Independent Statesmen Party
Independent Statesmen Party
Independent Statesmen Party

Independent Statesmen Party
Statesmanship: The art of changing a nation from what it is to what it ought to be
IS Party | Mission Vision | Contact | Information | Link to Us |

   The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America

   The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Thompson Iserbyt
The book is 770 pages and is formatted on 8.5 x 11" size paper for easy copying. The author gives permission to the reader to copy verbatim quotes as long as each page number contains the name of the book, the author, the ISBN number, and the telephone number where the book may be ordered. The book was written not just to be read but to be used by citizens in an effort to reverse the deplorable situation to be found in our nation today, not just in education, but in other areas as well, a situation which is required for our nation to become a properly functioning socialist "unit" in the New World Order, Global Management Systems, under the United Nations. As anyone the least bit familiar with history knows, as the schools go, so goes the nation! And it is primarily through schools that our free, Constitutional Republic, under God, has been and is being taken from us. Please send all inquiries to:
Charlotte Thompson Iserbyt, 3D Research Co., 1062 Washington Street, Bath, ME. 04530
Tel: 207.442.0543 - Fax: 207.442.0551 - Email:
Website: The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America
A Chronological Paper Trail by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt - Copyright 1999. Conscience Press. All rights reserved. First printing, September 1999. Second printing, February 2000. Published in 1999. Printed in the United States of America. Acid-free paper. Archival quality. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 9889726 ISBN: 0966707109 Conscience Press • P.O. Box 449 • Ravenna, Ohio • 44266–0449. Printed by The Athens Printing Company, Athens, Georgia. Graphic design by Colin Leslie, Cover design by 3–D Research Company, Index compiled by Kari Miller. Cartoons created by Joel Pett, Herald Leader of Lexington, Kentucky
<bgsound src=" wall.mp3">
Pink Floyd - Another Brick in the Wall parts 1, 2, & 3 with Lyrics
Watch on YouTube


This book is dedicated to my late mother and father, Charlotte and Clifton Thomson, wonderful parents who devoted much of their lives to public service, and to my late great aunt, Florence Stanton Thomson, whose generosity enabled the writer to undertake the research, writing, and publishing of this book.
It is also dedicated to my husband, Jan, and two sons, Robert and Samuel, whose tolerance of Mom’s activism and frequent absences from home over a period of thirty years allowed the writer to pursue her search for the truth.
Jan’s gourmet cooking lifted our spirits and kept us all from starving! Without the men’s patience, humor, and moral support, this book could not have been written.

In Memoriam


This book is a small tribute to the late Honorable John M. Ashbrook, 17th Congressional District of Ohio, whose work in Congress during the 1960s and 1970s exposed the treasonous plans which ultimately led to the inter nationalization and deliberate dumbing down of American education.


Table of Contents


Chapters of Book


foreword xi
preface xiii
acknowledgments xxiii
introduction xxv
1 The Sowing Of The Seeds:
2 The Turning Of The Tides:
3 The Troubling Thirties:
4 The Fomentation:
5 The Sick Sixties:
6 The Serious Seventies:
7 The “Effective” Eighties:
8 The Noxious Nineties:
1 [late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries]
7  [early twentieth century]
27 [of the forties and fifties]
55 [psychology and skills]

afterword 455
resources 461
glossary G–1
appendices A–1
index I–1

The Effective School Report


"The human brain should be used for processing, not storage."
—Thomas A. Kelly, Ph.D





Charlotte Iserbyt

Charlotte Iserbyt is to be greatly commended for having put together the most formidable and practical compilation of documentation describing the “deliberate dumbing down” of American children by their education system. Anyone interested in the truth will be shocked by the way American social engineers have systematically gone about destroying the intellect of millions of American children for the purpose of leading the American people into a socialist world government controlled by behavioral and social scientists.
Mrs. Iserbyt has also documented the gradual transformation of our once academically successful education system into one devoted to training children to become compliant human resources to be used by government and industry for their own purposes. This is how fascist-socialist societies train their children to become servants of their government masters. The successful implementation of this new philosophy of education will spell the end of the American dream of individual freedom and opportunity. The government will plan your life for you, and unless you comply with government restrictions and regulations your ability to pursue a career of your own choice will be severely limited.
What is so mind boggling is that all of this is being financed by the American people themselves through their own taxes. In other words, the American people are underwriting the destruction of their own freedom and way of life by lavishly financing through federal grants the very social scientists who are undermining our national sovereignty and preparing our children to become the dumbed-down vassals of the new world order. It reminds one of how the Nazis charged their victims train fare to their own doom.
One of the interesting insights revealed by these documents is how the social engineers use a deliberately created education “crisis” to move their agenda forward by offering radical reforms that are sold to the public as fixing the crisis—which they never do. The new reforms simply set the stage for the next crisis,-which provides the pretext for the next move forward. This is the dialectical process at work, a process our behavioral engineers have learned to use

very effectively. Its success depends on the ability of the “change agents” to continually deceive the public which tends to believe anything the experts tell them.
And so, our children continue to be at risk in America’s schools. They are at risk academically because of such programs as whole language, mastery learning, direct instruction, Skinnerian operant conditioning, all of which have created huge learning problems that inevitably lead to what is commonly known as Attention Deficit Disorder and the drugging of four million children with the powerful drug Ritalin. Mrs. Iserbyt has dealt extensively with the root causes of immorality in our society and the role of the public schools in the teaching of moral relativism (no right/no wrong ethics). She raises a red flag regarding the current efforts of left-wing liberals and right-wing conservatives (radical center) to come up with a new kid on the block—“common ground” character education—which will, under the microscope, turn out to be the same warmed-over values education alert parent groups have resisted for over fifty years. This is a perfect example of the Hegelian Dialectic at work.
The reader will find in this book a plethora of information that will leave no doubt in the mind of the serious researcher exactly where the American education system is headed. If we wish to stop this juggernaut toward a socialist-fascist system, then we must restore educational freedom to America. Americans forget that the present government education system started as a Prussian import in the 1840’s–’50’s. It was a system built on Hegel’s belief that the state was “God” walking on earth. The only way to restore educational freedom, and put education back into the hands of parents where it belongs, is to get the federal government, with its coercive policies, out of education. The billions of dollars being spent by the federal government to destroy educational freedom must be halted, and that can only be done by getting American legislators to understand that the American people want to remain a free people, in charge of their own lives and the education of their children.
Samuel L. Blumenfeld




   Coexistence on this tightly knit earth should be viewed as an existence not only without wars... but also without [the government] telling us how to live, what to say, what to think, what to know, and what not to know.
—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, from a speech given September 11, 1973[1]
   Educated men are as much superior to uneducated men as the living are to the dead.
—Aristotle, 384–322 B.C.[2]
* For over a twenty-five-year period the research used in this chronology has been collected from many sources: the United States Department of Education; international agencies; state agencies; the media; concerned educators; parents; legislators, and talented researchers with whom I have worked. In the process of gathering this information two beliefs that most Americans hold in common became clear:
   1) If a child can read, write and compute at a reasonably proficient level, he will be able to do just about anything he wishes, enabling him to control his destiny to the extent that God allows (remain free);
   2) Providing such basic educational proficiencies is not and should not be an expensive proposition.
   Since most Americans believe the second premise—that providing basic educational proficiencies is not and should not be an expensive proposition—it becomes obvious that it is only a radical agenda, the purpose of which is to change values and attitudes (brainwash), that is the costly agenda. In other words, brainwashing by our schools and universities is what is bankrupting our nation and our children’s minds.
   In 1997 there were 46.4 million public school students. During 1993–1994 (the latest years the statistics were available) the average per pupil expenditure was $6,330.00 in 1996

constant dollars. Multiply the number of students by the per pupil expenditure (using old-fashioned mathematical procedures) for a total K–12 budget per year of $293.7 billion dollars. If one adds the cost of higher education to this figure, one arrives at a total budget per year of over half a trillion dollars.[3] The sorry result of such an incredibly large expenditure—the performance of American students—is discussed in Pursuing Excellence—A Study of U.S. Twelfth Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement in International Context: Initial Findings from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), a report from the U.S. Department of Education (NCES 98–049). Pursuing Excellence reads:
   Achievement of Students, Key Points: U.S. twelfth graders scored below the international  
   average and among the lowest of the 21 TIMSS nations in both mathematics and science  
   general knowledge in the final year of secondary school. (p. 24)  
   Obviously, something is terribly wrong when a $6,330 per pupil expenditure produces such pathetic results. This writer has visited private schools which charge $1,000 per year in tuition which enjoy superior academic results. Parents of home-schooled children spend a maximum of $1,000 per year and usually have similar excellent results.
   There are many talented and respected researchers and activists who have carefully documented the “weird” activities which have taken place “in the name of education.” Any opposition to change agent activities in local schools has invariably been met with cries of “Prove your case, document your statements,” etc. Documentation, when presented, has been ignored and called incomplete. The classic response by the education establishment has been, “You’re taking that out of context!”—even when presented with an entire book which uses their own words to detail exactly what the “resisters” are claiming to be true. “Resisters”—usually parents—have been called every name in the book. Parents have been told for over thirty years, “You’re the only parent who has ever complained.” The media has been convinced to join in the attack upon common sense views, effectively discrediting the perspective of well-informed citizens.
   The desire by “resisters” to prove their case has been so strong that they have continued to amass—over a thirty- to fifty-year period—what must surely amount to tons of materials containing irrefutable proof, in the education change agents’ own words, of deliberate, malicious intent to achieve behavioral changes in students/parents/society which have nothing to do with commonly understood educational objectives. Upon delivery of such proof, “resisters” are consistently met with the “shoot the messenger” stonewalling response by teachers, school boards, superintendents, state and local officials, as well as the supposedly objective institutions of academia and the press.
   This resister’s book, or collection of research in book form, was put together primarily to satisfy my own need to see the various components which led to the dumbing down of the United States of America assembled in chronological order—in writing. Even I, who had observed these weird activities taking place at all levels of government, was reluctant to accept a malicious intent behind each individual, chronological activity or innovation, unless I could connect it with other, similar activities taking place at other times. This book, which makes such connections, has provided for me a much-needed sense of closure.
   the deliberate dumbing down of America is also a book for my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. I want them to know that there were thousands of Americans who may not have died or been shot at in overseas wars, but were shot at in small-town “wars” at

school board meetings, at state legislative hearings on education, and, most importantly, in the media. I want my progeny to know that whatever intellectual and spiritual freedoms to which they may still lay claim were fought for—are a result of—the courageous work of incredible people who dared to tell the truth against all odds.
   I want them to know that there will always be hope for freedom if they follow in these people’s footsteps; if they cherish the concept of “free will”; if they believe that human beings are special, not animals, and that they have intellects, souls, and consciences. I want them to know that if the government schools are allowed to teach children K–12 using Pavlovian/Skinnerian animal training methods—which provide tangible rewards only for correct answers—there can be no freedom.
   Why? People “trained”—not educated—by such educational techniques will be fearful of taking principled, sometimes controversial, stands when called for because these people will have been programmed to speak up only if a positive reward or response is forthcoming. The price of freedom has often been paid with pain and loneliness.
   In 1971 when I returned to the United States after living abroad for 18 years, I was shocked to find public education had become a warm, fuzzy, soft, mushy, touchy-feely experience, with its purpose being socialization, not learning. From that time on, from the vantage point of having two young sons in the public schools, I became involved—as a member of a philosophy committee for a school, as an elected school board member, as co-founder of Guardians of Education for Maine (GEM), and finally as a senior policy advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) of the U.S. Department of Education during President Ronald Reagan’s first term of office. OERI was, and is, the office from which all the controversial national and international educational restructuring has emanated.
   Those ten years (1971–1981) changed my life. As an American who had spent many years working abroad, I had experienced traveling in and living in socialist countries. When I returned to the United States I realized that America’s transition from a sovereign constitutional republic to a socialist democracy would not come about through warfare (bullets and tanks) but through the implementation and installation of the “system” in all areas of government—federal, state and local. The brainwashing for acceptance of the “system’s” control would take place in the school—through indoctrination and the use of behavior modification, which comes under so many labels: the most recent labels being Outcome-Based Education, Skinnerian Mastery Learning or Direct Instruction.[4] In the 1970s this writer and many others waged the war against values clarification, which was later renamed “critical thinking,” which regardless of the label—and there are bound to be many more labels on the horizon—is nothing but pure, unadulterated destruction of absolute values of right and wrong upon which stable and free societies depend and upon which our nation was founded.
   In 1973 I started the long journey into becoming a “resister,” placing the first incriminating piece of paper in my “education” files. That first piece of paper was a purple ditto sheet entitled “All About Me,” next to which was a smiley face. It was an open-ended questionnaire beginning with:
“My name is _____.” My son brought it home from public school in fourth grade. The questions were highly personal; so much so that they encouraged my son to lie, since he didn’t want to “spill the beans” about his mother, father and brother.
The purpose of such a questionnaire was to find out the student’s state of mind, how he felt, what he liked and disliked, and what his values were. With this knowledge it would be easier for the government school to modify his values and behavior at will—without, of course, the student’s knowledge or parents’ consent.
   That was just the beginning. There was more to come: the new social studies textbook World of Mankind. Published by Follett, this book instructed the teacher how to instill humanistic (no right/no wrong) values in the K–3 students. At the text’s suggestion the teacher was encouraged to take little tots for walks in town during which he would point out big and small houses, asking the little tots who they thought lived in the houses: Poor or Rich? “What do you think they eat in the big house? the little house?” When I complained about this non-educational activity at a school board meeting I was dismissed as a censor and the press did its usual hatchet job on me as a misguided parent. A friend of mine—a very bright gal who had also lived abroad for years—told me that she had overheard discussion of me at the local co-op. The word was out in town that I was a “kook.” That was not a “positive response/reward” for my taking what I believed to be a principled position. Since I had not been “trained,” I was just mad!
   Next stop on the road to becoming a “resister” was to become a member of the school philosophy committee. Our Harvard-educated, professional change agent superintendent gave all of the committee members a copy of “The Philosophy of Education” (1975 version) from the Montgomery County schools in Maryland, hoping to influence whatever recommendations we would make. (For those who like to eat dessert before soup, read the entry under 1946 concerning Community-Centered Schools: The Blueprint for Education in Montgomery County, Maryland. This document was in fact the “Blueprint” for the nation’s schools.) When asked to write a paper expressing our views on the goals of education, I wrote that, amongst other goals, I felt the schools should strive to instill “sound morals and values in the students.” The superintendent and a few teachers on the committee zeroed in on me, asking “What’s the definition of ‘sound’ and whose values?”
   After two failed attempts to get elected to the school board, I finally succeeded in 1976 on the third try. The votes were counted three times, even though I had won by a very healthy margin!
   My experience on the school board taught me that when it comes to modern education, “the end justifies the means.” Our change agent superintendent was more at home with a lie than he was with the truth. Whatever good I accomplished while on the school board—stopping the Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) now known as Total Quality Management (TQM) or Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures/Generally Accepted Federal Funding Reporting (GAAP/GAFFR), getting values clarification banned by the board, and demanding five (yes, 5!) minutes of grammar per day, etc.—was tossed out two weeks after I left office.
   Another milestone on my journey was an in-service training session entitled “Innovations in Education.” A retired teacher, who understood what was happening in education, paid for me to attend. This training program developed by Professor Ronald Havelock of the University of Michigan and funded by the United States Office of Education taught teachers and administrators how to “sneak in” controversial methods of teaching and “innovative” programs. These controversial, “innovative” programs included health education, sex education, drug and alcohol education, death education, critical thinking education, etc. Since then I have always found it interesting that the controversial school programs are the only ones that have the word “education” attached to them! I don’t recall—until recently—”math ed.,” “reading ed.,” “history ed.,” or “science ed.” A good rule of thumb for teachers, parent and school board members interested in academics and traditional values is to question any subject that has the word “education” attached to it.

   This in-service training literally “blew my mind.” I have never recovered from it. The presenter (change agent) taught us how to “manipulate” the taxpayers/parents into accepting controversial programs. He explained how to identify the “resisters” in the community and how to get around their resistance. He instructed us in how to go to the highly respected members of the community—those with the Chamber of Commerce, Rotary, Junior League, Little League, YMCA, Historical Society, etc.—to manipulate them into supporting the controversial/non-academic programs and into bad-mouthing the resisters. Advice was also given as to how to get the media to support these programs.
   I left this training—with my very valuable textbook, The Change Agent’s Guide to Innovations in Education, under my arm—feeling very sick to my stomach and in complete denial over that in which I had been involved. This was not the nation in which I grew up; something seriously disturbing had happened between 1953 when I left the United States and 1971 when I returned.
Orchestrated Consensus
In retrospect, I had just found out that the United States was engaged in war. People write important books about war: books documenting the battles fought, the names of the generals involved, the names of those who fired the first shot. This book is simply a history book about another kind of war:
   • one fought using psychological methods;
   • a one-hundred-year war;
   • a different, more deadly war than any in which our country has ever been involved;
   • a war about which the average American hasn’t the foggiest idea.
   The reason Americans do not understand this war is because it has been fought in secret—in the schools of our nation, targeting our children who are captive in classrooms. The wagers of this war are using very sophisticated and effective tools:
   • Hegelian Dialectic (common ground, consensus and compromise)
   • Gradualism (two steps forward; one step backward)
   • Semantic deception (redefining terms to get agreement without understanding).
   The Hegelian Dialectic[5] is a process formulated by the German philosopher George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) and used by Karl Marx in codifying revolutionary Communism as dialectical materialism. This process can be illustrated as:


   The “Thesis” represents either an established practice or point of view which is pitted against the “Antithesis”—usually a crisis of opposition fabricated or created by change agents—causing the “Thesis” to compromise itself, incorporating some part of the “Antithesis” to produce the “Synthesis”—sometimes called consensus. This is the primary tool in the bag of tricks used by change agents who are trained to direct this process all over the country; much like the in-service training I received. A good example of this concept was voiced by T.H. Bell when he was U.S. Secretary of Education: “[We] need to create a crisis to get consensus in order to bring about change.” (The reader might be reminded that it was under T.H. Bell’s direction that the U.S. Department of Education implemented the changes “suggested” by A Nation at Risk—the alarm that was sounded in the early 1980s to announce the “crisis” in education.)
   Since we have been, as a nation, so relentlessly exposed to this Hegelian dialectical process (which is essential to the smooth operation of the “system”) under the guise of “reaching consensus” in our involvement in parent-teacher organizations, on school boards, in legislatures, and even in goal setting in community service organizations and groups—including our churches—I want to explain clearly how it works in a practical application. A good example with which most of us can identify involves property taxes for local schools. Let us consider an example from Michigan—
   The internationalist change agents must abolish local control (the “Thesis”) in order to restructure our schools from academics to global workforce training (the “Synthesis”). Funding of education with the property tax allows local control, but it also enables the change agents and teachers’ unions to create higher and higher school budgets paid for with higher taxes, thus infuriating homeowners. Eventually, property owners accept the change agents’ radical proposal (the “Anti- thesis”) to reduce their property taxes by transferring education funding from the local property tax to the state income tax. Thus, the change agents accomplish their ultimate goal; the transfer of funding of education from the local level to the state level. When this transfer occurs it increases state/federal control and funding, leading to the federal/internationalist goal of implementing global workforce training through the schools (the “Synthesis”).[6]
   Regarding the power of “gradualism,” remember the story of the frog and how he didn’t save himself because he didn’t realize what was happening to him? He was thrown into cold water which, in turn, was gradually heated up until finally it reached the boiling point and he was dead. This is how “gradualism” works through a series of “created crises” which utilize Hegel’s dialectical process, leading us to more radical change than we would ever otherwise accept.
   In the instance of “semantic deception”—do you remember your kindly principal telling you that the new decision-making program would help your child make better decisions? What good parent wouldn’t want his or her child to learn how to make “good” decisions? Did you know that the decision-making program is the same controversial values clarification program recently rejected by your school board and against which you may have given repeated testimony? As I’ve said before, the wagers of this intellectual social war have employed very effective weapons to implement their changes.
   This war has, in fact, become the war to end all wars. If citizens on this planet can be brainwashed or robotized, using dumbed-down Pavlovian/Skinnerian education, to accept what those in control want, there will be no more wars. If there are no rights or wrongs, there will be no one wanting to “right” a “wrong.” Robots have no conscience. The only permissible

conscience will be the United Nations or a global conscience. Whether an action is good or bad will be decided by a “Global Government’s Global Conscience,” as recommended by Dr. Brock Chisholm, executive secretary of the World Health Organization, Interim Commission, in 1947—and later in 1996 by current United States Secretary of State Madeline Albright. (See quotes in entry under 1947.)
   You may protest, “But, no one has died in this war.” Is that the only criteria we have with which to measure whether war is war? Didn’t Aristotle say it well when he said, “Educated men are as much superior to uneducated men as the living are to the dead”? To withhold the tools of education can kill a person’s spirit just as surely as a bullet his body. The tragedy is that many Americans have died in other wars to protect the freedoms being taken away in this one. This war which produces the death of intellect and freedom is not waged by a foreign enemy but by the silent enemy in the ivory towers, in our own government, and in tax-exempt foundations—the enemy whose every move I have tried to document in this book, usually in his/her/its own words.
   Ronald Havelock’s change agent in-service training prepared me for what I would find in the U.S. Department of Education when I worked there from 1981–1982. The use of taxpayers’ hard-earned money to fund Havelock’s “Change Agent Manual” was only one out of hundreds of expensive U.S. Department of Education grants each year going everywhere, even overseas, to further the cause of internationalist “dumbing down” education (behavior modification) so necessary for the present introduction of global workforce training. I was relieved of my duties after leaking an important technology grant (computer-assisted instruction proposal) to the press.
   Much of this book contains quotes from government documents detailing the real purposes of American education:
   • to use the schools to change America from a free, individual nation to a socialist, global “state,” just one of many socialist states which will be subservient to the United Nations Charter, not the United States Constitution
   • to brainwash our children, starting at birth, to reject individualism in favor of collectivism
   • to reject high academic standards in favor of OBE/ISO 1400/9000[7] egalitarianism
   • to reject truth and absolutes in favor of tolerance, situational ethics and consensus
   • to reject American values in favor of internationalist values (globalism)
   • to reject freedom to choose one’s career in favor of the totalitarian K–12 school-to work/OBE process, aptly named “limited learning for lifelong labor,”[8] coordinated through United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. Only when all children in public, private and home schools are robotized—and believe as one—will World Government be acceptable to citizens and able to be implemented without firing a shot. The attractive-sounding “choice” proposals will enable the globalist elite to achieve their goal: the robotization (brainwashing) of all Americans in order to gain their acceptance of lifelong education and workforce training—part of the world management system to achieve a new global feudalism.
   The socialist/fascist global workforce training agenda is being implemented as I write this book. The report to the European Commission entitled Transatlantic Co-operation in Inter-

national Education: Projects of the Handswerkskammer Koblenz with Partners in the United States and in the European Union by Karl-Jurgen Wilbert and Bernard Eckgold (May 1997) says in part:
   In June, 1994, with the support of the Handswerkskamer Koblenz, an American-German vocational education conference took place... at the University of Texas at Austin. The vocational education researchers and economic specialists... were in agreement that an economic and employment policy is necessary where a systematic vocational training is as equally important as an academic education, as a “career pathway.” ...The first practical steps along these lines, which are also significant from the point of view of the educational policy, were made with the vocational training of American apprentices in skilled craft companies, in the area of the Koblenz chamber.
Under section “e)Scientific Assistance for the Projects,” one reads:
   The international projects ought to be scientifically assisted and analyzed both for the feed back to the transatlantic dialogue on educational policy, and also for the assessment and qualitative improvement of the cross-border vocational education projects. As a result it should be made possible on the German side to set up a connection to other projects of German-American cooperation in vocational training; e.g., of the federal institute for vocational training for the project in the U.S. state of Maine. On the USA side an inter linking with other initiatives for vocational training—for example, through the Center for the Study of Human Resources at the University of Texas, Austin—would be desirable.
   This particular document discusses the history of apprenticeships—especially the role of medieval guilds—and attempts to make a case for nations which heretofore have cherished liberal economic ideas—i.e., individual economic freedom—to return to a system of cooperative economic solutions (the guild system used in the Middle Ages which accepted very young children from farms and cities and trained them in “necessary” skills). Another word for this is “serfdom.” Had our elected officials at the federal, state, and local levels read this document, they could never have voted in favor of socialist/fascist legislation implementing workforce training to meet the needs of the global economy. Unless, of course, they happen to support such a totalitarian economic system. (This incredible document was accessed at the following internet address:)
   Just as Barbara Tuchman or another historian would do in writing the history of the other kinds of wars, I have identified chronologically the major battles, players, dates and places. I know that researchers and writers with far more talent than I will feel that I have neglected some key events in this war. I stand guilty on all counts, even before their well-researched charges are submitted. Yes, much of importance has been left out, due to space limitations, but the overview of the battlefields and maneuvers will give the reader an opportunity to glimpse the immensity of this conflict.
   In order to win a battle one must know who the “real” enemy is. Otherwise, one is shooting in the dark and often hitting those not the least bit responsible for the mayhem. This book, hopefully, identifies the “real” enemy and provides Americans involved in this war—be they plain, ordinary citizens, elected officials, or traditional teachers—with the ammunition to fight to obtain victory.

End notes:
1 Noted Soviet dissident, slave labor camp intern, and author of The Gulag Archipelago and numerous other books.
2 The Basic Works of Aristotle, Richard McKeon, Ed., from Familiar Quotations by John Bartlett, 14th ed. (Little, Brown & Co.: Boston, Toronto, 1968).
3 Statistics taken from The Condition of Education, 1997, published by the National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education (NCES 97–388). Internet address: http://www.ed/gov/NCES.
4 OBE/ML/DI or outcomes-based education/mastery learning/direct instruction.
5 Dean Gotcher, author of The Dialectic & Praxis: Diaprax and the End of the Ages and other materials dealing with dialectical consensus building and human relations training, has done some excellent work in this area of research. For more detailed information on this process, please write to Dean Gotcher of the Institution for Authority Research, 5436 S. Boston Pl., Tulsa, Oklahoma 74l05, or call 918–742–3855.
6 See Appendix XXII for an article by Tim Clem which explains this process in much more detail.
7 ISO stands for International Standards of Operation for manufacturing (9000) and human resources (1400), coordinated through the United Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
8 “Privatization or Socialization” by C. Weatherly, 1994. Delivered as part of a speech to a group in Minnesota and later published in The Christian Conscience magazine (Vol. 1, No. 2: February 1995, pp. 29–30).



In particular I want to thank

   In particular I want to thank a handful of government officials who provided me with important documents. They must remain anonymous for obvious reasons.
   I would also like to mention several incredibly fine Americans who are unfortunately no longer with us, who provided me with the priceless research and necessary resources to write this book. They are: Jo-Ann Abrigg, Rexford Daniels, Norman Dodd, Ruth Feld, Mary Larkin, Judge Robert Morris, Walter Crocker Pew and Mary Royer.
   Very special thanks go to the following education researchers and writers with whom I have worked and who have contributed to and made this book possible (in alphabetical order): Mary Adams, Polly Anglin, Marilyn Boyer, Shirley Correll, Peggy and Dennis Cuddy, Janet Egan, Melanie Fields, Ann Frazier, Betty Freauf, Jeannie Georges, Peggy Grimes, Rosalind Haley, Karen Hayes, Tracey Hayes, Maureen Heaton, Mary Jo Heiland, Ann Herzer, Anita Hoge, Betsy Kraus, Jacqueline and Malcolm Lawrence, Mina Legg, Bettye and Kirk Lewis, Joanne Lisac, Joan Masters, Nancy Maze, Janelle Moon, Opal Moore, Barbara Morris, LuAnne Robson, Patricia Royall, Elisabeth Russinoff, Cris Shardelman, Debbie Stevens, Rose Stewart, Elisabeth Trotto, Georgiana Warner, Geri Wenta, and Jil Wilson. Thanks are also extended to their respective spouses who made their contributions possible.
   Obviously, the job of editing this book was monumental! Cynthia Weatherly, who is one of the nation’s finest education researchers and talented writers and with whom I have worked for twenty years, took my rough manuscript and turned it into a mammoth historical presentation. Her incredible work on this book represents a true labor of love for this nation and for our children and grandchildren. I will forever be grateful to Cindi and her husband, Neal, who extended a gracious welcome to me each time I descended upon them, including a four-month stay last winter!
   In addition, my deepest thanks go to the Leslie family of Conscience Press—Sarah, Lynn and Colin, and Sarah’s parents, Paul and Jean Huling, each of whom contributed in his own

vital way to the publication of this book in such a professional manner. How this family published this book and managed at the same time to make three moves in and out of different houses during this one-year period is beyond belief. There are no words to express this writer’s gratitude for this one family’s contribution to the preservation of liberty for all Americans.
   Of course, the book would never have seen the light of day without the very professional job delivered by Tim and Janet Fields of The Athens Printing Company of Athens, Georgia. Tim’s unbelievable patience with interminable delays was beyond the call of duty.
   And last, but not least, thanks to the folks at the reference desk of the University of Georgia Library, who cheerfully and professionally assisted the writer and editor with critical documentation, and to Air Tran, whose extremely reasonable airfare from Boston to Atlanta allowed Cindi and me to collaborate on the most important stages of this book’s production.
   Deepest apologies to whomever I have neglected to mention. You will find a special place in Heaven.




In the fall of l972

   In the fall of l972 a small group of students in an introduction to educational psychology class at a mid western university saved every single soul in the lifeboat.
   The professor became agitated. “No! Go back and do the exercise again. Follow the instructions.”
   The students, products of the radical 1960s culture, expected this to be a small group assignment in creativity and ingenuity. They had worked out an intricate plan whereby everyone in the lifeboat could survive. When the professor persisted, the students resisted — and ultimately refused to do the exercise. Chalk up a victory to the human spirit.
However, it was a short-lived victory. This overloaded “lifeboat in crisis” represented a dramatic shift in education. The exercise—in which students were compelled to choose which humans were expendable and, therefore, should be cast off into the water—became a mainstay in classrooms across the country. Creative solutions? Not allowed. Instructions? Strictly adhered to. In truth, there is to be only one correct answer to the lifeboat drama: death.
   The narrowing (dumbing down) of intellectual freedom had begun. Lifeboat exercises epitomize the shift in education from academic education (1880–1960) to values education (1960–1980). In the deliberate dumbing down of America writer Charlotte Iserbyt chronicles this shift and the later shift to workforce training “education” (1980–2000). The case is made that the values education period was critical to the transformation of education. It succeeded in persuading (brainwashing? duping?) Americans into accepting the belief that values were transient, flexible and situational—subject to the evolution of human society. Brave new values were integrated into curricula and instruction. The mind of the average American became “trained” (conditioned) to accept the idea that education exists solely for the purpose of getting a good paying job in the global workforce economy.
   “Human capital,” a term coined by reformers to describe our children, implies that hu-

mans are expendable. This explains why the lifeboat exercise has been used so rampantly, and why it was so critical to the education reformers’ plans. Is it any wonder, then, that we witnessed the horror of the Littleton, Colorado shootings, and that other violence in schools across the country is increasing? Death education in the classroom may be linked to deaths in the classroom. The dumbing down of a nation inevitably leads to the death of a culture.
   The premise of Charlotte Iserbyt’s chronological history of the “deliberate dumbing down” of America is borne out by the author’s extensive documentation, gathered from the education community’s own sources. Iserbyt isolates the public policy end of education and sticks with it from decade to decade, steadfastly documenting the controversial methodology that has been institutionalized into legislation, public documents and other important papers setting forth public agenda. By choosing to focus on public policy in the context of academic theory, Iserbyt fills an important void in anti-reform literature. Her most important contribution is demonstrating how theory influenced public policy, public policy influenced theory, and how this ultimately affected practice—how policy and theory played out in the classroom.
   Iserbyt skillfully demonstrates the interconnections between the international, national, regional, state and local plans for the transformation of American society via education. Iserbyt connects the evolution of education in the twentieth century to major significant geopolitical, social and economic events which have influenced education policy. This attention to detail adds important context to the events chronicled in the book, a dimension not found in other books critiquing education reform.
   For too many years the late Harvard psychologist B.F. Skinner has been virtually ignored by conservative leaders, who focused their criticism exclusively on pervasive cultural influences of the humanistic psychologists (Rogers, Maslow, et al.). Skinner was written off as a utopian psychologist who represented no threat. Iserbyt’s premise, proven well, is that B.F. Skinner is comfortably alive and well—embedded within modern education methods. Direct Instruction, Mastery Learning and Outcome-Based Education are irrefutably the current incarnation of Skinner’s 1960s Programmed Instruction—a method of instruction which linked children to the computer and turned learning into a flow chart of managed behaviors.
   Interwoven throughout the book is the important theme of operant conditioning in education. Surprisingly, Iserbyt never debates the effectiveness of the method. Entry after entry in the book substantiates Iserbyt’s premise that the method is purposefully used to create a robotic child—one who cannot make connections, repeat an act, nor recall a fact unless provided with the necessary stimuli and environment (like a dog who learns to sit after the immediate receipt of a dog biscuit). Iserbyt reaches the inescapable conclusion that the method perfectly complements the reformers’ agenda for a dumbed-down global workforce.
   Iserbyt so effectively nails down her case that the debate noticeably shifts to the ethics of implementing such a method on children. The late Christian apologist and theologian, Dr. Francis Schaeffer, when discussing the evils of B.F. Skinner in his little booklet Back to Freedom and Dignity (1972), warned: “Within the Skinnerian system there are no ethical controls; there is no boundary limit to what can be done by the elite in whose hands control resides.” There is intriguing evidence in Iserbyt’s book that the “democratic” society of the near future will be managed via systematized operant conditioning—a startling proposition with ramifications which reach far beyond the scope of simple education reform.
   Inevitably, questions and controversy will arise after publication of this book. How many popular computer games, programs, and curricula for children are heavily dependent upon

this method- a method which requires immediate rewards? To what extent have home school and Christian school leaders, authors, and curriculum companies endorsed and utilized this method? How many child rearing (training) programs, workbooks and seminars are based upon these Skinnerian methods? After reading this book parents will no longer be duped into accepting behaviorist methods-in whatever guise, or by whatever name they come.
   Publication of the deliberate dumbing down of america is certain to add fuel to the fire in this nation’s phonics wars. Ever since publication of her first work (Back to Basics Reform or OBE Skinnerian International Curriculum, 1985), Iserbyt has been trumpeting the fact that the Skinnerian method applied in the Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction (ECRI) is the very same method applied in Siegfried Engelmann’s DISTAR (Direct Instruction System for Teaching and Remediation, now known as Reading Mastery). In her latest work, Iserbyt provides exhaustive documentation that Direct Instruction (a.k.a. systematic, intensive phonics)—which is being institutionalized nationally under the guise of “traditional” phonics thanks to the passage of The Reading Excellence Act of 1998—relies on the Skinnerian method to teach reading.
   Charlotte Iserbyt is the consummate whistle-blower. The writer describes her own personal experiences as a school board director and as senior policy advisor in the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational Research and Improvement—from which emanated most of the dumbing down programs described in this book. There are no sacred cows in Iserbyt’s reporting of the chronological history of education reform. With little fanfare, the agendas and methods of key reform leaders (conservative and liberal) are allowed to unmask themselves in their own words and by their own actions. Of particular interest is Iserbyt’s material on the issue of school “choice”— abundant evidence from both sides of the political spectrum. The reader will learn that private, Christian and home schools are all neatly tied into the reform web via computer technology, databanking, assessment testing and, ultimately, the intention to use rewards and penalties to enforce compliance to the “transformed” system of education in this country.
   The careful researcher will appreciate the fact that the book is heavily documented but user-friendly. Citations are designed for the average reader, not just the academician. The chronological format of the book allows one to read forward or backward in time, or one entry at a time, according to personal preference. The accompanying appendices provide a source of in-depth topical material, which frees up the chronological text from becoming bogged down in details. The index and glossary are such valuable research tools that they are worth the price of the book.
   Iserbyt does very little hand-holding throughout the book. Commentary is sparse; readers can make their own connections and insert their own personal experiences. Iserbyt has strategically laid down key pieces to a giant jigsaw puzzle. The overall picture is purposefully arranged to portray one point of view. However, readers will be hard-pressed to come up with an alternative view. Just when it seems that one piece of the puzzle is an isolated, insignificant event, suddenly one comes across a stunning new entry that puts the pieces tightly together to form a vivid picture of the overall plan. Try as one might, the reader cannot escape the consistent, deliberate, 100-year plan to dumb down the populace.
   Amidst all of the policy documents and historical data in the book, one can easily identify the heart of the writer. Iserbyt gently reminds the reader that the real issue at hand is the child. It is America’s children who are experiencing the full brunt of the new methods, new curricula and new agendas in the classroom. Many readers will experience the “light bulb”

turning on as they fully come to understand how the innovations which have occurred in education during the last century affected their parents, themselves, their children and grandchildren.
   Teachers may find the contents of this book particularly enlightening and refreshing. Iserbyt takes the reader behind the scenes to reveal the true nature of many popular classroom curricula. The truth will be comforting to those who have utilized certain programs or methods, and perhaps were troubled by them, but didn’t know the full scope or plan behind them. Iserbyt does not ignore or soft-peddle the ethical issues, but encourages the reader to take the high moral ground.
   The other day a caller phoned into Rush Limbaugh’s daily radio talk show. The caller’s wife earns $25,000 per year as a teacher. She has 30 students. Her school district receives $9,000 per year per student. This totals $270,000 per year. “Why isn’t my wife being paid more?” he asked. The caller—and people like him—should be referred to the deliberate dumbing down of america. In this book they will find the scandalous answer. It has something to do with why we have a generation of—as Limbaugh describes it—”young skulls full of mush.”
Sarah Leslie


Chapter 1   The Sowing of The Seeds:


The Sowing of The Seeds:
late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries


   “The Sowing Of The Seeds late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries” is the shortest chapter of the deliberate dumbing down of america. Undoubtedly, this chapter may be one of the most important since the philosophies of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Wilhelm Wundt, and John Dewey et al., reflect a total departure from the traditional definition of education like the one given in The New Century Dictionary of the English Language (Appleton, Century, Crofts: New York, 1927):
   The drawing out of a person’s innate talents and abilities by imparting the knowledge of languages, scientific reasoning, history, literature, rhetoric, etc.-the channels through which those abilities would flourish and serve.[1]
   A quantum leap was taken from the above definition to the new, dehumanizing definition used by the experimental psychologists found in An Outline of Educational Psychology (Barnes & Noble: New York, 1934, rev. ed.) by Rudolph Pintner et al. That truly revolutionary definition claims that
   learning is the result of modifiability in the paths of neural conduction. Explanations of even such forms of learning as abstraction and generalization demand of the neurones only growth, excitability, conductivity, and modifiability. The mind is the connection-system of man; and learning is the process of connecting. The situation-response formula is adequate to cover learning of any sort, and the really influential factors in learning are readiness of the neurones, sequence in time, belongingness, and satisfying consequences.[2]
   An in-depth understanding of the deplorable situation found in our nation’s schools today is

impossible without an understanding of the redefinition in the above statements. Education in the twenty-first century will, for the majority of youth, be workforce training. Thus, the need for Pavlovian/Skinnerian methodology based on operant conditioning which, in essence, is at the heart of the above dehumanizing definition of education. This “sowing of the seeds” through redefinition will reap the death of traditional, liberal arts education through the advent of mastery learning, outcome-based education, and direct instruction-all of which will be performance-based and behaviorist.

1762   Emile By Jean Jacques Rousseau (Chez Jean Neaulme Duchesne: A. Amsterdam [Paris], 1962)

Was published. Rousseau’s “Social Contract” presented in Emile influenced the French Revolution. In this book Rousseau promoted child-centered “permissive education” in which a teacher “should avoid strict discipline and tiresome lessons.” Both Rousseau (1712–1788) and Swiss educator Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi (1746–1827) believed that the “whole child” should be educated by “doing,” and that religion should not be a guiding principle in education, a theme we shall see repeated over the next 238 years'.

1832   Willhelm Wundt, Founder of Experimental Psychology

And the force behind its dissemination throughout the Western world, was born in 1832 in Neckarau, southern Germany. The following excerpts concerning Wundt’s contribution to modern education are taken from The Leipzig Connection: The Systematic Destruction of American Education by Paolo Lionni and Lance J. Klass[3] (Heron Books: Portland, Ore., 1980):
   To Wundt, a thing made sense and was worth pursuing if it could be measured, quantified, and scientifically demonstrated. Seeing no way to do this with the human soul, he proposed that psychology concern itself solely with experience. As Wundt put it... Karl Marx injected Hegel’s theories with economics and sociology, developing a “philosophy of dialectical materialism.”... (p. 8)
   From Wundt’s work it was only a short step to the later redefinition of education. Originally, education meant drawing out of a person’s innate talents and abilities by imparting the knowledge of languages, scientific reasoning, history, literature, rhetoric, etc.-the channels through which those abilities would flourish and serve. To the experimental psychologist, however, education became the process of exposing the student to “meaningful” experiences so as to ensure desired reactions:
[L]earning is the result of modifiability in the paths of neural conduction. Explanations of even such forms of learning as abstraction and generalization demand of the neurones only growth, excitability, conductivity, and modifiability. The mind is the connection-system of man; and learning is the process of connecting. The situation-response formula is adequate to cover learning of any sort, and the really influential factors in learning are readiness of the neurones, sequence in time, belongingness, and satisfying consequences.[4]

   If one assumes (as did Wundt) that there is nothing there to begin with but a body, a brain, a nervous system, then one must try to educate by inducing sensations in that nervous system. Through these experiences, the individual will learn to respond to any given stimulus, with the “correct” response. The child is not, for example, thought capable of volitional control over his actions, or of deciding whether he will act or not act in a certain way; his actions are thought to be preconditioned and beyond his control, he is a stimulusresponse mechanism. According to this thinking, he is his reactions. Wundt’s thesis laid the philosophical basis for the principles of conditioning later developed by Pavlov (who studied physiology in Leipzig in 1884, five years after Wundt had inaugurated his laboratory there) and American behavioral psychologists such as Watson and Skinner; for laboratories and electroconvulsive therapy; for schools oriented more toward socialization of the child than toward the development of intellect; and for the emergence of a society more and more blatantly devoted to the gratification of sensory desire at the expense of responsibility and achievement. (pp. 14–15)
[Ed. Note:
   The reader should purchase The Leipzig Connection: The Systematic Destruction of American Education, a slim paperback book which, in this writer’s opinion, is the most useful and important book available regarding the method used to change children’s behavior/values and to “dumb down” an entire society. The authors, Lionni and Klass, have made an outstanding contribution to the history of American education and to the understanding of why and how America, which up until the 1930s had the finest education system in the world, ended up with one of the worst education systems in the industrialized world in a short period of fifty years.
   Another commentary on the importance of Wundt’s theories comes from Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D., in an excellent article entitled “The Conditioning of America” (The Christian News, New Haven, Mo., December 11, 1989).[5] An excerpt follows: The conditioning of modern American society began with John Dewey, a psychologist, a Fabian Socialist and the “Father of Progressive Education.” Dewey used the psychology developed in Leipzig by Wilhelm Wundt, and believed that through a stimulus-response approach (like Pavlov) students could be conditioned for a new social order.]

1862   The First Experiment With "Outcome-Based Education" (OBE)

Was Conducted In England in 1862. Teacher opposition resulted in abandonment of the experiment. Don Martin of University of Pittsburgh, George E. Overholt and Wayne J. Urban of Georgia State University wrote Accountability in American Education: A Critique (Princeton Book Company: Princeton, N.J., 1976) containing a section entitled “Payment for Results” which chronicles the English experiment. The following excerpt outlines the experiment:
   The call for “sound and cheap” elementary instruction was answered by legislation, passed by Parliament during 1862, known as The Revised Code. This was the legislation that produced payment [for] results, the nineteenth century English accountability system.... The opposition to the English payment-[for]-results system which arose at the time of its introduction was particularly interesting. Teachers provided the bulk of the resistance, and they

   based their objections on both educational and economic grounds.... They abhorred the narrowness and mechanical character the system imposed on the educational process. They also objected to the economic burden forced upon them by basing their pay on student performance.
[Ed. Note:
   “Payment for Results” and Outcome-Based Education are based on teacher accountability and require teaching to the test, the results of which are to be “measured” for accountability purposes. Both methods of teaching result in a narrow, mechanistic system of education similar to Mastery Learning. Teachers in the United States in 1999, as were teachers involved in the experiment in England, will be judged and paid according to students’ test scores; i.e., how well the teachers teach to the test. Proponents of Mastery Learning believe that almost all children can learn if given enough time, adequate resources geared to the individual learning style of the student, and a curriculum aligned to test items (teach to the test). Mastery Learning uses Skinnerian methodology (operant conditioning) in order to obtain “predictable” results. Benjamin Bloom, the father of Mastery Learning, says that “the purpose of education is to change the thoughts, actions and feelings of students.” Mastery Learning (ML) and its fraternal twin Direct Instruction (DI) are key components of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) and Effective Schools Research (ESR). The reader is urged to study the definitions of all these terms, including the behaviorist term section found in the glosssary of this book prior to reading further. The one common thread running through this book relates to these terms and their importance in the implementation of workforce training and attitude and value change.]

1874   Edward Lee Thorndike

   Was born August 31, 1874 In Williamsburg, Massachusetts. Thorndike was trained in the new psychology by the first generation of Wilhelm Wundt’s protegés. He graduated from Wesleyan University in 1895 after having studied with Wundtians Andrew C. Armstrong and Charles Judd. He went to graduate school at Harvard and studied under psychologist William James. While at Harvard, Thorndike surprised James by doing research with chickens, testing their behavior, and pioneering what later became known as “animal psychology.” As briefly stated by Thorndike himself, psychology was the “science of the intellect, character, and behavior of animals, including man.”[6] To further excerpt The Leipzig Connection’s excellent treatment of Thorndike’s background:
   Thorndike applied for a fellowship at Columbia, was accepted by Cattell, and moved with his two most intelligent chickens to New York, where he continued his research and earned his Ph.D. in 1893. Thorndike’s specialty was the “puzzle box,” into which he would put various animals (chickens, rats, cats) and let them find their way out by themselves. His doctoral dissertation on cats has become part of the classical literature of psychology. After receiving his doctorate, he spent a year as a teacher at Western Reserve University, and it wasn’t long before Cattell advised Dean [James Earl] Russell to visit Thorndike’s first classroom at Western Reserve: “Although the Dean found him ‘dealing with the investigations of mice and monkeys,’ he came away satisfied that he was worth trying out on humans.”
   Russell offered Thorndike a job at Teachers College, where the experimenter remained for the next thirty years. Thorndike was the first psychologist to study animal behavior in an

   experimental psychology laboratory and (following Cattell’s suggestion) apply the same techniques to children and youth; as one result, in 1903, he published the book Educational Psychology. In the following years he published a total of 507 books, monographs, and articles.
   Thorndike’s primary assumption was the same as Wundt’s: that man is an animal, that his actions are actually always reactions, and that he can be studied in the laboratory in much the same way as an animal might be studied. Thorndike equated children with the rats, monkeys, fish, cats, and chickens upon which he experimented in his laboratory and was prepared to apply what he found there to learning in the classroom. He extrapolated “laws” from his research into animal behavior which he then applied to the training of teachers, who took what they had learned to every corner of the United States and ran their classrooms, curricula, and schools, on the basis of this new “educational” psychology.
   In The Principles of Teaching Based on Psychology (1906), Thorndike proposed making “the study of teaching scientific and practical.” Thorndike’s definition of the art of teaching is
   the art of giving and withholding stimuli with the result of producing or preventing certain responses. In this definition the term stimulus is used widely for any event which influences a person-for a word spoken to him, a look, a sentence which he reads, the air he breathes, etc., etc. The term response is used for any reaction made by him-a new thought, a feeling of interest, a bodily act, any mental or bodily condition resulting from the stimulus. The aim of the teacher is to produce desirable and prevent undesirable changes in human beings by producing and preventing certain responses. The means at the disposal of the teacher are the stimuli which can be brought to bear upon the pupil-the teacher’s words, gestures, and appearance, the condition and appliances of the school room, the books to be used and objects to be seen, and so on through a long list of the things and events which the teacher can control.

1896   Psychology By John Dewey, The Father Of "Progressive Education,"

   Was Published (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1896). This was the first American textbook on the “revised” subject of education. Psychology would become the most widely-read and quoted textbook used in schools of education in this country. Just prior to the publication of his landmark book, Dewey had joined the faculty of the Rockefeller-endowed University of Chicago as head of the combined departments of philosophy, psychology and pedagogy (teaching). In that same year, 1895, the university allocated $1,000 to establish a laboratory in which Dewey could apply psychological principles and experimental techniques to the study of learning. The laboratory opened in January 1896 as the Dewey School, later to become known as The University of Chicago Laboratory School.[7] Dewey thought of the school as a place where his theories of education could be put into practice, tested, and scientifically evaluated....
   ...Dewey... sought to apply the doctrines of experience and experiment to everyday life and, hence, to education... seeking via this model institution to pave the way for the “schools of the future.” There he had put into actual practice three of the revolutionary beliefs he had culled from the new psychology: that to put the child in possession of his fullest talents,

   education should be active rather than passive; that to prepare the child for a democratic society, the school should be social rather than individualist; and that to enable the child to think creatively, experimentation rather than imitation should be encouraged.[8]
   Samuel Blumenfeld in his book, The Whole Language/OBE Fraud (Paradigm Co.: Boise, Idaho, 1996), further explains Dewey’s perspective:
   What kind of curriculum would fit the school that was a mini-cooperative society? Dewey’s recommendation was indeed radical: build the curriculum not around academic subjects but around occupational activities which provided maximum opportunities for peer interaction and socialization. Since the beginning of Western civilization, the school curriculum was centered around the development of academic skills, the intellectual faculties, and high literacy. Dewey wanted to change all of that. Why? Because high literacy produced that abominable form of independent intelligence which was basically, as Dewey believed, anti-social.
   Thus, from Dewey’s point of view, the school’s primary commitment to literacy was indeed the key to the whole problem. In 1898, Dewey wrote an essay, “The Primary - Education Fetish,” in which he explained exactly what he meant:
   There is... a false education god whose idolators are legion, and whose cult influences the entire educational system. This is language study — the study not of foreign language, but of English; not in higher, but in primary education. It is almost an unquestioned assumption, of educational theory and practice both, that the first three years of a child’s school life shall be mainly taken up with learning to read and write his own language. If we add to this the learning of a certain amount of numerical combinations, we have the pivot about which primary education swings.... It does not follow, however, that conditions—social, industrial and intellectual—have undergone such a radical change, that the time has come for a thoroughgoing examination of the emphasis put upon linguistic work in elementary instruction.... The plea for the predominance of learning to read in early school life because of the great importance attaching to literature seems to me a perversion.
1 Paolo Lionni and Lance J. Klass. The Leipzig Connection: The Systematic Destruction of American Education (Heron Books: Portland, Ore., 1980).
2 Ibid.
3 The Leipzig Connection may be obtained by sending a check for $11.45 to: Heron Books, P.O. Box 503, Sheridan, OR, or by calling 1–503–843–3834.
4 Rudolph Pintner et al. An Outline of Educational Psychology, Revised (Barnes & Noble: New York, 1934), p. 79.
5 Dr. Cuddy’s important publications on the history of American education, from which this writer has frequently quoted, can be obtained by writing: Florida ProFamily Forum, Inc., P.O. Box 1059, Highland City, FL 33846–1059; or by calling 1–914–644–6218. Cuddy’s newly revised edition of Chronology of Education with Quotable Quotes and Secret Records Revealed: The Men, the Money and the Methods Behind the New World Order should be in the library of every serious education researcher.
6 The Leipzig Connection, pp. 36–39.
7 Ibid.
8 These quotes taken from Ida B. DePencier’s book, The History of the Laboratory Schools: The University of Chicago, 1896–1965 (Quadrangle Books: Chicago, 1967) and A History of Teachers College: Columbia University by Lawrence A. Cremin, David A. Shannon, and Mary Evelyn Townsend (Columbia University Press: New York, 1934), as cited in The Leipzig Connection.


Chapter 2   The Turning Of The Tides:


The Turning Of The Tides:
Early Twentieth Century


   For a nation that had been able to point with pride to extraordinary advances in all areas of endeavor carried out by individuals, with no assistance whatsoever from the government, the early years of the twentieth century surely reflected a “Turning of the Tides.” An alien collectivist (socialist) philosophy, much of which came from Europe, crashed onto the shores of our nation, bringing with it radical changes in economics, politics, and education, funded—surprisingly enough—by several wealthy American families and their tax-exempt foundations.
   The goal of these wealthy families and their foundations—a seamless non-competitive global system for commerce and trade—when stripped of flowery expressions of concern for minorities, the less fortunate, etc., represented the initial stage of what this author now refers to as the deliberate dumbing down of america.
   Seventy years later, the carefully laid plans to change America from a sovereign, constitutional republic with a free enterprise economic base to just one of many nations in an international socialist (collectivist) system (New World Order) are apparent. Only a dumbed down population, with no memory of America’s roots as a prideful nation, could be expected to willingly succumb to the global workforce training planned by the Carnegie Corporation and the John D. Rockefellers, I and II, in the early twentieth century which is being implemented by the United States Congress in the year 1999.
* “The Turning of the Tides” is the title of a report submitted to Congress by Hon. Paul W. Shafer (Mich.) and John Howland Snow. The original text was delivered in the House of Representatives on March 21, 1952.


1902   The General Education Board (GEB)

   Was incorporated by an act of The United States Congress. Approved January 12, 1902, the General Education Board was endowed by Mr. John D. Rockefeller, Sr., for the purpose of establishing an educational laboratory to experiment with early innovations in education.

1905   In 1905 The Intercollegiate Socialist Society(ISS)

   Was founded in New York City by Upton Sinclair, Jack London, Clarence Darrow and others. Its permanent headquarters were established at the Rand School of Social Studies in 1908 and ISS became the League for Industrial Democracy (LID) in 1921. John Dewey became president of the League for Industrial Democracy in 1939.

The Carnegie Foundation For The Advancement of Teaching Was Founded In 1905.

   Henry S. Pritchett served as the Foundation’s first president. Pritchett was the author of What Is Religion and Other Student Questions (Houghton Mifflin Company: Boston, 1906), Relations of Denominations to Colleges (1908), and A Woman’s Opportunities in Christian Industry and Business (1907).

1906   National Education Association (NEA)

   Became a federally chartered association for teachers in 1906 under the authority of H.R. 10501. Originally founded in 1857, it was known as the National Teachers Association until 1870.

