Sunday, April 26, 2015

THIS IS WHAT COMMUNIST COMMON CORE/THE REAUTHORIZATION OF ESEA IS ALL ABOUT

                             
                               NO WAY ESEA! NO WAY ESEA! NO WAY ESEA


 
The US Department of State, in a telephone call from a concerned citizen in the late 1990's, confirmed that these agreements were still in effect.

ADVERTISEMENT, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, PAGE A-14/FRIDAY, JULY 1987

(paid for by National Citizens Alliance, P.O. Box 6347, Washington, D.C. 20015-0347)


LISTEN AMERICA, ‘EDU-GATE’ IS BIGGER 
 THAN THE ‘IRAN-CONTRA AFFAIR’ AND
            ‘WATERGATE’ COMBINED
                                       

                                                      

IT IS THE ULTIMATE BRAINWASH OF OUR CHILDREN, AND IF ALLOWED TO STAND, NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WILL BE WORTH FIGHTING FOR.
What is "Edu-Gate"? "Edu-gate" is the Sovietization (internationalization) of the
American classroom.

In October, 1985 "A meeting of American and Soviet educational computer experts... produced an agreement to exchange specialists involved in the improvement of elementary and secondary education." (The New York Times, December 10, 1985)

The meeting in Moscow was held under the auspices of the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Soviet Academy of Sciences, and approved by the U.S. State Department and National Security advisors.

That meeting paved the way for the U.S.-Soviet education agreements signed at the Geneva Summit in November, 1985 to promote "Cooperation in development of exchanges and software-related instruction for elementary and secondary school students." (The Washington Post, November 26, 1985)

EDUCATE IS THE REALIZATION OF WHAT ALEXANDER SOLZHENITSYN WARNED AGAINST IN 1973 WHEN HE SAID; "CO-EXISTENCE ON THIS TIGHTLY KNIT EARTH SOULD BE VIEWED AS AN EXISTENCE NOT ONLY WITHOUT WARS THAT IS NOT ENOUGH BUT ALSO WITHOUT VIOLENCE, OR TELLING US HOW TO LIVE, WHAT TO SAY, WHAT TO THINK, WHAT TO KNOW AND WHAT NOT TO KNOW." (SEPTEMBER 11, 1973) (Emphasis added)

Article IV (d) of the General Exchanges Agreement printed in the [upper right hand corner] of this page explains that Soviet curricula will be used in American classrooms. Will these materials reflect the Soviet viewpoint on "how to live, what to say, what to think, what to know and what not to know"?


CONGRESS MUST INVESTIGATE PRIVATIZATION OF EDUCATION!

SPECIFICALLY WE CALL FOR AN INVESTIGATION OF THE FOLLOWING:
(1) The General Agreement Between the United States of America and the Governmenet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Contacts, Exchanges and Cooperation in Scientific, Technical, Educational, Cultural and Other Fields" signed by Secretary of State George Shultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze on November 21, 1985.

Although this advertisement deals specifically with the education portion of the agreements, other portions of the agreements are equally important. For example, Article XI of the General Agreement states "The parties will encourage exchanges of representatives of municipal, local and state governments...to study various functions of government at these levels."

(2) The "Program of Cooperation and Exchanges Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Republics for 1986-1988".

(3) We also call on the Congress to investigate the role of the U.S. Department of State in authorizing the private, unelected Carnegie Corporation of New York to negotiate with the Soviet Academy of Sciences regarding curriculum development and the restructuring of education (the privatization of foreign policy and education policy, where there is no accountability to you, the taxpayer.)

"LIKE PUTTING THE KGB INTO THE CLASSROOM"?

Richard Perle, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International and Security Policy, recently told the House Subcommittee on International Scientific Cooperation:

"Among the many collection agencies whose activities were revealed in those highly secret Soviet reports which came to us early in the Reagan Administration, is the Soviet Academy of Sciences...What is surprising is the enthusiasm with which various United States Government agencies should advocate renewing, enlarging, extending and initiating scientific and technical exchanges with an organization known to be part of the Soviet intelligence establishment. I urge Congress to conduct a thorough, searching examination of these exchanges." ("Like Putting the K.G.B. into he Pentagon", The New York Times, 6/30/87).

To our knowledge, Mr. Perle, who was involved in the General Agreement signed at Geneva in 1985, has never objected to the United States Government and the Carnegie Corporation Of New York negotiating with the same Soviet Academy of Sciences in regard to education.

                                                              WHY CARNEGIE?



The U.S. Dept. of Education, in response to a letter from a concerned citizen, said that since educational decisions in the U.S. should be made at the local level, "the State Department...apparently determined that it would be more appropriate for a non-federal organization, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, to represent the United States in the exchange." (Emphasis added)

The Los Angeles Times, June 12, 1987 reported that Dr. David Hamburg, President of the Carnegie Corporation and chief negotiator for the exchange agreement "stressed the special position of privately endowed foundations that can operate in areas government may prefer to avoid." (Emphasis added)

In other words, it’s illegal for the U.S. Dept. of Education to develop curriculum for local schools, but it’s OK for the tax-exempt, private Carnegie Corporation acting as an unelected "Ministry of Education" to cooperate with the Soviet Union, in the development of curriculum for local schools. Why was the Carnegie Corporation selected? America must be told.

Rep. Lee Hamilton (D. IN), Chairman of the Joint Committee investigating the Iran-Contra affair said during the hearings, "The use of private parties to carry out the high purposes of government makes us the subject of puzzlement and ridicule."

