DEAD MEN ROAM
SCHOOL HALLWAYS


BY BRANNON HOWSE


      Five men are still having a huge impact on the education policies of America's educational system despite the fact they have all been dead for years. John Dewey, Benjamin Bloom, Aldous Huxley, Karl Marx and B. F. Skinner, and Bloom never met together in a smoke filled back room to plot their takeover of America's educational system. These five men did not need to share even an hour together to accomplish their objectives because they shared the same humanist worldview.

      John Dewey, the most well known humanist of all time, has been calledcalled the "father of progressive education." As honorary president of the National Education Association in 1932, Dewey was one of the coauthors of the humanist manifesto in 1933, helped start the socialist society in America, went to Russia in the 1930s to help organize the Marxists educational system, and served as education department head at Columbia University where a large percentage of America's superintendents and teacher college heads studied.

      One of Dewey's most well known quotes accurately sums up the philosophy that is prevalent in America's educational philosophy and curriculum, proving Dewey's legacy still lives on:

There is no God and no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, then immutable (unchangeable) truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law, or permanent moral absolutes.

      Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, outlined in his book some of the steps toward total social transformation. Huxley's list confirms he is still impacting America's educational system:
  1. Rewrite history to discredit nationalism and promote globalism.

  2. Teach thinking skills based on feelings and experience, not facts and reason.

  3. Encourage loyalty to peers and teachers, not family and churches.

  4. Immerse students in Global beliefs and values.

  5. Block opposition to the new global paradigm.

  6. Condition students to serve a "greater whole."

The Father of OBE


      Teaching feelings based on feelings not facts, encouraging loyalty to peers and teachers, not family and churches, is exactly the goal of Outcome-Based Education.

      Benjamin Bloom, the father of OBE, would be pleased with his ultimate accomplishment. Why? Because whether Americans know it or not or whether the educational elite want to admit it or not, Outcome-Based Education has been mandated not only by federal law, but by almost every state legislature in all 50 states.

      Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World, writes: "A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced because they love their servitude." Outcome-Based Education has and continues to give us such a generation, causing many Americans to believe that government education system is undeniably planned failure, and intellectual slaver. Why?, because if children are not educated, they are easily controlled.

      Outcome-Based Education has not only given us a nation of compliant slaves who willingly follow the orders of today's master, a tyrannical centralized government, but a generation that is enslaved to a humanist worldview. Ageneration that who not believe in absolute truth believes that to be considered an intellectual thinker you must be a liberal thinker and tolerance is the "virtue" to be acquired above all else.

      Behind every method of teaching lies a philosophy on which it is based. In addition to the promotion of a secular humanist worldview, Outcome-Based Education promotes socialism-the false idea that equality should mean equality of outcomes rather than equality of opportunity.

      In order for the outcomes to be based on equality, the standard must be lowered to ensure that all students, regardless of their ability, can reach the set standard. For example, if you want everyone to slam dunk, you have to lower the basket.

21 Different Names


      When Mastery Learning, the foundation stone of OBE, received negative reviews from parents, an attempt was made to disguise it.

      William Spady, one of OBE's most well-known gurus, devised a cover-up and encouraged educators to do away with the old terminology of Mastery Learning and instead refer to it as Outcome-Based Education. This is how William Spady told educators to implement this deception:

I pleaded with the group not to use the name "mastery learning" in the network's new name because the word "mastery" had already been destroyed. I argued that we had about five years before they destroyed the term "outcomes," but at least we could get a start.1

      At a conference sponsored by the Free World Research in Des Moines, Iowa in February 1994, Dr. William Coulson, who was a longtime colleague of Dr. Carl Rogers, quoted Rogers as saying, "Change the name of [the reform policy] as fast as necessary to stay ahead of the critics."

      Now that OBE has been unmasked, the spin doctors of the educational elite are out in full force using at least 21 different names to disguise Outcome-Based Education.

      Hiding OBE has become for many educators a full time endeavor. To keep parents and the public confused, OBE proponents cloak their edu- cational approach in different terms. Here is a list of their most common terminology:

Mastery Learning
Results Oriented
Total Quality Management
Quality Schools
Essential Schools
Transformational Education
Reformed Education, Restructured Education
Competency Based Education
Break the Mold 21st Century Schools
Mission 2000
Vision 2000
Exit Based Teaching
High Standards
Skills 2000
Performance Based Learning
High Level Learning
Mastery Teaching
Formative Testing
Correctives Teaching
Extensions Learning
Summative Evaluations
Credentialing Curriculum
Advancement Teaching
Results-Based Curriculum
Why Socialism Never Works

      Outcome-based-education as we know it today is nothing less than the promotion of socialism. It is the old theory that no one can be better than anyone else. Instead of re-distributing wealth, Outcome-Based Education re-distributes grades.

      The concept of socialism has been tried many times and has proven to be a complete and total failure. Why then are we teaching America's children the philosophy of socialism in and through education?

      The former Soviet Union may never recover from the years of socialism that kept it from becoming prosperous and advanced. Countless other societies have tried without success to make socialism a productive system by which to live, teach, and govern.

      Socialism, however, will never create success because it is based on the false belief of equality. Everything and everyone cannot be equal. Whenever government tries to equalize salaries or the standard of living or education, productivity takes a nose-dive.

Pilgrims and Socialism


      Few people realize that socialism's bent for failure was proved in America's first colony established by the Pilgrims.

      When the Mayflower set sail on August 1, 1620, it carried 102 passengers, including 40 Pilgrims led by William Bradford. On the journey, Bradford set up an agreement, or contract, that established just and equal laws for all members of their community irrespective of their religious beliefs.

