By Al Dager...USA
Extract Despatch magazine ...Vol.9:2
 
“MEDIA SPOTLIGHT - SPECIAL REPORT - by A. J. Dager.
A BIBLICAL ANALYSIS OF RELIGIOUS & SECULAR MEDIA.
EDUCATION REFORM FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDER.

Twelve-year-old David didn’t like his parents’ discipline. He didn’t like having to go to church. He didn’t like his parents telling him that he couldn’t listen to rock music or wear t-shirts depicting satanic symbolism. He didn’t like being told he’s too young to date. So twelve-year-old David told his school counselor that his parents were abusing him. His counselor contacted Child Protective Services and requested intervention. Now David is living in a foster-care home with a single thirty-year-old man. His parents are being counseled by a state-approved psychologist to deal with their anger and intolerance. If they pass the attitude test and allow David to have his way, David will be allowed to return home. In the meantime, David’s parents must continue psychotherapy on a regular basis. In due time they must appear in Juvenile Justice Court to present their side of the story.

However, because they cannot afford a private attorney, they must be represented by a state-appointed attorney. During the proceedings they will not be allowed to testify directly, but must rely upon their attorney to present their case.The state- appointed attorney has counseled them that they have no choice but to give in to David’s demands. If he is to come home he must be allowed to live his own life without their interference. Child Protective Services, however, will offer their testimony. And they may present any argument, including hear-say evidence from David’s friends, to prove their case of abuse. The abuse need not be physical to justify termination of parental rights;it may be classified as emotional or mental abuse, depending upon how the social worker and/or the court sees it. The parents’ attitude will weigh heavily for or against them. A “cooperative attitude” - whereby they admit their abuse and agree to David’s terms and to submit to ongoing psychotherapy - may pacify the powers that be. “Denial” is sure to work against them.

IT CAN’T HAPPEN HERE

Too far-fetched. Things like that don’t happen in America. David’s parents must be guilty;the state wouldn’t just interfere into the sanctity of the home.

So I’ve heard from those who don’t want to believe it. But it is true. It does happen in America, far more often than we know. And David’s case is not hypothetical.It’s a true story in every detail, except that his name has been changed to protect his parents. And it’s not isolated to David’s home state. It happens in virtually every jurisdiction in America. Why? because the child protective philosophy is based on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child. The Declaration grants every child in the world certain “rights” against intrusion into their personal beliefs. That same Declaration guides American domestic policy and is mandated to the states through federal guidelines. Notice I said “guidelines.” Because such action is clearly unconstitutional, it has become policy through regulation within social services agencies rather than through legislative enactment into law. At least for the time being.

Now picture this:You’ve just returned from hospital with your newborn baby. The doorbell rings and you answer it to find an officious looking woman standing on your steps. “Good morning,” she says. I’m Ms. Wilson with the Department of Social and Health Services, and I’m here to inform you of your rights to statesponsored health care for your child.” “How wonderful!” you say. “Please, do come in.”