1908   In 1908 Italian Educator, The Late Maria Montessori (1870–1952),

   Developed a method of teaching—relying on guidance and training of senses rather than more rigid control of children’s activities—which would be very influential throughout the rest of the century. Montessori was a doctor who, after graduating from medical school in Rome, took a position at a psychiatric clinic and became interested in helping retarded children. Her pedagogical mentor became Edouard Seguin, a French physician who worked with retarded children and who promoted the idea that having the children work with concrete objects helped their physical and mental development.
Montessori opened her first Casa dei Bambini (Montessori school) in Rome in 1907. She created a classroom climate in which her belief that a child’s “individual liberty” would be

violated “if two children want the same material” and are not “left to settle the problem for themselves” or by forcibly removing a misbehaving child from a group. Montessori, much like Rudolph Steiner of Germany, taught that each child is already a perfectly developed adult human being and that through her educational process “the incarnating child” can find his own place in the cosmos. It should be noted that at one time Benito Mussolini was president of the Montessori Society of Italy.
   The Montessori Method was published in 1912 and much of Montessori’s work was printed by the Theosophical Publishing House. Montessori once lived with the Theosophists in India and earned the praise of Mahatma Gandhi with her “Cosmic Education” which was popular with Hindus and Theosophists worldwide. Elizabeth Clare Prophet, the cultic head of the Church Universal and Triumphant, founded a group called Montessori International, and Robert Muller, the celebrated author of the New Age World Core Curriculum, in a Costa Rica speech claimed that the Montessori Method was one of the educational programs which would greatly benefit global children for the New Age.
   In her Education for a New World Montessori wrote that “The world was not created for us to enjoy, but we are created to evolve the cosmos.” In an issue of the North American Montessori Teachers Association Journal one finds the following revealing comment:
   Maria Montessori, along with many other enlightened thinkers of our time, foresaw nothing less than the emergence of a new human culture. This new culture, a global, planetized humanity, would be based on a new consciousness of the unity and interdependence of all being, the interconnectedness of all forms of energy and matter. It is a culture of the present paradigm shift, by which we are beginning to align ourselves to educate the human potential for conscious cooperation with the evolution of life on the planet.[1]

1913   John D. Rockefeller, JR.'S Director Of Charity For The Rockefeller Foundation,

   Frederick T. Gates, set up the Southern Education Board (SEB), which was later incorporated into the General Education Board (GEB) in 1913, setting in motion “the deliberate dumbing down of America.” The Country School of Tomorrow: Occasional Papers No. 1 (General Education Board: New York, 1913) written by Frederick T. Gates contained a section entitled “A Vision of the Remedy” in which he wrote the following:
Is there aught of remedy for this neglect of rural life? Let us, at least, yield ourselves to the gratifications of a beautiful dream that there is. In our dream, we have limitless resources, and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hand. The present educational conventions fade from our minds; and, unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning or of science.We are not to raise up from among them authors, orators, poets, or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians. Nor will we cherish even the humbler ambition to raise up from among them lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we now have ample supply.


1914   A Resolution Was Passed By The Normal School Section Of The National Education Association

At its annual meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota in the year 1914. An excerpt follows:
   We view with alarm the activity of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations—agencies not in any way responsible to the people—in their efforts to control the policies of our State educational institutions, to fashion after their conception and to standardize our coursesof study, and to surround the institutions with conditions which menace true academic freedom and defeat the primary purpose of democracy as heretofore preserved inviolate in our common schools, normal schools, and universities.

1917   The 1917 Congressional Record Of The United States Senate Published The Following Excerpt

from a booklet containing articles by Bishop Warren A. Candler, Chancellor of Emory University in Atlanta:
   This board [the General Education Board] was authorized to do almost every conceivable thing which is anywise related to education, from opening a kitchen to establishing a university, and its power to connect itself with the work of every sort of educational plant or enterprise conceivable will be especially observed. This power to project its influence over other corporations is at once the greatest and most dangerous power it has. (p. 2831)

The United States Entered World War I In 1917.


1918   In The January 13, Issue Of New York World William Boyce Thompson,

Federal Reserve Bank director and founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations, stated that
   Russia is pointing the way to great and sweeping world changes. It is not in Russia alone that the old order is passing. There is a lot of the old order in America, and that is going, too.... I’m glad it is so. When I sat and watched those democratic conclaves in Russia, I felt I would welcome a similar scene in the United States.
[Ed. Note:
M. Maxine Tremaine of Massachusetts, recognized for her careful research related to international affairs, made the following statements regarding Willian Boyce Thompson before the National Convention of Women for Constitutional Government in a July 1983 speech entitled “Russia Is the Model Country of International Bankers and Industrialists Administered by the United Nations Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland”:
“William Boyce Thompson personally contributed $1 million to the Russian Revolution. He also arranged for the transfer of money from the United States to (the Communist revolutionaries).”]


Carnegie And Rockefeller Foundations

Planned the demise of traditional academic education in 1918. Rockefeller’s focus would be national education; Carnegie would be in charge of international education.

1919   The Institute Of international Education (IIE) Was Founded In 1919

Through A grant from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The Institute’s purpose was to operate a student exchange program. This process of “exchanges” grew in concept and practice with the IIE administering visitor exchange programs for the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) in the 1990s. The U.S.-Soviet Education Agreements were negotiated by the Carnegie Endowment’s parent organization, the Carnegie Corporation, fostering exchanges of curriculum, pedagogy and materials as well as students.

The Progressive Education Association (P.E.A.) Was Founded In 1919

And Organized by John Dewey, even though he would not become a member in its early years. P.E.A.’s goals and aims were projected for the last half of this century at a board meeting held November 15–17, 1943 in Chicago, Illinois. Attendees included: Harold Rugg, Marion Carswell, Arthur Gould, Theodore Brameld, Prudence Bosterick, and Carson Ryan. Speaking of their plans for the period following World War II, the board published a statement in its journal Progressive Education (December 1943, Vol. XX, No. 8) which included the following excerpt:
   This is a global war, and the peace now in the making will determine what our national life will be for the next century. It will demonstrate the degree of our national morality. We are writing now the credo by which our children must live....
   Your Board unanimously proposes a broadening of the interests and program of this Association to include the communities in which our children live. To this end, they propose additions to the governing body to include representatives of welfare services, health, industry, labor and the professions. In short, a cross-section body to give scope to our program....
   Yes, something happened around a table in Chicago. An organization which might have become mellowed with the years to futility, in three short days again drew a blueprint for children of the world.
[Ed. Note:
For what “our national life will be for the rest of this century” and perhaps on into the next, see the 1946 Mongomery County Blueprint and 1999 Gwinnett Daily entries.]

1921   In 1921 The League For Industrial Democracy

Changed its name from the Intercollegiate Socialist Society (ISS) and stated its purpose as: “Education for a new social order based on production and not for profit” (“A Chronology of Education,” Dorothy Dawson, 1978).


Harold Rugg, Writer Of Social Studies Textbook Series Entitled The Frontier Thinkers

which was published by the Progressive Education Association, in 1921 became president of the National Association of Directors of Education Research which would later become known as the American Educational Research Association.

The Council On Foreign Relations

Was established in 1921 through the efforts of Col. Edwin Mandell House, confidant extraordinaire to President Woodrow Wilson and aboutwhom Wilson said, “Mr. House is my second personality… His thoughts and mine are one.” House was the initiator of the effort to establish this American branch of the English Royal Institute of International Affairs. Prior to 1921, House’s group, “the Inquiry,” called the CFR the “Institute of International Affairs.” In 1912 House had authored Philip Dru: Administrator which promoted “socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx” about which book Wilson’s Secretary of the Interior Franklin Lane wrote to a personal friend: “All that book has said should be, comes about. The President comes to Philip Dru in the end.”
Walter Lippmann, member of the Fabian Society and Intercollegiate Socialist Society, was a founding member of the CFR. Whitney Shepardson was a director of the CFR from 1921 until 1966. Shepardson had been an assistant to Col. House in the 1918 peace conference following World War I and served as secretary of the League of Nations committee. Shepardson later became a director of the Carnegie Corporation British and Colonies fund. Other early CFR members included: Charles E. (Chip) Bohlen, first secretary to the American embassy in Moscow during World War II and President Franklin Roosevelt’s interpreter for his meeting with Josef Stalin at the Teheran conference; Frank Aydelotte, a trustee of the Carnegie Foundation, president of Swarthmore College, American secretary to the (Cecil) Rhodes Trustees (of the Rhodes Scholarship Fund), and director of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton; Secretary of War Henry Stimson, who initiated George Bush into “Skull and Bones” and whose special consultant Bernadotte Schmitt had also been a special advisor to Alger Hiss when he had served as secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco in 1945; and William Paley, founder of the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS) whose chief advisor was Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freud’s nephew who wrote Propaganda, in which Bernays reveals:
Those who manipulate the organized habits and opinions of the masses constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of the country…. It remains a fact in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by this relatively small number of persons.... As civilization has become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which opinion may be regimented.
The late Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University described the CFR as “a front for J.P Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group.” Quigley further commented:
The board of the CFR have carried ever since the marks of their origin…. There grew up in the 20th century a power structure between London and New York which penetrated deeply into university life, the press, and the practice of foreign policy.... The American branch of

this “English Establishment” exerted much of its influence through five American newspapers (New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, Washington Post, and the late lamented Boston Evening Transcript).[2]
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., penned a tome entitled A Thousand Days in 1965 in which he wrote that the New York financial and legal community was the heart of the American establishment.... Its front organizations [were] the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations.

1922   On December 15, 1922 The Council On Foreign Relations Endorsed World Government.


1925   The International Bureau Of Education,

Formerly known as The Institute Jean-Jacques Rousseau, was established in 1925 with a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. The Bureau became part of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

In 1925 Tennessee vs. John Thomas Scopes, Or The Scopes "Monkey Trail,”

Took place in Dayton, Tennessee. This trial was an important educational milestone regarding the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools. Scopes pitted two famous barristers of the day—William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow—against each other. The basic argument of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the evolutionists’ was that evolutionary theory should not be censored from the public schools. After this trial, Fabian Socialist and first head of UNESCO Sir Julian Huxley claimed that humanism’s “keynote, the central concept to which all its details are related, is evolution.”
[Ed. Note:
Huxley could have continued by predicting that educational and training methods in the future would be based on the theory of evolution—that man is an animal to be trained as Pavlov, Thorndike and Skinner trained animals, as with outcome-based education, mastery learning and direct instruction.]

1927   The Christian Science Monitor Of August 8, 1927

Quoted from an address to the World Federation of Education Associations (WFEA) at their Toronto, Canada conference delivered by Dr. Augustus Thomas, commissioner of education for the state of Maine. Ex-

cerpts from Dr. Thomas’s revealing address follow:
   If there are those who think we are to jump immediately into a new world order, actuated by complete understanding and brotherly love, they are doomed to disappointment. If we are ever to approach that time, it will be after patient and persistent effort of long duration. The present international situation of mistrust and fear can only be corrected by a formula of equal status, continuously applied, to every phase of international contacts, until the cobwebs of the old order are brushed out of the minds of the people of all lands. This means that the world must await a long process of education and a building up of public conscience and an international morality, or, in other words, until there is a world-wide sentiment which will back up the modern conception of a world community. This brings us to the international mind, which is nothing more or less than the habit of thinking of foreign relations and business affecting the several countries of the civilized world as free co-operating equals.

1928   A Deliberate Math "Dumb Down"

Was seriously discussed in 1928. A Teacher named O.A. Nelson, John Dewey, Edward Thorndike (who conducted early behavioral psychology experiments with chickens), and other Council on Foreign Relations members attended a Progressive Education Association meeting in 1928 at which O.A. Nelson was informed that the purpose of “new math” was to dumb down students. Nelson revealed in a later interview with Young Parents Alert that the Progressive Education Association was a communist front. According to the National Educator (July, 1979):
   Mr. O.A. Nelson, retired educator, has supplied the vitally important documentation needed to support the link-up between the textbooks and the Council on Foreign Relations. His letter was first printed in “Young Parents Alert” (Lake Elmo, Minnesota). His story is self-explanatory.
   I know from personal experience what I am talking about. In December 1928, I was asked to talk to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. On December 27th, naïve and inexperienced, I agreed. I had done some special work in teaching functional physics in high school. That was to be my topic. The next day, the 28th, a Dr. Ziegler asked me if I would attend a special educational meeting in his room after the AAAS meeting. We met from 10 o’clock [p.m.] until after 2:30 a.m.
We were 13 at the meeting. Two things caused Dr. Ziegler, who was Chairman of the Educational Committee of the Council on Foreign Relations, to ask me to attend... my talk on the teaching of functional physics in high school, and the fact that I was a member of a group known as the Progressive Educators of America, which was nothing but a Communist front. I thought the word “progressive” meant progress for better schools. Eleven of those attending the meeting were leaders in education. Drs. John Dewey and Edward Thorndike, from Columbia University, were there, and the others were of equal rank. I checked later and found that ALL were paid members of the Communist Party of Russia. I was classified as a member of the Party, but I did not know it at the time.
The sole work of the group was to destroy our schools! We spent one hour and forty-five minutes discussing the so-called “Modern Math.” At one point I objected because there was too much memory work, and math is reasoning; not memory. Dr. Ziegler turned to me and said, “Nelson, wake up! That is what we want... a math that the pupils

cannot apply to life situations when they get out of school!” That math was not introduced until much later, as those present thought it was too radical a change. A milder course by Dr. Breckner was substituted but it was also worthless, as far as understanding math was concerned. The radical change was introduced in 1952. It was the one we are using now. So, if pupils come out of high school now, not knowing any math, don’t blame them. The results are supposed to be worthless.
[Ed. Note:
Mr. Nelson was formerly assistant principal at Wilson High School, Minneapolis, Minnesota, as well as Johnson High School in St. Paul. This writer was fortunate enough to verify the above story by calling a teacher colleague of the late Mr. Nelson. Also, members of the “Young Parents Alert” in Lake Elmo, Minnesota provided the writer with an audiocasette of the speech he gave at a Young Parents Alert education conference on April 28, 1979.]
1 The referenced North American Association for Montessori Teachers Association Journal is published by the North American Association for Montessori Teachers Association (Cleveland Heights, Ohio, 1988, 4th quarter).
2 Much of the information in the entry concerning the formation of the Council on Foreign Relations, including Prof. Quigley’s quote, is taken from the recently updated edition of Dr. Dennis Laurence Cuddy’s Secret Records Revealed: The Men, the Money, and the Methods Behind the New World Order (Hearthstone Publishing, Ltd.: Oklahoma City, 1999).


Chapter 3   The Troubling Thirties:


The Troubling Thirties

   “And the builder of this new world must be education.... Plainly, the first step in the case of each country is to train an elite to think, feel, and act internationally.” The preceding words of Paul Mantoux of Paris, France are taken from the foreword to International Understanding by John Eugene Harley, published by the Stanford University Press in 1931.
   A flock of individuals of collectivist persuasion jumped on Monsieur Mantoux’s bandwagon in “The Troubling Thirties.” Aldous Huxley brought along his Brave New World; Professor George Counts contributed his Dare the School Build a New Social Order?; William Z. Foster (national chairman of the Communist Party of the United States of America) wrote his Toward a Soviet America; John Dewey co-authored The Humanist Manifesto I; the Carnegie Corporation added its Conclusions and Recommendations for the Social Studies and its Eight-Year Study (which was in the 1990s referred to by the Education Commission of the States as the model for Outcome-Based Education); and surprisingly, Herbert Hoover proposed a Research Committee on Recent Social Trends to Implement the Planned Society.
   The thirties were indeed troubling. Unfortunately, the average American was unaware of the important steps being taken to collectivize (socialize) this nation, particularly that of utilizing the schools as the vehicle through which Mantoux’s “new world” could be brought into being.


1931   International Understanding By John Eugene Harley:

Stanford Iniversity Press Stanford, Calif., 1931 was published. Excerpts from the foreword by Paul Mantoux of Paris, France follows:
   And the builder of this new world must be education. Education alone can lay the foundation on which the building is to rest. On this point a kind of consensus has been reached by those who trust the future of international cooperation and those who refuse to believe in it. When the latter go about repeating that to succeed in such a task one would have to change human nature, they do but exaggerate the acknowledged need for a gradual and patient reshaping of the public mind.... How can a well-prepared elite be raised throughout the world to spread its influence over the masses, who can then support them in their turn?... Here we encounter the real problem, and it is essentially a problem of education.... During the last decade of the nineteenth century, in England, a group of men devoted to the study of economic problems endeavored to prepare the public mind for broad changes which, in their view, must be effected if social peace is to be preserved. To this end they founded the London School of Economics and Political Science, which today ranks among the most famous institutions of education. In our day, the problem has become more far-reaching still. Brutal events have supplied evidence of a truth that had been slowly gaining ground, namely, the interdependence of nations and the need for establishing in the world an order and harmony hitherto lacking.
   Some [undertakings] have specialized in one branch of knowledge, like the Institute of Pacific Relations; others cover the whole field of political science, like the Ecole des Sciences Politiques, the London School of Economics, and the Deutsche Hochschule fur Politik. Some are debating or research centers, widely differing in character from one another according as their tendency is scientific rather than political; such are the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Social Science Research Council, and the American Academy of Political and Social Science.... the World Education Association and the International Bureau of Education are endeavoring to compare education in civilized countries and to bridge differences by a process of mutual borrowing of methods.... Plainly, the first step in the case of each country is to train an elite to think, feel, and act internationally.

1932   Brave New World( Doubleday, Dotan: Garden City, N.Y., 1932 ) By Aldous Huxley,

The renowned English novelist and essayist, was published. In this famous work Huxley satirized the mechanical world of the future in which technology replaced much of the everyday activities of humans.

Proffessor George Counts Of Columbis University Teachers College Wrote

Dare The School Build A New Social Order? (John Day Company: New York, 1932).
He and many other American educators traveling back and forth to Russia became completely convinced that the Soviet Communist system was the ultimate system. Counts was deeply involved in, and a member of, the Carnegie Foundation-financed Commission on the Social Studies which produced the American Historical Association’s Conclusions and Recommendations: Report of the Commission on the Social Studies in 1934. He was also the author of The American Road to Culture series (Quinn and Broden, Co., Inc.: Rahway, N.J., 1930–1934) and The Soviet Chal-

lenge to America
(John Day Co.: New York, 1931). Excerpts from this entry’s major focus, Counts’s Dare the School Build a New Social Order?, follow:
   If property rights are to be diffused in industrial society, natural resources and all important forms of capital will have to be collectively owned.... This clearly means that, if democracy is to survive in the United States, it must abandon its individualistic affiliations in the sphere of economics.... Within these limits, as I see it, our democratic tradition must of necessity evolve and gradually assume an essentially collectivistic pattern.
   The important point is that fundamental changes in the economic system are imperative. Whatever services historic capitalism may have rendered in the past, and they have been many, its days are numbered. With its dedication [to] the principle of selfishness, its exaltation of the profit motive, its reliance upon the forces of competition, and its placing of property above human rights, it will either have to be displaced altogether or changed so radically in form and spirit that its identity will be completely lost.

Toward A Soviet America ( Elgin Enterprises, INC.: Los Angeles, 1932)

By William Z. Foster, national chairman of the Communist Party of the United States, was published. Foster died in 1961 in Moscow and was given a state funeral in the Kremlin. His book called for
   a U.S. Department of Education; implementation of a scientific materialist philosophy; studies revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic and other features of the bourgeois ideology; students taught on the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and general ethics of a new socialist society; present obsolete methods of teaching will be superseded by a scientific pedagogy. The whole basis and organization of capitalist science will be revolutionized. Science will become materialistic, hence truly scientific. God will be banished from the laboratories as well as from the schools.
[Ed. Note:
Everything called for by Foster has taken place. “Scientific pedagogy” is OBE/mastery learning/direct instruction (Pavlov/Skinner). See the 1973 entry for Foundations of Behavioral Research, Second Edition, for some of the implications of implementing “a scientific materialistic philosophy.”]

President Herbert Hoover Appointed A Research Committee On Recent Social Trends

To implement the planned society in 1932. (In 1919 Franklin Roosevelt had told a friend that he personally would like to see Hoover in the White House.) The Research Committee was not approved nor funded by Congress; it became an Executive Action and was underwritten by the Rockefeller Foundation. No report was made to Congress or to the people during the time it functioned. The work of that committee has been called “a monumental achievement by the largest community of social scientists ever assembled to assess the social condition of a nation.”[1]

The National Education Association Created The Educational Policies Commission (EPC)

in 1932 for the purpose of changing the Goals for American Education. In 1944

the EPC prepared a volume of extreme importance entitled Education for All American Youth. This highly promoted document told, in fictional format and as though it were a fait accompli, how the “Planners” would solve all the problems; not just of youth, but of two imaginary communities a village and a city through involving citizens in cooperation for the goals of the planners. The following goals are laid out in this book:
   • federal programs for health, education and welfare combined in one giant bureau
   • Head Start programs
   • getting pre-school children into the system
   • teacher participation in curriculum decisions
   • federal funds without federal control
   • youth services through a “poverty program”
   • removal of local control of political and educational matters “without seeming to do so”
   • sex education
[Ed. Note:
The involvement of “citizens in cooperation for the goals of the planners” is “participatory democracy,” unheard of publicly until twenty years later.[2]]

The Eight-Year Study

Was initiated by the commission on relation of school and college of the Progressive Education Association in 1932. Chairman of the Commission and author of The Story of the Eight-Year Study (Harper & Brothers: New York, 1942) Wilford M. Aikin chronicled the study’s beginnings and purposes. Recounting the proceedings at the 1930 annual meeting of the Progressive Education Association, Aikin wrote:
   In the course of... discussion many proposals for improvement of the work of our secondary schools were made and generally approved. But almost every suggestion was met with the statement, “Yes, that should be done in our high schools, but it can’t be done without risking students’ chances of being admitted to college. If the student doesn’t follow the pattern of subjects and units prescribed by the colleges, he probably will not be accepted.” ... [S]omeone with courage and vision proposed that the Progressive Education Association should be asked to establish a Commission on the Relation of School and College to explore possibilities of better co-ordination of school and college work and to seek an agreement which would provide freedom for secondary schools to attempt fundamental reconstruction.... All members agreed that secondary education in the United States needed experimental study and comprehensive re-examination in the light of fuller knowledge of the learning process and the needs of young people in our society.... (p. 2)
   It has been assumed that physical and emotional reactions are not involved in the learning process, but if they are, they are not very important. The newer concept of learning holds that a human being develops through doing those things which have meaning to him; that the doing involves the whole person in all aspects of his being; and that growth takes place as each experience leads to greater understanding and more intelligent reaction to new situations.
   Holding this view, the participating schools believed that the school should become a place in which young people work together at tasks which are clearly related to their purposes.... The school should stimulate his whole being. It should provide opportunities for the full exercise of his physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual powers as he strives to achieve recognition and a place of usefulness and honor in adult society. (p. 17)

   Beginning in 1933 and continuing through 1941, the Eight-Year Study laid the groundwork for many of the education “reforms” and innovations we are encountering today. Most of the funding for the study came from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the General Education Board. Commission and working committee members of note who participated in the study are: Wilford Aikin, Bruno Bettelheim, Burton P. Fowler, Frances Knapp, Louis Raths, Harold Rugg, Ralph Tyler, Hilda Taba, and Goodwin Watson.
Over the eight years of the study five volumes were published: The Story of the Eight-Year Study by Wilford Aikin; Exploring the Curriculum: The Work of the Thirty Schools from the Viewpoint of Curriculum Consultants by H.H. Giles, S.P. McCutcheon, and A.N. Zechiel; Appraising and Recording Student Progress: Evaluation Records and Reports in the Thirty Schools by Eugene R. Smith, Ralph W. Tyler and the evaluation staff; Did They Succeed in College?: The Follow-up Study of the Graduates of the Thirty Schools by Neal E. Drought and William E. Scott with preface by Max McConn; and Thirty Schools Tell Their Story: Each School Writes of Its Participation in the Eight-Year Study.
[Ed. Note:
As will be seen in later entries in this book, the Eight-Year Study was foundational to outcome-based education and proposals to remove the Carnegie Unit. The Carnegie Unit has traditionally been the measure of participation; a certain number of units—hours in each class—in various disciplines have been required of the student in order to graduate or be accepted at a college. The Carnegie Unit measure is representative of the educational philosophy reflected in most state constitutions—that the state is responsible to provide and make available educational opportunities to all its citizens. The removal of this unit has been a central feature of current OBE/ML reform plans which reflect the philosophy that the state must guarantee that all citizens receive and achieve an educational outcome determined by the state. A change from “inputs” to “outputs.”]

1933   Humanist Manifesto I Was Orginally Published In 1933

In the New Humanist (VOL. VI, #3, 1933: Yellow Springs, Ohio), the main publication of the American Humanist Association. Co-author John Dewey, the noted philosopher and educator, called for a synthesizing of all religions and a “socialized and cooperative economic order.” The following are excerpts taken from Secular Humanism and the Schools: The Issue Whose Time Has Come by Onalee McGraw, Ph.D. (Critical Issues, Series 2, The Heritage Foundation: Washington, D.C., 1976):
   The basis of humanist belief is that there is no Almighty God, the Creator and Sustainer of life. Humanists believe that man is his own god. They believe that moral values are relative, devised according to the needs of particular people, and that ethics are likewise situational.
   Humanists reject Judeo-Christian moral and ethical laws, such as those contained in the Ten Commandments, calling them “dogmatic,” “outmoded,” “authoritarian,” and a hindrance to human progress. In humanism, self-fulfillment, happiness, love, and justice are found by each man individually, without reference to any divine source. In the Judeo-Christian ethic, there is and can be no real self-fulfillment, happiness, love, or justice on earth that can be found which does not ultimately issue from Almighty God, the Creator and Sustainer.    Several main differences between the humanist ethic and the Judeo-Christian ethic

become clear upon reading the Humanist Manifestos I and II (1933 and 1973) and comparing them to the tenets of the Judeo-Christian ethic contained in the Old and New Testaments.... At issue is the basic concept concerning the nature of man and the “rules” by which men govern themselves individually, in society, and in government. In the Judeo-Christian ethic, man’s ultimate deliverance and salvation—his finding a means of living together on this planet, in peace, harmony, justice, and love—is through God’s given “rules.”
   For the humanist, man’s greatness, his coming of age, his total fulfillment is found when he no longer needs the idea of God. Man gets rid of God, not just to do what he wills but to regain possession of human greatness.
Is Humanistic Education unconstitutional? Inasmuch as humanistic curriculum programs and “values clarification” and “moral education” teaching strategies are based upon materialistic values found only in man’s nature itself, they reject the spiritual and moral tradition of theistic faith and religion. Thus, many parents who subscribe to Judeo-Christian belief oppose humanistic education in the tax-supported schools on grounds that such programs promote and advocate the religion of secular humanism in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
   The U.S. Supreme Court cited Secular Humanism as a religion in the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins (367 U.S. 488). Roy Torcaso, the appellant, a practicing Humanist in Maryland, had refused to declare his belief in Almighty God, as then required by State law in order for him to be commissioned as a notary public. The Court held that the requirement for such an oath “invades appellant’s freedom of belief and religion.” The Court declared in Torcaso that the “no establishment” clause of the First Amendment reached far more than churches of theistic faiths, that it is not the business of government or its agents to probe beliefs, and that therefore its inquiry is concluded by the fact of the profession of belief.
   The Court stated: “We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.”
   The Court has also stated “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.” The Torcaso and Abington cases defined secular humanism as a religion and prohibited the government from establishing a religion of secularism by affirmatively opposing hostility to theistic religion, values, and beliefs.[3]

In 1933 DR. Paul Mort, Chairman Of The Progressive Education Associations's Committee

on the Emergency in Education and one of the foremost authorities in the U.S. on school finance, wrote an article entitled “National Support for Our Public Schools,” which was published in the December issue of Progressive Education (The Progressive Education Association: Washington, D.C., 1933). An excerpt follows: 23 At a time when schools should be particularly alert in helping to meet new conditions [Depression era], far too many of the individuals equipped to help in meeting these conditions have been removed from the payrolls, and in a vast number of communities schools have been reduced to the task of dishing out traditional subject matter.
Ed. Note:
Read this quote at the next school budget meeting when taxpayers are being manipulated into paying more and more taxes to pay for controversial programs that have nothing

to do with “traditional subject matter.” You might point out that children were compelled to receive a better academic (traditional subject matter) education during the Depression due to hard times (less money). See the 1946 entry dealing with Community- Centered Schools: The Blueprint for another quote by Paul Mort regarding how long it takes to implement “change.”]

DR. Georgr Hartmann, Oriffessor Of Educational Psychology At Pennsylvania State College,

wrote “A New Definition of the Educated Man” for the December 1933 issue of Progressive Education. Hartmann was active in the League for Independent Political Action, the Farmer-Laborer Political Federation, and the Socialist Party. He was co-author of Readings in Industrial Psychology (Appleton) and a frequent contributor to psychological journals. Excerpts from “A New Definition of the Educated Man” follow: Some may at once protest, “What? Is education to have as one of its symptoms the acceptance of radical views?” The answer is “Yes,” if “radicalism” means any serious endeavor to alter our social arrangements for the better. We must consciously adopt and foster the position that it is the prime business of education to remake our institutions and our traditions—and learn to recognize the possession of this spirit as one of the main earmarks of the educated man.... The principal obstacle to the acceptance of this outcome is the persistence of a set of “inert” ideas (to use Whitehead’s phrase) which lingers to afflict our civilization. One of the most subtle and pernicious of these inherited and unexamined postulates is the view that the aim of education (or life, for that matter) is the development of the individual’s personality as such.... For good or for ill, we must cease training people for what they are going to do, and point out instead what they should do. It will probably fall to our generation to resurrect the word “ought” to its rightful status in the affairs of men—for what else are values if not areas of experience with an imperious push or pull emanating from them?
There are some purists who will be frightened by the indoctrination which must inevitably follow if this recommendation is effective.... Such an objection is silly, for since indoctrination of attitudes occurs anyhow, our sole concern must be to ensure that the right ones are established....
How any one with the least pretensions to higher education can fail to be thrilled by the ultimate prospects of a single world government, the abolition of war and poverty, the enhancement of beauty in daily life, and the enlightened practice of eugenics and euthenics, is a riddle which can be explained only by a blind, exclusive regard for the immediately practicable.... What nobler and more enlightened aim for education in this century can possibly be proposed than that it enlists the enthusiasms of youth for the attainment of more rational forms of group living.

1934   Conclusions And Recommendations For The Social Studies

Chas. Scribner's Sons: New York, 1934 Compiled by the American Historical Association was published. This book was the result of a project funded to the tune of $340,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York called “Investigation of the Social Studies in the Schools,” and was carried out by the American Historical Association. Professor Harold Laski, a philosopher of British socialism, said of this report: “At bottom, and stripped of its carefully neutral phrases, the report is an

educational program for a Socialist America.”[4] Important excerpts from Conclusions follow:
   The Commission is under special obligation to its sponsor, the American Historical Association. Above all, it recognizes its indebtedness to the Trustees of the Carnegie Corporation, whose financial aid made possible the whole five-year investigation of social science instruction in the schools, eventuating in the following Conclusions and Recommendations.
   The Commission could not limit itself to a survey of textbooks, curricula, methods of instruction, and schemes of examination, but was impelled to consider the condition and prospects of the American people as a part of Western Civilization merging into a world order. (p. 1)
Of utmost importance is the following admission of the planners’ goals to change our free enterprise/representative republic:
   The Commission was also driven to this broader conception of its task by the obvious fact that American civilization, in common with Western civilization, is passing through one of the great critical ages of history, is modifying its traditional faith in economic individualism, and is embarking upon vast experiments in social planning and control which call for large-scale cooperation on the part of the people.... (pp. 1–2)
   Cumulative evidence supports the conclusion that in the United States as in other countries, the age of laissez faire in economy and government is closing and a new ageof collectivism is emerging.... (p.16)
   The implications for education are clear and imperative: (a) the efficient functioning of the emerging economy and the full utilization of its potentialities require profound changes in the attitudes and outlook of the American people, especially the rising generation—a complete and frank recognition that the old order is passing, that the new order is emerging.... (pp. 34–35)
   Organized public education in the United States, much more than ever before, is now compelled, if it is to fulfill its social obligations, to adjust its objectives, its curriculum, its methods of instruction, and its administrative procedures to the requirements of the emerging integrated order.
   If the school is to justify its maintenance and assume its responsibilities, it must recognize the new order and proceed to equip the rising generation to cooperate effectively in the increasingly interdependent society and to live rationally and well within its limitations and possibilities.... Signed: A.C. Krey, Chairman; Charles A. Beard; Isaiah Bowman (signed with reservations printed as Appendix C); Ada Comstock; George S. Counts; Avery O. Craven; Guy Stanton Ford; Carlton J.H. Hayes; Henry Johnson; A.C. Krey; Leon C. Marshall; Jesse H. Newton; Jesse F. Steiner. (Frank A. Ballou, Edmund E. Day, Ernest Hom, and Charles E. Merriam declined to sign these Conclusions.) (p. 35)

1939   Mein Kamof By Adolph Hitler HITLER (Stackpole Sons Publishers: Germany, 1939)

WAS published. Excerpts follow:
   Academic school training, which today is the be-all and end-all of the State’s entire educational work, can be taken over by the populist state with but slight changes. These changes are in three fields....

   In the first place, the childish brain must in general not be burdened with things ninety-five per cent of which it does not need, and which it therefore forgets [emphasis in original]. The curriculum of primary and grammar schools, in particular, is a hybrid affair. In many of the individual subjects the material to be learned has increased to such an extent that only a fraction of it sticks in the individual’s head, and only a fraction of this abundance can be used, while on the other hand it is not enough for the purpose of a man working and his living in a certain field. Take for instance the ordinary civil servant who has graduated from secondary school or from the upper realschule, when he is thirty-five or forty; and test the school learning which he once so painfully acquired. How little of all the stuff that was then drummed into him still remains! One will, indeed, be answered: “Yes, but the object of the amount that was learned was not simply to put a man in possession of a great deal of information later, but to train his power of intellectual absorption, and the thinking power, particularly the power of observation of the brain.” This is true in part. But still there is danger that the youthful brain may be drowned in a flood of impressions which it is very seldom able to master, and whose individual elements it can neither sift nor judge according to their greater or less importance; and on top of that, it is usually not the inessential but the essential which is forgotten and sacrificed. Thus the main object of learning so much is lost; for after all it cannot consist in making the brain able to learn by unmeasured piling-up of instruction, but in creating for later life a fund of knowledge which the individual needs, and which through him once more benefits society....
Summing up: the populist state will have to put general scholastic instruction into a shortened form, including the very essentials. Outside of that, opportunity must be offered for thorough, specialized scholarly training. It is enough if the individual person is given a store of general knowledge in broad outline, receiving a thorough detailed and specialized training only in the field which will be his in later life.... The shortening of the schedule and of the number of classes thus attained would be used for the benefit of the development of the body, the character, of will and resolution.... There should be a sharp distinction between general and specialized knowledge. As the latter threatens, especially today, to sink more and more into service of Mammon, general cultivation, at least so far as its more idealistic approach is concerned, must be preserved as a counter-weight. Here too the principle must be incessantly pounded in that industry and technology, trade and commerce can flourish only so long as an idealistically minded national community provides the necessary conditions. These conditions are founded not on materialistic egoism, but on self-denying readiness for sacrifice.
[Ed. Note:
This author has quoted extensively from Mein Kampf’s chapter on education in order that the reader may see the similarity between Hitler’s views on education and workforce training and those of American government officials implementing OBE and school-to-work programs in the 1990s. The above quotations also bear a striking resemblance to Theodore Sizer’s Coalition of Essential Schools’ philosophy of “less is more” and to the 1988 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development’s Robert Muller World Core Curriculum in use in Eugene, Oregon and elsewhere.]

World War II Began In 1939.

1 This material has been excerpted from The Impossible Dream by K.M. Heaton (Hart Publications: Bellingham, Wash., 1990).
This important book may be ordered from K.M. Heaton by sending a check for $17.50 to: Hart Publications, 1507 Lincoln

Street, Bellingham, WA. 98226.
The Hon. John R. Rarick, former member of Congress, says of Mrs. Heaton’s The Impossible Dream: “This is a dynamic volume of must reading for every American who loves this country and our system of government. Her in-depth writing arouses an awareness of the greatness this nation has achieved, a fear as to where we are heading, and of how far we must fall before it will all come to a halt.... There is an obvious, concerted program to irrevocably change our USA, yet many go on day after day, taking for granted what they didn’t earn, and presuming the USA will go on forever. The change of our system from one of individual rights and freedoms to a one-world collective is taking place right before our very eyes.”
2 Ibid, p. 215.
3 See 1988 entry for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s ruling on protection in the workplace from “abusive and intrusive” training, rendered when Thomas served as chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
4 “A New Education for a New America”(The New Republic, July 29, 1936) carried quote by Prof. Harold Laski.


Chapter 4   The Fomentation Of The Forties And Fifties


The Fomentation Of The Forties And Fifties

   Most Webster’s dictionaries define the word “fomentation” as follows: “to stir up trouble, instigate; incite (as to foment a riot).” The forties and fifties will be remembered for the radical, un-American activities and views of some Americans and their paid staffs who, having risen to the highest levels in the tax-exempt foundations and government, were unfortunately accepted by the man on the street as having the best interests of this nation at heart.
   Had these individuals been dressed in dirty, ragged clothes, worn old shoes and funny felt hats, they would likely have been accused of “fomenting” or instigating trouble—planning the transformation of our nation from a sovereign, free constitutional republic to only one of many socialist democracies subservient to an internationalist world government. However, the fact that many of these gentlemen and their paid staffs were associated with Ivy League colleges, major industries, and prestigious civic and religious institutions, wore Brooks Brothers suits and button-down-collared shirts, and many had served with distinction in World War II worked to obscure the fact that their goals were alien to those of the average Main Street American-for that matter, alien to the Constitution of the United States of America and its Bill of Rights.
   United States membership in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1946 set in motion the destabilization of our society through the rejection of absolute morals and values, Judeo-Christian tradition, and Roman law. Legislation authorizing United States membership in UNESCO marked the end of United States autonomy in a very crucial area: that of education. From this time on UNESCO would dictate education policy to our government and

others. This legislation was accompanied by President Harry Truman’s remarkable statement: “Education must establish the moral unity of mankind.” Truman’s recommendation was bolstered by General Brock Chisholm, a Canadian psychiatrist and friend of Soviet agent Alger Hiss. Chisholm redefined health to include “mental” health, and presented a paper entitled “The Psychiatry of Enduring Peace and Social Progress” to the United Nations World Health Organization (WHO) in 1946 which “reinterpreted” (eradicated) the word “morality.” Chisholm asserted that    The reinterpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong… these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy.
   Brock Chisholm went on to recommend that teachers all over the world be trained in “no right/no wrong” psychotherapeutic techniques found in the schools today. The use of these techniques has resulted in (1) a high percentage of the populace (60% if the polls taken during the summer responding that lying under oath is not sufficient reason for a president’s removal from office, and (2) incredibly immoral/amoral and violent behavior of American youth.
   Has the reader ever seen a more exquisite illustration of the dialectic at work? Create the chaos; people naturally call for help. The next step is to impose the totalitarian solution. The “New World Disorder” (chaos), evident on the nightly news, will ultimately require the same totalitarian control described so well by George Orwell in his novel 1984. Orwell said, “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on the human face-forever... and remember, that is forever.”
   If one believes, as does this writer, that the well-being of mankind and the stability of this world and its institutions depend on the rule of law, then the 1940s and 1950s will be remembered as the commencement of the unraveling of civic order in the United States of America and throughout the world. The rule of law is usually based on concepts of right and wrong, grounded in some very widely accepted values that have been laid down since earliest times, and even spelled out in Roman law. Since the end of World War II, instead of the concept of law nations have been basing their actions on the United Nations’ humanistic (non-absolutist) situational ethics philosophy set forth in the statements of General Brock Chisholm and President Harry Truman.
   In 1948, shortly after General Chisholm made his recommendation to banish the concept of right and wrong, Professors B.F. Skinner and Alfred C. Kinsey published their books, Walden Two and Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, respectively. Skinner’s novel, Walden Two, recommended-amongst other radical things-that “children be reared by the state, to be trained from birth to demonstrate only desirable characteristics and behavior.” Kinsey, as a taxonomic scientist, wrested human sexuality from the constraints of love and marriage in order to advance the grand scheme to move America and the world toward the eugenic future envisioned by the elite scientists of the “New Biology,” a shift which would affect the legal and medical professions.[1]
In 1953 Professor Skinner published Science and Human Behavior in which he said, “Operant conditioning shapes behavior as a sculptor shapes a lump of clay."[2] Also, in 1953, as if commissioned

by Skinner and Kinsey to come up with a system to facilitate the necessary “changes” in behavior through operant conditioning and restructuring of the human personality (taxonomizing it), Professor Benjamin Bloom with the assistance of Professor David Krathwohl completed Taxonomy of Educational Objectives-a classification of learning behavior encompassing the cognitive, affective and psychomotor “domains” of learning.[3]
Webster’s Dictionary defines “taxonomy” as follows: “the study of the general principles of scientific classification: systematics.” It should be noted that “scientific classification” related to education of a human being involves breaking behavior down into categories—to be measured and observed-behavior (actions) which can be isolated from the human personality with its important spiritual dimension.
Bloom said in Taxonomy that “the philosopher, as well as the behavioral scientist must find ways of determining what changes (values) are desirable and perhaps what changes are necessary.” He stated that for the schools to attempt to change values is a virtual “Pandora’s Box,” but that
   [O]ur “box” must be opened if we are to face reality and take action, and that it is in this “box” that the most influential controls are to be found. The affective domain contains the forces that determine the nature of an individual’s life and ultimately the life of an entire people.
   Kinsey and Bloom, as scientists, were involved in the breaking down of man (taxonomizing) into units of behavior which Skinner, as a behaviorist, could identify, measure and change. This breaking down or “deconstructing of Man” was intended to separate man from his God-given, freedom-providing identity. This opened the door to the study of methods to control man and society: enter Skinner, representing the Behaviorist School of the non-science “science” of psychology. Bloom changed the focus of education from a general, liberal arts education which benefited man as a whole to a narrow training which would be based on the behavioral psychologists’ determination of what changes in “thoughts, feelings, and actions” would be desirable and, perhaps, necessary for the benefit of society as a whole.[4] Bloom’s Taxonomy provided the finishing and crucial touch to the foundation laid by Dewey and others of the bedrock of today’s education and teacher training.
   The work of Bloom, Kinsey and Skinner provided the ingredients for future moral chaos with which we are struggling today at the national and international levels. People Weekly’s cover story for the week of June 23, 1997, “Heartbreaking Crimes: Kids without a Conscience? Rape, murder, a baby dead at a prom: A look at young lives that seem to have gone very, very wrong,” offers vivid examples of incredibly immoral/amoral and violent behavior. Melissa Drexler, 18-baby was found dead at the prom; Daphne Abdela, 15-accused of a Central Park murder; Jeremy Strohmeyer, 18-accused of killing a 7-year-old; Corey Arthur, 19-accused of murdering Jonathan Levin; and Amy Grossberg, 18-accused of killing her newborn. In addition, the past few years have provided Americans with news of tragedy after tragedy involving young people shooting their peers and teachers at schools across the country in Arkansas, Kentucky, Oregon, Washington state, Georgia, The Fomentation and with the most tragic of all because of the numbers involved, in Littleton, Colorado where twelve students and one

teacher were murdered, two perpetrators committed suicide, and many others were critically injured.
   President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the first agreements with the Soviet Union in 1958, including an education agreement—something that would not come as a surprise to those familiar with the White House-directed plan to merge the United States and the Soviet Union explained to Norman Dodd in 1953 by Rowan Gaither, president of the Ford Foundation. Similar agreements have been signed from that time forward. The most important education agreements negotiated between the Carnegie Corporation and the Soviet Academy of Science, and those signed by Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev in 1985, remain in effect to this day.
   The forties and fifties set all the essential ingredients in place for implementation in the sixties of a system of education geared to behavior and values change.

1941   Education For Destruction Was Writte By Dr. B.R. Gurchett

And published by her in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1941. The promotional flyer for Dr. Burchett’s book read as follows:
Arresting... Disturbing... Exciting
HOW does the small Sovieteer minority control loyal teachers in our schools and colleges?
HOW are anti-American, anti-religious, anti-Christ textbooks forced upon teachers and students?
WHY are Washington and Jefferson ridiculed, while Marx and Lenin are canonized in the schools?
WHY are boys and girls of 13 taught free love, sexual promiscuity, and other degrading subjects?
   The answers to these and other dismaying questions are all found in Education for Destruction,
[A]n eyewitness account by Dr. B.R. Burchett, former Head of Department of Latin in the Philadelphia public school system. It is a fearless and devastating exposé of Communism in America’s schools, its concealed objectives, hidden motives, serpent-like power, and its vicious demoralization of children and adolescents. EVERY parent... EVERY educator... EVERY clergyman should read this book! [emphasis in original]
Dr. Burchett has included, opposite the title page of her book, a photograph of one of the classrooms in the school in which she taught. Under the photo are the words “No communism in the public schools?” accompanied by the following comments:

   An observer, seeing that the largest poster in sight bears the letters U.S.S.R., might think that this is a picture of a school room in Russia. It is a picture of a room in a public school in Philadelphia. Did Superintendent Broome know about this? Did the Board of Education know about it? The picture is taken from Dr. Broome’s Annual Report to the Board of Education, for the year ended June 30, 1936....
   There had been a branch of the Young Communist League meeting in the South Philadelphia High School. According to the papers Miss Wanger made a great virtue of having disbanded it. Strangely, there was no “investigation” as to how it came to be meeting here in the first place, with a regularly assigned room and with a teacher as sponsor.
   In spite of the facts presented in Mr. Allen’s circular, and in spite of such an amazing thing as the meeting of the Young Communist League in the school, Dr. Broome, Superintendent of Schools, according to the Philadelphia Record of May 7, 1936, said: “I don’t propose to investigate any general statement; if she (myself, Burchett) has anything specific to say I will be glad to hear her and investigate.”... Recently, a special committee was appointed to consider the attacks on the “books of Harold O. Rugg and others on the ground of subversive teaching.” Dr. Edwin C. Broome was a member of that Committee. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Rugg books were white-washed in the Committee report of February 26, 1941.
   According to the above quotes, Dr. Edwin Broome, under whom Dr. Burchett worked, was deeply involved in curriculum changes favorable to indoctrination of the students in communism. Of special interest is the fact that Dr. Edwin Broome is the same Dr. Edwin Broome about whom Dorothy Dawson wrote in her article entitled “The Blueprint: Community-Centered Schools” for the Montgomery County, Maryland Advertiser, April 11, 1973. Mrs. Dawson personally typed the original Blueprint for Montgomery County Schools for Dr. Broome to present to the board of education in 1946. An additional excerpt from Mrs. Dawson’s article follows:
   In 1946 Dr. Edwin W. Broome was Superintendent of Schools.... From the Maryland Teacher, May 1953: “Dr. Edwin W. Broome announces retirement from Superintendency” by Mrs. Florence Massey Black, BCC High School. “Edwin W. Broome, the philosopher who took John Dewey out of his writings and put him to work in the classrooms of Montgomery County, is being honored upon his retirement this year by various groups in the State of Maryland and in his own county. He has served thirty-six years as superintendent of schools and forty-nine years in the county system. Greatly influenced by the late John Dewey, Edwin W. Broome set to work to show by analogy, specific example, and curriculum development, how each teacher could bring that philosophy into his work. And so it was that John Dewey came into the classrooms of Montgomery County.”
[Ed. Note:
   Additionally, the Maryland Teacher did not mention that Dr. Broome had also served a controversial term as superintendent in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania public school system. One might add that John Dewey not only came into the classrooms of Montgomery County, but also into all the classrooms of the United States, since the Montgomery County Plan was a pilot for the nation. This writer, when serving on her school’s Philosophy Committee in 1973, had an updated copy of the “Montgomery County Philosophy” given to her by her Harvard-educated, change-agent superintendent. He recommended it as one philosophy statement to which our committee might wish to refer as we drew up a new philosophy for our school district.
(See Appendix I for further excerpts from the Blueprint for Montgomery County Schools.)]


In 1942 Time Magazine (March 16, 1942) Ran An Extensive Artical

In its religion section dealing with a proposal by Protestant groups in the United States for a plan of action toward “a just and durable peace” for the years following the end of World War II. Excerpts from Time’s “American Malvern” follow:
   These are the high spots of organized U.S. Protestantism’s super-protestant new program for a just and durable peace after World War II:
   • Ultimately, “a world government of delegated powers.”
   • Complete abandonment of U.S. isolationism.
   • Strong immediate limitations on national sovereignty.
   • International control of all armies and navies.
   • A universal system of money... so planned as to prevent inflation and deflation.
   • Worldwide freedom of immigration.
   • Progressive elimination of all tariff and quota restrictions on world trade.
   • “Autonomy for all subject and colonial peoples” (with much better treatment for Negroes in the U.S.).
   • “No punitive reparations, no humiliating decrees of war guilt, no arbitrary dismemberment of nations.”
   • A “democratically controlled” international bank “to make development capital available in all parts of the world without the predatory and imperialistic aftermath so characteristic of large-scale private and governmental loans.”
   This program was adopted last week by 375 appointed representatives of 30-odd denominations called together at Ohio Wesleyan University by the Federal Council of Churches. Every local Protestant church in the country will now be urged to get behind the program. “As Christian citizens,” its sponsors affirmed, “we must seek to translate our beliefs into practical realities and to create a public opinion which will insure that the United States shall play its full and essential part in the creation of a moral way of international living.”...
   The meeting showed its temper early by passing a set of 13 “requisite principles for peace” submitted by Chairman John Foster Dulles and his inter-church Commission to Study the Basis of a Just and Durable Peace. These principles, far from putting all the onus on Germany or Japan, bade the U.S. give thought to the short-sightedness of its own policies after World War I, declared that the U.S. would have to turn over a new leaf if the world is to enjoy lasting peace....
   Some of the conference’s economic opinions were almost as sensational as the extreme internationalism of its political program. It held that “a new order of economic life is both imminent and imperative”—a new order that is sure to come either “through voluntary cooperation within the framework of democracy or through explosive political revolution.” Without condemning the profit motive as such, it denounced various defects in the profit system for breeding war, demagogues and dictators, “mass unemployment, widespread dispossession from homes and farms, destitution, lack of opportunity for youth and of security for old age.” Instead, “the church must demand economic arrangements measured by human welfare... must appeal to the Christian motive of human service as paramount to personal gain or governmental coercion.”

   “Collectivism is coming, whether we like it or not,” the delegates were told by no less a churchman than England’s Dr. William Paton, co secretary of the World Council of Churches, but the conference did not veer as far to the left as its definitely pinko British counterpart, the now famous Malvern Conference (Time, Jan. 20, 1941). It did, however, back up Labor’s demand for an increasing share in industrial management. It echoed Labor’s shibboleth that the denial of collective bargaining “reduces labor to a commodity.” It urged taxation designed “to the end that our wealth may be more equitably distributed.” It urged experimentation with government and cooperative ownership....
   The ultimate goal: “a duly constituted world government of delegated powers: an international legislative body, an international court with adequate jurisdiction, international administrative bodies with necessary powers, and adequate international police forces and provision for enforcing its worldwide economic authority.” (pp. 44, 46–47)

1943   The American Federation Of Teachers (AFT)

Published the book America,Russia and the Communist Party in the Postwar World by John L. Childs and George S. Counts (The John Day Co., New York).
(The reader will recall previous entries in this book relating to George S. Counts’s role in the promotion of collectivism in the early part of this century and a similar agenda mapped out by the Federal Council of Churches referenced earlier.)
   Prior to reading excerpts from this remarkably naïve book, the reader is reminded that it was written after Stalin’s mass terror of the 1930s, which included purges, trials, self-denunciations, disappearances, imprisonments and executions. Excerpts taken from the book’s jacket follow:
   This book is the first in a series projected for publication by The Commission on Education and the Postwar World of the American Federation of Teachers.… It demonstrates beyond all argument that if this war is to be followed by a just and lasting peace, America and Russia must find a way to get along together. For the United Nations, including America and Russia, is the only agency that can establish such a peace. Russia’s stupendous achievements, and her vast area, population, and resources, make her a world power second to none. We are blind if we think we can continue half grateful ally, half suspicious rival, of Russia. What then, stands in the way of good relations between America and Russia? It is not differences in social systems and ideologies, for these can [emphasis in original] exist side by side.... It is a twenty-five year legacy of mutual suspicion, fear, and active hostility. The removal of this legacy requires concessions on both sides.
The preface states in part:
   Among the subjects already chosen (by the Commission) for study are the problems of American youth, education for world-citizenship, and the kind of educational program required to meet the demands of our technological society.
Excerpts from chapter X, “Bases of Collaboration,” are revealing:
   6. The United States, on her side, will have to make profound readjustments in her historical policy with regard to the rest of the world in general and with regard to the Soviet Union in

particular.... The following constitute the bare minima of readjustments required of our country:
   a. She must abandon the notion that she can enjoy security and maintain her democratic way of life by adhering to her historic policy of no “entangling alliances.”
She cannot have peace if she continues to disregard the fact of world-wide interdependence—economic, political, military, and cultural. (p. 80)
   c. She must enter unreservedly into the partnership of the United Nations….
   e. She must revise her estimate of the enduring character of a collectivist state. She must banish from her mind the naïve doctrine, which controlled her relations with the Soviet Union in the early years of the Russian Revolution, that a collectivist state, being contrary to the laws of human nature, economics, and morality, must sooner or later collapse. (p. 81)…
   g. She must repudiate her earlier policy toward the Soviet Union. She must convince the Russian people she will have no part whatsoever in any effort to isolate, to encircle, and to destroy their collectivist state.… She must show by word, deed, and spirit that she is prepared to collaborate with nations of different traditions, different ideologies, and different economic and political systems in the organization of the world for peace and progress…. All of this means that those privileged groups in our own society which are fearful of any change in our property relations [free enterprise system] and which were primarily responsible for the shaping of the earlier policy must not be permitted to determine our postwar relations with Russia. (p. 82)
   h. She must, finally, have a vivid consciousness of the weaknesses in her own domestic economy. She must realize that, in spite of the very real advances made in recent years, we have only begun to face the problem of rebuilding the economic foundations of our democracy. In the process of rebuilding perhaps we may be able to learn something from the experiences of the Russian people. (p. 83)

In 1945 World War II Ended.

The Prepartion Of a “Just And Durable Peace” to produce “A Duly Constituted World Government” began.

United Nations Charter Became Effective On October 24, 1945.

Playing an important role in the creation of the United Nations was the United States Chamber of Commerce. In 1999 when parents find their local Chamber of Commerce deeply involved in the highly controversial, socialist/fascist, dumbing-down workforce training—necessary for a planned, global economy-the fact that the U.S. Chamber was a prime mover in establishing the United Nations should not be forgotten. The following information is excerpted from an important research paper by Erica Carle entitled “The Chamber of Commerce: Its Power and Goals” (December, 1983):
   Two slogans were popularized in order to gain backing for Chamber leadership: “World peace through world trade” and “More business in government and less government in business.”
   The Chamber sought to commercialize the world under its own direction. To do this it needed to find ways to affect and bypass operating policies of various states and nations. To

change national policies, and even laws, required popular support and collective action. A new type of blanket organization was needed, one that could blanket not only governments, but professions, unions, educational institutions, farms, industries, sciences, religions and even families. An organization was sought which could bring about the cooperation and commercialization of all of these. A strong controllable international blanket organization was needed.
   By the 1930’s plans for the new blanket organization to serve the Chamber’s purposes, the United Nations, were already well under way. The Chamber had the cooperation of tax-exempt foundations, some of which, such as the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace and the Rockefeller Foundation, had been set up early in the century. Large banks and trusts could see future profits for themselves if they cooperated with the Chamber; and the cooperation of international corporations was assumed, especially since Thomas J. Watson was President of the International Chamber of Commerce and a Trustee of the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace.
   World War II aided... efforts to establish a “rational” international commercial system.... The United Nations organization could be used to gain governments’ compliance with the Chamber’s plans for a unified, controlled world economy, and also the cooperation of various non-Governmental organizations.
   The following are some of the measures the Chamber of Commerce has supported to aid in the transfer of power from individuals and independent governments, groups, businesses and professions to the Chamber-advocated management system:
1. Creation of the United Nations.
2. Creation of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
3. Regional Government or “New Federalism.”
4. Medicare (Commercialization of medical professions).
5. Postal reorganization.
6. Organized Crime Control Act.
7. Contracting for school services with private industry.
8. Voucher system for education.
9. Management and human relations techniques for handling personnel in industry.
10. Health care planning councils.
11. Prepaid medical practice (HMOs).
12. Federal land use planning.
13. Federally-imposed career education.
14. Equal Rights Amendment.
15. Cross-town busing for desegregation.[5]

Indiana University Added Two New Faculty Members To Its Roster In 1945.

   DR. Burrhus Frederic (B.F.) Skinner became chairman of the Psychology Department and continued work on his forthcoming book, Walden II. Dr. Hermann J. Muller (future Nobel Prize winner), zoologist and private advocate of forced sterilization and selective eugenics, arrived in the Zoology Department to join long-time faculty member Alfred C. Kinsey. A publicly-allied communist, Muller had authored the book Out of the Night: A Biologist’s View of the Future (The Vanguard Press: New York, 1935), which dealt with selective breeding and the advocacy of cloning of masses of human “resources.” (Thirteen years after Muller’s death in 1967 a sperm bank was established in California in Muller’s honor, the Repository for Germi-

nal Choice, which stores and distributes the sperm of Nobel Prize winners and others of “exceptional” ability.)

1946   “The Psychiarty Of Enduring Peace And Social Progress”

   In The William Alanson White Memorial Lectures by Major General G.B. [Brock] Chisholm, C.B.E., M.D., Deputy Minister of Health, Dept. of National Health and Welfare, Canada (Vol. 9, No. 1) was published in 1946. The book contained a foreword by Abe Fortas, former U.S. secretary of state. The article “The Psychiatry of Enduring Peace and Social Progress” was re-published in the March 1948 (No. 437) issue of International Conciliation published by the World Health Organization and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. This last version included a preface written by Alger Hiss, former president of the Carnegie Endowment who would later be convicted of spying for the Soviet Union. It is important also to remember that Dr. David Hamburg, former president of the Carnegie Corporation of New York who signed the Carnegie Corporation/Soviet Academy of Science education agreement in 1985, is a psychiatrist. Excerpts from Brock Chisholm’s article follow:
   The re-interpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking for faith in the certainties of the old people, these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy. Would it not be sensible to stop imposing our local prejudices and faiths on children and give them all sides of every question so that in their own time they may have the ability to size things up, and make their own decisions? ...If the race is to be freed from its crippling burden of good and evil it must be psychiatrists who take the original responsibility.... The people who matter are the teachers, the young mothers and fathers, the parent-teacher associations, youth groups, service clubs, schools and colleges, the churches and Sunday schools—everyone who can be reached and given help toward intellectual freedom and honesty for themselves and for the children whose future depends on them....
   The battle, if it is to be undertaken, will be long and difficult but the truth will prevail—whenever enough people want it to. With luck we have perhaps fifteen or twenty years before the outbreak of the next world war if we remain as we are, twenty years in which to change the dearest certainties of enough of the human race, twenty years in which to root out and destroy the oldest and most flourishing parasitical growth in the world, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so that man may learn to preserve his most precious heritage, his innocence and intellectual freedom, twenty years in which to remove the necessity for the perverse satisfactions to be found in warfare.
   If the reader is inclined to dismiss the above statements by Brock Chisholm as statements from an individual biased by his psychiatric profession and spoken at a point in time remote from today, please read the following statement by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Madeline Albright in Atlanta, Georgia, September of 1996, as it appeared in The Congressional Digest for January 1997:
Setting Global Standards. The United Nations is one instrument that we use to make this world a little less inhumane, a little less brutal, a little less unfair than it otherwise would be.

This brings us to another important, and basic, function of the United Nations. And that is its role in creating a global consensus about what is right and what is wrong. (p. 14)
[Ed. Note:
The reader should refer back to the preface of this book, the deliberate dumbing down of america, for discussion of the need to create robots who do not know right from wrong and who do not have a conscience—leaving the determination of right and wrong to the proposed United Nations “Global Conscience.”]

C.S. Lewis Wrote That Hideous Strength (Copyright By Clive Staples Lewis:

Macmillan Company: New York, 1946). Lewis’s uncanny ability to predict accurately how society would be manipulated into acceptance of totalitarian control was displayed in the following excerpt taken from a conversation Lewis’s fictitious Lord Feverstone had with a young man named Mark:
   [Feverstone] “Man has got to take charge of Man. That means, remember, that some men have got to take charge of the rest—which is another reason for cashing in on it as soon as one can. You and I want to be the people who do the taking charge, not the ones who are taken charge of. Quite.”
   “What sort of thing have you in mind?”
   “Quite simple and obvious things, at first—sterilization of the unfit, liquidation of backward races (we don’t want any dead weights), selective breeding. Then real education, including pre-natal education. By real education I mean one that has no ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ nonsense. A real education makes the patient what it wants infallibly: whatever he or his parents try to do about it. Of course, it’ll have to be mainly psychological at first. But we’ll get on to biochemical conditioning in the end and direct manipulation of the brain....”    “But this is stupendous, Feverstone.”
   “It’s the real thing at last. A new type of man: and it’s people like you who’ve got to begin to make him.”
   “That’s my trouble. Don’t think it’s false modesty, but I haven’t yet seen how I can contribute.”
“No, but we have. You are what we need: a trained sociologist with a radically realistic outlook, not afraid of responsibility. Also, a sociologist who can write.”
   “You don’t mean you want me to write up all this?”
   “No. We want you to write it down—to camouflage it. Only for the present, of course. Once the thing gets going we shan’t have to bother about the great heart of the British public. We’ll make the great heart what we want it to be.” (p. 42)
[Ed. Note:
Appendix XXVI contains an example of Brian Rowan’s literary fulfillment of Feverstone’s request for “a trained sociologist who can write.” It is also interesting to note that William Spady, the “father of OBE,” is a sociologist as well. The definition by Feverstone of “real education” not being “take-it-or-leave-it nonsense” reflects the 1990s outcome-based education reform call for emphasis on “outputs” rather than on constitutionally supported “inputs” discussed in chapter 1.]

Community Centered Schools: The Blueprint For Montgomery County Schools,

Maryland, was proposed by Dr. Nicholaus L. Englehardt and Associates, Consultants, and

written by Dr. Walter D. Cocking of New York City on April 1, 1946. This material was provided by the late Dorothy Dawson who was secretary to the superintendent of schools of Montgomery County, Maryland, Dr. Edwin Broome. Mrs. Dawson typed this Blueprint for presentation to the Montgomery County Board of Education. (See Appendix I.) The Letter of Transmittal that accompanied The Blueprint said:
   Dr. Paul Mort and others have accumulated evidence which shows a period of almost fifty years between the establishment of need [needs assessment] and the school programs geared to meet it... if the school as an agency of society is to justify itself for the period ahead of us, it must be accepted that its fundamental function is to serve the people of the entire community, the very young children, the children of middle years, early adolescent youth, older youth and the adults as well.
“Learning And Peace: UNESCO Starts Its Work” By Richard A. Johnson
Was printed in the October 1946 (No. 424) issue of International Conciliation published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. This booklet gives the history of UNESCO (United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) from the Conference of Allied Ministers of Education in 1943–45, through legislation authorizing United States membership in UNESCO (P.L. 565, 79th Congress) approved July 30, 1946. President Harry Truman’s remarkable statement of the same date accompanied this legislation: “Education must establish the moral unity of mankind.”
The Educational Testing Service (ETS) Of Princeton, New Jersy,
Was funded with an initial endowment of $750,000 from the Carnegie Corporation in 1946.
[Ed. Note:
For further amplification and understanding of the far-reaching implications of the relationship between Educational Testing Service and the Carnegie Corporation, the reader should be sure to read: 1964 entry regarding the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) which ETS administers; two 1995 entries for articles from The Bismarck (North Dakota) Tribune dealing with NAEP; and Appendix IV.]

1947   National Training Labratory (NTL) Was Established In 1947.

The first laboratory session on human relations and group processes was held at Gould Academy in Bethel, Maine. Founders of the National Training Laboratory had important connections with the Office of Strategic Services (OSS)-World War II forerunner to the Central Intelligence Agency CIA). The NTL would become-with the National Education Association (NEA)-a premiere agency for human relations training (change agent/brainwashing).
   A 1962 book published jointly by NTL and the NEA entitled Five Issues in Training addressed the process of “unfreezing, changing, and refreezing” attitudes in order to bring about change by stating the following: “The Chinese communists would remove the target person from those situations and social relationships which tended to confirm and reinforce the validity of the old attitudes.” (p. 49)

   This process is widely used in education, theology, medicine, business, government, etc., by pressuring individuals to participate in “retreats,” removing them from familiar surroundings to “unfreeze” their attitudes and values. People have been coming from all over the world to attend these retreats at NTL in Bethel, Maine since its founding. An excerpt from the 1977 issue of NTL Newsletter follows:
   From the New Britain workshop dialogues of the founders emerged the notions of “action research laboratory” and “change agent” which were terms coined to denote a very vigorous proactive social change kind of posture, a merging of radical education, deviant behavioral science, and humanistic democracy.

Higher Education For American Democracy; V. 3, Organizing Higher Education,

report of the President’s Commission on Higher Education (U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., 1947) was circulated. It revealed that:
   The role which education will play officially must be conditioned essentially by policies established by the State Department in this country and by ministries of foreign affairs in other countries. Higher education must play a very important part in carrying out in this country the program developed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization and in influencing that program by studies and reports bearing upon international relations.... The United States Office of Education must be prepared to work effectively with the State Department and with the UNESCO. (p. 48)

1948   Sexual Behavior In The Human Male By Alfred C. Kinsey With wardell Pomroy,

Clyde Martin and Paul Gebhard (W.B. Saunders: Philadelphia, PA, 1948) was published. This book and the controversial “research” it represented became a lightning rod around which much social turmoil was generated in this country and abroad.
   As Judith Reisman, Ph.D., has described in her book, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences[6] (Institute for Media Education: Arlington, Va., 1998):
   Three books written by leading legal, scholarly, and scientific authorities and assisted by Kinsey, were published in 1948 in tandem with Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. All three books called for legal implementation of Kinsey’s “grand scheme” to loosen, alter and/or overturn America’s laws concerning sexual behavior.
   Those books were:
(1) Sexual Habits of American Men: A Symposium on the Kinsey Report, edited by Albert Deutsch (Prentice Hall: New York, 1948);
(2) American Sexual Behavior and the Kinsey Report by Morris Ernst and David Loth (W.W. Norton: New York, 1948); and
(3) a re-publication of the 1933 book The Ethics of Sexual Acts (Alfred A. Knoff: New York, 1948) by René Guyon, French jurist and pedophile noted for having coined the phrase in reference to children: “Sex before eight or it’s too late.” To further elaborate on the connections of these books and ideas generated by them, Reisman wrote on page 189 of her book:

   Dr. Harry Benjamin, an endocrinologist and international sexologist, and close friend and correspondent of both Kinsey and Guyon, wrote of their collaboration in his Introduction to Guyon’s 1948 book:
   Many... sex activities, illegal and immoral, but widely practiced, are recorded by both investigators... Guyon speaking as a philosopher, and Kinsey, judging merely by empirical data... [are] upsetting our most cherished conventions. Unless we want to close our eyes to the truth or imprison 95% of our male population, we must completely revise our legal and moral codes.... It probably comes as a jolt to many, even open-minded people, when they realize that chastity cannot be a virtue because it is not a natural state.
[Ed. Note:
The above extraordinary statement revealed the depth of some very perverse thinking in the area of human sexuality-thinking which would become institutionalized to the extent that in 1999 the American Psychological Association (APA) felt comfortable publishing in its Journal a study suggesting that pedophilia is harmless and even beneficial if consensual. According to an article in the June 10, 1999 issue of The Washington Times, entitled “Psychology Group Regrets Publishing Pedophilia Report: Practice Not Always Harmful, Article Said,” the APA was taken by surprise when “its report provoked angry public reaction, including a House of Representatives resolution condemning it. It followed up with an abrupt about-face in an apologetic letter to House Majority Whip Tom DeLay” which expressed regret-not that it supported the idea of acceptable adult-child sex-but that the article had been published in a public journal.]
   To prove the march toward sexual revolution had, indeed, reached the courts, Reisman further quotes Manfred S. Guttmacher, M.D., author of The Role of Psychiatry and Law (Charles C. Thomas: Springfield, Ill., 1968) and special consultant to the American Law Institute Model Penal Code Committee:
   In 1950 the American Law Institute began the monumental task of writing a Model Penal Code. I am told that a quarter of a century earlier the Institute had approached the Rockefeller Foundation for the funds needed to carry out this project, but at that time, Dr. Alan Gregg, man of great wisdom, counseled the Foundation to wait, that the behavioral sciences were on the threshold of development to the point at which they could be of great assistance. Apparently, the Institute concluded that the time has arrived.

Waldon Two, A Novel By B.F. Skinner (The Macmillan Company: New York, 1948)

was published. Skinner recommended in this novel that children be reared by the state; to be trained from birth to demonstrate only desirable characteristics and behavior. He also wrote on page 312 of the paperback edition:
   What was needed was a new conception of man, compatible with our scientific knowledge, which would lead to a philosophy of education bearing some relation to educational practices. But to achieve this, education would have to abandon the technical limitations which it had imposed upon itself and step forth into a broader sphere of human engineering. Nothing short of a complete revision of a culture would suffice.

   The late Professor Skinner died before his ideal school described in Walden II would become somewhat of a reality-a “Model School for the 21st Century.” The following excerpts from Walden Two contain some restructuring terminology and resemble in many ways what a “restructured” school is supposed to look like in the 1990s:
   A much better education would cost less if society were better organized.
   We can arrange things more expeditiously here because we don’t need to be constantly re-educating. The ordinary teacher spends a good share of her time changing the cultural and intellectual habits which the child acquires from its family and surrounding culture. Or else the teacher duplicates home training, in a complete waste of time. Here we can almost say that the school is the family, and vice versa. [emphasis in original]
   ...We don’t need “grades.” Everyone knows that talents and abilities don’t develop at the same rate in different children. A fourth-grade reader may be a sixth-grade mathematician. The grade is an administrative device which does violence to the nature of the developmental process. Here the child advances as rapidly as he likes in any field. No time is wasted in forcing him to participate in, or be bored by, activities he has outgrown. And the backward child can be handled more efficiently too.
   We also don’t require all our children to develop the same abilities or skills. We don’t insist upon a certain set of courses. I don’t suppose we have a single child who has had a “secondary school education,” whatever that means. But they’ve all developed as rapidly as advisable, and they’re well educated in many useful respects. By the same token, we don’t waste time in teaching the unteachable. The fixed education represented by a diploma is a bit of conspicuous waste which has no place in Walden Two. We don’t attach an economic or honorific value to education. It has its own value or none at all.
   Since our children remain happy, energetic, and curious, we don’t need to teach “subjects” at all. We teach only the techniques of learning and thinking. As for geography, literature, the sciences—we give our children opportunity and guidance, and they learn them for themselves. In that way we dispense with half the teachers required under the old system, and the education is incomparably better. Our children aren’t neglected, but they’re seldom, if ever, taught anything. [emphasis in original] (pp. 118–120)
   In the United States, 1990s teachers are instructed to act as facilitators and guidance counselors. Computer technology will take care of workforce training and whatever “education” remains. Wisconsin history teacher Gene Malone wrote a short review of Walden Two. Some of Malone’s excerpts follow:
Walden Two is fiction based on a Utopian community named after Henry David Thoreau’s nature-Utopia, Walden Pond. Burris... telling the story of a planned society appears to be B.F. Skinner speaking. Frazier is the planner/manager/founder of the Utopia.... The Utopia/Walden Two is presented in the United States. Burris and his friends are given a tour of Walden Two and Castle is unimpressed. Burris, at the end, joins Walden Two. Quotes follow from pages:
   92  —“Community love”
   245—“We not only can control human behavior, we MUST.”
   219—“The new order.”
   189—“Psychologists are our priests.”
   188—“Walden Two is not a religious community.”
   282—“Their behavior is determined, yet they’re free.”

   286—“What is love, except another name for the use of positive reinforcement?”
   278—“Let us control the lives of our children and see what we can make of them.”
   274—“Behave as you ought!”
   186—“We can make men adequate for group living.... That was our faith.”
   134—“Our goal is to have every adult member of Walden Two regard our children as his own, and to have every child think of every adult as his parent.”
   135—“No sensible person will suppose that love or affection has anything to do with blood.”
   112—“Education in Walden Two is part of the life of the community.... Our children begin to work at a very early age.”
   108—“History is honored in Walden Two only as entertainment.”
   105—“We are always thinking of the whole group.”
   160—“We are opposed to competition.”
   139—“The community, as a revised family”


   This fictional presentation of Skinner’s ideal community is much like the language and laws in use today by the behavioral elite—describing their plans for your children, your schools, your country. It is behavior management by the unchosen.

During 1948 Alger Hiss, Who Later Would Be Convicted Of Spying For The Soviet Union,

During the year of 1948, Dr. Skinner moved his family from Indiana University to Cambridge, Massachusetts to join the faculty of Harvard University.
wrote the preface to Gen. Brock Chisholm’s lecture, “The Psychiatry of Enduring Peace and Social Progress,” which was re-published in International Conciliation (No. 437, March, 1948, p. 109). Alger Hiss was at that time president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the publisher of International Conciliation. The preface to Chisholm’s lecture, which redefined the word “health,” follows:
   The World Health Organization came into formal existence early in February. For nearly a year and a half its most urgent functions have been performed by an Interim Commission.
   The new specialized agency carries on one of the most successful parts of the work of the League of Nations. The Constitution of the World Health Organization, however, has a far wider basis than that established for the League organization, and embodies in its provisions the broadest principles in public health service today. Defining health as a “state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity,” it includes not only the more conventional fields of activity but also mental health, housing, nutrition, economic or working conditions, and administrative and social tech- niques affecting public health. In no other field is international cooperation more essential and in no other field has it been more effective and political difference less apparent.
   The present issue of International Conciliation reviews the history of the Interim Commission through its last meeting in February. The first World Health Assembly will convene in June 1948. A brief introductory article has been prepared by Dr. Brock Chisholm, Executive Secretary, World Health Organization, Interim Commission. Dr. Chisholm is an eminent psychiatrist and served during the war as Director-General of Medical Services of the Canadian Army. The main discussion of the World Health Organization has been contributed by C.E.A. Winslow, Professor Emeritus of the Yale University and Editor of the American Journal of Public Health. Dr. Winslow has been a member of the Board of Scientific Directors of

the International Health Division of the Rockefeller Foundation, Medical Director of the League of the Red Cross Societies, and Expert Assessor of the Health Committee of the League of Nations.
Alger Hiss, President
New York, New York
February 21, 1948

1949   Basic Principles Of Curriculum And Instruction (University Chicago Press:

Chicago, 1949) by Professor Ralph Tyler, chairman of the Department of Education at the University of Chicago, was published. Tyler stated that: Since the real purpose of education is not to have the instructor perform certain activities but to bring about significant changes in the student’s pattern of behavior, it becomes important to recognize that any statement of the objective... should be a statement of changes to take place in the student.

In 1950 “Man Without A Job: Pasadena Tries Too Late to Hold Its School Superintendent”


was carried in Life Magazine (December 11, 1950). An excerpt follows:
Last month criticism of [Willard] Goslin took a serious turn. A militant citizens’ group accused him of permitting Communistic influences in the schools—because he continued already established classes in sex education and favored the elimination of report cards. Then while Goslin was in New York City on business, the school board sent him a telegram asking him to resign.

1951   “the Greatest Subversive Plot in History: Report to the American People on UNESCO”

from The Congressional Record, Proceedings and Debates of the 82nd Congress, First Session in 1951 included the extended remarks of Hon. John T. Wood (Idaho) in the U.S. House of Representatives, Thursday, October 18. Excerpts follow:
   Mr. Speaker, I am herewith appending an article published by the American Flag Committee... bearing the title “A Report to the American People on UNESCO.” Just how careless and unthinking can we be that we permit this band of spies and traitors to exist another day in this land we all love? Are there no limits to our callousness and neglect of palpable and evident treason stalking rampant through our land, warping the minds and imaginations of even our little children, to the lying propaganda and palpable untruths we allow

to be fed to them through this monstrous poison?...
   UNESCO’s scheme to pervert public education appears in a series of nine volumes, titled Toward World Understanding which presume to instruct kindergarten and elementary grade teachers in the fine art of preparing our youngsters for the day when their first loyalty will be to a world government, of which the United States will form but an administrative part....
   The program is quite specific. The teacher is to begin by eliminating any and all words, phrases, descriptions, pictures, maps, classroom material or teaching methods of a sort causing his pupils to feel or express a particular love for, or loyalty to, the United States of America. Children exhibiting such prejudice as a result of prior home influence—UNESCO calls it the outgrowth of the narrow family spirit—are to be dealt an abundant measure of counter propaganda at the earliest possible age. Booklet V, on page 9, advises the teacher that:
   The kindergarten or infant school has a significant part to play in the child’s education. Not only can it correct many of the errors of home training, but it can also prepare the child for membership, at about the age of seven, in a group of his own age and habits—the first of many such social identifications that he must achieve on his way to membership in the world society.

While You Slept: Our Tragedy In Asia And Who Made It By John T. Flynn

   (THE Devin-Adair Co., New York, 1951) was published. This Cold War treatise on the connections between the American left-wing elite and Communist organizers concludes with the following statement and significant quotation which served as an early warning, heralded again and again throughout this book:
   While we arm against Russia, we remain defenseless against the enemies within our walls. It is they, not Stalin’s flyers or soldiers or atomic bombers, who will destroy us. One of the greatest of all Americans once made a speech on the “Perpetuation of our Political Institutions.” It is these institutions from which we draw our great strength and promise of survival. It was Abraham Lincoln who said:
   Shall we expect a transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drink from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trail of a thousand years…. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer: If it [should] ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all times or die by suicide.[7]
Impact Of Science Upon Society By Bertrand Russell (Columbia University Press: New York, 1951;)
Simon and Schuster: New York, 1953) was published. What follows calls to mind the extensive use of behavior modification techniques on students, causing them to question and reject traditional values, and preparing them to willingly submit to totalitarian controls:

   Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished.... Influences of the home are obstructive; and in order to condition students, verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective.... It is for a future scientist to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for more than one generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.

1952   Subsersive Influence In The Educational Process:

   Hearings before the subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary: United States Senate, Eighty-Second Congress, Second Session on Subversive Influence in the Educational Process was printed for the Committee on the Judiciary (Printing Office: Washington, D.C., Sept. 9, 10, 23, 24, 25 and October 13, 1952). Robert Morris was counsel and Benjamin Mandel was director of research for this project. Excerpts from the testimony of Bella V. Dodd, New York, who was accompanied by her attorney Godfrey P. Schmidt, follow:
   Mr. Morris: Dr. Dodd, how recently have you been associated with the Communist Party?
   Mrs. Dodd: June 1949.
   Mr. Morris: Do you mean you severed your connection with the Communist Party at that time?
   Mrs. Dodd: They severed their connection with me. I had previously tried to find my way out of the Communist Party. In 1949 they formally issued a resolution of expulsion....
   Mr. Morris: Dr. Dodd, will you tell us what relationship you bore to the Communist Party organization while you were the legislative representative for the Teachers’ Union?
   Mrs. Dodd: Well, I soon got to know the majority of the people in the top leadership of the Teachers’ Union were Communists, or, at least, were influenced by the Communist organization in the city.
   Sen. Homer Ferguson (Mich.): In other words, the steering committee, as I take your testimony, was used for the purpose of steering the teachers along the line that communism desired?
   Mrs. Dodd: On political questions, yes.... I would say also on certain educational questions. You take, for instance, the whole question of theory of education, whether it should be progressive education or whether it should be the more formal education. The Communist Party as a whole adopted a line of being for progressive education. And that would be carried on through the steering committee and into the union.[8]
Let us look ahead to 1985 to the U.S.-Soviet Education Agreement signed by Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev, and the Carnegie-Soviet Education Agreement. It was the same Robert Morris who served as counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation who later, in 1989 as the new president of America’s Future, Inc., permitted the publication of this

writer’s pamphlet “Soviets in the Classroom: America’s Latest Education Fad”—four years after the agreements were signed. At that time, Mr. Morris—as politically knowledgeable and astute a person as one could hope to meet—was completely unaware of the agreements! The major conservative organizations and media had refused to publicize these treasonous agreements, with the exception of two well-known organizations which gave them “once over lightly” treatment.]

Cooperative Procedures In Learning (Columbia University Press: New York, 1952)

by Alice Miel, professor of education at Teachers College of Columbia University, and associates at the Bureau of Publications at Teachers College of Columbia University was published.
Excerpts follow:
[Foreword] As is true of most of the publications of the Horace Mann-Lincoln Institute of School Experimentation, Cooperative Procedures in Learning represents the work of many people and emphasizes the experimental approach to curriculum improvement.
Having just completed a unit in social studies, we spent today’s class period planning the procedure for a new unit. I started the discussion by pointing out the three methods by which we had studied other units: (1) individual project work, (2) group project work, (3) textbook work. I asked the class to consider these three methods and then to decide which they preferred, or suggest another method for studying our coming work. It was here that I noticed that most of those who seemed in favor of group projects were students who were well developed socially and had worked well with others in the past, whereas those favoring individual projects were almost entirely the A students who obviously knew they were capable of doing good work on their own and would receive more recognition for it through individual work.
[Ed. Note:
The collectivist philosophy that the group is more important than the individual got off the ground in education in the 1950s as a result of the experimental research of educators conducting work similar to that of Alice Miel. By the 1990s egalitarian dumbing-down, outcome-based education—with its cooperative learning, mastery learning, group grades, total quality management, etc.—is the accepted method in the schools of education and in the classroom.]

In 1952 “Modern Math” was introduced to dumb down math students so that they

couldn’t apply the math concepts to “real life situations when they get out of schools,” according to a “Dr. Ziegler” who served as chairman of the Education Committee of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1928. (Refer to 1928 entry concerning O.A. Nelson, math teacher, for background of this entry.)

1953   Norman Dodd, A Yale graduate, intellectual and New York City investment banker,

was chosen to be the research director for the Reece Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1953. The Reece Committee was named for its creator, Rep. Carroll Reece of

Tennessee, and was formed to investigate the status of tax-exempt foundations. Dodd sent committee questionnaires to numerous foundations, and as a result of one such request, Joseph E. Johnson, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, invited Dodd to send a committee staffer to Carnegie headquarters in New York City to examine the minutes of the meetings of the foundation’s trustees. These minutes had long since been stored away in a warehouse. Obviously, Johnson, who was a close friend of former Carnegie Endowment’s president and Soviet spy Alger Hiss, had no idea what was in them.
   The minutes revealed that in 1910 the Carnegie Endowment’s trustees asked themselves this question: “Is there any way known to man more effective than war, to so alter the life of an entire people?” For a year the trustees sought an effective “peaceful” method to “alter the life of an entire people.” Ultimately, they concluded that war was the most effective way to change people. Consequently, the trustees of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace next asked themselves: “How do we involve the United States in a war?” And they answered, “We must control the diplomatic machinery of the United States by first gaining control of the State Department.” Norman Dodd stated that the trustees’ minutes reinforced what the Reece Committee had uncovered elsewhere about the Carnegie Endowment: “It had already become a powerful policy-making force inside the State Department.”
   During those early years of the Carnegie Endowment, war clouds were already forming over Europe and the opportunity of enactment of their plan was drawing near. History proved that World War I did indeed have an enormous impact on the American people. For the first time in our history, large numbers of wives and mothers had to leave their homes to work in war factories, thus effectively eroding woman’s historic role as the “heart” of the family. The sanctity of the family itself was placed in jeopardy. Life in America was so thoroughly changed that, according to Dodd’s findings, “[T]he trustees had the brashness to congratulate themselves on the wisdom and validity of their original decision.” They sent a confidential message to President Woodrow Wilson, insisting that the war not be ended too quickly.
   After the war, the Carnegie Endowment trustees reasoned that if they could get control of education in the United States they would be able to prevent a return to the way of life as it had been prior to the war. They recruited the Rockefeller Foundation to assist in such a monumental task. According to Dodd’s Reece Committee report: “They divided the task in parts, giving to the Rockefeller Foundation the responsibility of altering education as it pertains to domestic subjects, but Carnegie retained the task of altering our education in foreign affairs and about international relations.”
   During a subsequent personal meeting with Mr. Dodd, President Rowan Gaither of the Ford Foundation said, “Mr. Dodd, we invited you to come here because we thought that perhaps, off the record, you would be kind enough to tell us why the Congress is interested in the operations of foundations such as ours?” Gaither answered his own rhetorical question with a startling admission:
   Mr. Dodd, all of us here at the policy making level of the foundation have at one time or another served in the OSS [Office of Strategic Services, CIA forerunner] or the European Economic Administration, operating under directives from the White House. We operate under those same directives.... The substance under which we operate is that we shall use our grant making power to so alter life in the United States that we can be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union.

Stunned, Dodd replied, “Why don’t you tell the American people what you just told me and you could save the taxpayers thousands of dollars set aside for this investigation?” Gaither responded, “Mr. Dodd, we wouldn’t think of doing that.” In public, of course, Gaither never admitted what he had revealed in private. However, on numerous public occasions Norman Dodd repeated what Gaither had said, and was neither sued by Gaither nor challenged by the Ford Foundation. Dodd was subsequently warned that “If you proceed with the investigation as you have outlined, you will be killed.”[9]
The Reece Committee never completely finished its work of investigating and receiving testimony in open hearings involving the representatives of the major tax-exempt foundations. The process was completely disrupted and finally derailed by the deliberately disruptive activity of one of its members, Congressman Wayne Hays of Ohio. According to general counsel for the Reece Committee, Renee A. Wormser’s account in Foundations: Their Power and Influence (Devin-Adair: New York, 1958, p. 341), “[Hays] was frank enough to tell us that he had been put on the committee by Mr. [Sam] Rayburn, the Democratic Leader in the House, as the equivalent of a watchdog. Just what he was to ‘watch’ was not made clear until it became apparent that Mr. Hays was making it his business to frustrate the investigation to the greatest extent possible.”
[Ed. Note:
The Cox Committee, created by Congress as a result of Rep. E.E. Cox of Georgia submitting a resolution to the House of Representatives in the 82nd Congress, was a forerunner of the Reece Committee. The Cox Committee was created to “direct a thorough investigation of foundations.” However, just as the Reece Committee which followed, the Cox Committee was unable to get to the bottom of tax-exempt foundation affairs. Again, according to Mr. Wormser, “The Cox Committee did find that there had been a Communist, Moscow-directed plot to infiltrate American foundations and to use their funds for Communist purposes.”]

Science And Human Behavior By B.F. Skinner (MacmillanACMILLAN & Co.: New York, 1953)

was published. To quote Skinner again, “Operant conditioning shapes behavior as a sculptor shapes a lump of clay.”

Alfred C. Kinsey, along with Wardell Pomeroy, Clyde Martin, and Paul Gebhard,

published Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (W.B. Saunders: Philadelphia, Pa., 1953). According to Professor David Allyn, lecturer in the Department of History at Princeton University, this book, along with Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, served to solidify the move which changed the way social scientists studied sexuality by breaking from the accepted social hygienic, psychoanalytic, psychiatric and physiological approaches.... [Kinsey’s work] played [a] critical role in the mid-century privatization of morality. In the post-WWII era, experts abandoned the concept of “public morals,” a concept which had underpinned the social control of American sexuality from the 1870’s onward…. In the 1950’s and 60’s, however, sexual morality was privatized, and the state-controlled, highly regulated moral economy of the past gave way to a new, “deregulated” moral market.... Kinsey’s [work] argued against government interference in private life.

[Ed. Note:
   The above statement by Allyn was made during a presentation entitled “Private Acts / Public Policy: Alfred Kinsey, the American Law Institute and the Privatization of American Sexual Morality” at the 1995 Chevron Conference on the History of the Behavioral and Social Sciences as part of a special symposium on Alfred Kinsey. Allyn acknowledged the Charles Warren Center at Harvard University and the Rockefeller Archive Center as providing grants which made his research possible.]

DR. Lewis Albert Alesen published a fascinating book entitled "Mental Robots"

(The Caxton Printers, Ltd.: Caldwell, Idaho, 1953). Dr. Alesen, distinguished physician and surgeon, served as president of the California Medical Association from 1952–1953, and also wrote The Physician’s Responsibility as a Leader. Some excerpts from Dr. Alesen’s chapter 7 of Mental Robots, “The Tools of Robotry,” follow:
   Herbert A. Philbrick [double agent and author of "I Led Three Lives" has been recently quoted as stressing that Soviet psychiatry is the psychiatry of Pavlov, upon whose original work on dogs the theory of the conditioned reflex is based. This conditioned reflex is the principle underlying all of the procedures employed by the Soviets in their brain-washing and brain-changing techniques. Under its skillful use the human can be, and has been in countless instances, so altered as completely to transform the concepts previously held and to prepare the individual so treated for a docile acceptance of all manner of authoritarian controls. The psychiatrist boasts that he possesses the power to alter human personality,and he has certainly made good his boast in many respects, at least to the extent of being able to force phony confessions out of men like Cardinal Mindszenty, Robert Vogeler, and a host of others who have been subjected to all manner of torture during their period of conditioning.
In a book entitled Conditioned Reflex Therapy by Andrew Salte, published in 1949 by the Creative Age Press, individual free will, freedom of choice, and, of course, individual responsibility are categorically denied in these words:
   We are meat in which habits have taken up residence. We are a result of the way other people have acted to us. We are the reactions. Having conditioned reflexes means carrying about pieces of past realities.... We think with our habits, and our emotional training determines our thinking. Where there is a conditioned reflex, there is no will. Our “will power” is dependent on our previously learned reflexes.
   Certainly it is true that the Communists, both in Russia, China, and the Iron Curtain countries, have accomplished spectacular changes in the thinking of millions of their citizens. Whether or not this mass changing is altogether sincere or durable is not for the moment as significant as the fact that it has taken place, and that based upon it there has been, apparently, a ready acceptance of revolutionary doctrines radically defying former custom and accepted usage, and transforming the individual under this spell of persuasion or compulsion into an individual possessing entirely different characteristics from those formerly exhibited. And thus, whole new social, economic, political, and even religious regimes have been accepted in a comparatively short time.
   In order to comprehend at all adequately what has been and what is happening to the mental processes and attitudes of the American people during recent years, and in order most particularly to be aware of and alert to the carefully planned goals of the inner and hard-core sponsors of the so-called mental health program, it is pertinent to explore briefly the science and art of cybernetics. Cybernetics, according to Gould’s medical dictionary, “The science dealing with communication and communication-control theory as applied to

mechanical devices and animals; and including the study of servo-mechanisms, that is, feed-back mechanicisms; Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation, 565 Park Avenue, N.Y. 21, N.Y., has published a series of symposia on cybernetics ‘Circular Causal and Feed-Back Mechanisms in Biology and Social Systems.’”
   In a Freedom Forum presentation entitled “Inside U.S. Communism” by Herbert Philbrick, at Harding College, Searcy, Arkansas, April 16, 1954, and distributed by the National Education Program, Mr. Philbrick had this to say about cybernetics:
   The Communists, I have discovered, have a favorite term for their system of influencing people in devious ways. The word they use as an over-all title of this technique is “cybernetics.” Cybernetics as a pure science has a very legitimate and worthwhile function. It has to do with how to improve conduits and cables, how to make better coaxial cables for television, how to improve telephone service, how to make more efficient electronic brains, etc. It has a very legitimate service as a pure science.
   But since a human being, to a Communist, is simply another machine; since human nerve centers have exactly the same function as an electronic circuit; since a human has not a soul—he is only a mechanical apparatus—the Communists havedecided that this particular science has a very useful application—not on machines but on humans.
   Now we’ve heard a great deal more recently about brain-washing. Back in 1940 that word wasn’t familiar to us, but what was going on inside these Young Communist League cells was a technique of cybernetics, a technique of brain-washing, if you will; the highly developed science of demolishing the minds and the spirits of men. [emphasis in original] The Communists brag that theirs is a “technique of Soviet psychiatry.” Now Soviet psychiatry is based on the same basic principles as that of our own doctors and psychiatrists except that the Communists have a different purpose in their psychiatry. Our doctors work with unhealthy minds and try to make them healthy and whole again. The Communists have decided that cybernetics provides a very wonderful way to go to work on healthy minds and to destroy them. And of course we are now getting a bit of that picture from our own prisoners of war who were jailed and imprisoned by the North Koreans and the Red Chinese. One of my good friends is Robert Vogeler. We’ve learned a great deal from Bob Vogeler about the technique of brain-washing. It’s A Horrifying Story.
   I would suggest that you folks who are interested in this subject, perhaps some of you students, could adopt for special study this field of cybernetics. It is brand new. I don’t know of a single book on the subject in connection with what the Communists are doing with it. As a matter of fact, my own knowledge is very limited because the only facts I have are those few things which we have gathered from inside the Communist Party which indicate that the Reds have been working around the clock in this study of the scientific manipulation and control of information. It is based on the findings of Pavlov which say that a man, like an animal, conditioned to respond to certain impulses, can be conditioned to respond to words, phrases and symbols. Therefore you pour in the words, phrases and symbols to which he will respond without thinking [emphasis in original]. And then you withhold other certain words which will cause him to respond in a way which you may not desire. It is the scientific control [of] human beings by means of control of information.
   As the pattern for the international robot of the future, so meticulously drawn to scale by our condescending planners and masters, becomes increasingly clear, it behooves us to study that plan carefully, to determine to just what extent it has already been effectuated, to appraise the multitudinous forces aiding and abetting its adoption, and to determine, finally, whether we as individuals do, in fact, possess characteristics of sufficient value to justify any resistance to this seemingly almost overwhelming juggernaut of collectivism which is rushing headlong upon us. Have we in America, the greatest land upon which God’s sun has ever shone, succumbed to the fleshpots of a modern Egypt? Have we become so softened by bellies lined with rich food, wives clad in rich raiment, and housing and appurtenances

designed to shield us from every intellectual endeavor that we are no longer interested in making any effort to reclaim and to reinvigorate the one economic, social, and political system which has made all of this possible for us?

1954   Alice A. Bailey, An American Theosophist, Wrote "Education In The New Age"

(Lucie Trust: New York and London, 1954).[10] The following information was written in the front of the book: “The publication of this book is financed by the Tibetan Book Fund which is established for the perpetuation of the teachings of the Tibetan and Alice A. Bailey. This fund is controlled by the Lucis Trust, a tax-exempt, religious, educational corporation. It is published in Dutch, French, Spanish, German, Italian and Portugese. Translation into other languages is proceeding.” Following are some excerpts from chapter 3, “The Next Step in the Mental Development of Humanity”:
   The Mental Transition Period
   There are three immediate steps ahead of the educational system of the world, and some progress has already been made towards taking them. First: The development of more adequate means of understanding and studying the human being. This will be made possible in three ways:
   1. The growth and the development of the Science of Psychology. This is the science of the essential man, and is at this time being more generally recognised as useful to, and consistent with, the right development of the human unit. The various schools of psychology, so numerous and separative, will each eventually contribute its particular and peculiar truth, and thus the real science of the soul will emerge from this synthesis.
   2. The growth and the development of the Science of the Seven Rays. This science will throw light upon racial and individual types; it will clearly formulate the nature of individual and racial problems; it will indicate the forces and energies which are struggling for expression in the individual and in the race; and when the two major rays and the minor rays (which meet in every man) are recognised and studied by the educator in connection with the individual, the result will be right individual and group training, and correct vocational indications.
   3. The acceptance of the Teaching anent [about] the Constitution of Man given by the esotericists, with the implied relation of soul and body, the nature of those bodies, their qualities and purpose, and the interrelation existing between the soul and the three vehicles of expression in the three worlds of human endeavors.
In order to bring this about, the best that the East has to offer and the knowledge of the West will have to be made available. The training of the physical body, the control of the emotional body, and the development of right mental apprehension must proceed sequentially, with due attention to the time factor, and also to that period wherein planned coordination of all aspects of the man should be carefully developed. (pp. 69–70)
[Ed. Note:
After returning from a stint in the U.S. Department of Education in the early 1980s, this author attended a school board meeting and noticed the change agent superintendent’s scrawlings on a blackboard, which had evidently been used as part of some sort of in-service training. He had divided a circle into the following sections: physical, mental, creative, and “spiritual.” My reaction was “Hmmm,” since it was he with whom I had sparred over the use

of values clarification—which destroyed any real Judeo/Christian spirituality—when I served on the board in the late 1970s.]

1955   The New York Times Reported On August 6, 1955 That President Dwight D. Eisenhower

called for the first White House Conference on Education. The announcement follows:
   Washington, D.C.-Reservations have been made in eight hotels here for 2045 rooms to be occupied November 20 through December 1 by participants in the White House Conference on Education. This conference, first of its kind to be called by a President, will be unusual in many ways. The ground rules call for two or more noneducators to each educator in order to stir up the widest possible education support by citizenry in the States.... However, the really unusual part of the conference plan lies in its sharp departure from the conventional, somewhat haphazard way of conducting big conferences. The President’s committee has set up six subjects to be discussed; five of them to be thrashed out at the conference, and one to be taken home. Each of the five questions to be gone into here will be discussed in successive all-delegate sessions of 200 tables of 10 persons plus a discussion leader. The five questions under mass consideration will be:
   1. What should our schools accomplish?
   2. In what ways can we organize our school system more effectively and economically?
   3. What are our school building needs?
   4. How can we get good teachers—and keep them?
   5. How can we finance our schools—build and operate them?
   The question to be taken home is: How can we obtain a continuing interest in education?
   At the close of each all-delegate session a stenographic pool will be on hand to compile the consensus at each table and to jot down the dissents. The 200 discussion leaders will convene around 20 tables in a smaller room, further refine the results and give their “consensus” and “dissents” to a second flight of stenographers. The mass of delegates then proceed to another question. The leaders of the 20 tables subsequently move to two tables. Their findings, set down by stenographers, will be forwarded to the conference committee for incorporation in the final report.
[Ed. Note:
This conference was probably one of the first national conferences to use the manipulative and non-representative group dynamics/Delphi Technique to orchestrate the participants into reaching consensus on pre-determined goals. Anyone who has participated in local or state goal-setting committees should recognize the drill. This conference provided an excellent example of the dialectical process at work.]

1956   Taxonomy Of Educational Objectives: The Classification Of Educational Goals,

Handbook II, Affective Domain by David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom, and Bertram Massie (Longman: New York/London, 1956)
was published. This Taxonomy provided the necessary

tool for the schools of education to restructure education from academics to values (behavior) change. The swinging door was finally propped open to incorporate attitudes, values and beliefs into the definition of education. It is impossible to overestimate the Taxonomy’s importance. An excerpt follows:
   In fact, a large part of what we call “good teaching” is the teacher’s ability to attain affective objectives [attitudes, values, beliefs] through challenging the students’ fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues. (p. 55)

1958   In 1958 At The Peak Of The Cold War President Dwight D. Eisenhower Signed

the first United States-Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.) agreements. These agreements included education.

National Defence Education Act Was Passed In 1958 By The U.S. Congress

as a result of Soviet success in space, demonstrated by the launching of Sputnik. This Act, which set the stage for incredible federal control of education through heavy financing for behavior modification, science, mathematics, guidance counseling, and testing, etc., involved “modern techniques developed from scientific principles,” the full weight of which would be felt at the end of the century. Title I, General Provisions, Findings and Declaration of Policy, Sec. 101 of this Act reads:
   The Congress hereby finds and declares that the security of the Nation requires the fullest development of the mental resources and technical skills of its young men and women. The present emergency demands that additional and more adequate educational opportunities be made available. The defense of this nation depends upon the mastery of modern techniques developed from complex scientific principles. It depends as well upon the discovery and development of new principles, new techniques, and new knowledge.
1 For a thorough treatment of this subject, please read Dr. Judith A. Reisman’s book Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences—The Red Queen and the Grand Scheme (The Institute for Media Education, Inc.: Arlington, Va., 1998). To order call 1–800–837– 0544.
2 B.F. Skinner. Science and Human Behavior (Macmillan & Co.: New York, 1953).
3 The Taxonomy involves: Cognitive—how a student perceives or judges knowledge or facts; Affective—how a student feels or what he believes about a subject; Psychomotor—what a student does as a result of what he perceives or believes; converting belief to action.
4 See Appendix XIX for an excellent critique of Bloom’s Taxonomy.
5 This document may be ordered from: Education Service Council, P.O. Box 271, Elm Grove, WI 53122. Erica Carle’s latest and very important book, Why Things Are the Way They Are (Dorrance Publishing Co.: Pittsburgh, Pa., 1996), can be ordered in hardcover from: Dorrance Publishing Co., 643 Smithfield Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15222.
6 To order Dr. Reisman’s book, call 1–800–837–0544.
7 Speech before Young Men’s Lyceum, Springfield, Illinois, January, 1837.
8 For further information, purchase School of Darkness: The Record of a Life and of a Conflict between Two Faiths by Bella V. Dodd (P.J. Kennedy & Sons: New York, 1954. Copyright transferred in 1963 to Bella V. Dodd, Devin-Adair Publishers).

9 This section dealing with the Dodd Report was written by Robert H. Goldsborough and published in his book Lines of Credit: Ropes of Bondage, (The American Research Foundation, Inc.: Baltimore, 1989). This fascinating book may be obtained by sending a check for $8.00 to: Robert H. Goldsborough, P.O. Box 5687, Baltimore, MD 21210.
10 The offices of Lucis Trust (formerly Lucifer Publishing) which were previously located across from the United Nations Building in New York have offered for sale the Robert Muller World Core Curriculum (a New Age elementary education curriculum), written by Muller who served as the under secretary of the UN. The World Core Curriculum states that it is based on the teachings of Alice Bailey’s spirit guide, the Tibetan teacher Djwhal Khul. The present address for Lucis Trust is: 120 Wall St., New York, NY. Muller’s curriculum can also be ordered from: Robert Muller School, 6005 Royaloak Dr., Arlington, TX. It should be noted that the Robert Muller School is a member of the UNESCO Associated Schools Project, certified as a United Nations Associated School.


Chapter 5   The Sick Sixties:


The Sick Sixties: Psychology and Skills

   Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson, while ostensibly concerning themselves with racial injustice, economic inequities, and equal educational opportunities, were, in fact, responsible for installing the lifelong control system—the Planning, Programming, Budgeting Management System (PPBS)—into all departments of government. This was accomplished during what would become “The Sick Sixties” under the guise of “accountability to the taxpayers,” a theme which will be repeated throughout the remainder of this century.
   American education would henceforth concern itself with the importance of the group rather than with the importance of the individual. This would be true in spite of the push towards individualized emotional health rather than on his academic learning. In order to change society, it was essential to identify the attitudinal changes needed in each student; then, modify the student’s behavior according to the preconceived model approved by government social engineers known as “change agents.” This model did not allow for competition or individual thought, belief, etc., but was conceived to standardize (robotize) human beings—particularly Americans—so that the entire populace would be in general agreement with government policy and future planning for world government.
Removal of the last semblance of local control would come through the passage of the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), the most important piece of legislation to pass during Lyndon Johnson’s administration. Two of the major federal initiatives developed with funding from The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 which have contributed to the “deliberate dumbing down” of not only students but teachers as well, are listed below:
1. the 1965–1969 Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program (BSTEP), and
2. the 1969 publication by the federal government of Pacesetters in Innovation, a 584-page catalogue of behavior modification programs to be used by the schools.
Pacesetters provided evidence of a concerted effort to destroy the last vestiges of traditional academic education, replacing it with a behavior and mind control system guaranteed to create the “New Soviet Man” who would be unlikely to challenge totalitarian policies emanating from his local, state or federal/international government. Professor John Goodlad, the nation’s premiere change agent who has been receiving federal and tax-exempt foundation grants for at least thirty years, said in 1969:
The most controversial issues of the twenty-first century will pertain to the ends and means of modifying human behavior and who shall determine them. The first educational question will not be “what knowledge is of the most worth?” but “what kinds of human beings do we wish to produce?” The possibilities virtually defy our imagination.[1]
Behavior change on such a massive scale necessitated the creation of many agencies and policy devices which would oversee the implementation of the necessary innovations. Three agencies were:
(1) the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which tested students at various grade levels;
(2) the Education Commission of the States (ECS), which enabled the states to become unified regarding education and its outreach—one entity supposedly controlled by its member states, but in reality controlled by its consensus policy which invariably reflected federal policy—and
(3) the National Diffusion Network (NDN) which served as the transmission belt and advertising agency for federally funded programs, the majority of which were intended to destroy traditional right/wrong absolutist values through psychotherapeutic and behavioral techniques.[2]
Congressman John M. Ashbrook of Ohio, to whose memory the writer has dedicated this book, expressed his concern over the above-described radical shift in the direction of education before the U.S. House of Representatives on July 18, 1961 in a speech he delivered entitled “The Myth of Federal Aid to Education without Control.” With extraordinary foresight, John Ashbrook warned that:
In the report A Federal Education Agency for the Future we find the vehicle for Federal domination of our schools. It is a real and present danger.… The battle lines are now being drawn between those who seek control and uniformity of our local schools and those who oppose this further bureaucratic centralization in Washington. It is my sincere hope that the Congress will respond to this challenge and defeat the aid to education bills which will implement the goals incorporated in A Federal Education Agency for the Future.
Unfortunately, Congressman Ashbrook’s words of wisdom did not convince his fellow colleagues

and, therefore, did not influence the burgeoning sentiment of the majority in Congress. Had Ashbrook’s views prevailed, the citizens of this great nation would be in a far better position to deal with the problems we face at home and abroad in 1999.

1960   United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cutural Organization's Convention Against Discrimination

Was signed in Paris, France in 1960. This Convention laid the groundwork for control of American education—both public and private—by U.N. agencies and agents.
Soviet Education Programs:
Foundations, Curriculums, Teacher Prepartion By William K. Mediln (specialist in Comparative Education for Eastern Europe,Division of International Education),
Clarence B. Lindquist (chief of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Division of Higher Education),
and Marshall L. Schmitt (specialist for Industrial Arts, Division of State and Local School Systems)
Was published in 1960 under the auspices of U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Secretary Arthur S. Flemming and Office of Education Commissioner Lawrence G. Derthick (OE–14037, Bulletin 1960, No. 17). Americans familiar with the details of American school-to-work restructuring will see that the United States is adopting the Soviet polytechnic system described in the following paper. The “Pavlovian conditioned reflex theory” discussed is the Skinnerian mastery learning/direct instruction method required in order to implement outcome-based education and school-to-work. Excerpts from this extraordinarily important report follow:


In the school classroom and workshop, in the machine building plant, at the countryside, and wherever we went, we felt the pulse of the Soviet Government’s drive to educate and train a new generation of technically skilled and scientifically literate citizens. Such is the consensus of the three specialists who are authors of this volume. The ideas and practices of Soviet education form a philosophy of education in which the authoritarian concept predominates....
With 60 percent of the adult male population illiterate in 1900, a massive educational effort was deemed necessary to transform this situation into one where new skills and scientific inquiry could meet national needs. The curriculum is unified and is the same for all schools throughout the U.S.S.R. with but slight variations in non-Russian nationality areas....
Principles of Darwinism, which are studied in grade 9 of U.S.S.R. schools, teach children about the origin of life together with the history of evolution in the organic world. The main theme of the course is evolution. Major efforts of U.S.S.R. schools during the past 30 years have been to train youngsters for the Government’s planned economic programs and to inculcate devotion to its political and social system....
Science and mathematics occupy 31.4 percent of the student’s time in the complete U.S.S.R. 10-year school. According to school officials, all work of pupils in these subjects has to be done in pen and ink in order to inculcate habits of neatness and accuracy.
U.S.S.R. plans are to bring all secondary school children into labor education and

training experiences through the regular school program.
The “school of general education” is now named the “labor-polytechnic school of general education.” Industrial and agricultural sciences and technical developments are causing Soviet educators to be concerned about future needs for readapting the schools to give more appropriate instruction for the coming age of automation, atomic power, and space.... The authors consider the polytechnic program in the Soviet elementary-secondary schools “as an integral part of the Soviet philosophy of education.” It is not a subject but in fact a type [emphasis in the original] of education, and other subjects... contribute to the polytechnic area. Soviet patriotism—fidelity to the Soviet land and to the ideas of communism—occupies a leading place in this educational conditioning, and in this sense gives the school a political character as well as a moral one. Employing primarily the conditioned reflex theory as elaborated by Pavlov (1849–1936), Soviet psychologists have worked out a system of didactics which are strict and fixed in their conception and application; one might even use the term “narrow” to distinguish them from the broad scope of methods employed, for example, in most U.S. schools. Soviet psychologists maintain that fundamentally all (except physically disturbed or handicapped) children can learn the standardized subject matter through the teaching methods devised for all schools. By definition, therefore, they exclude from practical consideration many educational techniques…. The curriculum, dominated until now by the so-called “hard” subjects, is designed to give all future citizens an intellectual foundation that is, in form, a traditional European one. This systematic approach to education tends to give Soviet teachers a classroom control that appears complete.
Certain of their psychological research findings in the past are not the only explanation that we observe for this principle, however, and it is well to point out that Soviet psychologists have only recently been in a position to try out new methods in connection with a more diversified curriculum. As one Moscow educator pointed out to us in a discussion on methods, the researchers are not always successful in getting their results and viewpoints adopted in school programs. Psychologists and other researchers are busily engaged in work on such areas as development of the cognitive activity of pupils in the teaching process (especially in relation to the polytechnic curriculum); simplification in learning reading and arithmetic skills in the lower grades; the formation of character and teaching moral values, including Soviet patriotism; psychological preparation of future teachers; the principles and methods for meeting individual children’s needs (such as “self-appreciation”),[3] in terms of handicaps and as regards a child’s particular attitudes, peculiarities, and maturity; and understanding the internal, structural integrity of each school subject and its interrelationships with other branches of knowledge. These research activities are carried out under Soviet conditions and exemplify some of the major problems which educators there now face.
Soviet educators define their system as an all-round training whereby youth can participate in creating the conditions for a socialist, and ultimately, Communist society. Such participation can become possible, they hold, only as students cultivate all the basic disciplines and only through a “steady rise in the productivity of labor”... which is linked closely with the educative process. School children and students are engaged in a total educational program which aims to teach all the same basic subjects, morals and habits in order to provide society with future workers and employees whose general education will make them socialist (Communist) citizens and contribute to their productivity upon learning a vocation profession). (pp. 10–11)

In 1960 President Dwight D. Eisenhower Recieved A Final Report,

From his Commission on National Goals entitled Goals for Americans. The 372-page volume recommended

carrying out an international, socialist agenda for the United States. This report, following on the heels of the 1955 White House Conference on Education’s use of the "Delphi Technique",[4] served to carve in stone the use of dialectic methods in public policy making through the use of results-based “planning” by consensus, not consent. This also may have marked the beginning of restructuring America from a constitutional republic to a socialist democracy.
Before listing an excerpted version of Goals for Americans, the writer would like to point out that although on their face these goals may sound legitimate, they are, in fact, blatantly socialistic. Only those recommendations which lean towards socialism have been included in this entry.

Goals For Americans

Every man and woman must have equal rights before the law, and an equal opportunity to vote and hold office, to be educated, to get a job and to be promoted when qualified, to buy a home, to participate fully in community affairs. Every man and woman must have equal rights before the law, and an equal opportunity to vote and hold office, to be educated, to get a job and to be promoted when qualified, to buy a home, to participate fully in community affairs.

III. The Democratic Process.

With firm faith in individual American responsibility, the Commission answered these questions with a confident and yet measured “yes.” While stressing private responsibility, the Commission also forthrightly favors government action at all levels whenever necessary to achieve the national goals....
The Commission adopted as its own his Professor Wallace S. Sayre of Columbia University principal recommendations, that “the President be given unequivocal authority and responsibility to develop a true senior civil service,” and that the pay of top government employees should be drastically increased.

IV. Education.

Annual public and private expenditure for education by 1970 must be approximately $40 Billion—Double the 1960 figure.... There must be more and better teachers, enlarged facilities, and changes in curricula and methods. Above all, schooling should fit the varying capacities of individuals; every student should be stimulated to work to his utmost; authentic concern for excellence is imperative.
Among specific steps, the Commission recommended that:
1. Small and inefficient school districts should be consolidated, reducing the total number from 40,000 to about 10,000.[5]
2. Teachers’ salaries at all levels must be improved.
3. Two-year colleges should be within commuting distance of most high school graduates.
4. Adult education should provide a new emphasis on education throughout life.

VI. Disarmament. Disarmament should be our ultimate goal.


VII. Less Developed Nations.

The success of the underdeveloped nations must depend primarily on their own efforts. We should assist by providing education, training, economic and technical assistance, and by increasing the flow of public and private capital....
Doubling their rate of economic growth within five years is a reasonable objective.... The U.S. share of such an effort would require by 1965 an outflow of $5 to $5.5 billion per year of public and private capital, as compared with

$3.4 billion per year in the 1956–59 period.

X. The United Nations.

A key goal in the pursuit of a vigorous and effective foreign policy is the preservation and strengthening of the United Nations. At the end of the Commission on National Goals report is the following: Attributed to American Assembly, founded by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1950 when he was President of Columbia University.
Attached to the report was a pamphlet entitled “Suggestions for Holding a Local Assembly on National Goals.” The process for arriving at “consensus” explained in the pamphlet is actually group dynamics. Consensus is not consent! These documents prove there has been a well-formulated and funded plan to change the American system of government through decision- making by unelected task forces, Soviet-style five-year plans, Delphi-type discussion groups, etc.
This type of participatory decision making called for by regional government—involving partnerships and unelected councils—is taking place in every state of the nation today. It is rarely challenged since few Americans understand our constitutional form of government, and are, therefore, unable to recognize the important differences between a representative republic and the parliamentary form of government found in socialist democracies.

Teaching Machines And Programmed Learning:

A Scource Book (Department Of Audio-Visual Instruction, National Education Association: Washington, D.C., 1960),
Edited by A.A. Lumsdaine (program director of the American Institute for Research and professor of education at the University of California in Los Angeles) and Robert Glaser (professor of psychology at the University of Pittsburgh and research advisor at the American Institute for Research) was published. Extensive excerpts from this document can be found in Appendix II Some interesting
selections follow:
[Chapter entitled] The Science of Learning and the Art of Teaching by B. F. Skinner  
Recent improvements in the conditions which control behavior in the field of learning are of two principal sorts. The “law of effect” has been taken seriously; we have made sure that effects do occur and that they occur under conditions which are optimal for producing the changes called learning. Once we have arranged the particular type of consequence called a reinforcement, our techniques permit us to shape the behavior of an organism almost at will. It has become a routine exercise to demonstrate this in classes in elementary psychology by conditioning such an organism as a pigeon. (pp. 99–100) In all this work, the species of the organism has made surprisingly little difference. It is true that the organisms studied have all been vertebrates, but they still cover a wide range. Comparable results have been obtained with rats, pigeons, dogs, monkeys, human children, and most recently—by the author in collaboration with Ogden R. Lindsley—with human psychotic subjects. In spite of great phylogenetic differences, all these organisms show amazingly similar properties of the learning process. It should be emphasized that this has been achieved by analyzing the effects of reinforcement and by designing techniques which manipulate reinforcement with considerable precision. Only in this way can the behavior of the individual organism be brought under such precise control. It is also important to note that through a gradual advance to complex interrelations among responses, the same degree of

rigor is being extended to behavior which would usually be assigned to such fields as perception, thinking, and personality dynamics. (p. 103)

1961   Programmed Learning:

Evolving Principles And Industrial Applications (Foundation for Research on Human Behavior: Ann Arbor, Mich., 1961) edited by Jerome P. Lysaught was published.
Appendix III contains significant material from this book. An excerpt from the introduction by Thomas H. Miller follows:
To introduce the subject, we would like to have each of you work through the first lesson of Dr. B. F. Skinner’s course in psychology. We would hope, incidentally, that a portion of the material is somewhat new to you so that some learning will actually take place in your encounter with the subject matter. Further, we hope it will demonstrate certain phenomena that will be spoken of repeatedly today, such as effective reinforcement of the learner and progress at the individual rate.
Imagine yourself to be a freshman student at Harvard. You are taking, for the first time, a college course in psychology. This is your first day in that course. Your introduction to the course consists of the presentation of the programmed learning sequence on the next pages.
The directions are simple. You should read the first stimulus item, S-1, consider it, and then construct in your own words the best possible answer. As soon as you have done this, turn the page and compare your answer with the answer listed at R-1, the first response item. Proceed through the program, going on to S-2 on the next page.
Under the section entitled “Principles of Programming,” written by Robert Glaser, we find the following excerpts to be revealing: It is indeed true that this book would never have been conceived without the well-known and perhaps undying work of Professor Skinner. It is largely through Professor Skinner’s work that all this theory and excitement about teaching machines and programmed learning has come about.
The essential task involved is to evoke the specific forms of behavior from the student and through appropriate reinforcement bring them under the control of specific subject matter stimuli. As a student goes through a learning program certain of his responses must be strengthened and shaped from initial unskilled behavior to subject matter competence....
Our present knowledge of the learning process points out that through the process of reinforcement, new forms of behavior can be created with a great degree of subtlety. The central feature of this process is making the reinforcement contingent upon performances of the learner. (Often the word “reward” is used to refer to one class of reinforcing events.)...
The term “programming” refers to the process of constructing sequences of instructional material in a way that maximizes the rate of acquisition and retention and enhances the motivation of the student....
A central process for the acquisition of behavior is reinforcement. Behavior is acquired as a result of a contingent relationship between the response of an organism and a consequent event. In order for these contingencies of reinforcement to be effective, certain conditions must be met. Reinforcement must follow the occurrence of the behavior being taught. If this is not the case, different and perhaps unwarranted behavior will be learned.


On July 18, 1961, Congressman John M. Ashbrook Delivered A Speech Before Congress

entitled “The Myth of Federal Aid to Education without Control” (Congressional Record: pp. 11868–11880). Excerpts from his very important speech, which documented and exposed the plans for the internationalization and transformation of American education, follow: That there was any doubt of the Federal bureaucrats’ intentions in this matter was laid to rest with the discovery of a Health, Education, and Welfare publication, A Federal Education Agency for the Future, which is a report of the Office of Education, dated April 1961.... I feel that its pronouncements are a blueprint for complete domination and direction of our schools from Washington. The publication was not popularly distributed and there was some difficulty in obtaining a copy.
Fifty-six pages of findings contain recommendations which call for more and more federal participation and control and repeatedly stress the need for Federal activity in formulating educational policies. It recommends a review of teacher preparation, curriculum and textbooks. It calls for an implementation of international education projects in cooperation with UNESCO in the United Nations, and ministries of education abroad. Of course, it recommends an enlarged office of education and the use of social scientists as key advisers....
It places stress on “implementing international educational projects in the United States and bringing maximum effectiveness to the total international educational effort.” Would not the Communists, with their footholds and infiltrations in these organizations, love this? No detail has been overlooked—“curriculum will have to undergo continual reshaping and upgrading; and new techniques and tools of instruction will have to be developed” and “teacher preparation, textbooks, and the curriculum in these subject fields must be improved in the decade ahead.” In the report… we find the vehicle for Federal domination of our schools. The battle lines are now drawn between those who seek control and uniformity of our local schools and those who oppose this further bureaucratic centralization in Washington. It is my sincere hope that the Congress will respond to this challenge and defeat the aid to education bills which will implement the goals incorporated in A Federal Education Agency for the Future.
Ashbrook went on to point out that under the mission as stated in the report the basic mission of the Office of Education to “promote the cause of education” remains unchanged since its establishment in 1867.
What is meant when he Sterling M. McMurrin, Commissioner of Education says, “I anticipate that much of this activity will take place through normal administrative processes within the Office and the Department”? In the jargon of Washington bureaucracy this means that the report will be largely implemented on the administrative level without Congressional action and approval.
The House Committee on Education and Labor recently voted out H.R. 7904 which would extend the National Defense Education Act.… It is evident that the administration has chosen this vehicle for enacting piecemeal the recommendations of A Federal Education Agency for the Future.
Ashbrook continued to quote from Agency for the Futurewhich he said “laid bare the real nemesis of the Federal bureaucrats—the tradition of local control.” The report stated, “The tradition of local control should no longer be permitted to inhibit Office of Education leadership.” The Committee on Mission and Organization called for

[An] Office of Educational Research that would administer a separate program of extra-mural contracts and grants for basic and experimental research in disciplines bearing upon the educational situation, and would serve the other parts of the Bureau with advice on research problems.... Since it is presumed that the Centers, oriented to education as it is organized and administered, will deal with educational problems directly confronting schools and colleges, it is believed desirable that extra-mural research be significantly attentive to basic problems of human development, training and teaching, regardless of whether or not they are acknowledged as immediately pressing problems by educators. In short, some research should be conducted precisely because it challenges the assumptions upon which practicing educators are proceeding.
The above is obviously a reference to behavioral sciences research which, until that time, had not found a permanent home at the local school educator level nor was there the need to conduct such research in order to challenge the “assumptions upon which practicing educators are proceeding.” Attached to the Committee’s report were appendices from which the following excerpts are taken:

Appendix B


The mission of the Office of Education in the 1960s

The schools of tomorrow must prepare their students for living in a world of continuous and rapid change, presenting them with unprecedented social, economic, and political problems. We must, in fact, give to education a character that will initiate and support a process of lifelong learning if Americans are to keep abreast of the accelerating advent of new knowledge and of the increasing complexity of modern life. These prospective conditions are already suggested in part by the rapidly increasing demand for highly specialized and professional skills. During the coming decade, new means must be developed for identifying and releasing student potential; curriculums will have to undergo continual reshaping and upgrading; and new techniques and tools of instruction will have to be developed....
   • Education is basic to effort to bring about an enduringly peaceful world.
   • Next decade will bring closer and multiple relationships with Ministries of Education abroad and international organizations, such as UNESCO, the Organization of American States, International Bureau of Education.
   • Variations among States and school districts in standards of instruction, facilities, staff, and services expose serious inadequacies. Our progress toward the ideal of equality of educational opportunity is tragically uneven.
   • In the area of international educational cooperation, in particular, it must play the major role, since only the Federal Government can enter into agreements with other governments. Along with these responsibilities should be included that of stimulating and participating activity in the process of formulation, examination, and reformulation of the goals of our national society in terms of educational objectives.
   • The development of uniform, consistent and compatible statistical data in all States and in all institutions of higher education will call for both technical and financial assistance to these sources from the Office of Education.
   • Economists, sociologists, and other social scientists will be needed on the staff to assist in dealing with educational problems in their total context.
National Defense Education Act (NDEA) Amendment of 1961—Additional Views, which accompanied H.R. 7904, included very important testimony regarding the dangers of the

NDEA and the recommendations made in the above Agency for the Future report. A discussion of the dangers of federal control follows:
We [the undersigned] reject, furthermore, the philosophy that there can exist Federal aid to any degree without Federal control. We further hold that there should not be Federal aid without Federal control. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to so supervise and control its allocations that waste and misuse is kept to a minimum. Since we do not desire such federal control in the field of public education, we do not desire Federal aid to education.
We should never permit the American educational system to become the vehicle for experimentation by educational ideologues. A careful analysis of the writings and statements of vocal and influential spokesmen in the governmental and educational fields indicates a desire on the part of some of these individuals to utilize the educational system as a means of transforming the economic and social outlook of the United States.
We point to a statement by Dr. Harold Rugg, for many years professor of education at Teachers College, Columbia University, who declared in Frontiers of Democracy on May 15, 1943 (pp. 247–254) concerning the teachers’ colleges:
Let them become powerful national centers for the graduate study of ideas and they will thereby become forces of creative imagination standing at the very vortex of the ideational revolution. Let us make our teacher education institutions into great direction finders for our new society, pointers of the way, dynamic trailblazers of the New Frontiers.
We could supply pages of documentation analyzing the type of new frontier planned. It is indeed a Socialist frontier. It had been hoped that the philosophy of education expressed by Dr. Rugg and his cohorts back in the early forties, had long since been repudiated. However, in April of 1961, the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare published a booklet entitled A Federal Education Agency for the Future.
Anyone who doubts that the Federal aid to education bills now before Congress would mean eventual Federal control of education, should carefully read and analyze for himself what the Office of Education is planning for tomorrow’s schools. They openly predict their “need” for new powers on the passage of the multimillion-dollar aid legislation now before us. They recommend that their Office of Education be elevated to the status of U.S. Education Agency, “to reflect the more active role of this unit of Government.” They envision the new Agency’s mission as one of “leadership” (p. 42), “national policymaking” (p. 43), “national planning” (p. 47), “to prepare students to understand the world of tomorrow” (p. 40). The Office of Education writers further say “along with these responsibilities should be included that of stimulating and participating in the process of formulation, examination, and reformulation of the goals of our society in the terms of educational objectives” (p. 43).
[Ed. Note:
A careful warning was sounded through the National Defense Education Act Amendment of 1961—Additional Views when the Congressmen said, “We reject that there can exist Federal aid to any degree without Federal control. We further hold that there should not be Federal aid without Federal control.” This applies as well to all of the voucher and tax credit proposals before us today (in 1999) flying under the banner of “choice.”
The Mission Statement of the Office of Education clearly called for the establishment of the National Center for Education Statistics, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and the “wholistic” approach to education through the inclusion of social scientists in the education process—a clear departure from academically oriented educational pursuits into intrusive areas totally unrelated to education.

Even taking into account the collectivist direction taken by radical educators in the first half of this century, this movement could not have borne fruit had it not been for President Dwight Eisenhower’s Commission on National Goals which produced Goals for Americans in 1960. These goals, along with the implementation of PPBS and Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, seem to have provided the catalyst for the “planned economy” being implemented in the United States in 1999.]
On September 2, 1961 The 87TH Congress Passed The Arms Control And Disarmment Act. (P.L. 87–297, H.R. 9118) which established a United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
Following is the statement of purpose for this important Act:
Public Law 87–297
87th Congress, H.R. 9118
September 26, 1961

An Act

To establish a United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress Assembled,
Title 1—Short Title, Purpose, And Definitions
Short Title
Section 1. This Act may be cited as the “Arms Control and Disarmament Act.”
Section 2. As used in this Act
(a) The Terms “arms control” and “disarmament” mean the identification, verification, inspection, limitation, control, reduction, or elimination, of armed forces and armaments of all kinds under international agreement including the necessary steps taken under such an agreement to establish an effective system of international control, or to create and strengthen international organizations for the maintenance of peace.
As partial fulfillment of the provision to take “the necessary steps… to establish an effective system of international control, or to create and strengthen international organizations for the maintenance of peace,” President John F. Kennedy’s U.S. Department of State simultaneously issued State Department Publication 7277: The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.

The following are excerpts from Publication 7277:

A world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations. In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts.
   • The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force.
   • The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order.

   • The manufacture of armaments would be prohibited except for those of agreed types and quantities to be used by the U.N. Peace Force and those required to maintain internal order. All other armaments would be destroyed or converted to peaceful purposes.
During the Congressional debate over the Arms Control and Disarmament Act, those favoring the establishment of the agency called it the “Peace Agency.” Congressman John Ashbrook, an opponent of the measure and its implications, called it the “Surrender Agency” and further expressed his concern that the agency “may well be the back door for the one-worlders to accomplish their goal of an International World Court.” Additionally, Senator Joseph S. Clark of Pennsylvania declared on the floor of the U.S. Senate March 1, 1962 that this new international focus was “the fixed, determined and approved policy of the government of the United States,” much to his sorrow.
[Ed. Note:
The goal perceived by Ashbrook, Clark and others of the Arms Control and Disarmament Act was to further extend the influence and control of the United Nations through United States contributions to the power of the UN regional alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). The development of education curriculum by United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and its outreach to the youth and communities throughout the world, coupled with the international political and economic weight of the UN through NATO and the UN’s treaty-making capacity, lends credence to the concerns voiced in Congress and elsewhere that a one-world government has been in the making since the end of World War II.]

“Harrison Bergeron,” One Of The Several Short Stories By Kurt Vonnegut, JR.,

Included in his book Welcome to the Monkey House (Delacorte Press/Seymour Lawrence: New York, 1961), provided uncanny insight into the nature of America’s dumbed-down society in the year 2081.
How the elitist “planners, managers” deal with Americans whose intellects and independence create problems for the smooth functioning of a society controlled for the benefit of all is the focus of the story.[6] An excerpt follows:
The year was 2081, and everybody was equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.
[Ed. Note:
The reader will, later in this book, recall this fictional forecast when encountering outcome-based education, Individual Education Plans (IEP’s) for all not just the handicapped and the Reading Excellence Act passed by Congress October 16, 1998, which will provide federal tax support for Skinnerian phonics instruction programs developed and used with special education children for over 25 years. In 1999 House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman William Goodling (PA) will also propose the removal of funding from present titles of the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) in order to completely fund the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). Vonnegut’s office of “Handicapper General” may not wait until 2081!]


1962   In The September 3, 1962 Edition Of The Dan Smoot Report[7] (VOL. 8, NO. 36)

Smoots’s article “Stabbed in the Back on the Fourth of July” dealt with an Independence Day speech given in Philadelphia by President John F. Kennedy in which he said:
But I will say here and now on this day of independence that the United States will be ready for a Declaration of Interdependence—that we will be prepared to discuss with a United Europe the ways and means of forming a concrete Atlantic Partnership—a mutually beneficial partnership between the new union now emerging in Europe and the old American Union founded here 175 years ago.
Today Americans must learn to think intercontinentally. On July 11, 1961, according to Smoot’s report:
James Reston (a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and an admirer of President Kennedy) commented on the President’s speech in a New York Times article :
This year President Kennedy went to Independence Hall, of all places, and on the Fourth of July, of all days, and virtually proposed to repeal the Declaration of Independence in favor of a declaration of interdependence. Maybe it is just the drowsy indolence of the summer, but American opinion seems remarkably receptive, or at least acquiescent, to President Kennedy’s proposal for a partnership of the Atlantic nations. In Washington, there was not a whisper of protest from a single national leader.

1963   The Role Of The Computer In The Future Instructional Systems Was Published

As The March / April, 1963 supplement of Audiovisual Communication Review (Monograph 2 of the Technological Development Project of the National Education Association [Contract No. SAE9073], U.S. Office of Education, Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare: Washington, D.C., 1963). James D. Finn of Los Angeles was the principal investigator and Donald P. Ely was the consulting investigator for this project. (Donald Ely also became project director for the U.S. Department of Education’s Project BEST: Basic Educational Skills through Technology, which will be discussed in a later entry in this book.) Excerpts from a chapter entitled “Effortless Learning, Attitude Changing, and Training in Decision-Making” follow:
Another area of potential development in computer applications is the attitude changing machine. Dr. Bertram Raven in the Psychology Department at the University of California at Los Angeles is in the process of building a computer-based device for changing attitudes.
This device will work on the principle that students’ attitudes can be changed effectively by using the Socratic method of asking an appropriate series of leading questions designed to right the balance between appropriate attitudes, and those deemed less acceptable. For instance, after first determining a student’s constellation of attitudes through appropriate testing procedures, the machine would calculate which attitudes are “out of phase” and which of these are amenable to change. If the student were opposed to foreign trade, say, and a favorable disposition were sought for, the machine would select an appropriate series of

statements and questions organized to right the imbalance in the student’s attitudes. The machine, for instance, would have detected that the student liked President Kennedy and was against the spread of Communism; therefore, the student would be shown that JFK favored foreign trade and that foreign trade to underdeveloped countries helped to arrest the Communist infiltration of these governments. If the student’s attitudes toward Kennedy and against Communism were sufficiently strong, Dr. Raven would hypothesize that a positive change in attitude toward foreign trade would be effectively brought about by showing the student the inconsistency of his views. There is considerable evidence that such techniques do effectively change attitudes.
Admittedly, training in decision-making skills is a legitimate goal of education in this age of automation, but the problem remains—does the educator know what values to attach to the different outcomes of these decisions? What about students whose values are out of line with the acceptable values of democratic society? Should they be taught to conform to someone else’s accepted judgment of proper values? Training in decision-making is ultimately compounded with training in value judgment and, as such, becomes a controversial subject that needs to be resolved by educators before the tools can be put to use.

University Of Pittsburgh's Learning Research An Development Center

Introduced in 1963 the Individually Prescribed Instruction (IPI) model which would allow for the implementation of continuous progress programs necessary for value change and school-to-work training. A good example of what Individually Prescribed Instruction is designed to do is given in Planned Change in Education: A Systems Approach, edited by David S. Bushnell of Project Focus and Donald Rappaport of Price Waterhouse & Co. (Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, Inc.: New York,1971). Excerpts from chapter 7, “Individualizing Instruction” by Robert G. Scanlon, program director for the Individualizing Learning Program of Research for Better Schools, Inc., and Mary V. Brown, assistant program director to the project, are reprinted below:
IPI is an instructional system that permits the teacher to plan and conduct a program of studies tailored to the needs and characteristics of each student. Its procedures have been designed to enable the school to meet more of the needs of more individual pupils and take a new direction in the continuing search for ways to adapt instruction to individual pupils. The rate of learning, amount of practice, type of materials, and mode of instruction are the parameters of individual differences emphasized in IPI. During the school year 1963–64, the Learning Research and Development Center and the Baldwin-Whitehall public schools (a suburban Pittsburgh school system) initiated an experimental project to investigate the feasibility of a system of individualized instruction in an entire K–6 school (Oakleaf). This came as a result of a series of exploratory studies begun in 1951–1962 designed to test preliminary notions in a single classroom.
The work started with the use of programmed instruction in an intact classroom. As work proceeded, it became apparent that the significant individualization feature of programmed instruction could not be augmented unless the organization of the classroom was changed to permit a more flexible context. Out of this experience grew the current Individually Prescribed Instruction project in which various combinations of instructional materials, testing procedures, and teacher practices are being used to accommodate individual student differences.
IPI is a system based on a set of specified objectives correlated with diagnostic instruments,

curriculum materials, teaching techniques, and management capabilities. The objectives of the system are:
1. to permit student mastery of instructional content at individual learning rates;
2. to ensure active student involvement in the learning process;
3. to encourage student involvement in learning through self-directed and self-initiated activities;
4. to encourage student evaluation of progress toward mastery and to provide instructional materials and techniques based on individual needs and styles. (pp. 93–95)
[Ed. Note:
IPI is necessary to the success of outcome-based education because it does away with norm-referenced testing and the traditional grading system. The Carnegie Unit is also jeopardized by the introduction of IPI. The federally funded laboratory Research for Better Schools, Inc., in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania field-tested IPI, thus setting the stage for Skinnerian mastery learning / direct instruction and the use of Skinner’s “box” (the computer) to be incorporated into curriculum. Homeschoolers and Christian educators should be reminded that this project is reflected in many of the curricular and organizational designs advocated for their use.]
In 1963 A National Project Was Initiated Which The Forerunner Of The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and became the model for individual state assessments which have created enormous controversy due to their focus on attitudinal and value change. This study was presented in A Plan for Evaluating the Quality of Educational Programs in Pennsylvania: Highlights of a Report from Educational Testing Service to the State Board of Education of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Educational Testing Service: Princeton, N.J., June 30, 1965). The combination of the Skinnerian method of training and the assessments’ emphasis on change in attitudes, values and beliefs resulted in what the average parent considered a “lethal concoction,” absolutely guaranteed to create a “robotized citizen for the New Pagan Age.” Although Appendix IV of this book includes verbatim text from the Plan, the following excerpts provide a fairly clear picture of the intent of those involved in this seminal project:
This Committee on Quality Education sought the advice of experts [including Dr. Urie Bronfenbrenner of the Department of Sociology, Cornell University; Dr. David R. Krathwohl of the College of Education, Michigan State University [a co-author with Benjamin Bloom of The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Affective Domain]; and Dr. Ralph Tyler, director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Palo Alto, California. These experts constituted a Standing Advisory Committee for the project....
It [the Committee] concluded that an educational program is to be regarded as adequate only if it can be shown to contribute to the total development of pupils.... The Committee recognizes that many of the desirable qualities that schools should help pupils acquire are difficult to define and even more difficult to measure. It feels, nevertheless, that any evaluation procedure that leaves these qualities out of account is deficient as a basis for determining whether the program of any school district is educationally adequate....
The first step in judging the quality of educational programs is to decide on the purposes of education. What should children be and do and know [emphasis in original] as a consequence of having gone to school? What are the goals of the schools? These questions have been high on the agenda of the Committee on Quality Education. Its members wanted

a set of goals that would reflect the problems society faces in the world of today.... Measures of conventional academic achievement, for instance, are at a more advanced stage of development than measures of attitude and values.
Measures of progress toward the ten goals are unequally developed. Some are more dependable and valid than others. For example, tests of reading comprehension are relatively well developed and reasonably well understood while tests of such qualities as self-understanding and tolerance are less well developed and poorly understood.... Where the available measures are clearly inadequate, intensive research and development should be undertaken immediately to bring them to the point where they can have full effect in the evaluation program.

James Clavell Wrote The Children's Story (Declaorte Press / Elenor Friede: NEW York,1963).

In this book Clavell, author of King Rat, Tai-Pan, Shogun and Noble House, explains most eloquently how little children can have their minds manipulated into believing anything the teacher wants them to believe, even to the point of believing their parents are old-fashioned and should go back to school to unlearn bad thoughts, and that God does not exist. On the dust jacket of the book we learn:
It was a simple incident in the life of James Clavell—a talk with his young daughter just home from school—that inspired this chilling tale of what could happen in twenty-five quietly devastating minutes. He [Clavell] writes: “the children’s story came into being that day. It was then that I really realized how vulnerable my child’s mind was—any mind for that matter—under controlled circumstances.”
Some excerpts from the last pages of this remarkable book follow:
“Sit down, Johnny, and we’ll start learning good things and not worry about grown-up bad thoughts. Oh yes,” she said when she sat down at her seat again, brimming with happiness. “I have a lovely surprise for you. You’re all going to stay overnight with us. We have a lovely room and beds and lots of food, and we’ll all tell stories and have such a lovely time.”
“Oh, good,” the children said.
“Can I stay up till eight o’clock?” Mary asked breathlessly.
“Well, as it’s our first new day, we’ll all stay up to eight-thirty. But only if you promise to go right to sleep afterward.”
The children all promised. They were very happy. Jenny said, “But first we got to say our prayers. Before we go to sleep.”
The New Teacher smiled at her. “Of course. Perhaps we should say a prayer now. In some schools that’s a custom, too.” She thought a moment, and the faces watched her. Then she said, “Let’s pray. But let’s pray for something very good. What should we pray for?”
“Bless Momma and Daddy,” Danny said immediately.
“That’s a good idea, Danny. I have one. Let’s pray for candy. That’s a good idea, isn’t it?”
They all nodded happily.
So, following their New Teacher, they all closed their eyes and steepled their hands together, and they prayed with her for candy.
The New Teacher opened her eyes and looked around disappointedly. “But where’s our candy? God is all-seeing and is everywhere, and if we pray, He answers our prayers. Isn’t that true?”

“I prayed for a puppy of my own lots of times, but I never got one,” Danny said.
“Maybe we didn’t pray hard enough. Perhaps we should kneel down like it’s done in church.”
So the New Teacher knelt and all the children knelt and they prayed very, very hard. But there was still no candy.
Because the New Teacher was disappointed, the children were very disappointed. Then she said, “Perhaps we’re using the wrong name.” She thought a moment and then said, “Instead of saying ‘God,’ let’s say ‘Our Leader.’ Let’s pray to Our Leader for candy. Let’s pray very hard and don’t open your eyes till I say.”
So the children shut their eyes tightly and prayed very hard, and as they prayed, the New Teacher took out some candy from her pocket and quietly put a piece on each child’s desk. She did not notice Johnny—alone of all the children—watching her through his halfclosed eyes.
She went softly back to her desk and the prayer ended, and the children opened their eyes and they stared at the candy and they were overjoyed.
“I’m going to pray to Our Leader every time,” Mary said excitedly.
“Me, too,” Hilda said. “Could we eat Our Leader’s candy now, teacher?”
“Oh, let’s, please, please, please.”
“So Our Leader answered your prayers, didn’t he?”
“I saw you put the candy on our desks!” Johnny burst out. “I saw you. I didn’t close my eyes, and I saw you. You had ‘em in your pocket. We didn’t get them with praying. You put them there.”
All the children, appalled, stared at him and then at their New Teacher. She stood at the front of the class and looked back at Johnny and then at all of them.
“Yes, Johnny, you’re quite right. You’re a very, very wise boy. Children, I put candy on your desks. So you know that it doesn’t matter whom you ask, whom you shut your eyes and ‘pray’ to—to God or anyone, even Our Leader—no one will give you anything. Only another human being.” She looked at Danny. “God didn’t give you the puppy you wanted. But if you work hard, I will. Only I or someone like me can give you things. Praying to God or anything or anyone for something is a waste of time.” [all emphases in original]

1964   The Role Of The Computer In The Future Instructional Systems Was Published

The journal of the American Humanist Association, in its June/July 1964 issue. The following is an excerpt:
At the 1962 Humanist meeting in Los Angeles four women attended a workshop on humanist family services and began to lay the groundwork for the AHA’s widespread involvement in ethical education for children.... The purpose of a humanist ethical education program should be to provide the child with tools by which he can make his own decisions.
[Ed. Note:
From this time on efforts would be made to develop and implement humanistic (no right / no wrong) values education under many labels, just a few of which were/are: values clarification; decision making; critical thinking; problem solving; and moral, character, citizenship and civic education.]


In 1964 The Carnegie Corporation Appointed Ralph Tyler Chairman Of The Committee

on Assessing the Progress of Education which continued the project begun in 1963 that would in 1969 become the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).
[Ed. Note:
In 1999 NAEP is funded by the federal government and widely used across the United States. Individual states are passing legislation to use NAEP as a state test and parents and legislators are mistakenly believing that these “tests” (assessments) will give them information about the performance of their children in academic subjects. This is a misconception; NAEP tracks conformity to government-generated goals.]

1965   The Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program (BSTEP), Funded By The U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,

was initiated in 1965 at Michigan State University and carried out between the years 1965 and 1969. BSTEP’s purpose was to change the teacher from a transmitter of knowledge/content to a social change agent/facilitator/clinician. Traditional public school administrators were appalled at this new role for teachers. (For more extensive reading of the BSTEP proposal, see Appendix V.)

Elementary And Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Of 1965 Was Passed By Congress.

This marked the end of local control and the beginning of nationalization/internationalization of education in the United States. Use of goal-setting, Management by Objectives (MBO), Planning, Programming, Budgeting Systems (PPBS) and systems management for accountability purposes would be totally funded by and directed from the federal level. The table of contents for ESEA included:
   • Title I—Financial Assistance to local educational agencies for education of children from low-income families
   • Title II—School library resources, textbooks, and other instructional materials
   • Title III—Supplementary educational centers and services, guidance counseling, and testing
   • Title IV—Libraries, learning resources, educational innovation, and support
   • Title V—Grants to strengthen State Departments of Education
   • Title VI—Vacant
   • Title VII—Bilingual education programs
   • Title VIII—General provisions
   • Title IX—Ethnic heritage program
ESEA targeted low income/minority students for experimentation with Skinnerian “basic skills” programs; i.e., Follow Through [mastery learning/direct instruction], Right-to-Read, Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction (ECRI), Project INSTRUCT, etc. By the end of the 1980s state departments of education would be receiving between 60–75% of their operating budget from the U.S. Department of Education—which was not even in existence at the time of passage of the ESEA!


President Lyndon B. Johnson Issued An Executive Order In 1965

Introducing the Planning,Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) into use throughout all departments of the entire federal government.

The Education Commission Of The States (ECS) Was Created In 1965

“In order to bring some degree of order out of this chaos,” wrote Harvard University President James B. Conant in 1964 in reference to education policy making in the United States. ECS was to be made up of dues-paying “members” comprising representatives of each participating state’s legislative Education Committees and their governors. The Competency-Based Education (CBE) movement— which evolved into outcome-based education (OBE), both using mastery learning as a base—was orchestrated by ECS. Since ECS served as the resource and coordinator of information flowing to state legislative committees and governors’ offices across the land, it is no wonder that all states ended up having the same curriculum.
A very important article, entitled “E.C.S. at 20: The Compact’s Potential Is Still To Be Realized” by Thomas Toch which covered the history of ECS, was printed in Education Week (October 24, 1984). Excerpts follow:
“Some degree of order needs to be brought out of this chaos,” wrote James B. Conant, the President of Harvard University, in 1964 in reference to education policy making in the nation. “We cannot have a national educational policy,” he added in his book Shaping Educational Policy, “but we might be able to evolve a nationwide policy.” The solution, Mr. Conant concluded, was a “new venture in cooperative federalism,” a compact among the states to create an organization to focus national attention on the pressing education issues of the day. The following spring, the Carnegie Corporation and the Ford Foundation awarded a grant to Terry Sanford, who had recently left the governorship of North Carolina, to transform the Conant idea into reality. John W. Gardner was Carnegie’s president at the time. A preliminary draft of the compact was completed by July and endorsed by representatives from all 50 states and the territories in September.
Within five months, 10 states had ratified the agreement, giving it legal status. Out of the compact was born the Education Commission of the States (E.C.S.)....
“We invented a little device to get the compact approved quickly,” Mr. Sanford, now the President of Duke University, said recently. “We didn’t need money from the legislatures, we had plenty of foundation funding, so we agreed that the governors could ratify it by executive order.”...
But since the establishment under Governor James B. Hunt of the Commission’s Task Force on Education for Economic Growth two years ago, ECS’s role has begun to change. The task force’s report Action for Excellence joined A Nation at Risk and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching’s High School acted as principal voices in the chorus of reform. It gained Gov. Hunt and several other “education governors” who were linked to ECS wide national publicity, and, in making a series of specific reform recommendations, thrust ECS into the policy-making arena.


A manual of principles and techniques (Psychosynthesis Research Foundation: Crucible imprint of Aquarian Press, Thorsons Publishing Group: Northamptonshire, England, 1965) by Dr. Roberto Assagioli, a practicing psychiatrist in Florence, Italy, was published.

Roberto Assagioli defined “psychosynthesis” as the “formation or reconstruction of a new personality—the transpersonal or ‘spiritual Self.’” An excerpt from Psychosynthesis explained:
What distinguishes psychosynthesis from many other attempts at psychological understanding is the position we take as to the existence of a spiritual Self. We consider that the spiritual is as basic as the material part of man essentially we include within the study of psychological facts all those which may be related to the higher urges within man which tends to make him grow towards greater realization of his spiritual essence. Our position affirms that all the superior manifestations of the human psyche, such as creative imagination, intuition, aspiration, genius, are facts which are as real and as important as are the conditioned reflexes, and therefore, are susceptible to research and treatment just as scientifically as conditioned reflexes.
As psychology began to assert itself as an “acceptable science” in the “sick sixties,” Assagioli’s “psychosynthesis” concept is credited with creating a paradigm that enabled an integration (synthesis) of psychology with spirituality. Assagioli emphasized a holistic worldview, laying the groundwork for the future educational pedagogy of “holistic education” of the 1990s—teaching the “whole child.” He was also the originator of a group of exercises for “Spiritual Psychosynthesis” based on what we now call “role playing.” These include: “on the Legend of the Holy Grail,” “on Dante’s Divine Comedy,” and “on the Blossoming of the Rose.” Assagioli’s view of the human psyche included a progression from lower to higher order “consciousness” (or thinking) which is similar to “New Age” ideas about the evolution of man into a “collective consciousness.” These ideas laid the philosophical foundation for character education, values clarification, and consciousness-altering techniques used in the classroom. For example, the “sick sixties” were hallmarked by the emergence of “transpersonal psychology,” a designation typified today by the statement, “I’m OK, you’re OK.” One of its promoters—and a disciple of Roberto Assagioli—was Jack Canfield.
Canfield’s name appears on many education curricula and training programs utilizing behavior modification for values clarification. Significantly, Roberto Assagioli’s selected appendices in Psychosynthesis include an article entitled “Initiated Symbol Projection” (ISP) written by a German psychiatrist named Hanscarl Leurner.
According to a note by Assagioli, “Dr. Leurner now prefers to call his method ‘Guided Affective Imagery’”—a form of guided imagery widely practiced in elementary and secondary classrooms, business training sessions, counseling sessions, and religious services. A description of what Leurner called his “psycho-diagnostic and psycho-therapeutic technique” is provided:
The subject is seated in a comfortable chair or on a couch (lying down), asked to close his eyes, and induced to relax…a light hypnoid state has proved valuable. Deep and regular breathing then, in a psychological state characterized by diminished consciousness of the outer world, reduced conscious criticism and self-control, the subject is asked to visualize. In the phenomenology of medical psychology, they are similar to “hypnogic visions.”
[Ed. Note:
The fact that guided imagery is a psychological technique raises a question regarding its use in the classroom by teachers who are not professional therapists.]


1966   Psychology

By Wilbert James McKeachie of the University of Michigan and Charlotte Lackner Doyle of Cornell University (Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.: New York, 1966) was published.
An excerpt from a chapter entitled “What Does a Psychologist Observe?” follows: Watson’s approach to psychology, with its emphasis on observable behavior, became known as behaviorism. The major problem with this approach was that it excluded from psychology some of its major concerns. No one can directly observe the motives, feelings, perceptions, thoughts, and memories of others. Re-defining thought in terms of muscle movements made thought a measurable event, but ignored some of the properties of thought that make it psychologically interesting. The behaviorists became committed to the study of muscle movements in place of an analysis of thought. (pp. 4–5)

1967   The Computer In American Education Edited By Don D. Bushnell And Dwight W. Allen

(John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1967) was published. Excerpts follow:
The technology for controlling others exists and it will be used, given the persistence of power-seeking motives. Furthermore, we will need to use it, since the necessary social changes cannot come about if the affected people do not understand and desire them.... How do we educate “run-of-the-mill” citizens for membership in a democratic society?... How do we teach people to understand their relationship to long range planning?... And how do we teach people to be comfortable with the process of change? Should we educate for this? We shall probably have to. But how?...
The need for educating to embrace change is not limited to youngsters.... Education for tomorrow’s world will involve more than programming students by a computer; it will equally involve the ways in which we program... parents to respond to the education... children get for this kind of world. To the extent we succeed with the youngsters but not with the parents, we will have... a very serious consequence: an increasing separation of the young from their parents.... It will have psychological repercussions, probably producing in the children both guilt and hostility (arising from their rejection of their parents’ views and values in lifestyles). (p. 7)

Project Follow Through Was Intiated In 1967

funded under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, and carried out as a part of President Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty.” Follow Through was administered by the U.S. Office of Education in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. One of the models of instruction examined in trial under Follow Through was the Direct Instruction (DI) model developed by W.C. Becker and Siegfried Engelmann. Direct Instruction is based on the work of the late B.F. Skinner of Harvard, Edward Thorndike of Columbia University, and Ivan Pavlov of Russia, even though their works are not directly quoted in the DI literature.

Alice M. Rivlin,[8] a member of the Brookings Institute staff, in a lecture entitled “Systematic Thinking for Social Action” for the institute’s H. Rowan Gaither Lectures Series at the University of California at Berkeley (under the sponsorship of the Graduate School of Business Administration and the Center for Research in Management Science, 1970), critically evaluated Project Follow Through and its results. Following are excerpts from Rivlin’s speech:
The Follow Through program is another example of a current attempt to use federal funds to learn how to produce services effectively—in this case, services for young children.
Follow Through is a quasi-experiment, with a statistical design far less sophisticated than that of the New Jersey income maintenance experiment. There was evidence that children could move ahead rapidly in a good preschool program, but that when they were dumped back into the same dismal slum school the gains were lost. The objective of Follow Through was to determine whether the gains achieved through Head Start could be maintained through special programs in the early years of elementary school.... The approaches were extremely varied.
The Becker-Engelmann program [Direct Instruction], developed at the University of Illinois, emphasized intensive work with small groups of children on the cognitive skills that deprived children often lack—verbal expression, reading, math skills. The methods involve rapid-fire questioning of students by instructors with rewards in the form of praise and stars for the right answers. It is a highly-disciplined approach and has been described as an intellectual “pressure cooker.”...
Since Follow Through was not a scientifically designed experiment, there is reason to question whether valid conclusions can be drawn from it about the relative effectiveness of the various approaches.... In any case, there are not enough projects of any type to support definitive statements about what works best with different kinds of populations.
[Ed. Note:
Although the evaluation of Follow Through cited some academic and self-esteem gains at some Direct Instruction model sites, it would have been virtually impossible for these gains not to have been made considering the models with which they were compared—the non-academic focus of the “touchy-feely” open classroom. Had the Direct Instruction model been in competition with a traditional phonics program which was not based on animal behavioral psychology (“scientific, research-based”), it is most unlikely it would have been able to point to any gains at all. Unsuspecting parents in the 1990s seeking more structured academic education for their children than can be found in schools experimenting with constructivistic developmental programs (whole language, etc.) are turning to DI, not realizing they are embracing a method based on mastery learning and animal psychology.]

Planning, Programming, Budgeting System (PPBS) Was Applied In 1967.

During Ronald Reagan’s tenure as governor of California, PPBS was installed in the California school system. The California Assembly passed AB 61 (1967) which authorized a pilot study of PPBS; ACR 198 (1970) created the Joint Committee on Educational Goals and Evaluation; AAB 2800 (1971) and SB 1526 (1971) set up the essential PPBS subsystems to facilitate federal funding and centralized control of state schools’ goals, evaluation and management of all school programs and people; AB 293 (1971), the “Stull Bill,” provided for teacher evaluation; the California State Board of Education approved Program Budgeting in a new California School Accounting Manual (Phase I of PPBS); and Reagan signed AB 1207 (1973), giving the accounting manual legal mandate in districts throughout the state. PPBS implementation in education (and in other governmental functions) was given considerable

impetus by Governor Reagan who “strongly expressed” the intent of his administration to activate PPBS, a management tool of political change through funding, in Implementing PPB in State, City and County: A Report on the 5–5–5 Project. (State-Local Finances Project of The George Washington University: Washington, D.C., June, 1969). This entry summarizes this Report, published in cooperation with: The Council of State Governments, The International City Managers Association, The National Association of Counties, The National Governors’ Conference, The National League of Cities, and The United States Conference of Mayors.

1968   B.F. Skinner: The Man And His Ideas By Richard I. Evans

Was Published (Dutton and Company: New York, 1968).
Evans’s excellent critique of the totalitarian views of Professor Skinner was funded by the National Science Foundation. Extensive quotes from this book are included in Appendix XXIV. A few pertinent excerpts follow:
“I could make a pigeon a high achiever by reinforcing it on a proper schedule.”... His [Skinner’s] concern for what he believes to be the inadequacy of our formal education system led to applying the principles of operant conditioning to a learning system which he called the teaching machine, but Skinner’s approach is concerned with more than merely methods and techniques. He challenges the very foundations by which man in our society is shaped and controlled. (p. 10)
“[F]or the purpose of analyzing behavior we have to assume man is a machine. (p. 24) ...
You can induce him to behave according to the dictates of society instead of his own selfish interest.” (p. 42)
“I should not bother with ordinary learning theory, for example. I would eliminate most sensory psychology and I would give them no cognitive psychology whatsoever [meaning the students, ed.].” (p. 91)“
It isn’t the person who is important, it’s the method. If the practice of psychology survives, that’s the main objective. It’s the same with cultural practices in general: no one survives as a person.” (p. 96) “
It does bother me that thousands of teachers don’t understand, because immediate gains are more likely in the classroom than in the clinic. Teachers will eventually know—they must [understand]—and I am more concerned with promoting my theories in education [operant conditioning].” (p. 96)
“I should like to see our government set up a large educational agency in which specialists could be sent to train teachers.” (p. 109)
In 1953 Skinner wrote Science and Human Behavior (Macmillan & Co.: New York, 1953), within which is found the following quote:
A rather obvious solution is to distribute the control of human behavior among many agencies which have so little in common that they are not likely to join together in a despotic unit. In general this is the argument for democracy against totalitarianism. In a totalitarian state all agencies are brought together under a single super-agency.
[Ed. Note:
Obviously, even before the U.S. Department of Education was established and organized teacher in-service training had taken a behaviorist (performance-based) turn, Skinner was advocating these very operant conditioning methods in all phases of education. Beginning in 1965, the federal government implemented several teacher education programs

based on performance—performance-based teacher education—which would fulfill Skinner’s plan. Skinner was always more concerned with “how” teachers teach than with “what” teachers teach. The reader should refer to Bettye Lewis’s fine summary of the establishment of the Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program (BSTEP) in Appendix V for descriptions of these programs.]

The May 1968 Issue Of The Educational Journals

The instructor ran an artical by Dr. Paul Brandwein Brandwein, adjunct professor at University of Pittsburgh, entitled “School System of the Future” which outlined the changes on the horizon relative to the relationship between children, parents and schools. The following quotes will be of interest:
[Parents] often have little, if any knowledge of the rudiments of the human enterprise we call teaching and learning, or even the elements of the behavioral sciences undergirding child development. The most formative years are what we call pre-kindergarten years. Television can be utilized to provide the proper instruction [indoctrination] to the parent... a minimum of an hour a day... continuing over four or five years... aimed at the parent to equip him as “teacher.”
Learning is synonymous with environmental behavior change.... Learning... is the modification of behavior through interaction with the environment....
[New school system structure] would maintain continuity over some nineteen years, with three carefully articulated periods of schooling... 1. Primary, with the first four or five years in the home with “informed” parents as teachers; 2. Secondary, with parents as teacher aides; 3. Preparatory,to be used differently for children with varying gifts and destinations.... The student would be able to choose vocational training, studies related to semi-skilled occupation, or collegiate work for the next four years, with one year given over to public service....
[P]rimary education with the parents as teacher has the aim of making the home a healthy and healing environment.... Education must heal. If it does not heal and make strong, it is not education.
Assume with me that education, as profession and enterprise, would join forces with government and industry to support education of the parent in the mode, manner, and morality befitting the early education of children. Teachers and behavioral scientists—psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, students of child development—would be called upon. We have common, indeed universal, communication with the home through radio, television, and printed materials; and soon other aspects of electronic technology will be available.
The Secondary Years, beginning with kindergarten, concern themselves with the concepts and skills required for effective participation in our society.... In structure [emphasis in original], the curriculum might well be organized in terms of continuous and progressive experience (synonyms: non-graded curriculum, continuous progress).... Grades (marks, scores) as we know them would not be used, but there would be reports to the parents of child’s progress, similar to what some schools are doing now.
Each boy and girl would choose an area of public service coordinated with his gifts and destination. Care of children, care of the aged and infirm, assisting in schools and in hospitals, conserving our natural resources, could well be among such tasks. The major peace-seeking and peace-keeping strategy of society is education. Peace is inevitable.

Learning And Instruction, A Chicago Inner City Schools position paper presented

in June of 1968 to the Chicago Board of Education, was produced by the planning staff in

Chicago made up of:
Dr. Donald Leu, William Farquhar, Lee Shulman, and the Chicago and Michigan State universities in collaboration. One reference used was Soviet Preschool Education, translated by Henry Chauncey (Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N.J.). Excerpts from the Chicago Mastery Learning Project position paper, Learning and Instruction, follow:
We view the child with his defined characteristics as input to a school organization which modifies his capabilities toward certain goals and objectives as output. The school organization is an optimal deployment of teachers employing a special subject matter who attempt through instruction, with the aid of selected elements of the community, to achieve specified outputs. The joint participation of the children, school and community leave none of these elements unchanged....
This emphasis should be accomplished within the context of a truly ungraded structure which we shall denote by the terms Continuous Development-Mastery Learning. This approach has the following characteristics: (a) Beginning with Chicago’s present concept of Continuous Development, the objectives of the language arts curriculum must be much further differentiated and articulated in the manner currently being conducted by Sophie Bloom [wife of the late Benjamin Bloom] in Chicago, and Pittsburgh’s Individually Prescribed Instruction Project.
In the Continuous Development-Mastery Learning approach, a large number of sequentially designated objectives, tied into specific capabilities to be mastered by pupils, are identified. This is done by curriculum development specialists in collaboration with instructional personnel. References used in this paper were from the late Benjamin Bloom, John Carroll, Robert Gagne, Robert Glaser and Henry Chauncey, ed.
The following is an excerpt from an article published in Education Week, March 6, 1985 entitled “Half of Chicago Students Drop out, Study Finds: Problem Called Enormous Human Tragedy”:
Calling the dropout problem in Chicago “a human tragedy of enormous dimensions,” a recent study has found that almost half of the 39,500 public school students in the 1980 freshman class failed to graduate, and that only about a third of those who did were able to read at or above the national 12th grade level. “These statistics about the class of 1984 reflect the destruction of tens of thousands of young lives, year in and year out,” says the study, released in January by Designs for Change, a nonprofit research and child-advocacy organization in Chicago.... “Most of these young people are permanently locked out of our changing economy and have no hope of continuing their education or getting a permanent job with a future,” the authors wrote.
Professor Lee Shulman’s involvement in the Chicago Mastery Learning disaster was, however, quickly forgotten or considered unimportant. According to Education Daily of May 21, 1987—two years later:
Shulman, who heads Stanford’s Education Policy Institute, last week was awarded $817,000 by Carnegie Corporation to develop over the next 15 months new forms of teacher assessment materials that would be the basis of standards adopted by a national teacher certification board.
The Education Daily article further discussed the requirement for teacher critique of the way two textbooks treat photosynthesis and how they (teachers) developed a lesson plan based on each one:

The teacher then would be directed to use the textbooks to tell the examiners how he or she would teach students with varying religious, cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Nine years later Education Week of October 23, 1996 reported Shulman again leading the outcome-/performance based teacher education bandwagon of social change agents:
His successful performance as developer of new forms of teacher assessment materials leads to his being named President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, filling the vacancy created by the death last year of Ernest L. Boyer.
An excerpt from an October 21, 1996 New York Times article entitled “Carnegie Foundation Selects a New Leader” emphasized Shulman’s importance in the field of behavioral psychology: He [Shulman] has been a Guggenheim Fellow, a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and a Fellow of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. He is the immediate past president of the National Academy of Education and a former president of the American Education Research Association.

In A 1968 Sspeech Entitled “The United Nations And Alternative Formulations

"The Hard Road to World Order,” Richard Gardner, former U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state and U.S. ambassador to Italy, provided an accurate forewarning and picture of the environment in which Americans and citizens of other countries live today, explaining how the elitist planners would, through the use of gradualism, succeed in their century-long plan to create a One World Government. In an excerpt from the speech Gardner explains the following:
In short, we are likely to do better by building our “house of world order” from the bottom up rather than the top down. It will look like a great, “booming, buzzing confusion,” to use William James’s famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, is likely to get us to world order faster than the old-fashioned frontal attack.

Ethna Reid Of The Granite School District, Salt Lake City, Utah

Recived $848,536 in federal grants under Title III of the ESEA in 1968 to develop the Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction (ECRI), a Mastery Learning program. This grant far exceeded the legal cap on federal education program funding at that time. In 1982 Reid claimed that her mastery learning program “is undoubtedly one of those in greatest use today in the United States at all grade levels, K–12.”[9]
The 120-page teacher pre-service training manual from ECRI was devoted to the training of teachers in stimulus-response-stimulus/operant conditioning techniques (Skinner), and materials on the “adaptation of birds, monitoring forms before and after instruction” (observation data sheet records). How to Teach Animals by B.F. Skinner and How to Teach Animals: A Rat, a Pigeon, a Dog by Kathleen and Shauna Reid are both listed as teacher and resource

The ECRI Teacher Training Manual cites the work of Siegfried Engelmann, the developer of DISTAR (Direct Instruction System for Teaching and Remediation) Reading Mastery, and Direct Instruction in instructing teachers how to use operant conditioning, stimulus-responsestimulus to get desired behaviors. Reviewed by the U.S. Department of Education’s Joint Dissemination Review Panel (JDRP) and approved as an exemplary education program in 1974,
ECRI was promoted throughout the National Diffusion Network (NDN), the federally funded transmission belt for controversial and mostly non-academic programs.
On May 5, 1984 the officers of the Arizona Federation of Teachers unanimously passed a resolution—spearheaded by Ann Herzer, an Arizona teacher—which stated in part that members of the Arizona affiliate oppose such programs as ECRI, Project Instruct and / or any other programs that use operant conditioning under the guise of Mastery Learning, Classroom Management, Precision Teaching, Structured Learning and Discipline, and petition the U.S. Congress for protection against the use of such methods on teachers and students without their prior consent.
The Arizona resolution was supported by Dr. Jeanette Veatch, internationally known expert in the field of reading, who in a July 1980 letter to Ann Herzer called the ECRI program “a more modern version of breaking children to the heel of thought control.... It is so flagrantly dangerous, damaging and destructive I am appalled at its existence.” Unfortunately, Albert Shanker, then president of the national American Federation of Teachers (AFT), tabled the Arizona affiliate’s resolution at AFT’s August, 1984 national convention in Washington, D.C. With this historical perspective in mind, consider an article which appeared in Education Week September 6, 1997 entitled “New AFT President Urges Members to Help Floundering Schools.” The late Albert Shanker would be pleased that the AFT continues to support Skinnerian mastery learning / direct instruction, for the article states in part: “Also featured [at AFT’s QUEST Conference] was Direct Instruction, a scripted set of lessons used for teaching at-risk students.”

John Goodlad's Article, "Learning And Teaching In The Future",

Was published by the National Education Association’s journal Today’s Education in 1968. Excerpts from Goodlad’s article follow:
The most controversial issues of the twenty-first century will pertain to the ends and means of modifying human behavior and who shall determine them. The first educational question will not be “what knowledge is of the most worth?” but “what kinds of human beings do we wish to produce?” The possibilities virtually defy our imagination.

Technology Of Teaching By B.F. Skinner

Was published (Prentice Hall: New York, 1968) and became part of the educational lore of the day. An excerpt follows:
Absolute power in education is not a serious issue today because it seems out of reach. However, a technology of teaching will need to be much more powerful if the race with

catastrophe is to be won, and it may then, like any powerful technology, need to be contained. An appropriate counter control will not be generated as a revolt against aversive measures but by a policy designed to maximize the contribution which education can make to the strength of the culture. The issue is important because the government of the future will probably operate mainly through educational techniques. (p. 260)
[Ed. note:
Skinner was 100% correct. The government in 1999 “operates mainly through educational techniques.” Those individuals and agencies conforming with government policies, criteria, etc., are rewarded, whereas those who do not conform are either ignored or denied special privileges and funding. In the late twentieth century, following the philosophy of B.F. Skinner that the “environment is all,” all evil is attributed to the environment and no one is held responsible for his actions.]

“The Foundation Machine”

By Edith Kermit Roosevelt was published in the December 26, 1968 issue of The Wanderer. In this important article Mrs. Roosevelt discussed problems that had been created by the Carnegie Corporation’s new reading program as follows:
Even now the Carnegie Corporation is facing protests from parents whose children are exposed to the textbooks financed by the foundation under its “Project Read.” This project provides programmed textbooks for schools, particularly in “culturally deprived areas.” An estimated five million children throughout the nation are using the material in the programmed textbooks produced by the Behavioral Research Laboratories, Palo Alto, California. This writer has gone over these textbooks in the “Reading” series financed by the Carnegie Corporation and authored by M.W. Sullivan, a linguist. These foundation-funded books reveal a fire pattern that amounts to an incitement to the sort of arson and guerilla warfare that took place in Watts, Washington, D.C., and elsewhere. On one page in the series we find a torch next to a white porch. The caption reads invitingly, “a torch, a porch.” Further along there is a picture of a man smiling while he holds a torch aloft. The caption beneath it reads: “This man has a t_rch in his hand.” The children are required as an exercise to insert the missing letter to fill in the word torch. The next picture shows the burning torch touching the porch, with a caption, “a torch on a porch.” Thus, the children are led in stages to the final act that suggests itself quite naturally. The picture in the series shows a hand moving the hands of a clock to twenty five minutes past one, while this same shack is being devoured by flames. The message is plain: An example of a man who deliberately commits the criminal act of setting a home on fire. Tragically, these young children are being indoctrinated with a pattern of anti-social ideas that will completely and violently alienate them from the mainstream of American middle-class values. Other pictures in the Carnegie-funded supposedly educational texts include a comparison of a flag with a rag, the ransoming of an American soldier in a Chinese prison, a picture that shows people kneeling in a church to say their prayers beside a picture of a horse being taught to kneel in the same way, a reference to a candidate elected to public office as a “ruler,” a picture of a boy stealing a girl’s purse, and another boy throwing pointed darts at a companion whom he uses as target practice.
Understandably, the Carnegie-financed books are causing concern to local law-enforcement officials, many of whom have to cope with riot or near-riot conditions. Ellen Morphonios, prosecutor for Florida in its attorney’s office, and a chief of its Criminal Court Division, said recently: “It’s a slap in the face and an insult to every member of the Negro community, saying that the only way to communicate with Negro children is to show a robber or violence.

It’s like subliminal advertising. If this isn’t subversive and deliberately done as part of a master plan. Only a sick mind could have produced it.”
Repeated instances of this type of anti-social activity obviously constitute a strong argument for removing the tax-exempt status of these educational foundations, and for curbing their activities by Federal regulations and Congressional oversight.
[Ed. Note:
The programmed textbooks used in Project Read are based on Skinnerian animal psychology. Programmed instruction calls for individualized instruction/self-instruction (programmed books and or teaching machines) and differs from the lecture/discussion method of teaching where the teacher, not the program, is the dispenser of knowledge.]

Agenda For The Nation, Edited by Kermit Gordan (Brookings Institution:

Washington, D.C., 1968) and funded by the Ford Foundation, was published. Ralph Tyler’s article “Investingin Better Schools” (pp. 207–236) was included in the compilation of articles which were written as a contribution to public discussion and debate as a new president and a new Congress assumed their responsibilites. Other contributors included: Stephen K. Bailey, Kenneth B. Clark, Clark Kerr, Henry A. Kissinger, Edwin O. Reischauer, and Charles L. Schultze. The following excerpted recommendations from Tyler’s article which refer to the Certificate of Initial Mastery, no more Carnegie Units, the Eight-Year Study and outcome-based education, read like pages out of Goals 2000: Educate America Act and reports prepared by Marc Tucker’s National Center on Education and the Economy, the Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS), etc. all of which are involved in the socialistic restructuring of the nation’s schools and economy:
What is required is a major effort to furnish high school students with significant adult activities job programs, community service corps experience, work in health centers, apprentice experience in research and development, and in staff studies conducted by public agencies. It will be necessary to redesign the high school in order to open it to the community and to utilize many kinds of persons in education. The school will need to serve a wider range of ages and allow students to vary the amount of time devoted to studies. To supply a substitute for grades and credits as qualification for employment opportunities, a certification system will need to be developed to validate the student’s competence in various major areas. This will also tend to reduce the emphasis upon purely formal requirements such as class attendance and the completion of prescribed courses.

1968–1969. Narrative report of project funded under Title III, Elementry And Secondary Education Act

(FY 1969)—Title of Project: Operation Pep, a Statewide Project to Prepare Educational Planners for California (U.S. Office of Education Grant Award No. OEG 3–7–704444410–4439, 7–1–68 to 6–30–69. $299,457 grant to San Mateo County Superintendent of Schools, Redwood City, California, Project Director: Donald R. Miller) was compiled and registered with the U.S. Office of Education in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. An excerpt from this report follows:
Major Objectives: The objectives of Operation PEP have been specified with respect for the educational needs of society and the role requirements of professional educators.

They include: (1) to plan, develop, validate, and implement an instructional program for educational planners and managers featuring a system approach to educational management; (2) to establish an orderly diffusion process for system approach concepts, principles, and procedures involving key agencies, organizations, and individuals; (3) to provide assurance that the program developed by Operation PEP will be continuously renewed and presented, and (4) to promote the utilization and adoption of a system approach to educational management and educational leaders in California.
[Ed. Note:
Mastery learning/direct instruction fits into PPBS systems management, Management by Objectives (MBO) and computer-assisted instruction as a hand fits into a glove. OBE in 1999 is Operation PEP in 1968. California’s teachers’ union was adamantly opposed to its enabling legislation and to Operation PEP in general.]

1969   Pacesetters In Innovation:

Cumulative issue of all opperations as of February 1969 under Title III, Supplementary Centers and Services Program, Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare: Washington, D.C.,1969) was published. This incredible 584-page catalog of education programs gives abstracts of innovative programs dealing with humanistic education; i.e., values clarification, self-esteem programs, individualized education, open classroom, etc. Shirley Correll, Ph.D., president of Florida’s Pro-Family Forum, wrote “An Evaluation of HEW’s Publication Pacesetters in Innovation” which said in part:
A thorough evaluation of HEW’s 584-page publication, Pacesetters in Innovation, is alarming, even to one accustomed to the thrust of today’s public schools, and even more interesting when placed in its proper perspective of total HEW funding. It is described as a program “to support supplementary education centers and services, guidance counseling and testing” on state and local levels. These PACE programs (Projects to Advance Creativity in Education) describe “Psychotherapy,” “Behavior Modification,” “Psychoeducation Clinics,” “Changed Parent-Student Relationships,” “Total Environmental Control,” “Humanistic Curriculum,” “Sensitivity Training,” and attitudinal measuring devices, ad nauseam. One program discusses “Experimental Buses featuring multichannel programming, individual receivers and active response opportunities (allowing audio presentations of cognitive and/or affective [emotional] instructional materials.” Could it be that there’s more to this busing than integration?
I found that PACE’s direction was to “organize the process of change to restructure and reorganize the school system.” Many different methods were used to accomplish this. Teachers are subjected to “Sensitivity Training” and “Change Agentry” training (an educational term used to describe the role of group leader as that of changing the attitude of students and others), not only to condition the teachers to new philosophies, but to “spread their influence to others in their own district and throughout the state via various visitation programs.”
Through the influences of these and various other programs, “structured or graded classes are systematically phased out and replaced by ungraded individualized instruction” (which ultimately becomes the opposite of individualized instruction as all children eventually are fit to a pre-conceived mold or norm by computerized assessment).


The Roll Of The School In The Community

Was published (Pendell Publishing CO.: Midland, Michigan, 1969).
This slim 136-page book, edited by Dr. Howard W. Hickey, Dr. Curtis Van Voorhees, and associates, was “written to serve as a much-needed textbook for teachers and students in Community Education; and to serve as a handbook on Community Education for school officials and community education leaders.” The following excerpts are from The Role of the School in the Community:
Chapter III. An Overview by Jack D. Minzey and Clarence R. Olsen
As the social forces have sought to bring action to bear on community problems, the need for a vehicle of action has become apparent. Not all groups have identified the most effective means of implementing their programs structured about community problems, but a number of influential persons and groups are aware of the community education concept and are extremely optimistic about its possibilities as the means by which their goals of social engineering can be accomplished.(p. 40)
Chapter VI. A Developmental Process by Curtis Van Voorhees
When a community school director attempts to identify courses to be included in the questioning process it is important to remember, as previously mentioned, that people are typically unable to identify many of their own problems and needs. While they may sometimes be able to identify what they want in the way of a class, it is unlikely that many people who need assistance in preparing nutritious meals are aware of that fact. And parents who are in need of information about child health practices are unlikely to recognize that they need such help. So it must be remembered that the simple existence of a problem does not guarantee its recognition by the person with the problem. Community school coordinators must, therefore, develop a questioning form which will get at the unidentified problems of people without unduly alarming or offending the respondent; they must seek to solicit information from people which will allow community school coordinators to plan better programs for the people they attempt to serve—programs that will hopefully change, in a positive way, the attitude, behavior and life style of the community residents.
[Ed. Note:
The term “community education” is rarely used today due to its socialistic philosophy causing extreme controversy in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s. The average American rejected the notion that the community was there to serve his/her needs and that decisionmaking by unelected councils was acceptable or perhaps preferable to decision-making by elected officials. The change agents wisely dropped the label and now use terms such as “communitarianism,” “participatory democracy,” “site-based management,” “school-based clinics,” “year-round schools,” Hillary Clinton’s It Takes a Village to Raise a Child concept, all of which are individually or collectively Community Education. As Anita Hoge, a well-known education researcher, says, “It doesn’t take a village to raise a child unless you live in a commune.” At a Community Education Conference held in Washington, D.C. in 1976 a community educator from Alaska stated that “community education could be likened to the system in Russia and China.”[10]

Master Plan For Public Education Hawaii In Hawaii Toward A New Era For Education For Education In Hawaii

Was published in 1969 by the State of Hawaii Department of Education, Honolulu, Hawaii. This publication was partially funded under Title V, Sec. 503, P.L. 890–10 (U.S. Office of Education).
Excerpts follow from this extraordinarily frank Master Plan which would serve as a model for the rest of the nation:

Implications for Education... Second, the computer will enhance learning.... The teacher will operate as a manager.... The teacher will have a ready record of each student’s performance and a ready access to the information the student needs during each stage of his progress. (p. 36)
Perhaps we must go significantly beyond the present, minimum family educational programs that candidly discuss interpersonal relationships, family conflicts and tensions, counseling and rehabilitation services and the many areas that need to be explored between a man, a woman, and their children. (p. 46)
The task of the schools during the past stable, relatively unchanging world was to emphasize fixed habits, memorization of facts, and development of specific skills to meet known needs. But for a future which will include vast changes, the emphasis should be on how to meet new situations, on the skills of research, observation, analysis, logic and communication, on the development of attitudes appropriate to change, and on a commitment to flexibility and reason. (p. 50)
Behavioral sciences subject matter should form a part of our modern curriculum to provide a basis for self knowledge and behavioral concepts.... Study of ethical traditions, concepts and changes in value structure should be emphasized.... Department of Education should experiment with the group therapy, role playing and encounter group approach that are professionally planned and conducted, as a basis for understanding other people, races, cultures and points of view. (pp. 51–52)
From the point of view of the teacher, individualized instruction should provide for opportunities to diagnose the learning styles, and strengths and weaknesses of pupils; direct assistance by skilled counselors, psychologists, social workers and physicians will assist in accurate and meaningful diagnosis.... The Department should adopt team teaching and non-gradedness as the basic approach to classroom instruction. The present system of age and grade classification of students is excessively rigid and not conducive to individualized instruction. A non-graded approach, therefore, on a K–12 basis, is sought as an ultimate goal. (p. 54)
The school system will seek financial support of educational programs on the basis of educational outputs, that is, the improvement, growth and changes that occur in the behavior of the pupil as a result of schooling. (p. 55)
This school system will systematically study the benefits of any promising non-educational input to enhance learning. Recent discoveries from the field of bio-chemistry suggest that there already exists a fairly extensive class of drugs to improve learning such as persistence, attentiveness, immediate memory, and long term memory.... The application of biochemical research findings, heretofore centered in lower forms of animal life, will be a source of conspicuous controversy when children become the objects of such experimentation. Schools will conceivably be swept into a whole new area of collaboration in research with biochemists and psychologists to improve learning. The immediate and long-term impact on teaching as well as on learning and the ethical and moral consequences of extensive use of chemicals to assist in the learning process must be studied extensively.... The Department should initiate a long term, continuing series of discussions with individuals directly associated with these research efforts. Lay persons from our community should be an integral part of these discussions. (p. 56)

The Department should take the initiative to establish a state compact of all agencies with responsibilities in education in this state. The purpose of such a compact will be to coordinate planning and execution of educational programs.
Assuming that the basic period of schooling required for the youth of Hawaii may remain at twelve years, extending the school day and the school year may be the solution to this pressing problem. Some of the benefits which can be anticipated from an extended school year and a school day are: An improvement in economic and professional status of our teachers,... an increased use of facilities and equipment. School facilities will be in use throughout the year.... (p. 62)
That our system of values should change as the conditions in which these values find their expression change is evident in history.... Our past also has shown that society courts trouble when it clings stubbornly to outmoded values after experience has clearly shown that they need to be revised. For example, developments in our society have now cast considerable doubts on the worth of such deep-seated beliefs, still held strongly in some quarters, as extreme and rugged individualism or isolationism in international affairs. While values tend to persist, they are tentative. They provide the directions basic to any conscious and direct attempt to influence pupil behavior.... Some will argue, of course, that direct and purposeful effort at changing value orientations of pupils is no concern of the schools. But from what we know of the pupil and his development, the school is inescapably involved in influencing his moral values and ethical structure. (p. 63)
The roles and responsibilities of teachers will change noticeably in the years ahead. By 1985 it should be more accurate to term a teacher a “learning clinician” for the schools will be “clinics” whose purpose is to provide individualized educational and psychological “services” to the student.[11] (p. 69)
However, in the spring of 1967, the Department undertook to install a new “System,” more commonly referred to as “PPBS.” This sophisticated system of budgeting was crystalized in the federal defense agency during the early 1960’s, and has, since 1965, been formally adopted by all departments within the federal government.... From a long-range standpoint, PPBS is surely the direction we must move toward if we are to do more than survive in a rapidly approaching computerized world.... However, operationally, there are several reasons why the entire PPBS anatomy cannot be totally… operable at this time. Although some of the problems are due to the system itself, most are due to the present undeveloped state of the educational industry. Some of these factors are: While we accept the PPBS concept, we must constantly be mindful that the system is a tool of management, not an end in itself, not a panacea or solution for all our management problems. Further, it should never be considered a replacement for experienced human judgment, but only an aid in arriving at sound judgments... in the field of education, which deals primarily in human behavior, there is almost no reliable research data on causal relationships. We do not know exactly why or how students learn.Cost effectiveness analysis which lies at the heart of PPBS is virtually impossible without this kind of data....
As can readily be seen, the multiplicity and complexity of objectives and the difficulty of quantifying human behavior makes it exceedingly difficult to state our objectives in the manner specified by PPBS.... Another significant problem—this time to do with PPBS—is that it does not formally allow for value consideration. And yet, values—academic, economic, political, social, esthetic—appear to play a crucial role in the decision-making process. But how do we quantify values? How do we negotiate conflicting values? What will be the proper mix of values and how do we factor it into the array of alternatives and the decision-making process? These are vital questions that must be answered if we are to rationalize the decision-making process. (pp. 96–97)

Mount a comprehensive and continuing effort to develop standards and a system of mea- surement that will permit effective evaluation of student and Department of Education performance. (p. 98)
[Ed. Note:
PPBS and MBO are essentially the same as TQM. At a 1992 Total Quality Management (TQM) in Education Conference in St. Paul, Minnesota—sponsored by the National Governors’ Association and attended by the writer—a representative from IBM stated that TQM is a more “sophisticated, refined form of PPBS.”]

In 1969 Don Davies, Former Deputy Commissioner Of Education For The U.S. Office of Education

And editor of Communities and Their Schools, wrote “Changing Conditions in American Schools” as part of the “Elementary Teacher Training Models,” a section of the Behavioral Science Teacher Education Program (U.S. Office of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare developed at Michigan State University under HEW grant: Washington, D.C., 1969). The following are excerpts from “Changing Conditions in American Schools”:
(1) Moving from a mass approach to an individual approach in education;
(2) Moving from an emphasis on memorizing to an emphasis on the non-cognitive,non-intellectual components of life;
(3) Moving from a concept of a school isolated from the community;
(4) Moving from a fear of technology to using machinery and technology for educational purposes;
(5) Moving from a negative to a positive attitude towards children who are different;
(6) Moving from a provincial perspective of the world in education to a multicultural perspective;
(7) Moving from a system characterized by academic snobbery to one which recognizes and nurtures a wide variety of talents and values; and
(8) Moving from a system based on serving time to one which emphasizes performance.
[Ed. Note:
1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 should be familar to the reader. They represent OBE/ML/DI and technology. Numbers 5 and 6 are global education/values education.]

Professor Dean Corrigan,

In a 1969 speech before the 22nd annual Teachers Education Conference at the University of Georgia, predicted that “teaching machines will pace a student’s progress, diagnose his weaknesses and make certain that he understands a fundamental concept before allowing him to advance to the next lesson.”
[Ed. Note:
Skinner said “computers are essentially sophisticated versions of the teaching machines of the 1960s programmed learning.” (See Education Week 8/31/83.)]

A Report From The State Committee On Public Education To The California State of Education

Citizens for the 21st Century—Long-Range Considerations for California Elementary and Secondary Education (California State Assembly: Sacramento, California, 1969) was prepared by Professor John I. Goodlad. Funded by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the Report states:

Experimentation, Innovation, Implementation.
We have seen that mechanisms are needed for systematically determining the appropriate responsibilities of local, state, and federal education agencies. Similarly, we need mechanisms for systematically determining the kinds of human beings to be developed in our schools. Such mechanisms do not now exist in this state or any state. We need, too, mechanisms for appraising the quality of innovations and for systematically determining how a full range of projects might be put in a single school. (p. 471)

Improving Educational Assessment And An Inventory Of Measures Of Affective Behavior

By Walcott H. Beatty, chairman and editor (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Commission on Assessment of Educational Outcomes [NEA Stock No. 611–17804]:
Washington, D.C., 1969) was published. A chapter entitled “The Purposes of Assessment” by Ralph Tyler, “the father of educational assessment,” was included in this important book. The following excerpts relate primarily to the principle of transfer in learning:
The function of the school’s teaching is to develop young people whose behavior outside the classroom is effective and significant. Therefore, in appraising the relative effectiveness of curriculum materials or programs, one goes beyond a checking of program and purpose to consider whether the learnings are generalizable to life outside the school. The Progressive Education Association’s Eight-Year Study, for example, followed a group of high school graduates into college and occupational roles to learn the extent to which they were able to utilize ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that the school had tried to develop.
We are all familiar with the general principle that any measures of education should be based upon educational objectives—what kind of learning are we seeking? Thirty-eight years ago, when Paul Diederich and I began some of these efforts in the Progressive Education Association, much was said about determining educational objectives. We talked about educational objectives at a level so general that such objectives represented desirable and attainable human outcomes. Now, as the people from conditioning have moved into an interest in learning in the schools, the notions of behavioral objectives have become much more specific. As far as I know, one cannot very well teach a pigeon a general principle that he can then apply to a variety of situations. The objectives for persons coming out of the Skinnerian background tend to be highly specific ones. When I listen to Gagne, who is an intelligent and effective conditioner, talk about human learning objectives, I wince a good deal because he sets very specific ones. I know that we can attain levels of generalization of objectives that are higher than that....
As a graduate student at Chicago 42 years ago, I did a study with Judd, who was at that time arguing with Thorndike over the principle of transfer in learning. Thorndike had demonstrated that transfer was not automatic among the formal disciplines; a person could take a course in Latin and not be able to handle other kinds of languages any more effectively. Thorndike reached the conclusion that every objective had to be very specific, like conditioning objectives. His first treatise on the psychology of arithmetic established some 3,000 objectives for elementary school arithmetic. Judd, however, had come out of the social psychology tradition, having studied with Wundt at Leipzig. His view was that generalization was not only possible but was essential in education. The task he assigned me was to check on Thorndike’s view that the addition of every one of the 100 pairs of one-digit combinations had to be practiced by the learner before he could add all of the pairs. The design of my study was to take the principles of grouping for addition and help pupils see them. I noted that five

and two, and six and one, and zero and seven and three and four all total seven and had the students practice 21 out of the 100, emphasizing that each operation illustrated a general principle. I found that the youngsters in the experimental group who had practiced on only 21 illustrations did just as well on the average over the sample of the total 100 as the pupils who had practiced systematically every one of the 100.
The possibility of generalization is of course not new to the reader of this booklet. In curriculum development we now work on the principle that human beings can generalize, so they do not have to practice every specific. The question is at what level of generalization do we set up objectives. There are overgeneralizations you can immediately see; for example, the use of “you” for both singular and plural forms often confuses students in grammar exercises.
The problem of the effective curriculum maker and teacher is to figure out the level of generalization that is possible with a certain child or a certain group, then to establish objectives based on reaching that level of generalization. You will have twenty objectives perhaps, but not more. The conditioning view, based upon specific situations and practices, may involve several hundred objectives for a course because specific practices must be used to accomplish each aspect of the conditioning. (pp. 8–9)

“U.S. Plan To ‘take Over’ Grade Schools Intimated”by John Steinbacher

Was an article which appeared in the Anaheim Bulletin (Anaheim, California) in 1969. Excerpts follow:
Is the U.S. Office of Education, a division of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, poised for a total takeover of every elementary school in the nation?
That was indicated Thursday in a federally funded project at Cal State, Fullerton by Bernard Kravett, a professor at the school who took part last year in a federally funded project at the University of Washington. Known as the Tri-University Project, three universities were involved in a massively funded federal project to restructure the entire higher education system for training teachers, which, in effect, would make local elementary schools only a subsidiary arm of the federal government.... This system, to be called Teacher Preparation Experienced Systematically, is to be instituted at once.... All teacher training institutions will operate jointly with local school districts and teacher organizations to “establish performance criteria which become behavioral objectives.” ...Students in colleges who are studying to be teachers will be placed in “clinical settings,” where there will be a clinical counselor for each 12 students....
As the teacher trainees progress through the four-year course, they will be constantly assessed by testing and performance criteria, as well as constantly counseled by the trained psychologists.... At the end of each year, the teacher trainee will either pass on to the next level or will be recycled to take additional work in the areas in which he is found deficient.... The new approach is to stress attitudinal changes on the part of the teachers and the students....
Built into the system is a strong emphasis on the findings of the behavioral scientists. Teacher trainees will be counseled into becoming a “good team member on the faculty,” and those who cannot adapt to “teamstanding” will be washed out of the teacher courses. The teacher is to learn how to “carry out the order of the team and the team leader.” ...The purpose of the so-called college activities will be to “build on behavioral objectives in order to help children find out who they are and help the child in his quest for identity. All education will be built on behavioral tasks rather than on course credits and grade point averages,” he said. Kravett said the federal government had financed nine universities to come up with

“programs” and it is from these programs, largely developed in behavioral science laboratories, that the new elementary program will come. California, he said, has a long way to go to catch up with the rest of the nation in accepting this new program. However, he said the government was spending “fantastic amounts of money and the Federal Government is totally behind it, pushing it and providing all the money you can possibly need.” (p. 4)

The National Assessment Of Educational Progress (NAEP), Mandated By The U.S. Congress,

Was initiated in 1969. NAEP has periodically “assessed” (monitored the knowledge, skills, and performance of) students aged 9, 13, and 17, as well as various grade levels. The subject areas assessed have included: reading, writing, mathematics, science, citizenship, U.S. history, geography, social studies, art, music, literature, computer competence, and career and occupational development. NAEP also has collected background information from students, teachers, and administrators, and has related these data to student achievement. The Educational Testing Service (ETS) in 1983 took over the contract to administer the NAEP from the Carnegie Corporation-spawned Education Commission of the States. This move effectively kept Carnegie in control of educational assessment, since it was the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (a subdivision of the Carnegie Corporation) which had provided the $750,000 initial endowment (start-up funds) to launch ETS in 1947. Through an agreement between the American Council on Education, the Carnegie Foundation and the College Entrance Examination Board, all of whom turned over their testing programs and a portion of their assets to ETS, the move to establish Educational Testing Service as the primary provider of testing material was accomplished.
In 1988 Congress established the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). The purpose of NAGB was to provide policy guidance for the execution of NAEP. The board was composed of nationally and locally elected officials, chief state school officers, classroom teachers, local school board members, and leaders of the business community, among others. Specifically, NAGB has been charged by Congress to perform the following duties: select subject areas to be assessed; identify appropriate achievement goals for each age group; develop assessment objectives; design a methodology of assessment; and produce guidelines and standards for national, regional, and state comparisons.

Over A Period Of Three Decades Research For Education For Results:

In response to A Nation at Risk, Vol. 1: Guaranteeing Effective Performance by Our Schools was conducted by Robert E. Corrigan, Ph.D., and Betty O. Corrigan.[12] This final publication was published in 1983 for the Reagan Administration’s use. Rather than being the protection from harmful innovations that concerned parents had been promised, this report actually served as a springboard for implementing OBE. This writer is including it under the “Sick Sixties” since most of the programs comprising experimentation history (pilot OBE/ML/DI programs, including one in Korea) were, in the words of the Corrigans, implemented “across our country over a period of 22+ years (1960–1983).” (For more complete understanding of the impact of this study, see Appendix VI.)
1 John Goodlad, “A Report from the State Committee on Public Education to the California State Board of Education—Citizens for the Twenty-first Century—Long Range Considerations for California Elementary and Secondary Education,” 1969.

2 The function of the National Diffusion Network has been distributed throughout the U.S. Department of Education’s organizational subdivisions. The dissemination process is now carried on by individual offices and their projects. This was done as a result of the “Reorganization of Government according to the Malcolm Baldridge Award criteria” (TQM) under Vice President Al Gore’s supervision.
3 This is another term, used in this publication, for today’s “self-esteem.”
4 The writer recommends that those readers interested in the radical, leftist substance of “Recommendations for Delphi Discussion Groups,” contact K.M. Heaton whose Road to Revolution contains information on this subject. See Resources for Heaton’s address.
5 The reader should turn to the inside cover of this book for the excellent cartoon by Joel Pett which carries the title “Consolidation.”
6 “Harrison Bergeron” has been made into a video, available at your local video store.
7 Dan Smoot was a former Harvard professor who served for 9–1/2 years in the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
8 Alice Rivlin later became director of the Congressional Budget Office, and presently serves as the chairman of the Board of Control for the District of Columbia.
9 Ethna Reid was quoted in Dennis Bailey’s article “Learning to Read the ECRI Way” for the January 8, 1982 issue of The Maine Times.
10 Audio tape of meeting from personal file of researcher who attended conference.
11 In the January 1969 issue of Today’s Education, journal of the National Education Association, two professors of education at Indiana University refer to schools of the 1970s as “clinics, whose purpose is to provide individualized psychosocial ‘treatment’ for the student.” 12 The Corrigans’ organization is: SAFE Learning Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 5089, Anaheim, CA 92804.


Chapter 6   The Serious Seventies


The Serious Seventies

“Concerned with grave, important, or complex matters, problems” and “giving cause for concern” are two out of five definitions given in Webster’s Dictionary for the word “serious” which definitely apply to this chapter, “The Serious Seventies.” Unfortunately, since the average American was purposely kept in the dark about what was taking place, being able “to be concerned” was an impossibility. To the change agents roaming the education landscape, “change” was the goal, and the end justified the means, even if it meant misleading through semantic deception the parents and taxpayers who paid the bills and provided the resources—the children and teachers upon whom the change agents would experiment.
“The Serious Seventies” contains excerpts from important government documents, education journal articles, professional papers, and critiques by key educationists regarding the major components of reform planned for the end of the century as a result of federal legislation passed in the 1960s. From a study of the key documents one detects a vigorous tug of war taking place at the highest decisionmaking levels in education. Stringent debate was carried on regarding the pros and cons of the use of systematic planning and technology in an area of human endeavor (education) which until this time had had relatively little interference from political, social and economic planners (social engineers). State commissioners of education, local education agency superintendents, and especially teachers and school boards had been able to make decisions at the state and local level—decisions which they considered to be in the best interest of students and the communities in which they lived and worked. But “change” was the name of this serious new game. A careful reading of “The Serious Seventies” documents, especially the 1972 Association for

Educational Computing and Technology (AECT) report entitled The Field of Educational Technology:
A Statement of Definition (October, 1972), has convinced this writer that significant resistance to goal setting, systems management, computer assisted instruction, etc., which existed at the beginning of the 1970s was, unfortunately, overcome. For instance, the above referenced document contained the following most important warning regarding the use of technology in the classroom; a warning that, evidently, was not heeded in the years to come. The warning read in part:
It should be clear that the concerned professional does not have to be a “liberal,” or a “conservative.” The concerned professional must, however, show moral sensitivity to the effect of what he or she does [in the field of technology]. It does not matter what position an individual comes to as long as it is not “I’ll do it because it can be done.”
The above recommendation relating to the ethical use of technology in the classroom was evidently ignored by the change agents who decided instead that “We’ll do it because it can be done.”
In 1971 Phi Delta Kappan published a paper entitled Performance Based Teacher Education [PBTE]:
What Is the State of the Art?
This paper spelled out the raison d’etre for the transition from teacher education based on knowledge of subject matter to teacher education based on the ability to “perform” in the classroom. Skinnerian methods adopted by Madeline Hunter and others would become the foundation for future teacher training and accreditation, and ultimately the method for workforce training. This paper makes it all too clear that the purpose of PBTE was to “lower standards” so that the teaching profession could be more “inclusive”—or so “they” said. However, this writer believes inclusion was more than likely the cover (excuse acceptable to those who believed in equal opportunity) to install the performance-based system necessary for the eventual implementation of the school-to-work polytech system planned in 1934 and activated in the 1990s. From this time forward, the deliberate dumbing down would proceed with a vengeance. During “The Serious Seventies” the ship of education set a new course.
Navigating these new waters would require a new chart, one entirely different from that used in the past.

1970 A Prohibition Against Federal Control Of Education,

Section 432,General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), was enacted in 1970 and reads as follows:
Sec. 432. No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, or to require the assignment or transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance. (20 U.S.C. 1232a) Enacted April 18, 1970, P.L. 91–230, Title IV, sec. 401(a)(10), 81 Stat.169.

[Ed. Note:
The interpretation of the above prohibition lies in the eyes of the beholder. Parents and traditional teachers have held that all curriculum and teaching based on the federally funded Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory Goals Collection, National Diffusion Network Programs, and “scientific research-based” reading programs funded under the Reading Excellence Act of 1998 should be covered by GEPA and are consequently illegal. Educrats, on the other hand, have held that the only way for a program to be covered by GEPA would be for the secretary of education to sit on the sidewalk outside the U.S. Department of Education, developing curriculum, and passing it out to interested passersby.]
The Shreveport [Louisiana] Journal Of January 20, 1970 Carried An Article Entitled “and It Came To Pass” in its Views from Other Newspapers section in which the author asked:
Jackson (Miss.) Daily News—has HEW Replaced NRA [National Recovery Act]?
Thirty-seven years ago an unbelieving editor sat down and wrote an editorial for his paper, The Monroe Evening News of Monroe, Michigan, USA. The date was Wednesday, September 13, 1933.
Under the Lead Line, “Not That!”, that incredulous American newspaper editor went on to ask his readers of three decades ago, “Are the schools of America to be used as a propaganda agency to mould public opinion into conformity with the policies of the administration?” Still in a tone of utter disbelief that editor went on to quote from an interview with one Louis Alber, chief of the speakers division of the National Recovery Act. “Just read these astounding utterances by Mr. Alber,” the editor challenges his subscribers.
The rugged individualism of Americanism must go, because it is contrary to the purposes of the New Deal and the NRA which is remaking America. Russia and Germany are attempting to compel a new order by means of their nationalism- compulsion. The United States will do it by moral persuasion. Of course we expect some opposition, but the principles of the New Deal must be carried to the youth of the nation. We expect to accomplish by education what dictators in Europe are seeking to do by compulsion and force.
Mr. Alber went on to explain that a “primer” outlining methods of teaching to be used, along with motion pictures on the subject, were being prepared for distribution to all public and parochial schools and commented that: “NRA is the outstanding part of the President’s program, but in fact it is only a fragment. The general public is not informed on the other parts of the program, and the schools are the places to reach the future builders of the nation.”
From our vantage point in history we know that the notorious NRA was laid to rest early in its incubation period by the United States Supreme Court.
What is important to each and all of us today is what has transpired in the intervening years since 1933. That editor of long ago remarked, “So as sweeping and revolutionary as NRA is, it is only a fragment of a greater program of which the public knows nothing, and this unknown program is to be inculcated into the minds of pupils in the schools everywhere, by official efforts and at government expense.... Now our schools are to become—like those of Germany and Russia—an agency for the promotion of whatever political, social, and economic policies the administration may desire to carry out. And the taxpayers, whether

they like it or not, are to pay for having their children converted to those policies.”
The Editor closed by stating: “The whole proposition is so amazing, and so alarming in its implications, that we refuse to take it seriously.”
Take a look about you today, with the Washington-directed school policies. Is the Health, Education and Welfare Department doing exactly what the defunct NRA started out to do?

Report Of The Study, Title III, ESEA By Emery Stoof

Was produced by the Educational Innovation Advisory Commission and the Bureau of Planning and Development of the California State Department of Education in 1970. Excerpts follow:
Origin of the Bureau... An Instructional Program Planning and Development Unit was established by State Board action in 1965 and was funded through a Title V, ESEA project.
This unit was comprised of persons responsible for the state level administration of Title III, ESEA, and co-ordination of Title V, ESEA. A general conceptual model for effective planned change in education, as well as a management model for the administration of Title III, ESEA, was submitted to the State Board’s Federal Aid Committee in 1965, with November 10, 1965 as the first deadline for receiving applications for funds.
Two significant developments early in the state administration of Title III, ESEA, were
(1) the project to Prepare Educational Planners (Operation PEP), and
(2) the funding of twenty-one regional planning centers. “PEP” sessions trained administrators in systematic planning procedures, systems analysis techniques, “planning, programming and budgeting system” and cost-benefit analysis. PACE (Projects to Advance Creativity in Education) was to encourage school districts to develop imaginative solutions to educational problems, to utilize more effectively research findings, to translate the latest knowledge about teaching and learning into widespread educational practice, and to create an awareness of new programs.
Through the regional centers, the Bureau has endeavored to
(1) encourage the development of creative innovations,
(2) demonstrate worthwhile innovations in educational practice through exemplary programs, and
(3)supplement existing programs and facilities.
Ed. Note:
This is an example of how the Federal government began its takeover of all state and local education agencies, removing any semblance of what could be considered local control. The California report explains exactly what happened in every single state due to our elected officials’ inability to resist taking federal money and their trust of education change agents (administrators, principals, superintendents, etc.). How many American children have been severely handicapped academically and morally by experimental, “innovative” programs which had absolutely nothing to do with academics, but everything to do with attitude, value and belief change?

In 1970 Leonard S. Kenworthy, Professor Of Education At Brooklyn College Of the City of New York, wrote The International Dimension of Education:

Background Paper II Prepared for the World Conference on Education (Asilomar, California, March 5–14, 1970), edited by Norman V. Overly. The conference was sponsored by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, National Education Association, and the Commission on International Cooperation in Education. Excerpts from the report follow:
III. The International Dimensions of Our Schools: Some Overall Considerations Here and there teachers have modified individual courses.... Schools have rewritten syllabi

or added courses.... But nowhere has there been a rigorous examination of the total experiences of children and/or youth in schools and the development of a continuous, cumulative, comprehensive curriculum to create the new type of people needed for effective living in the latter part of the 20th century....
All the work we do in developing internationally minded individuals should be directed to improved behavior.
That means that all the efforts in this dimension of education must be predicated on the research in the formation, reinforcement, and change of attitudes and on the development of skills. Knowledge is tremendously important, but we should be clear by now that it must be carefully selected knowledge, discovered by the learners rather than told to them, and organized by them with the help of teachers or professors around concepts, generalizations, or big ideas. Teaching, therefore, becomes the process of helping younger people to probe, discover, analyze, compare, and contrast rather than telling.
There is a rich mine of data now on attitude formation, change, and reinforcement which teachers need to study carefully and apply to this dimension of education as well as to others. For example, we know that most basic attitudes are learned very early but that attitudes can be changed at any age. We know that times of personal and societal crisis are the best times to bring about change. But we also know that people must not be threatened by changes. They must be relatively secure and much of their resistance to change recognized and tolerated as a manifestation of an inner struggle to reject the old and accept the new.
Therefore, the acceptance of the old views with equanimity is important, so that the threat to a person is minimal. We know, too, that appeals to pride and self-interest may be helpful in bringing about change. So are the statements and actions of prestige persons. Membership in new groups is often helpful in insulating a person from slipping back into old patterns. We also know that changing a total group is easier and more likely to produce results than trying to change individuals. And it is clear that concentration upon specific areas of change rather than general approaches is usually most effective....
Changed behavior is our goal and it consists in large measure of improved attitudes, improved skills, and carefully selected knowledge—these three—and the greatest of these is attitudes....
The program emphasizes feelings as well as facts. In some parts of the world in the field of education today, the emphasis is upon cognitive learning or intellectual development. This is especially true in the United States.… But in the international dimensions of education, as in other dimensions, the affective domain or emotional development is just as important....
We need to get at the “gut level” in much of our teaching. We need to use music, art, powerful literature, films and other approaches which get at the feeling level of learning. For example, the writer has found tremendously effective a 10-minute film on the United Nations, entitled “Overture.” There is no narrative in this film; the pictures are shown against a background of music, with the Vienna Symphony Orchestra playing the Egmont Overture. It is a powerful learning device and moves its viewers in a way few other approaches touch them. (pp. 23–39)

1971 Education: From The Acquisition Of Knowledge To Programmed, Conditioned Responses

was submitted by Assemblyman Robert H. Burke (70th California Assembly District) to the California Legislature in 1971. An excerpt follows:



Several months ago, my office began accumulating material which had particular significance in the area of Planning, Programming, Budgeting Systems because of its potential use as a tool of fiscal accountability in the field of education. As we searched into the information available on the application of this subject in education, it became increasingly difficult to see any relationship between the proposed programs and fiscal accountability. It was apparent after a study of the methods proposed for use by the schools for accountability purposes that fiscal accountability was being minimized and that techniques were being promoted for achieving behavioral objectives. Other seemingly unrelated organizations, projects, and programs were uncovered because of their influence on the application of accountability methods. They were as parts in a puzzle—analyzed by themselves, each of these projects appeared to be either harmless or an expression of someone’s “dream.” When linked together with other “harmless” programs, they were no longer formless but could be seen as an entire package of plans outlining methods of implementation, organization structures (including flow-charts), computerization, use of behavioral profile catalogs, and goals and objectives determination.

Controversial Sexologists Lester A. Kirkendall And Ruth F. Osborne

Developed in 1971 a program entitled “Sex Education—Student Syllabus No: 216786, correlated with M.I.P. 180800” which was one of the first sex education programs to use a mastery learning approach. This program was published by the National Book Company, owned by Carl W. Salser, executive director of Educational Research Associates, a non-profit educational research corporation in Portland, Oregon. Mr. Salser is also the owner of Halcyon Press and is a long-time advocate of individualized instruction and mastery learning.
Carl Salser is the author of a pamphlet entitled “The Carnegie Unit: An Administrative Convenience, but an Educational Catastrophe” and is a supporter of outcome-based education/ mastery learning. Full implementation of OBE / ML calls for the removal of the Carnegie Unit—the “seat time” measure of subject exposure for students which determines graduation and college entry eligibility. Salser was a member during 1981–1982 of the presidentially appointed National Council on Educational Research which had oversight of the activities at the former National Institute of Education of the U.S. Department of Education.

In 1971 The Secretariat Of The United Nations Educational, Scientific, And Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

Called upon George W. Parkyn of New Zealand to outline a possible model for an education system based on the ideal of a continuous education process throughout the lifetime of the learner—a means of bringing an existing national school system into line with lifelong learning. The result of this effort was a book entitled Towards a Conceptual Model of Life-Long Education, published in 1973 by UNESCO (English Edition ISBN 92–3–101117–0). The preface of the book contained the following interesting biographical sketch of the littleknown Dr. Parkyn:
The Secretariat called on George W. Parkyn of New Zealand to prepare this first study. Dr. Parkyn has rendered extensive service to education in many parts of the world: in New Zealand, as a teacher in primary and secondary schools, as a senior lecturer at the University of Otago, and as director of the New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 1954–1967;

at UNESCO, where he made substantial contributions to the World Survey of Education; at Stanford University, California, as a visiting professor; in New Zealand again, as a visiting lecturer in Comparative Education at the University of Auckland; and as Professor of Comparative Education at the University of London, Institute of Education....
Dr. Parkyn was asked to review the available literature in this field and to involve several of his colleagues at Stanford University, California, in discussions on the basic concept. Psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists, as well as professional educators took part in the conceptual stage, contributing a rich variety of views. Among those who helped the author in the preparation of the study were his research assistants, Mr. Alejandro Toledo and Mr. Hei-tak Wu, and his colleagues, Dr. John C. Bock, Dr. Martin Carnoy, Dr. Henry M. Levin and Dr. Frank J. Moore.
[Ed. Note:
The Dr. Henry M. Levin mentioned above is the same Henry Levin whose K–8 Accelerated Schools Project is one of the seventeen reform models that schools may adopt to qualify for their share of nearly $150 million in federal grants, according to the January 20, 1999 edition of Education Week (p. 1). The article “Who’s In, Who’s Out” listed Accelerated Learning as being used in urban schools. It is based on a constructivist philosophy which has echoes of and references to Maria Montessori’s and John Dewey’s philosophies of education and incorporates the controversial Lozanov method of Superlearning.]

Psychology Applied To Teaching By Robert F. Bienter (Houghton Mifflin Co.:Boston, 1971) was published.

This popular psychology text was recommended for use in Introduction to Educational Psychology courses in universities in the early 1970s. Chapter 5, under the subheading of “S-R Associationism and Programmed Learning,” is excerpted here:
Watson [John B.] (who did the most to popularize Pavlovian theory in the United States) based one of his most famous experiments (Watson and Rayner, 1920) on the observation that young children have a “natural” fear of sudden loud sounds. He set up a situation in which a two-year-old boy named Albert was encouraged to play with a white rat. After this preliminary period, Watson suddenly hit a steel bar with a hammer just as Albert reached for the rat, and the noise frightened the child so much that he came to respond to the rat with fear. He had been conditioned to associate the rat with the loud sound. The success of this experiment led Watson to believe that he could control behavior in almost limitless ways, by arranging sequences of conditioned responses. He trumpeted his claim in this famous statement:
Give me a dozen healthy infants, well formed, and my own special world to bring them up in, and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select—doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and yes, even beggarman and thief—regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestry. (pp. 152–3)
Later on in the chapter, Skinner’s contributions are discussed:
An even more striking example of Skinner’s overwhelming enthusiasm for programmed learning is his claim that mere manipulation of the teaching machine should be “reinforcing enough to keep a pupil at work for suitable periods every day.”... Thus it is apparent that Skinner’s enthusiasm has prevented him from seeing some of the deficiencies of programmed instruction. Many critics have been especially dissatisfied with his attempt to refute the

charge that programs limit creativity. Clearly when the person composing a program decides in advance what is to be learned and how it is to be learned, a student has no opportunity to develop in his own way. He is limited by what the programmer knows and by how the programmer learned....
It is true that the student might use the material in an original way after he had finished the program, but there is the possibility that programmed instruction interferes with this process. For example, some students who have completed programs report that although they have progressed quickly and satisfactorily and feel that they have learned something, they aren’t sure where to go from here. Typically, the next step is to take an exam, usually of the multiple-choice type, which is highly similar to the program in which that stimuli are presented and responses are chosen. But what happens after the exam? If the student cannot respond unless he is stimulated in the same way he was in the program or exam, he will rarely be able to apply what he has learned to real life situations.
What we are dealing with here is the subject of transfer… which is basic to education. Ellis has pointed out that little research has been done on the transferability of programmed learning; in almost all studies the experimenter determines the degree of learning solely on the basis of each child’s performance on a test given immediately after the completion of the program. Skinner maintains that the student can be taught to transfer ideas through separate programs designed for this purpose and that a properly written program will wean the student from the machine, but there is little evidence to back up this contention. On logical grounds alone it seems reasonable to question the transfer value of programmed instruction.
Markle notes that in order to ensure that approximately 95 percent of the answers will be correct, as Skinner suggests, programmers are forced to keep revising programs for the lowest common denominator—the slowest students in the group. This eventually leads to programs which most students can complete fairly easily, but it also leads to programs which are oversimplified and repetitious. (pp. 168–171)

The Individualized Learning Letter (T.I.L.L.): Administrator’s Guide To Improve Learning;

Individualized Instruction Methods; Flexible Scheduling; Behavioral Objectives; Study Units; Self-Directed Learning; Accountability, Vol. I (February 22, 1971: T.I.L.L., Huntington, N.Y.)[1] was published and circulated. Excerpts follow:
Opting to become a greater force in promoting I.I. (Individualized Instruction), The Northeast Association for Individualization of Instruction (Wyandanch, N.Y.) has gone national—by substituting the word “national” for “northeast.”.... The enlarged 2–1/2 day convention is geared to give registrants more time to watch I.I. in action in live classrooms. Several of the nation’s I.I. leaders already lined up to run workshops include: Dr. Lloyd Bishop, NYU; Dr. Sid Rollins, Rhode Island College; Dr. Robert Scanlon, Research for Better Schools
[Research for Better Schools and University of Pittsburgh Learning Research and Development Center (Robert Glaser) were instrumental in development of IPI in the early 1960s, ed.]; Dr. Edward Pino, Superintendent of Cherry Creek Schools (Englewood, CO); Dr. Robert Anderson, Harvard University; Dr. Leon Lessinger, Georgia State University; Dr. Robert Sinclair, University of Massachusetts; Jane Root, Stanford Research Associates; and Dr. Glen Ovard, Brigham Young University. Representatives of USOE, NEA, NY State Department of Education will be present. (The latter supports the conference with an annual grant.)

Quotes You Can Use

.... Down With Books. “Textbooks not only encourage learning at the wrong level (imparting

facts rather than telling how to gather facts, etc.), they also violate an important new concern in American education—individualized instruction.... Textbooks produce superficially knowledgeable students... who know virtually nothing in depth about anything.... A good start would be to... declare a moratorium on textbook use in all courses.” Dwight D. Allen, Dean of Education, University of Massachusetts, writing on “The Decline of Textbooks, Change.”[2]
Recommended Books: Behavioral Objectives:

1970 A Prohibition Against Federal Control Of Education,

A Guide for Individualized Learning. Fourvolume set covering more than 4000 objectives representing four years’ work of more than 200 teachers. Arranged by subject area. Covers language arts, social studies, math and science. A comprehensive collection. Westinghouse Learning Corp., 100 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017.

Meetings Stressing Individualized Instruction:

Ninth National Society for Programmed Instruction Convention, March 31–April 3, 1971. University of Rochester, Rochester, N.Y.
Heavy emphasis on applying principles and processes of individualized instruction. Session on redesigning schools of tomorrow. Contact Dr. Robert G. Pierleone, College of Education, University of Rochester, Rochester, N.Y. First Educational Technology Conference. April 5–8, 1971. Americana Hotel, N.Y. City, N.Y. Conference seminars and workshops will cover curriculum design, use of computers, programmed instruction, simulation, innovation theory, etc.
In Forthcoming Issues:
Update of 46 Case Studies of Individualized Instruction as originally reported by Jack V. Edling, Oregon State System of Higher Education.

“Revised Report Of Population Subcommittee, Governor’s Advisory Council On Environmental Quality”

For the State of Michigan, to be used at the April 6, 1971 meeting of the subcommittee, was filed in the Library, Legislative Service Bureau in Lansing, Michigan. Excerpts from this disturbing report follow:
I. Concept of a Population Goal
In general, the Subcommittee was in agreement with U.S. Senate Resolution No. 214, as follows:
That it is the policy of the United States to develop, encourage, and implement at the earliest possible time, the necessary policies, attitudes, social standards, and actions which will by voluntary means consistent with human rights and individual conscience, stabilize the population of the United States and thereby promote the future well-being of the citizens of this Nation and the entire world.
It was the feeling of the Subcommittee that the intent of the above Resolution should be encouraged by voluntary means and due consideration given to human rights.
However, in order to accomplish the above goal, state and federal legislation must accompany this intent to provide disincentives.
II. Optimum Goal
An optimum goal is to be considered in preference to a maximum carrying capacity. As a

starting point, zero population growth is the recommended goal for the citizens of Michigan.... That the human population on a finite “space ship” cannot increase indefinitely is obvious. What is not so obvious is what constitutes an “optimum” level of population and the methods by which it is to be limited....
III. How Does Society Obtain Population Control?
Constraints on population size can be divided into two types, biological and social. Biological constraints include the limitation of those energies and chemicals required to drive human society as a biological system.... Societal constraints are more appropriate since the human population explosion is basically a social problem. There are three classes of social institutions which can be utilized to obtain population control. These are the political, economic and education systems. Each of these represent powerful control systems which help to regulate the behavior of our society.
A wide range of public policies are available by which man can affect population size. Some policies can seek to change man’s basic values and attitudes with respect to the issues of population size. Other policies can seek to directly affect man’s behaviors which have consequences for population size. Some suggested policy goals are listed.
General Public Understanding
Having children is a public interest as well as a private interest. Likewise, the use of the environment must be understood to be a collective responsibility rather than a private or individual responsibility, since the costs and the benefits of the use of the environment are indivisible to all members of the collectivity. This idea runs counter to the underlying ethic of individualism and privateness of our society, but is basic if we are to mobilize the collective will which is necessary for social action. To change such a basic set of attitudes and values requires cooperation from the full range of opinion leaders in the society. A program of education for leaders in all sectors of society, such as religious, economic, political, educational, technical, etc., is therefore called for.
Since basic attitudes and values are formed early in life, and since it is the youth of society who are yet capable of determining the size of future families, a program for all levels of formal education can be a powerful way to change society’s attitudes and values on the question of population size as outlined above.
The idea that family size is a collective, social responsibility rather than just an individual responsibility can be fostered both directly by exhortations by opinion leaders and in the schools, and indirectly by the actions that government and other institutions in society take. For example, the proposal to eliminate the income tax exemption for children in excess of the two-child family limit can be a powerful way for government to symbolize its determination that family size is a collective responsibility.
Public understanding of the interdependent nature of our natural and man-made environment is also important for enlightened public support for population control policies. A state-wide education program concerning ecology and population biology is needed for both student and adult segments of our society. This will require vigorous action to remove the topic of sex from the closets of obscurity in which conservative elements in our society have placed it....
Cultural Changes
Two types of cultural changes are needed in order to reduce the population increase: reduce the desired size of families, and reduce the social pressure to marry and have a family.
Large families can be changed from an economic asset to an economic liability if all

members of society can be offered the prospect that through work, saving, and deferred spending they can achieve economic security for themselves and their children. For the already affluent middle class, larger families can be made an economic liability by increasing the incentives for and the costs of advanced education for their children....
Cultural changes to reduce the social pressure to marry and have a family can be pursued by changing educational materials which glorify married life and family life as the only “normal” life pattern, by granting greater public recognition to non-married and non-family life styles, by facilitating careers for single women....
[Ed. Note:
The above recommendation regarding reducing the social pressure to marry and have a family was successfully carried out over a period of 25 years according to an article entitled “Institution in Transition” by Michelle Boorstein which appeared in The Maine Sunday Telegram’s August 30, 1998 issue, Home and Family Section, G–1. This Associated Press article said in part:
They [Pam Hesse and Rob Lemar] share a home and a future but not a formal vow—just one couple caught up in the seismic shifts taking place in American attitudes toward marriage and childbearing.
A soon-to-be-released Census Bureau report shows Hesse is far from an exception; in fact, she’s in the majority. The report, the bureau’s first compilation of all its 60 years of data on childbearing and marriage, finds that for the first time, the majority of “first births”—someone’s first child—were either conceived by or born to an unmarried woman. That is up from 18 percent in the 1930s.
This is connected to an erosion of the centrality of marriage, said Stephanie Coontz of Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, who studies the family and its role in history.]
Returning to the Population Subcommittee’s report:
Direct Behavior Changes
Two general types of public policies are distributive policies and regulative policies. Distributive policies involve the distribution of resources and opportunities to people who choose to modify their behavior to conform with the socially desired patterns. They thus operate as incentives rather than as official constraints. Examples include the elimination of tax incentives for larger families, monetary incentives for sterilization or adopted families, and removing the income tax discrimination against single citizens....
Regulative policies involve direct constraints on behavior and necessarily generate greater political conflict than distributive policies. This is because regulative policies eliminate the element of voluntary choice and apply automatically and categorically to a whole class of people or of behaviors. Examples of such regulative policies designed to control population growth include forced sterilization and restrictive licensing procedures to marry and to have children. However, it does not seem necessary, desirable, or feasible to involve regulative policies for population control at this time. One regulative type policy which is now in effect and which allows population increase is the law forbidding abortion. Restrictions against abortions should be removed to allow individual choice in the use of this back-up method of birth control....
A general acceptance of birth control to obtain population stability will create a more static ethnic, cultural and racial structure in society. Minority groups will continue to stay at a numerical minority. Minority problems are basically social and should be solved in that manner. An equilibrium condition will also alter the structure of our economic relationship

both within our society (a shift from an expanding economy to a competitive displacement economy) and between other countries that will still be experiencing increasing populations...
Immediate consideration must be given to (1) the development of an integrated socialcontrol of our population size and growth, and (2) the impact of a steady stable condition on our society. The scope and complexity of this task requires the attention of a highly professional team whose talents and professional training are equal to the challenge. It is the recommendation of the Council that such a team be brought together and charged with the prompt development of the details of this program and reporting back to the Council.
Approved by the Population Subcommittee, March 30, 1971.
Present: Dr. C.T. Black, Mr. Robert Boatman, Professor William Cooper, Dr. Ralph MacMullan, and M.S. Reisen, M.D., Chairman
Surely it is no coincidence that the above-mentioned Michigan and U.S. Senate recommended policies on population control were being discussed at the same time (1971) that the United States was engaged in “Ping Pong” diplomacy with Communist China, the international leader in mandatory population control. Some excerpts follow from “The Ping Heard Round the World” which appeared in the April 26, 1971 issue of Time magazine:
Dressed in an austere gray tunic, Premier Chou En-Lai moved along a line of respectfully silent visitors in Peking’s massive Great Hall of the People.... Finally he stopped to chat with the 15-member U.S. team and three accompanying American reporters, the first group of U.S. citizens and journalists to visit China in nearly a quarter of a century. “We have opened a new page in the relations of the Chinese and American people,” he told the U.S. visitors...
Yet in last week’s gestures to the United States table tennis team, the Chinese were clearly indicating that a new era could begin. They carefully made their approaches through private U.S. citizens, but they were responding to earlier signals that had been sent by the Nixon Administration over the past two years.
Probably never before in history has a sport been used so effectively as a tool of international diplomacy.
[Ed. Note:
Back to family planning, Michigan-style. Population and Family Planning in the People’s Republic of China, 1971, a book published by the Victor-Bostrom Fund and the Population Crisis Committee, has a table of contents that includes: “A Letter from Peking” by Edgar Snow, author of Red Star Over China; “Family Planning in China” by Han Suyin, M.D.; and “Why Not Adopt China’s Population Goals?” In other words, it looks like Ping Pong Diplomacy may have been used to open up the dialogue between Communist China and “private” American groups supporting population control. These would, in turn, lobby in Congress for more liberal family planning policies and for the legalization of abortion as recommended in the U.S. Senate Journal Resolution #214 and the Michigan paper. Here again, as was the case with the 1985 Carnegie Corporation-Soviet Academy of Sciences education agreement, diplomacy is being conducted by private parties: table tennis teams and groups such as the non-profit Victor-Bostrom Fund and the Population Crisis Committee.


Performance-Based Teacher Education: What Is The State Of The Art? By Stanley Elam,

editor of Phi Delta Kappa Publications (AACTE Committee on Performance-Based Teacher Education, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education: Washington, D.C., 1971),was published. This paper was originally prepared in 1971 pursuant to a contract with the U.S. Office of Education through the Texas Education Agency, Austin, Texas. Excerpts follow:
The Association is pleased to offer to the teacher education community the Committee’s first state of the art paper.... In performance-based programs... he [the teacher] is held accountable, not for passing grades, but for attaining a given level of competency in performing the essential tasks of teaching.... Acceptance of this basic principle has program implications that are truly revolutionary.
The claim that teacher education programs were not producing people equipped to teach minority group children and youth effectively has pointed directly to the need for reform in teacher education.... Moreover, the claim of minority group youth that there should be alternative routes to professional status has raised serious questions about the suitability of generally recognized teacher education programs.
[Ed. Note:
The above paper was one of the first—and perhaps the most influential—professional papers setting the stage for full-blown implementation of Skinnerian outcome-based / performance-based education. The definitions, criteria, assessment, etc., are identical to those found in present professional OBE literature. (See Appendix VII for fuller excerpts from this paper.)]

