Tag Archives: propaganda


An old fashioned con-man’s game of fraud is alive and well. It is called “Bait and Switch” and is sometimes used to sell products. It works very simply. The con-man offers to sell one thing at a given price, but when the customer arrives to get the merchandise, he is told that it has suddenly been sold out and a product of lower quality put in its place, usually at  higher cost.

“Bait and Switch” is not the exclusive practice of unscrupulous crooks. It is alive and well in American education, in which one thing is promised and another thing is delivered in its place that is astonishingly more costly and of vastly lower quality. In this case, they promise education, but, instead of a platform of studies which sets high standards of achievement and that demands students work to reach the objective goals of literacy, numeracy, clear critical thinking and uncorrupted reasoning, they deliver a platform of deliberately lowered standards, and political correctness in the form of a range of excuse-making devices. These devices take various forms, such as special education ploys for often fictitious and exaggerated “disabilities” that suspend the natural human challenge inherent in education, destroy accountability for failure and create an egregiously debilitating government dependency through ignorance and propaganda.

The Bait is the false promise that, through enormous funding, too often squandered in patronage grants for useless studies, a superior education is ensured. The Switch is that, for all the investment and graft, you get illiteracy, bad behavior through permissive conditioning and the continual failure of incalculable numbers of high school graduates unable to read, write, add, subtract, divide,  multiply, or generally to think.

There is only one reason to become educated. It is to free the mind so that it can govern the process of living. The purpose for being educated is not just to get a job, as is widely asserted. That is the main purpose of training, or the detailed learning of specific skills related to a profession or job. The real end purpose of becoming fully and truly educated is freedom, because only a free person can truly make life choices and decisions without being limited by anything but his ability and civilized society’s rules. To be free, a person must be able to depend on knowing reality, which requires the skills of clear thinking and uncorrupted reasoning. These alone enable a person to make wise and beneficial decisions, and without them, i.e., without education, there can be no freedom.

The methodology of education is learning to learn, a process which is guided by teachers, but which is something students must ultimately acquire for themselves. It cannot be instilled or instantly injected in anyone. You cannot simply tell someone how to play the piano or how to build a house. You may guide that person through a set of steps and explain various details, but the skills that make up piano playing or house building must be learned, fully understood and practiced until they are mastered. The ultimate ability of learning is the ability to teach oneself whatever one needs to learn. This should be the clearly recognized goal of every student and every teacher. The ultimate result of learning is not limited to specific facts or content, but to mastering the disciplines of clear, critical thinking and uncorrupted reasoning. It is the mastery of skills, not exclusively of content, because grasping truth and comprehending reality are skills that enable a person possessing them to learn anything and everything for the rest of his or her lives. Contrary to the argument that disciplined learning is constricting, a mastered set of disciplines, of reading, writing, reasoning, etc. is itself freedom from constriction. The intent of education should never be to cram data into a student’s head.

Neither is education the process of manufacturing self-esteem through grandiose notions or false narratives of history. That is the intent of propaganda, not education. The intent of educating students should be to teach them to evaluate data by objective standards and to expose them to many possible opposing explanations of a thing, until they have enough data to arrive at the truth objectively and it becomes a part of their experience. It is the truth and not the data which sets them free.

Author Dana R. Casey has put it succinctly: Teach students how to think, but never what to think.

This is vitally important for people to realize, because, a free, fully educated people are much stronger and less vulnerable to oppression than ignorant masses, long fed on propaganda. Therefore, governments often pervert education, so that facts are replaced with propaganda and the vital skills of objective critical thinking and a traditional liberal arts education are replaced by technical training. Freedom to think objectively strengthens people, while ignorance weakens them and makes them vulnerable to oppression or manipulation by government.

Corrupting an entire educational system takes a long time and must be done slowly and subtly. The advent of social liberalism and the theories of John Dewey, who praised the Soviet Union in its early days, introduced the concept of educating the masses, i.e., of collectivizing education. Dewey’s notion was that an educated population could be mass produced. He believed that the purpose of education is social reform. He wrote that “education is a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness; and that the adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness is the only sure method of social reconstruction.”

Dewey tried this in the USSR in the 30s, but the Soviets did not take Dewey’s notions entirely to heart, although they recognized that his methods and rationale might effectively create an educated collective population. Recognizing that a functioning nation requires a high rate of literacy and of all the other basic skills, they kept the traditional principles of education intact and instead placed their emphasis on slanting the content of education.

They stressed technical subjects and rewarded science students with government subsidy of their work, because they knew that technological advances were advantageous to their national power. Students in the Soviet Union had a high rate of literacy, mastery of foreign languages, especially English, which they recognized as the global standard, and the arts. Students of history were taught a carefully constructed propagandized view, even to the extent of manipulating and even inventing historical accounts. They were not given opportunities for an objective, many-faceted examination of such events. Thus students “learned” history which was skewed to the purposes of the Soviet regime.

