Education is…

One of the few things a person is willing to pay for and not get.

William Lowe Bryan (1860–1955) 10th president of Indiana University (1902 to 1937).

Custom Search

Hanging around until you’ve caught on.
Robert Lee Frost (1874-1963) American poet.

One of the chief obstacles to intelligence and freedom of thought.
Bertrand A. Russell (1872-1970) English philosopher, mathematician, and writer.

Man’s going forward from cocksure ignorance to thoughtful uncertainty.
Kenneth G. Johnson (1922-2002) American educator, semanticist.

A form of self-delusion.

Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915) American author, editor and printer.


[A process] which makes one rogue cleverer than another.
Oscar Wilde (1856-1900) Irish poet and dramatist.

The inculcation of the incomprehensible into the ignorant by the incompetent.

Josiah Charles Stamp (1880-1941) British civil servant, industrialist, economist, statistician and banker.

[Education] consists mainly in what we have unlearned.
Mark Twain (1835-1910) American writer.

Education is what remains when we have forgotten all that we have been taught.
George Savile, Marquis of Halifax (1633-1695) English statesman and author.

Education is a progressive discovery of our ignorance.
Will Durant (1885-1981) U.S. author and historian.


A succession of eye-openers each involving the repudiation of some previously held belief.

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) British dramatist, critic, writer.

Education is a state-controlled manufactory of echoes.
Norman Douglas (1868-1952) British writer.

Education is the process of casting false pearls before real swine.
Prof. Irwin Edman (1896–1954) American philosopher and educator.

It is from Dewey’s own words that you can see his true intentions. He wrote and helped write the Humanist Manifesto after returning from a trip to meet with others of like mind in eastern europe. Two books he wrote tell how he planned to accomplish the goals laid out in the Humanist Manifesto through America’s public school system. The first title is Faith in Education and the second is Democracy and Education.

B.F. Skinner jumped on the bandwagon, working to change the mold for American children through public schools and help that mold conform with many goals of the Humanist Manifesto. THE FATHER OF MODERN EDUCATION

John Dewey is recognized as the Father of modern education. The N.E.A. gave him high recognition for his works. Much of his changes to schools was made possible by the theory of evolution being so strongly accepted after the writings of Charles Darwin. John Dewey wrote a theory of education and democracy that was based on evolution.

The education theories of Dewey would not have been so acceptable to people had it not been for the previous acceptance of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.That theory was widely received around the world. Evolution praises change and declares the highest good is a positive change. Darwin’s theory helped strengthen the ideas of relativism and positivism which had been around for ages but were reinforced by John Dewey.

John Dewey developed ideas of evolutionary democracy and evolutionary education and evolutionary law.

Those ideas had as their foundation the premise that nothing is constant. He said the only constant good is change for the good, ie positivism. He did not measure things from any absolute standards, but from a relative perception based on human desire.

Relativism denies absolutes. God is absolute. The word of God teaches absolutes. Evolution flies in the face of God’s word.

Relativism and positivism are destructive ideologies that sheer men away from the truth a little at a time.

These ideas were used by John Dewey and Carl Marx and even Joseph Stalin to lead people astray.

Engels wrote that if you could remove a people from their roots, they could be easily swayed to your point of view.

This is happening in America with the destruction of our godly heritage in public school courses.

By omission the godly heritage is being lost to our children. The schools are simply not teaching the godly heritage of this nation.

Instead the schools are teaching children to become better citizens of the new world economic order. The students compare the best SAT prep courses and are encourage to get higher grades to better their chances on the workforce. This focus is even seen in WFISD.


Charlotte Secret Societies

How Communist Manipulate Americans

John Taylor Gatto


John Dewey was a signer of the Humanist Manifesto. Many give him credit for writing most of it.

Humanism would have men be their own gods. Humanism would make everything relative to what the individual perceives as improvement or detriment. Humanism denies the Salvation of God and replaces it with salvation by men.

John Dewey promoted humanism as a national way of life. Humanists in their zeal believe they are doing your children a favor to make them more happy by seeking to erode any faith in God and replacing it with a hope in their own efforts.

Humanism and relativism were revitalized with the upsurge of the oppositions of false science called The Theory of Evolution. Since Darwin popularized that theory in 1859, the idea of evolution has infected other areas of men’s thoughts including law and its interpretation, society and its rules of conduct, economics and more.

John Dewey helped popularize the teaching of evolution since the idea of constant change reinforced his idea the foolishness of God and the Bible. Dewey believed in neither God or the Bible.

Since man was considered to have evolved from the slime, there could have been no fall of man from the perfection of Adam. With no fall of man, there would be no need for salvation. Thus evolution strikes at the root of Christian faith.

Those who think they can believe in God and also believe in evolution must realize that the system of evolution denounces any existence of God. If man evolved upward, then there certainly was no original sin which took him downward and the need for salvation is a joke.

Evolution would make the whole of Scripture meaningless. Those who clamor the loudest for evolution are aware how the poison works to erode any need for God by making man to be his own god.

Thus we have returned full cycle to the original deception, only this time the deception is organized on a global front, attacking not just one woman, but all children in our public schools.

The ultimate aim is not the betterment of mankind as the propaganda says, but rather the enslavement of mankind to a whole society serving Mammon in the name of money and power, ie the devil. It is Satan’s work to serve money as your god, to let economic values determine your decisions, to let profits determine what you do. To judge right and wrong by how much money is gained or lost is to be serving the purposes of Satan.

The consequence of ignoring God’s word is failure. There comes a point where that failure becomes eternal.

Many of our Founding Fathers believed that we should only elect men to serve us in office who held a faith in Almighty God who would judge men for their words and deeds. For they realized that only such men could have any restraint on what they considered right and acceptable.

Men without faith towards God through the mercy of Jesus do more easily persuade themselves to do anything if the end served their own desires. They would have realized the dangers of having a man like John Dewey as the designer of our education system. We need to wake up to the problem.

It is given to us by God that we are responsible to raise our children diligently in the Truth of God.

John Dewey was strongly opposed to anything that would help Christian faith in children.

How can we then teach them history void of reference to Christian testimony of great men? How can we teach science as chaos instead of ordered and according to His divine pattern? How can any in authority stand by and let such perversion proceed unchecked?

Who would feed their children to the flames of evolution and its consequence, Humanism?

Would convenience or comfort lead some to stand by quietly while their children passed through the flames of modern humanist philosophies that oppose God? Would safety of job, or esteem of men gag the tongue of those who should speak out first because they saw it first?

Brave New World, a novel, depicts a society where God is forgotten and the children are raised by the state system to serve economic needs. Let us take a hint and quit rewriting history by omission of Christian references in the public school system. Else John Dewey’s vision will increase more and more.

John Dewey introduced strong ideas about accepting multi-values. This is in agreement with the denial of absolute values. Please note that too many children today do not believe in absolute right and wrong. Instead they believe in relative answers, based on personal needs. That is a direct goal fulfilled by John Dewey and all like him.

It is now printed in school system literature how the students need to be raised up so they can be better citizens of the new world economic order. Country, family, and God are no longer the goals to be achieved but are instead seen as causes of bigotry, narrow mindedness, prejudice, and intolerance: thus deserving to be done away.

After all says Humanism, all roads lead to Rome. We’re all seeking a better life, and if you do it in the name of Jesus, that’s OK so long as you don’t teach your child that in school.

President Abraham Lincoln contradicts John Dewey and reminded the nation of that great truth contained in the Declaration of Independence when he said,
“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent
a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition
that all men are created equal.”

Of course he was referring to these words from the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;

Declaration of Independence contradicts John Dewey, the father of this contemporary education system.

Well into the twentieth century, the Declaration and the Constitution were viewed as inseparable and interdependent. While the Court’s change of standards has perhaps been a display of poor judgment, the Court’s actions have actually been illegal under the standards of original intent. Furthermore they have violated the value system of “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” established in the Declaration of Independence.

Founding Fathers Contradict John Dewey.

The First Amendment was clearly understood and explained by the man who wrote it and the man who first applied it as law. Fisher Ames wrote the First Amendment. He also wrote that the Bible should always remain the principle text book in America’s classrooms. John Jay, original Chief-Justice U.S. Supreme Court, said it is the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to help and encourage virtue and religion.

The Constitution of the United States of America was penned by the man who was head of the committee which created the final wording. That man, Governor Morris of Pennsylvania, was also the most active member of the Constitutional Convention. He spoke 173 times. He also advocated that “education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.”

An early House Judiciary Committee affirmed the Founder’s lack of pluralistic intent when it declared:

“Christianity …was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.”

Words and sentiments of other founding fathers can be given to fill a library; but these few show the whole idea to anyone to is willing to hear.

” You do well to wish to learn our arts and our ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention
.” George Washington

” Let…statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by…educating their little boys and girls…and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.”
Samuel Adams

“History will also afford frequent opportunities of showing the necessity of a public religion…and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.
” Benjamin Franklin

“Only one adequate plan has ever appeared in the world, and that is the Christian dispensation.” John Jay, ORIGINAL CHIEF-JUSTICE U.S. SUPREME COURT

“The United States of America were no longer Colonies. They were an independent nation of Christians.” John Quincy Adams

A page of history is worth a volume of logic. History shows the intent and purpose of our founding fathers. Contemporary logic is wrong whenever it contradicts the clear explanations of those men who wrote the Constitution.

97% of the founding fathers were practicing Christians and exercised their faith in public office, at work, at home, and had it taught to their children in their schools. 187 of the first 200 colleges in America were Christian, Bible teaching institutions. Entrance to Harvard required strong knowledge of the Bible. The money was printed, “One Nation Under God.”

Webster originally wrote the dictionary with Bible verses explained. He did this so children and parents could understand the words of God and know the truth of Jesus Christ. Webster even wrote a translation of the Bible for the American speaking people. How often do you hear this in public school today?!

You could hardly find a school in America that wasn’t Christian based with the Bible as its main text book until the 1830’s. That was when a humanist named Horace Mann worked for ten years to deceive the state of Massachusetts to produce its own state supported schools and leave the Bible out of those schools.

