Schools that deny God cannot in any way serve a God-fearing nation. Their Satanic aim is to destroy it. The colonists who created our American civilization believed that the Bible would forever be the spiritual foundation of its governments, laws, and education. Today, we have an atheist public school system, a government in Washington fiercely divided between atheist socialists and Bible believers waging endless political wars for dominion. As for our laws, a Supreme Court consisting of believers and non-believers has given us a schizophrenic legal system that sanctions the killing of the unborn and bans Bible teaching in the public schools.
It would do well to read Harvard College’s Mission Statement, written by its founders in 1636:
Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider the end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom, as the only foundation of sound knowledge and learning.
Today, only God knows what the aim of a Harvard education is. It certainly is not to serve Christ. Although Harvard was founded by Calvinists, they were evicted from Harvard in 1805 by the Unitarians, who no longer believed in the divinity of Christ. They believed that He was a great teacher who had the same kind of divinity that all of us have. That was the beginning of America’s great apostasy that set her on the secular road to government-sanctioned atheist schools.
Which means that we will not have viable public schools until the Bible once more becomes the spiritual foundation of their curriculum. For it is only through the Bible that students can become aware of their purpose in life, to serve God and not the materialistic state.
The latest effort for education reform advanced by the Council on Foreign Relations’ task force makes no mention of any spiritual force in education. Their main recommendation is for states to adopt a Common Core of Standards, which, in a strange way, is supposed to correct the academic deficiencies of the present system. Apparently, academic rigor is supposed to take the place of purpose, which can only be achieved through belief in the God who has made each one of us an entity of purpose. The achievement of academic skill, if even possible in the public school system, may lead to a good-paying career in some field of endeavor, but it will not fill the need for a sense of purpose in life. A life without purpose is a life without meaning.
While the public schools have no choice but to live with school shootings and student suicides, one thing they will not tolerate is the Holy Bible in their classrooms, for one simple reason: The entire progressive curriculum is based on the theory of Godless evolution. Without evolution, the students cannot be considered as animals subject to the teaching methods the Skinnerian behaviorists use in training students. Also, belief in God teaches us that every human being has a soul destined to a life after death in eternity. With humanism — the anti-God philosophy that governs public education — there is only the here and now. And that is why all secular school reform movements stay away from God.
The CFR task force was chaired by Joel I. Klein, former head of New York City public schools, and Condoleezza Rice, former U.S. Secretary of State in the Bush administration, two very prominent members of the elite establishment. Klein had this to say about the reading problem in an interview conducted by Jon Meacham:
When I was chancellor, I worried about just literacy, you know. I mean, basically, you know, learning to read — you laugh, but it shocked me to think — people ask me, what surprised me most about being chancellor? I used to go to public schools in this city and walk into a high school and ask a kid to read, and the kid could not read. I don’t even mean comprehend; I mean read the words on a — on a text. How the hell can a kid be in a school system for a decade and not read?
I mean, so, you know, this kid — now, it may be that financial literacy will incentivize them, or entrepreneurism, or some of the kind of project-driven work that should happen. But it’s just not going to win in the 21st century to have kids in high schools who can’t read.
When Klein was chancellor I wrote him a letter with a proposal to help solve the schools’ reading problem by using Alpha-Phonics to turn the worst school in the city to the best school in the city. Some months later I received a very nice letter from Klein who said he appreciated my interest. And that was all. My proposal was not even considered, which told me something about how constricted members of the establishment are in considering true solutions to the problems they deal with. The solutions must be within politically correct parameters. And that is why the reforms offered by the CFR task force will get nowhere.
Concerning the Common Core idea, this is what former Secretary of Education Margaret Spelling had to say in the Meacham interview:
I would target the Common Core effort because I do think that’s the way out of the wilderness. But I wouldn’t do it with — today let’s go try to do, you know, get to millions of teachers on how to — how to do it.
We got to get, you know, very smart and strategic with places like the College Board and the big publishers, the big technology companies, to get some research-based tools that are scalable and systematic. And so this idea that we can expect every single teacher, master teacher or otherwise, many of whom are not capable of doing this in the first place, to sort of do the magic in their own classroom is just unreasonable, period, paragraph. And so, you know, we gotta get smarter about that and THEN deploy it. I mean, I wouldn’t even talk to the teachers about the Common Core at the moment until we get our act together about what it is and how it works and, you know, materials around it and assessments built to it. Otherwise, I fear it’s going to be one of those, “we tried that, and it did not work.”