The arts were also fiercely controlled, especially literature, because the Soviets understood the power of arts, especially of the written word, to shape the spirit and soul of a people, and punishments were exacted for violating the rules regarding what one could draw, paint, compose, write or disseminate. Even what was read by the people was tightly controlled. The works of Kafka and others were banned, and anyone copying prohibited text, called samizdat, often went to jail where they were harshly treated. In some respects, dissident artists and writers were treated more harshly than murderers on the logical theory that a murderer only killed people, whereas a powerfully written poem could inspire rebellion.

We in the US do not have a collectivist culture. The founding principle of our free republic is the freedom and rights of individual citizens. The founding documents upon which our nation was formed, was the diametric opposite of Soviet Socialism, thus, we have never believed in collectivizing anyone. In the US, these values and principles are also the purpose of the US education system. But that has gradually been corrupted.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, many former citizens of the USSR fled to the West. They knew that here they could fully appreciate what real freedom, freedom of the individual, was like. One component of Soviet life that was valuable and which they retained, was the skills had gained from their traditional education. One of the most encouraging things to draw from this is that many chose to reject Communism and become American citizens, praising American values, especially its extraordinary and unusual concept of individual rights.

Many of these former Soviet citizens were also shocked by the condition of education here in the US today, many claiming that education, minus the propaganda, was better in the USSR. This is hard to argue with. While in the Soviet Union people were not allowed to read the works of Kafka and other writers that would clash with Soviet values, they were encouraged to read, write and master many languages, all the sciences, and arts. Many mastered musical instruments and later established themselves in the West as soloists and orchestral musicians. Most Soviet and Soviet Bloc schools taught chess as a regular course of study, a game that most American children in public schools have either never heard of or ridicule as absurd, as they continue to fail to read on a high school level, preferring instead to spend their time listening to rap on their iPods and cell phones.

This is because American education has been degraded, deliberately and gradually, to its present state, so that students in schools are often encouraged to use excuse making and threats of litigation as a technique for achieving high grades, instead of the vital process of real learning. This degradation has come about through the yielding of control over education by local authorities to the Federal government.

The Soviets controlled the content of education while preserving the value of traditional standards and methods. But they lacked something that we in the US do not lack, money and its concomitant of greed. The Federal government uses money as a tool to control education by giving large grants to those who develop the so-called theories which promote standards prone to ideological propaganda and to school systems willing to implement these standards. It has also used money as a weapon to demonize standard education, ridiculing traditional methods as outdated or outmoded and instituting such corrupt standards as Common Core, a huge false-bottomed boat from which innumerable so-called “experts” drop their nets in search of big wads of cash. In a version of Bait and Switch, they offer idiotic fads and notions masquerading as theories in exchange for small fortunes of grant money. All that is required is that their cleverly invented “theories” always support and reinforce the ideology of big central government, thus making not only the students, but also the professionals in education, dependent upon it.

It will take brave educators, teachers in the classroom already overburdened with so much chaff that they cannot impart the kernel of wheat students badly, even desperately, need. They will need the courage of their convictions and great strength to insist on the restoration of traditional standards of a real learning environment, and to overturn the bandwagon of money, in order to right the course of American education. The first step will be to seize it back from the Federal Government and put it again where it belongs, in the local laps of teachers, parents and school officials who have been immunized against trendy notions and are confidently dedicated to bringing back proven traditional methods that actually educate students and teach them to appreciate what it really means to be educated. But it will also take dedication from parents not to allow the ultimate destruction of their children that illiteracy and a false conception of reality will cause.

*Social Liberalism is not true Liberalism, which was a product of the Enlightenment and celebrated freedom and the rights of individuals. Like so many other concepts, the Left has co-opted and corrupted the concept of true Liberalism, thus, it cannot be used in its original meaning without confusion.

FJ Rocca is an independent, conservative writer/blogger of fiction and non-fiction, most interested in the philosophy of American conservatism. Clarity is more important than eloquence, but truth is vital to human discourse.


1 Comment

Filed under Federal Department of Education, National Standards (Common Core)

Can America Survive the Arrogant, Elitist Imbeciles of Academia?

Image courtesy of stockimages / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Image courtesy of stockimages / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Universities are supposed to be places where genuine learning occurs, where the atmosphere of academic freedom abounds for intellectual stimulation, experimentation, inquiry, debate and speculation. In other words, universities are supposed to be portals to the universe of truth, knowledge and wisdom. We are not speaking here of the professional training one may get in, say, law, medicine, or one of the hard sciences. We are speaking here of the undergraduate university where one is supposed to ponder the central problems of philosophy and ethics, where one absorbs the quintessential and seminal lessons from the purely academic study of history, literature, mathematics, and the social and physical sciences, as distinct from professional and technical subjects, in other words, the Liberal Arts and Humanities.  These are the basis of all true education and without them there can be no serious level of learning.

