As far back as 1936, the NEA (National Education Association) stated:"We stand for socializing the individual." The NEA, in its Policy For American Education, opined: "The major problem of education in our times arises out of the fact that we live in a period of fundamental social change. In the new democracy [what happened to our republic?], education must share in the responsibility of giving purpose and direction to social change. The major function of the school is the social orientation of the individual . . . Education must operate according to a well-formulated social policy."NEA specialist Paul Haubner,proclaimed:
"The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kind of values-education their children receive in school; . that is what is wrong with those who say there is a universal system of values. Our goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values."Chester M. Pierce, M.D., Professor of Education and Psychiatry at Harvard:
"Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our Founding Fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It's up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well - by creating the international child of the future."Former Nebraska state liberal Democrat Peter Hoagland, on radio in 1983 stated:
Fundamental, Bible believing people do not have the right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs because we, the state, are preparing them for the year 2000, when America will be part of a one-world global society and their children will not fit in.John J. Dunphy in "A New Religion For A New Age":
"The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new - the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of 'love thy neighbor' will finally be achieved."These are not unknown people - these are so-called experts that have direct or indirect influence on the public school agenda. Any wonder parents are desperately trying to get their children into private school at their own cost or with vouchers (that liberals don't want them to have). Any wonder why parents always line up when a Charter School opens, yet local governments limit the number that can exist?
Welcome to Socialism!
9 comments:
"Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives."
What part of this statement do you have a problem with? Are you against the idea of a "democratically" run society? Or do you favor the profits for the few over the needs of the whole? Or do you just not accept the idea that the public has any needs or rights at all?
The legal public (as to not include illegal aliens) has every right to choose - something that socialism is against. For example, if the public wants to attend private schools that is something that socialists would not stand for. As long as it's the socialist way then it's ok - according to you.
I accept the idea that the legal public has the right to profit, to attain greater profit - something socialists are against. Socialists don't want the public to have the right to get more profit than anyone else - so socialism is against the rights of the people to attain more.
I answered your comment out of respect - but just realize your comment had absolutely nothing to do with my post regarding socialism and public schools. Please stay on topic!
My initial response IS on target because you have equated the NEA WITH socialism.
if the public wants to attend private schools that is something that socialists would not stand for.
That's plain wrong. Socialists have no problem with people choosing to send their kids to private schools; we simply don't think the public should be required to pay for individual family decisions. If you, as a parent, want to opt out of the public system, fine, but you should pay the cost!
I accept the idea that the legal public has the right to profit, to attain greater profit - something socialists are against.
Socialists are merely against profit for the few at the expense of the many.
Public funding for education should be available to parents to use at whatever educational institution is available to choose from. In your explaination above only those that can afford private school can send their children and not poor families. Under the better way anyone can send their children to private school - but again, that is something socialists will fight - already a long track record to that fact. Perhaps it is because it will move more and more children out of the fog of socialistic indoctrination.
Socialists are merely against profit for the few at the expense of the many. - well I guess you wouldn't like it if you are the type that doesn't apply himself, that doesn't try to get ahead, and would prefer to just pump gas or flip burgers. The flat field you wish to force on society is just that - flat. It will never work because there are too many people in the world that want more, and wanting more and having the (legal) drive to attain more is not wrong - except in socialism.
So if you reply please answer directly this question: Do you disagree with any of the quotes from the people in this post as they relate to the topic that they were talking about - socialism as applied to education? Or do you think they are wrong? Simple questions - so simple answers please!
This is an excellent entry! I don't think I've seen a post quite like this one in the Blogosphere - despite having spent so much time in it, during the past several years.
Why haven't I been to this blog before? [I came here via your comment at Cao's Blog... which I would unfortunately disagree with] I just looked at your links listing, and I pretty much like what I see... Thanks for your emphasis on the immigration crisis; I met [more than that, actually...] Michelle at the Leadership Institute's national conference in April. Are you also a student? Keep up the good work here.
Here's what's wrong with public funding for private schools -- it removes democracy from the equation. The public has no say re how a private school is run -- if we have no say, why should we have to pay for it? Under the public school system, community members are ELECTED to the school board and they serve (usually without pay) as the representatives of the public.
What if we socialists decide to open private schools across the nation? If the voucher system becomes law, then YOUR tax dollars would go to fund students attending private schools advocating a political system you loathe. Would you be okay with that?
Thank you for your visit aakash and your comments!