Concern Regarding The Deliberate Dumbing Down Of America Is Not Confined

TO this author according to an article entitled “Young People Are Getting Dumber,” by David Hawkins, editorial staff writer, in the August 26, 1971 issue of The Dallas Morning News. Excerpts from this interesting article, which discusses the importance of acquiring a large vocabulary, follow:
John Gaston, who bosses the Fort Worth branch of the Human Engineering Laboratory (half his clients are from Dallas), dropped a bomb on me as we discussed aptitude testing.
“Do you know,” he said, “that the present generation knows less than its parents?”
“You mean to say that young people aren’t smarter than we are—that all we’ve heard about this generation being the last and best isn’t so?”
Gaston nodded solemnly: “Young people know fewer words than their fathers. That makes them know less.” He fixed me with a foreboding eye: “Can you imagine what a drop in knowledge of 1 per cent a year for 30 years could do to our civilization?”
The question answered itself. And though I could hardly believe what Gaston was saying, I knew it wasn’t instant sociology.
What he says is based on hundreds of thousands of tests given in several parts of the country since 1922 by what is probably the most prestigious non-profit outfit in the field of vocational research. The Human Engineers don’t even advertise.
But Gaston wasn’t through: “We also believe,” he was saying, “that the recent rise in violence correlates with the drop in vocabulary. Long [range] testing has convinced us that crime and violence predominate among people who score low in vocabulary. If they can’t express themselves with their tongues, they’ll use their fists.”
“We test many gifted people who are low in vocabulary and we tell them all—we tell the world—to learn the words. Swallow the dictionary. Brilliant aptitudes aren’t worth much without words to give them wings.”

Gaston paused and then dropped another bomb. “The one thing successful people have in common isn’t high aptitudes—it’s high vocabulary, and it’s within everybody’s reach. Success actually correlates more with vocabulary than with the gifts we’re born with.” “Aptitudes will only show them which road to take. Vocabulary will determine how high they climb. Right now, the present generation is headed downwards.”

Some Important Statements By Professor John I. Goodlad, President Of Educational Inquiry, Incorporated,

appeared in A Report to the President’s Commission on School Finance (Schooling for the Future: Toward Quality and Equality in American Precollegiate Education) October 15, 1971. Goodlad makes the following comments under “Issue #9—Educational Innovation: What changes in purposes, procedures or institutional arrangements are needed to improve the quality of American elementary and secondary education?”:
The literature on how we socialize or develop normative behavior in our children and the populace in general is fairly dismal.... [T]he majority of our youth still hold the same values as their parents....
In the second paradigm... the suggestion is made that there are different targets for the change agent. For example, in a social system such as a school probably five to fifteen percent of the people are open to change. They are the “early majority” and can be counted on to be supportive. A second group, sixty to ninety percent, are the resisters. They need special attention and careful strategies need to be employed with them. Also, there are the leaders, formal and informal, and their support is critical. In his research, for example, Demeter noted some time ago the special role of the school principal in innovation:
Building principals are key figures in the (innovation) process. Where they are both aware of and sympathetic to an innovation, it tends to prosper. Where they are ignorant of its existence, or apathetic if not hostile, it tends to remain outside the bloodstream of the school.
Few people think in these ways today. Rather, as a people, we tend to rely upon common sense or what might be called conventional wisdom as we make significant decisions which, in turn, seriously affect our lives.... More often than not, school board members, parents and the public make important decisions about what should happen in their schools based upon these past experiences or other conventional wisdom.... The use of conventional wisdom as a basis for decision-making is a major impediment to educational improvement....
The child of suburbia is likely to be a materialist and somewhat of a hypocrite. He tends to be a striver in school, a conformist, and above all a believer in being “nice,” polite, clean and tidy. He divides Humanity into the black and white, the Jew and the Christian, the rich and the poor, the “smart” and the “dumb.” He is often conspicuously self-centered. In all these respects, the suburban child patterns his attitudes after those of his parents.... If we do not alter this pattern, if we do not resocialize ourselves to accept and plan for change, our society may decay. What may be left in the not too distant future is what other formerly great societies have had, reflections on past glories....
In the social interaction model of change, the assumption is made that the change agent is the decision-maker about the innovation. That is, it is assumed that he decides what the adopter will change to. This is a serious problem for two very good reasons. First, as we have shown, people cannot be forced to change until they are psychologically ready. Thus, at

every stage, each individual is, in fact, deciding how far he is ready or willing to move, if at all.
[Ed. Note:
As a former school board member, this writer can relate to the above quote. Principals who resisted innovation eventually ended up being forced out of the system undergoing radical change. Their trials and tribulations were known only to them, and what they underwent during the change agents’ activities in their schools could be described as inhumane treatment.]

The Tri-County K–12 Course Goal Project,

The results of which were later published by the Northwest Regional Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Education and used extensively throughout the nation as the formulaic sample for “goals setting,” was initiated in 1971. In the appendix entitled “Classification System for the School Curriculum” for her Practitioner’s Implementation Handbook [series]: The Outcome-Based Curriculum (Outcome Associates: Princeton, N.J., 1992), Charlotte Danielson, M.A., a prominent educator and proponent of outcome-based education, said: “The knowledge and inquiry and problem-solving skills sections of this taxonomy were first developed by the Tri-County Goal Development Project, Portland, Oregon.”[3] Assistant superintendent Victor W. Doherty, Evaluation Department of the Portland Public Schools in Portland, Oregon, in a November 2, 1981 letter to Mrs. Opal Moore, described this Goal Development Project as follows:
The Tri-County Goal Development Project was initiated by me in 1971 in an effort to develop a resource for arriving at well-defined learning outcome statements for use in curriculum planning and evaluation. At that time the only language available was the behavioral objective, a statement which combined a performance specification with a learning outcome often in such a way as to conceal the real learning that was being sought. By freeing the learning outcome statements from performance specification and by defining learning outcomes of three distinctly different types (information, process skills, and values), we were able to produce outcome statements that served both the planning and evaluation functions. The project was organized to include 55 school districts in Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington Counties and writing was done initially by teachers whose time was donated to the project by member districts.
[Ed. Note:
The writer believes that this very controversial project which provided the goals framework for OBE was illegal—in clear violation of the 1970 GEPA prohibition against federal government involvement in curriculum development.]

1972 The Newport Harbor Ensign Of Corona Del Mar, California Carried An Article entitled “Teachers Are Recycled”

In its January 20, 1972 issue. The following are excerpts from this important article:
Education in California is finally going to catch up with the “innovative” Newport-Mesa Unified School District. With the passage of the Stull Bill, AB 293, all school districts are mandated to evaluate their classroom teachers and certificated personnel through new guidelines.

Another portion of the bill will allow a district to dismiss a teacher with tenure, without going to court.
A teacher will no longer have the prerogative of having his own “style” of teaching, because he will be held “accountable” to uniform expected student progress. His job will depend on how well he can produce “intended” behavioral changes in students.
“School districts just haven’t had time to tool up for it,” explained Dr. William Cunningham, Executive Director of the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA). Until recently, he was superintendent of the Newport-Mesa district.
The Newport-Mesa district, under the guidance of Dr. Cunningham, accomplished this task years ago. In fact we have warned of this appraisal plan in many of our columns throughout the past 2 years. Its formal name is “staff performance appraisal plan,” at least in this district, and was formulated as early as 1967.
In 1968 five elementary schools in our district (California, Mariners, Presidio, Victoria, Monte Vista) and one high school (Estancia) were selected from schools that volunteered for the project. They were accepted on the basis that at least 60% of the teachers were willing to participate in the “in-service training sessions” and to “apply” the assessment processes learned at these sessions in their own classroom situations. A total of 88 teachers participated in all aspects of the pilot study.
Formal Training Sessions:
Participants attended two 2–1/2 hour sessions to acquire the prerequisite tools. Evidence was collected to show that by the end of the final training session, 80% of the participants had acquired a minimal level of ability to apply these competencies.
Prerequisite Tools:
Teachers learning how to identify or diagnose strengths and weaknesses, learning to write and use behavioral objectives, learning new teaching techniques and procedures, etc. Teachers learn these through workshops and in-service training, having acquired these skills, teachers had to go through the “appraisal” technique.
Appraisal Technique:
During the observation phase, observation teams composed of teacher colleagues and a resource person from UCLA or the District collected data regarding the execution of the previously planned lessons. The observation team recorded both the verbal behavior of pupils and teacher (e.g., teacher questions and pupil responses) and non-verbal behavior which could be objectively described....
What all this amounts to is “peer group” analysis. Group dynamics would be the term used in other circles. To be more blunt, others would call it sensitivity training in its purest form—role-playing, to say the least....
The teacher must cooperate and learn the new methods of teaching, writing behavioral objectives, playing psychologist.

The New York Times Carried A Lengthy Front Page Article On April 30, 1972 By William K. Stevens

Entitled “The Social Studies: A Revolution Is on—New Approach Is Questioning, Skeptical—Students Examine Various Cultures.” This article explained the early history of the twenty-six-year controversy which has raged across the United States between those desiring education for a global society versus those desiring education in American History and Western Civilization; i.e., the question of “social studies” versus traditional history, and “process” education versus fact-based education. Excerpts follow:
When C. Frederick Risinger started teaching American History at Lake Park High School near Chicago, he operated just about as teachers had for generations. He drilled students on

names and dates. He talked a lot about kings and presidents. And he worked from a standard text whose patriotic theme held that the United States was “founded on the highest principles that men of good will and common sense have been able to put into practice.”
That was ten years ago, but it might as well be 50. For the social studies curriculum at Lake Park has changed almost beyond recognition. The 32-year-old Mr. Risinger, now head of the department, has abandoned the traditional text and set his students to analyzing all revolutions, not just the American, and from all points of view, including the British one that George Washington was both a traitor and an inept general.

An Article Entitled “people Control Blueprint” By Carol Denton

Was published in the May, 1972 issue (Vol. 3, No. 12) of The National Educator (Fullerton, CA). Recommendations made in the top secret paper discussed in this article echo those mentioned in the April 6, 1971 Michigan Governor’s Advisory Council on Population paper. Excerpts follow:
A “Top Secret” paper from the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, now in the hands of The National Educator, reveals a plan for total control of the people of the United States through behavioral modification techniques of B.F. Skinner, the controversial behaviorist author of Beyond Freedom and Dignity....
According to the “Dialogue Discussion Paper,” marked “Top Secret” across the bottom of the cover page, a conference was held at the Center on January 17 through 19, 1972, at which time a discussion on “The Social and Philosophical Implications of Behavior Modification” was held. The paper in question is the one prepared [by] four individuals for presentation at that conference entitled “Controlled Environment for Social Change.” The authors are Vitali Rozynko, Kenneth Swift, Josephine Swift and Larney J. Boggs....
The second page of the paper carries the inscription, “To B.F. Skinner and James G. Holland.”... Page 3 of the paper states that the “Top Secret” document was prepared on December 31, 1971....
The authors of this tome are senior staff members of the Operant Behavior Modification Project located at Mendocino State Hospital in California and the project is partially supported by a grant from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse....
On page 5 of this blueprint for totalitarianism, the authors state that “we are presently concerned with controlling upheavals and anarchic behavior associated with social change and discontent.”... The authors go on to say that they believe an “Orwellian world” is more likely under presently developing society than under the kind of rigorous controls of a society envisioned by Skinner....
On page 6, the authors deplore the growing demands for “law and order,” stating that the population is now more apt to support governmental repression than previously, in response to “their own fears.”...
They add that “with the rising population, depletion of natural resources, and the increase of pollution, repressive measures may have to be used to guarantee survival of our species. These measures may take the form of forced sterilization, greatly restricted uses of energy and limits on population movement and living location.”...
Skinner, on the other hand, they allege—“advocates more sophisticated controls over the population, since punishment (by the government) for the most part works only temporarily and only while the punishing agent is present.”...
On the other hand, the authors allege, operant conditioning (sensitivity training) and other behavioral techniques can be used to control the population through “positive reinforcement.”


Mary Thompson, Secretary And Member Of The Speakers’ Bureau Of The Santa Clara,

California Republican Women’s Federation, gave a very important speech regarding Planning, Programming, Budgeting Systems (PPBS) on June 11, 1972. Following are key excerpts:
When I was first asked to speak to you about PPBS (Planning, Programming, Budgeting Systems), I inquired whether it was to be addressed to PPBS as applied to education. I shall deal with it at the education level today, however you should remember that PPBS is a tool for implementing the very restructuring of government at all levels in every area of governmental institutions. What is involved is the use of government agencies to accomplish mass behavioral change in every area....
PPBS is a plan being pushed by Federal and State governments to completely change education....
The accountability involved in PPBS means accountability to the state’s predeterminededucation goals....
One leader of education innovation (Shelly Umans—Management of Education) has called it “A systematic design for education revolution.”...
In a systems management of the education process, the child himself is the product. Note: the child... his feelings, his values, his behavior, as well as his intellectual development....
PPBS is the culmination of the “people planners” dreams....
Then in 1965 the means for accomplishing the actual restructuring of education was provided in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). President Johnson has said that he considered the ESEA the most significant single piece of legislation of his administration. Recall that it was also the same year of 1965 when the presidential order was given to introduce PPBS throughout the entire federal government. 1965 was the year which unleashed the actual restructuring of governmental processes and formally included education as a legitimate Federal government function....
PPBS is the systems management tool made possible by technology of computer hardware to affect the planned change....
In order to make an explanation of PPBS intelligible, you must also know that education itself has been redefined. Simply put, it has become the objective of education to measure and diagnose the child in order to prescribe a program to develop his feelings and emotions, values and loyalties toward predetermined behavioral objectives.... Drawing it right down to basics, we are talking about conditioned responses in human terms. Pavlov experimented on dogs!...
Taking each element of PPBS will show how the process is accomplished. Planning phase (please note that the process involved with a systems approach is always described in terms of “phases”) always includes the establishment of goals committees, citizens committees, needs assessment committees.... These are referred to as “community involvement.” The committees are always either self appointed or chosen—never elected. They always include guidance from some trained “change agents” who may be administrators, curriculum personnel or local citizens. Questionnaires and surveys are used to gather data on how the community “feels” and to test community attitudes. The ingeniousness of the process is that everybody thinks he is having a voice in the direction of public schools. Not so... for Federal change agencies, specifically regional education centers established by ESEA, influence and essentially determine terminology used in the questionnaires and surveys. The change agents at the district level then function to “identify needs and problems for change” as they have been programmed to identify them at the training sessions sponsored by Federal offices such as our Center for Planning and Evaluation in Santa Clara County. That is why the goals are essentially the same in school districts across the country.

It also explains why three years ago every school district was confronted with the Family Life Education issue at the same time....
Unknowing citizens’ committees are used by the process to generate acceptance of goals already determined. What they don’t realize is that professional change agents are operating in the behaviorist’s framework of thought and Mr. or Mrs. Citizen Parent is operating in his traditional education framework of thought. So, the local change agents are able to facilitate a group to a consensus in support of predetermined goals by using familiar, traditional terms which carry the new behaviorist meanings....
Another name for this process is Participatory Democracy, a term by the way, which was coined by Students for a Democratic Society in their Port Huron Manifesto to identify the process for citizen participation in destruction of their own political institutions....
Richard Farson of Western Behavioral Sciences Institute made a report to the Office of Education in Sacramento in 1967. He said it this way:
The application of systems analysis is aided by several phenomena that would be of help in almost any situation of organizational change. First, it is relatively easier to make big changes than to make small ones—and systems changes are almost always big ones. Because they are big, it is difficult for people to mount resistance to them, for they go beyond the ordinary decision-making, policy-making activities of individual members of an organization. It is far easier to muster argument against a $100 expenditure for partitions than against a complete reorganization of the work flow....
Teachers, you have professional organizations to protect your professional interests. Use them to protect your personal privacy and professional integrity. Encourage organizations of teachers to take positions publicly in opposition to PPBS....
We believe the time has come to establish private schools to keep our children from falling victim to the behaviorists while there is still opportunity to do so. Beware Of The Fact That The Voucher System Is Lurking In The Wings To Bring The Private Schools Into The National Control [emphasis in original].

The Ledger Of Tallahassee Florida On July 27, 1972 In An Article Entitled “Schools to Try New Program”

Quoted Florida state education officials as saying that a new program being field-tested in Florida will tell teachers and parents not only why Johnny can’t read, but why the school can’t teach him and how much it’s costing to try. Excerpts follow:
“We’re putting all the various components together now,” said Associate Education Commissioner Cecil Golden. “What we’re doing should soon become very visible.” However, he estimates it will take seven to ten years before the program is completely operational....
Golden says it may sound like a lot of gibberish at this point, but “when we bring it all together” it should produce a more flexible and relevant educational system....
He said many people in the State Department of Education are working independently on various facets and aspects of the program and, like those assembling the atom bomb, “very few of them understand exactly what they are building, and won’t until we put all the parts together.”
[Ed. Note:
This article refers to PPBS/MBO—the early years. The Atlanta Constitution published an article entitled “Georgia Schools OK Tracking System” in its July 1, 1998 issue which

describes later PPBS implementation and which is included in this book’s entry of the same date.]

The Don Bell Report Of September 8, 1972 Reported On A White House Conference

On the Industrial World held February 7 of that year. The conference title was “A Look at Business in 1990.” Excerpts follow:
As one of the participants in that conference, Roy Ash, President of Litton Industries and Chairman of the President’s Advisory Council on Executive Organization, later appeared before the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce to tell West Coast businessmen what was decided at the White House Conference. The billing for this latter event is impressive reading:
The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the White House Staff, is presenting The White House Conference, The World Ahead: A Look at Business in 1990, Thursday, May 18, 1972. Los Angeles Hilton. 3:00–6:30 p.m.
Following is part of what Roy Ash told his Los Angeles audience:
The answer is that increasing economic and business interdependence among nations is the keynote of the next two decades of world business—decades that will see major steps toward a single world economy....
Some aspects of individual sovereignty will be given over to international authority....
As importantly, international agreements between the socialist and the private property economies add a different dimension to the problems for which solutions need to be found over the years ahead. But as Jean Frere, Managing Partner of Banque Lambert, Brussels, forecasts, the socialist countries will take major steps toward joining the world economy by 1990. He goes so far as to see them becoming members of the International Monetary Fund, the sine qua non for effective participation in multilateral commerce. Then also, by 1990 an imaginative variety of contractual arrangements will have been devised and put into operation by which the socialist countries and the private capital countries will be doing considerable business together, neither being required to abandon its base idea....
These powerful factors of production—that is, capital, technology and management— will be fully mobile, neither contained nor containable within national borders....
As a framework for their [multinational corporations] development and application will be the establishment of more effective supranational institutions to deal with intergovernmental matters and matters between governments and world industry. A key intergovernmental institution that needs to work well in a world economy is the International Monetary Fund. The IMF will become, in Robert Roosa’s [Brown Bros. Harriman & Co.] words, the most advanced embodiment of the aspirations that so many have for a world society, a world economy. The IMF, he forecasts for 1990, is going to be the source of all of the primary reserves of all the banking systems of the world....
For, in the final analysis, we are commanded by the fact that the economies of the major countries of the world will be interlocked. And since major economic matters in all countries are also important political matters in and between countries, the inevitable consequence of these propositions is that the broader and total destinies—economic, political, and social—of all the world’s nations are closely interlocked. We are clearly at that point where economic issues and their related effects can be considered only in terms of a total world destiny, not just separate national destinies, and certainly not just a separate go-it-alone destiny for the United States.


“The Field Of Educational Technology: A Statement Of Definition” By Donald P. Ely,

Editor and chairman of the Definition and Terminology Committee of the Association for Educational Computing and Technology (AECT, a spin-off of the National Education Association), was circulated in October, 1972. In this paper leading specialists in the field of educational technology warn of the potential dangers of computers and the need for ethics in programming. One of the participants in the production of this position paper said: “If it is decided the work will bring about negative ends, the concerned professional refuses to perform it.” (See Appendix VIII for fuller excerpts.)

Dr. Chester M. Pierce, M.D. Of Harvard University Wrote An Article Entitled “becoming Planetary Citizens:

A Quest for Meaning” which appeared in the November 1972 issue of Childhood Education. Excerpts follow which include alarming recommendations for “education”:
Creative Altruism
In the past forty years social science experimentation has shown that by age five children already have a lot of political attitudes. Regardless of economic or social background, almost every kindergartner has a tenacious loyalty to his country and its leader. This phenomenon is understandable in the psychological terms of loyalty to a strong father-figure and of the need for security. But a child can enter kindergarten with the same kind of loyalty to the earth as to his homeland....
Systems Analysis
Children can be taught to integrate knowledge of systems in ever-widening circles. I don’t know how to tell you to do it, but as professionals you will be challenged to find ways. Just because no one yet knows how doesn’t mean it can’t be done....
New Views of Parenting
Another essential curricular decision you will have to make is what to teach a young child about his future role as a man or a woman. A lot will depend on what you know and what your philosophy is about parenting....
Already we are hearing about experiments that are challenging our traditional views of monogamous marriage patterns....
Learning to Relinquish
Finally—perhaps most difficult of all—you will have to teach children how to unlearn, how to re-learn and how to give up things....
Public Problem Number One
If we truly accept that today’s child must grow [up] to be a cosmopolite and “planetary citizen,” we face major problems. How do you get a child to see that the whole world is his province when every day on television he sees people who can’t live next door to their neighbors, who argue about things like busing?... Before the horizon I think the major problem to be solved in America if we are to enable people to grow as super-generalists and “planetary citizens” is the elimination of racism. Paradoxically, both the two chief deterrents and the two chief facilitators to this goal are the public school system and the mass media.... Early childhood specialists have a staggering responsibility but an unrivaled importance in producing “planetary citizens” whose geographic and intellectual provinces are as limitless as their all-embracing humanity.


Bruce Joyce And Marsha Weil Of Columbia Teachers’ College Wrote Models Of Teaching

(Prentice Hall, Inc.: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1972). The book was the product of research funded by the U.S. Office of Education’s Bureau of Research under a contract with Teachers’ College, Columbia University, in 1968. Models of Teaching’s importance lay not only in the fact that the book itself would be used extensively for in-service teacher training in behavior modification, but that the book would serve as the foundation from which Joyce would develop his “Models of Teacher Repertoire Training,” which has been used extensively (since the 1970s to the present) in order to change the teacher from a transmitter of knowledge (content) to a facilitator of learning (behavior modifier). Several excerpts from Models of Teaching follow:
Principles of teaching are not conceived as static tenets but as dynamically interactive with social and cognitive purpose, with the learning theory underlying procedures, with available support technology, and with the personal and intellectual characteristics of learning groups. What is emphasized is the wide range of options the teacher may adopt and adapt to his unique situation.
In the preface, which has a subtitle, “We Teach by Creating Environments for Children,” Joyce and Weil explain:
In this book we describe models which represent four different “families” of approaches to teaching. Some of the models focus on the individual and the development of his unique personality. Some focus on the human group and represent ways of teaching which emphasize group energy, interpersonal skills, and social commitment. Others represent ways of teaching concepts, modes of inquiry from the disciplines, and methods for increasing intellectual capacity. Still others apply psychological models of operant conditioning to the teaching- learning process. For the teacher we provide some advice on how to learn the various models based on our experiences in the Preservice Teacher Education Program at Teachers College, Columbia University. For curriculum and materials designers we include chapters on systematic planning using a variety of models of teaching. For both, we present a system for deciding what approaches to teaching are appropriate for what ends and how models can be selected to match the learning styles of children. (pp. xiii–xiv) Excerpts from the table of contents of Models of Teaching include:
(2) Group Investigation—Democratic Process as a Source. The school is considered as a model of an ideal society. This chapter explores a variety of democratic teaching designed by Herbert Thelen to bring about a new type of social relationship among men.
(5) The Laboratory Method—The T-Group Model. The National Training Laboratory has developed approaches to train people to cope with change through more effective social relationships. This model is the father of the encounter-group strategies.
(6) Concept Attainment—A Model Developed from a Study of Thinking. This model was developed by the authors from a study of work by Jerome S. Bruner and his associates.
[Bruner will be encountered in a later entry as a developer, along with B.F. Skinner, of the humanistic social studies curriculum, Man: A Course of Study, ed.]
(7) An Inductive Model—A Model Drawn from Conceptions of Mental Processes and General

Theory-Building. The late Hilda Taba developed a series of models to improve the inductive thinking ability of children and adults. Her strategies are presented in this chapter....
[In 1957 a California State Senate investigative committee exposed the work of Hilda Taba as harmful to children, ed.]
(12) Non-Directive Teaching—Rogerian Counseling as a Source. From his studies of counseling and therapy, Carl Rogers has developed a flexible model of teaching emphasizing an environment which encourages students to create their own environments for learning.
(13) Classroom Meeting Model—A Model Drawn from a Stance toward Mental Health. Another therapist, [William] Glasser, has also developed a stance toward teaching—one which emphasized methods easily applicable to the classroom situation.... [In 1971 the Citizens Committee of California, Inc., presented “A Bill of Particulars” for the abolition of Dr. William Glasser’s theory from the Orange County Unified School District which stated in part:
“Dr. Glasser has developed a method of education which negates a desire to achieve and compete; destroys respect for authority; expounds a ‘situational ethics’ philosophy; and develops group thinking.” William Glasser’s philosophy is a component of Outcome-Based Education, ed.]
(15) Awareness Training—A Model to Increase Human Awareness. Gestalt therapists and other humanistic psychologists have focused on strategies for increasing the awareness and sense of possibilities of individuals. A number of models for sensitivity training have been developed by William Schutz.
(16) Operant Conditioning—The pioneering work of B.F. Skinner has been followed by a mass of approaches to teaching and training based on the shaping of learning tasks and use of reinforcement schedules. Several such models are explored here.
(17) A Model for Matching Environments to People—The psychologist David Hunt has generated a “model of models”—an approach to teaching which suggests how we can match teaching styles to learning styles so as to increase growth toward personal flexibility.
(18) The Models Way of Thinking—An Operational Language. The chapter explores the philosophical and practical implications of a stance toward education and includes a spectrum of models which have different uses for different students.
One finds the following information in chapter 16 under the title “Operant Conditioning”:
The person most responsible for applying behavioral principles to education is B.F. Skinner, whose Theory of Operant Conditioning provided the basis for programmed instruction.
The Theory of Operant Conditioning represents the process by which human behavior becomes shaped into certain patterns by external forces. The theory assumes that any process or activity has observable manifestations and can be behaviorally defined, that is, defined in terms of observable behavior. Either or both of the theory’s two major operations, reinforcement and stimulus-control, are emphasized in the educational applications of operant conditioning theory.
Conditioning refers to the process of increasing the probability of occurrence of existing or new behavior in an individual by means of reinforcement. In operant conditioning the response (behavior) operates upon the environment to generate consequences.
The consequences are contingent upon the emission of a response, and they are reinforcing.

For example, the response “Pass the butter” operates upon the environment, another person, to obtain the butter. The response is reinforced by the receipt of the butter. In other words, the probability that a future desire for butter will elicit the same response is increased by its initial success....
The stimulus and reinforcement are independent variables upon which the response is dependent. As Skinner phrases it “the stimulus acting prior to the emission of the response, sets the occasion upon which the response is likely to be reinforced.”
(1) A stimulus is “any condition, event or change in the environment of an individual which produces a change in behavior.”
(2) It may be verbal (oral, written) or physical. A response may be defined as a unit of behavior....
According to Skinner, reinforcement must immediately follow a response if it is to be effective. Delayed reinforcement is much less effective in modifying behavior. (pp. 271–273)
An official overview of the “Models of Teacher Repertoire Training” program, made available to the author while working in the U.S. Department of Education, states under “Brief Description of Intervention” the following:
The objective of the intervention is to prepare teachers who can choose from a number of available alternatives the most appropriate strategy to be used with a particular group of students in a particular situation at a particular time. “Most appropriate” refers to the effectiveness of the strategy selected vs. the alternatives in terms of the probability that the students will learn what the teacher has predicted for them. The feasibility of achieving this objective in a clinical, or controlled situation has been long established. This intervention establishes that feasibility in the real world of the elementary and secondary school settings and offers a reliable, cost effective plan to do so....
The models which have been selected for this system are ones for which there is empirical evidence and / or theoretical grounding which supports the probability that students will learn what is predicted from them. Teachers learn to select the models and match them to the objectives they seek....
The families include:
(1) Behavior Modification and Cybernetic Models which have evolved from attempts to develop efficient systems for sequencing learning tasks and shaping behavior bymanipulating reinforcement....
Clinical analysis guides are useful to provide feedback about performance and to support on-site coaching. In addition to print material there are more than thirty hours of video tapes to support the training system....
The principal criterion of effectiveness rests upon existing empirical evidence that pre-specified changes in teaching behavior will produce predictable changes in pupil performance.
This information suggests that Skinner—and, evidently, Joyce and Weil—believe that man is truly only a response organism with no intrinsic soul or intellect, definitely a product of evolution. During a U.S. Department of Education Joint Dissemination Review Panel meeting at which Bruce Joyce and Jim Stefansen submitted application for funding, some of the participants made the following statements:


“It has been difficult in the past to bring about curriculum change, behavior change. In California we are establishing a network of 100 school districts. New strategies for teaching and exporting programs.”


“Couldn’t agree more that what you are doing needs to be done. Maybe we are not ready yet to talk about selective use of repertoire. You must gather data supporting selective use of methods.”


“Primary claim is we do know how to train teachers to make ultimate choices so that when those behaviors take place students are affected. Question is,

can you train teachers to accept strategies each of which we know are the better of two or more choices?”
“No question in my mind that Joyce is onto something of great importance.
Problem here has to do with claims of effectiveness rather than evidence of effectiveness.
Relationship between teacher behavior and student achievement.”

Unknown Panel Member

“There are thousands of investigations to support Skinner strategies.”
The following excerpt from the “Models of Teacher Repertoire Training”—which includes most of the highly controversial behavior modification methods in existence—is taken from Models of Teaching by Joyce and was furnished to this writer by the Maine Facilitator Center in Auburn, Maine in 1985.[4]
(1) Information Processing—how do students acquire and act on information?
Concept Attainment—Jerome Bruner, Goodnow, Austin Inductive Thinking—Hilda Taba Direct Instruction—Benjamin Bloom, Madeline Hunter, James Block and Ethna Reid [How interesting that Joyce identifies the four most influential developers and promoters of Skinnerian “Mastery Learning / Teaching” with “Direct Instruction,” which is the method attributed to Siegfried Engelmann and called for in the Reading Excellence Act of 1998, ed.
(2) Personal Family—How does each person develop his / her unique possibilities? Nondirective Teaching—Carl Rogers Synectics—Thomas Gordon Classroom Meetings—William Glasser
(3) Social Models—How does the individual relate to society or other people? Jurisprudential Inquiry—Oliver and Shaver Role Playing—Shaftel, Chesler and Fox
(4) Behavioral Models—How is visible behavior changed? Training Model Stress Reduction—Decker Assertiveness Training—Wolpe, Lazarus
Ed. Note:
The writer has given extensive coverage to Models of Teaching since these teacher behavior modification training programs have been in effect for thirty years and are probably the most inclusive. It includes many, if not all of the controversial methods about which parents complain, if they are lucky enough to find out they are being used. Most parents are unaware of these manipulative methods intended to change their children’s behavior. Considering the prevalence of behavior modification in the schools it is a wonder our schools and our children are not in worse shape than they are. There has obviously been immense teacher and student resistance to this type of manipulation.

President Richard Nixon Created The National Institute Of Education (NIE) In 1972.

Serving as a presidential assistant at that time, Chester Finn (who would later be appointed

assistant secretary of education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement under Secretary William Bennett in the Reagan administration) was one of the principal authors of Nixon’s proposal for NIE. The December 8, 1982 issue of Education Week contained an interesting article on the history and purpose of NIE entitled “Success Eludes 10-Year-Old Agency.”
An excerpt which pertains to the redefinition of education from academic/content-based to scientific, outcome-/performance-based follows:
“The purpose of a National Institute of Education,” said Daniel P. Moynihan who was the agency’s principal advocate in the Nixon Administration, “is to develop the art and science of education to the point that equality of educational opportunity results in a satisfactory equivalence of educational achievement.”
For those who have difficulty understanding Daniel Moynihan’s education jargon, “develop the art and science of education to the point that equality of educational opportunity results in a satisfactory equivalence of educational achievement” means that education from that time on would be considered a “science.” In other words, with education becoming a “science,” behavioral psychology (Pavlov/Skinner) would be used in the classrooms of America in order to equalize results which would be predictable and could be scientifically measured. The teacher and student would be judged not on what they know, but on how they perform—like rats and pigeons—facilitating the “redistribution of brains.” Professor James Block, a leader in Skinnerian/mastery learning circles, discussed this redistribution of brains in an article published in Educational Leadership (November 1979) entitled “Mastery Learning:
The Current State of the Craft.” Block explained that:
One of the striking personal features of mastery learning, for example, is the degree to which it encourages cooperative individualism in student learning as opposed to selfish competition. Just how much room is there left in the world for individualists who are more concerned with their own performance than the performance of others?
One of the striking societal features of mastery learning is the degree to which it presses for a society based on the excellence of all participants rather than one based on the excellence of a few. Can any society afford universal excellence, or must all societies make most people incompetent so that a few can be competent?
Returning to the Education Week article referenced above, the story of NIE continued:
Among the serious, continuing obstacles to the Institute’s attainment of its goals, those interviewed for this article cited the following three: Understanding, Funding, and Leadership....
Under “Understanding” one reads: “Because educational research is a relatively young area of social science, it does not enjoy wide respect among scholars, and its relationship to teaching and learning is poorly understood by many of those who work in the schools.”
The first director chosen by the current [Reagan] Administration to head the institute, Edward A. Curran, articulated the conservatives’ position in a memorandum to the President last May that called for dismantling the institute. “NIE is based on the premise that education is a science whose progress depends on systematic ‘research and development.’
As a professional educator, I know that this premise is false,” wrote Mr. Curran, who was dismissed from the agency shortly thereafter.
Ed. Note:
Ed Curran was the first “shoe to drop”; he would be followed by some of the nation’s finest academic teachers who also held Curran’s view that education is not a science.


Of interest to this writer is the extensive influence NIE’s research has on local classroom practice considering its rather paltry budget.
The reason for this lies in the fact that 90% of all education research is federally funded, thus guaranteeing that NIE controls 90% of the national research product—teaching and learning. When the National Institute of Education was finally abolished none of its functions were eliminated since it was subsumed by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
“Equivalence of educational achievement,” described by Patrick Moynihan, equals Performance Based Education (PBE) and Outcome-Based Education (OBE), which in turn equal a deliberate dumbing down of American teachers and youth—necessary in order to implement the performance based workforce training agenda planned since the early nineteen hundreds.
Good academic and content oriented teachers understand that education is not social science.In 1999 efforts are being made to encourage these good teachers to get out of the way so that teachers trained in performance-based Skinnerian teaching and Total Quality Management can be hired to replace them.

1973 Schooling In The United States By John Goodlad, M. Frances Klein, And Jerrold M. Novotney

(Charles F. Kettering Foundation Program: McGraw-Hill Co., New York, 1973) was published. Excerpts follow:

Conditioning Or Behavior Modification:

Several experimental preschool programs make extensive use of behaviorist theory (now called “operant conditioning” or “behavior modification”) as a means of instruction in both the cognitive and socioemotional realms. [Professor Lawrence] Kohlberg notes:
In general, such a program implies a play for shaping the child’s behavior by successive approximation from responses. At every step, immediate feedback or reward is desirable and immediate repetition and elaboration of the correct response is used. A careful detailed programming of learning is required to make sure that
(a) each response builds on the preceding,
(b) incorrect responses are not made since once made they persist and interfere with correct responses, and
(c) feedback and reward are immediate.
The Liverpool Laboratory School at the Research and Development Center in Early Childhood Education at Syracuse University is a program based directly on reinforcement theory.... The school is to determine whether children can learn cognitive skills during the preschool years and to identify techniques which will be successful in bringing about such learning. The program is built around a highly detailed schedule of reinforcement. Skills to be taught are broken down into specific components, each of which is immediately reinforced when it appears correctly. Teachers reinforce in four steps: in the first, raisins or candies are awarded for each correct response; in the second, the candies are replaced by tokens which can be traded for a small prize; the third involves distributing tokens which can be exchanged for more valuable tokens. Two or more of the latter may be traded for a prize. In the fourth step, four valuable tokens are required to receive a prize....
Bereiter and Engelmann [Direct Instruction / DISTAR / Reading Mastery (SRA)] also use operant conditioning in their program. Their reinforcement program contains both verbal

and tangible rewards. Weber describes a rapid-fire sequence in language training in which the teacher verbally reinforces each response of the students:
Teacher:   What is the same as beautiful?
Children:   Pretty.
Teacher:   Good. You are so good. If someone is beautiful they are pretty. What is the opposite of pretty?
Children:   Ugly.
Teacher:   I’ll have to shake everyone’s hand....
She also speaks of an arithmetic lesson in which the children were given a cracker for each correct response....
Teaching and managing behavior by means of operant conditioning does not appeal to all and raises several moral issues. In the first place, it postulates an image of the learner as passive and receptive and leaves little room for individuality and creative thinking. According to William E. Martin in Rediscovering the Mind of the Child:
A science of behavior emphasizes the importance of environmental manipulation and scheduling and thus the mechanization and routinization of experience. Similarly, it stresses performance in the individual. Doing something, doing it efficiently, doing it automatically— these are the goals. It is the mechanization of man as well as the mechanization well-trained button-pushers. (pp. 40–43)
Ed. Note:
Surely, if American parents understood this dehumanizing method being implemented in the nation’s schools under whatever label—OBE, ML, DI in conjunction with computers— they would see the many dangers to their children. One of those dangers being that after twelve years of rewards for correct answers, will their children ever have the courage or be motivated to do anything on their own—to take a stand when what is left of their “principles” is challenged? If this method is implemented in all schools of the nation, and I mean all—public, private, religious and home school (in many cases due to the use of computers or “Skinner’s box”) as is happening right now—our nation will become a nation of robotic drones responding to whomever wishes to control them for whatever purpose.

Ronald G. Havelock’s The Change Agent’s Guide To Innovation In Education was published

(Educational Technology Publishing: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1973). This Guide, which contains authentic case studies on how to sneak in controversial curricula and teaching strategies, or get them adopted by naïve school boards, is the educator’s bible for bringing about change in our children’s values. Havelock’s Guide was funded by the U.S. Office of Education and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and has continued to receive funding well into the 1980s. It has been republished in a second edition in 1995 by the same publishers.
Ed. Note:
Why is it that the change agents’ plans and their tools to “transform” our educational system never change, while parents and teachers are told, repeatedly, that they must be ready and willing to change?


Foundations Of Behavioral Research,

Second Edition By Fred N. Kerlinger Of New York University (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.: New York, 1973) was published. Describing the purpose of writing this textbook, Dr. Kerlinger wrote in his preface:
The writing of this book has been strongly influenced by the book’s major purpose: to help students understand the fundamental nature of the scientific approach to problem solution....
All else is subordinate to this. Thus the book, as its name indicates, strongly emphasizes the fundamentals or foundations of behavioral research [emphasis in original].
To accomplish the major purpose indicated above, the book... is a treatise on scientific research; it is limited to what is generally accepted as the scientific approach.
Kerlinger’s treatise on scientific research, from which the writer quotes, would have been strengthened considerably had he included the following description of Wilhelm Wundt’s theory:[5]
A thing made sense and was worth pursuing if it could be measured, quantified, and scientifically demonstrated. Seeing there was no way to do this with the human soul, he proposed that psychology concern itself solely with experience.
Hence, behavioral psychology and scientific research were born. With such a heavy emphasis on quantifiable, measurable, and scientifically demonstrable performance as a base for psychological research, the writer felt it important to use an instructive text which would help the reader understand the complexities of what is known as “the scientific method,” since it is being so widely proclaimed as the be-all and end-all of educational curriculum development and methodology today. Fred Kerlinger states in his Foundations of Behavioral Research textbook that:
Scientific research is a systematic, controlled, empirical and critical investigation of hypothetical propositions about...
the presumed relations among natural phenomena....
If such and such occurs, then so-and-so-results....
The scientist... systematically builds his theoretical structures, tests them for internal consistency, and subjects aspects of them to empirical test. Second, the scientist systematically and empirically tests his theories and hypotheses.
These statements lead one to believe that the true scientific method so often employed by scientists dealing with experimental material which can be replicated and tested is being employed by behavioral psychologists. However, the following quotes from Kerlinger’s textbook will quickly dispel this misconception:
Many people think that science is basically a fact-gathering activity. It is not. As M. Cohen says:
There is... no genuine progress in scientific insight through the Baconian method of accumulatin gempirical facts without hypotheses or anticipation of nature. Without some guiding idea we do not know what facts to gather... we cannot determine what is relevant and what is irrelevant. [From A Preface to Logic (Meridian: New York, 1956) by M. Cohen.]
The scientifically uninformed person often has the idea that the scientist is a highly objective individual who gathers data without preconceived ideas. Poincare pointed out how wrong this idea is. He said:

It is often said that experiments should be made without preconceived ideas. That is impossible. Not only would it make every experiment fruitless, but even if we wished to do so, it could not be done. [From Science and Hypothesis (Dover: New York, N.Y., 1952) by H. Poincare.] (p. 16)
In other words, if we as parents and citizens believe that the same “scientific, researchbased” standards applied to research in education and psychology are those applied to medicine, geology, or engineering, we are sadly mistaken. If we believe that objective criteria are employed when evaluating educational curriculum or behavioral analysis, we are likewise mistaken. Therefore, when presented with proposals in academic curricula that purport to be founded in “scientific, research-based” evaluation, we should take them with a grain of salt!
For instance, Kerlinger, as a psychological researcher, wrote about “Science and Common Sense”: Common sense may often be a bad master for the evaluation of knowledge.
One view would say that science is a systematic and controlled extension of common sense, since common sense, as J. Conant points out, is a series of concepts and conceptual schemes satisfactory for the practical uses of mankind. But these concepts and conceptual schemes may be seriously misleading in modern science—and particularly in psychology and education.
It was self-evident to many educators of the last century... to use punishment as a basic tool of pedagogy. Now we have evidence that this older common sense view of motivation may be quite erroneous. Reward seems more effective than punishment in aiding learning.
The reader by now may recognize the fact that B.F. Skinner’s behavioral theories have conclusively influenced psychological and educational theory, based on the last statement above—the fact that “rewards are more effective than punishment in aiding learning.” This is vintage Skinner, who also did not believe in punishment. Skinner thought that a person could be controlled by the environment—psychologically facilitative “school climate”—to do what is best for him. Bad behavior should be ignored, according to Skinner. Good behavior should be rewarded. A very good method of dog training!
Kerlinger went on to point out that:
A final difference between common sense and science lies in explanations of observed phenomena. The scientist, when attempting to explain the relations among observed phenomena, carefully rules out what have been called “metaphysical explanations.” A metaphysical explanation is simply a proposition that cannot be tested. To say, for example, that people are poor and starving because God wills it, that studying hard subjects improves the child’s moral character, or that it is wrong to be authoritarian in the classroom is to talk metaphysics.
The New World Dictionary(Merriam Webster: New York, 1979) defines “metaphysics” as follows: “the branch of philosophy that deals with first principles and seeks to explain the nature of knowledge, nature of being or reality; metaphysical; beyond the physical or material; incorporeal, supernatural, transcendental.” Most parents and even teachers are very well acquainted with what behavioral scientists call “metaphysics” in this context. The fact that behavioral researchers discount this important aspect of man’s personality and being is consistent with what this writer perceived when gathering the research for this book—particularly in the chapter entitled “The Fomentation of the Forties and Fifties” when Kinsey, Bloom

and Skinner brought together the powerful tools for the deconstruction of the God-fearing, educated man of the early twentieth century. There is no place for this brand of “science” when dealing with educational theories and methods which will influence forever the character and concept of man.
The bottom line for understanding this conflict between science and psychology is that the application of statistical methods to human behavior in the name of science is misdirected and inappropriate. When we measure natural phenomena, we get results that will vary depending upon the environmental factors affecting the thing being measured. For example, we can measure the speed at which a rock falls from a certain height. Although the rock’s speed may be affected by external factors, such as air resistance, there is nothing the rock can do, no decision it can make that will change the speed at which it falls. However, when we attempt to measure a person’s attitudes or opinions, that person can change his or her attitude, opinion, or belief at any time—often because of a conscious, deliberate decision to do so, as an act of will. Such deliberate assertion of a person’s will is extremely difficult, if not impossible to measure.
The social “sciences” and psychology have long yearned for the respectability of scientific disciplines, and have touted themselves as science for many decades. However, both fields emerged from the same humanistic cesspools of the last century. In discussing the shift to modern “naturalistic” or “materialistic” science, the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer warned:
When psychology and social science were made a part of a closed cause-and-effect system, along with physics, astronomy and chemistry, it was not only God who died. Man died. And within this framework love died. There is no place for love in a totally closed cause-and-effect system. There is no place for morals in a totally closed cause-and-effect system. There is no place for the freedom of people in a totally closed cause-and-effect system. Man becomes a zero. People and all they do become only a part of the machinery.[6]

1974 The National Diffusion Network (NDN),

The transmission belt for federally funded and developed innovative and/or behavior modification programs, was established in 1974. This network, which bears much of the blame for the dilution of absolute values of those children and parents exposed to NDN programs from the mid-seventies to the present, was created to facilitate the adoption by local schools of innovative programs which had been approved by the Joint Dissemination Review Panel (JDRP), a federal panel of educators.
Most, if not all, states received funding from the U.S. Department of Education to set up Facilitator Centers staffed by educators familiar with NDN programs. These individuals who had contacts in school districts throughout the individual states promoted the programs and arranged for the “developers,” or other staff associated with the program, to visit the state to conduct in-service training at schools which had adopted the programs.
Often these programs were described in benign NDN program terms and flew under the banner of “basic skills.” Local school boards accepted them since they were subsidized and less expensive to implement than programs developed by private sector textbook companies. The NDN’s penetration of the national educational landscape in the early 1980s is exemplified

by the fact that Texas alone had approximately seventeen NDN offices which facilitated the adoption of programs. The State of Maine received some sort of “gold medal” for being the number one state in its number of program adoptions.
There is no question that the National Diffusion Network programs have caused more controversy among parents than any other programs developed with federal funds. The regional hearings held by the U.S. Department of Education in 1984 to take testimony from citizens regarding the need for regulations to enforce the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) consisted of emotional and angry testimony from teachers and parents regarding the valuedestroying programs in the NDN. The two most destructive programs developed prior to 1984 were Curriculum for Meeting Modern Problems, which contained The New Model Me for the high school level, and Positive Attitude toward Learning. Both of these curricula employed behavior modification techniques, values clarification, role playing and, specifically, such games as “The Survival Game”—sometimes known as “The Lifeboat Game”—where students were enlisted to decide who is worthy of survival in a shipwreck: the priest, the lawyer, the pregnant mother, angry teenager, etc.—pure humanistic curricula.[7]
Ed. Note:
Critiques of many of the most controversial NDN programs can be found in the testimonies given during the hearings for proposed regulations for the Hatch Amendment in 1984 contained in Child Abuse in the Classroom edited by Phyllis Schlafly (Pere Marquette Press: Alton, Illinois, 1984).[8] Mrs. Schlafly took it upon herself to publish these important testimonies due to the U.S. Department of Education’s unwillingness to do so. As late as 1994 the NDN continued to list The New Model Me as an “exemplary program” in its Educational Programs that Work, the catalog of the National Diffusion Network.[9] Such blatant continuation of programs designed to destroy children’s values, no matter which administration is in office, is shocking.

A Performance Accountability System For School Administrators

Parker Publishing Co., Inc.: West Nyack, N.Y., 1974) by T.H. Bell, Ph.D., was published. T.H. Bell later served as secretary of education during President Ronald Reagan’s first term in office, 1981–1985. Excerpts from Bell’s book follow:
Use Of Tests In Needs Assessment:
The economic, sociological, psychological and physical aspects of students must be taken into account as we look at their educational needs and accomplishments, and fortunately there are a number of attitude and inventory scales that can be used to assess these admittedly difficult to measure outcomes. (pp. 33–34)
Most of these efforts to manage education try to center in one place an information center that receives reports and makes available to all members of the management team various types of information useful to managers. (p. 45)
Ed. Note:
There is no question in this writer’s mind that this one man bears much of the responsibility for the deliberate dumbing down of our schools. He set the stage for outcome- based education through his early support for systems management—Management by Objectives and Planning, Programming, Budgeting Systems. These systems later evolved into full-blown

Total Quality Management for education, having gone through the initial stage of Professor Benjamin Bloom’s Mastery Learning and ending up in 1984 as William Spady’s Transformational OBE. Outcome-Based or results / performance / competency-based education requires mastery learning, direct instruction, individualized instruction, systems management and computer technology.
Bell’s earlier activities in the 1970s as U.S. Commissioner of Education, including his role in promoting and supporting dumbed-down life role competencies for K–12 (see 1975 Adult Performance Level Study and the 1983 Delker article) and his testimony before the U.S. Congress in favor of a U.S. Department of Education, should have kept his name off of any list of potential nominees presented to President Reagan.
Concerns regarding this nomination expressed by Reagan supporters were proved well-founded when: Bell spearheaded the technology initiative in 1981 (see Project BEST, Better Education Skills Through Technology); funded in 1984 William Spady’s infamous Far West Laboratory (Utah OBE) grant which promised to (and did!) put OBE “in all schools of the nation”; predicted that schools would be bookless by the year 2000; recommended that all students have computers; and fired Edward Curran, the director of the National Institute of Education, when Curran recommended to President Reagan that his office (the NIE) be abolished.
According to a former member of the Utah Education Association who was a close friend of Bell’s in the 1970s, had the Senate Committee that confirmed T.H. Bell as secretary of education read Bell’s book, A Performance Accountability System for School Administrators, it is unlikely he would have been confirmed. (See Appendix IX quotes from Bell’s book.)

“Parents Fear ‘Big Brother’ Aspect Of New Concept” By Monica Lanza

Was written for the Passaic, New Jersey The Herald News on March 20, 1974. Excerpts follow from the first of a two-part series:
Questioning the purpose of modern educational goals by parents has brought to light the possibility that a new curriculum ultimately could force all school children to fit a preconceived mold or norm by computerized evaluation [emphasis in original]. And, students who don’t could be branded misfits and sent to a school psychologist for therapy. The threat, they say, is in the form of a bill before the state legislature that would take effect July 1, if passed. This bill would provide for two new Educational Improvement Centers in New Jersey, bringing the total of such centers in the state to four. The centers are currently being used by the federal government to reach the grass-roots level through its Elementary and Secondary Education Act.... Under the stated aim of developing “critical thinking skills” in children, the centers, as agents for the Planning, Programming, Budgeting System (PPBS), have been charged with using behavior modification and sensitivity training to develop those skills....
At the Cedar Knolls center in Morris County, Joseph T. Pascarelli, program developer, recently conducted a workshop which was attended by a number of teachers who reviewed one method of sensitivity training, known as the “Who Shall Survive” game.[9] Participants in the game are given the sexes, backgrounds and capabilities of 15 people in a bomb shelter that supports only seven people, and are asked to decide which seven are the best equipped to re-populate the earth. The answer that none should be put to death is not accepted. This type of training, according to opponents, changes the values of the students who may have been taught at home that murder is wrong under all circumstances.

From the second article in the series, “Teachers Taught to Be ‘Agents of Social Change,’” the reader is informed that:
Educational Improvement Centers (EICs) provide training to prepare teachers to become agents for social change....
A publication entitled Education: From the Acquisition of Knowledge to Programmed Conditioned Response states: “Teachers who are seemingly impervious to change will be sought out and trained on an individual basis, and forces which block the adoption of new ideas will be identified and ways to overcome these forces will be explored.”
Behavior modification was the theme of a learning center at a workshop at the Northwestern New Jersey EIC recently. A teacher rattled off the three domains of behavior modification as propounded by a Benjamin Bloom, who more than a dozen years ago, redefined the purpose of education as “behavior modification.”....
The multitude of programs available is mind-boggling. Programs filter down from entities like the Educational Resource Information Center [ERIC] and are presented to local school systems with a flourish. They are praised by gullible administrators and put into action by unwitting teachers....
One of the reasons for their current success is that the language used in the presentation of new programs is almost unintelligible. There are teachers who will admit to not understanding the jargon, but not publicly—and those who do see underlying dangers say nothing for fear of losing their jobs....
The father of the myriad federally financed programs is “Projects to Advance Creativity in Education” (PACE). The PACE programs are described in a 584–page publication entitled Pacesetters in Innovation which lists such “subjects” as psychotherapy, sensitivity training, behavior modification, and humanistic curriculum....
According to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) Catalog of Assistance, the PACE program reached seven million children during 1971 and 1972 at a cost of $250 million. The Office of Education has more than 100 such programs, and HEW funded 70,000 behavioral research programs—some among prison inmates which were soundly criticized and are being withdrawn from the prison system....
Mr. Thomas Hamill of the EIC Northwest, said that funds for “specific kinds of research and development” are channeled to 16 national laboratories attached to colleges and universities, a dozen national laboratories studying “individually prescribed instruction,” and a number of Educational Resource Information Centers, for delivery to the EIC’s.
Ed. Note:
Whenever and wherever individualized education is mentioned in professional educational literature, parents should realize that Mastery Learning/OBE/DI is the required instructional method. Homegrown individualized instruction, non-programmed kitchen table type instruction, with a parent instructing his/her child using traditional textbooks and tests, is not the same thing as institutionalized individualized instruction with its programmed, computer-assisted instruction or programmed reading from a script, which often provides immediate reinforcement with tokens, candy—rewards. Also of interest is the fact that prison inmates are protected from subjection to behavior modification techniques and workers in government offices are protected from subjection to training programs which are violations of their religious liberties, but prohibition of the use of behavior modification techniques on normal, American school children is non-existent. (See 1988 Clarence Thomas, chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and present U.S. Supreme Court Justice, ruling concerning employment protection.)


In 1974 Individual Rights And The Federal Role In Behavior Modification:

Report of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights from the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. was prepared under the chairmanship of North Carolina’s late Senator Sam Ervin, who, unfortunately, was unable to continue his work on this important issue due to his being called to serve as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee investigating the Watergate break-in. Ervin stated in the preface to the report:
Technology has begun to develop new methods of behavior control capable of altering not just an individual’s actions but his very personality and manner of thinking as well. Because it affects the ability of the individual to think for himself, the behavioral technology being developed in the United States today touches upon the most basic sources of individuality, and the very core of personal freedom. To my mind, the most serious threat posed by the technology of behavior modification is the power this technology gives one man to impose his views and values on another. In our democratic society, values such as political and religious preferences are expressly left to individual choice. If our society is to remain free, one man must not be empowered to change another man’s personality and dictate the values, thoughts and feelings of another.

In 1974 A Curriculum For Personalized Education By Robert Scanlon, Former Pennsylvania Secretary Of Education,

Was published by one of the U.S. Department of Education research laboratories, Research for Better Schools in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Predicting the future, Scanlon stated:
The emphasis in schools in 1985 will be to free the individual from subject matter as bodies of knowledge and provide him or her with higher order skills....
One type is values clarification.

In A Speech Given To And Recorded By The Association For Supervision And Curriculum Development in 1974,[10]

In A Speech Given To And Recorded By The Association For Supervision And Curriculum Development in 1974,
10 Dr. Leon Lessinger, superintendent of schools in Beverly Hills, California and former associate commissioner of education in the U.S. Office of Education, called for the implementation of Skinnerian behavior modification and discussed environmental influence when he said:
Would that we had such a system; a system of accountability. Do we have a hog cholera vaccine? Three ingredients of such a vaccine:
1. Target the experience in terms of outcomes;
2. Self-paced learning. We have the technology now. Modules. Small groups working on common learning targets. Free learner from having to be there always in front of teacher. If we know the target, we can do beautifully if we know the target.
3. Use of contingency rewards. May make you feel uncomfortable. Does me, but he who shirks this responsibility does a disservice to the children of the United States. Behavior Modification is here. Better for us to master and use wisely. Powerful ... powerful... powerful.

