1233 ~ Who Controls Our Children’s Education?

Published on the first generation Federal Observer in the category, Village of the Damned, December 19, 2001

~ Foreword ~
WASHINGTON, December 2001 – The Senate easily approved a massive school reform bill on Tuesday, sending it to President Bush for his signature.

The bill authorizes up to $26.5 billion for public elementary and secondary schools, much of it targeted to help narrow the achievement gap between low-income students and their wealthier counterparts.

A product of months of bipartisan compromises, the bill also requires states to test students in reading and math yearly in grades three through eight.

Schools that perform poorly will get additional resources, but students in those schools will also get new options, including attending another public school or getting tutoring or other supplementary services.

The House passed the bill last week. Bush, who made education reform a centerpiece of his presidency, plans to sign it. ~ Ed.

While parents, schools, provinces and states across North America bicker about the democratic process of running public schools, forces are manipulating education from behind the scenes. Major international players are reshaping public education to suit their own self-serving agendas, without regard for the wants of parents and the welfare of their children.

Canadian educators rejoiced and crowed over recent results published in an international test report, which placed Canadian students near the top among 32 participating countries. The euphoria engendered by the encouraging results, however, turns into bitter disappointment and resentment when the assessment project is examined realistically in the cold light of truth and logic.

After close scrutiny, it becomes obvious that Canadian students haven’t improved academically, nor have those of other countries necessarily declined. In fact, no realistic measurement of academic competence can be extrapolated from the results. It only becomes obvious that the tests conducted in the assessment program were contrived to support the “progressive” curriculums used by complying countries such as Canada. The tests and assessments were specifically designed and conducted to validate “progressive” education philosophy espoused by North American schools, where “attitude-conditioning” takes precedence over true learning.

The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a major international education project undertaken by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). It involved over 250,000 students from 32 countries, including 30,000 from Canada. The Canadian part of the study was a joint effort of the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), Human Resources Development Canada, and Statistics Canada. With such governmental heavies involved, unwary parents would never suspect that, in fact, external forces are dictating our education programs and charting the direction of our future generations.

The assessment supposedly tested the reading, math, and science acuity of 15-year-old students. In fact, the tests in all three subjects were approximately at a grade-five-level of difficulty, academically. However, the tests weren’t supposed to reflect any academic curriculum that schools might be following. They were supposedly designed to test the students “capacity to use their knowledge and skills in order to meet real-life challenges.” That’s wishful thinking, of course; educators, generally speaking, don’t know what’s needed for success in the real world. For instance, a professor of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (Ontario’s very own think tank on education) is on record as saying that he had interviewed members of industry and was told that they had lots of jobs but couldn’t find people to fill them. He said he didn’t know what kids were lacking in qualifications, but that the job market was changing and no one knew what was needed. (Apparently, he couldn’t translate industry”s job requirements into pedagogical parlance.)

OECD is sort of a miniature UN where it concerns education, and they suspiciously speak a similar lingo. OECD grew to its present size of 32 countries, including many Non Governmental Organizations (NGO’s), from the nucleus of countries that administered the Marshall Plan after WW II. OECD believes that the potential benefits of education “lie in economic growth and the development of shared values that underpin social cohesion.” And their current mandate for education is “making lifelong learning a reality for all.”. . . OECD, like the UN, considers our children as the “Human Capital,” which “plays an important role in the process of economic growth.” The organization is even developing guidelines for the design of libraries of the future.

The other major player dictating modern education trends is the United Nations. People tend to view the UN as a benign organization that sheds light on darkness and brings justice for all. In the public’s eyes, they can do no wrong. However, the UN’s influence on our public education system should not be overlooked, especially by anyone cherishing any sort of national autonomy over the future of our society. The UN has definite plans for controlling our children, which they, like OECD, consider to be the human capital of the state–their state.

Controlling education is the easiest way to win the minds and hearts of the children by conditioning them to a desired way of thinking. The UN laid the groundwork to control the children of the world, using the pretext that a “world-class education” for all would promote global harmony and peace. In 1965, they introduced a sex/ed curriculum, which was widely adopted–much to the dismay of most parents. And in 1982, the UN adopted Robert Muller’s World Core Curriculum as a model for nations to follow. Muller, one-time Assistant Secretary General of the UN, adopted ideas for his Curriculum from questionable philosophies espoused by the founders of the Theosophical society in pre-revolutionary Russia. Muller’s Curriculum aims to produce an egalitarian society, working cooperatively, in harmony, without competition or strife, and without individual thought or opinion. Most significantly, the Curriculum advocates taking away the student’s early childhood and family influence – replace it with a “global family.” He suggests that education of a child should start from birth and be oriented to the “macrocosm” and that early family influences somehow promote “an egocentric mind set” and will result in a negative or undesirable outcome (in other words, the influence of the traditional family must be abolished for the good of society). Our modern Outcome Based Education curriculums and the U.S. Goals 2000 closely resemble the guidelines of the World Core Curriculum.

                                     It SOUNDS good, but…

In 1989, the UN Introduced the Convention on the Rights of the Child. A child is defined in the Convention as anyone under the age of 18. The Convention is a devious document that erodes the authority of parents and undermines traditional family values. Parental powers to discipline and control their children are severely curtailed, and spanking is forbidden. Article 13 of the Convention, in part, states A child shall have the right to, “freedom of association and peaceful assembly.” And a child’s “right to freedom of expression . . . shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.” (Those are just the kind of loopholes that pornographers and pedaphiles are looking for to corrupt and seduce our children, both on and off the internet.)

In compliance with the Convention, signatory nations (of which Canada foolishly became one) must, among other things, submit a report on the progress they are making on the implementation of the terms of the Convention to an unspecified UN committee of ten. Part of the obligations are that signatory nations will comply with the UN’s philosophy on education (which implies, following the model of World Core Curriculum indoctrination techniques as well as teaching sex education as approved and promoted by the UN).

At the UN AIDS conference, held in New York, in June 2001, the UN clearly stated the direction they expect public education to take concerning sex education. According to the September/October 2001 Newsletter put out by Real Women of Canada, on the last day of the UN Special Session on HIV/AIDS, UN special interests tried to ram through a draft of “International Guidelines” on AIDS. Real Women, in their Newsletter report “The guidelines were, to say the least, controversial, in that they included provisions that would normalize homosexuality, mandate same-sex marriages, require explicit sexual training of children, which would exclude the application of pornography laws in regard to children”s sex education material, remove the age of consent for sexual activity and impose penalties on anyone (including religious leaders) who “vilify” homosexuality.”

All of this was promoted in the name of human rights and with the full support of the Canadian delegation and the EU.

As a whole, the “Guidelines” represent a cornucopia of rights, privileges, and approvals bestowed on homosexuals and their lifestyle. Apparently it was only the 60-nation bloc of Islamic Conference members that”prevented these disturbing guidelines from being included in the Declaration.” However, the Guidelines aren’t dead. The UN still has a number of avenues available to force the Guidelines on morally corrupt nations such as Canada.

What chance do parents and teachers of integrity have to influence the direction of public education when they come up against powerful international influences such as OECD and the UN? Perhaps its time to privatize education piecemeal-school by school, community by community.

As it stands, the UN and OECD chart the direction of public education and through it, control the shaping of the character of our future generations. The UN aims to mold future students into egalitarian, compliant non-entities, devoid of character or moral-fiber. Through indoctrination, the UN aims to keep the masses under control by creating a workforce that is spiritually bankrupt and easily placated by a materialistic lifestyle. They sanction and popularize promiscuity and debauchery as entertainment and hope to make sex the opium of the people.

Schools, universities, the education establishment, teachers’ unions, and government agencies are all aboard the UN midnight express, taking our children for a one-way ride to Fools Paradise.

Written by Jann Flury for Real Women of Canada2001