Ms. Wilson is very pleasant as she explains that you have the right to every service the state provides to assure that your child is not “at risk” of physical or mental disabilities. Her role is to help you learn parenting skills that will make you the best parent the child could have. Those skills including how to take precautions that your child not injure himself in your home. She hands you a pamphlet illustrating how to “child-proof” your home. You quickly scan it to find helpful hints on covering electrical outlets, removing heavy and sharp objects from within reach of a young child,how to recognize signs that your child has swallowed something dangerous,and so on.
“Very helpful. Thank you, so much.”
“Of course,”Ms. Wilson says, “it is our role to carry out the president’s goals for the New American Schools. We must make sure that every child is ready to learn by the time they enter begin school. Therefore, we will be visiting you on a regular basis to help you help your child reach that goal.”
“Oh? How regular,” you ask, the hairs on your neck beginning to bristle ever so slightly.
“About every six or seven weeks,” says Ms. Wilson.
“That often? Is it really necessary?”
“We do want to make sure that you have everything you need. And as your child grows his needs will change. We just want to be sure that he isn’t inadvertently put `at risk.’ You understand.”
“At risk for what?” you ask. “We’ll do all we can to . . .”
“Please. I’m sure you will. But it isn’t necessary for you to trouble yourself about it. The state knows what’s best for your child. Parents are often too close to the picture. They can’t always see the things that we can see.”
“Like what?”
“Well . . .”
“Come on! Like what?” Your anger is beginning to show. It’s not a good sign.
“Do you have some suppressed anger?” you’re asked. “I detect an edge in your voice that indicates you’re not happy with our arrangement.”
Managing a weak smile, your voice raising one octave in pitch, you say, “I just want to know what you mean by `at risk,’ that’s all.”
“Well,” Ms. Wilson says. “It is state policy that every child belongs to himself. He must be free to become the person he’s meant to be. We wouldn’t want to see him prevented from reaching his full potential, now, would we?”
“Go on.”
“Well, in addition to providing help to you for assuring your child’s physical well-being, we want to offer our help to you in other areas.”
“Go on.”
“Your child’s mental and emotional well-being are as important - no, even more important - than his physical well-being when it comes to his ability to learn. Therefore, we want to be sure that his natural creativeness isn’t interfered with. So there are certain guidelines we want you to know about.I had hoped to wait until our next meeting, but since you insist, I’ll address them now.”
“Go on.”
“First, the state believes that mental abuse is a very serious thing. That may including a number of factors, you understand. Too many to mention here, but that’s why it’s necessary for us to be in touch with you on a regular and frequent basis. We don’t expect you to be perfect, but we do want to help you avoid inadvertently abusing your child.”
“Yes?”
“Well, spanking for instance. Recent studies have shown that spanking, rather than helping a child correct his behavior, actually induces in him a feeling of low self-esteem. This, in turn, may result in his becoming abusive to his own children later in life. or he may turn out to have criminal tendencies. There are better ways to deal with children than through violence.”
“You mean I can’t discipline my child?”
“Of course you can discipline. My dear, we are all for discipline. It’s just the form of discipline we want to contr...uh’ advice you on. But we can get into that later. The second thing I want to help you with is to understand that your child is a unique person in his own right. He must be allowed to make his own choices in life. He must be allowed to choose what he wants to believe, to establish his own values. Therefore, it wouldn’t look good if you forced him to believe the way you do.”

“I would never `force’ him to believe anything. But I have the right to bring him up in my own religion.” “Well, not exactly. We feel it’s best if he has a number of choices rather than just one. After all, who says your religion is the only one? There are many religious expressions in the world to choose from. In fact, the government is very much in favor of religion. We find that religion helps stem anti-social behavior.”

“What else?”
“Oh, you know. We hope you will always Imagestain an optimum environment for your child. I see from my records that you don’t work, and that your husband has a rather meager income.”
“We get by.”
“Yes, I’m sure you do. But what if you were to have another child? It doesn’t indicate here that you’d be able to afford optimum care for both of them.”
“What?”
“That’s why we are here to help you. We offer counseling in birth control, family planning, and everything. Should you find yourself with an unwanted pregnancy, we also offer state-funded termination of fetal development.”
“Abortion.”
“Yes. Ye see, you’re beginning to understand already!”
“Goodbye, Miss Wilson.”
“That’s `Ms.’ Wilson.”
“Whatever.”
“Goodbye. See you in about six weeks. If you need anything before then, please don’t hesitate to call. Here’s my card.”

THAT CAN’T HAPPEN EITHER.
Unlike the first scenario, this latter scenario is hypothetical. But the mechanism to make it a reality is in the developmental stages at this time. In fact, in some communities it’s already in place as part of education refstructuring. Using documentation from national and state education sources, we will demonstrate the following facts:

The New Educational Goals set forth in America 2000 will:

