posted 05-15-2002 04:35 PM               

WASHINGTON – The School to Work program, which is written into U.S. law, aims to decide for your children what line of work they should be trained and educated for, ac cording to the needs of the state, collaborating with big business. It has all the appearances of a back-door approach to the police state.

William L. Shirer, in his book "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,” cites this phenomenon in Nazi Germany:

"[The workbook was introduced] and eventually no worker could be hired unless he possessed one. In it was kept a record of his skills and employment. The workbook not only provided the State and the employer with up-to-date date on every single employee in the nation, but was used to tie a worker to the bench. If he desired to leave for other employment, his employer could retain his workbook, which meant that he could not be legally employed elsewhere.”

Robert Holland, author of "Not With My Child, You Don’t,” says the similarities of the Hitler’s "full employment” system and the School to Work Law "snapping into place” right here in the United States are "quite eerie and disturbing.”

The system won’t develop overnight, of course. For such a program to be imposed on a freedom-loving public, there must be stealth and gradualism. But the machinery for it has been written into law.

As Holland points out in a study prepared for Free Republic, School to Work legislation repeatedly makes it clear its provisions are for "all students” and "all schools.”

Many of us grew up with dreams and aspirations as to what career path we wished to follow. We may even have changed our minds or careers along the way. We followed our ambitions, often taking hard knocks and learning life’s lessons along the way.

School to Work (STW) will have none of that. Some power elites will determine your children’s careers, and see that they are trained to follow a predetermined paths. School to Work is not about educating boys and girls so they can make their own career decisions. It is about training your children to fit into whatever narrow scheme the elites have decided.

The Usual Suspects
This plan can be traced to "the usual suspects,” i.e., wealthy, powerful establishment foundations and left-wing politicians with a statist complex. State-directed skills training would fit the "national good,” as determined by the elites.

In the mid-1980s, there was a raging debate as to whether the U.S. should embark on a "national industrial policy” program. The Reagan administration had rejected the idea, much to the chagrin of left-wing politicians who felt that because many of our trading partners were making such top-down decisions for their people, obviously we couldn’t compete in a global economy unless we did likewise.

So planners did what planners always do. If the bumpkins elected by the people don’t follow the wisdom of their betters, well, the planners will simply have to work around them.

A Carnegie Corp. forum on education and the economy resulted in a Carnegie spinoff, National Center for Education and the Economy (NCEE). This entity was led by educrat Marc Tucker, who designed the grandiose Human Resource Development Plan. In 1990, NCEE unveiled the first national report boosting the "necessity” of School to Work.

Hillary, of Course
In the forefront of those boosting the plan were Arkansas lawyer Hillary Clinton and industrial consultant Ira Magaziner. This duo would later push for a national health system that went down in flames when exposed to the light of day. Those pesky voters again!

This was followed by a series of reports from the U.S. Department of Labor in the first Bush administration. One can speculate that if Ronald Reagan had been around for another term, he would have given this meddling short shrift.

Electronic Resume – for Kindergartners

These reports declared that, quoting Holland, "all schools must bend single-mindedly to the task of socializing a skilled workforce.” The plan "even offered a model electronic resume to be kept for all students, K through 12, wherein their ‘workforce competencies’ would be rated and recorded for the benefit of their future employers. It had a line identifying each child according to Social Security number.”

When the Clintons came to Washington and took the reins of power, the agenda was front and center. What followed were the 1994 School-to-Work Opportunities Act and the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

From all of this emerged a National Skill Standards Board, which has divided the economy into 15 sectors. The machinery for the state determining your child’s future was in place. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/13/160451.shtml

posted 05-15-2002 06:13 PM               

3,700 seniors told passing all classes still isn't enough

By Gordon Smith and Rachel Urganga
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

May 9, 2002

LOS ANGELES – A year-old policy telling 3,700 high school seniors that completing all their required courses doesn't earn them the right to wear a cap and gown on graduation day has created an outcry among students, parents and civil-rights activists here after coming to light this week.

To attend the ceremonies, the students in District C of the sprawling Los Angeles Unified School District also have to submit a plan to school officials for post-secondary education, training or service.

Yesterday, school officials backed away – sort of – from that stance after fielding calls from parents and the media around the nation seeking clarification.

"It was supposed to get everyone's attention on the campuses," one district official said ruefully. "We didn't know it was going to get everyone's attention in the world."

The architect of the policy – District C Superintendent Robert Collins – said it "basically says to our community that we hold very high expectations of our graduates."

Enrolling in universities, community colleges, trade schools, apprenticeships or the military satisfy the policy.

Students who state they want to get a job or start a family are asked to develop more specific educational plans related to their interests.

Linking the plans with being able to take part in graduation ceremonies "gets everyone's attention," Collins said. But he conceded that he might have to "change that around a little bit" after the outcry.

Many students in the eight high schools and six continuation schools affected give the policy a thumbs-down.

Ingrid Perez, a senior at Van Nuys High School, said it's none of the school district's business what seniors do after they graduate.

Some of her friends are signing up for college to appease administrators and take part in graduation ceremonies, she said.

On the other hand, the policy led Birmingham High School senior Juan Martinez to enroll in a community college. "I didn't think about it before," said Martinez, who's awaiting approval for a financial aid package.