Is Congress equally concerned about the State Department’s designation of the private unelected tax-exempt Carnegie Corporation to negotiate with the Soviet Union in the development of educational materials and in the restructuring of American education? Is Congress equally concerned about the United States Information Agency (USIA) use of tax money to manage private organizations’ participation in the General Exchanges Agreement?

Is Congress equally concerned about the role of private citizen Armand Hammer in the privatization of foreign policy? (The 1986 Annual Report of Hammer’s Occidental Petroleum Corporation states "Dr. Hammer’s unceasing encouragement helped bring about the Geneva Summit between the Soviet Union and the United States and the resulting new cultural exchange agreement between the two countries.")(Emphasis added)

                                                 SOVIETS HAVE NOT MELLOWED

Ambassador Malcolm Toon, a career foreign service officer and former American Ambassador to the Soviet Union under President Carter, said in a speech at the Hotchkiss School on November 1, 1985, "We must recognize the Soviet Union for what it is a ruthless and brutal power...its leadership is conspiratorial in nature and its foreign policy inherently aggressive...The Soviets will extend and consolidate their power wherever they think they can do with impunity. " (Emphasis added)

                                    SOVIET CHILD STEALING AND TORTURE

Toon’s statement is supported by the following information in an article "Soviets Try to Reshape Afghan Culture" published in The Washington Post, January 13, 1986:

"The Soviets are taking children out of the schools and sending them to be brought up in the Soviet Union," and "The teachers in the schools help the Soviets, and if people go ask where the children were taken, the teachers will not talk to them... the parents afterward received letters from their children mailed from the Soviet Union." One spokesman asked, "Do American people know about this?"

"...the Soviets are using from kindergarten to the university level, cultural exchanges, religious institutions and the mass media..." to bring about cultural and political change in Afghanistan. It was further reported that "Soviets have retooled the Afghan system installing Soviet teachers, a Marxist-Leninist curriculum and a reinterpretation of Afghan history..."

The Washington Times, December 11, 1985 reported that President Reagan accused the Soviets of loading toys with explosives in Afghanistan. As a result, countless Afghan children had their hands blown off when they picked up "the toys."

WHAT DOES AMERICAN EDUCATION HAVE TO GAIN FROM
COOPERATION WITH A NATION WITH SUCH A "RUTHLESS
AND BRUTAL" TRACK RECORD?

                                       THE GOAL: MERGER OF U.S. AND U.S.S.R?
The late Norman Dodd, a Yale graduate, served as the research director for an unusual Congressional investigation of the tax-exempt foundations in 1954. During the course of the investigation, Mr. Dodd was told by Rowan Gaither, President of the Ford Foundation that "We operate here under directives which emanate from the White House, the substance of which was that we shall use our grant-making power to alter life in the United States so that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union." (Emphasis added)

In light of this official evidence, shouldn’t we ask: Upon which constitution U.S. or Soviet will cooperative development of social studies, history, or other value-sensitive programs be based? Could the result of the proposed constitutional convention facilitate a United States-Soviet merger?

 

 

                                                     THE TEXT OF THE U.S. SOVIET
                                                     EDUCATION AGREEMENTS
                                                             READS IN PART:

ARTICLE II of the general exchanges agreement:

"The parties will encourage the conclusion, when it is considered mutually beneficial, of agreements on cooperation in the field of science and technology, and also additional agreements in other specific fields. INCLUDING THE HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES within the framework of this agreement." (Emphasis added)

ARTICLE IV (d) commits the United States and the Soviet Union to the ‘facilitation of the exchange by appropriate organizations, of educational and teaching materials (including textbooks, syllabi and curricula), materials on methodology, samles of teaching instruments and audiovisual aids."

ARTICLE II OF THE PROGRAM OF COOPERATION states in part: "The Parties will encourage the exchange of primary and secondary school textbooks and other teaching materials, and, as is deemed appropriate, the conducting of joint studies on textbooks, between appropriate organizations in the United States of America and the Ministry of Education of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."

A CALL TO ACTION !!!!!!!

ASK PRESIDENT REAGAN

AND YOUR CONGRESSMEN

TO CANCEL THE

U.S.-SOVIET AGREEMENTS

WRITE TO:

President Ronald Reagan
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Your Congressman

House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Your Senator

Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Write to your local and state officials and to the editor of your local and state papers. Get on call-in radio programs. Inform friends and organizations. Use whatever means open to you to expose the dangerous U.S.-Soviet education agreements!

Obtain the "Program of Cooperation and Exchanges Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for 1986-1988" and the General Agreement Between the United States of America and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Contacts, Exchanges and Cooperation in Scientific, Technical, Educational, Cultural and Other Fields" Ask your Congressman or write to:

U.S. SOVIET EXCHANGE INITIATIVE
UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY (USIA)
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20547

Get the full story. Send $10 to NATIONAL CITIZENS ALLIANCE for our INFORMATION PACKET. Use the form below. You will receive a chart comparing the "Contra Affair" and "EduGate" and two books that clearly explain the implications of the U.S.-Soviet education agreements and how U.S. children are being prepared to become controlled "world citizens."

This ad may be reproduced "as is" for posters, flyers, or for publication in local newspapers.

HELP INFORM YOUR FELLOW AMERICANS!

PLEASE FILL IN THE FORM AND MAIL IT NOW!

NATIONAL CITIZENS ALLIANCE
P.O. Box 6347
Washington, D.C. 20015-0347
Count me in. You are right, the Soviets have nothing of value teo offer U.S. children or our nation. The agreements harm U.S. sovereignty.
I want to help expose the U.S.-Soviet Education and General Agreements. Enclosed is my check for $10___$20___$5-___$100___ (other)
I want to be better informed. Please send your information packet. Enclosed is $10.00.

