Vouchers and choice

E-Mail from Charlotte Iserbyt:

Please send far and wide and put on your websites.

Thanks, ALL, for whatever you can do to spread this message to elected officials, especially in Congress and state legislatures,  churches, private and religious schools and associations, and home school associations, as well as the "usual suspects."

Charlotte T. Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor, U.S. Department of Education
Charlotte Iserbyt
Sunday, July 07, 2002 9:54 AM

Death Sentence for Private and Home Education, Courtesy of Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's recent 5-4 decision allowing the constitutionality of financial aid to parents which they may use at religious or private schools, including virtual academy  computer-assisted-instruction) charter schools available to home schoolers,  will result in the deliberate dumbing down of all education.   In this latter regard, the writer of this article was told
in 1981 by the Director of the Office of Libraries and Learning Technology, U.S. Department of Education, that "in the future all education will take place in the home, but that we will always have the schools for socialization purposes".  This is the UN's lifelong learning/brainwashing concept which places all community services under the umbrella of the community school.  (The National Alliance of Business refers to this agenda as Kindergarten-Age 80)

The public sector succumbed years ago to federal control through  funding. Now private schools, willing to go the "voucher" route in order to remain in business, will have the opportunity to be equally dumbed down, denied a liberal arts curriculum, and  stripped of all sound moral education.  I can hear the howling from conservatives who have fought hard for school choice the first time the heavy hand of the federal government lands on a private school denying it the right to determine "what is right and what is wrong." Those private schools which courageously, for reasons of conscience, resist vouchers will eventually be forced out of business due to their inability
to remain competitive.

Interestingly enough, the blame for this incredibly dangerous Trojan Horse decision can be laid at the feet of the conservative majority.

Is school choice a plot to implement the socialist, corporate fascist, workforce training agenda for the global planned economy? You 'betcha. This decision will succeed in carrying out the long-standing leftist/nternationalist goal of total control of all education (public and private) through the dollar.   It provides a classic example of what the late Senator Edmund Muskie, Dem., ME. referred to when he described how the Democrats, when they couldn't get something controversial approved, would go to the Republicans  for action. Muskie used as an example President Nixon's
implementation of  regional government (the carving up of the nation into ten regions), something the Democrats had been unable to accomplish.

The late Robert Hutchins, left-wing educator, former President of the University of Chicago, and supporter of World Government, would be ecstatic over this decision.  In fact, he could have written it.   In an article by Virgil C. Blum in The Commonweal, January 31, 1964 entitled "Freedom and
Equality", p. 513, Blum says:

"Dr. Robert M. Hutchins sees no constitutional difficulty in federal aid for the education of church-related school children in secular subjects.  The fact that such education 'is permeated by religion' or that federal aid for such education is an 'aid to religion,' he says 'is immaterial.'  The
benefit that accrues to religion, Hutchins argues, is 'incidental to an overriding public benefit.'  Consequently, 'such incidental benefits,' he reasons 'do not invalidate the legislation'."

It is not difficult to understand why Hutchins would be supporting aid to church schools. He knew it was not a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow but government control and therefore, he could argue that "aid to religion" as a byproduct of government support for church schools would be
'incidental to an overriding public benefit.'  It is difficult to interpret Hutchins' definition of "overriding public benefit" as anything other than "government control".

(The above quotes are taken from Tuition Tax Credits, A Responsible Appraisal, Morris, 1983)

Why do not more people understand that government control of private and home school education  is exactly what is going to happen?  If the question of school choice is considered in a vacuum, without the benefit of extensive understanding of the history and controversial goals of American public education,  if it is considered simply in the context of providing a better education for low income children, if it is considered only as an issue of equal funding for all children, one escapes  the crux of the matter:

ACCOUNTABILITY...  accountability to the government which is granting the
voucher or tax credit.

While working in the U.S. Department of Education and involved in supervising grants and contracts to local schools, government labs and centers,  United States and foreign universities, etc., I had  to make sure that the recipients of the federal grants complied with federal regulations, guidelines, and criteria for that particular project.    I never questioned the wisdom of such a requirement.  Although the U.S. Department of Education is in itself an unconstitutional entity and should not exist,  it would
still have been illegal to allow recipients of federal money (extracted from the taxpayers) to spend that money as they wished.  There must be accountability as long as we Americans want government to perform in an orderly, fair way, and I am sure the reader will agree with me on that score.