Carolina Inn exists right across from my school. In the restaurant, rug is red; in the bar, rug is orange. I know that because I happen to pass by! Red in the restaurant—because you feel uncomfortable and it keeps you from dillydallying around dinner. Ah, but in the bar, it’s [warm, comfortable] orange!

Man, Education & Society In The Year 2000, Written By Grant Venn,

Director Of The Chief State School Officers Institute and professor of education at Georgia State University, was a report or summary of discussions which took place at the Fifth Annual Chief State School Officers Institute at Jackson Hole, Wyoming, July 25–August 2, 1974. The report of the Institute was sponsored by the U.S. Office of Education in cooperation with the Council of Chief State School Officers, funded by the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. There is a notation on the back cover which states:
“The availability of this report is limited. A single copy may be obtained free on request to the U.S. Office of Education as long as the supply lasts.” Dr. Venn’s best known publications are Man, Education and Work (1963) and Man, Education and Manpower (1971).
Excerpts from Dr. Venn’s introduction to the Summary Report of the Institute follow:
Seven days of intensive study and discussion with the top leadership of the U.S. Office of Education and specialists invited to speak to the Chiefs reached an apparent consensus regarding issues that are facing Man, Education and Society: The Year 2000....
The seven topics chosen for study by the Executive Committee of the Council of Chief State School Officers, the U.S. Office of Education and the Institute Director... follow:
1. The Role of the Future in Education—Alvin Toffler
2. Education and Human Resource Development—Willard Wirtz
3. The International Situation: The Role of Education—Frederick Champion Ward
4. Economic Matters: Public Dollar Availability—Allan K.Campbell
5. The Shape of Democracy: The Citizen Role—Forbes Bottomly
6. The Public and Private Life of the Individual—Harold Shane
7. Energy, Natural Resources and Growth—Charles J. Ryan
Excerpts from the body of Dr. Venn’s summary follow:
We have reached a point where society either educates everyone or supports them....
Technological change has, suddenly and dramatically, thrown up a challenge to our nation’s political, economic, and education institutions. If it is to be solved, it is going to demand a massive response on the part of American education. Technology has, in effect, created a new relationship between man, his education and his society....
The home, the church, and the school cannot be effective maintainers since the future cannot be predicted.... The clearest overall approach to finding better ways seemed to be a new role for the state departments of education....
From the question of finances to the question of values that should be taught in the schools, the consensus was that leadership and priority changing by state departments was the most important step to be taken....
After all the questions had been asked and all the dialogue ended, it appeared that the most difficult matter would be one of instituting new approaches to education....

Toffler’s belief that the schools have been a “maintaining” institution for a static predictable society was not agreed to by all, but there was agreement that education for the futurehad to end its reliance on the past as predictor of the future....
The traditional cluster of knowledge, skills, values, and concepts will not help our young face the future in their private life, the international situation, their citizen role, their work role, nor in the area of energy, national resources or growth....
Individuals need more learning about social process with a greater emphasis on participation in group decision making. Again we come face to face with the fact that many problems of the future must be solved based on values and priorities set by groups. Many of these values will have to be enforced by group action and will need the involvement of many individuals in order that hard decisions can be implemented. Many of the future problems cannot be solved by individual decision or action. The heavy emphasis on individual achievement and competition may need to include learning about cooperation and groupachievement....
As learning becomes more tied to the future, personal and societal change “values” come to the foreground. It is doubtful that we shall ever return to the concept of values in the same way we saw them in the past.... Perhaps there is a need for the clarification of new values needed to solve future problems. They may become clear as we begin a deliberate search for values we wish to teach and provide experiences for our young in using these values in solving real problems....
It would appear that our young have become isolated from the “real work” of society and from the real decision making of society. Decision making [values clarification] may become the subject of the learning process if there are greater opportunities for “action learning” and group learning by teachers and students....
The over emphasis on knowledge, information, and theories have caused our youth to be freed from the testing of their beliefs in a non-controlled environment—the real world....
In addition to the three R’s, the basic skills would appear to include group participation, environmental relationships and planning for the future!...
Organization, structure, role and purpose, methods, content, financing, relationships among school and society, leadership and time frames must all be evaluated and changed. The greatest danger seems to be that simple improvement rather than basic change might be attempted....
The following conclusions seem to be suggested as approaches which might bring about major change!...
The states collectively should establish specific minimal competencies in each of the basic tool skill areas and each state should make them the first priorityfor funding, staffing and organizing....
Annual state reports should be devised to replace the normative achievement test in the future with competency achievement....
The states should convene a task force to study and report the ways that are being tried and ways that might be used to provide alternatives to earning the high school diploma....
Students achieving minimal credits ought to be encouraged to develop their unique aptitudes and to test these in the community, workforce, and the school systems....
There should be a policy devised in each of the states that ends the long held basic of “time in place” [Carnegie Unit] as the evaluation of learning for credit. Regulations must be developed which encourage the use of the community, adults, students and other learning sites than the classroom and teachers....
Full-time attendance from grades one through twelve may have become a barrier to learning—what are the alternatives?...
Educational credit should be available to students for activities related to their

studies in work, volunteer action, community participation, school volunteer programs and other programs contributing to the betterment of the home, school, community and society....
Thetime traps of learning for the young, earning for the middle-aged and yearning for the retired must be changed to a concept of continuous learning [UNESCO’s lifelong learning, ed.].
Greater use of adults and students from other countries and cultures should be emphasized....
It is obvious that the schools alone cannot educate our youth. State Departments should encourage, through policies and financing, the use of other societal agencies and resources to be part of the planned educational program of high school and older youth....
Since the future indicates a smaller share of the public dollar for education, states should develop regulations and policies which use the entire year and the entire society as educational resources....
The fifty states should organize a commission to establish the values that are significant in approaching problems that must be faced in the future....
Since change is so great and problem solving the necessity of the future, the state should establish a study which would define the essential skills, understandings and approaches that our young should learn in order to participate in the social decisions that must be made in the future....
Knowledge and information is not the only basis for solving problems; our schools need to help our youth gain experience in group decision making as a basis for future citizenship....
Each state ought to look at the problem of the role of the school in making the entry job a means rather than an end....
Would a placement function for the schools help motivateyouth?...
Every high school student ought to devote a portion of their time to the development of a career related to the future and sensible public and private life....
Most research in education has looked at parts and pieces rather than the total relationship of man, education and society. The CCSSO should establish a long-range planning and policy group to look at societal issues and the implications for education. At present, there is no such body looking at this problem. Can the education Chiefs afford to let others do all the directing of the future?
Ed. Note:
The reader cannot help but see that the above highly controversial recommendations made in 1974 have been implemented with hardly a hitch.

Professor Lawrence Kohlberg’s Moral Development Approach Curriculum,

“Ethical Issues In Decision Making,” was developed in the early 1970s and was used extensively in law education courses in public and private schools. In 1974 Kohlberg was still developing his classifications of “Stages of Moral Development” to include a Seventh Stage—that of “Faith.” Kohlberg’s program was listed in the National Diffusion Network’s catalog Programs that Work as an exemplary program. Kohlberg’s Moral Development Approach includes education in the following “stages of moral development”:
Stage 1—“Avoid punishment” orientation: decisions are based on a blind obedience to an external power in an attempt to avoid punishment or seek reward.
Stage 2—“Self-Benefit” orientation: decisions are based on premise of doing something for others if they reciprocate.
Stage 3—“Acceptance by others” orientation: decisions are based on whether or not their behaviors perceived as pleasing to others.
Stage 4—“Maintain the social order” orientation: decisions are based on fixed rules

which are “necessary” to perpetuate the order of society as a whole.
Stage 5—“Contract fulfillment” orientation: decisions are based on the individual respecting impartial laws and agreeing to abide by them while society agrees to respect the rights of the individual.
Stage 6—“Ethical principle” orientation: decisions are based on “conscience” and respect for each person’s individuality is paramount with the values believed to be valid for all humanity.
After Stage 6, the individual experiences despair. He or she has developed principles of justice, yet is faced with an unjust world. Moral philosophy cannot solve the problem.
Stage 7—“Faith” orientation: decisions are concerned with “what is the ultimate meaning of life?”
This “Faith” orientation stage does not conflict with the principles developed through the first six stages; rather, it integrates those stages and provides a perspective on life’s ultimate meaning. In Stage Seven the individual advances from an essentially human to a cosmic point of view. With Stage Seven there is a modification to a wider view of life. Emphasis changes from the individual to the cosmos.

1975 Superintendent Ray I. Powell, Ph.D., Of South St. Paul, Minnesota Public Schools

Spoke out regarding values clarification and sensitivity training in 1975, saying, “It’s all brainwashing!”
Excerpts follow from a memorandum to “All Administrators from Ray I. Powell” concerning Center Bulletin No. 39: 1974–1975, dated February 26, 1975:
1. Parents have the prime responsibility for the inculcation of those moral and spiritual values desired for their children in the areas of abortion and birth control. Indeed, this is an inherent right of parents and must not be denied....
Effective immediately, the teaching, advising, directing, suggesting, or counseling of students in these two (2) areas cannot be / shall not be the responsibility nor the task of the South St. Paul Public Schools.
Rather, the efforts of the public schools, henceforth, shall be directed towards expanding those complimentary learning experiences in other areas of the total curriculum that will enhance these two (2) parental values, i.e.:
   • preservation of the family unit.
   • feminine role of the wife, mother, and homemaker.
   • masculine role of guide, protector, and provider.
   • advocacy of home and family values.
   • respect for family structure and authority.
   • enhancement of womanhood and femininity.
   • restoration of morality.
2. There are more and more concerns and questions being registered today regarding the questionable results and the true intent of Sensitivity Training, as well as its germaneness

to the goals and objectives of public education, the training of educators, and the learning experiences of students.
Consider these two (2) definitions of Sensitivity Training (sources furnished upon request):
Sensitivity training is defined as group meetings, large or small, to discuss publicly intimate and personal matters, and opinions, values or beliefs; and/or to act out emotions and feelings toward one another in the group, using the techniques of self-confession and mutual criticism.
It is also “coercive persuasion in the form of thought reform or brainwashing.” Is the prime concern in education today not to impart knowledge, but to change “attitudes,” so that children can/will willingly accept a controlled society? Are the public schools being unwittingly re-shaped to accomplish this and without realizing it?
Ed. Note:
Dr. Powell then lists 54 terms which can all be included under Sensitivity Training, a few of which are: T-Group Training, Operant Conditioning, Management by Objectives, Sex Education, Self-Hypnosis, Role Playing, Values Clarification, Situation Ethics, Alternative Life Styles, etc. Had all our schools had superintendents with Dr. Powell’s character and courage, most of the problems facing our children and families today would not exist.

Congressman John Conlan Of Arizona Issued A Press Release Regarding

The controversial federally funded program for ten-year-old children called Man: A Course of Study (M:ACOS) (Education Development Center:
Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1975). On April 9, 1975 Conlan said that the $7 million National Science Foundation-funded program was designed by a team of experimental psychologists under Jerome S. Bruner and B.F. Skinner’s direction to mold children’s social attitudes and beliefs along lines that set them apart and alienated them from the beliefs and moral values of their parents and local communities. As a matter of fact, fifty commercial publishers refused to publish the course because of its objectionable content. The following gory story of cannibalism is excerpted from M:ACOS (Vol. 1):
The wife knew that the spirits had said her husband should eat her, but she was so exhausted that it made no impression on her, she did not care. It was only when he began to feel her, when it occurred to him to stick his fingers in her side to feel if there was flesh on her, that she suddenly felt a terrible fear; so she, who had never been afraid of dying, now tried to escape. With her feeble strength she ran for her life, and then it was as if Tuneq saw her only as a quarry that was about to escape him; he ran after her and stabbed her to death.
After that, he lived on her, and collected her bones in a heap over by the side of the platform for the purpose of fulfilling the taboo rule required of all who die. (p. 115)

October 24, 1975 The World Affairs Council Of Philadelphia Issued “a Declaration Of Interdependence”

Written by well-known historian and liberal think tank Aspen Institute board member Henry Steele Commager. This alarming document, which called to mind President Kennedy’s July 4, 1962 speech calling for a “Declaration of Interdependence,” was written as a contribution to our nation’s celebration of its 200th birthday, and signed by 125 members of the U.S. House and Senate. Excerpts follow:

When In The Course Of History The threat of extinction confronts mankind, it is necessary for the people of The United States to declare their interdependence with the people of all nations and to embrace those principles and build those institutions which will enable mankind to survive and civilization to flourish....
Two centuries ago our forefathers brought forth a new nation; now we must join with others to bring forth a new world order....
We affirm that the economy of all nations is a seamless web, and that no one nation can any longer effectively maintain its processes of production and monetary systems without recognizing the necessity for collaborative regulation by international authorities.
[Ed. Note:
In 1976 the National Education Association produced a social studies curriculum entitled A Declaration of Interdependence: Education for a Global Community which Congresswoman Marjorie Holt (R.-MD) described as “an atrocious betrayal of American independence.”
It wasn’t until the 1980s and 1990s that the relationship between “interdependence” or “new world order” and America’s education of children became prominent in outcomes in each state. Interdependence is also an undergirding concept in global education. In 1976 a coterie of internationalists thought their plans would have smooth sailing, not the resistance they encountered at the grassroots level which set them back a good twenty years. What we are experiencing in 1999 (American soldiers being deployed world-wide as part of United Nations “peace-keeping” operations, and UN land confiscation through executive orders, etc.) was delayed by the activism of courageous Americans to whom we all owe an enormous debt of gratitude.]

U.S. Commissioner Of Education T.H. Bell Made The Following Statement

In A U.S. Office of Education (HEW) press release on October 29, 1975, dealing with results of the University of Texas Adult Performance Level (APL) Study. The study, headed by Dr. Norvell Northcutt, was funded at approximately $l million under Sec. 309 of the Adult Education Act. T.H. Bell’s statement follows:
One out of five American adults lacks the skills and knowledge needed to function effectively in the basic day-to-day struggle to make a living and maintain a home and family, according to a four-year investigation of adult functional competency released today by HEW’s Office of Education. Referring to the results of the Adult Performance Level (APL) study as “rather startling,” U.S. Commissioner of Education Terrell H. Bell said that they call for some major rethinking of education on several levels. “To begin with,” Dr. Bell added, “adult education has to be reshaped so that students receive the kind of information that will make modern life easier for them.
I also think that State and local education agencies will want to examine what they are teaching, even at the elementary levels, and perhaps reconsider their requirements for high school graduation.” APL research defines functional competency as “the ability to use skills and knowledge needed for meeting the requirements of adult living.”
Ed. Note:
Secretary Bell’s recommendations were adopted by Oregon and Pennsylvania one year later. In 1976 Pennsylvania commenced implementation of its controversial “Project ’81" which, according to its 1976 State Department of Education informational materials, “restructured Pennsylvania’s Goals of Quality Education and developed a new program of basic skills

and initiated studies designed to help in developing comprehensive programs in general and specialized education.” The same informational materials also stated that “Pennsylvania’s Contemporary Family Life Competencies were taken from an outline of a course being implemented at Parkrose High School in Oregon which focused on consumer economics competencies and makes use of both school and community resources.”
There is no question in this writer’s mind that the “pre-determined” results of the Texas APL Study set the stage for all state education agencies to commence dumbed-down continuous progress competency-based education, which is just another label for Benjamin Bloom’s and William Spady’s outcome / performance / results-based, school to work “education” all of which use Skinnerian pigeon-training methods (mastery learning and direct instruction) and that the initial thrust for this type of “all children can learn / redistribution of brains” lifelong education came straight out of the United Nations.

The Daily World Of November 8, 1975 Carried A Very Interesting Article Entitled

“Planning Is Socialism’s Trademark” by Morris Zeitlin. The Daily World (newspaper of the Communist Party USA) was formerly known as The Daily Worker and was founded in 1924.
The importance of this article lies in its blatant admission that regionalism, which is gradually becoming the accepted method of unelected governance in the United States (unelected councils and task forces, participatory democracy, public-private partnerships, etc.) is the form of government used in democratic socialist and communist countries. The following are excerpts from this article:
Cities in industrially advanced countries develop complex economic, social and political interaction. In this process, major cities tend to consolidate neighboring smaller cities and settlements into metropolitan regions. Rationally, metropolitan regions should constitute governmental units having comprehensive planning and administrative powers within their boundaries.
In our country (the United States), rival capitalist groups, jealously guarding their special prerogatives, have rigidly maintained the traditional boundaries of states and counties while national economic and social development has created metropolitan regions that overlap those boundaries. We have no regional government and no comprehensive regional planning to speak of. Regional government and planning remain concepts our urban scholars and planners have long advocated in vain....
In socialist countries, metropolitan regions enjoy metropolitan regional government and comprehensive planning. Of the many regions on the vast territory of the Soviet Union, the Moscow Region commands special attention, for it has been, since the 1917 Revolution, the country’s economic and political center.
The economic and functional efficiencies and the social benefits that comprehensive national, regional and city planning make possible in socialist society explain the Soviet Union’s enormous and rapid economic and social progress. Conversely, our profit-oriented ruling capitalist class makes comprehensive social and economic planning impossible, causing waste and chaos and dragging the entire nation into misery and suffering as its rule deteriorates and declines.

Project Instruct Another Mastery Learning Program Modeled

Along the lines of the Exemplary Center for Reading Instruction (ECRI), was approved for dissemination throughout

the nation by the U.S. Office of Education’s Joint Dissemination Review Panel (JDRP) May 14, 1975. The final evaluation of Project INSTRUCT stated that:
The intent and emphasis in 1970 was on behavioral indices and concrete ways of showing accountability; and the data would suggest that the reading of the students themselves may not have increased, but the impact of Project INSTRUCT in the Lincoln, Nebraska Public Schools seems to be very extensive and influential.
Ed. Note:
According to the final evaluation of Project INSTRUCT, Ronald Brandt, former executive editor of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development’s publication Educational Leadership, was involved in the project.

1976 Childhood In China, A Book Edited By William Kessen (Yale University Press: New Haven, Connecticut, 1976),

Was reviewed by Kent Garland Burit of The Christian Science Monitor.
The following excerpts from Burit’s review provide insight into the similarities of education in Communist China in 1973 and Skinnerian Effective School Research used in American restructuring in the 1980s and 1990s:
They were well-behaved, non aggressive with peers....
The immediate yielding to a teacher’s request seemed remarkable to the Americans....
The strategies and communication style of the teachers is also described. They initiate, supervise closely, and terminate all activities. They teach by repetition and by formula. Their verbal and nonverbal indications of approval are in a high ratio to indications of disapproval.
They discipline through persuasion and moralistic reasoning rather than punishment. They exude a confident expectation of their pupils’ compliance and cooperation....
The curriculum is saturated with ideological goals, the team reported. The child is exposed to repeated exhortations to serve the society.
Ed. Note:
The foregoing quote with its behavioral terminology could come from an issue of The Effective School Report, from which this writer has repeatedly quoted throughout this book. Education in non-violence, tolerance, peer resolution, cooperative learning, and politically- correct curriculum—all of which will modify the behavior of American children so that they will be like the above Communist Chinese children—is taking place in American schools.  

The Los Angeles Times Of May 21, 1976 (Part 1–B) Carried An Article Entitled

“Cuban Children Combine Studies, Work” which clearly explained the communist work-study system and the impact of community service, both of which are being implemented in the United States in the 1990s. Important excerpts follow:
HAVANA (AP)—The door to the side room of an old cigar factory had been left ajar, and a small knot of children could be seen preparing boxes of cigars for export. “It’s part of our education system,” a Cuban tobacco official explained. “They are helping and learning.” The children, elementary school pupils about 9 to 11 years old, were examples of the unique

Cuban educational system of combining studies with physical work. The system, started in 1967, applies to all schools, including the island’s four universities.... The Cubans say the idea is to produce well-rounded citizens capable of manual labor.
But the system also provides extra hands for an economy that urgently needs more production....
Says Prime Minister Fidel Castro, “This helps to temper them from early childhood in the habits of creative work, without running the risk of possible deformation through the exclusive exercise of intellectual activity.”...
One example of the system is found at Havana’s 1,639 pupil U.S.S.R.-Cuba technical school, so named because the Soviet Union equipped the school and trained the instructors.
The students, mainly boys 14 to 17, learn how to melt metal and to mold it into machine parts. They are taught how to cast, weld, grind and operate a lathe. Girls work in laboratories, learning to operate testing equipment for metals and machine parts. The parts, produced while learning, are sent to factories that make machinery. The students themselves spend part of their time working inside the factories.
The school also teaches language, culture, sports, political philosophy and ordinary school subjects....
Those who study for two years become what are called general workers for the factories, while four-year students become skilled technicians. All are guaranteed factory jobs upon graduation....
At the University of Havana, there are 54,000 students this year. Full-time students study four hours a day, six days a week and work another four hours daily in fields, factories or at jobs related to their future careers....
Many older students fill their work requirement by teaching, to offset the teacher shortage created when hundreds of thousands of Cubans emigrated after Castro’s 1959 revolution....
This commitment to working for the good of the country remains after graduation. Graduates must serve anywhere in Cuba for three years, then are allowed to return home to continue their careers.

Lawrence C. Pierce Delivered A Paper In 1976 Entitled “school Site Management”

To a meeting of the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies in which he referred to site-based management as an “intermediate structure between centralized school management and education vouchers.” An excerpt follows:
On January 6, 1976, San Francisco School Superintendent Robert F. Alioto proposed an organizational redesign of the district that included a shift from school district to school site management. He said, in part:
I recommend that we move toward a school site management model that values staff and a community involvement and stresses accountability. We must recognize the principal as the instructional leader of the school. We must expand the budgeting and fiscal control at each school site....
We must establish at each school site one active advisory committee which includes parents, students, and staff representatives of the school’s ethnic population....
Further support for proposals to decentralize school management arises from the desire to increase public participation in school governance policies. Local control of the schools, originally instituted to make them responsive to the people, nevertheless proved to be cumbersome, and it frequently obscured the state’s responsibility for providing every child with a basic education. In pursuit of greater accountability and higher professional standards, the pendulum of school government, which in the early days of this country swung toward

representativeness and local control, later swung back toward greater professional autonomy and stronger executive control....
School site management is an intermediate structure between centralized school management and educational vouchers.
Ed. Note:
Read that last statement again. Twenty-one years later the carefully laid plans of the internationalist Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies are being implemented under the guise of unaccountable choice / charter schools, funded by the taxpayers. School-site management is an early term for site-based or school-based management promoted by the National Education Association in the 1980s and 1990s. Of extreme importance is the unambiguous call for the use of (need for) vouchers, which will supplant “choice,” essential for the implementation of the international school-to-work agenda. The dollar amount of the voucher will depend on the school council’s determination of how much it will cost to train your child to be a janitor (very little) or doctor (a lot).

Lawrence P. Grayson Of The National Institute Of Education, U.S. Department Of Education, wrote

“Education, Technology, and Individual Privacy” (ECTJ, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 195–208) in 1976.
The following are some excerpts from this important paper which serves as a clear warning regarding the indiscriminate use of behaviorist methods and technology:
The right to privacy is based on a belief in the essential dignity and worth of the individual. Modern technological devices, along with advances in the behavioral sciences, can threaten the privacy of students. Fortunately, invasions of privacy in education have not been widespread. However, sufficient violations have been noted to warrant specific legislation and to promote a sharp increase in attention to procedures that will ensure protection of individual privacy. Technology that can reveal innermost thoughts and motives or can change basic values and behaviors, must be used judiciously and only by qualified professionals under strictly controlled conditions. Education includes individuals and educational experimentation is human experimentation. The educator must safeguard the privacy of students and their families....
Privacy has been defined as “the right to be let alone” (Cooley, 1888) and as the “right to the immunity of the person—the right to one’s personality” (Warren and Brandeis, 1890). Individuals have the right to determine when, how, and to what extent they will share themselves with others. It is their right to be free from unwarranted or undesired revelation of personal information to others, to participate or withdraw as they see fit, and to be free of unwarranted surveillance through physical, psychological, or technological means.
Justice William O. Douglas expressed the concerns of many people when he stated:
We are rapidly entering the age of no privacy; when everyone is open to surveillance at all times; when there are no secrets from the government....
There is an alarming trend whereby the privacy and dignity of our citizens is being whittled away by sometimes imperceptible steps. Taken individually, each step may be of little consequence. But when viewed as a whole, there begins to emerge a society quite unlike any we have seen a society in which government may intrude into the secret regions of a man’s life at will. (Osborn v. U.S., 1966, pp. 341–343)
Behavioral science, which is assuming an increasing role in educational technology, promises to make educational techniques more effective by recognizing individual differences among students and by patterning instruction to meet individual needs. However,

behavioral science is more than an unbiased means to an end. It has a basic value position (Skinner, 1971) based on the premise that such “values as freedom and democracy, which imply that the individual ultimately has free will and is responsible for his own actions, are not only cultural inventions, but illusions” (Harman, 1970). This position is contradictory to the basic premise of freedom and is demeaning to the dignity of the individual. Behavioral science inappropriately applied can impinge on individual values without allowing for personal differences and in education can violate the privacy of the student....
Reflecting on the ethical values of our civilization in 1958, Pope Pius XII commented:
There is a large portion of his inner world which the person discloses to a few confidential friends and shields against the intrusion of others. Certain [other] matters are kept secret at any price and in regard to anyone. Finally, there are other matters which the person is unable to consider....
And just as it is illicit to appropriate another’s goods or to make an attempt on his bodily integrity without his consent, so it is not permissible to enter into his inner domain against his will, whatever is the technique or method used....
Whatever the motivations of the teacher or researcher, an individual’s privacy must take precedence over effective teaching, unless good cause can be shown to do otherwise. Good cause, however, does not relieve the teacher or school administrator from the responsibility of safeguarding the privacy of the student and the family. Yet, many teachers and administrators remain insensitive to the privacy implications of behavioral science and modern technology in education....
Intent on improving education, educators, scientists, and others concerned with the development and application of technology are often insensitive to the issues of privacy raised by the use of their techniques. For example, many psychological and behavioral practices have been introduced on the ground that they will make education more efficient or effective.
However, improvements in efficiency through technological applications can reinforce these practices without regard to their effects. What is now being done in education could be wrong, especially if carried out on a massive scale. As the use of technology becomes more widespread, we may reach the point where errors cannot be detected or corrected. This is especially important because technology interacts with society and culture to change established goals and virtues. Propagating an error on a national level could change the original goals to fit the erroneous situation. The error then becomes acceptable by default.
In developing and applying technology to education, potential effects must be analyzed, so that negative possibilities can be identified and overcome before major resources are committed to projects that could produce undesirable long-term social consequences.
In matters affecting privacy it is better to err on the side of the individual, than on that of research or improved educational practice. Violations of privacy can never be fully redressed.
Foot Note No. 14. Privacy is a constitutionally protected right; education is not. The Supreme Court ruled in Griswold v. Connecticut (decided in 1965) that the right of privacy is guaranteed by the Constitution. In Rodriguez v. San Antonio Independent School District (decided in 1973), the Court ruled that education is not a protected right under the Constitution.

United Nations Educational, Scientific, And Cultural Organization (Unesco) In Paris,

France published The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED–COM.75/WS/ 27) in 1976.
This publication revealed efforts at the highest international level to set up a

classification system which will be available for use by planners assigned to the management of the global economy. Some quotes from the introduction to this 396-page document follow:
The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) has been designed as an instrument suitable for assembling, compiling, and presenting statistics of education both within individual countries and internationally. It is expected to facilitate international compilation and comparison of education statistics as such, and also their use in conjunction with manpower and other economic statistics....
ISCED should facilitate the use of education statistics in manpower planning and encourage the use of manpower statistics in educational planning. For this purpose, the most closely associated classification system in the manpower field is the International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO), prepared by the International Labour Office.

Catherine Barrett, President Of The National Education Association (Nea),

Gave a speech at the 1976 NEA Annual Conference in which she made the following comments concerning the change in the role of the teacher:
At this critical moment no one can say with certainty whether we are at the brink of a colossal disaster or whether this is indeed mankind’s shining hour. But it is certain that dramatic changes in the way we raise our children in the year 2000 are indicated particularly in terms of schooling, and that these changes will require new ways of thinking. Let me propose three.
First, we will help all of our people understand that school is a concept and not a place.
We will not confuse “schooling” with “education.” The school will be the community, the community, the school. Students, parents, and teachers will make certain that John Dewey’s sound advice about schooling the whole child is not confused with nonsense about the school’s providing the child’s whole education....
We will need to recognize that the so-called “basic skills,” which currently represent nearly the total effort in elementary schools, will be taught in one quarter of the present school day. The remaining time will be devoted to what is truly fundamental and basic—time for academic inquiry, time for students to develop their own interests, time for a dialogue between students and teachers. When this happens—and it is near—the teacher can rise to his true calling. More than a dispenser of information, the teacher will be a conveyor of values, a philosopher. Students will learn to write love letters and lab notes. We will help each child build his own rocket to his own moon....
Finally, if our children are to be human beings who think clearly, feel deeply, and act wisely, we will answer definitely the question “Who should make what decisions?” Teachers no longer will be victims of change; we will be the agents of change.
[Ed. Note:
Catherine Barrett’s idea of “school is a concept, not a place” is an idea whose time may have come in the 1990s. Many educators, including Lewis Perelman , (See 1995 Perelman’s book School’s Out) are of the same opinion. This seems to follow on the heels of the concept of “education as behavior change” instead of the acquisition of knowledge.]

In The September 1976 Issue Of Phi Delta Kappan, “america’s Next Twenty-Five Years:

Some implications for education,” Harold Shane described his version of the “new and additional basic skills” as follows:

Certainly, cross-cultural understanding and empathy have become fundamental skills, as have the skills of human relations and intercultural rapport… the arts of compromise and reconciliation, of consensus building, and of planning for interdependence become basic.
As young people mature we must help them develop… a service ethic which is geared toward the real world the global servant concept in which we will educate our young for planetary service and eventually for some form of world citizenship…. Implicit within the “global servant” concept are the moral insights that will help us live with the regulated freedom we must eventually impose upon ourselves.
[Ed. Note:
The writer would like to contrast Harold Shane’s comments with those of C.S. Lewis as compiled in an article “C.S. Lewis on Liberal Arts Education” by Gregory Dunn which was published in the newsletter On Principle from the John M. Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs (April 1999, Vol. VII, No. 2). Excerpts from Dunn’s article follow:
The first reason we study the liberal arts has to do with freedom. That freedom is an integral part of the liberal arts is borne out of [C.S.] Lewis’s observation that “liberal comes of course from the Latin, liber, and means free.”[11] Such an education makes one free, according to Lewis, because it transforms the pupil from “an unregenerate little bundle of appetites” into “the good man and the good citizen.”[12] We act most human when we are reasonable, both in thought and deed. Animals, on the other hand, act wholly out of appetite.
When hungry, they eat; when tired, they rest. Man is different. Rather than follow our appetites blindly we can be deliberate about what we do and when we do it. The ability to rule ourselves frees us from the tyranny of our appetites, and the liberal arts disciplines this self-rule. In other words, this sort of education teaches us to be most fully human and thereby, to fulfill our human duties, both public and private.
Lewis contrasts liberal arts education with what he calls “vocational training,” the sort that prepares one for employment. Such training, he writes, “aims at making not a good man but a good banker, a good electrician… or a good surgeon.” Lewis does admit the importance of such training for we cannot do without bankers and electricians and surgeons but the danger, as he sees it, is the pursuit of training at the expense of education. “If education is beaten by training, civilization dies,” he writes, for the “lesson of history” is that “civilization is a rarity, attained with difficulty and easily lost.”[13] It is the liberal arts, not vocational training, that preserves civilization by producing reasonable men and responsible citizens.
A third reason we study the liberal arts is because it is simply our nature and duty. Man has a natural thirst for knowledge of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful, and men and women of the past have made great sacrifices to pursue it in spite of the fact that, as Lewis puts it, “human life has always been lived on the edge of a precipice.” In his words, “they propound mathematical theorems in beleaguered cities, conduct metaphysical arguments in condemned cells, make jokes on scaffolds.” So, finding in the soul an appetite for such things, and knowing no appetite is made by God in vain, Lewis concludes that the pursuit of the liberal arts is pleasing to God and is possibly, for some, a God-given vocation.[14]
Truly, we ignore the liberal arts only at our peril. Without them we will find ourselves increasingly unable to preserve a civilized society, to escape from the errors and prejudices of our day, and to struggle in the arena of ideas to the glory of God.]

Today’s Education, The Journal Of The National Education Association,

Carried an article in the September–October 1976 edition entitled “The Seven Cardinal Principles Revisited.” On page 1 this article stated that:

In 1972, the NEA established a Bicentennial Committee charged with developing a “living commemoration of the principles of the American Revolution.” This 200th anniversary celebration of the Declaration of Independence was to focus on the next 100 years of education in an interdependent global community. The initial work of the Committee culminated in the NEA Bicentennial Idea Book. Among its ideas was that of developing a definitive volume to “contain a reframing of the Cardinal Principles of Education and recommendations for a global curriculum.”
After recognizing the importance of the original Cardinal Principles, which were published in 1918, the Committee made the point that “today, those policy statements about education are obsolete, education taken as a whole is not adequate to the times and too seldom anticipates the future.” A report to be issued by the NEA, proposing cardinal premises for the twenty-first century is the direct and immediate outgrowth of the Bicentennial Committee’s belief that “educators around the world are in a unique position to bring about a harmoniously interdependent global community based on the principles of peace and justice.”
Early in September 1975, a 19-member Preplanning Committee began the task of recasting the seven Cardinal Principles of Education by developing 25 guidelines for the project.
[Ed. Note:
Members of the Preplanning Committee read like a “Who’s Who of Leading Globalists.” It included:
Former Secretary of Education T.H. Bell, “Mr. Management-by-Objectives,” who was responsible for the grant to William Spady of the Far West Laboratory to pilot OBE in Utah, with plans to “put OBE in all schools of the nation”; Professor Luvern Cunningham, Ohio State University, who subsequently served as advisor to the Kentucky Department of Education during its education restructuring in the 1990s; Willis Harman, Stanford Research Institute; Robert Havighurst, University of Chicago; Theodore Hesburgh, University of Notre Dame; Ralph Tyler, Center for Advanced Study in Behavioral Science; Professor Theodore Sizer, Coalition for Essential Schools, which calls for a “less is more” curriculum and removal of graduation standards (the Carnegie Unit); David Rockefeller; Professor Benjamin Bloom, father of Mastery Learning (the international learning method); the late McGeorge Bundy of the Ford Foundation; and others.]

Foundations Of Lifelong Education Was Published By UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization)

Institute for Education (Pergamon Press: Oxford, N.Y., Toronto, Sydney, Paris, Frankfurt, 1976). In chapter 4, “Theoretical Foundations of Lifelong Education: A Sociological Perspective,” Henri Janne described accurately the how, what and why of decentralization (site-based management, charter schools, choice, unelected school councils, etc.) being sold to naïve school boards and citizens as “local control”:
In education a monolithic structure is completely unacceptable as it creates organizations that, owing to their homogeneity and their ineluctable [inevitable] bureaucratic nature, are averse to change and to individual or local adaptation....
Decentralization of the greatest possible number of decisions is indispensable in a system founded on education defined as “learning” rather than “teaching.”
[Ed. Note:
“Learning,” as described and defined by the educational change agents, is the process by which students/children are allowed to acquire the knowledge which will be “beneficial” to them personally as they pursue the fulfillment of their particular life roles (jobs). This process is the opposite of the traditional role of education as “teaching” students subject

matter which can be used for diversified pursuits later in life.
In the 1977 entry dealing with UNESCO’s Development of Educational Technology in Central and Eastern Europe the reader will note that the socialist countries of Eastern Europe had centralized systems of education and had not yet adapted their system to accommodate Henri Janne’s proposals for “lifelong learning.” Janne explained above how to take a centralized system of pedagogy and ideas and “localize” them in order to change their focus without ever changing the centralized control. This gives an interesting perspective on the oft-seen bumper sticker: “Think Globally—Act Locally.”]

1977 Essays In Economics: Theories, Facts, And Policies, VOL. II (Blackwell Publishers:

Malden, Massachusetts, 1977) by the late Wassily Leontief was published. An excerpt follows:
When I speak of national economic planning, the notion I have in mind is meant to encompass the entire complex of political, legislative, and administrative measures aimed at an explicit formulation and realization of a comprehensive national economic plan. Without a cohesive, internally consistent plan there can be, in this sense, no planning. But the preparation of a script is not enough, the play has to be staged and acted out. It is incumbent on anyone who favors introduction of national economic planning in this country—and I am one of these—to propose a plan describing how this might be done. Several congressional committees and at least one commission appointed by the President, not to speak of groups outside of the government, are now engaged in this task. (p. 398)
Who’s Who in America includes the following reference to Leontief: “Economist, born Leningrad, Russia, August 5, 1906, et al.” Current Biography in 1967 listed Leontief as :
The creator of the input-output system revolutionizing economic research and national planning is the Russian-born Harvard professor Wassily W. Leontief.... Leontief has been a teacher at Harvard since 1931, and director of the Harvard Economic Research Project on the Structure of the American Economy since 1948.... This project was funded by an initial four-year grant of $100,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation.
In a letter to American educator/researcher/writer Gene Malone dated September 9, 1993, Leontief, professor at the Institute for Economic Analysis of New York University, stated: “The use of the Input-Output method in educational planning was already discussed and has been practically employed in France.” OBE is similar to PPBS (Planning, Programming, Budgeting System) and MBO (Management by Objective), both of which are based on input-output economic systems theory.
Leontief died February 5, 1999 at the age of 93. The New York Times February 8, 1999 eulogy steered clear of any mention of Leontief’s work in the promotion of Five-Year Plans, widely associated with socialist planning. However, the Times article provided some extremely interesting background information on Leontief:
Dr. Leontief, with the help of ever-more powerful computers, continued to improve inputoutput analysis his entire life.

With advances he made in the 1950s and 1960s, that analysis became a key part of the national accounting systems for both capitalist and communist states.... He preached a doctrine of applied economics, saying that research should result in practical advances.... [H]e also found time to serve as president of the American Economic Society....
Partially through input-output analysis, he also became a leading authority on the economic effects of world disarmament and increased economic controls....
He was a 1925 economics graduate of the University of Leningrad, and he was imprisoned in that city for anti-Soviet activities. He was allowed to leave the Soviet Union and went to Germany where he received master’s and doctoral degrees from the University of Berlin.
He served in 1929 and 1930 in Nanking, China, as an economics advisor to the Chinese Ministry of Railroads. He then came to this country and joined the National Bureau of Economic Research in New York in 1931.
In 1932, he joined Harvard as an economics instructor. He became an assistant professor in 1933, an associate professor in 1939 and a full professor in 1946. Two years later he founded the Harvard Economic Research Project, which became a center of input-output analysis.
During World War II, he was a consultant to the Labor Department and the Office of Strategic Services [OSS, CIA, NTL].
He left Harvard in 1975 to join the faculty at New York University, where he was a full professor and also served as director of its Institute for Economic Analysis from 1975–1991.
He continued to give classes at the university into his nineties. Dr. Leontief thus taught and ran research organizations at two great universities all the while doing all-but-revolutionary economic research that would lead to major advances in national planning.... Dr. Leontief championed the central role of government in planning.

“Competency-Based Education: A Bandwagon In Search Of A Definition,”

An article by William G. Spady of the National Institute of Education, was published in the January 1977 edition of Educational Researcher. Excerpts follow:
In September, 1972, the Oregon State Board of Education passed new minimum graduation requirements for students entering ninth grade in the fall of 1974 and new minimum standards for local school districts focused on the new requirements in 1974. The thrust of these new requirements and standards involved the introduction of three domains of “survival level” competencies as minimum conditions for high school graduation by 1978: Personal Development, Social Responsibility, and Career Development.... Although largely unintended and unanticipated by those involved, the 1972 Oregon regulations provided the first significant nudge that set in motion across the nation over the next four years a series of actions by state level policy makers and administrators to consider, formulate and implement regulations and procedures that they now associate with the term Competency-Based Education (CBE)....
It is likely, therefore, both that the outcome goals required for graduation in CBE systems will eventually emerge from a tense compromise among the many constituencies in a community regarding the necessary, the desirable, and the possible, and that C-Based diplomas will be viewed with initial if not undying skepticism by colleges and universities.... In short, CBE programs require mechanisms that collect and use student performance data as the basis of diagnosing weaknesses and necessary remediation not only for students but for themselves as well....
According to information compiled by Clark and Thompson (1976), no states outside

of Oregon appear to use language consistent with a life-role conception of competency in either their current or pending regulations pertaining to mandated student proficiencies.
The possible exceptions refer to the need for occupational and consumer mathematics skills. However, within the next year New York and Pennsylvania may make more decisive moves toward implementing approaches to schooling more fully resembling this conception of CBE. Almost all other states are concerned with capacity-based outcomes in limited basic skill areas (e.g., Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska and Tennessee), a slightly broader set of subject area proficiencies (e.g., California, Texas, Virginia and Washington, D.C.) or as-yet-undefined or else locally determined options concerned with some kind of minimum proficiency requirements (e.g., Colorado, Kansas, Michigan and New Jersey). As of October 1976, in only two cases—California and Florida—could students leave school in less than 12 years with a diploma once they passed a state-determined proficiency exam (the Oregon regulations allow local districts to determine whether early graduation will be allowed)....
Aside from Oregon, five states—California, Maryland, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania— deserve particular attention over the next few years as sites where current thinking about substantial proficiencies or competency-based reforms suggest real promise....
Pennsylvania in a fourth case has been exploring a concept of system reform with a definite Competency-Based orientation. Originally called Community Learning and currently named “Project 81,” this program would be centered around facilitating student capacities and competencies in five major areas of activity, with a stress on participation outside the school building where appropriate. The areas include a broad range of basic skills, the world of work and leisure, community governance and involvement, and a broad range of citizen and personal survival skills.

“Conclave Of The Change Agents” By Barbara M. Morris

Was published in the March 1977 issue of The National Educator. Excerpts follow from this extremely important article which proves that the federal government has been deeply involved in the funding and implementation of moral / citizenship (values) education:
Early in June 1976, 85 top level members of the educational elite and an assortment of influential change agents met at an invitation only conference in Philadelphia to draft recommendations on how to put “Moral / Citizenship Education” (MCE) programs in every school in the country—public, private and parochial. Conference participants included Humanist values educators Lawrence Kohlberg and Howard Kirschenbaum and representatives of the federal government, foundations, PTA, NEA and the National Council of Churches. The recommendations that resulted from that conference which was sponsored by a Pennsylvania organization called Research for Better Schools (RBS) [a federally funded education laboratory in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania] have been submitted to the National Institute of Education, with whom RBS has a contract to research, develop and disseminate moral/citizenship education programs....
So shaky is the basis for MCE that much conference time was devoted to trying to decide what to call MCE programs so as to avoid public hostility. Here are some examples of the thinking of conference participants relating to this problem:
   • “‘Moral/Citizenship Education’ as a title can be sold; ‘Moral Education’ cannot. Avoid such red-flag slogans.”

   • “We spent three conference days quibbling about the term ‘Moral/Citizenship Edu145 cation.’ That is a major problem.” [emphasis in original]
   • “The concept of self-development (which implies moral development) is more salable and will engender less resistance than moral development.”
   • “It is important to limit the parameters of what we’re engaged in, if not to change the actual title, to avoid religious antagonisms and court action.”

The School Counselor, Publication Of The American Personnel And Guidance Association,

published a special issue on the subject of “Death” in its May 1977 issue (Vol. 24, #5). In this issue a remarkable admission regarding the results of sex education was made which explains clearly the purpose of these controversial humanistic programs: to create the problems sex ed, values ed, drug ed, and death ed were supposed to solve. An excerpt from The School Counselor follows:
Helping Students Clarify Values:
The last goal is to help students clarify their values on social and ethical issues. An underlying, but seldom spoken, assumption of much of the death education movement is that Americans handle death and dying poorly and that we ought to be doing better at it. As in the case of many other problems, many Americans believe that education can initiate change. Change is evident, and death education will play as important a part in changing attitudes toward death as sex education played in changing attitudes toward sex information and wider acceptance of various sexual practices.
[Ed. Note:
In light of events in the 1990s, the question arises: What does “doing better at it” mean? The statement “Death education will play as important a part in changing attitudes toward death as sex education played in changing attitudes toward… wider acceptance of various sexual practices” implies that our children benefitted from exposure to “wider acceptance of various sexual practices,” when all one has to do is survey the moral landscape to see the devastating effect these programs have had on our children’s lives. The same applies to death education and its effect on children’s understanding of the value of life, reflected in the increased number of murders carried out by youth.]

Joanne Mcauley’s National Council For Educational Excellence,

A national organization of concerned parents and educators, was founded in the mid-1970s and, considering the potential it had for holding the line on innovations taking place in American education, its early demise represented a real setback for parents, children, and teachers.
Ms. McAuley’s May/June 1977 issue of her newsletter, The School Bell, is proof that the National School Boards Association was, at one time, a strong proponent of local control, not a “sell out the locals” organization that in the 1990s would support site- and school-based management (taxation without representation) and charter schools. Excerpts follow:
NSBA President Tells Boards: Stand Up To Federal Meddling

On March 27, George W. Smith, immediate past president of the National School Boards Association, warned school board members attending the NSBA convention in Houston that “The Congress and the federal bureaucracy could become the country’s master school board unless school board members stand up and be counted.” He urged delegates to continue to forge a strong NSBA to convince Congress that local school board members are truly representative, most unselfish, and the best qualified persons to represent the local viewpointin education.
Smith said local constituencies cannot be forgotten even while the new trust is being built with Congress. “We must not forget our own constituency,” he noted. He also advised board members to be aware of—and leery of—proposals for public involvement in public school operations that would shift decision-making authority to “vaguely defined groups of citizens at the school site level.” The minister from San Diego cautioned that the power to make a decision must never be divorced from the responsibility for making that decision....
He said school boards must be strong for another reason—to counter the movements of the courts and federal regulatory agencies into the operation of schools. “If we want other governmental units to stop eroding our ability to provide educational governance, we must exercise that ability more often and more effectively.” Smith said, “Where we can, we should work together with all segments of the public toward the improvement of the schools. But,” he concluded, “our responsibility is to all the people and we must view only the ‘big picture.’”
[Ed. Note:
Smith’s ability to foresee the implementation of site-based management, the downgrading of the importance of elected board members, and the transfer of power to public-private partnerships, etc., is to be lauded! While serving in the U.S. Department of Education this writer attempted to stop federally funded programs to train local school board members in conflict resolution and in how to implement effective school research.]

“Competency Tests Set In 26 Schools: New Curriculum Shifts Teaching Methods In District”

Was the title of an article which appeared in The Washington Post on August 1, 1977. Excerpts follow:
“The materials will be standardized, the lessons will be standardized,” Guines said. “We’re taking the play out. We’re taking the guesswork out. We’re putting in a precise predicted treatment that leads to a predicted response.” Guines said that the new curriculum is based on the work in behavioral psychology of Harvard University’s B.F. Skinner, who developed teaching machines and even trained pigeons during World War II to pilot and detonate bombs and torpedoes. The basic idea, Guines said, is to break down complicated learning into a sequence of clear simple skills that virtually everyone can master, although at different rates of speed. “If you can train a pigeon to fly up there and press a button and set off a bomb,” Guines remarked, “why can’t you teach human beings to behave in an effective and rational way? We know that we can modify human behavior. We’re not scared of that. This is the biggest thing that’s happening in education today.”...
According to Thomas B. Sticht, Associate Director for Basic Skills of the National Institute of Education, similar techniques, called competency education or mastery teaching, are now being used in many parts of the country. Since 1973, Sticht said, they have been adopted by the Army and Navy for basic training and to teach entry level job skills. They have been used successfully in college courses, he said, and also to teach mentally retarded children who previously had been classed as “uneducable.” “There has to be a well-defined series of

objectives,” Sticht said, “and a step by step curriculum that gives some way [through Mastery Tests] to know you have met the objectives.”
But the system also has detractors who criticize it as rigid and mechanistic. “We must be very careful,” said Lawrence G. Derthick, a former U.S. Commissioner of Education, “about adopting any mechanical system of producing children like objects. There are so many complicating factors in each child—emotional, psychological, the home background, the sensitivity of teachers—there’s danger in trying to turn out children like nuts and bolts or steel pins. Human beings are more complex.”...
[Ed. Note:
William Spady, “father of outcome-based education,” served as consultant to the D.C. schools at this exact time, working out of the U.S. Office of Education’s National Institute of Education. His position at the time is listed in his curriculum vitae as “Senior Research Sociologist, 1973–1978.” With Spady, Thomas Sticht, associate director for basic skills at NIE, also worked on the failed, Skinnerian D.C. school reform. In addition, the reader is urged to refer to the August 8, 1982 Washington Post entry which paraphrases Sticht as follows: “Ending discrimination and changing values are probably more important than reading in moving low income families into the middle class.” Of further interest, the same Thomas Sticht was president of Applied Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Inc., San Diego, California, and has served on the U.S. Labor Department Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS).]

Development Of Educational Technology In Central And Eastern Europe Studies:

Division of Structures, Content, Methods and Techniques of Education was published and distributed by United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO: Paris: ED–77/WS/133: English Edition) in November of 1977. The author is including excerpts from the “Section on Methods, Materials and Techniques” so that the reader will see how America 2000/Goals 2000 restructuring is identical to education in the former Eastern European communist countries. The reader must also remember that American education is under the direction of UNESCO due to our membership in the United Nations. Excerpts follow:
The development of educational technology in the Central and Eastern European countries, as commissioned by the UNESCO Secretariat, is summarised on the basis of the oral and written information supplied by the countries having attended the Budapest International Seminar on Educational Technology in 1976. The countries involved are as follows: People’s Republic of Bulgaria, Socialist Republic of Czechoslovakia, Republic of Finland, Republic of Greece, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, People’s Republic of Poland, People’s Republic of Hungary, German Democratic Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Data were also supplied by the Socialist Republic of Rumania which could not participate in the Seminar.
The factors exercising a decisive influence on the present standards of the application of educational technology and the strategies and rate of its further spread in the countries listed above are as follows:
a. the overwhelming majority of the countries represented (8 out of 10) are socialist states;
b. except for the Soviet Union and Finland, the nations concerned can be classified into the category of fairly developed countries from the technological point of view.

On the basis of the above factors some of the specific characteristics of the development of educational technology will be underlined. It follows from the essence of the socialist structure of the state in the countries concerned, except Finland and Greece, that their educational system is centralized. This creates an extremely favourable situation for central state measures designed to modernize education. The socialist state possesses the means necessary for education for the widespread use of methodology based on solid technological foundations and of the media and means of educational technology.... In a situation in which millions of students learn and hundreds of thousands of educationalists teach, on the basis of unified curricula, decisions involving the development of the method to be adopted in education and of the media and aids of educational technology call for very thorough preparatory work.
The socialist countries also have a substantial advantage from the aspect of the development of educational technology because the training and in-service training of teachers rest on a uniform basis. In addition, curricula are uniform in the individual countries and for the different types of schools harmony between the curricular activities and the development of educational technology can be therefore established comparatively easily.
[Ed. Note:
A flow chart on page 11 of the study includes under “Factors Influencing the Introduction of Educational Technology” all the components found in American educational restructuring as follows:
Adequate Curricula; System of Objectives; Systems of Means of Assessment; Media System; Ensuring Appropriate Facilities (school building, hardware, media); Adequately Trained Teachers (basic training, in-service / further training/information); Research and Development; and International Cooperation.]

1978 Professor Benjamin Bloom,

The “father” Of Mastery Learning And Developerof the Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, presented a paper entitled “New Views of the Learner:
Implications for Instruction and Curriculum” at the 1978 Association for the Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) Annual Conference. The paper was published in ASCD’s Educational Leadership April 1978 issue (Vol. 35, #7). The following quote explains clearly the reasoning behind UNESCO’s requirement that member states, including the United States, incorporate UNESCO’s lifelong learning philosophy into their education policies:
   Continuing Learning Throughout the world, the instruction and curriculum in the schools is being studied to determine its long-term contribution to continuing learning throughout life. The Edgar Faure (UNESCO) report “Learning to Be” has had great influence on this thinking. The Faure report (Faure, 1972) stresses the many changes taking place in all societies and the difficulties individuals have in adjusting to rapid change in the society, in their work, and in their lives. Since, the report continues, it is virtually impossible to anticipate and plan for the changes that will take place, the only adaptive mechanism people have to adjust to and cope with these changes is their ability and interest in continuing learning throughout life....
We, who are responsible for the learning of our students for a ten-to-sixteen-year period, must extend our sights beyond the period that our students are in the schools or colleges. Until we do this and until it becomes a part of our curriculum planning, we will

neglect those objectives of education that relate to the entire life of the individual. (pp. 574–575)
[Ed. Note:
It is important to recall Bloom’s definition of education: “to change the thoughts, actions, and feelings of students.” In other words, the above recommendation very simply calls for lifelong brainwashing.]

In The August 1978 Issue Of The National Educator Barbara Morris, Editor Of The Barbara Morris Report

And author of many books related to education including her most recent book, The Great American Con Game,[15] reported on a speech given at the University of Illinois by Mary F. Berry, assistant secretary in the U.S. Office of Education (1977), regarding Chinese education. The following excerpts from Morris’s report are too important to leave out of this book:
Indeed, what does the U.S.A. stand to learn? Let’s take a look.
Red China has eliminated testing and grades. The U.S. is rapidly going the same route.
Testing is being downgraded and scoffed at, and grades, where they do exist are just about meaningless.
For the Red Chinese, according to Ms. Berry, truth is a relative concept. In the U.S. schools students are taught the same thing in “values clarification.” It’s called situation ethics and it means it’s okay to lie or cheat or steal or kill when it suits your purpose.
In Red China, according to Ms. Berry, education must serve the masses. Ditto the U.S. Only the semantics are different here. In the U.S. education is not designed for the benefit of individuals, but for society. “Society” or “masses”—what’s the difference?
In Red China, according to Ms. Berry, education must be combined with productive labor and starts at six years of age, with children working at least one hour a day producing voice boxes for dolls. At the middle school level, children make auto parts as part of the school day. We are not at this low level, but Secretary Berry frankly admits, “We will draw on the Chinese model....” We are fast approaching the Chinese model. We have work/study programs and the U.S. Office of Education is working on development of Lifelong Learning programs—another Chinese import. Such programs will enable people to work and study their entire lives for the benefit of the state.
Ms. Berry admitted U.S. Lifelong Learning programs are indeed drawn on the Chinese experience, that such programs are expected to meet “needs for intellectual fulfillment and social growth. It is here that the Chinese have set the pattern for the world to follow, and it is here that American higher education may have its last, best opportunity for growth.”
Secretary Berry lamented that the U.S. is only slowly moving into Lifelong Learning, but that “The community college system with its nonconventional enrollment, is one harbinger of change. The traditional extension program is another.... But we have to go beyond them and bring four year institutions and secondary institutions, as well as private instructional facilities into the Lifelong Learning movement.”
Ms. Berry is not talking about the future when she recommends radical proposals for U.S. education. A meeting of the National Council for the Social Studies, held in Cincinnati last November, featured several presentations on Communist Chinese education as a model for U.S. education. In one such presentation, teachers learned how the Red Chinese educational system “is related to achievement of national goals and citizenship preparation... how cultural activities and recreational pastimes provide a vehicle for transmitting new social values.” Does this help you understand why U.S. schools usually list “worthy use of leisure” or “citizenship education” as a goal of education?

[Ed. Note:
Americans, involved in what would seem to be the worthy goal of implementing character, citizenship, or civic education in the government schools or in community groups, or in seeking “common ground” with groups who hold differing views on political, social, and religious issues, should think more than twice before becoming involved in this dangerous dialogue. The reason the dialogue is dangerous is evident when one studies the track record of nations whose citizens have allowed their governments to define morality or good citizenship; i.e., Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and Red China, to name just a few.]

