DEATH SENTENCE FOR PRIVATE AND HOME EDUCATION, COURTESY OF SUPREME COURT

NewsWithViews.com ^ | July 8, 2002 | Charlotte Iserbyt

[madfly]

The Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision allowing the constitutionality of financial aid to parents which they may use at religious or private schools, including virtual academy (computer-assisted-instruction) charter schools available to home schoolers, will result in the deliberate dumbing down of all education.

In this latter regard, the writer of this article was told in 1981 by the Director of the Office of Libraries and Learning Technology, U.S. Department of Education, that " in the future all education will take place in the home, using computer-assisted-instruction, but that we will always have the school buildings for 'socialization' purposes." This is the United Nations lifelong learning/brainwashing concept (International community education) which places all community services under the umbrella of the community school. (The National Alliance of Business refers to this agenda as Kindergarten-Age 80).

The public sector succumbed years ago to federal control through funding. Now, private schools, willing to go the "voucher" route in order to get the money to stay in business, will have the opportunity to be equally dumbed down, denied a liberal arts curriculum, and stripped of all sound moral education. I can already hear the howling from voucher-supporting conservatives the first time the heavy hand of the federal government lands on a private school denying it the right to determine "what is right and what is wrong" in its curriculum, hiring practices, recital of the Pledge of Allegiance, The Lord's Prayer, etc. Those private schools which courageously, for reasons of conscience, resist vouchers will eventually be forced out of business due to their inability to remain competitive.

Interestingly enough, the blame for this incredibly dangerous Trojan Horse decision can be laid at the feet of the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Is school choice a plot to implement the socialist, corporate fascist, workforce training agenda for the global planned economy?

You 'betcha.

This decision will succeed in carrying out the long-standing leftist/internationalist goal of total control of all education (public and private) through the dollar. It provides a classic example of what the late Senator Edmund Muskie, D. ME. referred to when he described how the Democrats, when they couldn't get something controversial approved, would go to the Republicans for action. Muskie, known as "Mr. Metro", used as an example President Nixon's implementation of metropolitan/regional government (the unconstitutional carving of the nation into ten regions), something the Democrats had been unwilling or unable to tackle or accomplish.

The late Robert Hutchins, left-wing educator, former President of the University of Chicago, and supporter of World Government, would be ecstatic over the voucher decision. In fact, he could have written it. In an article by Virgil C. Blum in The Commonweal, January 31, 1964 entitled "Freedom and Equality", p. 513, Blum says: 

"Dr. Robert M. Hutchins sees no constitutional difficulty in federal aid for the education of church-related school children in secular subjects. The fact that such education 'is permitted by religion' or that federal aid for such education is an 'aid to religion' he says 'is immaterial.' The benefit that accrues to religion, Hutchins argues, is 'incidental to an overriding public benefit.' Consequently, 'such incidental benefits,' he reasons 'do not invalidate the legislation'."

It is not difficult to understand why Hutchins would be supporting aid to church schools. He knew it was not a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow but government control and therefore, he could argue that "aid to religion" as a byproduct of government support for church schools would be 'incidental to an overriding public benefit.'

Why don't more people understand that government control of private and home school education is exactly what is going to happen? And why have religious organizations, especially those affiliated with the Catholic Church, supported school choice proposals when they have so much to loose once the government controls are implemented?

If the question of school choice is considered in a vacuum, without the benefit of an in-depth understanding of the history and highly controversial goals of American public education, if it is considered simply in the context of providing a better education for low income children, if it is considered only as an issue of equal funding for all children, one escapes the very dangerous crux of the matter: ACCOUNTABILITY... accountability to the government which is granting the voucher or tax credit.

While working in the Department of Education and involved in supervising grants and contracts to local schools, government labs and centers, United States and foreign universities, etc., I had to make sure that the recipients of the federal grants complied with federal regulations, guidelines, and criteria for that particular project. I never questioned the wisdom of such a requirement.

Although the U.S. Department of Education is in itself an unconstitutional entity and should not exist, it would still have been illegal to allow recipients of federal money (extracted from the taxpayers) to spend that money as they wished. There must be accountability as long as we Americans want government to perform in an orderly, fair manner.