Name________________________________________________________________________
Address___________________________________________________________________

City, State & Zip_________________________________________________________

(Concerned Citizens raised $5000 dollars to place this ad in The Washington Times)
 



 
 
      

  


                                                          


  

 


  
  




SOVIETS IN THE CLASSROOM AMERICA’S LATEST EDUCATION FAD, 1986... (PART 1)‏

 
 By Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt,  author of the deliberate dumbing down of america...A  Chronological Paper Trail, 1999, 2011, and  former Sr. Policy Advisor, U.S. Dept. of Education during the first term of President Ronald Reagan.               

                           #NO WAY ESEA     #NO WAY ESEA      #NO WAY ESEA



 
Fascinating Story Behind the Boycott of Soviets in the Classroom...

Soviets in the Classroom...America’s Latest Education Fad, written in 1986, was published in 1989.  The delay in publication date to 1989 is an interesting story in itself.  Although submitted to all conservative media outlets and sent to all conservative organizations in 1986, it was ignored by all the aforementioned until 1989 when the late Judge Robert Morris, N.J., (see below) who had recently been named President of America’s Future, a well-known conservative organization, found it in a drawer of his desk, called me, and immediately published it.  [Rudy Scott, former President of America’s Future,  one of the many conservative organizations that had refused to publish the article, had by mistake left the manuscript in the bottom drawer of his desk.]

Robert J. Morris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Subcommittee on Internal Security
 Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security
Morris served as chief counsel to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Internal Security from 1951 to 1953, leaving the following year when he was elected to serve as a municipal court judge in New York City. He returned as chief counsel from 1956 to 1958.[2]

The New York Times described the subcommittee in 1951 as having a mandate that is practically "limitless in the whole field of security" and that its role "far overreaches the House Committee on Un-American Activities, as it far outreaches Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican of Wisconsin." The subcommittee questioned businessmen, diplomats, scholars and schoolteachers, and opened investigations into an alleged Communist takeover of Hawaii, Communist control of the military-industrial complex, and Communist involvement on waterfront in New York City.[2]

One of the subcommittee's most notorious events was the April 1957 suicide of E. Herbert Norman, the Canadian Ambassador to Egypt, after Norman found out that the subcommittee was reopening an earlier investigation regarding his involvement in a Communist study group. The death affected American-Canadian relations, with Canadians calling his death the result of a "smear campaign" by the subcommittee. Morris had announced a month before the suicide that there was adequate material to justify an investigation into charges that Norman was a Communist.[2]

In a letter written to William F. Buckley, Jr. published in 1969, Whittaker Chambers gave Morris credit for much of the efforts attributed to Senator Joseph McCarthy, with Chambers stating that "I would say that Bob Morris really accomplished much of what the Senator is credited with".[2] 

                                                                      


Robert Morris, who had been deeply involved in the congressional investigation of communism in public education was, of course, shocked to find out, four years after the fact, what had happened  in 1985 when President Reagan and the Carnegie Corporation signed the extensive agreements with President Gorbachev of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Academy of Science, respectively, to basically merge the two nation’s education systems.



Obviously, when Morris, a well-known and highly-respected member  of the nation’s conservative establishment, did not even know what had happened, (after four years!) one can draw no conclusion other than that the boycott had been successful beyond belief. 

The late Norman Dodd, Research Director, Congressional Investigation to Investigate the Tax-Exempt Foundations, was equally shocked when informed regarding the Reagan/Carnegie Education Agreements signed in 1985 in Geneva, Switzerland.

The following Dodd obituary explains in a nutshell what Dodd had unearthed as Research Director for the Committee:
The CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIAS THE DAILY PROGRESS CARRIED NORMAN DODDS 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.
 

[The 3000-page record of the 1954 Reece Committee Hearings mentioned above can be accessed as a FREE download at AmericanDeception.com (type "Reece" into search engine).]





So, here, FINALLY, is the article, successfully boycotted for over TWENTY- NINE YEARS!

 
"Soviets in the Classroom: America’s Latest Education Fad"

by Charlotte T. Iserbyt published in 1989 by

America’s Future, Inc.: New Rochelle, NY.
 
 



Education Agreements with the Soviet Union
 
 
Is the repugnant act of burning the American flag more damaging to our nation’s political
integrity than letting the Soviets into our classrooms, in person, on video, or through
U.S.-Soviet jointly developed curricula?
One would think so, considering the extensive establishment media coverage given
the flag decision compared to the wall of silence built around the Soviet invasion of
American classrooms.
Maybe America needs a Supreme Court decision similar to the flag-burning decision
saying it’s legal to let the Soviets teach our children and to "put up statues of well known
Soviet cultural figures in our parks," as called for in the General Agreement between the U.S.A.
and the U.S.S.R. on Contacts, Exchanges and Cooperation in Scientific, Technical, Educational,
Cultural and Other Fields, signed in 1985 and 1988 at Geneva and Moscow, respectively. The
media might find it impossible to "cover up" a Supreme Court decision.
Perhaps if Americans knew about and understood the deep significance of these
agreements, their outrage might even exceed that demonstrated over the flag decision. They
might even call for a fully televised Congressional investigation leading to cancellation of all
education agreements with the Soviets
government-initiated agreements as well as those
with tax-exempt private foundations.
The agreements call for "cooperation in the field of science and technology and
additional agreements in other specific fields, including the humanities and social sciences;
the facilitation of the exchange by appropriate organizations of educational and teaching
materials, including textbooks, syllabi, and curricula, materials on methodology, samples
of teaching instruments and audiovisual aids, and the exchange of primary and secondary
school textbooks and other teaching materials... [and] the conducting of joint studies
on textbooks between appropriate organizations in the United States and the Ministry
of Education of the U.S.S.R."



