ANSWER: President Obama, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Reed Hastings of Netflix who has called for the end of elected boards, Lou Gerstner, ex-CEO of IBM, who has called for tearing down all 16,000 (app.) public school districts, globalist David Rockefeller and his Council on Foreign Relations and the so-called conservative Heritage Foundation which drafted the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which has robbed Americans of hundreds of thousands of jobs.
By the way, how many people are aware that it was Karl Marx who said in Brussels, Belgium in 1848:
"Generally speaking the Protective system in these days is conservative while the Free trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of the proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In the revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade." [Communism and Nationalism, Karl Marx vs Friedrich Engels, Romazporluk, Oxford Univ. Press, 1988, page 41.]Why are good Americans following like lemmings the Heritage Foundation which, along with the above-mentioned individuals, corporations, and foundations are promoting a free Marxist free trade agenda?
[NOTE: Heritage Foundation pretends it is opposed to Common Core, and it and its neoconservative crony tax-exempt foundation friends (Pioneer Institute, American Principles Project, Americans for Prosperity, etc.) are heavily funding and keeping alive the anti-Common Core bandwagon sweeping across the country, holding anti-Common Core conferences, issuing slick studies, and giving speeches. Surely Heritage Foundation can't be opposed to Common Core when Common Core provides the workforce standards (TQM/social justice-oriented) necessary for smooth implementation of the Soviet "workforce training" required by NAFTA.]
You know we must, in this politically correct world, be able to get along with and work with anyone, anywhere in this world. So that requires the non absolutist, politically correct, social justice TQM focus of Common Core.]
Opposition to Common Core is simply a highly-funded /well-organized diversionary tactic (the staged "crisis") to keep the American people from going up against the Trojan Horse planned "solution," which is tax-funded private education and charter schools with their unelected boards. Opposition to Common Core is designed to keep "us" occupied while "they" (the multi-billionaires, corporations and media moguls) take over the tax-funded public school system with its elected boards and turn it into a chartered school system run by THEM, paid for with your tax money -- about which you will have NO say.
Anyone out there listening? How many public schools and religious schools (Catholic) have already been turned into charter schools, with no elected school boards?
Will Americans only wake up when they have no alternative -- other than a publicly-funded private or religious school, or a charter school, to send their children to? When will they find out they have no say in how their tax-money is being spent (aka "Taxation without representation")?
Furthermore, they can expect the curriculum landscape to reflect the views of the following corporate, academia, and leftist change agent types.
My book the deliberate dumbing down of america (on page 216) documents that in 1987 The Washington Post paraphrased Thomas Sticht, who was involved in the Washington, D.C. mastery learning disaster, as follows:
Many companies have moved operations to places with cheap, relatively poorly educated labor. What may be crucial, they say, is the dependability of a labor force and how well it can be managed and trained, not its general educational level, although a small cadre of highly educated creative people is essential to innovation and growth. Ending discrimination and changing values are probably more important than reading in moving low income families into the middle class.
Also from my book, on page p. 183, you can read the following:
IN A 1987 SPEECH ENTITLED “REGULATED COMPETITION IN THE UNITED STATES” DELIVERED BEfore the top 52 executives in Northern Telecom’s Worldwide Corporation meeting, for which the edited proceedings were published in the February 1982 issue of the Innisbrook Papers, Harvard Professor Anthony Oettinger of the Council on Foreign Relations made the following extremely elitist statements:
Our idea of literacy, I am afraid, is obsolete because it rests on a frozen and classical definition. Literacy, as we know it today, is the product of the conditions of the industrial revolution, of organization, of the need for a work force that could, in effect, “write with a fine round hand.” It has to do, in other words, with the Bob Cratchits of the world.
But as much as we might think it is, literacy is not an eternal phenomenon. Today’s
literacy is a phenomenon (and Dickens satirized it) that has its roots in the nineteenth century, and one does not have to reach much farther back to think of civilizations with different concepts of literacy based, for example, on oral, rather than written, traditions.
The present “traditional” concept of literacy has to do with the ability to read and write. But the real question that confronts us today is: How do we help citizens function well in their society? How can they acquire the skills necessary to solve their problems?
Do we, for example, really want to teach people to do a lot of sums or write in a “fine
round hand” when they have a five-dollar, hand-held calculator or a word processor to work with? Or, do we really have to have everybody literate—writing and reading in the traditional sense—when we have the means through our technology to achieve a new flowering of oral communication?