But criticism was sharp from Norma Vega of the Mexican American Legal Defense Foundation, who said the policy seems to discriminate against students whose families don't have enough money to send their kids to college or vocational school, and need them to contribute financially to the household.

Those issues – along with high dropout rates – are of particular concern among Latinos, she noted. Fifty-eight percent of the student population of District C is Hispanic.

"The job of the school isn't to impose things that are going to hurt people," Vega added. MALDEF is looking into potential legal action against the school district over the policy.

Collins said the policy pressures school counselors to listen to students' needs and help them develop career plans. Students who don't want to participate in the planning can get waivers if their parents support them.

posted 05-19-2002 03:27 PM            

We have given the Government the power to set up a monopoly system where everyone is forced to pay for the government schools, whether they send their kids to a freedom-of-choice school or not.

As a result, the only group which has the opportunity for enrolling their kids in freedom-of-choice rather than government-monopoly schools are the wealthier, primarily white, suburbanites and people who live in the 'better' part of towns.

If you live in the inner city, or out in rural America -- if you don't have five thousand bucks in discretionary income after you've paid all your taxes and bills -- then you're stuck with the government-monopoly schools.

And it's the government-monopoly schools which are going to run the government-monopoly scams on you.

posted 05-19-2002 08:08 PM            

STANDARDS OF LEARNING SHOULD BE CALLED STANDARDS OF LYING. The mandatory "Standards of Learning" test,
instituted a few years ago in Virginia and other states
as part of the Conservative Revolution,
is touted for being able to guarantee
that students know fundamentals of history, math, science, etc. In a practice test for eighth graders given yesterday
at a Northern Virginia middle school,
the following question was #47:

Question: Whose idea, expressed in the Declaration of Independence,
was that people have natural rights to life, liberty, and property?

A. George Washington
B. Patrick Henry
C. John Adams
D. John Locke

posted 05-19-2002 11:12 PM            

Well, there’s no doubt, of course, that it was John Locke who propounded in his Two Treatises of Civil Government that a right to property was as valid and as basic as the right to life and liberty. So I gather that your and “Rosalinda’s” argument was that the idea of a natural right of property was not expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and thus the question is suspect.

I propose that the question (despite any misgivings I may have about the test) is completely valid, because Locke’s ideals – including the ‘natural right’ to property – are expressed in the Declaration. Let’s take a closer look.

First, I admit that the “property” right is not specifically mentioned in the Big Three of the second sentence of the Declaration: “…that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- …” [emphasis mine]. But note the term “among these [certain unalienable Rights]”

Not “these three and only these three unalienable Rights”.

To me, this means that there could be a whole host of “Rights” besides the Big Three, but they didn’t make it into the second sentence, which is even longer than the first sentence (sort of like this one).

But if that’s the case, how do we know that the Fathers were even thinking of Locke’s “right to property”? Look further into the part of the Declaration where the authors define those particular things that the British government did to justify independence. By looking at these things which the authors considered “usurpations of these rights” we should be able to get a pretty good idea of what “rights” that the king was usurping. And remember, if the King was usurping rights, they weren’t rights that the King granted; therefore they had to be “unalienable”. …let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

I have bolded the things that deal specifically with the property rights of the colonists which were usurped by King George.

“He has erected a Multitude of new Offices and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People and eat out their substance.”

“For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the World;”

“For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent”.

Three of the bedrock reasons for the Declaration of Independence – three of the bedrock accusations against King George, named as usurpations of rights – deal specifically with the right of the people to have PROPERTY. PROPERTY safe from a “swarm of Officers”. PROPERTY gathered by peaceful trade which the King had interrupted. PROPERTY taken from the people by King George’s ”Taxes … without … consent”.

I do not know why Rosalinda slammed the idea that you have a right to your property as “Gingrichean”. I think the idea that you have a right to your property and the government does not have a right to take it away arbitrarily is Jeffersonian – or better yet, American.

posted 05-20-2002 10:40 AM            

First off, I haven't seen the entire test, and I'm sure there're interpretations that I might disagree with; so please don't think I'm trying to defend any particular agenda.

But it seems to me that - just maybe - the question could've been written that way to make the kids think about the ramifications of the D of I and John Locke's contributions to the philosophy of the Founders. If they were expecting the kids to merely parrot the actual words of the second sentence of the D of I, then they might catch the difference between 'pursuit of happiness' and 'property'.

But just like the terms 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness' don't rule out 'property', you can also make the argument that 'Life, Liberty, and Property' don't rule out 'the pursuit of Happiness', either. The implicit rights are right up there with the explicit rights, as well.

I agree with you that happiness does not equal 'stuff', nor does 'stuff' equal happiness. But when you say that "Pursuing your own happiness IS freedom , and liberty...", you have to remember that you cannot be 'free' if the government takes away the fruits of your labor and gives them to someone else, whether that someone else is Enron, a farmer being paid not to grow soybeans, or a person who made the wrong choices about finishing school, getting a job, etc.

Remember also that the 'pursuit of Happiness' is not the same thing as 'Happiness'. We are guaranteed the right to chase our dreams, and we exercise that right by choosing to work hard for those dreams. We are not guaranteed a horse ranch in Montana or a new SUV or a couple of pairs of Armani loafers.

Just take away one of those rights: life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, property, the choice of worshipping how we want to, the right to say how we feel - and the whole thing begins to fall to pieces. I think both Locke and Jefferson would agree with that.

I know I do.