As a result of the attack upon children learning the truths of God and Salvation, the American Sunday School League was formed during that same decade so those children who were deprived could still get Bible knowledge.

During the next hundred years humanism grew bolder in its attack against the founding fathers ideas of education and more and more schools omitted the Bible. Fewer and fewer remembered the exhortations of those men who established this nation to follow Christ and give Christian teaching in the schools, as the backbone and main course of our schools.

Then in the early 1930’s John Dewey taught his new theories on evolutionary education at Peking University in China, and after that in Turkey. Those governments wanted help on establishing state schools to indoctrinate the children as wards of the state instead of their parents.

You know how Russian children were encouraged to turn on their parent’s values.

Then upon his return to the U.S.A, John Dewey wrote the Humanist Manifesto. He was a very important figure in the national education association. The socialistic and communistic ideology of Karl Marx was growing vigorously through such men as endorsed John Dewey’s philosophies of education.

A Harvard professor has written that children are sick when they enter kindergarten. Sick with the parent influenced ideas of love, family values, national pride, and loyalty to elected officials. He says the children need to be re-educated away from those traditional values of their parents so they can become better citizens of the new world order. So that is the extent of secular humanism and its goals for our children. It is rapidly assaulting our traditional values of Christian family, home, and nation under God.

John Dewey knew there was a battle raging in the classroom for the hearts and minds of children. Do you?

Join the battle which has been declared. It is a battle for your children. It is your battle to fight, to win. When Jonah preached to Ninevah he declared the soon coming destruction. Jonah didn’t make any if’s and’s or but’s. He plainly said because of your sins, destruction is coming. That’s the way it is in America today.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE contradicts John Dewey. We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights;”

The Declaration of Independence appeals to God no less than three times. Four to those who can see His Name in the phrase “protection of divine providence”. Five to those who can admit the phrase “created equal” means created by God, not evolved from chaos.

The Declaration and the Constitution were viewed as inseparable and interdependent documents. The Declaration of Independence appeals to God no less than three times. The men who wrote it declared within it their undying faith towards God for all generations to see and follow.

We should follow the founding fathers of this great nation rather than shallow thinking men who came along later to change things.

“The Jubilee of the Constitution”
by John Quincy Adams explains the Constitution as dependent upon the virtues proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. That’s why the Ten Commandments are inscribed in stone on the Supreme Court building.

Those men saw the law of God as the basis of all law for all men always, never to be changed! How can we withhold God and His truth from our educational classrooms for children today? The humanist and atheist groups following the path of John Dewey rob our children of this great national heritage. One Nation Under God. United we stand together with Christ.

Our founding fathers erected a beacon to guide their children, and their children’s children: for all men who would pursue life, liberty, and happiness…they pointed us to God and to His Son Jesus Christ. They desired that their posterity might look again to the Declaration of Independence and take courage to renew that battle which their fathers began, so that truth, justice, mercy, and all Christian virtue not be extinguished from the schools of this land.

If anyone has taught you doctrines conflicting with the light shining through our Declaration of Independence, come back to the truths that were written then for you to see again now.

President Abraham Lincoln reminded the nation of that great truth contained in the Declaration of Independence when he said, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

SUPREME COURT decision of 1897:

Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

Humanists, positivists, and relativists, and socialists who deny God, also contradict the history words of those who wrote the Constitution. Why? Because they desire to replace God with man as the ultimate force is they want to say that man’s desires whatever they are should be fulfilled. They deny any absolute truth of God and they deny His natural law as a basis for government and legal law.


John Dewey was a leading relativist and humanist. In 1927 he made clear their new way of thinking. He explained that the Constitution as it had been interpreted was a stumbling-block. He said it was wrong to believe in something that could not change.

John Dewey mocked the beliefs of the Founders. He ridiculed those who put their trust in traditional understanding of law and Constitution by saying they were so wrong. (See John Dewey, The Public and Its Problems, 1927, page 34)

What the people of America called the corner stone of their republic, John Dewey called a stumbling block. He ridiculed, mocked, and scorned the traditions of the people of America, the efforts of our Founders, our form of government, and the belief in absolute values.

After John Dewey and Langdell got through with their prestigious campaign in the eyes of power and money and glory from men,… any teacher who still held for absolute values was mocked and driven out of position to teach. Blackstone‘s Commentaries on the Law was widely discarded.

Blackstone taught that certain rights and wrongs did not change. Especially those related to human behavior. Blackstone had been the main text in law since before the Declaration of Independence. Great preachers had come out of law to preach the gospel after reading all of Blackstone’s Biblical references to his understanding of law. Blackstone taught that law came from God. The courts were now going to change those traditional ideas of law which had been held true and unchangeable since the Magna Carta of England.

Roscoe Pound (1870-1964) strengthened the new philosophy of “positivism” that had been birthed by Langdell at Harvard. Pound made “positivism” the new way of thinking that everybody had to follow if they wanted to graduate. Now there are universities where professors say if you find any one is not an evolutionist, don’t let him graduate with a degree in biology. Roscoe Pound was able to accomplish his goal of dictating terms for graduation by serving at four different law schools as professor and as Dean of Harvard and the University of Nebraska. Biology professors are able to teach evolution as fact because of the liberalizing of education done by John Dewey.

He infected many who in turn taught others their new ways of evolving the law and the interpretation of our Constitution. He said we have the same task in jurisprudence that has (already) been achieved in philosophy, in the natural sciences, and in politics. We must rid ourselves of this sort of legality. We must take a new and flexible approach. We must adopt our means to fit our ends. To attain an evolving legal science based on the sociology of people is our goal. There is nothing fixed except our goal and anything we do to attain what we want must therefore be right.

Pound said the goal of law is to become a legal force to influence society in growth and development. He forgot those Founder’s words which would have warned him that God Almighty to which they appealed in the Declaration and the Constitution had already given the law and clearly stated that it does not change.

1916- Louis Brandeis (1856-1941) urged the Court to be bold in leading society to change. He wanted the reason of men to be the ultimate rule, not the law of God nor the ideas of the Founders. These are the kind of ideas upon which John Dewey built his theories.

1930’s – Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law widely discarded because it was absolute instead of relative. Relativism allowed for change. Relativism became a new term, more ‘intellectual’ for describing the positive changes needed for evolution of law and society. (the positivism of Roscoe Pound). Absolute values were discarded.

1930’s- John Dewey was an esteemed humanist. He was a prominent leader of new ideas in education. He wrote much on the effects of Darwin’s theory of evolution on science, education, man and society. His premise can be summarized as saying that nothing is ultimately good in itself except positive change for the better. To this goal he rejected absolute values of God, the Bible, and men who believed in God.

Dewey’s most positive value is positive change for the better. He was so recognized as a leader of new ideas concerning humanism ie synonym for socialism that he was invited to teach on establishing state schools for the betterment of the state. He taught in China at the University of Peking and in Turkey. Upon Dewey’s return to California, he wrote an Americanized version of Karl Marx philosophies called “The Humanist Manifesto”. He believes in the collective society like socialist of Russia and China being more important than any individualism. He views people as members of the larger society, to the exclusion of individual rights when the perceived needs of society would require the exclusion of personal rights. This thinking permeates the N.E.A today as a result of his works and others who followed in his footsteps. The state rights over individual rights is associated with the recent event in Pennsylvania where state authorities forced fifty young girls to be spread eagled on an examination table, for genital inspection, without parent’s knowledge or consent. Such is the consequence of giving up individual rights to the state system.


1945-1953 – radical social change achieved by wide spread “positivists” or secular humanists.

John Dewey wrote an amerikanized version of the Communist Manifesto. Dewey’s version was called the Humanist Manifesto. He helped introduce socialism step by step into the American culture. Read his ideas on an evolving democracy. They are very different from the Founding Fathers.

Leveling of Values Taught in State School

It is from Dewey’s own words that you can see his true intentions. He wrote and helped write the Humanist Manifesto after returning from a trip to meet with others of like mind in eastern europe. Two books he wrote tell how he planned to accomplish the goals laid out in the Humanist Manifesto through America’s public school system. The first title is Faith in Education and the second is Democracy and Education.

B.F. Skinner jumped on the bandwagon, working to change the mold for American children through public schools and help that mold conform with many goals of the Humanist Manifesto.

Dewey, John, 1859-1952, American philosopher and educator; b. Burlington, Vt. He rejected authoritarian (the Bible is authoritarian) teaching methods , regarding education in a democracy as a tool to enable the citizen to integrate his or her culture and vocation usefully. To accomplish those aims, both pedagogical methods and curricula needed radical reform. Dewey’s philosophy, called instrumentalism and related to pragmatism, holds that truth is an instrument used by human beings to solve their problems, and that it must change as their problems change. Thus it partakes of no transcendental or eternal reality (specially not God or the Bible). Dewey’s view of democracy as a primary ethical value permeated his educational theories. Dear reader, please notice this definition of democracy as a primary ethical value. It means nothing less than the will of the majority is the law. We used to call that mob rule. The ethical value of a mob was to hang a man without a trial in the old west. Our Founding Fathers built this nation as a republic based on the laws of God to which the people were to elect representatives to run that government based on those unchanging laws of God) He had a profound impact on progressive education and was regarded as the foremost educator of his day. He lectured all over the world and prepared educational surveys for Turkey, Mexico, and the Soviet Union. Among his works are Democracy and Education (1916) and Logic (1938). From the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia. Copyright © 1991 by Columbia University Press. Dear reader, please note that the above article omits reference to his penning of the Humanist Manifesto which is an Amerikanized version of the Communist Manifesto which he studied.

Democracy and Education, 1916

John Dewey’s book, Democracy and Education, of 1916 is examined here from a Christian father’s point of view. My comments are in bold. The excerpts from the book follow. Red highlights in his book text are added by the editor for your attention. The following text deals with chapter 7.

