itself is a collaboration of six organizations: Mathtech, Inc.; the Child and Family Policy Center; National Center for Children in Poverty; National Governors’ Association, Policy Studies Associates; and the Yale Bush Center. It also receives guidance from distinguished advisors knowledgeable about the issues and institutions concerned with service integration.
The primary purpose of NCSI is to stimulate, guide, and actively support service integration efforts throughout the entire country. To accomplish its mission, NCSI has undertaken a variety of activities through its Information Clearinghouse on Service Integration and a Technical Assistance Network.
The Clearinghouse, which is operated by the National Center on Children in Poverty at Columbia University, collects and disseminates information and materials on service integration issues and related topics. They have developed a computer directory of  service integration programs, a separate directory of organizations, and an extensive research library collection that can provide information and support to  community-based programs. Individuals, organizations, and localities can access any of the Clearinghouse services.…
The Technical Assistance Network, which is operated by Charles Bruner of the Child and Family Policy Center [Kids Count] and Mathtech [government contractor for the evaluation of sex education programs], brings together leading service integration planners, practitioners, administrators, and experts to exchange ideas and information, to develop written resource materials for communities and practitioners and to convene working groups composed of persons in the forefront of particular issues to develop strategies for successfully resolving some of the challenges facing communities and governmental entities involved in service integration efforts.
[Ed. Note: If the reader has any questions about why school-based clinics, school-to-work, community education programs, year-round schools, one-stop training centers, and all of the other “locally conceived” programs have come into their communities with such force and fundamental support, the above federally funded and conceived plans should answer them. Together We Can brings together national and international plans for socializing all services to our citizenry. One example is the International Year of the Child proposals which originated in 1979 and are hereby funded, formatted, and fulfilled in Together We Can’s “how-to” instruction manual. These are the processes necessary to create the “perfect human resource”—the global worker. President Nixon vetoed the child and family legislation encompassing all of the above activities (the Humphrey-Hawkins Child and Family Services Act) in the mid–1970s, calling it the most socialistic legislation he had ever seen. The New York Times carried an article by Edward B. Fiske entitled “Early Schooling Is Now the Rage” in its April 13, 1986 issue which explained:
Mr. Nixon not only vetoed the bill (Humphrey-Hawkins] but also fired off a scathing message to Congress, proclaiming that he would have no part in the “Sovietizing” of American Society. “Good public policy requires that we enhance rather than diminish both parental authority and parental involvement with children.”
This comprehensive program links almost every entry in this book, from cradle to grave. None of this could have been accomplished without the use of behaviorist methods and change agent tactics carefully documented in this book. Americans would not have willingly turned over decision making in these areas unless manipulated into doing so; no one ever voted to conduct our government in this manner. The Montgomery County Blueprint of 1946—fifty-plus years ago—spelled out this approach. In the Blueprint Paul Mort pointed out that it takes fifty years to accomplish “systems change.” He was right on target.][All material above was excerpted from the deliberate dumbing down of america,  pages 439-444]

Current example of The Plan: Click on following link to see what is going in right now across the country: A Vision for Public Education

FOR MORE HISTORY of The Plan: Refer to my book, the deliberate dumbing down of america, a free download.

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Tragedy in the Making

"By implementing tougher standards that are uniform across the country, Covault said Common Core would help ensure better human capital [i.e., your child's assessed economic value] for America’s armed forces."

See this article: "Lt. General Marvin Covault Defends Common Core: "The Military Has a Vested Interest in This"

Lt. Gen. Marvin Covault
Talk about a tragedy in the making!  This is it.

Below is an excerpt from the article:
...Lt. General Marvin Covault, a former chief of staff for NATO forces in Southern Europe who now lives in North Carolina. The [Common Core] standards, he said, would be invaluable for ensuring the U.S. military has the largest possible pool of qualified recruits.
“It didn’t come from the federal government, and that’s a big big plus,” he said. “None of this other garbage that has come out of the Department of Education every four years has worked.” Common Core, however, began as a shared effort by different state governors who were convinced that repeated federal efforts weren’t getting the job done of ensuring high educational standards, Covault said. If people believe it was dictated by the federal government, he added, it’s likely as assumption based on what has driven educational change in the past.
Covault also emphasized that Common Core did not dictate how teachers ought to teach.
Oh, really? They surely have NOT done their homework.