What do the Sovietswho kidnapped 10,000 Afghan children and shipped them to the Soviet Union for "re-education" and in the spring of 1989 used poison gas and sharpened shovels to disperse a nationalistic demonstration in Soviet Georgia, killing at least twenty persons and injuring 200have to offer our children in the way of school materials? What does a country have to offer our children in the way of school materials which, according to an 1987 "out-of-print" book by American Federation of LaborCouncil of Industrial
Organizations (AFL-CIO) entitled Cruel and Usual Punishment: Forced Labor in Today’s USSR,holds tens of thousands of political prisoners in Soviet prisons, labor camps, and psychiatric hospitals, including between four and five million non-political prisoners in slave labor camps? What does a country which publishes children’s books for disinformation purposes overseasand in the case of books distributed in India, portrays America as "rich, uncaring, and prejudiced," and compares us with the Brahmin caste, which is the ruling
caste much resented by the disadvantaged in Indiahave to offer our children in the way of school materials?



Contrary to the media’s portrayal of political change in the Soviet Union, the August 1986 issue of Comparative Education Review published an article entitled "Aspects of Socialist Education: The New Soviet Educational Reform" which states that the Soviet reform movement recommends the "intensification of ideological education." A June 2,1986 Washington Times article entitled "Russian Education Obsolete" says in a discussion of education reform, "The specialist of today should have a thorough Marxist-Leninist training." Professor Adam Ulam, the distinguished director of Harvard’s Russian Research Center, reports that [O]ne of the principal goals of military patriotic education is to counteract any pacifist tendencies, to teach all Soviet citizens, from the youngest children to pensioners, that they must be prepared at any moment to fight for socialism.... The determination to instill explicitly military values in the schools comes through with equally striking clarity in textbooks and manuals used by teachers.

 

Soviet General Popkov wrote in August 1986 in a regional military paper, Sovetskiy
Voin, that


 

[T]he schools are taking on ever increasing importance in military and patriotic
indoctrination. Party documents on school reform define an extensive, scientifically
based program for this work.2


 

In light of the above information, which contradicts Gorbachev’s glasnost/perestroika propaganda, why has our government signed education agreements calling for extensive cooperation with the Soviets in curricula development, exchanges of educational materials and the conducting of joint studies?

 

Why are Soviet educators permitted to do what U.S. Department of Education educators are forbidden by law to do: involve themselves in curricula development?

 

Why did the U.S. Department of State authorize the unelected, tax-exempt Carnegie Corporation, a long-time and well funded advocate of disarmament and "world interdependence," to negotiate with the Soviet Academy of Sciences, known to be an intelligence-gathering arm of the KJB, regarding "curriculum development and the restructuring of American education"? Is it because "privately endowed foundations can operate in areas government may prefer to avoid" as stressed by psychiatrist Dr. David Hamburg, President of the Carnegie Corporation and chief negotiator for the exchange agreement, in an interview with the Los Angeles Times on June 12, 1987? (Colonel Oliver North’s "operations in areas government preferred to avoid" resulted in a fully televised
multi-million dollar Congressional investigation.)


 

Representative Lee Hamilton (D-IN) said during the Iran-Contra hearings that "The use of private parties to carry out the high purposes of government makes us the subject of puzzlement and ridicule." Shouldn’t he be asked why the use by our government (State Department) of private parties (tax-exempt Carnegie Corporation and other foundations) to carry out the high purposes of government does not similarly make Congress the subject of puzzlement and ridicule?

 

A Few Examples


A complete listing of the many shocking exchange activities taking place as a result of the 1985 and 19881991 agreements would require volumes. A few concrete examples should suffice to convince the reader that all proposals called for in the agreements are being faithfully and fastidiously carried out.


1. Cambridge-based Educators for Social Responsibility (ESR) project, "Educating for New Ways of Thinking: An American-Soviet Institute." Two such institute sessions have been held (one in Leningrad the summer of 1989) at which "Soviet and American educators examined classroom theory and practice in critical thinking about social and political issues and worked on recommendations and resources for improving the ways we teach about each
other’s country, and on A Source-Book for New Ways of Thinking in Education: A U.S.-Soviet Guide for use by teachers and students in both countries."3


 
"Critical thinking" is the latest fad to hit our children’s classrooms. N. Landa’s Lenin:

On Educating Youth, published by the Soviet state-controlled Novosti Press, quotes Lenin on "thinking" as follows:

To pose a real question means to define a problem which demands a new approach and new research.... Sometimes accepted truth no longer answers as a solution for a serious and pressing problem. The school should cultivate in pupils the ability to perceive scientifically evolved truths as stages along the endless road of cognitionnot as something stationary and set.



More recently, an article in Education Week (4986) entitled "Are Teachers Ready to Teach Pupils to Think?" laments the fact that graduating college seniors show little evolution of alternative views on any issue, tending to treat all opinions as equally good, tending to hold opinions based largely on whims or unsubstantiated beliefs, and hesitating to take stands based on evidence and reason. Summing up a decade of research in the 1960’s, O.J. Harvey laments that very high percentages… [of educators] "operated in cognitive styles grounded in absolute assumptionsviewing reality in terms of good/bad, right/wrong, and either/or, while attributing goodness and truth to wise and all-knowing authorities."