      Where did the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact come from? The Bible. The Pilgrims were completely steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments and looked to the ancient Israelites as their example. Because of the biblical precedents set forth in Scripture, they never doubted that their experiment would work.

      During the first winter, half the Pilgrims - including Bradford's wife - died of either starvation, sickness, or exposure. When spring finally came, Indians taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish for cod, and skin beavers for coats. Life improved for the Pilgrims, but they did not yet prosper. Why not?

      The original contract the Pilgrims entered into with their merchantsponsors in London called for everything they produced to go into a common store, and each member of the community was entitled to one common share. All of the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community as well.

      Bradford, who had become the new governor of the colony, recognized that this form of collectivism was as costly and destructive to the Pilgrims as that first harsh winter, which had taken so many lives. He decided to take bold action and assigned a plot of land to each family to work and manage, thus unleashing the power of the marketplace.

      Long before Karl Marx was even born, the Pilgrims had discovered and experimented with what could only be described as socialism. "What Bradford and his community found was that the most creative and industrious people had no incentive to work any harder than anyone else, unless they could utilize the power of personal motivation!" 2

      Writing about the experiences of the Pilgrims, Bradford noted,

By taking away property, and bringing community into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing - as if they were wiser than God. . . .For this community [so far as it was] found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For young men that were most able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense . . . that was thought injustice.3

      If socialism and the myth of equality - the belief that everyone must be the same - has proven to be a detriment to any and every society that has governed by it, why do we permit this philosophy to be taught in America's schools?

No Right Answers


      The fantasy-world mentality of socialism sets a dangerous precedent for any child who attends public school. Why? Because OBE never permits a child to fail.

      Children are robbed of the valuable lessons of determination and persistence learned from failure. Failure can be used to teach children to dig in and double or even triple their efforts in order to reach a set goal. The real world is not going to slow down and let these children catch-up.

      William Glasser, one of OBE's national promoters, wrote in his book, Schools Without Failure: "We have to let students know there are no right answers, and we have to let them see that there are many alternatives to certainty and right answers."4

      William Glasser takes his cues directly from one of the most notorious agents of change ever to be involved in the American educational system, Benjamin Bloom. In his book, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Bloom calls for the "thorough-going through and reorganization of attitudes and values."5

      Why? Because Bloom taught that the highest form of intelligence has been reached when a individual no longer believes in right or wrong.

      In his book, All Our Children Learning, Bloom openly discloses what he believes is the ultimate goal of education. "The purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students."6 Bloom goes on to write:
The curriculum may be thought of as a plan for changing students' behavior and as the actual set of learning experiences in which students, teachers, and materials interact to produce the change in students.7

      In other words, Bloom was espousing corrective thought control.

      What kind of change does Bloom desire to create in students? That students question everything taught to them - except of course what he would teach them - and to base their beliefs on no set moral absolutes. Remember, Bloom believes that the highest form of intelligence occurs when one no longer believes in right or wrong.

An Elite Group of Thinkers


      What is Bloom's final objective? To change the students into exactly what he is - a humanist and an elitist. Bloom's goal is to tear down any and every authority figure that a child would have and replace those authority figures with a new authority figure - the state group consensus.

      How does Bloom plan to do this? By making students believe that they have been subjected to superior thought that is beyond the ability of most people, particularly the child's parents, to understand. Students are fed a line that goes something like this:

      Do not expect to be understood by your parents, pastor, or even some of your friends. You are part of an elite group of thinkers. If you truly want to be an intellectual thinker, you have to be a liberal thinker. You can't believe in the old standard of right or wrong. You must decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong based on your own feelings, beliefs, and ideas. It is okay to challenge and question the things your parents or society have taught you. That is all part of becoming part of a rare group of leaders and achievers.

      Am I over-stating the case? No, as Bloom's own words prove:

The careful observer of the classroom can see that the wise teacher as well as the psychological theorist use cognitive behavior and the achievement of cognitive goals to attain affective goals. . . . [A] large part of what we call "good teaching" is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the student's fixed beliefs.8

      And where does this kind of student Bloom is talking about acquire his "fixed beliefs"? That's right, more than likely from his parents.

      Most of us would respond: All the more reason why those fixed beliefs should remain fixed, instead of being torn down and replaced by some liberal, socialist, humanist, elitist educrat like Benjamin Bloom.

Words Have Meanings


      Today the educational elite refer to outcomes, high standards, and a host of other terms that attempt to mask their true meaning. Benjamin Bloom called them "higher order thinking skills." Whatever they are called, parents need to know that these terms have meanings, and they usually don't mean what you think.

      For example, what do you think when you hear the term, "critical thinker"? Do you want to be considered a critical thinker? Do you want your child or grandchild to be considered a critical thinker? Before you answer that question. you need to ask: Who is defining the terms?

      Dr. Raymond English, one of the educational elite, gave a speech before the National Advisory Council on Educational Research and Improvement on April 2, 1987. In his speech, Dr. English defined critical thinking as follows:

Critical thinking means not only learning how to think for oneself, but it also means learning how to subvert the traditional values in your society. You're not thinking critical if you're accepting the values that mommy and daddy taught you. That's not critical.

      Some of the other "outcomes" they won't want your child to achieve can be found in almost every school district statment of purpose. Here is a sampling:

      Involved citizen, quality producer, self-directed learner, productive group participant, understand diversity, understand positive health habits, deliberate on public issues and interpret human experience.

      Do you think a student would be considered a "self-directed learner" if they listened to their parents, pastor, youth pastor, or grandparents?