Dewey knew how to change the schools so our customs would not be passed on to our children. He well knew how to destroy the transfer from generation to generation. He undertook a plan which would have been treason by the standards of George Washington and Noah Webster. Those statesmen of our country called for the continual teaching of the great stories of our land to children from the earliest age. Instead, what the children have today is the denigration of our great heroes, the defaming of good men’s intentions, and the omission of noble words; all for the intent of cutting off America’s children from their inheritance.

Dewey wrote: Particularly is it true that a society which not only changes but-which has the ideal of such change as will improve it,
will have different standards and methods of education
from one which aims simply at the perpetuation of its own customs. To make the general ideas set forth applicable to our own educational practice, it is, therefore, necessary to come to closer quarters with the nature of present social life.
JD wrote: Any education given by a group tends to socialize its members, but the quality and value of the socialization depends upon the habits and aims of the group.

Larry: I am always amazed at the wisdom of Jesus’ words, “the people of this generation are wiser in their own ways than are the children of light..” Dewey has touched on a simple point that the Christian pastors and teachers have ignored for too long, even though it is a major theme in scripture. Basically it is this: A child tends to become like the environment where he spends time. John Dewey knew it. He knew how to accomplish his goal of stripping Christianity from America. Just leave it out of the children’s schools. After all, a man rarely will go read the Bible as an adult if he is not taught from it as a youth. That was common knowledge back before 1810 in this nation. It is in the quotes from the founding fathers as compiled by David Barton and published by Wallbuilder Presentations. The Christian who can not support that idea with scripture just does not know his Bible. Yet John Dewey, who was for the destruction of Christian faith seems to get great credit for restating a clear truth which he then turns to use against the Christian upbringing of children. How? By bringing them up in a school room which ignores, denies, and contradicts God at every opportunity. Thus effectively conditioning the children to do the same. The children become accustomed to doing what they and their peers and their teachers continually do. Who doesn’t know that?

Larry: Dewey’s standard was to split the difference, go half way, one step at a time, bring the best down to the worst. That’s what we have in our schools today. The best is brought down. The worst remains rotten, and a step at a time, the criteria for excellence is lowered so that everybody looks good in the brave new society of changing values. Dewey proposes to split the difference between thieves and others for the standard norm of society, then operate from there.

JD wrote: The problem is to extract the desirable traits of forms of community life which actually exist, and employ them to criticize undesirable features and suggest improvement. Now in any social group whatever, even in a gang of thieves, we find some interest held in common, and we find a certain amount of interaction and cooperative intercourse with other groups. From these two traits we derive our standard.

Larry: Bayonets are referred to by the founding fathers in the sense of saying our government was not set up to rule by bayonets. Our Constitution depends upon a people who are ruled from within, by their heart, according to the laws of God. That is why they insisted on godly schools in the North West Ordinance as a requirement for statehood. But this is no longer learned by school children today. Nothing of its kind is taught in most public schools. By design I say.

Dewey wrote: Let us apply the first element in this criterion to a despotically governed state. It is not true there is no common interest in such an organization between governed and governors. The authorities in command must make some appeal to the native activities of the subjects, must call some of their powers into play. Talleyrand said that a government could do everything with bayonets except sit on them. This cynical declaration is at least a recognition that the bond of union is not merely one of coercive force.

Larry: Enslavement is found when government is able to force children to go to a school that does not teach the same values as the parents. If you think that is too far out, then please realize that it has been said by others for a long time. Way before John Dewey, this was realized. The U.S. Government used the tool of forced government schools on the Indians. Sending them to government schools so as to separate them from the ways of their families was a strong armed method forced on the Indians. It worked. It is also working to separate children today from regular study of scripture as being the foundation of all true learning.

Dewey wrote: Plato defined a slave as one who accepts from another the purposes which control his conduct. This condition obtains even where there is no slavery in the legal sense.

Larry: Dewey pursues what he calls the Democratic Ideal. The averaging of everything. That is why the best seller book, The Dumbing Down of Our Children, was written; because of the continual readjustment of curriculum to lower and lower standards. Let’s face it, the ones who don’t want to learn will always be ignorant. Thus the bottom never moves. But so long as averaging is done each year, the top keeps on being cut down to lower and lower levels as the schools minimize requirements so they can say everybody is getting an excellent education.

Dewey wrote: The Democratic Ideal. The two elements in our criterion both point to democracy. The first signifies not only more numerous and more varied points of shared common interest, but greater reliance upon the recognition of mutual interests as a factor in social control. The second means not only freer interaction between social groups ( once isolated so far as intention could keep up a separation ) but change in social habit — its continuous readjustment through meeting the new situations produced by varied intercourse. And these two traits are precisely what characterize the democratically constituted society.

Dewey has established in the public mind that this is a democratically constituted society. Truth is that the Constitution guarantees us a republican form of government. Noah Webster defined that as being based on the laws of nature and of nature’s God, ie the Bible and its laws. 95% of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution agreed that this nation was founded on the laws of God. British common law acknowledged Christianity as its foundation. All these truths are omitted or denied in typical school rooms today. Dewey’s teachers have done their job well. America has been nearly stripped of its last vestige of memory of the words from our Founding Fathers. Shall we also be raped or shall we put back on our clothes woven with those wonderful words of wisdom and advice on how to run this country from the men who established it?

Rejection of External Authority
Larry: The Founding Fathers knew the dependency of our form of government upon the authority of God in the hearts of men who were governed. They recognized the external authority of God and His authoritative laws. But Dewey makes no reference to historical truth of God in the foundation of America. He only distorts and twists to his own ends, which according to the Founding Fathers, is the destruction of America as they envisioned it. Dewey advocates a pure democracy, with evolving laws according to the whims of the people. The very thing which was abhorred by the Founders. The very idea of such a pure democracy was abhorrent to them. This scoundrel continually uses a half truth to further his ends. He advocates the need for an informed people, but then pushes a system of training which denies the scripture and the appeals to God and His unchanging law in the founding documents of our nation. Dewey explains one thing well. A pure democracy does not accept the laws of God. Instead, it accepts only the will of the people by majority vote. Thus it has become legal to kill babes and illegal to let them see the Ten Commandments.

Dewey wrote: The superficial explanation is that a government resting upon popular suffrage cannot be successful unless those who elect and who obey their governors are educated.
Since a democratic society repudiates the principle of external authority, it must find a substitute in voluntary disposition and interest; these can be created only by education.

Platonic Educational Philosophy:
Democratic Ideas in Education
Cradle to the Grave Concept of Government Education
Dewey saw himself as one having greater conscious understanding than Plato. No wonder his followers admired him so much. Larry: Dewey is a Greek thinker. He loves to organize ideas the way he sees them. The error is constantly clear to one who knows scripture. Others may think he was a very wise man. I acknowledge his capacity for thought and ordering of ideas, but I also see his gross darkness resulting from the denial of light from scripture on the training of children.

Dewey:3. The Platonic Educational Philosophy. Subsequent chapters will be devoted to making explicit the implications of the democratic ideas in education. In the remaining portions of this chapter, we shall consider the educational theories which have been evolved in three epochs when the social import of education was especially conspicuous. Cradle to the Grave State Control, a la Brave New World, now called K-12 and school to work program, reinforced with even earlier day care government centers and computer recorded aptitude guidance The first one to be considered is that of Plato. No one could better express than did he the fact that a society is stably organized when each individual is doing that for which he has aptitude by nature in such a way as to be useful to others ,or to contribute to the whole to which he belongs; and that it is the business of education to discover these aptitudes and progressively to train them for social use.

Dewey saw himself as having greater conceptions than Plato.
Much which has been said so far is borrowed from what Plato first consciously taught the world. But conditions which he could not intellectually control led him to restrict these ideas in their application. He never got any conception of the indefinite plurality of activities which may characterize an individual and a social group, and consequently limited his view to a limited number of classes of capacities and of social arrangements.

The End of Existence
Dewey denies the knowledge of eternal judgment, heaven and hell.
Dewy appeals to the wisdom of men, philosophers, and the highly educated to determine how men ought to live.
Dewey redefines law and justice as that which is determined by men, in a democratic vote. That’s how we arrived at murdering babies and keeping the Ten Commandments hidden from the eyes of children, by ignoring the law of God and paying honor to the opinions of men. The fear of man is a terrible snare. Christians, please plan for good schools to be the trainers of your children. Let those who believe in nothing but themselves send their children to their kind of school, but wake up and quit sending your children to schools which teach children that the highest end of man is his own opinion.

Larry: God’s ultimate judgment is denied by our education system to the children. The roots of that denial in American history are shown here from the atheist Dewey himself. Christian parents, please attend to the training and conditioning of your children’s way of thinking. Else what terrible prize must be paid.

Dewey wrote: Plato’s starting point is that the organization of society depends ultimately upon knowledge of the end of existence. If we do not know its end, we shall be at the mercy of accident and caprice. Unless we know the end, the good, we shall have no criterion for rationally deciding what the possibilities are which should be promoted, nor how social arrangements are to be ordered. We shall have no conception of the proper limits and distribution of activities — what he called justice — as a trait of both individual and social organization. But how is the knowledge of the final and permanent good to be achieved? In dealing with this question we come upon the seemingly insuperable obstacle that such knowledge is not possible save in a just and harmonious social order.

Larry: Dewey says the Bible values are false. That’s what he has reference to. — Here Dewey is referring to what he calls false, the absolute values of the Bible.—
Everywhere else the mind is distracted and misled by false valuations and false perspectives.

A disorganized and factional society…
sets up a number of different models and standards. Under such conditions it is impossible for the individual to attain consistency of mind. Only a complete whole is fully self-consistent.

Larry: Dewey believes the Bible values inevitably lead people astray. A society which rests upon the supremacy of some factor over another irrespective of its rational or proportionate claims, inevitably leads thought astray. It puts a premium on certain things and slurs over others, and creates a mind whose seeming unity is forced and distorted. Education proceeds ultimately from the patterns furnished by institutions, customs, and laws.

Christian parents, this is the concept of your current public school education system to which you are willingly subjecting your children. You must provide for your own children a school which is founded on God and His truth as the only foundation for all good learning. The public school is redefining the word good to your children as being what the majority wills. Dewey redefines the word just and right as being dependent upon highly trained minds. How much more must you hear before you take action to care for a godly school for your children?

Only in a just state will these be such as to give the right education; and only those who have rightly trained minds will be able to recognize the end, and ordering principle of things.

Brave New World, State School, Cradle to the Grave Education System
Dewey wrote: We seem to be caught in a hopeless circle. However, Plato suggested a way out. A few men, philosophers or lovers of wisdom — or truth — may by study learn at least in outline the proper patterns of true existence. If a powerful ruler should form a state after these patterns, then its regulations could be preserved. An education could be given which would sift individuals, discovering what they were good for, and supplying a method of assigning each to the work in life for which his nature fits him. Each doing his own part, and never transgressing, the order and unity of the whole would be maintained.

It would be impossible to find in any scheme of philosophic thought a more adequate recognition on one hand of the educational significance of social arrangements and, on the other, of the dependence of those arrangements upon the means used to educate the young. It would be impossible to find a deeper sense of the function of education in discovering and developing personal capacities, and training them so that they would connect with the activities of others. Yet the society in which the theory was propounded was so undemocratic that Plato could not work out a solution for the problem whose terms he clearly saw.

Larry: The next part of chapter seven in his book deals with the historical change of schools from training up a person as an individual to educating a mind as a citizen of a state-society, all of one homogeneous mind, fitted to serve the rulers of the state who also rule the school! You must read it yourself for now it is late, and I have no more time to give this particular page. The subject is covered well in two other places at this site, History of Education and also at S.A. Kossor’s site.

Larry: Let me add that I can see where certain bits and pieces of Dewey’s ideas might go over well with teachers in teachers colleges, even with Christian teachers, for in part, taken out of their context, some of his sentences sound ok, even sound good. But when it is realized where he is coming from, and the redefinition of terms, and his goals, then his works become abominable. Yet their influence is seen more today. His theme has been taken up and rephrased in many ways by most educators around the country and the world. He is rightly called the Father of Modern Education. Christian parents should not send their children to such a school if they have any choice in the matter. God calls us to provide a godly school for our children. Dewey type schools are too subtle a series of traps for the children to be sent there. They are a snare and a trap and the primary instrument of the changing of America from a Christian nation as defined by the Supreme Court on at least two occasions prior to 1948 to what is now a nation that denies God and the right to mention His name in all public places, public meaning state, just as in our schools, public schools mean state schools. Don’t forget that, lest you be charmed to sleep while your children’ s mind is charmed away from the teaching of God. In Jesus’ name. God help our children. See Malachi 4:6, the last chapter and last verse in the KJV Bible. Father’s take heed to the word of God so you can say before God that you love your children.
From clever definitions we move on to comments about education.

The whole object of education is…to develop the mind. The mind should be a thing that works.
Sherwood Anderson (1876–1941) American novelist and short story writer.

Education seems to be in America the only commodity of which the customer tries to get as little he can for his money.
Max Leon Forman (1909-1990) Jewish-American writer.

The chief wonder of education is that it does not ruin everybody concerned in it, teachers and taught.
Henry Brooks Adams (1828-1918) U.S. historian and writer. The Education of Henry Adams.

Public schools are the nurseries of all vice and immorality.
Henry Fielding (1707-1754) English novelist, dramatist.

It has been said that we have not had the three R’s in America, we had the six R’s; remedial readin’, remedial ‘ritin’ and remedial ‘rithmetic.
Robert Maynard Hutchins (also Maynard Hutchins) (1899–1977) educational philosopher, dean of Yale Law School (1927-1929), a president of the University of Chicago (1929–1945) and its chancellor (1945–1951).

Part of the American myth is that people who are handed the skin of a dead sheep at graduating time think that it will keep their minds alive forever.
John Mason Brown (1900–1969) American drama critic and author.

Education … has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading.
G. M. Trevelyan (1876-1962) British historian

We are shut up in schools and college recitation rooms for ten or fifteen years, and come out at last with a bellyful of words and do not know a thing.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-82) U.S. essayist and poet.

A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car; but if he has a university education he may steal the whole railroad.
Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919) American president

But, good gracious, you’ve got to educate him first. You can’t expect a boy to be vicious till he’s been to a good school.
Saki (H. H. Munro) (1870-1916) Scottish author

Education does not mean teaching people to know what they do not know; it means teaching them to behave as they do not behave.
John Ruskin (1819-1900) English critic

They say that we are better educated than our parents’ generation. What they mean is that we go to school longer. They are not the same thing.
Douglas Yates

Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education.
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) English philosopher, mathematician and writer.

You don’t have to think too hard when you talk to teachers.
Jerome David Salinger (1919- ) U. S. novelist and short-story writer.

The average schoolmaster is and always must be essentially an ass, for how can one imagine an intelligent man engaging in so puerile an avocation.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) American editor, critic and writer.

Everyone who is incapable of learning has taken to teaching.
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Irish poet and dramatist. The Decay of Lying.

He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) British dramatist, critic, writer. Maxims for Revolutionists.

The average Ph.D. Thesis is nothing but a transference of bones from one graveyard to another.
James Frank Dobie (1888–1964) American folklorist, writer, and newspaper columnist.

You can lade a man up to th’ university, but ye can’t make him think.
Finley Peter Dunne (1867—1936) U.S. author, writer and humorist.

There is less flogging in our great schools than formerly–but then less is learned there; so what the boys get at one end they lose at the other.
Samuel Johnson (1709-84) English lexicographer and writer.

It is little short of a miracle that modern methods of instruction have not already completely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry…. I believe that one could even deprive a healthy beast of prey of its voraciousness if one could force it with a whip to eat continuously whether it were hungry or not…
Albert Einstein (1879-1955) U.S. physicist

I am not a teacher; only a fellow traveler of whom you asked the way. I pointed ahead–ahead of myself as well as of you.
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) British dramatist, critic, writer.

The object of teaching a child is to enable him to get along without a teacher.
Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915) American author, editor and printer.

Teachers are people who start things they never see finished, and for which they never get thanks until it is too late.
Max Leon Forman (1909-1990) Jewish-American writer.

Some men are graduated from college cum laude, some are graduated summa cum laude, and some are graduated mirabile dictu.
William Howard Taft (1857-1930) 27th U.S. President (1909- 13)

Real education must ultimately be limited to men who insist on knowing–the rest is mere sheep-herding.
Ezra Loomis Pound (1885-1972) U.S. poet.

I’m sure the reason such young nitwits are produced in our schools is because they have no contact with anything of any use in everyday life.
Petronius (d. circa 66 CE) The Satyricon.

True education makes for inequality; the inequality of individuality, the inequality of success, the glorious inequality of talent, of genius.
Felix E. Schelling (1858-1945) American educator

The principal goal of education is to create men who are capable of doing new things, not simply of repeating what other generations have done.
Jean Piaget (1896-1980) Swiss cognitive psychologist.

No man who worships education has got the best out of education… Without a gentle contempt for education no man’s education is complete.
G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) British author

The modern child, when asked what he learned today, replies, “Nothing, but I gained some meaningful insights.”
William E. (“Bill”) Vaughan (1915–1977) American columnist and author.

Consider… the university professor. What is his function? Simply to pass on to fresh generations of numskulls a body of so-called knowledge that is fragmentary, unimportant, and, in large part, untrue. His whole professional activity is circumscribed by the prejudices, vanities and avarices of his university trustees, i.e., a committee of soap-boilers, nail manufacturers, bank-directors and politicians. The moment he offends these vermin he is undone. He cannot so much as think aloud without running a risk of having them fan his pantaloons.
H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) American editor, critic and writer.

The only real education comes from what goes counter to you.
Andre Gide (1869-1951) French writer.

I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education.
Wilson Mizner (1876-1933) American dramatist.

Colleges are places where pebbles are polished and diamonds are dimmed.
Robert G. Ingersoll, Abraham Lincoln.

The things taught in colleges and schools are not an education, but the means of education.
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-82) U.S. essayist and poet.

The result of the educative process is capacity for further education.
John Dewey (1859-1952) U.S. philosopher and educator.

Courses in education given at…teachers’ colleges have traditionally been used as a substitute for genuine scholarship. In my opinion, much of the so-called science of “education” was invented as a necessary mechanism for enabling semieducated people to act as tolerable teachers.
Sloan Wilson (1920- ) U.S. journalist and novelist.

Perhaps the most valuable result of all education is the ability to make yourself do the thing you have to do, when it ought to be done, whether you like it or not.
Walter Bagehot (1826-77) English economist, political journalist, and critic. Physics and Politics, 1879.

Perhaps the most valuable result of all education is the ability to make yourself do the thing you have to do, when it ought to be done, whether you like it or not; it is the first lesson that ought to be learned; and however early a man’s training begins, it is probably the last lesson that he learns thoroughly.
Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) English biologist and writer.

Plasticene and self-expression will not solve the problems of education. Nor will technology and vocational guidance; nor the classics and the Hundred Best Books.
Aldous Huxley (1894-1963) English novelist, essayist, critic.

He was so learned that he could name a horse in nine languages; so ignorant that he bought a cow to ride on.
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) American statesman, author, scientist, inventor and philosopher.

A college degree does not lessen the length of your ears; it only conceals it.
Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915) American author, editor and printer.

The only thing experience teaches us is that experience teaches us nothing.
André Maurois (1885-1967) French biographer and writer.

I’m still waiting for some college to come up with a march protesting student ignorance.
Paul Larmer (Chicago Tribune)

A fool’s brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry. Hence University education.
George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) British dramatist, critic, writer.

I am inclined to think that one’s education has been in vain if one fails to learn that most schoolmasters are idiots.
Hesketh Pearson (1887-1964) British biographer.

The vanity of teaching doth oft tempt a man to forget that he is a blockhead.
George Saville, Marquis of Hallifax (1633-1695) English statesman and essayist.

In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then he made school boards.
Mark Twain (1835-1910) American writer.

Soap and education are not as sudden as a massacre, but they are more deadly in the long run.
Mark Twain (1835-1910) American writer.