What is speech recognition and speech synthesis all about if it does not lead to ways of
reducing the burden on the individual of the imposed notions of literacy that were a product of nineteenth century economics and technology?
Complexity—everybody is moaning about tasks becoming too complex for people to
do. A Congressman who visited one of my classes recently said, “We have such low-grade soldiers in the U.S. that we have to train them with comic books.” And an army captain in my class shot back: “What’s wrong with comic books? My people function” [emphasis in original].
It is the traditional idea that says certain forms of communication, such as comic books,are “bad.” But in the modern context of functionalism they may not be all that bad.
Here is an amusing example of "their" success in covering the anti-Common Core demographic landscape, right down to the level of Antoine's Restaurant in New Orleans, where I had dinner with friends awhile ago. During dinner our waiter, with whom we had all been chatting, asked me, "You have heard about Common Core, haven't you"? I gulped and almost choked on whatever delicious course I was involved with.
It is almost as if a deadly disease had surfaced in the USA and the medical profession was, for good reason, warning ALL citizens to take certain precautions. Or, for good reason, the government wanted all of us to prepare for an atomic attack?
Truly, why is there so much hype over federal Marxist standards that have been with us since the 1970s when we never before heard a peep from any of the people (organizations) controlling the present anti-Common Core bandwagon?
Doesn't that give you some indication of the success these highly-funded internationalists are having in keeping the American people focused on the totally wrong subject (Common Core) while they slip in the solution -- the new charter school system of "workforce training" to spin off profits for the very people (global elite) who were on the NEA's Pre-planning Committee (see below).
MEAT AND POTATOES
PROOF OF COLLUSION: Who would have ever guessed that The National Education Association has close ties to the global elite, no less than important personages such as David Rockefeller and the late McGeorge Bundy of the Ford Foundation, who is also a member of The Order of Skull and Bones, at Yale? This following juicy tidbit of information was disclosed in TODAY’S EDUCATION, the journal of the National Education Association (NEA), in an article in the September–October 1976 edition entitled “The Seven Cardinal Principles Revisited.” The NEA, when questioned regarding the existence of this article in its Journal replied "No such article exists." An excerpt from page 140-141 of my book follows:
TODAY’S EDUCATION, THE JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, CARRIED an article in the September–October 1976 edition entitled “The Seven Cardinal Principles Revisited.” On page 1 this article stated that:
In 1972, the NEA established a Bicentennial Committee charged with developing a “living commemoration of the principles of the American Revolution.” This 200th anniversary celebration of the Declaration of Independence was to focus on the next 100 years of education in an interdependent global community. The initial work of the Committee culminated in the NEA Bicentennial Idea Book. Among its ideas was that of developing a definitive volume to “contain a reframing of the Cardinal Principles of Education and recommendations for a global curriculum.” After recognizing the importance of the original Cardinal Principles, which were published in 1918, the Committee made the point that “today, those policy statements about education are obsolete, education taken as a whole is not adequate to the times and too seldom anticipates the future.” A report to be issued by the NEA, proposing cardinal premises for the twenty-first century is the direct and immediate outgrowth of the Bicentennial Committee’s belief that “educators around the world are in a unique position to bring about a harmoniously interdependent global community based on the principles of peace and justice….” Early in September 1975, a 19-member Preplanning Committee began the task of recasting the seven Cardinal Principles of Education by developing 25 guidelines for the project.
[Ed. Note: Members of the Preplanning Committee read like a “Who’s Who of Leading Globalists.”
It included: former Secretary of Education T.H. Bell, “Mr. Management-by-Objectives,”
who was responsible for the grant to William Spady of the Far West Laboratory to pilot OBE
in Utah, with plans to “put OBE in all schools of the nation”; Professor Luvern Cunningham,
Ohio State University, who subsequently served as advisor to the Kentucky Department of
Education during its education restructuring in the 1990s; Willis Harman, Stanford Research
Institute; Robert Havighurst, University of Chicago; Theodore Hesburgh, University of Notre
Dame; Ralph Tyler, Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Science; Professor Theodore
Sizer, Coalition for Essential Schools, which calls for a “less is more” curriculum and removal
of graduation standards (the Carnegie Unit); David Rockefeller; Professor Benjamin Bloom,
father of Mastery Learning (the international learning method); the late McGeorge Bundy of
the Ford Foundation; and others.]