Elected officials and others in supervisory positions, including public school superintendents who complain about government regulations, should, when the government honey pot is passed around the board table, just say "NO". That is the only way to avoid the regulations imposed rightfully in the name of "accountability," and to remain a truly free agent. During my three-year tenure as an elected school board member I voted "NO"  on every single motion to accept federal curriculum or federal funding.

So, why is it that those promoting tuition tax credits and vouchers have missed this point of accountability? Is it because it is too simple to understand? Is it because they feel that the need to level the field for low income children should take precedence over accountability requirements and that accountability requirements are not to be feared? Read on...

In 1982, while working on a U.S. Department of Education technology grant to the Association for Educational Computing and Technology, a spin-off the National Education Association, I was shocked by some internal comments in an early draft of the grant. Although I was not working in an "Eyes Only" position for the CIA or Defense Department, but for an agency which supposedly exists to provide a beneficial service to parents, children, and teachers, this paper was stamped CONFIDENTIAL!  On one page there appeared the following information:

"PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES: What We (the U.S. Department of Education) Can Control or Manipulate? Under that incredible question the following items and activities were listed: State participation/selection process, role of advisors, content of program, training of state leaders, resource people utilized, basic skills content areas emphasized, perception of need to use technology." The main reason I gave that document to the press, for which I was subsequently relieved of my duties, was that I was appalled at the blatant attitude of the federal government regarding the national public school system. Do the five justices who ruled favoring school choice proposals live in such a dream world that they believe the government will require less regulation of the private and home schools than it requires of the public schools?

There is a certain naivety, Alice in Wonderland attitude, amongst those who should know better regarding what will happen to private schools and home school entities which accept vouchers. Did the Supreme Court majority  not study  the catastrophic history of school choice in France which resulted, in 1983, with the socialist French Government under Mitterand assuming control of all private and religious education which received government funding?

The conservative Mayor of Paris, Jacques Chirac,  said the takeover threatens "the free choice of schools by parents, the basic character of private education, the freedom of management of these establishments."

The conservative Paris newspaper, LeFigaro said it was  worse than that: "Private schools are no longer threatened. The propositions of Education Minister Alain Savery on the future of private education are equivalent to a sentence of death."

It is understandable that parents are desperate to find a solution to the devastating problems facing their children in the public schools. However, they should realize that the despicable situation has been planned for over 150 years (the dumbing down was deliberate...the Hegelian dialectic at work), in order to get the parents to call for and accept what is being sold to them as a solution providing freedom of choice, which in fact is what the internationalists, especially the Carnegie Corporation, has had planned for at least 75 years. The Carnegie Corporation's plan to change our economic system from free market to collectivist was published in 1934 in its little book "Conclusions and Recommendations for the Social Studies". Not only did President Reagan in 1985 sign agreements with President Gorbachev to merge the United States and Soviet education systems; the Carnegie Corporation  signed even more extensive agreements with the Soviet Academy of Science to carry out the same agenda.

Let me warn parents and private school administrators: "Freedom to choose" is exactly the opposite of what they and the private sector will receive if they take one penny of federal, state or local tax money to educate  children. Believe it or not, slavery is right around the corner, since once the private sector is controlled through vouchers, thereby creating a partnership with government (corporate fascism), students , having been psychologically profiled, will be tracked into specific training at an early age and later into job slots to suit the needs of the corporate sector and the global economy. That is the failed international socialist quota system that in essence provides NO CHOICE!  Our children will have no freedom to choose what they want for their futures. This is going on right now in the public school sector due to Goals 2000, the School to Work Opportunities Act, and the reauthorization of the ESEA (S.1, the Bush-Kennedy "No child Left Behind Act.")  Some bright 9th graders are spending 3 out of 5 days a week at the job site, rather than studying math, science, literature, history, foreign languages, art, music, etc. which would give them a liberal arts education, indispensable for upward mobility, freedom, and an understanding of the world in which they live.

Ah.....would that Aristotle, 384-322 B.C., could return to express his displeasure with this latest development. He said "Educated men are as much superior to uneducated men as the living are to the dead."

