ARE AMERICANS GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS?
From Cradle...
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
1946
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.The Blueprint goes on to list the major purposes of a total instructional program “of benefit to
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 entire community.” Under “The Educational Program” one finds:
Under “The Service Program” one finds Health and Medical Services. (In the school of the
- 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]
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.]
1999
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.[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:
“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.
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?
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?
- 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?
The above activities are advocated and coordinated through a center which was established
- 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?
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]
2014
Current example of The Plan: Click on following link to see what is going in right now across the country: A Vision for Public EducationFOR MORE HISTORY of The Plan: Refer to my book, the deliberate dumbing down of america, a free download.