Designing Education For the Future




This article was originally written in 2011 and is still most relevant today except for noted school board election.

(My apologies to the late, great Jimmy Martin)

There are still folks in America today who love what this country used to be and for what it once represented. Back in the 50’s we didn’t put one finger in the air and claim to be number one, but in our minds we knew we were. School was hard and challenging; we were not coddled, school nurses and drugs to control our behavior did not exist, at least not in my corner of rural Appalachia, and discipline was swift and fair, dispensed with considerable accompanying discomfort with what my principal referred to as “the board of education being applied to the seat of learning.”

Once a month, my wife and I willingly travel two hours total to spend a few hours with like-minded American Patriots in Bayfield, Colorado; Monday evening was just such an occasion, the monthly meeting of the Bayfield 9-12/Tea Party group. On this evening three candidates for the position of School Board member were speaking and being interviewed by those in attendance. I was immediately impressed with the courage and honorable intentions of all three candidates. But, after listening to the candidates explain their reasons for seeking that office and listening to them field questions from the group assembled, it became apparent, at least to me, these candidates did not comprehend or understand the power and reach of the opposition they would be facing if they were to accomplish their stated goals of improving education for the children in their district.

Having no standing as a voter in the district, I was reluctant to ask a question that in my mind demanded an answer. Securing permission from the emcee, I posited my question to all three candidates: “Considering the dramatic decline in the educational levels in America over the past five decades and the fact most institutions of higher learning that produce teachers are nothing but bastions of Marxist Socialism, and school superintendents have Ph.D.’s in Marxist Socialism, how do you propose to deal with that situation?”

I was not surprised that a comment from one of the candidates to my question contained one of the Marxist Socialist’s buzz phrases: “student self-esteem.” The candidate is not to be faulted for this answer; the Marxist Socialist approach to education is much older than he and the other candidates.

John D. Rockefeller and Frederick Gates established the General Education Board in 1902 and funded it with 180 million dollars. Rockefeller and others spent much more money on education in the early 20th Century than did the government. While Rockefeller’s exploits into education are seen in a positive light by many, most revealing are the words contained in the General Education Board’s first mission statement:

“In our dreams, people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present education conventions of intellectual and character education fade from their minds and unhampered by tradition we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into men of learning or philosophers, or men of science. We have not to raise up from them authors, educators, poets or men of letters, great artists, painters, musicians, nor lawyers, doctors, statesmen, politicians, creatures of whom we have ample supply. The task is simple. We will organize children and teach them in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way”.

Rockefeller’s mind molding efforts ended with the exhaustion of the 180 million in the late 50’s or early 60’s. By 1918, all states had passed laws requiring all children to attend school, at least at the elementary level. In 1925, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the United States Supreme Court ruled that students could attend private schools instead of public schools but maintained compulsory education for all. At the beginning of the 20th century, the power to determine what education children would consist of was vested in the managers of the new forced school institution. The people should become alarmed anytime the government mandates anything that people should naturally desire. In such instances, there is always a hidden agenda at work and the beneficiary is always the government.

While compulsory education gave many that “warm and fuzzy” feeling of accomplishment, others saw it as a way to insure the entire population of school students would be submitted to indoctrination on a massive scale. Horace Mann and John Dewey were certainly instrumental in the adoption of this principle. Dewey of Columbia Teacher’s College would advocate the Prussia-German model of education that Horace Mann had witnessed in those countries back in the middle of the 19th Century.

It is certainly possible the real purpose of compulsory education was introduced by sociologist Edward Roth in his treatise of 1906 called, Social Control. Here is a most interesting quote from that work: “plans are underway to replace family, community and church with propaganda, mass-media and education …people are only little plastic lumps of dough”.

To ensure the government’s control of the people through the educational process, teacher indoctrination was ramped up beginning in the mid 1960’s and continued for a decade. These programs were coordinated through the Department of Education using several global corporations, a small number of private foundations and several selected American Universities.

The first of these was the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives by Benjamin Bloom. This work contained several volumes of material. Then came Designing Education for the Future , a manual containing almost 1000 pages. Finally there was the Behavioral Teacher Educational Project, a work of another over 1000 pages of Socialist drivel. The above works were inserted into every state education department in the country and taxpayer funds were used to pay faculty salaries and bribes for the school districts that would champion the use of these objects of indoctrination.

The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives would give birth to several socialist leaning programs in education, many of which I am sure are familiar to many today. Among them were “mastery learning” and “outcome based education.” Dr. Bloom would look upon his work as “a tool to classify the ways individuals are to act, think or feel as the result of participating in some unit of instruction”. Using this model, children would learn proper attitudes and have their improper attitudes (brought from home) properly modified. In Bloom’s educational matrix, all stages of school manipulations testing would be essential to locate the child’s mind on an official continuum. (Emphasis added)

Designing Education For the Future would be instrumental in establishing collusion between federal educational mandates and the supposedly independent school systems in this country. The following quote from that document shows how this was to be used to redefine education, “as a means to achieve important economic and social goals for the national character.”  According to this plan, “each state education department must be an agent of change…´”…change must be institutionalized” (did not the current (now former) occupant of the White House use the theme “Change” in his campaign mantra? The word change is in fact a buzzword of socialist doctrine) Also according to this educational directive, local and state school districts were “to lose their identity as well as their authority in order to form a partnership with the Federal Government”

If the above was not enough to fry your bacon, even more draconian steps were to appear in The Behavioral Teacher Education Project, introduced in 1967.  The mandates set forth in this document should chill all parents to the bone and cause an immediate move to homeschooling. The intent of the creators of this mindset was stated thusly in the above mentioned work, “the impersonal manipulation through schooling of a future America in which few will be able to maintain control over their own opinions”, an America in which “each individual receives at birth, a multipurpose identification number which enables employers and other controllers to keep track of their subjects”, “and to expose them to the directors  subliminal influence of the state education department and the federal department acting through those whenever necessary”. 


Posted by EmbracingtheObvious in Socialism