Are these retired Generals for real? Where have they been throughout the discussion of education assessment in the United States ever since 1969 when the Carnegie Corporation, which Dr. Dennis Cuddy, prominent educational researcher, calls the Carnegie Dept. of Education, funded (created) the National Assessment, 1969, upon which ALL assessments, including the Common Core, have been based? This is the same Carnegie which signed agreements with the Soviet Academy of Science in 1985 to develop computer courseware for early elementary school children in "critical thinking," and funded and controlled the Education for the Economy School to Work Agenda under Marc Tucker (1990s)! Is it possible they know nothing of the role of the Carnegie-created National Governors Association (1908) which has played in the destruction of academic education and in the  development of the Common Core?

He states for a fact that the U.S. Dept. of Education, which controls the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), which is deeply involved in the development of Common Core standards, had nothing to do with the Common Core standards.

And we are supposed to take these pro-Common Core recommendations seriously?

I am speechless. 

The Conference of Governors was held in the White House May 13-15, 1908 under governors' conferences, now held by the National Governors Association with leading industrialists, such as Andrew Carnegie and James J. Hill, and politicians. Read more at where it begins: 

The Conference of Governors was held in the White House May 13-15, 1908 under the sponsorship of President Theodore Roosevelt. Gifford Pinchot, at that time Chief Forester of the U.S., was the primary mover of the conference, and a progressive conservationist, who strongly believed in the scientific and efficient management of natural resources on the federal level. He was also a prime mover of the previous Inland Waterways Commission, which recommended such a meeting the previous October. On November 13, 1907, the President issued invitations to the governors of the States and Territories to meet at the White House on those dates. This 1908 meeting was the beginning of the annual governors' conferences, now held by the National Governors Association.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014


Teachers, rise up and reclaim your profession
before its too late

Rotten to the "Core"
EXCERPT: Most likely, there is already a plan in motion that will rescue the states from the dreaded Common Core. Look for this to come in the next year or two as the pushback to the Common Core reaches fever pitch.  It may come in the form of an increased push to move all school districts into charter management operations (CMO’s) just as Louisiana has done in New Orleans.  If this occurs it will signal the death knell of the public school system in America. Gone will be the elected school boards and gone will be the parent’s ability to have a say in the education of their children.
A report by Patrick Huff, Ph.D.,
3D Research Group

Education reform is moving fast in America. Sometimes it is hard to keep up with the changes that are occurring at such a rapid pace. Front and center on the news channels and education journals is debate over the rollout of the Common Core State Standards. It has been accepted and installed in the schools of 45 states. This has all happened with little debate and no field-testing. Yet now that it is in play,  it is beginning to come under scrutiny.

First, a little clarification is needed. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are sets of standards that have skills identified that are target goals for students at each grade level. It is not a curriculum.  The standards do, however, influence curriculum by shaping whatever curriculum is chosen by the state or school district.  If the state is a Common Core state then the standards are embedded in the curriculum.  There is much debate now as to whether the Common Core Standards are age appropriate or family friendly.

The rolling out of the CCSS caught many by surprise. It appeared and was accepted by many of the states practically before the ink was dry.  It was presented as if it came from the states and was initiated with the blessing of the superintendents throughout the land.  It was advertised that it came out of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The National Governors Association (NGA) is a Washington-based organization made up of state governors, but has a steering committee based in Washington, DC that sets the agenda and drives the association.  The same can be said for the CCSSO.  The Council of Chief State School Officers is headquartered in Washington, DC and operates in much the same manner as the NGA. To make the claim that the Common Core comes from the state’s governors and has the support of each state’s education commissioner and its superintendents is disingenuous at best. 

Wealthy philanthropists bought support for CCSS, namely The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, The Walton Foundation and The Broad Foundation, with money flowing to education groups and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) on the left and the right. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is perceived as being on the conservative side and is fully behind Common Core. The Center for American Progress (CAP) is thought to be liberal and also supports the CCSS. Both are strong advocates for school choice, aka charter schools and vouchers. There are, of course, many other NGOs, think tanks and entrepreneurs that work in tandem to influence legislation promoting the merger of corporate interests with the public education sector. 

Now states are getting tremendous pushback against the CCSS from teachers, parents, and superintendents for various reasons. Parent groups object to the skills identified in the standards.  Many teacher groups say the standards are not rigorous enough. Superintendents decry the money needed to train teachers and purchase new curriculum materials that have the CCSS already embedded. The push for laptops and tablets to replace textbooks is seen as a control mechanism used to manipulate information and knowledge. If it is not embedded in the tablet or laptop curriculum, it will not be taught.

Keeping in mind the Hegelian Dialectic, the sudden rollout of the CCSS is following the classic script. The planners have created the problem, which is CCSS. Now they are trying to manage all the different groups in opposition to the CCSS. There will be a synthesis that will be introduced after the situation has gotten to the breaking point.

What the synthesis will be is a question now, but one could certainly look at who stands to gain in this cat and mouse game of education reform. The one thing the philanthropists, NGOs, lobbying organizations and inner circle politicians all want is control. They don’t just want a little control. They want total control.  What is it they want to control? They want to control information and knowledge, and in the process make billions of dollars.

One area in which to look for the hidden hand is in the construct of accountability that is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). AYP is the federal accountability system that was implemented with No Child Left Behind (NCLB). It placed schools in a progressively increasing mandate of higher percentages that were required for all ethnic subgroups--English Language Learners (ELA), Special Education students, and Low Socio-Economic qualifying students--on the yearly administered standardized state test. This was the instrument used to take schools to failure in their accountability and prompted superintendents to clamor for their governors to accept the Waiver option offered by President Obama and the U.S. Department of Education. 

In 2011 the AYP requirements for Reading/ ELA were set at 80% and the Math requirements were set at 75%.  That meant that each subgroup had to achieve the percentage standard collectively.  The school was graded as a whole, but each subgroup had to meet the standard as well. With these requirements, schools began to exhibit a pattern of increased failure status.  In 2012 the AYP requirements jumped to 87% and 83 %, respectively. Now schools were in crisis mode. The requirements for 2013 were slated for 93% and 92%. Remember, the schools have to be on a path leading to 100% by 2014. This was decreed into law with No Child Left Behind and cheered by Congress when President Bush (43) announced this ludicrous mandate.  2014 was a long way off in 2002 when No Child Left Behind was passed into law.

A 100% mandate for every child in America would be a worthy goal, if that were all that it was. But when 100% was put into law that set in play an increasing percentage required for each subgroup. The subgroups are seven: African American, Hispanic, White, English Language Learners, Low Socio-Economic, Special Education, and All Students. If just one of these groups failed to make the necessary percentage point requirement, then the whole school failed. The same can be said for the school district. Each public school district’s federal accountability rating is based on the breakdown of their subgroups and its passing percentage on the test as dictated by the AYP standard for that year. There are only two options: Meet Standards or Failed to Meet Standards.

Two federal initiatives were put in motion that led to the mass acceptance by the states of Common Core. The first was Race to the Top (RTTT). With RTTT, states could apply for grants by writing their own accountability systems that demonstrated an aggressive approach to a rigorous curriculum that would prepare their students for college or a career.  There were two requirements in order to have any chance of qualifying for a RTTT grant: (1) agreement to have an aggressive charter school program, and (2) adopt the curriculum standards that the US Department of Education called a “rigorous college and career ready program.” This rigorous program turned out to be the Common Core State Standards.

The second initiative produced by the Obama Administration and the US Department of Education was the Waiver.  In 2011 President Obama issued the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Waiver. The ESEA Waiver Package was eagerly accepted by many states as soon as it was offered.  It relieved states of many of the mandates dictated by NCLB, with certain stipulations.  The main two requirements were: agreement to adopt the CCSS and tie teacher and administrator evaluations, or appraisals, to the outcomes on their students on the yearly state test. The measure used to apply the outcomes was the AYP percentage requirement for that year. With AYP percentages on the rise, superintendents in most states urged their governor to accept the Waiver.