One doesn’t have to have a Ph.D. to accurately predict what U.S.-Soviet jointly developed

critical thinking curricula will look like. Do American parents want their children exposed

to this type of education, especially when it will also be on computer where they can’t

get their hands on it?
 



2. The Carnegie Corporation’s exchange agreement with the Soviet Academy
of Sciences has resulted in "joint research on the application of computers in early elementary education, focusing especially on the teaching of higher level skills and complex subjects to younger children." ("Higher level skills" is often a euphemism for "critical thinking skills," or values, attitudes, etc.) Carnegie’s 1988 one-year, $250,000 grant is funding implementation of this program, coordinated on the American side by Michael Cole, Director of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition at the University of California, San Diego.4


3. The American-Soviet Textbook Study Project began in 1977, was suspended in 1979 when Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan, and resumed in 1985 under the Geneva Agreement. At a conference held in Racine, Wisconsin in November 1987, the U.S. representatives acquiesced to the Soviet insistence that American textbooks should present a more "balanced" (i.e., friendly) discussion of Lenin and should give the Russians more"credit" for their role in World War II. A.M. Rosenthal of the New York Times said in a December 8, 1987 editorial that American educators solemnly discuss with Soviet educators the mutual need for textbook revision, just as if the state did not censor every single book published in the Soviet Union and the Russians could write as they pleased. That is comedy, IF you like it real black.

4. Scholars from the American Council of Learned Societies and the Ministry of
Education of the Soviet Union met in the United States in 1986 and agreed to establish a Commission on Education that will be responsible for joint scholarly relations in pedagogy and related fields between the United States and the Soviet Union. Some major joint U.S.-Soviet project themes are: Methods of Teaching and Learning School Science and Math Subjects Using Computers; Theory of Teaching and Learning; Psychological and Pedagogical Problems of Teaching in the Development of Pre-School and School-age Children, and Problems of Teaching Children with Special Needs.


5. The Copen Foundation/New York State Education Department/Soviet Academy of Sciences agreement "links students, teachers, administrators in U.S. and Soviet schools by computer and video-telephone lines." Mr. Copen declared:

 

"Soviet officials are especially interested in studying the effects of telecommunications on intercultural understanding, teaching methods, and learning outcomes, and that the Soviets have assigned five scientists to monitor the project."

 

This agreement should be challenged on constitutional grounds since Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution says, "No State shall, without the consent of Congress,… enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power."

6. Under terms reached with the Soviet Academy of Sciences, the National Science Teachers Association will publish a Soviet science magazine in the United States. Copies of Quantum scheduled for publication in September 1989 will be distributed free of charge to gifted and talented children in this country.7


 

7. On December 8, 1987 the independent National Academy of Sciences pledged to help place more than a million computers in Soviet classrooms by the early 1990s.

 

8. A $175,000 grant was made from the United States Information Agency (USIA) to the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the American Council of Teachers of Russian, and Sister Cities International. This grant will implement an expanded student exchange program, calling for up to 1500 American high school students to live and study in the Soviet Union each year and an equal number of Soviet students to come to the United States.9  

 

Former Education Secretary William Bennett told the Kansas City Chamber of Commerce on January 21, 1986 that American students know little about their own history and heritage and we have forgotten that intellectual innocence is easily seduced and the price we pay is that some of our children can only nod their heads in agreement when confronted with standard Soviet propaganda. They lack the knowledge to recognize it as propaganda, much less to refute it. 

 

9. On March 4, 1989, fifteen Soviet teens and two adult teachers arrived in Aurora, Colorado as part of the Reagan-Gorbachev agreements. According to an article by Beth Peterson in the high school newspaper Raider Review:


"A conflict arose when reportedly a Russian student, Farkhod (who was head of the Komsomol Young Communist League and spokesman for the group) told students in an honors history class, "You are all going to be Communists within fifty years. Just remember that every society must be ready for Communismeven America."

10. Students participated in the Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts student exchange with an elite Soviet prep school deep in Siberia. The students "agreed one characteristic was more striking than any other: an indefatigable commitment to Soviet communism." One student, Horovath, said, "I think in general young people are more committed to the Party’s ideology than to their parents." Another student, Tom Clyde, said, "They seem to think there is going to be a world revolution any day now and the Communist Party will overtake America."


The Soviet Union: The Only Benefactor


Does our government really believe that the Soviet government is participating in these
student exchanges so that their students can be deprogrammed and become good little capitalists eager for peace at any price?


 

Michael Warder of the Rockford Institute says that "Exchanges are allegedly designed to promote peace." However, he points out that, as currently devised, most exchanges are of benefit only to the Soviet Union. In the summer of 1985 a group of 46 Soviets visited the United States on a so-called goodwill mission. But the 46 were selected, briefed, and controlled by Soviet security organs. Each of the "friendly visitors" had relatives being held hostage at home, lest any of them might consider defecting or deviating from the official Soviet propaganda line.  Their trip was paid for by the Soviet government, and among them were Soviet agents.   Mr. Warder notes that Soviet leaders know that if peace propaganda effectively reaches the U.S. public it will result in the Congress voting less money for national defense. U.S. groups going to the Soviet Union have no such "equal" opportunity to reduce Soviet arms expenditures.

11. How on target Warder’s comments have proven to be! Soviet propagandizing of the American people has been so successful that on May 9, 1989 four top Soviet officials were given the red carpet treatment by the U.S. House Armed Services Committee:

"They appealed for a warmer approach by Washington and asked us to open a second front against the Cold War."12   Could their appearance have something to do with the proposed defense budget cuts?

The cost to the American taxpayernot only in terms of the mis-education of his children, but also in terms of plain, hard-earned tax dollarsis immense. Soviet students coming here are having their travel, living expenses, and tuition paid for by our tax dollars, while some of our children cannot afford to go to college.


In 1988 the U.S. Department of State awarded $4,540,000 to various groups involved in education exchanges with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.13  This amount, which is probably the amount doled out annually, is just the tip of the funding iceberg, with large annual grants from other government agencies and tax-exempt foundations keeping the controversial exchanges afloat.


It is to be hoped that the tragic Tiananmen Square massacre of Chinese students will result in cancellation of the U.S.-Chinese student exchanges, resulting in a lessening of our budget deficit, rather than in a transfer of those tax dollars into the U.S.-Soviet education exchange account.

A Night to Remember tells of the five iceberg warnings sent by wireless to the Titanic. When the sixth message—"Look out for icebergs!"—came in, the Titanic’s operator wired back, "Shut up. I’m busy." Just 35 minutes later, the ship whose captain had said, "God Himself could not sink Titantic," was sinking.
We have been warned. Are we, like the Titanic’s operator, convinced that "God
Himself cannot sink" America?


The question Americans must ask themselves is: Why, when the Soviet Union is an economic, political, moral, and social basket case, militarily superior but internally on the verge of collapse, does the United States seek its assistance in improving our educational system? Those responsible should be required to justify their support for actions which are not in the best interest of the United States.
*The address for America’s Future is: 7800 Bonhomme, St. Louis, MO 36105.
Endnotes:


A–142

1. Bailey, Kathleen. "Disinformation: A Soviet Technique for Managing Behavior." Issues in Soviet Education: Proceedings of a

Conference, National Advisory Council on Education Research and Improvement, March 3, 1988.

2. Finn, Chester E., Jr., Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, "Mapping the Common Ground." Remarks before the

American Forum on Education and International Competence, St. Louis, MI, May 16, 1988.

3. Educators for Social Responsibility, Cambridge, MA. Promotional flyer entitled "Teaching for Critical Thinking in the Nuclear
 
Age: A U.S.-Soviet Institute," Leningrad, U.S.S.R., July 27–August 12, 1989 and flyer entitled "Educating for New Ways of

Thinking: An American-Soviet Institute," Hampshire College, Amherst, MA, August 7–21, 1988.



4. Carnegie Corporation of New York. "The List of Grants and Appropriations 1988," reprinted from the 1988 Annual

Report of the Carnegie Corporation.

5. National Academy of Education, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA. Informational Letter entitled
 
"ACLS–U.S.S.R. Ministry of Education Commission on Education," Fall 1987.



6. "Computers," Education Week, Dec. 7, 1988.

7. "NSTA to Publish Soviet Journal," Education Week, May 17, 1989.

8. Breen, Tom. "Academy to Give Soviets Computers," Washington Times, Dec. 9, 1987.

9. "New Exchange Set for U.S., Soviet Students," Education Week, Sept. 28, 1988.

10. Lee, Gary. "The Students’ Surprise," Washington Post, May 26, 1987.

11. The Don Bell Report, Nov. 21, 1986.

12. Gordon, Michael R. "House Panel Sees 4 Soviet Officials," New York Times, May 10, 1989.

13. Federal Register, Feb. 18,
 


 

 

Saturday, April 25, 2015

CARNEGIE U.S./U.K. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

                                  #NO WAY ESEA       #NO WAY ESEA      #NO WAY ESEA




"Our nation’s replication of the English education system, as proposed by Lamar Alexander
and Chester Finn, coincides with the proclaimed desire of Andrew Carnegie in 1886 to “create
two nations out of one people” (return the United States to the “mother” country—England)."

[Excerpted from 3D pages 356 - 359.]
EXCERPT: the deliberate dumbing down of america, page  357:  
 
NATIONAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION: GOALS 2000 AND SCHOOL-TO-WORK EDITED BY JOHN F. Jennings, general counsel for education for the Committee on Education and Labor of the U.S.House of Representatives (Phi Delta Kappa: Bloomington, Ind., and Institute for Educational Leadership: Washington, D.C., 1995) was published. 
 
" In 1991 Lamar Alexander was appointed secretary of education by President Bush, and he substantially revised the bill that the Senate had killed the year before.  Alexander, working with Chester Finn and others who were familiar with the work of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in enacting a national curriculum in England and Wales, convinced Bush to endorse the idea of national standards for education."
 
 
                                                                           
                                                                                   

 

 
 
 
 
 
From  "Charter School Trap", NewsWithViews, Feb. 22, 2011
 
In a speech to the Soviet Central Committee on November 2, 1987 (published by Novosti Press Agency Publishing House), Mikhail Gorbachev, then General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, said:
 
“We are moving toward a new world, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.”
What more evidence do we need of the global slide into communism than the remark made by Mikhail Gorbachev in London, England on March 23, 2000 [5] that referred to the European Union (EU) as "the New European Soviet.”[6] If Gorbachev views the EU in that way, it only stands to reason that the North American Union (NAU) -- modeled on the EU, and being implemented as I write – would be the “New American Soviet.”
 