There used to be a reasonable correlation between a degree from a famous educational institution and an excellent education. But correlation is not causation, as one saying goes. An Ivy League degree may be handsome, but, as another saying goes, Handsome is as handsome does. It may be true that a degree from a major institution makes it easier to find high paying jobs, but it is now questionable whether the actual education one obtains there is real.

The purpose of a university education is to provide the tools for an intellectual life, for an ongoing process of thought, ideation and self-learning, for constant and relentless inquiry and expansion of experience and knowledge. Indeed, these are bound to continue beyond a single lifespan, by virtue of the fact that one’s participation in the process contributes to a vast and ready repository of knowledge and wisdom as it is passed on to future generations and is ever added to by them.

A university is NOT supposed to be a place where someone stuffs your head with propaganda and tells you not to examine it further or warns you not to crash its boundaries by questioning its highly questionable premises. But there is a danger that when the core disciplines are taught by professors whose minds and ideas are imbued with a bias, what they teach will also be biased, thus the student absorbs only one side of an argument.

Noam Chomsky has often called the US a terrorist country, which it clearly is not, despite what he presents as his “research.” Cornell West has preached an afro-centric line of academic-sounding racist drivel for years, attacking black Conservatives as “playing a dangerous game.” Thomas Sowell, Ward Connerly, Michael Steele, Condoleeza Rice and J.C. Watts are not playing any kind of game, but Cornell West certainly is. He plays the “dangerous game” of social-liberal politics, while masquerading as an enlightened intellectual. Bill Ayers, who supported Barack Obama and helped engineer his Alinsky-inspired Marxism, said at various times, “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at” and “I don’t regret setting bombs.”Ward Churchill said, “There is no consensus, there is no homogeneity, there is no truth.” How does a student learn to pursue the truth when he is told that it does not exist? It may be unfair to compare Ayers with Chomsky and West, or even Churchill. Ayers came of age in a time when it was chic for well-to-do young people to declare themselves members of the counterculture, counter to that culture in which they were raised, often as children of privilege. And, so far as I know, neither Chomsky, Churchill nor west, ever bombed a building to protest  the America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. But Ayers did these things not merely to protest, but to defeat his own avowed enemy, the US, because he was a declared Communist at the time. Nonetheless, Chomsky, West, Churchill and Ayers are academics who, at one time or other, have been or continue to be affiliated with universities of high reputation. Not every university student comes under one the of these particular academics, of course, but the erosive mindset they represent too often replaces objective debate and the fostering of truly enlightened opinion on far too many US university campuses.

Further, the objectivity necessary to academic freedom is impossible when political correctness, an exclusive tool of the political left, is used to quash objective debate or challenge to its entrenched viewpoint, and no other interpretation of philosophic issues, social issues, or even lessons of history are tolerated. In a June 2013 article entitled “Political Correctness is About to Get Even Worse on College Campuses,” author David Masciotra put it plainly. “Higher educational institutions should function as fertilizers for the free exchange of ideas. Instead they are transforming into bloodless and boring breeding grounds for sensitivity captains who think the world’s biggest problems are flirtatious comments, jokes about cleavage, and books with pictures of scary people on the cover, and it is all done in the name of liberalism…” If a university atmosphere is heavily left-liberal, it is certain that the education provided at that university will also be left-liberal. And if political correctness is employed to stifle challenges to left-liberal thinking and curtail intellectual freedom, there will be a guarantee that graduates from such schools will carry on a left-liberal tradition born of intellectual brainwashing. Under this kind of doctrinaire intellectual repression, truth and its quest will die.

So why does this condition of tyrannical social-liberalism prevail on so many university campuses? Is it naivete in the face of an overwhelming mountain of evidence that social-liberalism is insanity? Or is it that so many university campuses are populated by promoters of an insane ideology because they are insane themselves? It is a given that generational inbreeding leads to insanity and mental retardation with almost calculable certainty. This is as true with intellectual and academic inbreeding as it is with genetic inbreeding.

The current situation on university campuses seems to prove this out with a vengeance. What is defined as liberalism pervades with pandemic virulence the so-called institutions of higher learning. It is certain that decades of teaching and learning the same leftist rot has created a massive number of academics and intellectuals who are incapable of any reaction to the philosophy of individual rights and liberty that is not knee-jerk (I would add, angrily, with emphasis on the jerk part).