It is 2014 and if something had not changed, every school district and virtually every school in America, would be failing this year.  This is the year when all students are mandated by law to be proficient on the test.

Well, something did change. The AYP mandate was put on hold by the US Department of Education.  Why was it put on hold? Because there is now a two-tiered accountability program in the United States: those operating within the Waiver, and the five states operating outside the Waiver that are still required to meet the 100% mandate.  All states have been given an opportunity to demonstrate their plan to demonstrate accountability for the education profession and provide a rigorous curriculum that will “raise the standards” for each child’s education in their state. Each state must also demonstrate the method that is to be used that will take their students to 100% proficiency on the state test.

Adequate Yearly Progress has not been disbanded; only put on hold. It is soon to re-emerge as each state has their plan approved. As of now,  the percentages required for each school and school district’s subgroups are lower as the schools are given an opportunity to readjust to a new test. In Texas it is the State of Texas Assessment of Academic Readiness (STAAR). The AYP percentages are at 75% in both Reading/ELA and Math for the 2013 testing year. This resulted in many schools and districts receiving a “Met Standards” accountability rating that just the year prior were receiving a “Failed to Meet Standards” accountability rating.

In the 2013-2014 school year the percentages are set at 79%. The 2014-2015 school year will see percentages at 83%.  Nothing has been decided for the percentage requirement in the years that follow the 2014-2015 school year. Each state’s education plan submitted to the US Department of Education had to demonstrate how its plan would move students to 100% proficiency and by which date it would be accomplished. Due to the rise in the percentages required for each subgroup, schools will soon be failing again.

Of course, the accountability system is far more complicated than what has just been recited above.  There is a group of lowest 5% of schools in each state that sets the moving target each year for the “failed to meet standards” rating. There are different indexes that set marks of attainment for schools and districts, as well.  The AYP percentage factor, however, remains the single greatest determinant that will move schools to failure just as it did in the years leading up to the Waiver option. This fear factor for superintendents and principals will continue to play a role as pressure is exerted from above on the teaching profession, and the students who have to bare the brunt of the accountability-based testing matrix that has become the public school system.

The Hegelian Dialectic is being played out currently in the education programs across America in the public schools. The synthesis (solution) is the Waiver option, which came after the antithesis that was the huge failure rate in the public schools (reaction). It all started with the thesis (problem) that was the standards-based  (AYP percentages) accountability system put in place during the standardized testing era for public school children.  Standards/AYP (problem) leading to failure of schools nationwide (reaction), and finally the Waiver option to rescue the states (solution) has been played out in traditional Hegelian Dialectic fashion.

Now, a new reaction is taking place across the country--the reaction to the Common Core State Standards. Many states are finding out that the standards are not to their liking.  It is also being discovered that there is an exorbitant cost in implementing the CCSS. States are crying foul and standing up to the federal government by threatening to opt out of the Waiver, even when it means the loss of millions of dollars from the federal government.

Most likely, there is already a plan in motion that will rescue the states from the dreaded Common Core. Look for this to come in the next year or two as the pushback to the Common Core reaches fever pitch.  It may come in the form of an increased push to move all school districts into charter management operations (CMO’s) just as Louisiana has done in New Orleans.  If this occurs it will signal the death knell of the public school system in America. Gone will be the elected school boards and gone will be the parent’s ability to have a say in the education of their children.

It is time for a change in our approach to the education of our children. This change has to be built from the bottom up. Teachers, principals and superintendents must say “No more!” No more being led by the nose into each new phase of control and oppression. This has to be done in vast numbers, as the only way to get the attention of those in control of the education system is to all speak with one voice. When the state’s politicians hear this voice of unity coming from every school district in their state, there will be a chance for true reform. This reform, however, will be to remove the shackles of the accountability system and reclaim the teaching profession’s rightful place in education. Remove the fear of yearly failure from both the student and the profession. Reinstate the teacher as the rightful purveyor of information and knowledge in the classroom, and give back to the parents the ownership and control of our communities’ schools.