What school choice is all about is not giving parents a real choice without strings attached; it is about controlling all children (referred to as "human resources"), everywhere on this planet, in order to implement the corporate fascist global economy, with 100% participation in the global computer! 

Why, otherwise, does one find most of the major players and promoters of school choice coming from the corporate sector, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as the largest and loudest supporter of all? TIME magazine, 6/8/92, owned by Time-Warner came close to the truth when it said "...the Bush Administration strongly supports the concepts that underlie the Edison Project...Many observers believe Whittle's long-term plan anticipates the use of these (voucher) funds. If adopted, the reform (vouchers) could funnel billions of public dollars into private schools..." And NEWSWEEK, 6/8/92, not to be outdone by TIME, said "There's no question that Whittle schools could be extremely rewarding ...If Congress approves a voucher system..." Are we so naive that we believe big business  really cares about our children's futures? It cares, and rightfully so, about big profits. That's perfectly fine, but not at the expense of our children's freedom to choose their futures.

Conservatives have a problem understanding the overt and heavily-funded position of the teachers' unions in opposition to school choice, and refuse to understand or accept the NEA and AFT leadership's covert position of support. The unions would be pretty stupid not to support vouchers when  they know that the international education agenda calls for such "choice" in order to implement the global workforce training agenda and that their membership will be  called upon to staff the training sites. It is the average traditional classroom teacher who opposes school choice for obvious reasons, some of which are cited in this article. The following quotes substantiate the above conclusion:

The late Albert Shanker, President, American Federation of

Teachers--"It may be that we can't get the big  changes we need without choice."

President George Bush, Sr.--"Choice is the one reform that drives all others."

Former U.S. Secretary of Education Lauro Cavazos--"President Bush and I are determined to use the power of choice to help restructure American education."

To illustrate how the promoters of this totalitarian agenda know full well what they are doing, one need go no further than to the writings of major education change agent Chester Finn, who was once opposed to school choice but is presently a supporter of the concept. (Finn assisted in the development of the National Institute of Education in 1970, served under Secretary William Bennett as Assistant Secretary, Office of Educational Research and Improvement in the mid-eighties, and was the author of America 2000, renamed Goals 2000 during the Clinton Administration.

Finn also serves on the National Governing Board for the National Assessment for Educational Progress. The NAEP is the tool for measuring accountability to politically-correct government viewpoints (60 percent of the test items measure political correctness and school-to-work readiness). The NAEP, which President Bush mandated be administered in all schools, will determine not only curriculum, but compliance with accountability standards and therefore will be essential in the determination of which private schools and home schoolers will receive vouchers. That is the reason this decision will do away with private and home schooling education as they are presently constituted. 

In an article he wrote entitled "Public Service, Public Support, Public Accountability", March, 1982, National Association of Secondary School Principals' Bulletin, p. 69, Finn said:

"Some to be sure, like to think they can have it both ways; i.e. can obtain aid without saddling themselves with unacceptable forms of regulation. But most acknowledge the general applicability of the old adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune, and are more or less resigned to amalgamating or choosing between assistance and autonomy."

And, in American Education, May, 1982, "Public Support for Private Education." Part 1, p. 5, Finn said:

   

"Short of scattering money in the streets or handing it out to everyone who wants some, the funding agency must define eligible recipients...This means, in a word, 'regulation,' the inevitable concomitant of public financial support."

The other side of the coin, Finn says, is "the obligation of private schools to recognize certain limits to their differentness and certain ways they must conform to the norms and expectations of a society that values and supports them..."

In returning to this most bizarre Supreme Court Decision, something comes to mind. Why did Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor recently attend a conference in Europe to familiarize herself with World Court decisions and how they might play out  in the United States, under our present Constitution? Could this school choice decision, in the future, have anything to do with world court decisions, universal/global education, public private partnerships, global work force training, etc.?

Remember, it was Karl Marx who called for a "combination of education with industrial production." And the global government being implemented today is nothing more nor less than what Lenin called for: international socialism.