 
 
 
[Ed. Note from 3D,  pages 356-359: Of interest here is that the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) had been working on assessment for many years, dating back at least to 1980, with Clare Burstall of Wales, U.K.] The internationalization of education, with its exchanges of data systems, curricula,methods, technology, teachers, etc., is essential for the implementation of the international socialist management and control system being put in place right now. A fascinating book entitled Union Now: The Proposal for Inter-Democracy—Federal Union (shorter version) by Clarence Streit (Harper Brothers Publishers: New York and London, 1941) described plans for the reunification of the United States and England, the first stage of which is presently being expanded to include the European Community and former (?) communist  countries in Eastern Europe. Our nation’s replication of the English education system, as proposed by Lamar Alexander and Chester Finn, coincides with the proclaimed desire of Andrew Carnegie in 1886 to “create two nations out of one people” (return the United States to the “mother” country—England).
 
 
 
Carnegie’s corporation of the same name and all of its subsidiaries have been the principal
organizations in charge of American education. Through funding of the most important entities
controlling American education—the Educational Testing Service, the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, the Education Commission of the States—and through its most important
exchanges with the “former” Soviet Union, Carnegie’s power, influence, and point of view have
been strongly felt throughout this century. Lenin would be pleased indeed with the accomplishments of the Carnegie Corporation in promoting what Lenin referred to as international socialism through the creation of individual regions and later through the amalgamation of those regions into an international socialist system; i.e., one world government.
The following quote from Andrew Carnegie’s Triumphant Democracy or Fifty Years’ March of the Republic (Charles Scribners Sons: New York, 1886) is thought provoking:
 
 
"Time may dispel many pleasing illusions and destroy many noble dreams, but it shall never shake my belief that the wound caused by the wholly unlooked for and undesired separation of the mother from her child is not to bleed forever. Let men say what they will, therefore, I say, that as surely as the sun in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united, so surely is it one morning to rise, shine upon, and greet again the reunited state, the British-American union."       
 
 
3D, pages 356-359.  Full unedited text of Jennings' article and 3D comments:
 
NATIONAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION: GOALS 2000 AND SCHOOL-TO-WORK EDITED BY JOHN F. Jennings,general counsel for education for the Committee on Education and Labor of the U.S.
House of Representatives (Phi Delta Kappa: Bloomington, Ind., and Institute for Educational Leadership:
Washington, D.C., 1995) was published.48 The following are comments by Mr. Jennings which reveal some heretofore closely guarded secrets related to the roots of Goals 2000 and The School-to-Work Opportunities Act: Now there is a measure of national agreement that there should be voluntary national standards....All the major education organizations, all the major business groups, the nation’s governors, the current Democratic president, and the former Republican president have all advocated this concept. The purpose of this book is to explain why and how this agreement came about by focusing on two major legislative initiatives of the Clinton Administration:the Goals 2000 Act and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act. The Clinton initiatives arerooted in the Bush legislation and in the summit conference held by President Bush with the nation’s governors in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 1989, in which then-Governor Clinton
took part. At that event the governors and the President agreed on the concept of national goals for education, the first ever to be devised.  While previously there had been some acceptance of the idea that the federal government had a role in dealing with special needs children and with certain problems in education,there had not been agreement in this century that the national government had a legitimateconcern about the general state of education. And,it is important to point out, the governors did not universally endorse the idea of expanding the influence of the federal governmentin education. Some—probably most—hoped that some new way could be found to raise the issue of education to a level of national awareness without relying on such past practices as federal grants. The tension created by trying to find this new way permeated the debatethat took place during the next five years.
President Bush complemented his meeting with the governors by sending to Congress
legislation that he believed would reform education. That bill contained a number of small-scale
programs seeking to change a few schools and practices. The Democratic House and
Senate reluctantly passed a version of Bush’s bill. However, very conservative Republican
senators subsequently filibustered the final bill; and the initial Bush school reform initiative
died in 1990.
 
In 1991 Lamar Alexander was appointed secretary of education by President Bush, and
he substantially revised the bill that the Senate had killed the year before. Alexander, working

with Chester Finn and others who were familiar with the work of British Prime Minister

Margaret Thatcher in enacting a national curriculum in England and Wales, convinced Bush

to endorse the idea of national standards for education.

[Ed. Note: Of interest here is that the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

had been working on assessment for many years, dating back at least to 1980, with Clare

Burstall of Wales, U.K.]

The internationalization of education, with its exchanges of data systems, curricula,
methods, technology, teachers, etc., is essential for the implementation of the international
socialist management and control system being put in place right now. A fascinating book
entitled Union Now: The Proposal for Inter-Democracy—Federal Union (shorter version) by
Clarence Streit (Harper Brothers Publishers: New York and London, 1941) described plans
for the reunification of the United States and England, the first stage of which is presently
being expanded to include the European Community and former (?) communist countries in
Eastern Europe.
Our nation’s replication of the English education system, as proposed by Lamar Alexander
and Chester Finn, coincides with the proclaimed desire of Andrew Carnegie in 1886 to “create
two nations out of one people” (return the United States to the “mother” country—England).