...establish global citizenship as the central purpose of education;
...provide total child-care services, including mental health and psychological counseling services for every child, in every school, from pre-school through high school;
...require community service to be performed by both children and parents;
...meld the schools with Child Protective Services to assure that children are not “at risk” in their home environment;
...eliminate grade levels and standardized testing for eliminate grade levels and standardized testing for proficiency in academics;
...replace these with outcome-based education assessed by completion of projects utilizing social skills in tandem with academic knowledge;
...assess a child’s attitudes and beliefs for conformity to state-approved guidelines which promote cooperation rather than competition;
...develop a “portfolio” of every child’s progress from pre-school through high school, which will become part of his or her life-time portfolio for job placement;
...eliminate age and grade-based classrooms, and substitute “learning clusters” made up of several ages working in cooperative effort toward completion of certain projects;
...promote tolerance of all beliefs and lifestyles; ...provide mandatory state services for parents to ensure that their child is not “at risk” for learning disabilities;
...eliminate the traditional teacher role and certification and replace them with mastery skills in “facilitating” rather than teaching;
...groom students for particular job classifications for life based upon their mastery of skills and attitudes;

Does this sound a bit orwellian? Yes. But there is perceived among many Americans a need to reform education.

JUSTIFICATION.
One of the most well-known problems in America is its educational system. In spite of throwing billions of dollars at it, every year sees a decline in student achievements in academics. Previous reforms are responsible for this condition. And it doesn’t matter that those reforms have been detrimental, the education establishment refuses to undo them and return to the proven learning methods of fifty years ago. Instead, they want to rereform education. In fact, they want to restructure education, which is nothing less than scrapping the entire system and replacing it with an entirely new system.

This reinventing of the schools is set forth in former president George Bush’s America 2000 - An Education Strategy: The number 535 is consistent with the number of congressional districts. Restructuring, in itself, isn’t the problem. The problem is the end result of restructuring. While we are concerned with academic achievement, that isn’t our major concern. Of far greater importance is the belief system upon which the new educational process is based. America 2000 is an experimental approach toward achieving the National Education Goals set forth by George Bush and the nation’s governors. If it proves successful it will become the norm for all school districts nationwide, unless President Clinton decides to scrap the idea. (This seems highly unlikely in the face of strong influence from the National Education Association [the major teachers’ union], and their fellow travelling idealogues in government and business.) Success, however, is not merely predicated upon excellence in academics, but upon certain attitudes and ways of thinking which demonstrate the child’s global consciousness.

The philosophical concept behind this restructuring is not only humanistic and anti-Christian, but occultic.

THE STRUCTURE.
The structure for the New Generation of American Schools is a radical departure from traditional education. It is not a schoolbased education, but a community-based education. It will obligate every citizen to be involved in the educational process, regardless of age. It is a “lifelong” learning experience that doesn’t stop at graduation from high school or even from university. It also involves reforming the thinking of Americans to fit into a global society. To understand this, we must look at how America 2000 is being implemented, and the stated purpose of those involved in that implementation.

NASDC Design Teams.
Eleven “Design Teams” were formed under the New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDC). NASDC is a non-profit organization created under America 2000. It is responsible for implementing experimental education policies in keeping with America 2000’s National Education Goals. In 1992 NASDC awarded contracts to eleven Design Teams who first had to submit proposals on how they would implement the America 2000 strategy.

The initial contracts for the eleven Design Teams were for one year. Phase I of the Design Team Program involves Research and Design (Summer 1992 - Summer 1993); Phase II involves testing in school settings (Summer 1993 - Spring 1995); Phase III is intended to implement the New Generation of American Schools nationwide (Spring 1995 - Spring 1997); The Eleven Design Teams and their jurisdictions under NASDC’s program are:

...ATLAS Communities, Providence, RI, with initial school sites in Lancaster, PA, Norfolk, VA, Prince George’s Country, MD and Gorham, ME
.... The Odyssey Project, Gaston County, NC, with initial school sites in the Gaston County School System, which operates 54 schools, 35 elementary schools, 12 junior high schools and seven high schools
... Roots and Wings, Lexington Park, MD, with initial schools sites at Green Holly, Lexington Park, George Washington Carver and Ridge elementary schools in Lexington Park, St. Mary’s County, MD
... The National Alliance for Restructuring Education, Rochester, NY with 243 “break the mold” schools in seven states by 1995. The Bensenville Community Design, with initial implementation sites in Bensenville, IL, a diverse community of 17,000 residents
... The College for Human Services, (The Audrey Cohen College Design Team) New York, NY, with initial schools sizes in seven to 30 schools in Arizona, California, Illinois, Mississippi, Washington, D.C. and New York city. San Diego City Schools are among those already selected and committed
... Community Learning Centers, Minneapolis, MN, with initial school sites in Rothsay School District (rural West-Central Minnesota), North Branch, and St. Cloud
... The Co-NECT School, Cambridge, MA, with initial sites in Boston and Worcester, MA
... Expeditionary Learning, Boston, MA, with initial school sites in Portland, ME, Boston, MA; New York, NY; Decatur, GA and Douglas County, CO
... The Los Angeles Learning Center, with initial sites in Los Angeles County involving approximately 3,200 children
... The Modern Red Schoolhouse, Indianapolis, IN, with initial school sites in Indianapolis, Columbus, Beech Grove, Greentown, IN; Charlotte, NC and Kayenta, AZ.11

Although the Design Teams are only in Phase I at this writing, their reach is quite extensive.

In order to receive the grants from NASDC, the Design Teams had to include in their proposals certain “break the mold” features: A few of the break the mold features suggested in the proposals including new teacher/mentor relationships, the moving of “classrooms” into community areas such as government offices, libraries and technology centers, no longer grouping by age, integration of health and social services into school sites and curricula designed to develop good citizens as well as good students.13

Everyone wants their child to be a good citizen as well as a good student. But so did the former USSR. So did Nazi Germany.

Before you accuse me of alarmism, consider that good citizenship is defined by the government of the nation where one’s citizenship resides. That definition is predicated upon the philosophical underpinnings of the government. Truly good citizens are often considered traitors, as were those who opposed Nazi Germany’s extermination of the Jews and Christians, among others. On the other hand, those who acquiesce to government dictates, regardless of their nature, are considered good citizens.

THE GOALS.
The National Education Goals delineate America 2000’s purpose. It does little good to merely offer our own description of these goals and how they will be implemented. The words of those involved carry far more weight. Therefore we will quote extensively from America 2000 An Education Strategy, from the U.S. Department of Education, and from related documents. Interspersed will be our analysis. The National Education Goals are:

As we look at the National Education Goals, questions come to mind as to how they will be implemented. For example, how is it possible for the government to ensure that “All children” will start school ready to learn? It can’t. Unless it becomes involved in the lives of every child from the time of birth. This, in fact, is what is planned.

PARENTS AS TEACHERS.
* Aust. Parents as Tutors (P.A.T.) Under the Specifics of the America 2000 strategy for implementing Goal #1, we read:

This sounds good. Many parents want to have a say in their child’s education. But while Bush speaks of community values, with all due respect, Christians cannot be bound to such. Our biblical values are often in conflict with community values. It is understandable that, in a pluralistic society, community values must hold sway for the general populace. But some community values allow for things which Christians consider sin.

Additionally, “parents as teachers” isn’t what it seems. In fac.t, “parents as teachers” means that parents must first be taught to be teachers. This, in turn, means that government agencies will, from the time of a child’s birth, impose themselves into the home and implement the parent’s training process.Parents must first be instructed on how to parent in order to know how to teach their children. This is known as “parent education.”

American homes must be places of learning. Parents should play an active role in their children’s early learning,particularly by reading to them on a daily basis. Parents should have access to the support and training required to fulfill this role, especially in poor, undereducated families. Here is the specter of government intrusion into every home. Everyone wants every child to have health and nutrition. But early childhood development is a vague term meaning everything from help for the physically handicapped to mental and emotional stability. It is in this latter realm that Christians cannot allow the government to influence their children. When the reformers say that every child will be “ready to learn” they don’t mean every child will have had some preparation in elementary academics. It means they will be socially adjusted to fit into the state approved guidelines that define “wellness” on physical, mental and emotional levels: It is assumed that such government intervention might be provided only to those who are poor and disadvantaged. Well, there are many Christian families that would fall into that category by state standards.Yet while the poor and disadvantaged might be the first targets for early childhood intervention, the plan is for all families regardless of their economic and social standing. And there is a determination to these plans for early childhood intervention, as defined by Roots and Wings, one of the Design Teams for the America 2000 program: