Public Schools

« Back to Glossary Index

The arm of government with the most powerful influence in directing our culture — even more influential than the media. The public schools are guiding the morals, attitudes, knowledge and decision-making of 89% of American children. The public schools are financed by $500 billion a year of our money, forcibly taken from us in federal, state and local taxes, which the public school establishment spends under a thin veneer of accountability to school board members elected in government-run elections. Prior to the 1960s, public schools and teachers clearly accepted their role in defining the culture of the youngsters under their supervision. The public schools, using a McGuffey-Reader-style curriculum, were the mechanism through which American kids learned not only the basics, but also values such as honesty and patriotism, and immigrant kids assimilated by learning our language, laws and customs. Charlotte Iserbyt, Bella Dodd and others have exposed how the public education has been corrupted and communized over several decades of infiltration.

For example, The American Citizens Handbook, published for teachers by the National Education Association in 1951, proclaimed: “It is important that people who are to live and work together shall have a common mind — a like heritage of purpose, religious ideals, love of country, beauty, and wisdom to guide and inspire them.” This message was fortified in this Handbook by selections suitable for memorization, such as Old and New Testament passages, the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, the Golden Rule, the Boy Scout oath, and patriotic songs.

My, how public schools and teachers unions have changed since 1951!

The turning point in public schools came in the 1960s with the vast influence of the Humanist John Dewey and his Columbia Teachers College acolytes, who argued against objective truth, authoritative notions of good and evil, religion and tradition. Sidney Simon’s 1972 book Values Clarification, which sold nearly a million copies, was widely used to teach students to “clarify” their values, i.e., cast off their parents’ values and make their own moral (or immoral) choices.

Sex Education

Then the public schools welcomed the Kinsey-trained sexperts to change the sexual mores of our society from favoring sex-in-marriage to diversity. Concepts of right and wrong were banished, and children were taught about varieties of sex without reference to what is moral, good, or even legal.

Selwyn Duke, writing for The New American in an article titled ‘Sex Education for Five Year Olds… Pushed by Pedophiles‘, wrote,

The point is that Kinsey and his team were nothing but perverts using “science” as a pretext for indulging their pedophilic desires — and as a vehicle through which to justify pedophilia.

Nothing has changed today, either. Don’t get me wrong, among those supporting the sex-education movement are the naïve and those who are just generally corrupt, but there’s also a large core of activists and acolytes of Kinsey’s stripe. And let’s be blunt:

People’s interest in sexualizing children usually isn’t passionate unless they’re motivated by dark passion, unless they’re pedophiles in practice or mind (i.e., the idea of childhood sexual activity titillates them).

And some of these people are overt in their aims. For example, in “The Slippery Slope to Pedophilia” I reported on a 2011 symposium in Baltimore, Maryland — an event whose focus was the normalization of adult-child sexual relationships. WND.com reported at the time that it was “held by the ‘minor-attracted people’ advocacy group B4U-ACT to disseminate ‘accurate information’ on the position that pedophilia is just one more alternative sexual orientation.” As such, the conference speakers contended, the American Psychiatric Association should no longer list pedophilia as a psychological condition in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)…. Reporting further on the positions taken at the conference, WND wrote:

… Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins … argued in favor of “acceptance of and compassion for people who are attracted to minors….”

… Richard Kramer, who represented B4U-ACT at the event, contended listing pedophilia as a disorder stigmatizes the “victims” of the lifestyle choice.

… Conference speakers said the Diagnostic Manual should “focus on the needs” of the pedophile and should have “a minimal focus on social control” rather than a focus on the “need to protect children.”

… Self-described “gay activist” and speaker Jacob Breslow said it is proper for children to be “the object of our attraction.” Breslow said pedophiles shouldn’t need to get consent from a child to have sex any more than they would get consent from a shoe to wear it.

Liberty Counsel Action vice president J. Matt Barber, who also attended the conference, summed up its themes thus (quotations are Barber’s, as reported by WND): Adult lust for children is “normative,” people indulging it are unfairly “demonized,” children are capable of consenting to sex, “wrong” as a concept isn’t applicable to “minor-attracted people,” and the DSM “ignores that pedophiles ‘have feelings of love and romance for children’ the same way adult heterosexuals have for each other.”

Boiling this down to just old-fashioned common sense, if you learned that some adult had discussed intimate details of sexuality with your young child, wouldn’t you suspect that the person was driven by prurient interest? Well, why would you assume differently just because the adult happens to work for the government-school system? Note here how studies have shown that pedophiles are, in fact, rampant in government schools — and they often go unpunished.

We also may wonder, is there not a disturbing congruence between the claim that “five isn’t too young for sex education” and NAMbLA’s erstwhile motto “Sex before eight — or it’s too late”?

According to Charol Shakeshaft, the researcher of a little-remembered 2004 study prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, “the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.” According to the 2004 study “the most accurate data available at this time” indicates that “nearly 9.6 percent of students are targets of educator sexual misconduct sometime during their school career.” Shakeshaft is a Hofstra University professor who was commissioned by the George W. Bush administration to research existing literature on the subject of educator sexual abuse. Her report is found here.

An even more recent study was conducted by the Associated Press. After concluding a 7-month, 50-state investigation of the government-school system, the news outlet reported finding more than 2500 cases of abuse during a 3-year period. Moreover, many incidents go unreported, and many are handled in-house and hushed up with a see-hear-and-speak-no-evil attitude. This is so common, reports the AP, that the phenomenon is sometimes called “passing the trash” and involves abusers dubbed “mobile molesters.” The latter term refers to teachers who quietly leave their old district for a new one — where they can resume their predatory activities without a paper trail giving them away. As Hillary Profita of CBS News writes, “Could a creepy pedophile who isn’t all over Fox News get hired? Richard Dangel, a child psychologist in Dallas, told the paper [USA Today], ‘Only about 4% of offenders get busted,’ he says. ‘The other 96% don’t.’ Which means that background checks won’t stop the vast majority of sex offenders.”

Yet while school sexual abuse is more than one hundred times as common as that formerly plaguing the Catholic Church, Shakeshaft found that it has received hundreds of times less coverage. As Profita writes:

The federal report [Shakeshaft] said 422,000 California public-school students would be victims before graduation — a number that dwarfs the state’s entire Catholic-school enrollment of 143,000.

Yet, during the first half of 2002, the 61 largest newspapers in California ran nearly 2,000 stories about sexual abuse in Catholic institutions, mostly concerning past allegations. During the same period, those newspapers ran four stories about the federal government’s discovery of the much larger — and ongoing — abuse scandal in public schools.

It would be a silver lining in the Penn State scandal if the story helped focus attention on the government-school abuse problem, but this seems unlikely. Many analysts point out that, unlike with the Catholic Church, the mainstream media are generally uninterested in investigating the educational establishment. And it’s only big names such as Joe Paterno that grab headlines. Little anonymous victims don’t. (Source)

Dumbing down

Meanwhile, elementary and secondary school curricula suffered a vast dumbing down. Phonics and traditional arithmetic were censored out. Students were allowed to graduate without learning to read or calculate. While tolerating massive illiteracy, the public schools are now powerfully impacting our culture by inculcating the values of situation ethics, diversity, and the easy acceptance of sex outside of marriage. American history and literature courses now teach the doctrines of U.S. guilt and multiculturalism instead of the greatness of our heroes and successes.

By the 1980s, the public schools were rejecting the Meyer-Pierce doctrine that parents have the fundamental right to control the upbringing of their own children. The Meyer-Pierce doctrine is described in two U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the 1920s, which we thought was settled law.1

By the 1990s, public schools had adopted the attitude best described by Hillary Clinton: the “village” (i.e., the government) should raise the child. Public schools, backed by anti-parent resolutions adopted by the National Education Association at its annual conventions, have become fortresses in which the administrators exercise near-absolute power to determine the students’ values, morals, attitudes and hopes, while parents are kept outside the barricades.

The Bush administration introduced the ‘No Child Left Behind’ curriculum that continued the dumb-down by lowering the requirements to the lowest common denominator, or teach to the level of the dumbest child so that no one is left behind. Then came Obama’s Common Core. For many of the teachers, it is the mandated cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all straitjacket ObamaCore imposes. For many parents, it is the subversive, anti-Christian, hypersexualized, pro-homosexual emphasis of the National Sexuality Education Standards, which were developed by the radical Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN); the pornography-promoting Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS); the abortion behemoth Planned Parenthood; and the National Education Association — among others. For many Common Core opponents, it is the invasive, privacy-destroying data mining that attempts to subject all students to surveillance worthy of an Orwellian police state.

In Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians Are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children, Samuel L. Blumenfeld and Alex Newman lay bare the rot that runs to the core of Common Core. However, this book is about far more than Common Core, which is but the latest iteration in a long line of revolutionary programs imposed through the government school system by the educational establishment to deconstruct America — socially, politically, psychologically, intellectually, morally, and spiritually: look-say reading, the “new math,” death education, values clarification, sex education, multiculturalism, sensitivity training, outcome-based education, etc. (Source)

Using activist judges to shore up their monopoly power, the schools persuaded the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court to rule in 2005(2) that a public school can teach students whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise,” and that parents’ right to control the upbringing of their children “does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door.” After heavy criticism in the U.S. House, the court tried to soften the “threshold” sentence but reaffirmed its decision.

The meaning of “whatever” is spelled out in anti-parent, pro-public-school decisions handed down in five circuits within the last two years. Federal courts upheld the right of public schools to indoctrinate students in Muslim religion and practices,3 to force students to watch a one-hour pro-homosexual video,4 to force students to attend a program advocating homosexual conduct that used minors in sexually suggestive skits,5 to censor any mention of Intelligent Design,6 to use classroom materials that parents consider pornography,7 to force students to answer nosy questionnaires with suggestive questions about sex, drugs and suicide,8 and to deny a divorced father’s right to get his son’s school records.9

If you think that the government schools are “neutral places” where all social, political and religious beliefs are tolerated, then you are either ignorant or you are delusional. The truth is that very specific social and political agendas are built into the curriculums of most public schools. Often, these social and political agendas are the same ones that are being force-fed to public school children in other western nations. If your children are attending a government school, a system of “right and wrong” is being pounded into their heads that is probably very different from what you would teach them. In one recent New York Times article, a district superintendent admitted that particular agendas are integrated into classroom instruction anywhere that they will fit….

“We’re trying to integrate it into anything where it naturally fits,” said Jackie Taylor, the district’s superintendent. “It might be in a math lesson. How much water are you really using? How can you tell? Teachers look for avenues in almost everything they teach.”

If you want to see where all of this is going, just check out what is going on in Europe. In the UK, teachers that don’t promote the “correct agenda” face harsh disciplinary action. Those that control the public schools don’t just want to “educate” your children. They want to indoctrinate them.

Big Brother and Education Data Collection (from The New American)

One of the more disturbing aspects of the U.S. Department of Education is its obsession with data collection. But it all makes perfect sense if you see it from the point of view of the educational totalitarians whose aim it is to use behavioral psychology for the purpose of modifying and controlling human behavior. Thus, the National Center of Education Statistics has been designated by the psycho-educators to be the recipient of the full computer dossiers on every school child and teacher in America.

According to Beverly Eckman’s Educating for the New World Order, the super computer already exists. It is called the Elementary and Secondary Integrated Data System, and it is linked with all of the other federal computer networks collecting data on American citizens. It was former Vice President Al Gore, as a Senator, who introduced the Supercomputer Network Study Act of 1985 which Congress enacted into law.

That this data collection program has been in the works for some time is indicated by the existence of a Handbook issued in 1974 by the National Center for Education Statistics on State Educational Records and Reports. In their section on Student/Pupil Accounting, they list the major categories of student information. A three-digit system is used to categorize the data. For example, Personal Identification falls under 1 00: Name 1 01, Student Number 1 02, Sex 1 03, Racial/Ethnic Group 1 04, etc. Note the use of an identification number which will probably be the individual’s Social Security Number, which has become the American citizen’s all-purpose ID number.

Family and Residence data fall under 2 00, Family Economic Information 2 40, and Family Social/Cultural Information 2 50. Physical Health, Sensory, and Related Conditions fall under 3 00, starting with the Student Medical Record Number 3 01, and then covering every aspect of the student’s physical health and medical life. Mental, Psychological and Proficiency Test Results and Related Student Characteristics fall under 4 00. All data collected through psychological testing will be placed under that category, with Specific Mental and Psychological Characteristics under 4 30. Enrollment information falls under 5 00, with Type of Program entered 5 23, and Type of Class for Instructional Grouping 5 24. Performance falls under 6 00, Transportation under 7 00, and Special Assistance under 8 00.