      "Understanding diversity" means accepting and valuing every lifestyle anyone chooses to practice. "Understanding positive health habits" is nothing more than passing a "safe sex class."

      Americans need to stop being so trusting and understand that the educational policy makers in Washington D.C. and at your state department of education are individuals who have betrayed a public trust.

The Goal: Group Consensus


      One mother who is also a substitute teacher in her daughter's public school said she had had enough. "I have applied for a position at a Christian school, and I am enrolling Jennifer there, too."

      When asked why, she replied, "Everything in public school is done in groups," she said. "There is no emphasis on individuality or the idea of taking pride in your own work. As a result, the kids who do no work get the same recognition and grade as those in their group who did most of the work."

      The educational philosophy of "cooperative learning" can be found in almost every school district in America. In fact, many students are now required to prove they are a "productive group participant" in order to graduate from high school.

      Being a "productive group participant" often means a student must reject or deny their personal and biblical convictions in order to fit in with the beliefs of their peers so group consensus can be achieved.

      Lynn Cheney, former chair-woman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, testified before the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health, and Human Services, and Education on February 3, 1998. In her testimony Lynn addressed the dangerous aspects of cooperative learning, which she later described in a national newspaper column:

They seek to inculcate supposedly good for the workplace, such as the belief that individual striving should be put aside in the name of group achievement. Having students work in teams is one way of fostering this thinking, particularly when it is reinforced by group grading.

A Texas Workforce Commission document suggests that teachers give every member of a team the exam grade received by the lowest scorer as a way to encourage "supporting and assisting the low-achieving members."

      Outcome-Based Education is a psychological process for changing a student's worldview. At its core, it is the promotion of a secular humanists worldview. Those who comply with the humanist worldview of the cultural elite will be encouraged to become the doctors, attorneys, social workers, teachers, etc. Those who do not fit into the agenda of the "elite ruling class" will become part of a poorly educated easily controlled work force.

      Based upon the student's Outcome-Based Education portfolio, specially trained counselors will help students choose the most "acceptable" career. What about students who demonstrate the wrong worldview or exhibit individualism, patriotism, or the belief in national sovereignty? What if they have strong religious convictions and are not afraid to voice them?

      The answer is simple.

      Once this new system is fully implemented, outspoken, creative, God-fearing students can forget about graduating and receiving their government recognized diploma. If, by some chance, they are permitted to graduate, the students' beliefs, convictions, and worldview could dog them the rest of their lives, keeping them from getting a good job and moving up the corporate ladder.

      Federal legislation such as Goals 2000, which Bill Clinton signed into law in April of 1994, the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1994, The Federal School-To-Work Opportunities Act of 1994, The Workforce Investment Partnership Act, The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2000, and the Straight A's Act of 2000, resulted in the federal government taking charge of education, the economy, and your life from cradle to grave.

      All of these pieces of legislation, and others not mentioned, are funding Outcome-Based Education and the philosophies of Marx, Huxley, Skinner and Dewey. Goals 2000, School-To-Work, and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1994 have all been reauthorized although not necessarily under the same original names.

      Hillary Clinton oversaw the passage of four bills that put the federal government in charge of education, the economy and your life from cradle to grave. All these pieces of legislation give America an educational and workforce bureaucracy that resembles Hillary's proposed healthcare bureaucracy.

A Nation of Compliant Worker Bees


      America's schools are being turned into vocational centers where students are trained instead of educated. T.G. Stict, who served under Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, has said, "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 education level."

      Through School-to-Work the "State" decides which children go on to college and which go on to work following "training certification". After reviewing a student's educational history or portfolio, the "State" determines the career track or job the individual is to hold. The State's desires take precedent over the wishes of the individual and his/her parents. Those who have conformed to the federal and state "standards" will be rewarded with further education and a good job. Those who do not meet the Outcome-Based Education standards will be left adrift.

      The California PTA has said, "school-to-work is based on the premise that government control can do a better job of training individuals, satisfying occupational demands and managing the development of economic activities better than can the effort and initiative of millions of individuals."

      Lynne Cheney, former chair-woman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, wrote about the dangers of School-To-Work:

A central thesis of school-to-work plans, for example is that eighth-graders should choose careers. To help them along, schools administer interest and personality assessments that direct students toward specific occupa- tions, often ones that have little to do with their ambitions. Kristine Jensen, a Nevada mother, told me that her daughter, an honor student who wants to work for NASA, had been advised to consider a career in sanitation or interior design. Eunice Evans, a parental-rights advocate in Pennsylvania, described a boy in her neighborhood who wanted to be a doctor but was told it would be more appropriate for him to be a gas station attendant or a truck-driver.

      Lynne Cheney, also noted that the goal of the workforce development boards that now exist in all most every state - to federal money liberally distributed to states that create such boards.

What is the purpose of workforce boards? To consider future market needs and decide which careers choices schools should encourage. But predicting work-force needs is an iffy business. In 1989, for example, a prestigious study declared that by 1997, there would be a substantial shortage of humanities Ph.D's, when, in fact, there is now a glut.

      We need more public servants like Craig Hagen who will take a stand for what is right. In her Congressional testimony Lynn Cheney testified:

Concerned that schools in his state would get in the business of enforcing politically correct thinking led Craig Hagen, North Dakota's Commissioner of Labor, to resign from his state's school-to-work management team earlier this year. "I couldn't remain in that position with my principles," he said.


Federal Diplomas


      In 1997, Governor Roy Romer of Colorado, who was serving as a board member of the Goals 2000 panel, was asked how the panel was going to enforce the national standards. Romer replied:

"I believe if you were to get all employers of this country saying that we would not hire anybody unless we see a high school graduate certificate that has on it the results of this potential employee's record. . .Then I think this nation will come to the realization that there is no job for them, there is no life for them. . .There is the motivation."

      Chester Finn, former assistant secretary under Bill Bennett and one of the authors of Goals 2000, has recommended a system of rewards and punishments for those who conform to the federal government's standards, which are not really standards but the promotion of a humanist worldview.

Perhaps the best way to enforce this standard is to confer valuable benefits and privileges on people who meet it, and to withhold them from those who do not. Work permits, good jobs and college admission are the most obvious, but there is ample scope here for imagination in devising carrots and sticks. Drivers licenses could be deferred, so could eligibility for professional athletic teams. The minimum wage paid to those who earn their certificates [of mastery] might be a dollar higher.

      This certificate of mastery is really nothing more than an outcomebased education diploma. Nevada and Ohio are moving to the smart card, and many other states are looking to follow their lead.

      The Cincinnati Post on May 23, 1996 reported, "Adults have credit cards and money cards. But soon, students in Cincinnati public schools will have a special card of their own and what it could buy them is their future in the world of work. The 'smart card,' proposed by Procter & Gamble Chairman John Pepper, is expected to be in the hands of ninthgraders, and possibly seventh-graders, by the start of the next school year. Equipped with a computer chip, the card will contain a cumulative record of the student's grades, attendance, proficiency, test scores, extracurricular activities, athletics and other accomplishments. By the time the student graduates, the card should contain all the pertinent information a prospective employer needs about the applicant. All employers would ask to see the Smart Card and preference would be given to those with good performance."

      What is good performance? Are the standards academic or are they politically correct? Evidence is overwhelming that the Goals 2000, Outcome-Based Education standards are based on attitudes, values and feelings.

Children of the State


      The 'smart card' sounds like what the March 16, 1992 New York Times International revealed. In China, "a file is opened on each urban citizen when he or she enters elementary school and it shadows the person throughout life, moving on to high school, college, employer. . .The dangan contains political evaluations that affect career prospects. . .The file is kept by one's employer. The dangan affects promotions and job opportunities. . .Any prospective employer is supposed to examine an applicant's dangan before making hiring decisions."

      China refers to their education process as life-long learning. Here in the United States, state and federal education legislation is filled with the term "life long learning." In 1977, U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education Mary Francis Barry said America was embarking on an education reform movement based on the four pillars of the Chinese model of life long learning: 1) Eliminate test and grades, 2) Make truth a relative concept, 3) Educate to serve the masses, 4) Merge education with labor.

      In Las Vegas, Rene Tucker's daughter Darcy was pulled out of a geography class without parental consent to be administered a computerized assessment of career possibilities. Darcy wants to become a veterinarian. The computer said she ought to become a bartender or waitress, and it spat out a list of courses she ought to take to that end. Mrs. Tucker said, "We're Christians, and the school stepped on my toes as a parent. It is my job to direct my child's career path, and it would not be in her best interest to be a bartender." It might be in Nevada's best interest, given the huge hospitality needs driven by the gambling and entertainment industry.

      In his book, Brave New World, Aldous Huxley wrote,

To bring about the revolution we require. . .Enabling government managers to assign any given individual to his or her proper place in the social and economic hierarchy. Round pegs in square holes tend to have dangerous thoughts about the social system and to infect others with their discontents.

      In other words, those who do not agree with the "State's" worldview or "standards" will not be encouraged to pursue positions of power or influence either socially or economically.

      A career exploration test found in six states has 100 true or false questions which include: I have taught a Sunday school class or otherwise take an active part in my church; I believe in a God who answers prayers; I believe that tithing is one's duty to God; I pray to God about my problems. It is important that grace be said before meals; I read the Bible or other religious writings regularly; I believe in life after death; I believe that God created man in his own image; If I ask God for forgiveness, my sins are forgiven.

      Why are such questions included on a career exploration test if not to determine the "proper place" to assign each student?

      Mark Tucker is president of the National Center on Education and the Economy, an organization that has led the charge in passing schoolto- work legislation at the state and federal level. Prior to becoming First Lady, Hillary Clinton was on the board of directors of his organization. In the February 4, 1998, issue of Education Week, Mark Tucker was quoted in an article written by Millicent Lawton as saying:

State higher education systems would deny admission to those who didn't have the certificate [of mastery], and state leaders would prod employers to express a preference for hiring job applicants who had the certificate. Both conditions would serve as powerful incentives for students, the authors argue.

      The goals of those who signed the Humanist Manifesto are being accomplished even now as we see the merging of education with labor policy or what many are referring to as corporate fascism. The American Heritage Dictionary defines corporate fascism as "a philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises dictatorship through the merging of state and business leadership."

The Ultimate Goal


      Karl Marx in the tenth plank of the Communist Manifesto calls for the merging of education with industrial production. Karl Marx, the father of today's school-to-work agenda, was also one of the signers of the Humanist Manifesto. Whether socialist, communist or Marxist, the foundation of all these philosophies is the humanist worldview and the rejection of biblical creation. Dr. D. James Kennedy in his book, Character and Destiny, explains:

Humanists are socialists by nature. Like Karl Marx, they see private property as primitive and selfish, nationalism and pride of country as dangerous, and allegiance to any power other than the socialist state should be illegal. Ideas, ethics, and the means of production belong to the state. For supporters such as Paul Kurtz, B.F. Skinner, John Dewey, Francis Crick, Isaac Asimov, and the other signers of the manifesto, communism and state socialism were the only logical solutions to mankind's problems. In the first edition of that thin volume, they wrote, "A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. . . . Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world."

