EdAction
Maple River Education Coalition PAC
105 Peavey Rd, St 116
Chaska, MN
55318
952-361-4931
http://www.EdAction.org
E-mail
May 13, 2001
Points of concern:The US Congress is in the process of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). There are major problems in this massive 987 page bill, HR1.
The last time the ESEA was reauthorized was in 1994 (HR 6), the same year that Goals 2000 and School-to-Work (STW) were enacted. At that time, the Goals 2000/STW restructuring was first tied to the ESEA federal Title I money that most school districts receive to supposedly help disadvantaged students. The radical Goals 2000/STW restructuring is a transformation of education in our country by a.) replacement of academic performance with lowest common denominator functional literacy, b.) the definition of education as nothing more than work skills, and c.) the implementation of a federal core curriculum that defines beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. Key components of that new core curriculum are - the moral equivalency of all personal beliefs, values and political systems (diversity); the moral and spiritual equivalency of all religions, except biblical Christianity, which is inferior; radical environmentalism that renounces the essential rights of private property and national sovereignty; Mother Earth worship; radical feminism; and a challenge to the traditional role and authority of parents and families.
The HR 1 legislation that is about to come to the floor of the House drives our states and our local school districts farther toward completing the radical educational transformation in our country than when it was first imposed by HR 6 in 1994 or in last year's reauthorizing attempt (HR2). (To understand the problems with last year’s HR 2, please see our update, or Eagle Forum's update.)
Goals 2000 grant money required that states set up a system of federal education guidelines, called content standards. All 50 states applied for and received the money by agreeing to implement the federal standards. These standards do not promote rigorous, individual academic achievement. Rather, they are psychosocial, minimum competencies that impose and assess the attitudes, values, behaviors, beliefs, and entry-level job skills of the federal core curriculum. The structure was implemented through grant money and enforced using the huge pot of Title I funds as the carrot and the threat of withdrawal of those funds as the stick. States have spent countless millions of dollars and have made transformational changes to state laws to implement it. Except for removing overt references to Goals 2000, this alignment language in HR 1remains identical to 1994. The grant money of Goals 2000/STW functions much like scaffolding used to construct a building. Once the building is finished, the scaffolding is removed, but the framework is firmly set into place.
Because all of these state assessments are required to be aligned to federal standards, the NAEP is a system check. (All of the other nationally norm-referenced tests are also aligned with the national curriculum). The state assessments include banks of questions from the NAEP, so neither measures more than minimal academic knowledge. Because most of the standards upon which these assessments are based are relative and subjective, the accompanying state assessments, the NAEP, and other norm-referenced tests end up profiling the students' knowledge of and acceptance of the national curriculum. These are evaluations of the attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviors of the students and their families. (See our critique of NAEP's role in this system.)
The DOE drives the national curriculum. The 10th amendment was placed in the U.S. Constitution specifically to protect against the very tyranny we are battling in our schools today. States are rendered powerless to throw off the radical agenda. For example, Minnesota was told that districts could not use the flexibility in implementing their standards granted by the state legislature without losing Title I funds. (See our update.) Almost every state has received a letter from the Secretary of Education outlining whether or not they are in compliance with the requirements of the ESEA, in other words, aligning their standards and assessments to federal requirements to keep receiving Title I funds. (See their website.)
First, Goals 2000 built the partnership between government and education (outcome-based education, minimum competencies) using the content standards required in HR 1. The School-to-Work Opportunities Act built the partnership between education and business; and redefined the purpose of education away from academics to "job skills training," using the performance standards required in HR 1. Finally, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) defines and funds the partnership between government and business, and it institutes a state-planned economy, managed through the Workforce Center system. In this system, the government will decide, based on the needs and recommendations of certain businesses, who gets which job and how they are trained in school or retrained for job changes. This is the system of the failed economies of Germany, Japan, and the old Soviet Union.