The most recent version of the Student Data Handbook for Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education that we’ve had a chance to study in depth was released in June of 1994 (NCES 94-303) and the Staff Data Handbook: Elementary, Secondary and Early Childhood Education (NCES 95-327) was released in January 1995. But who will have access to all of this intimate private information, and for what reason? Will potential employers, recruiters, and police departments be given this data? Is the U.S. government now to become involved in dispensing private information about its citizens as a new information service? Suppose that some of the information may lead to emotional harm of the individual? Who will be responsible for that harm?

Indeed, who will own all of this information? If the government is not going to make this private information available to others for whatever reasons, why then are the bureaucrats, at great cost to the taxpayer, collecting it? The government of a free people does not collect dossiers of personal private information on all of its citizens. A police state does. Have we become a police state? According to the Declaration of Independence, the purpose of government is to secure the unalienable rights of its citizens, which include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Is not privacy one of the most important rights of a free people?

The 2001 edition of the Data Handbook states its purpose:

To make appropriate, cost-effective and timely decisions about students, educators must have accurate and complete information. Recognizing this need, most education systems have moved from paper documents in filing cabinets to automated student information systems. These systems provide teachers and others concerned with effective program design with day-to-day access to information about the students’ background, learning experiences, and performance. They also provide the flexibility necessary to supply aggregate data to school boards, state and federal governments, and other interested parties; and to conduct program evaluations. To be effective, however, these systems must record data accurately and comparably for all students, in all places, and at all times.

The Student Data Handbook for Elementary, Secondary, and Early Childhood Education was developed by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to provide guidance concerning the consistent maintenance of student information. This handbook is useful to public and private education agencies, schools, early childhood centers, and other educational institutions, as well as to researchers involved in the collection of student data. In addition, the Handbook may be useful to elected officials and members of the public interested in student information. This handbook is not, however, a data collection instrument; nor does it reflect any type of federal data maintenance requirements. It is presented as a tool to help the public and the American school system make information about students more useful and effective in meeting student needs.

The writers of the Handbook seem to contradict their own words. The Data Handbook is indeed a data collection instrument. What else could it possibly be, especially since every individual in the system is identified with his or her own number? Of course, it may also be used for general information gathering purposes. For example, since the religion of a child is part of the data collected, the government can release general information about how many Catholics, or Baptists, or Mormons are in the public schools. But they can also identify the religion of any individual in the system.

The federal government’s original rationale for collecting all of this data was that it was needed to see if the nation was reaching the national education goals set by Goals 2000. Well, Goals 2000 have come and gone. The program was a failure. But the government nevertheless keeps collecting more and more data on students and teachers.

To understand how all of this works, you have to get down into the bowels of Washington’s educational bureaucracies. For example, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the grand overseer of all of this data collection. In 1991, it awarded a three-year contract to the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) “to facilitate the implementation of a national education data system.” The project was called the Education Data System Implementation Project (EDSIP). Two years prior to EDSIP, the NCES began constructing “an interstate student records transfer system currently called ExPRESS,” an acronym for Exchange of Permanent Records Electronically for Students and Schools. The function of ExPRESS is as follows:

The activity has included the development of standard data elements for inclusion in an electronic student transcript and a pilot exchange of student records across school districts and from districts to institutions of higher education. The system is now ready for further development, including the appointment of a Governing Board, making formal arrangements with a communications network for exchanging the records, and expansion to more sites.

EDSIP also included implementing a Personnel Exchange System for sharing state expertise in solving education data problems, the development of an Information Referral System for sharing information to improve data systems across states, and the development of student and staff data handbooks.

The CCSSO has carried out two other projects for the NCES. The first, the Education Data Improvement Project (1985-88), “analyzed each state’s capacity to provide standard, comparable and timely data to NCES on public elementary and secondary school and school district, staff, students, revenues and expenditures.” The second project was the New Education Data Improvement Project (1988-91) to provide technical assistance plans for each state, which addressed the state’s problems in responding to Common Core Data requirements.

Continued on next page…