      Whether Outcome-Based Education, Certificates of Mastery, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, the robbing of religious freedoms, the constant attack on the traditional family, private property, private schools, home schools, and the strengthening of federally controlled government school, humanists, have one ultimate goal: the creation of a humanistic, socialistic, communist nation where everything is shared, everyone is the same, and the ruling class control your life as they choose to their own financial and political benefit.

      John Dewey, Karl Marx, Aldous Huxley, B. F. Skinner, and Benjamin Bloom were interested in a student's academic achievement only if it would in some way benefit the interest of the State. Before a student's cognative knowledge could be used to its full potential for the good of the State, the student's attitudes, values, feelings and beliefs must be conformed to that of the State.

      In his book, My Pedagogic Creed, John Dewey wrote:

I believe the true center of correlation on the school subjects is not science, nor literature, nor history, nor geography, but the child's social activities. . . . I believe that the school is primarily a social institution. . . . The teacher's business is simply to determine, on the basis of the larger experience and riper wisdom, how the discipline of life shall come to the child. . . . All these questions of the grading of the child and his promotion should be determined by reference to the same standard. Examinations are of use only so far as they test the child's fitness for social life.

      John Dewey and his friends are only interested in knowing where to place the students in the social and economic hierarchy? The Outcome-Based Education test is used to determine a child's area of weakness. Once the area of weakness is determined, the attitudes, values, feelings and emotions that do not fit with the States worldview, the curriculum, as Bloom said, are used to change the student's fixed beliefs.

      Ann Herzer writing in "Mastery Learning: For Whose Benefit?" writes:

In education, behavior modification has become a method of horror. Children and teachers are being programmed to respond like the Skinnerian rat, pigeon and dog. The dehumanizing method of operant conditioning strips one of individualism, human feeling and dignity, to say nothing of free will. The child and human subject, like the conditional animal, becomes dependent on the extrinsic stimuli or token reward. Very quickly, intrinsic learning for the sake of learning is conditioned out of the child.

      Have you ever wondered why the educrats today are calling for computers in every classroom for every student? To give kids access to better education. Right? But who will determine the material and methods by which the student is "educated" using the computer?

      What if the actual purpose is to use computers to reinforce and correct thoughts and attitudes on a proper and timely schedule?

      Dustin Heuston of Utah's World Institute for Computer-Assisted Teaching has said:

We've been absolutely staggered by realizing that the computer has the capability to act as if it were ten of the top psychologists working with one student. . . . You've seen the tip of the iceberg. Won't it be wonderful when the child in the smallest county in the most distant area or in the most confused urban setting can have the equivalent of the finest school in the world on that ter- minal and no one can get between that child and that curriculum? We have great moments coming in the history of education.9

      "No one can get between the child and that curriculum." The question arises, then, Who will determine the content of the curriculum?

      Charlotte Iserbyt, who served as a Special Assistant in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement in the U.S. Department of Education in the 1980s, has said that until recently, "parents could examine their children's textbooks; now, thanks to technology, nothing or nobody will be able to get between the child and his computer. Except, of course, the agents of change."

Computer Disc DJs


      Along with radical changes in the school curriculum brought on by Outcome-Based Education, the job of the teacher is being transformed. In fact, some believe that the role of the teacher is disappearing from America's classroom.

      Under OBE, mandated by Goals 2000 and H.R. 6, the computer will be the new "teacher." Someone has noted, "Our teachers will be reduced to computer disc DJs."10

      The Minnesota Department of Education in a publication titled, "Technology and Outcome-Based Education in Minnesota," described this changing role of teachers:

Machines are becoming the information givers of our society. Since professional information givers of the past may quickly be replaced by these machines, teachers need to define themselves, and act as diagnosers, prescribers, creative climate makers, instructional designers, coaches, and learning facilitators. . . . Teachers must stop functioning as information givers, putting learners in rows, trying to transmit information through worksheets and lectures.

      This idea is not new. In fact, as early as 1968, the "education reform movement" was laying the groundwork for its future policies at a U.S.A. Goals 2000 conference. Their own reports reveal the agenda of the educational elite:

The teachers will have disappeared, and his place will be taken by a facilitator of learning, focusing attention on the prime period of learning . . . from infancy to age six or eight . . . He [the student] will never be graduated.

      This is what the social engineers call "life-long learning."

      When George Bush introduced America 2000, which later came to be called Goals 2000, the President said we would become "a nation of students." There is nothing wrong with that as long as the student - or his parents - can determine what he will learn.

Forcing Students Into Line


      In the future, every child will be working on his own computer, with his own projects and assignments. Why? Because every child will have different attitudes, values, feelings, and emotions that need re-mediating. In other words, every student will have varying shades and types of political incorrectness that must be changed.

      According to the educational elite, every child is sick and in need of help.

      Dr. Pierce, professor of Education and Psychology at Harvard University, has said,

Every child who enters school at the age of five is mentally ill because he enters school with an allegiance toward our elected officials, our founding fathers, our institutions, the preservation of this form of government that we have, patriotism, nationalism, sovereignty. All this proves that the children are sick, because a truly well individual is one who has rejected all of those things, and is what I would call the true international child of the future.11

      Outcome-Based Education is designed to correct the mental sickness of every child. Of course the question that arises is: What makes every five-year old in America sick? Could it be the five years of love and attention the child has received from his parents?

      Yes, that is what the "experts" think makes the child sick.