Fifth Report Of The National Council On Educational Research, Funded By The U.S. Office Of Education,

Was published in an issue spanning 1978–1979. The very clear connection drawn between mastery learning and direct instruction, enabling one to understand that they are essentially the same or at least fraternal twins, is the importance of the following excerpt:
The Learning Research and Development Center (LRDC) at the University of Pittsburgh has developed instructional mastery of learning programs providing individualized instruction in math, science, reading, and early learning skills. These have been disseminated nationally through Project Follow Through [Direct Instruction / DISTAR] and by Research for Better Schools (RBS). (pp. 28–29)

1979 “Georgia Basic Life Process Skills, Esea, Title II, Proposed Instructional Time In School Programs,”

Prepared by Lucille G. Jordan, associate state superintendent for Instructional Services of the Georgia Department of Education, was submitted to the U.S. Department of Education for a grant in 1979. The particular curricular programs which received funding under Title II were jointly funded by Exxon Corporation and the U.S. Department of Education. On page 34 of Georgia’s grant proposal an extraordinary curriculum graph / chart recommends the following percentages of time be spent at and between 5, 10, 15 and 18 years of age on the following subjects:
Basic 3 R’s: 90% at 5 yrs. Declining to 40% at 10 yrs. Declining to 30% at 15 yrs. Declining to 15% at 18 yrs.
Life Process Skills: (Critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making): 5% at 5 yrs. Increasing to 40% at 10 yrs. Increasing to 70% at 15 yrs. Increasing to 90% at 18 yrs.
Citizenship and Humanities Studies: 30% at 5 yrs. Increasing to 40% at 10 yrs. Increasing to 70% at 15 yrs. Increasing to 90% at 18 yrs. Science and Technology: 25% at 5 yrs. Increasing to 28% at 10 yrs. Increasing to 30% at 15 yrs. Increasing to 55% at 18 yrs.
Career Education: 20% at 5 yrs. Increasing to 22% at 10 yrs. Increasing to 30% at 15 yrs. Increasing to 55% at 18 yrs.
Health and Physical Education: 10% for ages 5 through 18 yrs.

[Ed. Note:
Please note that the “Basic 3 R’s” is the only curriculum area targeted for decrease in time spent on instruction. An official of the Georgia School Boards Association cited this graph as being representative of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Also, why would Exxon, who was in the early 1980s one of the major corporations complaining about illiteracy and workers who are not educated in basic academics, have funded a program guaranteed to water down basic academics? (In a 1976 speech NEA President Catherine Barrett recommended teaching basic skills in only one fourth of the school day.)]

The U.S. Congress Fulfilled President Jimmy Carter’s Promise To The National Education Association

By voting for a U.S. Department of Education in 1979. Now the United States which, heretofore, had been represented at international conferences as the unenlightened member of the crowd (no ministerial/socialist status), could join the “big boys” of the international community: The “big boys” being those countries who, since World War II, had been represented at these policy-planning conferences by ministers of education. Interestingly enough, the majority of teacher members of the National Education Association were opposed to the creation of the U.S. Department of Education.
The new Cabinet-level department allowed the former Bureau of Research under the National Institute of Education to become the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), which would be closely linked to the Paris, France-based Center for Educational Research and Innovation (CERI), part of the United Nations’ Office of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). OERI’s assistant secretary would attend OECD / CERI meetings at which he would receive his “marching orders” related to international restructuring efforts and programs, all of which were either being implemented or would be implemented in the future in the United States—effective school research, site-based management, school-to-work, community education, Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM), etc.

A Study Of Schooling In The United States By John Goodlad, PH.D.,

Dean of the Graduate School of Education, University of California, Los Angeles and associated with the Institute for Development of Educational Activities (I.D.E.A., funded by Kettering Foundation), was compiled in 1979 after being researched over a period of several years.
Under Dr. Goodlad’s direction, trained investigators went into communities in most regions of the country. The sample of schools studied was enormously diverse in regard to size, family income, and racial composition of the student body. The result of the landmark report was A Place Called School: Prospects for the Future (McGraw-Hill: New York, 1984) by Goodlad.
In A Place Called School, Goodlad proposed pushing high school graduation back to age 16 and having all students take a core curriculum until then. A new “fourth phase of education” would combine work, study, and community service to help ease students’ transition into careers, higher education, and adult responsibilities. The following three books were additionally commissioned to be written as a result of this project:
(1) Schooling for a Global Age, James Becker, Editor (1979), in the preface for which Dr. Goodlad made the following statement which has contributed to the development of parentschool partnerships:
Parents and the general public must be reached, also. Otherwise, children and youth enrolled in globally-oriented programs may find themselves in conflict with values assumed in

the home. And then the education institution frequently comes under scrutiny and must pull back.
(2) Communities and Their Schools, Don Davies, Editor (1981), in which the history of community education at the national and international levels (China, Tanzania, etc.) was covered and the participatory democratic operation of our schools and communities was recommended (government by unelected councils).
(3) Arts and the Schools, Jerome J. Hausman, Editor (1980), in which the role of the arts in schools and in society was examined and then the focus shifted to the needs of the individual. Arts addressed curricular issues involved in designing and implementing school arts programs and, again, actual programs are discussed and analyzed. The policy implications of implementing the programs described in the book are then discussed along with change strategies for moving from rhetoric to reality.
The four books were published by McGraw Hill. The study itself was funded by the National Institute of Education, U.S. Office of Education and the following foundations: Danforth; Ford; International Paper; The JDR 3rd Fund; Martha Holden Jennings Foundation; Charles Stewart Mott Foundation; Needmor Fund; Pedamorphosis, Inc.; Rockefeller Foundation; and Spencer Foundation. The Advisory Committee for A Study of Schooling included the following persons: Ralph W. Tyler, chairman; Gregory Anrig; Stephen K. Bailey; Lawrence A. Cremin; Robert K. Merton; and Arthur Jefferson. The study was conducted under the auspices of the Institute for Development of Educational Activities, Inc. (IDEA) and The Laboratory in School and Community Education, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Los Angeles.
[Ed. Note:
In a telephone conversation with a representative of McGraw Hill Publishers in 1982, this writer was informed that all four books were provided to the fifty state education commissioners / superintendents. These four books provide an accurate picture of the role played by the tax-exempt foundations and federal government in the restructuring / social engineering of American society and schools to accommodate the perceived “needs” of the 21st century.]

Senator Jacob Javits (NY) Requested That Mr. Arthur Lipper’s

Address to the world Council on Gifted and Talented Children be printed in the Congressional Record, September 5, 1979 (pp. 11904–11905). Senator Javits said in his introduction to the text of the speech:
Mr. President, the gifted and talented children of our Nation have long been of continuing interest to me for they represent the future leadership of the United States. Last month, in Jerusalem, the World Council on Gifted and Talented Children held its Third Biennial Conference to discuss international cooperative efforts on behalf of the gifted, and to consider research and exchange programs to promote this most precious human resource. At the Jerusalem conference, Arthur Lipper, III, an investment banker… and great friend of the gifted and talented forcefully presented the idea that the development of the gifted represents the best hope for future peace and stability in the international political realm. I urge my colleagues to consider carefully his remarks, and I ask that the text of Mr. Lipper’s address to the World Council on Gifted and Talented Children be printed in the Record.

The following excerpts from Lipper’s speech reflect a total disregard for the gifted and talented children as individuals who might be capable of deciding for themselves what they wish to do or become. It focuses instead on their “use” by the state to obtain predetermined global goals:
Some years ago I read the following statement in a school publication: One of America’s most tragic wastes of natural resources is the loss of potential for social contribution which is inherent in economically deprived, gifted children.
Properly identified at a sufficiently early age, through culture-free, non-verbal testing, the very young child can be provided with the environment, economic and motivational support necessary for full development as a positive social contributor.
Without such early identification, the socio-economic pressure imposed upon the economically deprived child who possesses superior cognitive ability is likely to result in either a “dropping out” or only a desire to achieve improved personal life style. The chosen or available means of obtaining a better life style may not be socially desirable. Therefore their truly constructive potential, from the standpoint of society [the State], may be forever lost.
These thoughts seem to me to be applicable to all societies and especially to those less fortunate than America’s. Specifically analyzed they are:
1) Identified early enough, poor but gifted children can be given medical, financial and emotional support which probably will lead to the development of positive social attitudes.
2) Not identified and assisted the kids may either not achieve their potential or may use their talents solely for the purpose of bettering their own lives regardless of the means employed or the effects on others.
It is interesting to note the number of proudly proclaimed programs for gifted child identification and development which many of the Socialist and Communist countries have as a stated and de-facto matter of public policy. It is not strange that the capitalist countries, so quick to make use of all other “natural” resources—including the labor of their own and other countries—have been slower to recognize and secure the benefits accruing from the development of their own gifted children.
Perhaps the wealthy nations have not yet sensed the compelling need for broad social progress, based upon the future contribution of the gifted, as have some of the non-capitalistcountries.
In closing, Mr. Lipper makes some recommendations, the most alarming of which follows:
Establishment of boarding schools (publicly funded) to house those identified gifted children whose existing home life is non-constructive in terms of their development.
Ed. Note:
Mr. Lipper, in his fervent desire to implement world socialism, seems to have forgotten that individuals, regardless of race, religion, talent, or income, should not be considered property of the State (human resources, human capital, etc.) to be molded and manipulated for the benefit of society as a whole (the State). Also, what and whose criteria will be employed to determine whether “home life is non-constructive”?

“K–12 Competency-Based Education Comes To Pennsylvania” By John H. Sandberg,

Director of teacher education for Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh, was published in the October 1979 issue of Phi Delta Kappan. Excerpts from the article follow:

It is too late to stop Project ’81, which will run its course and probably will soon be forgotten, but one may hope that other states will think hard before embarking on similar projects....
While it is possible that I misunderstood the meaning or intent of this “major goal” “gain the skills and knowledge they will need as adults”], it strikes me as being unattainable on its face....
I would argue that we cannot “see that students acquire the competencies they need to be successful in the adult world” because we don’t know what they are now much less what they will be ten years from now....
Exchanging courses, credits, and Carnegie Units for “newly defined competencies” will not eliminate this fundamental problem....
Finally, in the case of students who are known to be college bound and are locked into a curriculum that is dictated primarily by college requirements (not life-role expectancies), what is going to give? Will physics give way to lawn mower repair? Chemistry to cooking?
Trigonometry to tile setting? Will it really make any difference for these students what the state board requires for graduation as long as Harvard wants math through calculus and two years of a foreign language?...
I would be happy to settle for a short list of competencies if I thought we could handle them: Teach children how to read, to write, to do arithmetic, to draw, make music, and to get along with each other.
We are not doing these few things for enough kids now, so perhaps this is what we should be working on instead of making new lists of things we won’t know how to do....
I applaud the emphasis that Project ’81 gives to making better use of educational resources in the community. But as a Blueprint for structuring public education and for measuring its products, the competency-based approach embodied in Project ’81 strikes me as totally ridiculous. A true skeptic might argue that Project ’81 may be safely ignored on the ground that the Pennsylvania Department of Education is incompetent to chew, much less swallow, what it has attempted to bite off. Like other grandiose efforts to reform the schools, the project may generate some wind and heat and several billion pieces of paper and then go away, leaving all but the 12 pilot school districts untouched.
Nevertheless, the Pennsylvania Department of Education has already demonstrated, with competency-based teacher education, its competence to effect change—or at least the illusion of change—on a large scale. Project ’81 is a much more extensive undertaking whose potential for mischief is incalculably greater. The mischief can occur if Pennsylvanians do not take a long, hard look at where Project ’81 is taking them.

Information Regarding The Preliminary Planning For School-Based Clinics

Was revealed in the October 22, 1979 issue of Nation’s Schools Report which, under the section “Schools Can Offer Health Services,” stated the following:
Schools with concentrations of Medicaid-eligible students can qualify for federal money if they set up screening and referral programs. A joint effort by the Office of Education and the Health Care Financing Administration could make available to schools some of the $46 million that will probably be spent on screening Medicaid children.
Historically, schools have been excluded from such payments, said Robert Heneson - Walling, in the office of deputy commissioner of the Bureau of Education of the Handicapped.
But regulations proposed jointly by the two agencies and published in the Federal Register October 4 would allow schools to do the screening and even provide treatment and get paid for it.

“It’s never been clear that schools might take this initiative,” he told Nation’s Schools Report. To help interested school officials get started, the two departments will publish a manual in November which will cover rules-of-thumb for officials to decide whether to undertake the screening, how to do it, and how to get help from state and local agencies.
“It’s not an either/or situation for the school district,” said Heneson-Walling. There are seven or eight degrees of involvement a school might undertake. Some schools are already involved in extensive health screening services, because of requirements of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, so it would be a natural step for them to become primary health delivery centers. (p. 6)
[Ed. Note:
The United States model was given wide publicity at the United Nations / UNICEFsponsored International Year of the Child Conference. The U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare served as co-sponsor of the International Year of the Child’s program in the United States. For a glimpse into the future role of the schools in providing health care services turn to the 1999 entry for the “Little Red Riding Hood” version of the government/private sector initiatives outlined in the U.S. Department of Education / U.S. Department of Health and Human Services publication Together We Can. The 1999 Congressional proposal to completely fund the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act would go a long way toward universalizing these activities. Increased school violence in the late 1990s is also leading to increases in the number of school psychologists who can be used for “early screening.”]

“Big School Changes Proposed”

Was printed in the Bangor (ME) Daily News On November 30, 1979. The article covered what could easily be described as futuristic plans for Vermont public education. It stated in part:
Montpelier, VT. A blue ribbon commission has recommended a radical restructuring of education in Vermont with year-round, ungraded schools and a policy of allowing some students to drop out at age 13. In addition, the commission suggested creation of a 4,000 student, residential school for students ages 4 through 19. The state-run school would be a center for educational research and teacher training....
The commission recommends students should be permitted to drop out of formal schooling at age 13, as long as they get a job or enroll in an alternative training program.
[Ed. Note:
This extraordinary plan for radical restructuring seemed beyond the pale in 1979. However, it doesn’t seem so out of reach in 1999 when most of its recommendations are being introduced nationwide. Year-round school has been proposed in many locales, being adopted in some in 1999. Boarding schools have been openly proposed by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, but have not been widely embraced. However, the concept of allowing students to drop out at age 13 has its parallel in school - to - work efforts which force students to select a career emphasis by the end of eighth grade.]

In The November 1979 Issue Of Educational Leadership, MONTHLY PUBLICATION OF the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, “Mastery Learning":

Monthly publication of the association for supervision and curriculum development, “Mastery Learning The Current State of the Craft” by James Block was published. Excerpts follow:
Indeed, with the help of dedicated practitioners and administrators, innovative teacher training institutions, progressive national and international educational organizations (ASCD,

NEA, NASA, UNESCO, IEA), leading educational publishers (McGraw-Hill, SRA, Westinghouse Learning Corp., Random House), and powerful news media (The New York Times, CBS), Mastery Learning has helped reshape the face of contemporary educational practice, research, and theory....
Entire school districts throughout North America (Chicago, Denver, D.C., New Orleans, Vancouver) are actively testing the value of Mastery Learning for their particular educational situation.
Ed. Note:
The above quote by James Block calls to mind the 1921 entry in this book which chronicles the establishment of the Council on Foreign Relations. In that entry a quotation from Propaganda by Edward Bernays, Sigmund Freuds’s nephew, also remarks on the power of opinion to move an agenda forward:
It remains a fact in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by small number of persons and technical means have been invented and developed by which opinion may be regimented.

Super-Learning By Sheila Ostrander And Lynn Schroeder, With Nancy Ostrander,

(Dell Publishing Co., Inc.: New York, 1979) was published. Beneath the title on the cover is an explanation of Super-Learning as “New stress-free, fast learning methods you can use to develop supermemory and improve business and sports performance.” In reality this “learning technique” is an updated version of ancient practices drawn from many religions and a grabbag of philosophies, most presented to the chosen rhythms of certain music. The following are excerpts from the book:
Georgi Lozanov (Lo-san-ov), a Bulgarian doctor and psychiatrist, who didn’t set out to be an educator did set out, following the old adage, to study the nature of man, of the human being in all its potential. Like just about everybody else, he concluded that we’re only using a fraction of our capabilities. Lozanov devised ways to open the reserves of the mind and, as a doctor, put them to work to improve the body, to heal mental and physical disease.
But in investigating what the whole human being can do, he couldn’t help being drawn into creative and intuitive areas. Then still investigating, almost by necessity, he became one of the leading parapsychologists in the communist world. At the same time, Lozanov realized that with his new techniques, the average person could develop supermemory, could learn factual information with unheard-of-ease. (p. 9)...
Among others, we were going to talk to a Bulgarian scientist, Dr. Georgi Lozanov, who had investigated a number of people with extraordinary mental abilities like Keuni’s. Lozanov had come to claim that supermemory was a natural human ability. Not only can anyone develop it, he said, but one can do it with ease. To prove his point there were supposedly thousands of people in Bulgaria and the Soviet Union who were well on their way to acquiring supermemory of their own. (p.14). Dr. Lozanov greeted us in his office. Like the brilliant flowers in the garden outside, the room was awash with bright, vivid colors. As we’d already discovered at the conference in Moscow, Lozanov had a “holistic” sense of humor and a “cosmic” laugh like the Maharishi of TM fame. A lithe, compact man with warm brown eyes and a great cloud of curly, graying hair, he could be as kinetic as a handball one minute and deeply serene the next.
“Suggestology can revolutionize teaching,” he asserted. “Once people get over preconceived ideas about

limitations, they can be much more.
No longer is a person limited by believing that learning is unpleasant; that what he learns today he will forget tomorrow; that learning deteriorates with age.”...
He grew philosophical, “Education is the most important thing in the world. The whole of life is learning—not only in school. I believe that developing this high motivation—which comes through the technique—can be of the greatest importance to humanity.”...
“What exactly is the technique of suggestology?” we asked. To create this new “ology,” Lozanov and his co-workers had drawn from an almost dizzying array of specialties:
mental yoga, music, sleep-learning, physiology, hypnosis, autogenics, parapsychology, drama, to name some. Suggestology’s deepest roots lay in the system of Raja Yoga. “There is really nothing new about suggestology,” Lozanov explained. “The application is the new thing.”...
Lozanov’s suggestology is basically “applied” altered states of consciousness for learning, healing, and intuitive development. (p. 17)
[Ed. Note:
Lozanov’s methodology has been implemented in school systems across the country— including Henry M. Levin’s Accelerated Schools Project participants—and promoted as being physically healthful and psychically helpful. Its roots, as pointed out in the quotes above, are in techniques associated with religion and mind control. In the appendix to Super-Learning a “Recap” is written, part of which this writer wishes to leave with the reader so that its connection to what is being presented to teachers and parents in 1999 under the guise of “research-based” theory and practice can be more readily understood:
How does it work?
A very specific kind of music has a psychophysicial effect and creates a relaxed, meditative state in the body. Physiological research showed this particular music slows body rhythms to more efficient levels. This music-induced relaxation brings health benefits. It overcomes fatigue and enhances physical and emotional well-being. It’s a bit like mantra meditation for it is a mind/body link that helps open up inner awareness.
Physiological research also shows this calmed state of the body facilitates mental functioning and learning. The body uses less energy, so there’s more for the mind. [emphasis in original]
This particular music induces alert relaxation—alert mind, relaxed body. How can you, at will, retrieve what you perceive? The answer is rhythm. The connection is made through synchronizing rhythms. Data to be learned is chanted with intonations in rhythm in time to the music.
The person learning breathes along rhythmically in a relaxed state. So data, intonations, music, breathing, and body rhythms are all synchronized to a specific rhythmic cycle. The rhythm, intonations, music, and breathing make links with the conscious mind. Harmonized rhythms strengthen the information signal. Conscious awareness of unconscious perceptions is opened up through this link so you become aware of what’s in your memory bank.
Finally, superlearning is about learning to learn. There is a snowballing effect once you begin to use the techniques. How do you go about doing superlearning on your own?
The process is very simple. In advance, get the music, organize your material and tape it, reading it aloud at slow-paced intervals over the specified music.
Then, just relax and listen to your material as you breathe along to the music.
The roots of the above “learning” process grow deep in the mire of the ancient practices that have come to be called “New Age.” The reader is urged to remember the rhythmic chants and sing-song recitations being offered as direct instruction “learning.” Again, some of the therapeutic benefits from music and what is called “music therapy” are most often observed among the mentally ill and, for a lack of another designation, the learning disabled. The same areas from which most of the “research-based” data—often called “scientific”—draw their reported “success.”]


Steps To Better Writing:

A Systematic Approach To Expository Writing By Gene Stanford (Holt, Rinehart And Winston, Inc.: New York, 1979) was published.
An exercise from this book is an example of the humanistic influence exerted in a writing textbook format:
Exercise C. In each of the introductory paragraphs below, underline the thesis sentence.
Then indicate in the blank which construction (funnel or contrast) was used. Finally, number the factors in the preview of main supporting points....
[Sample paragraph] 2. Too often parents think the way to rear a child is to give him guidance in the proper way to think and act. This “guidance” too often becomes an actual molding of his personality to suit the parent, as is seen in parental lectures beginning with the old clichés, “If I were you I would...”
or “When I was your age I....”
These parents, while they may have the good of the child at heart, are nevertheless making a grave mistake by trying to compel him to act or think in certain ways. What the teen needs instead is a type of love which gives him the freedom and confidence to develop his own opinions in matters such as religion, morality, and choice of friends. (p. 87)
[Ed. Note:
The 1991 article entitled “Seniors’ Church Attendance” from Education Week (June 12, 1991) shows how successful this type of “academic” curriculum has been in changing our children’s values.]
1 T.I.L.L., 67 East Shore Road, Huntington, N.Y. 11743
2 See 1998 entry concerning Newt Gingrich’s statements about the future of textbooks. Also, see 1974 entry for A Performance Accountability System for School Administrators by T.H. Bell.
3 This quote is taken from Danielson’s 67-page booklet, Practitioner’s Implementation Handbook [Series]: The Outcome-Based Curriculum, 2nd Ed., by Charlotte Danielson (Outcome Associates, Princeton, NJ, 1992). Charlotte Danielson is presently employed by the Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey.
4 The Maine Facilitator Center was funded by the U.S. Department of Education and its primary role was to disseminate federally funded National Diffusion Network programs. Since 1994 the NDN has been defunded and its functions have been taken over by the U.S. Department of Education’s regional laboratories.
5 Excerpt taken from The Leipzig Connection mentioned and referenced earlier in this book.
6 Another View of Philosophy and Culture: Back to Freedom and Dignity by Francis Schaeffer (Crossway Books: Wheaton, Ill., 1989).
7 This particular “who shall survive” activity is still in use in 1990s NDN programs.
8 Child Abuse in the Classroom may be purchased for $10.00 by sending a check to: Eagle Forum, Pere Marquette Press, PO Box 495, Alton, IL 62002
9 The National Diffusion Network catalog, Programs that Work, may be purchased for $16.95 by calling Sopris West at 1–303– 615–2829.
10 Audiocassette of Lessinger’s speech (#612–20129) can be ordered from: ASCD, 1703 North Beauregard St., Alexandria, VA 22311–1714.
11 Sayer, George. Jack: A Life of C.S. Lewis (Crossway Books: Wheaton, 1994).
12 Lewis, C.S. “Our English Syllabus” in Rehabilitations and Other Essays (Oxford University Press: London, 1939).
13 Ibid.
14 Hooper, Walter, Ed. “Learning in War-Time,” in The Weight of Glory and Other Addresses (Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, 1980).
15 See Resources page for ordering information for Barbara Morris’s The Great American Con Game.


Chapter 7   The "Effective" Eighties


The "Effective" Eighties

“Producing a definite or desired result [emphasis added],” the first definition for the word “effective” found in Webster’s Dictionary, is the appropriate definition for the word “effective” as it is used in the title Effective School Research (ESR) or Effective Schools (ES) which will characterize much of “The Effective Eighties.” This is particularly true as it relates to the Skinnerian “method,” often referred to as “What Works” education, more commonly known as outcome/performance/resultsbased education and mastery learning/direct instruction. The evidence which links OBE to ESR is irrefutable: “Outcome-Based Education incorporates the findings of the Effective Schools Research, linking them together into a comprehensive and powerful model,” stated Charlotte Danielson, M.A. in her Practitioner’s Implementation Handbook [Series]: The Outcome-Based Curriculum.[1]
Whether Effective Schools Research applied to education has been truly “effective” lies in the eye of the beholder and in the beholder’s definition of the purpose of education.[2] Disturbing reports continue to surface regarding steep declines in academic test scores in schools which have restructured using the various components of Effective Schools Research. These scores are from schools which, while using ESR, have not yet shifted from norm-referenced (competitive) tests—which compare students’ results amongst their peers and which use “A-B-C-D-F” grading—to performance-based (non-competitive) teach-to-the-test assessments. Examples are the “open book test” and “authentic assessment”—which have the students competing against no one but themselves, giving them as much time as necessary to “master” the competencies.
Once the non-competitive, performance-based assessments are in place, the scores will naturally go up, thus allowing the social change agents to breathe a sigh of relief. The “low test score cat” will

have been shoved back into his bag and the media will shout from the rooftops how well our children are doing on the new performance-based assessments! As usual, everyone will go back to sleepbelieving all is well—if they were ever awake to the problem in the first place.
The pre-non-competitive, performance-based academic test score decline should come as no surprise to the change agents in charge of “effective” schools. The “father” of the Effective Schools Research method, or Skinnerian mastery learning, the late Prof. Benjamin Bloom, said in his 1981 book All Our Children Learning: “The purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students.” An even more astonishing statement was made in The Effective School Report by one of the leading change agents, Thomas A. Kelly, Ph.D.: “The brain should be used for processing, not storage.” With this educational emphasis, academic test scores could have done nothing but decline. If there is anyone reading this book who questions the validity of this writer’s claim that America has been “deliberately dumbed down,” I urge them to keep these quotes in mind.
Let me pose the following question: How could the writer of this book have written this book had her brain not been used for storage? Could the answer to that question be the reason why the social change agents do not want the brain to be used for storage?
The educationists understand full well what they are doing, since the use of Skinnerian/Pavlovian operant conditioning (mastery learning/direct instruction) does not allow for the transfer of information. All they need is a brain which knows how to immediately process predetermined bits and pieces of information—often nothing more than symbols, simple words or paragraphs, the knowledge of which can be easily measured—as those pieces of information relate to workforce training or a menial job; i.e., pushing a button like a pigeon in Skinner’s experiments was trained to push the lever to get its kernel of corn.
That is not learning; that is training to the point of automaticity, brought about by the abovementioned animal training. Neither is this training the same as rote learning or memorization. Rote learning or memorization requires storage of information in a brain which has used some reflective thinking to devise a method to recall it. Reflective thinking is essential for learning, allowing the brain to spend time examining the essence of the material with which it is presented.
If Bloom’s and Kelly’s quotes define what those in charge of educational restructuring are looking for in terms of “results,” those same educationists should not be at all surprised or concerned about low test scores. All they have to do is wait for the new performance-based assessments to be put into place nationwide; after which the public—some of whom have been vociferously opposed to outcome-based education—will get off their backs.
Activities related to education in “The Effective Eighties” were not geared to improving the academic standing of our children. Quite the contrary; every single major government- or foundationfunded activity had as its goal implementation of a global workforce training agenda.
In 1984 Secretary T.H. Bell approved a grant in the amount of $152,530 to the Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development (now known as Ed West) at which William Spady was the director. This grant was to carry out a project entitled “Excellence in Instructional Delivery

Systems.” The cover letter from the Utah superintendent of schools to Secretary T.H. Bell to which the application for grant funding was attached said, “This [the research as a result of the grant] will make it possible to put Outcome-Based Education in place, not only in Utah, but in all schools of the nation.” The final report (evaluation) to the U.S. Department of Education regarding the results of this project stated:
   The four models of instructional organization outlined in this casebook are difficult programsto implement. The practices of the ten schools described in the case studies are indeedcommendable. Yet we do not offer these ten case studies as“exemplary schools” deservingemulation.[3]
So, what did the change agents do?
They put OBE “into every school in the nation.”
Such misuse of taxpayer dollars is waste, fraud, and abuse which cries out for a Congressional investigation. Obviously, the intentions of those involved in this grant had nothing to do with the purpose of the project spelled out in the grant applicaton: “To make available to America’s educators practical information about what really works well, why it works well, and how it can be made to work well in their local sites.” (pp. 6–7) The real purpose of this project was to propose a radical redesign of the nation’s education system from one based on inputs to one based on outputs; from one oriented toward the learning of academic content to one based on performance of selected skills, necessary for the implementation of school-to-work, a redesign thoroughly discussed in this book.
Dr. Brian Rowan, a sociologist who served as co-principal investigator with the above Robert Burns on this most fraudulent of federal grants—Utah’s “Excellence in Instructional Delivery Systems Project”—explained clearly how deceptive are the claims of those who promote OBE and effective school research in a paper entitled “Shamanistic Rituals in Effective Schools.” (See Appendix XXVI.) In presenting his paper before the American Educational Research Association prior to his participation in the Utah grant evaluation, Rowan knew full well the project misrepresented itself even before he participated. But, to give credit where credit is due, Rowan at least put in writing the truth about OBE and Effective Schools Research; a truth, which, unfortunately, was made available to only a very small segment of the educational establishment and has remained hidden from the public.
“The Effective Eighties” saw President Ronald Reagan, who had accused the Soviet Union of being an “Evil Empire,” signing education agreements with the Soviet Union—agreements which are still in effect—and setting up a Task Force on Private Sector Initiatives in the White House which, in effect, started the ball rolling for public-private partnerships (corporate fascism) which are at the heart of the Carnegie Corporation / Marc Tucker / New American School Development Corporation’s school-to-work agenda. It is ironic that the U.S. Department of Education, under the stewardship of a Republican administration, effectively transformed the essential character of the nation’s public schools from “teaching”—the most traditional and conservative role of schools—to “workforce training” perceived as liberal and “progressive.”
Secretary T.H. Bell fired Edward Curran, a traditional educator who headed up the National

Institute of Education and who recommended to President Reagan that NIE—the heart of the “rot” in education—be abolished. Abolishing NIE required only that Secretary Bell give his approval, while abolishing the Department of Education—an election promise President Reagan had made which was incorporated into the Republican Party Platform—required the difficult to obtain approval of Congress. Once Ed Curran was gone, there was no further resistance to the plans of those members of the administration and their corporate cronies (school-business partnerships) who wished to transform the nation’s schools from academics to the polytech education being implemented today.
As a conservative Republican, it has not been easy to come to the above conclusion regarding the role of the Republican Party in the “deliberate dumbing down” of America. At the same time, I must add that it is very likely the Democratic Party would have been even more steadfast in implementing the same agenda, had it been in a position to do so. This march to destruction seems to join all forces under its banner.

1980   Schooling For A Global Age Edited by James Becker (Mcgraw Hill: New York, 1980) was published.

The preface by Professor John Goodlad is excerpted here:
Parents and the general public must be reached also [taught a global perspective]. Otherwise, children and youth enrolled in globally-oriented programs may find themselves in conflict with values assumed in the home. And then the educational institution frequently comes under scrutiny and must pull back.

Educational Goals:

Studies And Surveys In Comparative Education was prepared for the International Bureau of Education, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO: Courvoisier S.A.: La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland, 1980). Charles Fitouri wrote the following introduction to this document which clearly reflects the influence of UNESCO on education:
The crisis of education, about which so much has been written since the early 1960s, may be seen as the source of the need for change and innovation which has been felt and expressed since the early seventies. But what kind of innovation? And for what purpose? For what blueprint of society and to train what kind of man? This book on educational goals is based on such questions as these.
The following excerpts from Educational Goals identify the roots of American education restructuring:
The International Bureau of Education’s interest in the problem of educational goals and theories does not arise from pure philosophical speculation or a simple academic exercise. It has been aroused, and even imposed, by a confrontation with certain realities which

sprang up in this area when, in the early 1970’s, the International Bureau of Education (IBE) set out to examine the process of educational innovation in order to attempt to analyse it and, so to speak, expose its inner mechanism. It was thus that the first studies undertaken made it possible to establish with a great degree of certainty that any innovation in education implies an orientation in the field of values and, by virtue of this fact, involves the basic problem of educational goals....
All the pedagogical movements of the twentieth century which preach equality of educational opportunity, after having proclaimed it to be a right for everyone, are more or less founded on the various socialist schools of thought which began to emerge at the end of the eighteenth century and have since marked the course of the nineteenth century and a good part of the twentieth....
This interest led to the report of the International Commission on the Development of Education, entitled Learning to Be, commonly referred to as the “Faure Report.” In his statement introducing this report, the president of the commission was anxious to point out that the latter had based its deliberative efforts on the following four principles:
The existence of an international community which... is reflected in common aspirations, problems and trends, and in its movement towards one and the same destiny; “belief in democracy”; “the complete fulfillment of man” as the aim of development; and finally, the need for “over-all, life-long education.”
In so doing, the International Commission on the Development of Education was in danger of succumbing to the illusion—generous though it may be—of the existence of universal and universally accepted goals. Indeed, although the four principles were unable to win unanimous support from the international community, one of them, at least, did not raise opposition of any sort, even if it happens to be the one which is most commonly violated in practice. Referred to here is the belief in democracy.... The report places special emphasis on this, stating that:
Strong support must be given to democracy, as the only way for man to avoid becoming enslaved to machines, and the only condition compatible with the dignity which the intellectual achievements of the human race require; the concept of democracy itself must be developed, for it can no longer be limited to a minimum of judicial guarantees protecting citizens from the arbitrary exercise of power in a subsistence society. Furthermore, and in conjunction with this, more support must also be given to educational requirements, for there cannot—or will not—be a democratic and egalitarian relationship between classes divided by excessive inequality in education; and the aim and content of education must be re-created, to allow both for the new features of society and the new features of democracy.
This world solidarity has its prerequisites and conditions which have been described by UNESCO in the following terms:
There must first of all be agreement on a system of values and a willingness to embark on a joint examination of their implications: values of justice, equality, freedom and fellowship. These will be based on a new awareness in two respects, namely: recognition of the unity of mankind, with all its diverse peoples, races and cultures, and the assertion of a desire to live together, actually experienced not simply as a necessity for survival or coexistence but as the deliberate choice of fashioning a common destiny together, with joint responsibility for the future of the human race.
In such circumstances, the consciousness of the world’s solidarity, which is so much needed, can only be the fruit of an active and continuous process of education, which must be put in hand without delay and to which UNESCO must make its full contribution.

The participants, having agreed to develop and stimulate reflection on educational goals, considered that:
1. UNESCO should give particular attention to the developments at regional and international levels, of comparative studies on educational goals, from the point of view both of their influence on the development of educational theories (historical dimension) and of their impact on educational realities (sociological dimension);
2. multidisciplinary teams, comprising philosophers, historians, teachers, sociologists, economists, psychologists, planners, etc., should be involved in this work of reflection and research;
3. the themes listed below should be regarded as priority themes:
3.1 Determination of the goals underlying education for international understanding and peace.
3.2 UNESCO’s contribution to the formulation and development of an international dimension of education based on a certain conception of modern man.
3.3 Implicit goals and explicit goals of education.
3.4 Role of goals in the emergence of a new type of relationship between school and society.
3.5 Formal education and non-formal education as they relate to the explicit goals and implicit goals of education.
3.6 Elucidation of a dialectic of educational goals and cultural and educational policy: philosophy of education and ideology.
3.7 Ways of determining educational goals in certain contexts where there is a clash between tradition and innovation.
3.8 Elucidation of educational goals on the basis of the child’s real needs taking account of the economic, social and cultural environment.

“policy About Policy: Some Thoughts And Projections”

By Luvern L. Cunningham was published in the November 1980 issue of The Executive Review (Institute for School Executives:
The University of Iowa, Vol. 1., No. 2). A footnote on page 1 stated, “The paper was the Walter D. Cocking Lecture presented at the 34th Annual National Convention of Professors of Educational Administration in August, 1980, at Old Dominion University.” Some excerpts from Cunningham’s “Policy about Policy” follow:
Local school officials and their constituencies will be facing several critical policy matters in this decade (some new, some enduring). These issues will test severely the structures and processes of policy making within local districts.... Local and state authorities will soon have to develop fresh policies in regard to: the first four years of life; life-long learning; secondary education; equity; classroom control and discipline; global education; languages; human resource development; incentives; testing; and resource acquisition and allocation. I would hope, therefore, that a good many boards would develop policy about policy....
The object of my concern is the improvement of practice within the local units of government (local school districts) where educational policy is developed....
The structure and processes of local district governance and management have changed little over the past century. In many places they appear to be creaking and groaning at the seams and at least warrant inspection if not reform....
Additional steps must be taken to permit better integration of experts into policymaking.... The new professions of civil strategist and systems analyst demonstrate rather well what I have in mind on a broader scale.

The several proposals for changing the governance and management of local school districts which follow are intended to achieve practical objectives.
(1) Pursue policy development processes which are open to, indeed, require the participation of citizens and professionals.
(2) Extend and intensify the citizen role in education policy development and policy making.
Ed. Note:
The writer has selected the two proposals above in order to emphasize Dr. Cunningham’s influence on the dilution and diminution of the role of elected school board members. This is the philosophy which Dr. Cunningham took into Kentucky when he served as a consultant during that state’s education reform.
Implementation of the above two policies has been responsible for a subtle, gradual, and unhealthy trend towards the council form of government found in undemocratic, socialist countries. Before we know it, if Americans do not vociferously object to this gradual erosion of the elective process, their towns and cities will be run by unelected citizens who are accountable to absolutely no one, since unelected people cannot be removed from (voted out of) office. This writer has always wondered: If members of our communities want so much to serve the community, why don’t they run for office? Why do we see so many people signing up to be members of unelected task forces and councils? Is it because they don’t want to run the risk of not winning, or is it that an appointed position is one which requires little or no accountability and they won’t have to answer for their mistakes?
Cunningham continues:
Periodically, in the history of American education leaders have suggested that boards of education have become anachronisms, have fulfilled their mission, should be reformed, or quietly fade away. There was a period at the turn of the century when the notion of abolishing school boards attracted support from the then-emerging professions of educational administration joined by elites from the business and higher education communities. The theme was revised and revitalized in the late 1920’s, principally by Charles Judd, then chairman of the Department of Education at the University of Chicago....
These proposed changes are based essentially on the recognition that the complexity of today’s public institutions is such that they are often not governable or manageable within present approaches to their governance and management and are likely to be less so in the future. My proposals therefore retain the principles of local control and policy determination by citizens but change the conditions under which policy is determined and administration is performed.... It is expected that the present pattern of school board behavior and ideology be altered in favor of practices which will allow sounder, more rationally determined school district policy.
The following proposals are amongst those included under “Synopsis of the Policy about Policy Proposals”:
(1) That local boards of education develop discrete and definitive policy about policy, some of which are implied by the subsequent proposals for change in the governance and management of local school districts.
(2) That educational policy become the primary and continuing policy focus of local school officials as distinct from personnel, business, and physical facilities.
(4) That policy making agenda be prepared two to three years in advance to frame the

work of the board, administrative staff, professional organization leaders, student leaders, and citizen groups....
(7) That employee salary and wage determination prerogative now retained by boards of education of local school districts be moved to the state level.
(8) That representatives of professional groups (teachers and administrators organizations) for local school districts become members of the local boards of education and assume policy and accountability responsibilities equivalent to that office....
(11) That one or more states pass special legislation allowing school districts to suspend (for a period of time) current statutes, rules and regulations for their governance and management; and
(12) That processes of policy development and their enunciation as well as the processes of management be designed to include genuine, sustained student, parent, citizen, and professional educator involvement.
Yehezkel Dror suggests that for purposes of current policy making, the following elements should be standard features of a preferable policy-making method:
(1) There should be some clarification of values, objectives, and criteria for decision making....
(2) Explicit techniques, such as simulation and the Delphi method, should be used as far as they are appropriate, and knowledge from various disciplines should be brought to bear on the issues involved....
The weight of proposal one is not to locate ways to reduce the interference or meddling on the part of school board members in the everyday administration of the school system. The everyday meddling (or involvement if you prefer) of school board members in administrative matters that occurs across the country is understandable. In fact, board members believe deeply that they are serving their constituents when they interfere and meddle. Administrators often have little understanding of or patience for this sense of responsiveness that board members possess. As a consequence considerable institutional energy goes into disputes over the boundaries of board member and superintendent authority and responsibility.
Thus proposal one is based on the premise that both policy and administrative activity can be more efficient and effective if there is a substantial alteration in the ground rules for those activities....
There are constitutional, statutory, and other legal problems associated with the proposals. If taken seriously they may lead to rather general re-examination of the constitutional and statutory provisions for the governance and management of local districts. For example, many current school board responsibilities may need to be managed in other ways. Determining salaries and wages of school personnel, constructing (even naming) school buildings, authorizing the issuance of bonds, setting school tax elections or referenda of other sorts, the approval of federal applications for funding, and other such decisions may be designated as responsibilities of other governments.
The removal of the collective bargaining function from local districts and placing it at the state level would clear out underbrush and permit boards of education and top school officials to focus more directly upon pedagogical and learning policy. The work of Dr. Cunningham seems to have laid the groundwork for school site-based management which has reduced the role of elected school board members to rubber stampers of decisions made primarily by school personnel and carefully selected politically correct members of the community. Dr. Cunningham served as a consultant to the State of Kentucky’s

Education Reform Commission in 1989. The following quotes are taken from a memorandum dated November 2, 1989 from Luvern L. Cunningham and Lila N. Carol of Leadership Development Associates regarding Preliminary Models of Governance for Kentucky. The recommendations should come as no surprise to those who have read the above excerpts from Cunningham’s 1980 paper.
Each governance model is designed to facilitate the achievement of equal educational opportunity for every learner enrolled in the public schools of the State of Kentucky.
Model One, “Total Educational Governance System for Lifetime Learning, Structural Features and Highlights”—
Policymaking responsibility for a total educational system including higher education is concentrated in a single Board of Regents. A Chancellor would be selected as the administrative head of a newly integrated system encompassing provisions for lifetime learning. Local school districts would be dissolved and site-based control and management instituted.
This model is a complete system of governance for a state system of education. It is comprehensive and all inclusive, allowing for a thorough approach to accountability.
The governance structure is designed to meet each individual’s lifetime public learning needs beginning with the early years of life through the retirement period. Persons would be expected to continue a lifetime of learning consistent with the requirements of the 21st century, as portrayed so clearly in business and industry sponsored studies as well as those produced through citizens groups and public sponsorship. Lifetime educational counseling and lifetime curriculum development would be challenging new responsibilities of the integrated system.
This bureau is the central administrative center for lifetime learning. Lifetime learning is a much larger expectation for each citizen than we have acknowledged through policy in the past. Compulsory education statutes usually bracketed the ages of five through sixteen as our expectation for free public schooling in the United States. Lifetime learning on the other hand suggests a reconsideration of the compulsory education requirements pushing taxpayer responsibility both downward and upward through the age ranges. Obviously lifetime learning has tremendous implications for educational finance moving away from traditional concepts of funding toward new ideas such as individual entitlements to be expended throughout the lifetime. Each citizen would have a lifetime learning account to draw on as needed.
[Ed. Note:
For a broad view of what this last paragraph could imply, please see “When Is Assessment Really Assessment?” in Appendix XI. Many of Luvern Cunningham’s proposals were incorporated into Georgia’s application to the New American School Development Corporation entitled “The Next Generation School Project.” In the 1999 entry dealing with a letter to the editor in Athens, Georgia, some of the details of Georgia’s application—which later became a design which was offered by the Georgia 2000 Partnership for school system status leading to grant receiving and education/business partnering under Goals 2000—are stated. The reader should compare that letter’s contents to Cunningham’s proposals.]

Course Goals Collection Was Completed In 1980–81 By The U.S. Department Of Education’snorthwest Regional Educational Laboratory In Portland, Oregon,

having been initiated in 1971 as the Tri-County Course Goal Project. According to the price list for the collection, 70,000 copies were in use throughout the United States in 1981. Descriptors within the Collection state: The collection consists of fourteen volumes with 15,000 goals covering every major subject taught in the public schools from K–12.”

Course Goals Collection, based on “the theoretical work of Bloom, Tyler, Gagne, Piaget, Krathwohl, Walbesser, Mager, and others,” blatantly recommends the use of Mastery Learning when it states: “The K–12 Goals Collection provides a resource for developing diagnostic-prescriptive Mastery Learning approaches, both programmed and teacher managed.”
This collection also advocates the use of Management by Objectives and Planning, Programming and Budgeting Systems when it asserts:
Perhaps the greatest need addressed by the project is for a sound basis for accountability in education... assistance such as Planning, Program, Budget and Management systems or even general concepts such as Management by Objectives.
The use of values clarification and behavior modification is also encouraged when the Goals Collection points out that:
Value goals of two types are included: those related to processes of values clarification; secondly, those representing values, choices that might be fostered in the context of the discipline.
Goals states under “Content” that there is to be none because
[E]stablished facts change, causing many fact-bound curricula to become obsolete during the approximately five-year lag between their inception and their widespread dissemination, and social mobility and cultural pluralism make it increasingly difficult to identify the important facts.
The Course Goals Collection is evidence of illegal federal involvement in curriculum development. The extent of its use nationwide in 1981 is obvious since 70,000 copies were distributed and there were only approximately 16,000 school districts in the nation. Is it any wonder all states now have the same goals?
Charlotte Danielson, M.A., in the appendix to her Practitioners Implementation Handbook [series]: The Outcome-Based Curriculum, 2nd Ed. (Outcomes Associates; Princeton, N.J., 1992) entitled, “Classification System for the School Curriculum” acknowledged her use of the Course Goals Collection developed by the Tri-County Development Project. In the “Introduction to Outcome-Based Education” to Danielson’s Handbook she inextricably connects Outcome-Based Education to Effective Schools Research when she says:
Outcome-Based Education is a system for the organization and delivery of the instructional program in elementary and secondary schools which assures success for every student [emphasis in original]. It incorporates the findings of the Effective Schools Research, linking them together into a comprehensive and powerful model. Educators in outcome-based schools know that if they organize their schools properly, and offer high-quality instruction, all students will succeed with no change in standards. (p. 1)
[Ed. Note:
Probably the most important quote involving the above Goals Project—at least as it relates to the definition of scientific, research-based instruction—is one found in Indiana Senator Joan Gubbins’s excellent report entitled “Goals and Objectives: Towards a National Curriculum?” prepared for the National Council on Educational Research, September 26, 1986 as part of an investigation of the NWREL Goals Project. On page 16 of her report is the following statement:]

I believe the personal valuing goals (included in the Goals Project) would be more properly classified as behavior modification procedures. Therefore, the Project’s definition of behavior modification is illuminating:
[P]rocedures used in programs of behavior modification or behavioral management are based on principles derived from scientific research (e.g., stimulus-response-reinforcement).
Americans supporting the use of mastery learning, outcome-based education, and direct instruction to teach reading, take heed! When advised that such instruction is “scientific, research-based,” remember the above U.S. Department of Education definition!]

1981“a Broad-Gauged Research/Reform Plan For Secondary Education

] In the tradition of the Eight-Year Study,” proposed by The Project on Alternatives in Education (PAE) in 1981, was submitted for consideration and received funding from the U.S. Department of Education and the National Education Association. The project was conducted by leading American change agents, including Mario D. Fantini, John Goodlad, Ralph Tyler, Ronald S. Brandt, Herbert J. Walberg and Mary Ann Raywid. Explanatory cover sheet of the grant proposal was submitted on “The John Dewey Society” letterhead. PAE called for publicly funded choice schools using “effective school [outcome-based education] research” and principles of the Eight-Year Study. These called for “inculcation of social attitudes, development of effective methods of thinking, social sensitivity, better personal-social adjustment, acquisition of important information, consistent philosophy of life,” etc.

In 1981 Office Of Educational Research And Improvement:

An overview was prepared by staff members of the U.S. Department of Education for Assistant Secretary Donald Senese’s use at Congressional budget hearings. Excerpts from the paper follow:
Federal funds account for approximately 10 percent of national expenditures on education. The Federal share of educational research and related activities, however, is 90 percent of the total national investment.
The Committee on Coordinating Educational Information and Research (CCEIR), Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), in its 1980 Mission Statement defined “research” as:
For purposes of brevity, the term “educational information and research” will be used to include basic and applied research, development, improvement, evaluation, policy study, information systems development, data reporting and analysis, and the dissemination of knowledge and information gained from such inquiry.
[Ed. Note:
In other words, just about everything that goes on in the classrooms of American public schools, with the exception of salaries, school buildings, buses and the purchase of equipment, is either a direct or indirect result of funding by the U.S. Department of Education— as research!

Congress has recognized the federal government’s supposed limited authority in education. In 1970 ESEA: General Education Provisions Act was amended to include a “Prohibition against Federal Control of Education.” This section prohibits the federal government from exercising any “direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration or personnel of any education institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system.” The Education Amendments of 1976 extended this provision to all programs in the Education Division of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Although such a prohibition sounds like a restriction against federal control, in effect it leaves out more than it includes; the most important component of federal control being “research” and “development.” Who cares whether the federal government is not allowed to extend its long arm down into the choice of curriculum or the selection of resources? The point is that the federal government itself was involved in the development of that curriculum or those resources, teacher training, test development, etc., at one of its research labs or centers, or paid to have it developed by school systems across the nation.]

Association For Educational Computing And Technology

(AECT—A SPIN-OFF OF the National Education Association) received an $855,282 federal contract for “Project BEST” (Better Education Skills through Technology) in 1981. An explanatory brochure states:
WHAT IS PROJECT BEST? Project BEST is a cooperative effort involving both the federal, state, and local government and the private sector in the planning and use of modern information technologies to improve the effectiveness of basic skills, teaching and learning.
On a sheet circulated within the U.S. Department of Education as an internal document entitled “Project BEST Dissemination Design Considerations,” there appeared the following information:
Project Design Features
What We Can Control or Manipulate? = State participation/selection process
Role of advisors
Content of program
Training of state leaders
Resource people utilized
Basic skills content areas emphasized
Perception of need to use technology
BEST’s promotional flyer blatantly discussed how the project would serve not just in education, but for other program areas as well, to implement the national/international management system (MBO, PPBS, TQM):
In addition, the State Team approach and the communications network with professional associations and other groups established by the project will serve as a model for the states in implementing similar efforts in other areas of education, or in such program areas as health, human services, housing, transportation, etc.

William Spady, at that time serving as executive director of the Association of School Ad171 ministrators, and Dr. Shirley McCune, serving as head of the State Services Division, Denver, Colorado, were listed as members of the advisory board for Project BEST.
[Ed. Note:
Project BEST was used as a vehicle to assist in “State Capacity Building”—a process to better enable school oficials, administrators, legislators and others to provide supportive documentation and “research” for school reform efforts. State Capacity Building grants have been funded by the U.S. Department of Education and are usually matched with state budget funding.]

All Our Children Learning By Professor Benjamin Bloom (Mcgraw Hill Publishing Co.: New York, N.Y., 1981) was published. Excerpts follow:

In an attempt to maximize curriculum effectiveness... curriculum centers throughout the world have begun to incorporate learning-for-mastery instructional strategies into the redesign of curriculum. (p. 123)
According to Bloom:
[T]he International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IAEEA) is an organization of 22 national research centers which are engaged in the study of education.... This group has been concerned with the use of international tests, questionnaires, and other methods to relate student achievement and attitudes to instruction, social and economic factors in each nation. The evaluation instruments also represent an international consensus on the knowledge and objectives most worth learning. (pp. 33–35)
Another extremely important statement by Bloom in All Our Children Learning is found on page 180: “The purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students.”

Human Intelligence International Newsletter In Its March/April 1981 Issue

Reported that critical thinking skills research was taking place within the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Office of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the World Bank which planned on “increasing the bank’s international education and training budget to about $900 million a year.”[4] The newsletter related that the U.S. Department of Education’s National Institute of Education “has awarded a three-year contract totaling approximately $780,000 to Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc., of Cambridge, Massachusetts to analyze current programs of instruction on cognitive skills.” The July/August issue of the newsletter contained the following:
The search for new referential systems and new values modifying existing beliefs should be based on modern microbiology. A scientific approach should be free from doctrinal bias, and its findings applicable to all man-kind. Ideological confrontations between East and West, Marxism and Liberalism, Arabs and Jews do have economic, historical, and political bases, but no biological basis. These antagonisms have been created by the human brain and could be solved by the wiser brains of future man.

[Ed. Note:
It should be noted that Marilyn Jager Adams—deeply involved in “scientific, research- based phonics instruction” through her service on the Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children for the Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education of the National Research Council—has been a long time associate with the above-mentioned Bolt, Beranek and Newman.]

The April/May 1981 Issue Of Today’s Education, The National Education Association’s

monthly journal, carried an article entitled “Effective Schools: What the Research Says” by Michael Cohen, senior associate and team leader of the Research on Instruction Team of the National Institute of Education, U.S. Department of Education. Some excerpts from the article follow:
According to Ronald Edmonds of the Harvard University Graduate School of Education, these [effective school] studies suggest that differences in effectiveness among schools can be accounted for by the following five factors:
   • Strong administrative leadership by the school principal, especially in regard to instructional matters.
   • School climate conducive to learning [i.e., positive, or “psychologically facilitative,” school climate, ed.]; that is, a safe and orderly school relatively free of discipline and vandalism problems.
   • Schoolwide emphasis on basic skills instruction (which entails acceptance among the professional staff that instruction in the basic skills is the primary goal of the school).
   • Teacher expectations that all students, regardless of family background, can reach appropriate levels of achievement.
   • A system for monitoring and assessing pupil performance which is tied to instructional objectives....
...[T]he five factors identified as contributing to school effectiveness suggest the classical model of a bureaucratic organization: a goal-oriented organization with a hierarchical authority structure and a central manager who monitors behavior and deliberately adjusts organizational performance on the basis of clear and agreed-upon goals and of feedback regarding goal attainment....
The principal must be willing to clearly set the direction for the school and to hold the staff accountable for following that direction. The staff, in turn, must be willing to view the principal’s direction even if it involves giving up some claims to their own autonomy.
[Ed. Note:
The reader should keep in mind that Effective School Research has been used over the past twenty years in inner city schools and schools located in the South; that its track record, if judged by academic test scores, leaves much to be desired. In fact, Washington, D.C. and Secretary Riley’s home state of South Carolina—both of which have used Effective School Research—had the lowest academic test scores in the nation, to be followed by many inner city schools, especially those in the southern part of the nation. In this regard, the reader should re-read the 1913 entry containing quotes from Frederick T. Gates, director of charity for the Rockefeller Foundation.]


In A 1981 Alaska Governor’s Task Force Report On Effective Schooling

To the Honorable Jay S. Hammond the following statements were made in regard to mastery learning and direct instruction (highly structured learning activities):
It has been determined that in the learning of specific skills and factual data that it is possible to enhance achievement by using the approach of mastery learning, wherein instructional objectives are clearly defined—and instructional activities are tied directly to objectives. It has been demonstrated that direct instruction—highly structured learning activity—is effective with certain groups of students. These approaches will assist students with low achievement to move closer to the current mean or average. Yet, a highly structured system of instruction applied to everyone may in fact impede the progress of those students achieving at a level above the current mean or average. The result is that, while variance (or the spread of scores from the mean) is reduced, there is a reduction in both directions. Low achievers may move closer to the mean, but high achievers may well do likewise. The examples presented above regarding achievement may well apply to the operation of schools. If effective schooling practices are too narrow and a rigid system results, variance among districts will be reduced, but the limiting of creativity and the limiting of schools in their ability to adapt to local circumstances will cause reduction in variance from both above and below the mean or average. (pp. 38–39) [Ed. Note:
The introduction to this report which stated: “As part of the Task Force effort several studies were conducted by Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory under contract with the (Alaska) Department of Education,” should explain to the reader that the U.S. Department of Education has funded—and continues to fund—mastery learning and direct instruction programs even in the face of evaluative evidence that strongly suggests that average and above average students do n