Elected officials and others in supervisory positions, including public school superintendents, who complain about government regulations should when the government honey pot is passed around the board table, just say "NO". That is the only way to avoid the regulations imposed rightfully in the name of "accountability, " and to remain truly a free agent.  During my three-year tenure as an elected school board member I voted "NO" on every single motion to accept federal curriculum or federal funding.

So, why is it that those promoting tuition tax credits and vouchers have missed this point of accountability?  Is it because it is too simple to understand?  Is it because they feel that the need to  level the field for low income children should take precedence over accountability requirements
and that accountability requirements are not to be feared?  Read on...

In 1981, while working on a U.S. Department of Education technology grant to the Association for Educational Computing and Technology, a spin-off of the National Education Association, I was shocked  by some internal comments in an early draft of the grant.  Although I was not working in an "Eyes Only" position for the CIA or Defense Department, but for an agency which suposedly exists to provide a service to parents and children all over the country,  this paper was stamped CONFIDENTIAL!     On one page there appeared the following information:  "PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES:  What We (the federal government) Can Control or Manipulate?  Under that incredible question the following items and activities were listed:  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."   The main reason
I gave that document to the press, for which I was subsequently relieved of my duties, was that I  was appalled at the blatant attitude of the federal  government regarding the national public school system.  Do the five justices who ruled favoring school choice proposals live in such a dreamworld that they believe the  government will require less of the private schools than it does of the public schools?

Part 2 of Charlotte Iserbyt's e-mail:

There is a certain naivety, Alice in Wonderland attitude, amongst those who should know better regarding what will happen to private schools and home schools which accept vouchers. Did the Supreme Court majority not study the catastrophic history of school choice in France which resulted, in 1983, with the socialist French Government under Mitterand assuming control of all private and religious education which received government funding?

The conservative Mayor of Paris, Jacques Chirac, said the takeover threatens "'the free choice of schools by parents, the basic character of private education, the freedom of management of these establishments."

The conservative Paris newspaper, LeFigaro said it was worse than that: "Private schools are no longer threatened.  The propositions of Education Minister Alain Savery on the future of private education are equivalent to a sentence of death."

(Quotes taken from Morris, Tuition Tax Credits...A Responsible Appraisal)

It is understandable that parents are desperate to find a solution to the devastating problems facing their children in the public schools.  However, they should realize that the despicable situation has been planned for over 150 years (the dumbing down was deliberate...the Marxian dialectic at
work), in order to get the parents to call for and accept what is being sold to them as a solution providing freedom of choice, which in fact is what the internationalists, especially the Carnegie Corporation has had planned for at least 75 years.   The Carnegie Corporation's plan to change our economic system from free market to collectivist was published in 1934 in its little book "Conclusions and Recommendations for the Social Studies".    Not only did President Reagan in 1985 sign agreements with President Gorbachev to merge the two education systems, but Carnegie Corporation signed even more extensive agreements with the Soviet Academy of Science to carry out the same agenda.

Let me warn parents and private school administrators:    "Freedom to choose" is exactly the opposite of what they and the private sector will receive if they take one penny of federal, state or local tax money to educate  children.   Believe it or not, slavery is right around the corner, since once the private sector is controlled through vouchers, creating a partnership with government (corporate fascism), students, having been psychologically profiled,  will be tracked into specific jobs to suit the
needs of the corporate sector and the global economy.   This is the failed international socialist quota system  that in essence provides NO CHOICE! Our children will have no freedom to choose what they want for their futures.  This is going on right now in the public school sector, with some 9th graders spending 3 out of 5 days a week at the job site, rather than studying math, science, literature, history, foreign languages, art, music, etc. which would give them a liberal arts education,  indispensable for upward mobility, freedom, and an understanding of the world in which they live.   Aristotle, 384-322 B.C. expressed this latter concept well when he said "Educated men are as much superior to uneducated men as the living are to the dead."

What school choice is all about is not giving parents a real choice without strings attached; it is about controlling all children (human resources), everywhere on this planet,  in order to  implement the corporate fascist global economy, with 100% participation.