      Dr. Pierce said that the child comes to school with a set worldview, a worldview with which he disagrees. Where did that worldview come from? Who instilled into the five-year old this worldview that Dr. Pierce finds so sickening? The child's parents.

      What Dr. Pierce really objects to is the child's parental authority, parental influence, traditional values, the traditional American family, and the Christian worldview.

      Research journalist Geoffrey Botkin notes that it is at this point that the computer comes into play:

In coming stages of OBE, the government can determine how to re-mediate, or fix, the way the child thinks with custom software for every child . . . [the software] can create custom individualized computer drills that can force every student into line.12

      In the October 1999, Education Reporter, Phyllis Schlaffly reported the state of Massachusetts has developed a computer tracking system that will track personal data on each student in the state. The Massachusetts Department of Education calls their system the Student Information Management System. According to the research of Phyllis Schlaffly, "SIMS will eventually allow students to log onto any personal computer and access customized homework pages and personal homework folders."

      Does this seem unlikely to you or maybe even extreme? I wish that were the case. However, the facts prove this is exactly what the educrats in Washington have in mind.

Collecting Data About Your Child


      The Washington Star, April 15, 1970, printed an article titled, "Set up Data Banks, Allen Urges Schools" by John Matthews. In this article, U.S. Commissioner of Education James Allen is quoted as encouraging local school systems to have a central diagnostic center and explains its purpose: . . . to find out everything possible about the child and his background. . . . (The Center) would know just about everything there is to know about the child - his home and family background, his cultural and language deficiencies, his health and nutrition needs and his general potential as an individual.

      Allen then implied that professionals would write a "prescription" for the child "and if necessary, for his home and family as well."11 How would they determine which children need a professional "prescription"? According to Allen's Plan, each child would "be evaluated before 6 years of age, then again at 11 and 15."13

      Just eight months after the U.S. Commissioner of Education made his comments, the Dallas Morning News on December 12, 1970 reported the following in an article by Karen Elliott entitled "School Survey to Begin":

      By 1972, administrators expect to have complete computerized records on each of the 180,000 students in the district. When this is completed. . .they will begin compiling information on Dallas teachers and on student's home life and socioeconomic background.

      The process of collecting information on students is not new and has only increased due to the public's acceptance of such practice and the technology that is now available that makes it so easy. In the October 1999, Education Reporter, Phyllis Schlaffly revealed:

The Massachusetts Department of Education (DOE) will begin issuing ID numbers to about one million public school children this fall through a computerized tracking system called the Student Information Management System (SIMS). The system will require school districts to provide at least 35 bits of information on each student, including scores on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests, career plans, race, and other personal data.

The Massachusetts' Eagle-Tribune reported on August 22 that SIMS will create permanent records that will follow students throughout their years in public school. Information that formerly remained with the individual school districts will now be under state jurisdiction.

The Massachusetts Departments of Education's own handbook points out that SIMS data may be shared with other state or local agencies without consent, and that it will be possible for federal agencies to subpoena the state for information.

Michael Sweeney, a lawyer and school committeeman in Lawrence, Massachusetts, called the process of identifying all the state's school children "outrageous" and termed it "Big Brotherism." He noted that, "a third of the information they are collecting is totally unnecessary. Any time the government starts centrally collecting information, people should worry."

      Perhaps your response is, well I don't have to worry because I don't live in Massachusetts. Phyllis Schlaffly reported:

      Massachusetts officials point out that their state is not the only one introducing such a system. "About 20-25 other states have implemented or are developing similar systems."

      Research journalist Geoffrey Botkin, in a television documentary on America's educational system, discovered that in 1978, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers warned about the unlawful political abuse of electronics technology.

      The warning was not heeded, and in 1994 they published a summary of the abuses, which included:

1. The collecting of psychological, medical, sociological data on students and their families without their knowledge or consent via the NAEP, the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

2. The "going on line" of the education supercomputer, the Elementary and Secondary Integrated Data System in 1989. This system linked the U.S. Department of Education with all 50 state education departments.

3. Promoting the above under the rubric of "educational restructuring" under names like Outcome-Based Education while withholding from the public the nature and extent of the data collection.

      America's social engineers will stop at nothing to achieve their goal of reprogramming our youth - even if it means "withholding from the public" their secret methods of collecting data about our children - and us!

Programming Humans


      Certainly computers are a tremendous asset to our society and to education, but such technology has the potential to perpetuate and facilitate the "Big Brother" thinking of bureaucrats who see education and schools as a means of controlling society.

      B.F. Skinner, an atheist, humanist psychologist who taught at Harvard University, was one of the first to promote the use of a machine for remediation. Its purpose was to aid in developing programmed learning or corrective thought control. As a behavioral psychologist, B.F. Skinner believed that man is controlled by stimuli from the environment and, therefore, can never make a decision in which he exercises free will.

      B.F. Skinner believed "the hypothesis that man is not free is essential to the application of scientific method to the study of human behavior."15

      Skinner went on to write, "We must expect to discover that what a man does is the result of specifiable conditions and that once these conditions have been discovered, we can anticipate and to some extent determine his actions."16

      In other words, once an individual discovers the right stimuli, or the right conditions, he can control anyone. According to Skinner, there will be those who are controlled and those who are the controllees.

      In his book, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Skinner wrote that man "plays two roles: one as a controller, as the designer of a controlling culture, and another as the controlled, as the products of a culture."17

      B. F. Skinner and Karl Marx had the same mindset that dominates today's social engineers. They believe that a perfect world or utopia can be created by establishing the right conditions through proper conditioning, programmed learning, corrective thought control, coercive thought control, brainwashing, and manipulation.

