Customer Reviews

Fed Ed: The New Federal Curriculum and How It's Enforced

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

From Horace Mann, to John Dewey, to the authors of Goals 2000. The effort to change America and her form of government continues. To change the way America thinks, these "elitist, leftists" have long attempted to capture the minds of American youth by editing and presenting slanted facts as truth. Our Founding Fathers must be rolling over in their graves.

In this short but to the point book Allen Quist connects the dots and begins to answer some of the questions many of us have had concerning why the education our children are receiving today appears quite different from that which we received, especially in the disciplines of history, civics and government.

He reveals that for the first time in our nation's history, laws have been enacted that give a non-governmental organization the authority to write and edit what our children learn as fact in the civics and government curriculum in grades K-12.
This New Federal Curriculum supposedly covers the Bill of Rights and the Constitution but slants the whole truth by omitting any reference to the Second Amendment
(are you starting to get the point?)

This book is a MUST READ for every American citizen concerned with the education of our youth and the future of Constitutional freedom as an American way of life!

Have you ever wondered why your children are being pressured to choose an occupation early, even before they begin high school? Have you considered the efforts that every school system exerts just to meet federal requirements? Did you know that the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states clearly that education is a state and local prerogative? Why then do we have a federal curriculum?

FedEd answers these questions, in four parts:

1. The Nature of the New Federal Curriculum
2. The Content of the New Federal Curriculum
3. Enforcing the New Federal Curriculum
4. The Road Back

Many of us have noticed that significant changes have taken place in America's system of education. If you think it's simply a matter of new educational theories, Allen Quist will disagree. Simply stated in his text, the restructuring of American education is all about restructuring America.

Proponents of this new system insist that profound changes must be made in the America's system of government; and, beginning in the schools, they are preparing our children to accept these changes.

In the old form of government, the one that our Founding Fathers envisioned when they penned the U.S. Constitution, such radical change would require significant legislative debate; but for the most part, this has not occurred.

Generally, most legislators, even those who are helping to bring it about, are unaware of the huge policy changes that are being made. Most legislators would oppose these changes if they knew what they were and how they were being put into place. Those who are aware are, for the most part, those who are the proponents of this change.

The transformation of American society is taking place on several fronts, a primary focus being the restructuring of education. While this is not the ultimate goal, it serves as an important means to that goal. The goal is the restructuring of government, one that is well underway.

In FedEd, Quist provides a description of how the federal government has managed to dictate educational policy in this country, and why. He also describes the characteristics and contents of the new Federal Curriculum, and how it is now being implemented.

Contrary to the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, state and local government no longer determine education policy. The federal government now determines what the "Bill of Rights" really means, and what information and attitudes students are to learn under the guise of civic competence and responsibility.

Did you know that a non-governmental organization (NGO), known as the Center for Civic Education, has been designated by federal law to write the federal education standards for civics and government? This one NGO now determines, by force of federal law, what is to be taught in every public school regarding civics and government. There is no review by Congress, or by the American citizens. There is no bidding process. By federal law, no one else has anything to say about it.

Is it any wonder that our children don't understand our constitutional rights as we did, and as our parents did?

While there was a long period of preparation, the problems began with the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, signed into law by President Clinton, strengthened by a series of funding appropriations bills. To make matters worse, Congress passed No Child Left Behind in December, 2002, which authorizes and funds the Center for Civic Education to continue its control of the Federal Curriculum.

American freedom is in jeopardy and most members of Congress haven't a clue as to what is happening.

The new Federal Curriculum is a politicized curriculum, with every theme involving political action or governmental restructuring, with the civics and government standards at its heart and center.

The National Standards for Civics and Government states:

Achievement of these standards should be fostered not only by explicit attention to the civic education in the curriculum, but also in related subjects such as history, literature, geography, economics, and the sciences and by the informal curriculum of the school, the pattern of relations maintained in the school and its government.

Schools are required to teach the national standards for civics and government in most, if not all, other subjects. The entire curriculum in each school has been redone in order to achieve this integration.

Civics deals with the relationship between citizens and government, and civics education is changing the way in which our children view the role of government in their lives. The focus of education today is not primarily educational, but ideological and political.

The new education system is more concerned with government than with education, its primary purpose being to mold our children into supporters of a new system of government. This requires that our children be indoctrinated into a worldview that leads to this new form of government.

Let's look at some statistics.

Number of Times Various Topics Appear in the National Standards for Civics and Government:

References to the environment 17
References to multiculturism 42
References to the 1st Amendment 81
References to the 2nd Amendment 0

In the entire curriculum, not one reference is made to the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; not even in the section on the Bill of Rights itself. Is it any wonder that we are producing a generation of children who no longer believe that we have the right to bear arms? Reasonable arguments can be made for or against the practicality of citizens carrying weapons, but this is an argument that should take place in Congress, not to be decided by omission.

The 2nd Amendment is in the U.S. Constitution, after all; it has not been repealed. On page 207 of the textbook form of the Federal Curriculum, entitled, We the People: the Citizen and the Constitution, written by the CCE, is written this statement:

As fundamental and lasting as its guarantees have been, the Bill of Rights is a document of the eighteenth century, reflecting the issues and concerns of the age in which it was written.

Notice the past tense, as the CCE writes of the guarantees found in our Bill of Rights.

Why haven't we all heard of this? Why are the American people generally unaware of the radical changes that have taken place in America's system of education?

One of the reasons involves the place of the media, as it relates to the new curriculum. The world-wide environmental compact known as U.N. Agenda 21 views the media as an accomplice. It states, in Section 31:10:

Countries and the United Nations system should promote a cooperative relationship with the media ... to mobilize their experience in shaping public behavior.

Simply put, the media are to be used to promote rather than to inform. The media is to be engaged in the dissemination of propaganda, not objective information.

How have they done? Quist gives some examples.

On October 11, 1997, two students were shot to death by a fellow student at a high school in Mississippi. The assistant principal, when he saw what was happening, ran to his car, grabbed a handgun, ran back into the school and, pointing the handgun at the assailant, subdued him until the police arrived some time later.

How did the media report on this beneficial use of a gun? While more than 700 media outlets carried the story of the school shooting:

Only 19 media outlets even mentioned the assistant principal.

Only 13 media outlets reported that the assistant principal played a significant role.

Only 9 media outlets indicated that the assistant principal had or used a gun.

In the summer of 2001, before the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the news was dominated by a shark attack in Pensacola, Florida. An eight-year-old boy was badly injured by a shark, his arm severed. We read that the boy's uncle, with assistance from another beachgoer, wrestled the shark to shore, prying the boy's arm from its mouth, after which it was surgically reattached.

Most of us didn't know, because the media didn't tell us, that a handgun was involved. The man who came to the assistance of the boy's uncle shot the shark between the eyes, so that its mouth could be pried open, and the boy's arm retrieved.

So what's the answer? Can our children escape into private schools, or should we homeschool?

While in some states, including Maine, there is yet some relief to be found in homeschooling your children, this can be expected to become more difficult. The new education system has always said that it would encompass all students, including those attending private school and those being educated at home.

Some states, such as California, have already passed laws that make homeschooling difficult, if not impossible, for most parents, and regulate private education to the effect of ensuring that they adhere to the new standards.

Then, wherever your child is educated in the early years, once he goes to college it will catch up to him. Every standardized test item must be approved, item by item, by diversity/sensitivity committees, so if you want your student to perform well, they must be indoctrinated with this point of view.

Private school and homeschooled children, who are not taught the new curriculum, will be at a disadvantage when taking the important tests. It used to be that private and homeschooled students did much better than their public school counterparts on both achievement and aptitude tests, the reason being that non-public school students generally had better skills in reading, math, and science than did their public school counterparts.

This will come to an end under the new system, not because these students are not as well educated, but because the tests are being redesigned to measure only what students have learned as specified by the new standards, which are tied to the new Federal Curriculum.

In the revised Iowa Basics Test, based on the new Federal Curriculum, for example, in the Social Studies section there are 42 questions, 12 of them dealing with environmental issues.

Number of Questions on Various Subjects in the Iowa Basics Test:

The United States Constitution 0
Any United States President 0
Any explorer such as Christopher Columbus 0
Any United States leader 0
Any of the wars involving the United States 0
The basic rights of life, liberty, or property 0
The importance of free enterprise 0
The meaning of being a democracy or republic 0
The location of any state, any river, any city, any territory, any nation, or any ocean 0
The environment 12

Quist provides several other examples.

If you want your student to do well, will you spend more time on the basic facts of American history, geography, and government, or will you spend more time on environmental issues?

Otherwise, as private and homeschooled students begin to score poorly on these tests, can we expect further regulation to be imposed in order to remedy the problem?

The principal themes required by the new Federal Curriculum are:

1. Undermining national sovereignty.
2. Redefining natural rights.
3. Minimizing natural law.
4. Promoting environmentalism.
5. Requiring multiculturalism.
6. Restructuring government.
7. Redefining education as job skills.

While our Declaration of Independence begins and ends with an affirmation of national sovereignty, the Federal Curriculum mentions national sovereignty only eight times in its National Standards for Civics and Government. On two of these occasions, the subject is mentioned in passing in sidebar quotations, with no explanation of the subject given. The other six times that national sovereignty is mentioned, it is mentioned in the main text and it is worded in exactly the same way. The fact that the wording on national sovereignty is exactly the same is significant, as it shows that the wording has been constructed with great care. That wording is as follows:

The world is divided into nation-states that claim sovereignty over a defined territory and jurisdiction over everyone within it.

Notice the wording, "The world is divided into ..." The language should read, "The world consists of ...," which would then be accurate. If it is going to be accurate to say that the world is divided into, then what is, or should be, the primary political unit? The entire world, of course. The world becomes the primary political entity, and the nations become mere pieces of the whole. The nations become secondary.

Notice also the language, "claim sovereignty." The United States has been a sovereign nation for over two hundred years. Is that all we can say about our nation, that is has a "claim" to sovereignty? Shouldn't we boldly say that we are a sovereign nation? That is what we said in our Declaration of Independence at a time when our national sovereignty was certainly more open to question than it is today.

This was no accident. The wording implies that our national sovereignty is subject to question, that it should not be assumed to be real or legitimate.

This should be no surprise. The Center for Civic Education provides curriculum, not only for the United States, but for a long list of foreign countries, as well.

Its mission statement reads:

The mission of the Center for Civic Education is to promote an enlightened and responsible citizenry committed to democratic principles and actively engaged in the practice of democracy in the United States and other countries.

Words are important. They contain great power. The new federal standards have been worded with great care. The wording of these standards need to be taken seriously.

The new federal standards call for indoctrination, not education. Every state in the nation is scrambling to change its education system into something that is contrary to everything America once stood for. In his book, Quist cuts through the rhetoric, revealing the agenda that lies beneath.

I can attest that everything in these books is TRUE.

There is no point in being conservatives who wish to preserve the constitutional republic if we allow these people to poison our children from the age of 3.