Why, otherwise does one find most of the major players and promoters of school choice coming from the corporate sector, with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as the largest and loudest supporter of all?   TIME magazine, 6/8/92, owned by Time-Warner came close to the truth when it said "...the Bush Administration strongly supports the concepts that underlie the Edison Project...Many observers believe Whittle's long-term plan anticipates the use of these (voucher) funds.  If adopted, the reform (vouchers) could funnel billions of public dollars into private schools..."  And NEWSWEEK, 6/8/92, not to be outdone by TIME, said "There's no question that Whittle schools could be extremely rewarding...if Congress approves a voucher system..." (Lyon, Connections and Conflicts of Interest, 1992)

Are we so  naive that we believe  big business really cares about our children's futures?  It cares, and rightfully so, about big profits. That's perfectly fine, but not at the expense of our children's freedom to choose their futures.

Conservatives have a problem understanding the overt and heavily-funded position of the teachers' unions in opposition to school choice, and refuse to understand or accept the NEA and AFT leadership's covert position of support.    The unions would be pretty stupid not to support it when they know that the international education agenda calls for such "choice" in order to implement the global workforce training agenda and that their membership will be called upon to staff the training sites.  It is the average traditional classroom teacher who truly opposes school choice for reasons, some of which are cited in this article.  The following quotes taken from Billy Lyon's excellent article "Connections and Conflicts of Interest", 1992, substantiate the above conclusion:

the late Albert Shanker, President, American Federation of Teachers--"It may be that we can't get the big changes we need without choice."

President George Bush, Sr.-- "Choice is the one reform that drives all others."

Former U.S. Secretary of Educatin Lauro Cavazos--"President Bush and are determined to use the power of choice to help restructure American education."

To illustrate how the promoters of this totalitarian agenda know full well what they are doing, one need go no further than to the writings of  major education change agent Chester Finn, who was once opposed to school choice but  is presently a supporter of the concept. (Finn assisted in the
development of the National Institute of Education in 1970,   served under Secretary William Bennett as Assistant Secretary, Office of Educational Research and Improvement in the mid-eighties, and was the author of America 2000, renamed Goals 2000 by President Clinton.)

In an article he wrote entitled "Public Service, Public Support, Public Accountability", March, 1982, National Association of Secondary School Principals' Bulletin, p. 69, Finn said:

"Some to be sure, like to think they can have it both ways; i.e. can obtain aid without saddling themselves with unacceptable forms of regulation.  But most acknowledge the general applicability of the old adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune, and are more or less resigned to amalgamating or choosing between assistance and autonomy."

And, in American Education, May, 1982, "Public Support for Private Education," Part 1, p.5, Finn said:

"Short of scattering money in the streets or handing it out to everyone who wants some, the funding agency must define elegible recipients...This means, in a word,'regulation,'  the inevitable concomitant of public financial support."

The other side of the coin, Finn says , is "the obligation of private schools to recognize certain limits to their differentness and certain ways they must conform to the norms and expectations of a society that values and supports them...  Some to be sure like to think they can have it both ways; i.e., can obtain aid without saddling themselves with unacceptable forms of regulation.  But most  cknowledge the general applicability of the old adage that he who pays the piper calls the tune, and are more or less resigned to amalgamating or choosing between assistance and autonomy."

(Quotes taken from "Tuition Tax Credits...A Responsible Appraisal," Morris, 1983)

In returning to this most bizarre Supreme Court Decision, something comes to mind.   Why did Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor attend a conference in Europe to familiarize herself with World Court decisions and how they could play out in the United States, under our Constitution? Could this school choice decision have anything to do with "universal/global"
education, i.e., public private partnerships, work force training? Remember, it was Karl Marx who called for a "combination of education with industrial production."  And the global government we see being implemented today is nothing more nor less than what Lenin called for:  international

The United States of America has exchanged its highly successful free market system and its republican form of government  for a failed "ism" form of government.  The ultimate result of this Supreme Court decision will be a change in our form of government to any one of the following failed three ISM-type governments:   corporate fascism, communism, socialism. Why have
our elected officials allowed this to happen?  Because they no longer represent the best interests of their constituents.  Their allegiance is to the globalist elite at the United Nations and elsewhere,  from whom they receive their marching orders.

Note:  Credit for some of the research in this article goes to Barbara M. Morris who wrote the indispensable book on the dangers of school choice: "Tuition Tax Credits...A Responsible Appraisal" and to Billy Lyon who wrote "Connections and Conflicts of Interest (Or, There Ought to Be an Investigation!)1992.

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy /Advisor, U.S. Department of Education, and author, the deliberate dumbing down of america...A Chronolological Paper Trail, 1999, 3rd printing, 2001.

*ARTICLE X-  The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people. (Education is not delegated to
the national government.)