      Dr. Skinner was so skilled at behavioral programming that he trained pigeons during World War II to pilot and detonate bombs and torpedoes. In the book, B.F. Skinner, The Man and His Ideas, by Richard Evans, Skinner is quoted as saying, "I could make a pigeon a high achiever by reinforcing it on a proper schedule."

      Skinner believed, by using the teaching machines he developed to reinforce desired behavior in animals, he could program humans.

Alienating Children From Parents


      Professor Kenneth Goodman, former president of the International Reading Association, wrote a letter to President Jimmy Carter denouncing programs that were based on the philosophies of B.F. Skinner and were being funded by the U.S. Department of Education. In his letter, Professor Goodman did an excellent job explaining exactly what B.F. Skinner's programmed learning was all about.

      Professor Goodman wrote:

In behavior management, outcomes are assumed or arbitrarily determined and the behavior of human learners is shaped, conditioned, reinforced, extinguished, rewarded or punished until the learners achieve the target behavior.18

      Under Mastery Learning and Outcome-Based Education, teachers are expected to track, record, and correct the improper attitudes, values, feelings and emotions of students. That is an impossible task - unless the teacher has help. Today computers and specialized software can track and correct students who exhibit the politically incorrect responses - without the aid of a teacher.

      Dean Corrigan, in a 1969 speech before the 22nd Annual Teachers Education Conference held at the University of Georgia, predicted that Skinner's "teaching machines will pace a student's progress, diagnose his weaknesses and make certain that he understands a fundamental concept before allowing him to advance to the next lesson."

      Why do the agents of change want to track the beliefs of our children? For one reason: to aid them in their diabolical quest to inculcate into our children their beliefs and values. First, however, they must make sure that this inculcation is not hindered by the beliefs of the child's parents.

      When children exhibit the wrong attitudes and beliefs, which were instilled into them by parents, then remediation, corrective thought control, and re-programming will be the order of business. The computer is the fastest and most effective manner by which to track a student's moral and character development. The computer is also the fastest, most accurate and consistent way to correct wrong developmental behavior.

Using Eskimos to Mold Beliefs


      In 1963, under contract with the U.S. Office of Education of Health Education and Welfare, the National Education Association oversaw the Technological Development Project, which published a supplement stating:

Another area of potential development in computer applications is the attitude changing machine. Dr. Bertram Raven in the Psychology Department at the University of California in Los Angeles is in the process of building a computer-based device for changing attitude. This device will work on the principle that students' attitudes can be changed effectively by using the Socratic method of asking an appropriate series of leading questions logically designed to right the balance between appropriate attitudes and those deemed less acceptable.19

      In the 1970s, a controversial Social Studies program called Man: A Course of Study was introduced into America's schools. This course can still be found in schools today.

      What was the purpose of this program ? "To help children by exploring in depth the lifestyle of an obscure Eskimo tribe."20

      Who designed the course and how was it supposed to help children?

      The course was designed by a team of experimental psychologists under Jerome S. Burner and B.F. Skinner to mold children's social attitudes and beliefs along lines that set them apart and alienate them from beliefs and moral values of their parents and local community.21

      That assessment was made by Congressman John Conlan of Arizona on April 9, 1975 on the House floor.

      John Conlan hit the nail on the head. Skinner's programmed learning focuses on setting children apart and "alienating them from the beliefs and moral values of their parents" - particularly if those parents are instilling into their children a biblical worldview.

A New Way of Doing Business


      In 1992, when Hillary Clinton and Marc Tucker of the National Center on Education and The Economy wrote their education and labor goals for a Clinton Administration titled, AHuman Resource Plan for the United States, they stated:

      . . .Not as a pilot program, not as a new demonstration to be swept aside in another administration, but everywhere, as the new way of doing business. . . It is a system for everyone. . .It is no longer a system for the poor and unskilled, but for everyone. . . Young and old, rich and poor, student and full-time worker.

      If you thought the Certificate of Mastery is just for public school students, think again. As I travel the country and educate audiences on the dangers of school-to-work and the Certificate of Mastery, many individuals have come to me after a seminar and shared their own experiences.

      A nurse, plumber, electrician, attorney, and many others from all walks of life have related how they as adults have encountered the equivalent of a Certificate of Mastery or work permit.

      The electrician told me, "I need a government license to work legally with freon, otherwise I will not be permitted to service air conditioners."

      That sounds reasonable, I thought.

      "When I went to the required two-day training class," the electrician continued, "I was shocked to discover the course material had nothing to do with the safe use of freon. Instead, we were forced to listen to lectures on homosexual tolerance and other multicultural propaganda. Without that certificate, however, my electrician's license would not have been renewed.

      I tried to reassure myself this was one man and one incident in one state. As I continued to speak across the country, stories like the electrician's were recited to me again and again.

      I never thought this new police-state policy of sending individuals to state and federal mandated re-education courses would be validated by one of my own family members.

      My older brother, Craig, an attorney in Minneapolis told me "The state of Minnesota, in conjunction with the State Bar, is requiring that all attorneys attend eight hours of anti-bias training."

      Suspicious of the term "anti-bias," Craig chose to order the curriculum that went along with the course before he agreed to attend the "training."

      After receiving and reviewing the curriculum, Craig's suspicious were confirmed. He and other attorneys were being required to attend eight-hours of homosexual tolerance training in order to have their law licenses renewed for a three-year period.

      As the father of five and the founding pastor of a church in his community, Craig is a man with solid convictions. Considering this situation, an opportunity to be an example to his children, his community and other attorneys, Craig refused to attend this eight-hour class.