I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
Mark Twain (1835-1910) American writer.

In England … education produces no effect whatsoever. If it did, it would prove a serious danger to the upper classes, and would probably lead to acts of violence in Grosvenor Square.
Oscar Wilde (1856-1900) Irish poet and dramatist.

Education is an admirable thing, but it is well to remember from time to time that nothing that is worth knowing can be taught.
Oscar Wilde (1856-1900) Irish poet and dramatist. The Critic as Artist.

You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself.
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) Italian physicist and astronomer.

Nothing in education is so astonishing as the amount of ignorance it accumulates in the form of inert facts.
Henry Brooks Adams (1828-1918) U.S. historian and writer. The Education of Henry Adams.

There is nothing so stupid as an educated man, if you get off the thing that he was educated in.
Will Rogers (1879-1935) U.S. actor and humorist.

Education is that which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.
Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914?) U.S. journalist and writer.

Learning makes the wise wiser and the fool more foolish.
John Ray (1627?-1705) English naturalist.

A wise man is one who finally realizes that there are some questions one can ask which may have no answers.

He is to be educated because he is a man, and not because he is to make shoes, nails, and pins.
William Ellery Channing (1780-1842) U.S. Unitarian clergyman and writer.

Education is too important to be left solely to educators.
Francis Keppel (1916–1990) American educator, U.S. Commissioner of Education (1962–1965).

Only the curious will learn and only the resolute will overcome the obstacles to learning. The quest quotient has always excited me more than the intelligence quotient.
Edmund S. Wilson (1895-1972) U.S. author, literary and social critic.

Thank goodness I was never sent to school; it would have rubbed off some of the originality.
Helen Beatrix Potter (1866–1943) English author, illustrator, mycologist and conservationist.

Everywhere I go I’m asked if I think the university stifles writers. My opinion is that they don’t stifle enough of them. There’s many a best-seller that could have been prevented by a good teacher.
Mary Flannery O’Connor (1925–1964) American novelist, short-story writer and essayist.

Education is the ability to listen to almost anything without losing your temper or your self-confidence.
Robert Lee Frost (1874–1963) American poet.

Examinations are formidable even to the best prepared, for the greatest fool may ask more than the wisest man can answer.
C. C. Colton, Lacon: Reflections, No. 322.

Doesn’t Anyone Have Anything Good to Say?
One must search diligently to find laudatory comments on education (other than those pious platitudes which are fodder for commencement speeches). It appears that most persons who have achieved fame and success in the world of ideas are cynical about formal education. These people are a select few, who often achieved success in spite of their education, or even without it. As has been said, the clever largely educate themselves, those less able aren’t sufficiently clever or imaginative to benefit much from education. English historian Edward Gibbon (1737-1794) put it this way: “The power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy except in those happy dispositions where it is almost superfluous.”

But those tempted to take the route of self-education should heed the warning of the old maxim: “He who would educate himself should be a born educator.” Benjamin Franklin, who largely educated himself, cautions: “He that teaches himself hath a fool for his master.”

For those of us neither geniuses nor hopeless fools, formal education may be a useful thing–if approached in the right spirit, with an eager and open mind and a rationally skeptical attitude. This brief quote collection can be appropriately closed with some positive comments:

Education: Being able to differentiate between what you do know and what you don’t. It’s knowing where to go to find out what you need to know; and it’s knowing how to use the information once you get it.
William A. Feather (1889-1981) American publisher and author.

An educated man is one who can entertain a new idea, entertain another person and entertain himself.
Sydney Wood

Learning makes a man fit company for himself.

The primary purpose of a liberal education is to make one’s mind a pleasant place in which to spend one’s time.
Sydney J. Harris (1917-1986) American journalist.

Education is not the filling a bucket but the lighting of a fire.
William Butler Yeats (1865–1939) Irish poet, dramatist.

The great aim of education is not knowledge, but action.
Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) English philosopher, political theorist, and sociological theorist.

Your Education is worth what You are worth.

When asked how much educated men were superior to those uneducated, Aristotle answered, “As much as the living are to the dead.”
Diogenes Laertius (fl. 2nd century).

Poor is the pupil who does not surpass his master.
Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) Italian painter, sculptor, architect, musician, scientist, mathematician, engineer, and inventor. Notebooks.

To be able to be caught up into the world of thought—that is educated.
Edith Hamilton (1867–1963) American educator and author.

Free the child’s potential, and you will transform him into the world.
Maria Montessori (1870–1952) Italian physician, educator, philosopher, humanitarian.

Educators and architects preserve children’s freedom.
Amelia Gambetti. (Villetta School- Reggio Emilia, Italy)

Only people who die very young learn all they really need to know in kindergarten.
Wendy Kaminer.

If all the rich and all of the church people should send their children to the public schools they would feel bound to concentrate their money on improving these schools until they met the highest ideals.
Susan Brownell Anthony (1820–1906) American civil rights leader.

Education is for improving the lives of others and for leaving your community and world better than you found it.
Marian Wright Edelman (1939-) American activist for the rights of children.

Science Education

There is a great danger in the present day lest science-teaching should degenerate into the accumulation of disconnected facts and unexplained formulae, which burden the memory without cultivating the understanding.

J. D. Everett [In the preface to his 1873 English translation of Elementary Treatise on Natural Philosophy by A Privat Deschanel. (D. Appleton and Co.)]

In education, nothing works if the students don’t.
Donald E. Simanek (1936-) American physicist, educator, humorist.

John Hood
The Failure of American Public Education
February 1993 • Volume: 43 • Issue: 2 •

Mr. Hood is a newspaper columnist, a contributing editor of Reason magazine, and the research director for the John Locke Foundation, a state policy think tank in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Many American critics believe that the major problem with public education today is a lack of focus on results. Students aren’t expected to meet high standards, the argument goes, and the process of education takes precedence over analyzing education results in policy-making circles.

This is a valid argument (as far as it goes). Indeed, it can be taken one important step further. We not only fail to hold individual students accountable for poor performance, we have also failed to hold the entire government-controlled school system accountable for its performance since at least World War II. Public education is itself a failure. Why shouldn’t individual students follow its example?

The history of reform efforts in American public education is replete with half-hearted measures, with almost comical misdiagnoses of education problems, with blame-shifting, and with humbug. Everyone is an expert (most have, of course, suffered through the very system they want to reform). At any one time during the course of school reform, an illusion of debate often obscures a surprising consensus on the her-aided “magic bullet” of the decade—be it school centralization or progressive education or preschool education or computerizing the classroom—that will solve America’s education problems. These magic bullets always misfire. But instead of changing their weapon, policy-makers simply put another round in the chamber, foolishly believing that the newest fad will succeed despite the failures of its predecessors.

Some critics believe that public education reforms fail because they are compromised or sabotaged by the education lobbies—teacher associations, administrators, and the legislators in their pockets. There is certainly some truth to that explanation, as we shall see. But in many cases, attributing the failure of reform to subversion merely exonerates that reform. Most reform ideas are either irrelevant or destructive of education. They would fail whether organized political interests opposed them or not.

Many conservatives believe that American public education is in poor shape today because of cultural and social trends, most beginning in the 1960s, which destroyed classroom discipline, the moral basis for education, and a national consensus on what students should learn. Again, there is some truth in this proposition, but ultimately it fails to explain why American students do not possess the communication and computational skills they need today to succeed in college or in the working world.

Furthermore, many free-market thinkers believe that applying market competition to the public schools will solve many of America’s educational problems. I’m sympathetic to this argument, but it ignores the role of government policies other than student assignment to schools, which inhibit school success. When government policy continues to impose rigid personnel rules, bureaucracy, regulations, and a mandate to use education to engineer social or political outcomes, a school cannot successfully impart the needed skills, knowledge, and perspective to its students—whether these students choose to be there or not.

Lastly, the rhetoric of school reform often ignores the crucial role of individual decisions (by students, by parents, by business owners, by educators) in determining educational outcomes. You can lead a horse to water, the old adage goes, but you can’t make him drink. It’s a folksy way of imparting an important individualist truth. Providing students opportunities at school does not guarantee success if students watch television rather than do their homework—and parents let them. By assuming that any set of reform ideas can magically create a well-educated citizenry, we oversell the role of policy-making. Education requires initiative, a trait notoriously difficult to create or impose.
A Century of Reform

Public education and public-education reform share a common history. There is no past paradise when all students excelled. There is no perfect prototype for public education hidden in history, to be uncovered today and bestowed on a thankful nation. Rather, American public education is best thought of, historically, as mediocre. It was a serviceable system for preparing students for an agrarian or assembly-line world in which only an elite pursued higher education.

Public education in America really began in earnest after the Civil War, when government-funded and – controlled schools supplanted the earlier system of private education. According to the U.S. Department of Education, some 57 percent of the 12 million school-aged Americans in 1870 were enrolled in public elementary or secondary schools, though only about 60 percent of those enrolled attended school on any given day and the average school year was 132 days. By the turn of the century, the percentage of school-aged children attending public schools had risen to 72 percent, with almost 70 percent of enrollees attending on any one of the 150 days in the school year. Most public education still occurred in the early grades—only two percent of the student population were in ninth grade or higher.

By 1989 almost 90 percent of school-aged children attended public schools. Almost all attended class daily (with some important local or regional exceptions) and the average school year had grown to 180 days—still too short, say many modern critics, but a 40 percent increase since Reconstruction. Most students stay in school at least throughout the high-school grades, while a record number are pursuing higher education.

American policy-makers and educators began to create in earnest our centralized, monopolistic public education system at the turn of the century. For example, over a relatively brief period from 1890 to 1910, public schools increased their share of the high-school population from two-thirds to about 90 percent—a proportion of public to private schools which has persisted until the present day. There were a number of factors motivating this change. During the last few decades of the nineteenth century, public education had grown steadily as a primarily locally controlled phenomenon, often emulating or taking over ownership from private schools. Education was still basically focused on learning skills, such as reading or arithmetic, and schools often reflected their communities in very obvious ways.

But by the start of the twentieth century, a number of different groups began to believe that a comprehensive, centrally controlled (at least on the city or state level), and bureaucratic public education system was crucial to America’s future. The Progressive movement, for example, sought to replace haphazard government decision-making (such as that provided by political machines or community schools) with a more standardized, “predictable” approach. At the time, they viewed such change as necessary to eliminate corruption and graft. Similarly, the child welfare movement began to press for changes in family life—for replacing child labor and family neglect with public education.

Simultaneously, American business leaders began to see a decentralized, “patchwork” education system as a liability in international competition. U.S. manufacturers, especially, saw the rise of Germany as a significant economic threat and sought to imitate that country’s new system of state-run trade schools. In 1905, the National Association of Manufacturers editorialized that “the nation that wins success in competition with other nations must train its youths in the arts of production and distribution.” German education, it concluded, was “at once the admiration and fear of all countries.” American business, together with the growing labor movement, pressed Congress to dramatically expand federal spending on education, especially for vocational instruction. Also, business and education leaders began to apply new principles of industrial organization to education, such as top-down organization and a “factory-floor” model in which administrators, teachers, and students all had a place in producing a standardized “final product.” These leaders created professional bureau cracies to devise and implement policy.

Finally, perhaps the most important boosters of America’s new public education system were what we might today call “cultural conservatives.” The turn of the century, after all, was a time of tremendous immigration. As more and more immigrants arrived in America, bringing with them a plethora of languages, cultural traditions, and religious beliefs, American political leaders foresaw the potential dangers of Balkanization. The public education system, once designed primarily to impart skills and knowledge, took on a far more political and social role. It was to provide a common culture and a means of inculcating new Americans with democratic values. Public schools, in other words, were to be a high-pressure “melting pot” to help America avoid the dismal fate of other multi-national politics. American political leaders were all too familiar with the Balkan Wars of the early 1900s, and were intent on avoiding a similar fate.
The Expanding Role of Public Education

By now, you should be experiencing a heavy dose of déjà vu. These themes and concerns have continued to dominate American public education until the present day. “Do-gooders” throughout the twentieth century have sought to expand the role of public education in all aspects of what was once family life, such as instilling moral values, providing health and nutrition, fighting delinquency and crime, and protecting children from physical and psychological abuse. Today, they are the primary advocates of Head Start and other supplements to school that intervene in virtually every aspect of a student’s life.

Business groups, especially national organizations and corporate magnates, have frequently played a high- profile role in educational affairs during this century, constantly warning of the economic threats posed by international competitors (as in the Sputnik scare of the 1950s or the “competitiveness” debate today) and supporting a professional, centralized approach to public education (in stark contrast to what the same business leaders believed was appropriate in economic policy).

Finally, a host of groups across the political spectrum have looked to public schools as a key means of accomplishing what they consider to be important political or social objectives, such as racial integration, social tolerance, democratic participation, or environmental awareness.

The history of public education reform is a story in which these groups—sometimes in concert and sometimes in opposition to professional educators with their own designs—jockey for position to make their indelible mark on the school policies of the day. Reform efforts have reappeared regularly, in the 1940s, the watchword was “life adjustment education.” Educators, worried about a growing dropout rate and the seemingly frantic pace of post-War technological innovations, sought to help students adjust to a changing world. One example of a class introduced in public schools during this period was entitled “Basic Urges, Wants, and Needs and Making Friends and Keeping Them.” That’s the 1940s, not the 1960s.

This “promising” development fell victim to the education scare that began when the Soviet Union put its Sputnik satellite into space in 1957. The focus shifted back toward learning basic subjects, though in new and sometimes misguided ways. A flurry of activity followed the Sputnik scare, exemplified by such innovations as new math, open classrooms, programmed instruction, and ungraded schools (which are now making a comeback). During the 1960s, these ideas began to filter throughout the American public education system (all the more susceptible to fads and trends because of its increasingly centralized nature). Some of these notions worked in particular schools, while failing dismally in others—another common result of school reforms generally. In the 1970s, some new ideas were added to this increasingly unwieldy mix, such as the behavioralism craze, whole-language reading instruction, mastery learning, and the spread of standardized testing of both students and teachers.

Finally, during the 1980s the school reform bandwagon got a new set of tires and a fresh coat of paint. Following the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983, governors instituted all sorts of teacher training and testing programs, curriculum changes, and higher performance standards for students. At the same time, states dramatically increased spending on all facets of public education. And President Ronald Reagan, promising to eliminate the U.S. Education Department during his campaign, actually helped administer a significant outflow of new federal money for public education, mostly directed toward specific programs for needy or minority students.
What Was Gained?

Despite the widespread public impression, felt every five years or so since World War II, that something “new” was happening in public school reform, education statistics tell a different story. They demonstrate very little change in student performance (and most measurable changes were downward). Here’s a brief report card on four decades of public education reform:

Many so-called education experts believe that class size—the ratio of students to teacher—must be reduced to improve learning. We’ve already tried it. From 1955 to 1991, the average pupil-teacher ratio in U.S. public schools dropped by 40 percent.

These experts also proclaim that lack of funding hamstrings reform, and that the 1980s were a particularly bad time for school finances. Wrong again. Annual expenditures per pupil in U.S. public schools exploded by about 350 percent in real dollars from 1950 ($1,189) to 1991 ($5,237). In only two years during this 40-year period did spending fall: 1980 and 1981. Spending grew by about a third in real terms from 1981 to 1991.

The average salary of public school teachers rose 45 percent in real terms from 1960 (the first year data are available) to 1991. This increase masks a more variable trend. Real salaries rose until 1974, when they began to level off and even decline. The average salary reached a trough of $27,436 in 1982, after which it rose to an all-time high of $33,015 in 1991. Instructional staff in public schools generally saw their earnings increase faster than the average full-time employee—from 1950 to 1989 the ratio of instructional-staff salary to the average full-time salary in the U.S. increased by 22 percent (although it sank from 1972 to 1980). Student performance has hardly kept pace with the dramatic increases in resources devoted to public education. While the percentage of students aged 17 at the beginning of the school year who graduated from high school rose 30 percent from 1950 to 1964, it has leveled off since then. In fact, the 1991 percentage is lower than the 1969 peak of 77.1 percent.

Evidence from the National Assessment of Educational Progress and other performance measures shows how poorly served America’s public school students really are. Just five percent of 17-year-old high school students in 1988 could read well enough to understand and use information found in technical materials, literary essays, historical documents, and college-level texts. This percentage has been falling since 1971.

Average Scholastic Aptitude Test scores fell 41 points between 1972 and 1991. Apologists for public education argue that such factors as the percentage of minority students taking the SAT can explain this drop. Not true. Scores for whites have dropped. And the number of kids scoring over 600 on the verbal part of the SAT has fallen by 37 percent since 1972, so the overall decline can’t be blamed merely on mediocre students “watering down” the results.

Only six percent of 11th graders in 1986 could solve multi-step math problems and use basic algebra. Sixty percent did not know why The Federalist was written, 75 percent didn’t know when Lincoln was president, and one in five knew what Reconstruction was.

Another measure of the failure of public education is that almost all institutions of higher education now provide remedial instruction to some of their students. The Southern Regional Education Board surveyed its members in 1986 and found that 60 percent said at least a third of their students needed remedial help. Surveying this evidence of failure among college-bound students, former Reagan administration official Chester E. Finn, Jr., wrote that “surely college ought to transport one’s intellect well beyond factual knowledge and cultural literacy. But it’s hard to add a second story to a house that lacks a solid foundation.”
Why American Public Education Fails

There are several characteristics of government institutions which, common to virtually all American public schools, inhibit the successful operation of schools. These include:

Rigid personnel rules and regulations. Those schools with little to no interference from outside supervisors or regulators on hiring and firing decisions tend to be the most effective schools as measured by student performance. John Chubb of the Brookings Institution and Terry Moe of Stanford University provided a good explanation for this in their 1990 book Politics, Markets and America’s Schools:

Among the reasons why direct external control may interfere with the development of an effective school, perhaps the most important is the potentially debilitating influence of external control over personnel. If principals have little or no control over who teaches in their schools, they are likely to be saddled with a number of teachers, perhaps even many teachers, whom they regard as bad fits. In an organization that works best through shared decision-making and delegated authority, a staff that is in conflict with the leader and with itself is a serious problem . . . such conflict may be a school’s greatest organizational problem. Personnel policies that promote such conflict may be a school’s greatest burden.

Tenure is not the only barrier to successful school organization. School organizations that call for greater differentiation among teachers and pay some teachers more than others on the basis of performance or drawing power rather than seniority clash with government-mandated salary schedules. Positions and salary levels are decided by the state without any relationship to a particular school’s situation. To foster successful reorganization of schools and more effective and efficient use of teachers, school systems or even individual schools must be able to employ their teaching staff as they see fit and pay them accordingly. If a school has a hard time finding a good science teacher (not a hypothetical situation in many districts) it should be able to set the salary for that position at a level which will attract qualified persons.

Uniform salary schedules were originally enacted to address racial and social inequities among teachers, not as a “better way” of organizing the teaching force. These inequities have largely been addressed and can be prevented by other means. But like so many governmental policies, uniform salary schedules have outlived their usefulness. Reorganization might involve paying teachers of one subject more than teachers of another subject, or paying a good teacher with ten years’ experience more than a mediocre teacher with 15 years’ experience. As education researcher Denis Doyle of the Hudson Institute wrote: “There is no mystery as to how to find and retain qualified teachers of mathematics or the sciences. Pay them what the market demands, provide them with benefits that are competitive, and create a work environment in which they can derive genuine professional satisfaction. Pay differentials are the answer.”

And yet mediocre teachers, who dominate teacher unions and the education lobbyists in Washington and the state capitals, continue to resist this basic change.

A civil service system. A related set of problems for American public education stems from the early twentieth-century view that public services can and should be delivered by a regimented, compartmentalized civil service. All indications are that the teaching profession will best be organized in the future as firms providing specific services to schools, rather than as a unionized set of government employees with tenure and little performance-based accountability. They should, in other words, come to resemble law firms. In teaching firms, more senior partners would enjoy tremendous name recognition and respect, attracting clients for the firms while imparting their proven teaching strategies to junior partners and associates. Can you imagine such a system evolving within today’s public education system?

Monopoly. It’s not an attack on teachers to suggest that they, like all other workers, respond to incentives. When a school enjoys monopoly control over its students, the incentive to produce successful students is lacking. When student performance doesn’t correlate with reward on the school level, individual teachers see no need to go the extra mile to help students when the teacher next door receives the same rewards for merely babysitting. And without the pressures of competition in education, parents are bothersome nuisances rather than clients who might potentially go elsewhere if not satisfied.

Centralized decision-making. When decisions on such issues as the makeup of the history curriculum or the daily school schedule is mandated from above, school leaders lose initiative and school policies become disconnected with the students and teachers they supposedly exist to serve. At a time when American industry is abandoning the factory model and top-down management as hopelessly irrelevant to modern enterprises, so too must schools seek better lines of communication and a more effective way to make decisions about everyday problems.

Tinkering around the edges of the public school system might reduce the impact of one or two of these government characteristics, but they’ll never be eliminated without substantially limiting government interference in education.

There is much disagreement about whether these characteristics have become more pronounced over the last few decades. But the trend lines aren’t the point. In a world in which the returns on education dropped off fairly rapidly in the upper grades and college—in other words, when a junior-high school education was enough to obtain gainful employment and function in society- America could basically afford to have an inefficient, bureaucratized, and ineffective system of public education. When students fell through the cracks, they had a fairly soft landing. Today, however, technological innovation and a host of other factors have dramatically increased the returns on education. All students must be able to compute, communicate, and think to make their way in an increasingly complex and confusing world.
The Triumph of Politics

What has clearly been on the rise in recent decades is the use of America’s public schools for the purpose of engineering some social outcome deemed desirable by political leaders. This is an unavoidable, and perhaps insurmountable, failing of government-run education.

Both liberal do-gooders and conservative culture warriors look to public education to achieve public goods. In the 1950s and 1960s, a national focus on the problem of racial segregation helped steer education policy away from questions of excellence to questions of equity and access. In the 1970s, activists bent on such diverse causes as environmentalism, humanism, spiritualism, and even socialism began to target the school curriculum. They produced all sorts of programs, handbooks, textbooks, and other materials, and used political influence to have these adopted as part of the school day in many jurisdictions. Meanwhile, America’s developmental psychologists and early childhood experts, deep in their environmentalist (in the sense of non- genetic) phase, got the attention of educators and political leaders. They argued that formal education should be supplemented with special counseling and self-esteem programs, that formal education should be extended into the preschool years, and that the federal government should be involved in funding these early- intervention and compensatory education programs. Policy-makers believed them. So we now have Chapter 1, Head Start, in-school counselors, and other “innovations,” the usefulness of which is now in great doubt.

When every call for fundamental change in American education is rebutted not by arguments about student achievement but by arguments focusing on race, class, social mixing, and other social concerns, it is difficult to imagine real progress. When teachers spend much of their day filling out forms, teaching quasi-academic subjects mandated from above, and boosting student self-esteem (as contrasted with serf-respect, which is earned rather than worked up), learning is difficult if not impossible.

While government is wholly unsuited to teach America’s students because of all the characteristics listed above, private schools offer an example of what American education could be. After trending downward for decades, private school enrollment increased during the 1980s. This year, private schools accounted for about 12 percent of America’s students. The fastest-growing segment of the private school market is the non- religious school, but Catholic and other parochial schools continue to supply excellent education opportunities to poor children and minorities both in inner-cities and in rural areas. Studies show that private schools produce better students than public schools do, even when you take into account for the selectivity of some private schools.

It’s true, as some public-education boosters charge, that even private school students have shown some declines in achievement over the past half-century—but that proves only that other influences in society besides schooling can have a significant impact on student performance. Private schools provide a better education than public schools even though American families generally do not sufficiently value education and students often lack initiative and concentration.

By any reasonable measure, America’s monopolistic, bureaucratic, over-regulated system of public schools is woefully unprepared to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. Political, business, and education leaders continue to talk about “reforming” the current public education system. They should, instead, be discussing how to replace it.
There Are 28 Responses So Far. »


Comment by ART on 7 May 2009:

The US educational system is failing, I agree, because of over-regulation, unions, uninspired teachers, antiquated reward systems, etc. However, the author fails to make a cogent case dismissing discipline as a primary explanatory variable by saying that \’it fails to explain why American students do not possess the communication and computational skills they need today to succeed in college or in the working world\’. Although I agree that discipline alone cannot explain the k-12 system failure, it is abundantly clear that if students don\’t respect their teachers, schools, principals, or indeed even themselves, then attempts to teach them anything will fall far short of success. Up through the late 70s students were taught that some things just needed to learned for their own good. Yes, learning about diagramming sentences in the 6th grade would now days be argued to somehow demeaning or irrelevant, but in fact it was a step in the development of our critical thinking skills–which aren\’t taught today. I know of where I speak because I used to teach in major university, which is ranked in the top 10% of all universities in the US. My students were a representative cross section of the college and had only average academic writing abilities and even poorer critical thinking skills. Now, that being said, it has never been easy to teach students how to think, in fact, holding a doctorate in education along with 7 other degrees in 5 other fields has not revealed to me how one might actually teach others how to think. Yes, you can teach logic and other related skills, but you cannot teach anyone to know exactly how to generalize logical skills to a given situation at given moment, except in specific fields. That is, mathematicians, physicists, historians, etc. can learn how to think in their fields, but may be hard pressed to apply equally rigorous skills outside their chosen areas. This is why we have need to teach thinking in many areas–so that thinking in any area becomes easier with time and experience. However, since students these days know that they are in charge (in any real sense), then anything that is too challenging they can deem to be unfair, or gender/race biased, etc., and have removed from their educational experience. Simply put: everything was harder when I was in school and in university. I was taught that if I wanted to get an A or anything else, then I had to earn it–an idea that infuriates students today. When students grow up in a society in which they get a trophy for simply showing up to an event, what incentive do they have to actually work for something? Our teachers and principals know it; our lecturers and professors know it–American student want \’something for nothing\’, indeed they feel they are entitled to such. This is a lack of DISCIPLINE, period. The author also left out the monumental effect that feminism has had on virtually all aspects of this problem. It was feminism that progressively evolved our K-12 system into a pre-school mentality where there are no grades, no comparisons, no competitions, no winners or losers, no angst, no unhappiness, and no male behavior–and consequently, no standards. Another disastrous policy that feminism brought us is the idea that everyone is supposed to go to college, or even to graduate high school. Should everyone have the opportunity to do so–absolutely, but the fact is that spending hundreds of millions of dollars to provide largely unsuccessful programs aimed at making sure that unqualified, and indeed unmotivated young people get diplomas or degrees is ridiculous and just being politically correct. If you look at, for instance, the level of academic qualification for college students in the 1970s and compare to today, there is a vast difference, along with there being many fewer students going to college in the 60s and 70s compared to now. Ask any college professor of significant tenure and they\’ll tell you that what were undergraduate level programs in the 70s are now graduate level programs, and that tests in virtually any subject were much harder then than now and that \’harder\’ means requiring more critical thinking skills. Over-simplistically, a vast increase in the number of students meant that each student would be given less attention and that standards had to fall. Feminism along with the \’revolution\’ of the 50s and 60s also brought us the idea that no one should not have to obey rules if such rules made them feel uncomfortable in any way. I had a coed demand to know why I insisted that all submitted papers have page numbers!! We used to be taught to critically examine our world in order to understand it better and therefore make better decisions. Now children are taught to simply criticize their world in order to make it understand THEM BETTER. Now, let\’s go back and examine all the institutional traits the author attributes as causes for US educational failure–monopolistic, bureaucratic, over-regulated. Were these not also the case in the 50s and 60s? There were teachers unions then; there was tenure then; there were uniform salaries then–but there wasn\’t social engineering then and there WAS discipline then. In fact such social engineering could not get traction until the discipline was gone–so feminism started to take significant hold in schools as the 70s and school discipline became extinct. The author also fails to consider a major possibility: that the failure of American schools is, in fact, by design. Feminist social engineering is an attempt is gain control of American society by taking men out of the picture. Of course getting men out of the picture meant systematically reducing their ability to think. Thinking less means relying more on sexual politics or emotions in relationships, which is where women know they\’ll always prevail. Emasculating men meant a slow decline in men\’s abilities to be good husbands and fathers. And, so the process was complete by the mid 90\’s. Look at the statistics or trends regarding the current social status of men and women: 70% of divorce cases brought by women (who claim men can\’t commit); 75% of students from broken families; 90% of child custody going to women; 22% more boys not graduating from high school; 70% of women wouldn\’t marry their current husband again; fathers on a regular basis made to pay child support for children who are not biologically theirs; most domestic violence perpetrated by women, who are rarely jailed; an increase of false rape accusations that go unpunished, etc. Women are unhappy with men for not-so-ironically becoming the very thing that they–women–created through sabotaging the educational system. American society is now a solid reflection of the narcissism that feminism has been constructing for the last 30 years–full of itself, unaware of its own needs, unable to think, unaware of what others in the world think, childish, and desperately in need of self-discipline. Thus, what in the end is really different about the 60s US k-12 educational system vs. that of today? Well, in essence: social engineering = feminism; a lack of discipline = feminism; poor standards = feminism; too many students who all have to be placated = feminism; a lack of rigorous thinking skills = feminism; a focus on narcissism = feminism; and a depraved indifference toward the welfare of our children at the behest of meeting a social agenda = feminism. All this being said: should women have every right to a good education, to good jobs, to good careers, to control over their destiny? Of course, but what radical feminism has done to the US is nothing short of Nazi-ism. And, where they started was our educational system. Take away men, families, and the ability to fight back using critical thinking skills and you have met your goal. Of course had this not been backed by the government-wealth complex to break up families and make us all more dependent on the state (at a financial cost of course), it would have never seen the light of day–but that\’s another story. AS

HISTORY OF CHANGES IN AMERICAN EDUCATION and thus the changes in government

The law changed and forced changes in education. It was not the nation that changed the law so much as it was a panel of nine men on a run-away supreme court bench. This happened in the 1920’s, and in 1947-48, and again in the early 1960’s.