Poor trey still doesn't get it. Public funding in the form of vouchers would be used for whatever school the parents wanted to use them at. Since most would use them at private schools then I can see your fear, but it would be their choice, NOT the choice of the government. Only then would you have democracy. Without choice, there is no democracy.
The public has no choice how the public schools are run. In private schools there is much less overhead and they are able to focus on academics and not on the socialist/union issues.
What if we socialists decide to open private schools across the nation? If the voucher system becomes law, then YOUR tax dollars would go to fund students attending private schools advocating a political system you loathe. Would you be okay with that? - I would have no problem at all with that, since the attendence at such schools would be so dismal they would eventually have to close down. You know that, I know that.
HEY - don't argue with me. Take your hostilities out on all the parents that want to put their children into private schools, or want more charter schools opened - but the socialists/liberals will not allow that.
You seem to be the only one in the dark, not knowing the state of the public school system. Like I quoted in a post July 13, 2005 from Craig Barret, CEO of Intel: the biggest ticking time bomb in the U.S. is the sorry state of our K-12 education system. It's the educational quality of our workforce that will determine our competitiveness.. And from a large human resource company: According to the results compiled by Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a national human resources consulting firm, 44 percent of HR executives did not meet their hiring goals in the first half of 2005 because of a lack of qualified candidates.
Argue with those facts becuase it really doesn't matter what you post here!
Public funding in the form of vouchers would be used for whatever school the parents wanted to use them at. Since most would use them at private schools then I can see your fear, but it would be their choice, NOT the choice of the government. Only then would you have democracy. Without choice, there is no democracy.
Oh, I get it now. You're in favor of individual democracy but NOT societal democracy. Yes, parents get to choose the school but NOT how the school is run or what's taught. Taxpayers are then forced to pay for something they have no say in -- some democracy!
I find it interesting that you seem to have a penchant for bad-mouthing the poor. In your eyes, people are poor because they're lazy, unmotivated or just want handouts. You're NOT in favor of giving them any kind of a helping hand or subsidy...UNLESS it involves education. Then, all of a sudden, you're willing to subsidize them so they can go to private schools.
Based on your track record, this is an inconsistent argument. You should be arguing that we shouldn't be helping these "lazy bums" (who don't want to work) send their kids to private schools. But conveniently you've changed your tune on this one issue.
What I can't figure out is that, if you're willing to give x amount of dollars to the children of the poor, you should be just as willing to give x amount of dollars to their parents (welfare) to choose to live or shop anywhere they want.
You seem to have a problem with words that are derived from the root word, social. Why is that? It's a very COMMON word.
Social is defined as a) Living together in communities; b)Of or relating to communal living; c)Of or relating to human society and its modes of organization. Hence, socialism is a political philosophy based on the concept of people living within society. It differs from the applications of a republic or totalitarian state which both seem to place more emphasis on "things" as opposed to living, breathing people.
Do you realize that in the U.S. corporations often enjoy greater rights than human beings? Corporations don't exist in nature -- they exist merely on paper. Yet, despite the fact that people are real and corporations are not, the latter tends to control the former.
"We stand for socializing the individual."
How could anyone oppose a simple statement like that? Schools, churches, youth groups and families all help to socialize children. Socialization is nothing more than teaching children how to relate to others in the world.
In the new democracy [what happened to our republic?], education must share in the responsibility of giving purpose and direction to social change.
Again, how could anyone oppose such a statement? All institutions (by their very nature) share in the responsibility of giving purpose and direction to social change. There's no way to avoid it.
The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kind of values-education their children receive in school;
I agree with this statement in a limited sense. Individual parents can't be allowed to exert much influence simply because each parent will want to influence things differently. You have to have some norms.
"Every child in America entering school at the age of five is mentally ill because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our Founding Fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It's up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well - by creating the international child of the future."
I don't agree with the tenor of this statement.
Fundamental, Bible believing people do not have the right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs because we, the state, are preparing them for the year 2000, when America will be part of a one-world global society and their children will not fit in.
I don't agree with that statement at all.
"The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new - the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of 'love thy neighbor' will finally be achieved."
Personally, I agree with his underlying point. However, I don't agree that it's the job of the public school system to bury this "rotting corpse".
These are not unknown people - these are so-called experts that have direct or indirect influence on the public school agenda.
So what? These people are just a few among thousands. I'm sure you can find quotes from education "experts" who agree with your line of thinking. I could easily string together a few quotes from Adolf Hitler. Does that mean that all Germans think as he did?
Of course it doesn't.
Post a Comment