And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

National Curriculum Battle Joined. How the brain-washing of our children is proceeding.

Posted on: May 9, 2011

National Curriculum Battle Joined | Cato @ Liberty.

The Progressives are pushing hard for their take over of our schools and our children’s minds.   Education of children is rightly a  parents  duty and right.  This is why education MUST BE LOCAL!  When the Texas Text Book Selection committee outed the Progressives in determining what  content  would be in Texas text books it was a loud and clear call for the Progressives to become more aggressive (read this: underhanded!). (You may want to look this battle up because the video was a fun watch as the Progressives finally just left the meeting.)

The following article gives background on what is happening now and some push back.    Be sure to read carefully the Related Articles also.  these are your kids and our future.  Please don’t allow them to be lot any more than they have already been compromised and brain-washed.   It is up to ALL parents to demand the right to choose the schools their children attend and not to be herded into what the bureaucracy either national or local dictates to us.   School choice and vouchers are the answer to a free and good education.  BB

National Curriculum Battle Joined

Posted by Neal McCluskey

Remember several weeks ago, when the Albert Shanker Institute released a manifesto calling for the creation of detailed curriculum guides to go with the national standards and tests being pushed and pulled through the back doors of states across the country? Apparently, that was the last straw for a lot of education analysts and policymakers, especially folks like Williamson Evers of the Hoover Institution (and Bush II Education Department); one-time Fordham Institute state-standards evaluator Sandra Stotsky; and Foundation for Education Choice senior fellow Greg Forster. Those three, along with a few others, organized a counter-manifesto being released today, a 100-plus signatory reply which, according to the group’s press release, declares that:

  • These efforts are against federal law and undermine the constitutional balance between national and state authority.
  • The evidence doesn’t show a need for national curriculum or a national test for all students.
  • U.S. Department of Education is basing its initiative on inadequate content standards.
  • There is no research-based consensus on what is the best curricular approach to each subject.
  • There is not even consensus on whether a single “best curricular approach” for all students exists.

These points certainly sum up many of the major problems with the national standards drive, a drive that has been shrouded in half-truths about “voluntary” standards adoption; shorthand pleas for federal coercion; and what appears to be a camel’s-nose-under-the-tent strategy to ultimately impose a detailed, de facto federal curriculum. There is more to the problem than the summary points above cover — for instance, the Constitution gives the federal government no authority whatsoever to meddle in school curricula — but for a consensus-driven document, this new and desperately needed cannon blast against national standards is very welcome.

For a great explanation of why the anti-manifesto ringleaders did what they did, check out Greg Forster’s entry on the Witherspoon Institute’s blog. He hits lots of important points — especially that nationalizing curricula is a surefire way to fuel all-encompassing social strife — and I would quibble with only one thing:

My own view is that the root of the problem is the government monopoly on schools. Governmental monopolization of the education of children guarantees that all our religious and moral differences will be constantly politicized. School choice, in addition to delivering better academic performance, seems to me to be the only way to end the scorpions-in-a-bottle cultural dynamic and create space for shared citizenship across diverse religious and moral views.

But that’s an argument for another day.

Here’s where I think Greg is incorrect: Choice is not an argument for another day. It is the argument for this day.

Until all parents have real, full choice they will have no option but to demand that higher levels of government force intractable lower levels to provide good education. It won’t work thanks to concentrated benefits and diffuse costs all levels of government are dominated by teachers’ unions and administrators’ associations that will never let tough accountability and high standards rein – but it is all that parents can do absent the ability to take their children, and tax dollars, somewhere else. That means choice is essential right now, because it is the only way to take power away from special-interest dominated government and give it to the people the schools are supposed to serve. In other words, it is the only option that will actually work, obliterating the special-interest hammerlock, imposing accountability to customers, and when coupled with freedom for educators unleashing competition, specialization, innovation, and constant upward pressure on standards. In other words, it will do all those things that national standardizers emptily and illogically promise that their reform will do, and much, much more.

5 Responses to "National Curriculum Battle Joined. How the brain-washing of our children is proceeding."

great post thank you.

I don’t trust just anyone to make the educational curriculum. I am a high school student in Texas and I shudder to imagine what it would be like if I was forced to submit to curriculum proposed by the locals.

Leave it to the experts.

Also, it is not unconstitutional for the US government to make laws on education. Ever heard of the Elastic Clause?

Anonymous, I am happy that you identified yourself as a high school student because you still have time to learn the truth. Believe it or not I am fighting hard for your world. I am an old lady who will be gone and not have to live in the destroyed nation that the Progressives in Washington are trying to give you.

The so-called “elastic clause” was never meant by the Founders to cover the decisions and powers of the government we now have. The Founders gave us a federal government meant to be as small as possible.

Might I suggest that you start watching FOXNEWS and FOXBUSINESS. You have much to learn and these TV news stations will give you a good start. BB

Just out of curiosity Brenda, what should society do with the children of irresponsible parents – those who are abusive (either physically or mentally), alcohol or drug addicted, small-minded, or who do not value education? Just leave the choices to the parents?

Should the kids of responsible and caring parents have advantages or a head start over other students?

How about removing all public schooling / government involvement from the system, and return to letting parents educate their own kids? Fair, efficient, effective, responsible?

Reggie, Tho I am against the nanny government I do feel the state must protect those who can not protect themselves. That being the case I have always felt when children are found to be the victims of abusive parents (whether mental, emotional or physical) the state should take the children away from this situation. There are worse things than Children’s Homes. I do NOT mean the foster home system either. I hate the foster home system where children are moved around periodically to keep them and foster parents from forming any bonds! I am talking about private church run or even state run children’s homes.

I have had some experience with several Children’s homes where children are grouped into “families” with two sets of parents to a house. Found these kids to be well adjusted and happy as well as given every opportunity. Also found that the kids are allowed to remain in the home as long as they are in school and/or have their feet under them in their first job before they go out on their own. These can be church run as so many are today, or state run.

I have also talked to many “orphanage kids” over the years and found very few who found the system bad. Most felt they had had good lives and recommend the system. Unfortunately we have relied on keeping children in the home with the abusive natural parents or the miserable foster home system which has so many drawbacks not the least of which is not allowing the children to be adopted for years while the natural parents are given time to get their act together. then when the state finally gives up on the natural parents the child is too old and/or too damaged by the system to be adopted!

I hope this answers your question.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

See topic cloud at bottom of page for specific topics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 97 other followers

BB’s file cabinet

%d bloggers like this: