Sibby Online

Hillary’s Universal Pre-K and Governor Rounds

I don’t know how many of you have seen Hillary Clinton’s Christmas campaign ad where she brings up "Universal Pre-K", but that answers the question from the end of my last post about why the South Dakota Education Establishment want to pass legislation authorizing "voluntary pre-kindergarten programs" when we already have that available in South Dakota. There is a political component to the proposal.

Before I get into that and the current situation regarding Hillary, I will first provide some background information, which you will find links to at my "Public Education Links" section of my sidebar. First I will address the "voluntary" aspect with this excerpt form the FedEd: Education for the Global Government link:

Thus even though the exact wording of bills like Goals 2000 described them as "voluntary," in the postmodernist-Orwellian universe of FedEd where nothing means what it says, and where HR 6 stipulates that the U.S. Department of education can simply withhold federal money from any state not signing on to the new program (pp. 92-93), states won’t choose autonomy. Surprise, surprise; "voluntary" or not, all 50 states eventually signed on. After all, school districts were already dependent on federal money, and every federal dollar comes with strings attached. They had no choice except to introduce the official textbooks of FedEd, such as the above-mentioned We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution. Despite the title, this text portrays the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights as superior to the U.S. Constitution.

Another means of enforcement is through gaining control of early childhood education, including infant education. It is interesting to compare such statements with one of the slogans thrown around back in the 1990s, associated with both Goals 2000 and STW: "All children will begin school ready to learn." Ready to learn how, by what means, and in what respect? What this statement is really promoting is not families’ beginning educating very small children but rather "arrangements involving families, communities, or institutional programmes, as appropriate…" (quoted on p. 107).

Next I will like to give you an idea of the mindset of those running the Education Establishment with an excerpt from the the link titled, "Restructuring Education for the Global Village" (Hint: remember Hilliary’s…it takes a village to raise a child):

Chester Pierce, for example, is a professor in the Department of Educational Psychiatry at Harvard University, and a major architect of the development of the "new" American citizen for the global village. Professor Pierce told 2,000 teachers attending the Childhood International Education Seminar in Denver, Colorado in 1973: "Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances toward our Founding Fathers, toward his parents, toward our elected officials, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It's up to you, teachers, to make all of these sick children well by creating the international child of the future." Could his intentions have been more clear?

When Professor Pierce spoke those words 27 years ago, we weren't concerned about national sovereignty or U.N.-orchestrated global governance. We were a proud, patriotic nation holding faith and family in the highest esteem. Today, aware Americans are asking what happened to change our country.

We are realizing the fulfillment of Chester Pierce's dream. Funded by programs such as Goals 2000, public schools in America are besieged by an army of psychologists who evaluate our children for traces of the sickness Professor Pierce was so concerned about - patriotism, loyalty and love of family. Once identified, they use a sophisticated method to flush these "misguided" ideas from their minds, replacing them with ideas that will help create citizens for the global village. This system has many names. You may recognize it as Outcome-Based Education (OBE).

OBE attacks the traditional beliefs and attitudes of Americans, for its target is traditional American society. OBE is an anti-intellectual, highly politicized, psychological indoctrination process designed to create a society that is accepting of and susceptible to manipulation and control. It has no other purpose, which is why it is veiled in secrecy and double-speak.

For more than two decades, our nation has been involved in this massive "education reform." The classrooms of today would be nearly unrecognizable to those of us who attended school just 20 or 30 years ago.

And it was Bill and Hillary Clinton that got the ball rolling with the help of Marc Tucker:

The master plan to federalize education and tie it into the workforce originated with the now infamous "Dear Hillary" letter written on November 11, 1992 by Marc Tucker, president of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). It lays out a plan "to remold the entire American system" into "a seamless web that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone," coordinated by "labor market boards at the local, state and federal levels" where curriculum and "job matching" will be handled by counselors "accessing the integrated computer-based program."

On this page is reproduced the letterhead of Marc Tucker's organization. Noteworthy members of his Board of Trustees are Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ira Magaziner (chief author of the Clintons' massive 1994 health care plan), and David Rockefeller Jr.

Rep. Bob Schaffer (R-CO) correctly analyzed this letter as "a blueprint for a German model of education that would be forced upon the people of America." He said this "moves the country toward a government-managed, government-owned centralized education system from kindergarten past college." He placed this letter in the Congressional Record on September 25, 1998. It is most easily accessible on Eagle Forum's website.

And the April 2007 piece by Dr. Dennis Cuddy titled, "Marc Tucker New Education Plan" takes the above plan down to the cradle:

On December 14, 2006, the New Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, headed by Marc Tucker, released a report titled "Tough Choices or Tough Times." It was promoted by CBS News as being something "new," but was it?

You may recall the infamous letter of November 11, 1992 written by Tucker to NCEE board member Hillary Clinton. It stated that Bill Clinton's presidential victory of November 1992 would give them the chance to implement their plan to integrate education into a national system of human resource development "from cradle to grave...the same system for everyone."

Hillary Clinton at the beginning of her husband's presidency in 1993 developed a health care program that Milton Friedman called Socialist. During her own bid for the presidency, on March 17, 2007 in Houston she announced not only that she wants to provide health care for all Americans, but she also announced that as president she would create a universal pre-kindergarten program. This would be working toward the "cradle" end of their plan referred to in Tucker's 1992 letter. And it would be in line with Tucker's "Tough Choices or Tough Times" new plan, which calls for putting all 4-year-olds and all low-income 3-year-olds into universal public pre-school.

Cuddy covers more details of their globalist plan:

This would fit with President Bill Clinton's 1995 New Transatlantic Agenda signed with the European Union "addressing the challenges and opportunities of global integration," including the "portability of (students') academic credits." An October 1997 report indicated that global skills standards and portable credentials would be "benchmarked to international standards...a high degree of integration...embedding skills within the broader context of economic and social activity, and specifically within...local and regional economic development."

This latter report provision fits with Tucker's call in "Tough Choices or Tough Times" for federal legislation for the states "to create regional economic development authorities" to develop "goals and strategies for their regions" and coordinate "the work of the region's educational and training institutions to make sure that each region's workers develop the skills and knowledge needed to be successful in that labor market."

Why all the attention to "regions"? It's because with greater population mobility, the power elite wants to develop a "regional" mindset among people. For some years already, there's been a Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER) including 2 Canadian provinces and several U.S. states. Once populations accept this emphasis upon thinking regionally within nations and overlapping national borders, it will be easier to persuade them to accept regions among nations, such as a North American Union including the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Then the final step will be to link all regional arrangements into a world government.

For those of us in South Dakota, especially Republicans, why does it appear Governor Mike Rounds is in bed with Hillary on the "Global Village" with his 2101 Education Initiatives that include this Universal Preschool agenda? I think I found the answer…the National Governors Association is the mechanism by which the Washington D.C central planning decisions are implemented via the 50 states. Here is a link to their Preschool forum held in December 2003.

Cuddy provides this response:

Resistance to this plan needs to begin at the grassroots level. For example, local control of schools is very important to most parents, and they can be shown that Marc Tucker's "Tough Choices or Tough Times" actually demotes locally elected school baords simply to hiring and overseeing contractors who will run the schools.

Somebody needs to tell that to the Associated School Boards of South Dakota.

Taxpayers funded lobbying

Pat Powers posted his analysis regarding a ballot issue promoted by South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government. Excerpt:

So, an organization of public officials - where the dues are paid for by tax dollars - which engages in campaigns would effectively have any and all of those dues (both direct and indirect) shut off from those purposes.

They’re going to view that as bad. But there’s a part of this that will really make public officials howl in anger. Under the way I’m reading this proposal, those organizations technically couldn’t even lobby.

No public body public officer, person in the employ of the state or any of its political subdivisions, … may, directly or indirectly direct permit, receive require, or facilitate the use of tax revenues or any other public resources for … lobbying …. purposes, including payment of dues or membership fees of any kind to any person, league, or association which directly or indirectly engages in lobbying…..

Again, I removed some of the extensive language to make it more clear, but I don’t think the meaning changes at all. No taxpayer dollars can be used for lobbying, under penalty of a class one misdemeanor.

SDACC, SDACO, Municipal League, the State’s Attorney and Sheriff’s Associations, ASBSD, and any other organization that has #1) lobbyists, and #2) has dues directly paid for by their governmental body would technically have the spigot of public funds abruptly cut off. No more appropriations for dues. Or at least, no more lobbying.

The Associated School Boards of South Dakota (ABSD) is one of the organizations singled out by Pat Powers. Their legislative agenda is on the front-page of today’s Mitchell Daily Republic. I can’t find a link to the report, but I did find a link to the press release that the report addressed. The Daily Republic report started out with this:

Associated School Boards of South Dakota recently voted to target education funding, pre-kindergarten standards and property tax inequities during the 2008 legislative session.

Here is what the press release said about the property tax issue:

Commonly referred to as the 150 percent rule, state law allows land sold for more than 150 percent of its value to be taxed as though the sale never happened. According to Department of Revenue estimates, approximately $4 billion in assessed land value is currently off the tax rolls and is not being use for taxation purposes.

As a result, some school districts don’t have a large enough tax base to upgrade education facilities.

"In some school districts, it not just difficult, it’s nearly impossible to provide a safe and suitable learning environment," Alm said. "We need to fix the 150 percent rule before the inequities become more dramatic."

So the taxpayers are providing funded (via dues from their school districts) to an organization that wants to raise taxes to fund education. That does not sound like a good thing for taxpayers.

And what is also silly is the idea that there is not enough funding for K-12 funding, but they want to expand into pre-schools:

Citing the effectiveness and efficiency of high-quality pre-kindergarten programming, school board members also voted to support the "development of content and accreditation standards for voluntary pre-k programs."

Currently, there are no established pre-k standards despite the many public and private entities that offer pre-k services in South Dakota.

Alm said allowing the State Board of Education to develop voluntary standards would provide a measure of uniformity across the state and better align early childhood education programming to K-12 content standards in place.

The Daily Republic reported this:

The ASBSD also supports the creation of content and accreditation standards for voluntary pre-kindergarten programs. There are standards for K-12 math and reading, said Alm, but no such standards exist for the many statewide public and private entities that offer pre-K services. Such content standards would most likely be developed through the state Department of Education, he said. Alm believes the more conscientious operators of daycare and pre-school facilities would be OK with such standards.

I find that most disingenuous. How would he know unless he saw the yet to be developed standards? In fact the content has already been developed, here is the link to the Department of Education web site where you can find them. They were developed with the help of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). And here is a link to the NAEYC web site where you will find South Dakota entities are already received accreditation from the NAEYC (Pick "SD" for state and hit "Search for Programs"). So why does more need to be done, if they want "voluntary" pre-kindergarten programs? Obviously there is an agenda that is not transparent. And as some of you know, I have already expose the real agenda with my post from yesterday. More details to come.