 Carnegie’s corporation of the same name and all of its subsidiaries have been the principal
organizations in charge of American education. Through funding of the most important entities
controlling American education—the Educational Testing Service, the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, the Education Commission of the States—and through its most important
exchanges with the “former” Soviet Union, Carnegie’s power, influence, and point of view have
been strongly felt throughout this century. Lenin would be pleased indeed with the accomplishements of the Carnegie Corporation in promoting what Lenin referred to as international socialism through the creation of individual regions and later through the amalgamation of those regions into an international socialist system; i.e., one world government.
The following quote from Andrew Carnegie’s Triumphant Democracy or Fifty Years’ March
of the Republic (Charles Scribners Sons: New York, 1886) is thought provoking:
Time may dispel many pleasing illusions and destroy many noble dreams, but it shall never
shake my belief that the wound caused by the wholly unlooked for and undesired separation
of the mother from her child is not to bleed forever. Let men say what they will, therefore, I
say, that as surely as the sun in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united,
so surely is it one morning to rise, shine upon, and greet again the reunited state, the British-
American union. Jennings’s revelations from National Issues in Education continue below:
The governors and the President had agreed on national goals for education in 1989, but
they had not proposed national standards for education. Therefore, Bush’s second reform
plan moved national involvement in education to a more advanced stage….
A Republican president proposing such national standards in education was the education
policymaking equivalent to the reshaping of foreign policy when President Nixon went
to China. Richard Nixon had made a career out of attacking Communism and calling liberals
sympathizers of that ideology; and then he—not a liberal—opened the doors to “Red” China,
the same doors that he had spent 25 years locking.
[Ed. Note: It was also under Nixon’s watch that the National Institute of Education was created
and it was he who carved the nation into ten regions, facilitating the change in our constitutional
governance from a constitutional republic to a participatory democracy—through the regional
government process necessary for world government. The late Senator Edmund Muskie (D.-
Maine), referred to as “Mr. Metro” by those opposed to regional government, said Nixon had
accomplished what several democratic administrations had been unable to accomplish!]
Jennings continued his fascinating account as follows:
Democratic Presidents Kennedy and Johnson had proposed a major expansion of federal aid
to education in the 1960s and had achieved the enactment of historic legislation that created
the current array of federal programs. But they were dogged along the way by criticism from
conservatives who asserted that the liberals were really trying to nationalize education. Now,
25 years later, it was a self-proclaimed conservative Republican, not a liberal Democrat, who
was advocating a monumental movement away from local control of education.
Despite the importance of the second Bush legislation, it ran into the same problem
as the first. A Democratic Congress reluctantly passed the bill in the House and the Senate,
but the conference report again was filibustered by very conservative Republican senators
who were not as impressed as were Bush, Alexander, and Finn with the accomplishments
of Margaret Thatcher in establishing a national curriculum.
[Ed. Note: The writer would like to repeat the quote from Theodore Dalrymple (pen name for
Dr. Anthony Daniels), the British physician who wrote for The Wall Street Journal in 1988 the
following observations concerning the deplorable condition of the English education system
which Bush, Alexander and Finn wished to emulate:
In eight years in medical practice in an English slum (in which lives incidentally a fifth of
a population of the industrial English city where I work) I have met only one teen-ager of
hundreds I have asked who knew when World War II was fought. The others thought it took
place in the 1900s or the 1970s, and lasted up to 30 years.]
National Issues in Education also includes a chapter by U.S. Secretary of Education
Richard W. Riley. Riley provides two delicious morsels regarding the “bipartisan” atmosphere
surrounding the birthing of Goals 2000 and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act:
The National Goals Panel was actively opposed by Congress which felt no ownership and
resented the non-voting status of Congressional members.... (p. 5)
…Truth was the reform movement at the national level had no statutory basis. Even ten
years after the report A Nation at Risk, there had been little federal response. The National
Education Goals, three years after their announcement, had no legal standing of any kind. No
federal initiative, no funding or flexibility had been enacted to provide states, communities,
or schools with the assistance they needed to reach these important goals. Most troubling
of all, as attractive as the goals were, as important as they were, as essential as they were,
in the final analysis they represented nothing more than a political agreement between a
former President and the nation’s governors. We decided to take the seeds of interest we had
inherited and transform them into a national movement—a movement in which states and
local districts with a clear vision of where they wanted to go could count on the American
people and the federal government as partners in the journey. Thus the Goals 2000—Educate
America Act was conceived. (p. 6)
[Ed. Note: The reader by this time recognizes the fact that the American people did not buy
into Goals 2000/School-to-Work, that the government was compelled to use its change agent
manual—the bag of tricks in the Community Action Toolkit— to implement the restructuring
and get key legislation passed. (See Appendix XIV.)

For Carnegie researchers:  please go to 3D (free download) and check out the following Index entries:
Carnegie, Andrew, 357–358
Carnegie Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 255
Carnegie Corporation, 7, 30, 72, 73, 161
and “America 2000 Plan,” 278–279
Conclusions and Recommendations for the Social Studies,
265
and David W. Hornbeck, 273
and Educational Testing Service (ETS), 38
Education Commission of the States (ECS), 91
funding of projects/organizations, 21, 23, 210, 245, 271,
357–358
and John Gardner, 376
and A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century, 287
Project Read, 82–83
Soviet Academy of Science, 229–230
Carnegie Corporation British and Colonies Fund, 12
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 11, 36, 38, 42,
47–48
Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 235–236,
255–256
Carnegie Foundation, 12, 18
control of education, 10, 11, 13
Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, 35
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 8,
73, 91, 210
and David W. Hornbeck, 204–205, 241–243
and Ernest Boyer, 80, 217
grant to Lee Shulman, 241
“Carnegie Foundation Selects a New Leader,” 80
Carnegie National Alliance for Education and the Economy,
355
“Carnegie Report on Education: ‘Radical Blueprint for Change’”
(Nancy Garland), 236
Carnegie-Soviet Education Agreement, 36, 45, 235, 261–262
extent of damage resulting from, 290–291, 309, A139
opposition to, 294
“Carnegie Teaching Panel Charts ‘New Framework’—Grants
Totaling $900,000 Made to Press Reforms,” 235–236
Carnegie Unit, 154, 302
possible removal of, 69, 83, 141, 190
requirements of, 429
“Carnegie Unit: An Administrative Convenience, but an Educational
Catastrophe (The)” (Carl W. Salser), 98