Why did the majority of our elected officials in Congress and appointees on the Supreme Court allow these radical changes to take place, changes which will forever affect the futures of our children and the special nature of the greatest, freedom-loving country in the history of the world?

Because they no longer represent the best interests of their constituents. Their allegiance is to the global elite at the United Nations and elsewhere, from whom they receive their marching orders. Or, especially in the case of our elected officials, they have been so dumbed down in the public schools that they didn't even know what form of government and economy they swore to uphold when they assumed office.

 Our government, through this latest decision, has placed the last nail in the coffin of "freedom". This decision finalizes the exchange of our highly successful free market system and republican form of government for a failed 'ism' form of government. Whether our new form of government will be corporate fascism, socialism, or communism (all of which differ only in minor ways), remains to be seen.

Note: Credit for some of the research in this article goes to Barbara M. Morris who wrote the indispensable book on the dangers of school choice: "Tuition Tax Credits...A Responsible Appraisal", 1983, and to Billy Lyon who wrote a fascinating treatise "Connections and Conflicts of Interest (Or, There Ought to Be an Investigation!)  1992, which documents the role of conservatives, liberals, corporations. foundations, etc. in the promotion of school choice and the school-to-work agenda.

© Charlotte T. Iserbyt, All Rights Reserved

[aristeides]

There is a way to fund alternate forms of education that preserves accountability and removes the danger of government control of private schools through regulation. Pay parents an amount equivalent to the cost of public education for their child if that child passes a state exam for what should have been learnt that year. Then those parents can either pay the school, or pocket the whole amount themselves if they homeschool. In this way, control by regulation is avoided, all forms of education are equally encouraged, and parents have a strong incentive to see to it that their children actually do learn.

[aristeides]

Back in the 1950's, when federal aid to colleges was a controversial issue and only partially established, you could have made the same sort of statements about private colleges. It didn't take the federal government long to bring them to heel with federal money.

[Carry_Okie]

For those who haven't read Iserbyt, this will be an awakening to the all too familiar.

[azhenfud]

BFLR

[RonF]

"Do the five justices who ruled favoring school choice proposals live in such a dream world that they believe the government will require less regulation of the private and home schools than it requires of the public schools?"

It's not the job of the Supreme Court to determine whether or not school vouchers are a good idea. It was their job to determine if they were Constitutional. Given that they determined that they were, it's up to the state legislators and voters to decide if they're a good idea.

[Carry_Okie]

Iserbyt's documentation of the intentions of this system is extensive. If you can't see how this works, you are forgetting the manner in which databases and testing will track EVERY kid for whether or not they are learning PC attitudes, not how well they are educated.

[Carry_Okie]

Correct.

[Hugin]

Is school choice a plot to implement the socialist, corporate fascist, workforce training agenda for the global planned economy? You 'betcha.

Which of course is why every left-wing socialist in the NEA/Democrat Party axis has been fighting tooth and nail against vouchers for years. What a crock.

[justshutupandtakeit]

While I too am a skeptic that this decision is a panacea for the conservative education movement, this article is a megaload of crap.

[FreeTally]

The government had better not make voucher acceptance mandatory.

I think many may be confused here, and the NEA is laughing all the way to the bank(not to say I do not agree with general distrust of the government).

First, who is "the government"? There is no federal voucher program. I think the fact this went to the SCOTUS has confused people into thinking this is some federal government issue. It is not.

The SCOTUS heard a case that the voucher program in OHIO was unconstitutional based upon a few different claims, one of which was "sepeartion of church and state". The SCOTUS said there was no constitutional problem, thus the program in OHIO could stand. The decision ONLY affects the program in OHIO, but opens the door for other STATES to implement their own programs(people here in Florida are still appealing their lawsuit to the FL Supreme Court - a suit that was struck down by a lower court).

STATE governments implement these programs. It has been decided that on Constitutional grounds, OHIO's plan can stand. Other States may have laws preventing such programs. This decision does not affect those States.

If a State wishes to start such a program, it may be able to do so. The State will not be able to "force" any private schools to accept the vouchers. There would be no legal basis. Private schools are run by people who have a mission. They will not change their goals for a few thousand of dollars a year(which will generally be less than the tuition a regular student is charged) that they may receive from a voucher.

These arguments are pure NEA propagnda. These arguments were around, but not popular UNTIL the decision last week. No coincidence that we now see tons of articles. Its a last ditch, pathetic attempt to keep power.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I disagree

Good for you. So do I.

Very eloquently stated.

[Silly]

The NEA has done for education what The Sound of Music did for hills...

[Slyfox]

Thank you for your answers. Most people have not considered the idea of vouchers past the initial question of "for them or against them". The problem will be in the details and who will be the policeman. When rules are laid down the government is going to have to tap somebody on the shoulder to administer justice.

Another thing, if a parent gets the voucher, where can they place that voucher? Will they be able to go anywhere like they have been told or will they be given a short list of parochial and charter schools who will have to give something up in order to accept the voucher students?

Don't get me wrong, I am totally for choice in education. But the problem is that we have a extremely-ill public school system and very healthy non-govenmental education system. It is wise to only give anti-biotics to the system that is sick. But, who will be the doctor and how will they administer their remedy?

[kennyo]

The voucher program is a sham no matter how you look at it.It is a diversion to make conservatives think that they've gotten something.We need a congress that adheres closely to Article I,sec.8.The government have no authority to meddle with education,in any manner,in any case.

[rudypoot]

Yep, that's why we created the Department of Education at the federal level.

[poet]

"the government is going to have to tap somebody on the shoulder to administer justice."

Justice and gov't is an oxymoron especially with gov't handouts.

They will administer the law, but, most certantly will not dispense justice. Don't believe it? How about their insatiable land grabbing from private citizens? Was Ruby Ridge justice? Was Waco justice? Was the "capture" of Elian Gonzalez justice? Is giving amnesty to illegals justice?
Was the death of Vince Foster justice?

Is the fact that the clintons and their gang of thieves are still not in prison justice? Was his not being tried by the senate justice?

Fill in your own examples miscarriages of justice.

[FreeTally]

Another thing, if a parent gets the voucher, where can they place that voucher? Will they be able to go anywhere like they have been told or will they be given a short list of parochial and charter schools who will have to give something up in order to accept the voucher students?

In Florida, schools must tell the State before a certain date every year that they wish to participate in the voucher program. There are some requirements that the school has to meet("ill try to get summer to post it). There are some things in the guidlines that may make some schools say "no thanks", but their are also requirements for the parents(one being, if the private school has parental-involvement policies, they must adhere to them).

Summer, could you post again the requirements for the school and for the parents - the one you posted a few days ago on the "other" voucher thread. I thik you know what post I am talking about.

[Slyfox]

..you could have made the same sort of statements about private colleges. It didn't take the federal government long to bring them to heel with federal money.

Yep. My daughter recently graduated from Hillsdale College. Hillsdale had to work like dogs to keep their educational freedom. One of the things the feds wanted to do was to find out what the number of minorities was at the college. Hillsdale told them, in a nice way, to take a flying leap. They could tell them that because they weren't beholden to the government in any way because they don't accept any federal funding. In my daughter' s admission packet we were told to not even apply for any federal funding because they would not accept it.

Hillsdale is on record as being one of the very first colleges who admitted and graduated blacks BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR.

[Slyfox]

All-righty then. "Regulatory compliance".

[ffrancone]

Seems to me the thrust of the article misses the point completely. The author criticizes a Supreme Court decision that interprets the establishment clause of the US constiution. Note that the author does NOT argue the Supremes interpreted the Constitution incorrectly. Instead, the author thinks just like a liberal. That is, to her, the constitution is really irrelevant. What has meaning to her is that the decision will have bad effects on homeschooling, she thinks. Thus, the author suggests the Supreme Court decision was wrong.

Regardless what we think of the effect of the decision on homeschooling, we should cheer the Supremes on this, one of the few occasions where they actually applied the consitution as written and intended rather than acting as a super-legislature.

The author's arguments should be addressed to the state legislatures and to congress--they are emphatically not a proper criticism of the Supreme Court.