Thursday, August 21, 2014

Dumbing Down for the New World Order

U.S.-Soviet Merger requires Charter Schools For A One World Global Planned Economy
Posted on August 21, 2014 Written by Charlotte Iserbyt
“Most of us here were, at one time or another, active in either the O.S.S., the State Depart­ment, or the Euro­pean Eco­nomic Admin­is­tra­tion. Dur­ing those times, and with­out excep­tion, we oper­ated under direc­tives issued by the White House, the sub­stance of which was to the effect that we should make every effort to so alter life in the United States as to make pos­si­ble a com­fort­able merger with the Soviet Union. We are con­tin­u­ing to be guided by just such direc­tives.“ –H. Rowan Gaither
Is it too far-fetched to believe that in 1953 the Pres­i­dent of the Ford Foun­da­tion, the late Rowan Gaither, knew that char­ter schools, or some new form of pub­lic school gov­er­nance, would be nec­es­sary to carry out the Soviet Poly­tech (work­force train­ing) part of the “merger with the Soviet Union?” Char­ter (con­tract schools) are also in Russia.
THE DAILY PROGRESS (Char­lottesville, Vir­ginia) car­ried Nor­man Dodd’s obit­u­ary in its Jan­u­ary 30, 1987 edi­tion. The trib­ute read in part:
Mr. Dodd’s ear­lier sus­pi­cions of a polit­i­cal and eco­nomic con­spir­acy were con­firmed. Dur­ing his research for this com­mit­tee [the Reece Com­mit­tee], the pres­i­dent of the Ford Foun­da­tion, H. Rowan Gaither, Jr. told him that some of the giant foun­da­tions, includ­ing Ford, were work­ing under direc­tives from the White House to so alter life in Amer­ica as to make pos­si­ble a com­fort­able merger with the Soviet Union.
In light of this piece of fac­tual infor­ma­tion, con­nect the fol­low­ing dots…
Char­ter School Mas­ter Minds: Paul Berman and Paul Hill
Both Paul Berman and Paul Hill, long­time researchers for the Rand Cor­po­ra­tion, are two of the most promi­nent mas­ter minds behind char­ter schools with their Com­mu­nist unelected coun­cil form of gov­ern­ment. Note these two key points in the excerpt from Berman paper below:
1.  Ref­er­ence to prepa­ra­tion for dif­fer­ent careers.
2.  Notice the phrase “A pub­licly elected school-level board.” The aver­age reader may take that to mean tra­di­tion­ally elected school board. “Publicly-elected school-level board” means boards elected by the par­ents and tax­pay­ers whose chil­dren attend that par­tic­u­lar school. Tra­di­tional pub­lic school gov­er­nance is by board mem­bers elected by 100% of the tax­pay­ers of a munic­i­pal­ity. The new def­i­n­i­tion of school board does not rep­re­sent ALL munic­i­pal tax­pay­ers, although they are pay­ing taxes for the oper­a­tion of the char­ter school. So, they have no say in the oper­a­tions of such a school. This is known as tax­a­tion with­out representation.
Paul Berman, the Exec­u­tive Direc­tor for the Cen­ter for Pol­icy Alter­na­tives, and Pres­i­dent of BW Asso­ciates, a con­sult­ing firm spe­cial­iz­ing in pol­icy research and analy­sis in Berke­ley, Cal­i­for­nia, authored a key doc­u­ment, “The Next Step: The Min­nesota Plan” (Phi Delta Kap­pan: Wash­ing­ton, D.C., Nov. 1985). Excerpts from this Min­nesota Plan are con­tained in my book the delib­er­ate dumb­ing down of amer­ica, Appen­dix X, p. A-43:
The chal­lenge for Amer­i­can edu­ca­tion is to pro­vide a com­mon and equiv­a­lent edu­ca­tional expe­ri­ence for all stu­dents and to pre­pare them for dif­fer­ent careers. The com­pre­hen­sive high school has not and can­not… meet either goal ade­quately.… The restruc­tur­ing… offers a dif­fer­ent approach to real­iz­ing these dual objec­tives of Amer­i­can edu­ca­tion. All stu­dents would con­cen­trate on a core aca­d­e­mic pro­gram in grades 7 through 10 and then, in grades 11 and 12, choose fur­ther edu­ca­tion that matches their career aspirations.