      When I asked Craig what he planned to do, he told me, "I have already started to research other states where I could practice law without compromising my biblical worldview."

      Disturbed by the looming consequences that my brother faced, I realized I had come face to face with Hillary's "Resources Plan for the United States" and what she meant by a "new way of doing business."

      "Before I close my law practice and move my family to another state," Craig continued, "I will try to find a creative alternative that will meet the state's requirements without forcing me to compromise my biblical beliefs."

      The Lord honored my brother's strong stance and his willingness to count the cost and pay the price. To fill the mandated education policy, state officials permitted Craig to take a different class. We all breathed a sigh of relief, at least for the next three years!

      We need more men and women like Craig who will stand up and be counted. We need more Americans who understand that tyranny of the mind always precedes tyranny of the body. We can complain about all that is wrong in America, but when we have the opportunity to raise the standard, highlight truth, reveal the practicality of Christianity, and fight tyranny, do we seize that opportunity or become part of the problem? Our silent, non-action becomes an endorsement of all we say we oppose.

      In Daniel, Chapter 3, Shadreach, Meshach and Abednego refused to worship the image of gold constructed by King Nebuchadnezzar. By their refusal to comply with the state-mandated religion these young men were signing their own death warrant.

      Shadreach, Meshach, and Abednego could have compromised and said, "Let's bow before the golden image, but instead of praying to the idol, we will pray to our God. No one will know and we will not be tossed into the fiery furnace."

      The three young men refused to play that game and instead used the situation as an opportunity to be salt and light, to stand for righteousness, to oppose tyranny of the mind, to trust in the one true God.

      The Certificate of Mastery can only become what the cultural elite desire it to be, a Certificate of Slavery, if we permit it to be so.

      God took care of Shadreach, Meshach and Abednego, allowing them to walk through the fire unharmed and promoting them to positions of power in the providence of Babylon. God honored their commitment to Him and used their situation to His honor and Glory.

      God has promised that in all things He works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to His purpose.

      Commit yourself today to God's plan, God's will, and God's purpose. Don't allow yourself or your children to stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers. Instead, meditate on the law of the Lord day and night. Teach the principles and standards of the Lord to your children, talk about them when you sit in your home, when you walk along the road, when you lie down, and when you get up.

      See that your children are raised and educated in an environment where a biblical worldview is taught, not mocked. If Christians will commit to raise their children in such a manner, the end result will be a generation of young adults who can withstand the storm of godlessness of our culture and walk through the fire to the glory of God.

      Shadreach, Meshach and Abednego were able to excel in the pagan culture of Babylon because they had been trained in a biblical worldview prior to being taken captive from their homeland of Israel. The three Hebrew boys may have been political prisoners, but they did not become spiritual prisoners. Why? They knew what they believed and why they believed it.

      If you're a Christian teaching in our public schools, use your position as an opportunity to proclaim a biblical worldview, even if it means you could lose your job.

      If you're a Christian businessman or woman, oppose the philosophies of Marx, Dewey, Skinner, and Bloom who not only roam the halls of our schools, but also now impact our daily lives.

      If you're a Christian teenager, take a bold stand for God like the three teenagers named Shadreach, Meshach and Abednego.

Notes


      1Ron Brandt, "On Outcome-Based Education: A Conversation with BIll Spady," Educational Leadership, December 1992/January 1993, p. 68.

      2Rush Limbaugh, See, I Told You So, (New York, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993, 1994), p. 78-80.

      3Ibid.

      4Dr. Dennis Cuddy, Chronology of Education with Quotable Quotes, (Highland City, FL: Pro Family Forum, Inc., 1993), p. 43.

      5Benjamin Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, 1964, page 85.

      6Benjamin S. Bloom, All Our Children Learning: A Primer for Parents, Teachers, and Other Educators (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981), p. 180.

      7Ibid.

      8Ibid., p. 54.

      9Dustin Heuston, "Discussion-Developing the Potential of An Amazing Tool," Schooling and Technology, Vol 3. Southeastern Regional Council for Educational Improvement.

      10Carol Pomeroy, "Education According to Corporate Fascism," (unpublished speech delivered March 3, 1994, at Northwestern College).

      11From a keynote address to the Association for Childhood Education International, Denver, Colorado, April 1972, quoted by John Steinbacher and Dr. Dennis Cuddy.

      12"Certain Failure", a documentary on H.R. 6 by Geoffrey Botkin.

      13Dr. Dennis Cuddy, Chronology of Education with Quotable Quotes, (Highland City, FL: Pro Family Forum, Inc., 1993), p. 47.

      14Ibid.

      15B.F. Skinner, Science and Human Behavior (New York: Macmillan, 1953), p. 447.

      16Ibid, p. 6.

      17B.F. Skinner, Beyond Freedom and Dignity, (New York: Macmillan, 1953), p. 197.

      18Kenneth Goodman, "The President's Education Program: A Response," Support for Learning and Teaching of English Newsletter, March 1978, Vol. 3 No. 2.

      19March/April: A special supplement of AV Communication Review is published as "Monograph No. 2 of the Technological Development Project of the NEA." The project is under contract #SAE-9073 with the U.S. Office of Education of HEW, as authorized under title VII, Part B, of the National Defense Education Act of 1958. The contractor is the NEA. I was made aware of this fact by Dr. Dennis Cuddy.

      20Charlotte T. Iserbyt, "Back to Basics Reform or...OBE Skinnerian International Curriculum?" 1995, p. 6.

      21Congressional Record, April 9, 1975, p. H. 2585