Considering the difficulties pointed out by Spelling in implementing the Common Core throughout the education system, we can foresee that educator resistance will kill it. So there is no possibility of true education reform as long as the nation tolerates a public system of education without spiritual content.
It is amazing how easily Americans have accepted the rejection of God by our judges and educators without much of a fight. A little atheist student may complain that she is offended by a prayer at graduation, and before you can say “amen,” the prayer is removed.
Changing children with souls into mindless robots has been the goal of behaviorist psychologists ever since they took over the schools. The depth of their unbelief was well expressed by John B. Watson, the father of behaviorism, in his book, Behaviorism, published in 1924. He wrote:
[We believe] that man is an animal different from other animals only in the types of behavior he displays…. The raw fact that you, as a psychologist, if you are to remain scientific, must describe the behavior of man in no other terms than those you would use in describing the behavior of the ox you slaughter, drove and still drives many timid souls away from behaviorism.
The interest of the behaviorist in man’s doings is more than in the interest of the spectator — he wants to control man’s reactions as physical scientists want to control and manipulate other natural phenomena. It is the business of behavioristic psychology to be able to predict and to control human activity.
In the heading of his chapter on “Talking and Thinking,” Watson added: “Which, when rightly understood, go far in breaking down the fiction that there is any such thing as ‘Mental’ life.”
And if you try to converse with many of today’s youths, you can’t help but notice that they appear to be devoid of a brain, or mental life, and that they have no purpose beyond the usual body satisfactions. They are the products of Godless behaviorist education.
In reality, the agenda of progressive education is total education reform — in the wrong direction. In 1970, a new educational actor entered the stage of education reform. He or she was referred to as a “change agent.” The September 1970 issue of Today’s Education defined the term:
The change-agent teacher does more than dream, however; he builds, too. He is part of an association of colleagues in his local school system, in his state, and across the country that makes up an interlocking system of change-agent organizations. This kind of system is necessary because changing our society through the evolutionary educational processes requires simultaneous action on three power levels.
The three levels are federal, state, and local. The federal government provides the funding, the states do the implementation, and the locals sell the sham to the tax-payers who haven’t the faintest idea what is going on.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 provided funding for change-agent development. That enabled University of Michigan professor Ronald G. Havelock to write his book, The Change Agent’s Guide to Innovation in Education, published in 1973, under a contract from the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with the title “Diffusion of Utilization Research to Knowledge Linkers in Education.”
According to the book, the change-agent is involved in: (1) the planning of educational change, (2) the training of laboratory T-groups to effect organizational change, (3) conflict resolution, (4) attitude and opinion change, (5) sensitivity training groups, (6) mental health consultation, (7) creating models for social change, (8) developing strategies for change agents, (9) utopian-analysis, (10) the manipulation of human behavior, (11) group dynamics, (12) role playing, (13) force field analysis applied to school situations, (14) reconciling community conflict, (15) understanding the dynamics of the influence process, (16) humanistic education, (17) identifying the characteristics of innovators, (18) reorganizing the school and classroom, (19) developing a pupil-assessment system, (20) creating social systems of knowledge transfer, (21) orientation of planned change, (22) Title III as it relates to educational change, (23) student behavioral objectives, (24) resistance and barriers to change.
And that is why the CFR’s report on educational reform is an exercise in futility. No one in the establishment is willing to take on the army of change agents in the schools. That is why their attempts to implement a Common Core of Standards will not succeed, and they seem to know it. So why bother? Because the natives are getting restless, the economy needs educated men and women who can read and do math, and the establishment must give the impression that they are doing something about it.
As far as the politicians are concerned, none of the candidates of either party seems to know what is going on in the public schools. That is why education is the least discussed issue of the campaign. There has been some talk among conservatives about getting rid of the Department of Education, but so far it has only been talk. And that is why it is the parents who must make their moves, either to homeschool or put their children in private schools. They have no other choices.