Once they changed the explanation of history ie the Constitution, the rest of the nation took it like sheep, until now few know how things used to be understood. It’s been taught wrong for over 50 years, and now, by omission, the true old history is no longer existent in the hearts and minds of America’s youth, most teachers, and even lawyers.

Understandings of men changed and thus the goals of education was allowed to be changed.

Originally in America, our law and our education was based on God and the Bible. The change is that now our law and our education are based on men’s opinions that contradict God and the Bible.

From 1607 until 1807 there could not be found in America a school which did not teach Bible understandings on their subjects. For this theme and coverage of 200 years of early American history, see the Founding Fathers and original thirteen colony charters and the constitutions of those colonies. Also see the Constitutions of the newly formed states as they came into the Union. Strong reference to God is made over and over. Also the NorthWest Treaty referenced how schools should be teaching scripture understanding to the children.

Christians came to Plymouth Rock for freedom of their religion. They instituted schools to train up their children in their beliefs.

95% of the founding fathers believed in God through faith in His Son Jesus Christ. See the materials, books, and videos from Wallbuilder Publishers for historical documents on the Founding Fathers.

1830- Horace Mann got the State of Pennsylvania to begin a new state school program that did not have the Bible .

1870- The teaching of law begins to change and have its effect on public schools. Harvard Law School Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell (1826-1906) applied Darwin’s theory of evolution to law. Introduced the case-law method instead of the Constitution. Students studied the decisions of judges instead of the Constitution of the Founders. Students grew to become less and less aware of what the Founders said and more and more aware of what judges decided.

1870-1964, Roscoe Pound strengthened the ideas of Langdell, replacing him at Harvard Law School. Institutionalized “positivism”, a kind of Darwinian theory of growing towards a goal by positive or forward steps of change and that positive change is necessary for society to evolve to its end form. So allowing changes in law. As the understanding of law was to change, so also would follow changes in the application of law to our school system.

1902- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. held that original intent and precedent held little value. Argued for thirty years that decisions should not be based upon natural law and its fixed standards but upon the felt necessities of the time and the prevalent political theories so that society could reach a social change to what men wanted.

1916- Louis Brandeis (1856-1941) urged the Court to be bold in leading society to change. He wanted the reason of men to be the ultimate rule, not the law of God nor the ideas of the Founders.

1930’s – Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law widely discarded because it was absolute instead of relative. Relativism allowed for change. Relativism became a new term, more ‘intellectual’ for describing the positive changes needed for evolution of law and society. (the positivism of Roscoe Pound). Absolute values were discarded.

John Dewey 1930’s- John Dewey was an esteemed humanist. He was a prominent leader of new ideas in education. He wrote much on the effects of Darwin’s theory of evolution on science, education, man and society. His premise can be summarized as saying that nothing is ultimately good in itself except positive change for the better. To this goal he rejected absolute values of God, the Bible, and men who believed in God.

Dewey’s most positive value is positive change for the better. He was so recognized as a leader of new ideas concerning humanism ie synonym for socialism that he was invited to teach on establishing state schools for the betterment of the state. He taught in China at the University of Peking and in Turkey. Upon Dewey’s return to California, he wrote an Americanized version of Karl Marx philosophies called “The Humanist Manifesto”.

Dewey believed in the collective society like socialist of Russia and China being more important than any individualism. He views people as members of the larger society, to the exclusion of individual rights when the perceived needs of society would require the exclusion of personal rights. This thinking permeates the N.E.A today as a result of his works and others who followed in his footsteps. The state rights over individual rights is associated with the recent event in Pennsylvania where state authorities forced fifty young girls to be spread eagled on an examination table, for genital inspection, without parent’s knowledge or consent. Such is the consequence of giving up individual rights to the state system.

1932- Benjamin Cardozo (1870-1938), said there is no law to bind the judge. He took judge-made law as a reality of life. Americans will remember our Constitution says Congress makes laws and judges apply those fixed laws to various situations. But Justice Cardozo wanted to make new laws from the bench of the Supreme Court by decisions unbound by tradition or precedent. He condoned the Court functioning as law-maker by overturning precedents of generations of Americans.

1930-1941, Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948) the Court’s Chief Justice for eleven years said “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”

1945-1953 – radical social change achieved by wide spread “positivists” or secular humanists.

1947- The new lawyer system of education, “positivism” or “secular humanism”, ruled that schools could no longer teach Bible at school, only off campus, somewhere else! Everson Case.

1953- Earl Warren (1891-1974) became Chief-Justice and ruled for sixteen years.

1958- Earl Warren wrote, “The Constitutional Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

1953-1968, Warren’s court struck down many traditional practices and proudly admitted doing it without legal precedent. The Court had “evolved” into something different from what the Founders designed it. The Court had become no longer a only a judge, but now it was the new law-maker! The court was now doing what by Constitutional authority only the Congress could do.

1962- School prayer struck down, Engel vs Vitale

1963- School Bible reading struck down, School District of Abington Township v. Schempp

1980- School display of Ten Commandments disallowed, Stone v. Graham

1985- School moment of silent time for prayer struck down, Wallace v. Jaffree

1989- Display of birth of Christ not allowed on public property, Allegheny v Pittsburg ACLU

1992- School graduation prayer struck down, Lee v. Weisman

1988- Hillary Rodham Clinton attends U.N. conference on world education in Thailand

1989 – Hillary and Vera Katz on board in New York, National Committee on Education and Economics

1991- Vera Katz as Mayor in Portland helps entire state of Oregon change to Goals 2000 system

1996- Twenty six states have programs of Goals 2000, Humanistic, New World Order economics driven system

1996 —National Standards for History advises retraining and screening of teachers to only accept those who can adapt their attitudes to fit the new standards. This means those who are for the traditional and true history would be systematically excluded.

1996 Dr. Meno, Commissioner of Education, Texas says teachers need to be requalified according to conditions of the new set of goals. ie, exclude those who disagree with the new standards.

Interpretation by the editor, Larry Rice: Those educrats in the government system are glad to see big government standards take over education. You should want to place people in power who are agreement with William Bennett and who disagree with the Texas Education Commissioner.


Both Karl Marx and Joseph Stalin said it could not happen that America would accept communism all at once. They knew that was impossible, but they also knew it was not necessary for it to happen all at once. They realized that a steady diet of little bitty morsels of socialism introduced into American society would eventually transform the whole system. The socialist planners were content to climb their mountain one little step at a time. They knew eventually the top would be reached. They realize that socialism is only a tiny step away from full communism.

These ideas and goals are being implemented right now in local books

1. Teach children’s rights over parents rights.

2. Teach children to judge their parents. Hitler and Stalin did that.

3. Teach children how to begin changing their parents values. Remove esteem of parents from the children.

4. Teach what changes, teach the changes of people and society, with no reference to permanent values.

5. Teach the value of the new world system for the good of all men everywhere, one world under the U.N., but not under God.

6. Teach things that encourage belief in the psychic, occult, witchcraft, anything else but God.

7. Teach chaos instead of ordered systems.

8. Teach subjective values instead of any absolutes, especially don’t teach the Ten Commandments, but instead tell them each person makes his own decisions of what is right and what is wrong.

9. Remove their connections to the roots of their own history, and they will wither and die as a nation.

10. Give more examples for children to follow of delinquency instead of obedient children.

11. Bring the children down to a level of the lowest street urchin without love of mother or father

12. Teach that the state has control over the children instead of the God given parents.

13. Removal of good role model’s. By excluding references and explanations of Christian motivation from those famous deeds of America’s historical great men, children are robbed of those good role models. When those men are characterized as deists and profit seekers their motives are misrepresented to the children. Children learn what they see. What a shame that so many people teach or believe our founding fathers were deists and established this country for economic gain. What a shameful revision of history it is to call Patrick Henry a deist. He recorded for all history a denial of deism and his affirmation of Jesus Christ.

Joseph Stalin said he didn’t have to defeat us in gun warfare. He could do it through our children. He would poison their minds against God and family. Through educational system and tv the forces of socialism would invade the youth of America and destroy it from its roots. Then socialism would rule the world. That was Joseph Stalin’s dream. That was his goal. America, it is up to you whether you will mock or take heed. The atheistic goals were first made public by the threat of communism, but are now hiding under the mask of Humanism. See the article on Two Views of the World found on the page for Graduating Seniors in the topic list.

Join the battle which has been declared. It is a battle for your children. It is your battle to fight, to win. When Jonah preached to Ninevah he declared the soon coming destruction. Jonah didn’t make any if’s and’s or but’s. He plainly said because of your sins, destruction is coming. That’s the way it is in America today. There are many who have written about the decline and fall of America. I’m just showing the details of how the children are being affected. It’s happening.

The ax has been laid to the very roots of our Constitution. The Supreme Court now makes laws. Not only does it make laws, it overthrows those which have existed for generations upon generations of Americans and calls them unconstitutional. Why? Because of the new morality that says, the end justifies the means, and if it seems good do it. And no man stood strong enough to stop that encroachment when it happened.

The Founders would have denied what the Warren Court did on the grounds of Treason. Why Treason? Because the Founders believed that whosoever attacked the strength and education of Christianity attacked this great nation which was founded on the principles of Christianity. It’s OK to exercise free speech on the streets if one wants to attack Christianity, but it is High Treason for a judge to throw down laws that were established to protect Christian education according to individual faith of Americans.

The Socialist minded judges took a bold stroke at our roots and they got away with it. No one impeached them for Treason. Under the power of Mass Media, the public was given opium of “it’s all for the good of the nation“, and they sat back in their false humility and failed to stand up for Right.

Leave a Reply

People Envisioning a Conservative American Nation

Facebook IconTwitter Iconfacebook like buttontwitter follow button