Research and prac­tice in thou­sands of class­rooms both in the U.S. and abroad indi­cate that instruc­tional strate­gies using this assump­tion, such as mas­tery learn­ing or coop­er­a­tive learn­ing tech­niques, can result in more stu­dents learn­ing dra­mat­i­cally more in both basic and higher-order skills. The Min­nesota Plan calls for these approaches to be taught to senior teach­ers who can then train other teach­ers to shift their expec­ta­tions and instruc­tion to enable all stu­dents to learn. Mas­tery learn­ing [B.F. Skinner’s oper­ant con­di­tion­ing, ed note] is con­tro­ver­sial. How­ever, the bulk of the evi­dence shows that large gains in stu­dent learn­ing occur if teach­ers have the train­ing and sup­port to imple­ment mas­tery learn­ing effec­tively. Too often, mas­tery learn­ing has been intro­duced as a “top down” inno­va­tion. The Min­nesota Plan, by con­trast, pro­poses a grass­roots approach to implementation….
A pub­licly elected school-level board, oper­at­ing in con­cert with a school-site man­age­ment coun­cil, would decide which courses to offer at the school and which courses might be offered by other pub­lic schools or by other pub­lic or pri­vate providers. Schools would have the author­ity to “con­tract out” or “con­tract in” for teach­ing ser­vices.… This restruc­tur­ing would take advan­tage of strength in the best Euro­pean sys­tems.… Dereg­u­late cur­ricu­lum and instruc­tion. Edu­ca­tors should be free to design cur­ricu­lum and instruc­tion that they feel meets state stan­dards and com­mu­nity needs. States should set basic goals; edu­ca­tors should be respon­si­ble to the com­mu­nity for help­ing stu­dents to meet these goals.
A restruc­tur­ing of school­ing could not real­ize its full promise with­out jet­ti­son­ing the anachro­nis­tic sys­tem of employ­ing course-unit/seat-time require­ments as the cri­te­rion for stu­dent pro­mo­tion and grad­u­a­tion. Advance­ment should be based on demon­strated achieve­ment.… State-mandated course and grad­u­a­tion require­ments would be elim­i­nated in favor of a state­ment by the state of the com­pe­ten­cies stu­dents are expected to mas­ter and two state tests, which would be required of all stu­dents before they leave the sixth and tenth grades. [emphases added]
Paul Hill’s bio appears on the Cen­ter on Rein­vent­ing Pub­lic Edu­ca­tion web­site, where we learn of his involve­ment with RAND:
Before join­ing the Uni­ver­sity of Wash­ing­ton fac­ulty, Dr. Hill worked for 17 years as a Senior Social Sci­en­tist in RAND’s Wash­ing­ton office, where he served as Direc­tor of Wash­ing­ton Oper­a­tions (1981–87) and Direc­tor of the Edu­ca­tion and Human Resources pro­gram (1979–80). He con­ducted stud­ies of site-based man­age­ment, gov­er­nance of decen­tral­ized school sys­tems, effec­tive high schools, business-led edu­ca­tion reforms, and immi­grant edu­ca­tion, and con­tributed to stud­ies of defense research, devel­op­ment, and acqui­si­tion pol­icy. (Source)[emphasis added]
From the RAND Cor­po­ra­tion web­site we learn:
H. Rowan Gaither, Jr., a promi­nent San Fran­cisco attor­ney who later served as pres­i­dent and then as chair­man of the board of the Ford Foun­da­tion, was retained as legal coun­sel to deter­mine the best means of set­ting up an inde­pen­dent RAND.
On May 14, 1948, RAND was incor­po­rated as a non­profit cor­po­ra­tion under the laws of the State of Cal­i­for­nia. The arti­cles of incor­po­ra­tion set forth RAND’s pur­pose in lan­guage that was both remark­ably brief and breath­tak­ingly broad:
To fur­ther and pro­mote sci­en­tific, edu­ca­tional, and char­i­ta­ble pur­poses, all for the pub­lic wel­fare and secu­rity of the United States of Amer­ica.
The three signatories—Collbohm, Gaither, and L. J. Hen­der­son, Jr. (RAND’s asso­ciate director)—together with eight other promi­nent indi­vid­u­als from acad­eme and indus­try, con­sti­tuted RAND’s orig­i­nal Board of Trustees. The other eight mem­bers were Charles Dol­lard, pres­i­dent, Carnegie Cor­po­ra­tion of New York.… (Source) [empha­sis added]
Related Posts
Video: by Charlotte Iserbyt
at

No comments:

Post a Comment