The title of “Professor” credits one for being highly intelligent and association with the Ivory Tower of Academe has always carried with it a level of arrogance, presumably earned by ones intellectual achievements. But this can be deceptive in the case of social liberals. For, how can the promulgation of tired, old, failed notions prove ones intelligence? The greatest ideas on the planet that have been tested and proven to be gloriously successful are the very ones on which this nation was founded. They grew out of what was called “The Enlightenment” and were fashioned into the finest, most intelligently constructed set of documents that have ever existed in the history of mankind. Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Madison were far seeing in a way that Karl Marx and those that pushed his ideology were not.

It is a fact that the ideas of our nation’s Founding Fathers, which espouse free enterprise and individual liberty, have led to the highest level of political, economic and social prosperity ever known in human history, while ideas that espouse collectivism and its concomitants of socialism, communism and social-liberalism, have led to political, economic and social degeneracy. If anyone earned the right to arrogance, it was the Founders of our republic and not the “professors” who disparage it and them.

It is sadly ironic that Social Liberalism as a philosophy is nothing more than the dilution of the Founders’ philosophy with elements of socialism, serving only to weaken the Founders’ extraordinary success. Thus, social-liberals take a perfectly workable set of premises and weaken them with unworkable elements. They use freedom to impede freedom. Is this ironic or tragic? Is it brilliant or just stupid? Socialism in all its forms has proven to be an abject failure, thus it is clearly NOT enlightened. So why not throw it out and accept the one philosophy that is truly enlightened? Only the mentally retarded or insane would do such a thing and only the mentally retarded and insane would praise doing it.

Yet studies in recent years have shown that college faculties by large percentages continue to be staunchly and stubbornly liberal in their thinking and support political correctness to enforce their views. Free speech seems to be a dying animal on college campuses and the promise of a true education is dying with it. In a 2005 article in the Washington Post, Howard Kurtz states, “By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative.”

In another article on the same subject entitled “Should we care that US universities are ‘too liberal’” the author says, “America’s top universities seem to offer everything except conservative views. That’s not healthy for political debate.”

In an article from October of 2012 entitled “Moving Further to the Left,” author Scott Laschik states, “Academics, on average, lean to the left. A survey being released today suggests that they are moving even more in that direction. Among full-time faculty members at four-year colleges and universities, the percentage identifying as ‘far left’ or liberal has increased notably in the last three years, while the percentage identifying in three other political categories has declined.’”

These represent only a small section of commentary on the situation. Leftist propaganda is so rampant in politics that it sometimes makes one’s senses dull to it. When yet another TV news clip appears with Charles Schumer on it, I change the channel in the hope of finding something more entertaining or enriching. This is at times amusing. But when we realize that the same degenerate propaganda spewed by Schumer and his ilk also forms the philosophic premises on which our children are being taught, it hits close enough to home that it ought to alarm us, every one. I should add that the use of the term “Philosophic” in reference to Charles Schumer is itself a ridiculous irony. He is nothing more than an opportunist politician and if I have accused him of having the brains to grasp the destructive nature of the very philosophy he embraces, I truly apologize to Mr. Schumer. Possessing an enlightened intellect is the last thing I’d accuse him of.

The destructive ideas of Leftist Social Liberalism come from somewhere and it is not directly from the politicians. Despite the repeated proven failure of Socialism over the better part of a century, its idea is being kept alive, like a brain floating in a jar of murky fluid, on university campuses, and the white coated “mad scientists” who are keeping its defunct cells alive are members of Leftist university faculties. Why? Because they themselves have been infected with the disease of social-liberalism and in the degenerate structure of their minds, the ghost still haunts, like the fumes of a corpse that will not lie down and die properly.

In my opinion, this makes questionable whether one should expose one’s children to such an atmosphere. Would it be better just to buy many, many books and encourage them to read the lessons of history on their own? No, of course it wouldn’t. Higher education needs instruction and it is incumbent upon parents to find a way to keep their children from the infection of bad ideas. Moreover, the need of a university to keep its endowments full in order to remain viable comes before its desire to enable the Noam Chomskys, the Bill Ayerses and Cornell Wests to infect our children with their ideas. If that were their sole purpose, then universities would provide little or no hope for a true education and would eventually be forced to close their doors.

Is it possible, then, for all this to change and for a new flowering of true education on college campuses that is without the taint of a social-liberal slant and the pernicious tyranny of political correctness? Of course there is, because there has to be. Universities will have to find a way out of the present situation, because, if they don’t release themselves from the stranglehold of modern social liberalism and replace it with true academic and intellectual freedom, a new Dark Ages will descend. And a nation can die when its intellectual and academic roots rot. Social-liberalism is dying already, anyway. It is eroding from within and will eventually collapse from its own decay and the universities will have to be ready for that eventuality. They may believe that they are safe for the moment, so long as the truth is not recognized by the public at large and an outcry against them does not develop. But the public is losing interest, at least in one way that may be difficult for universities to follow.

The proliferation of private and online schools, calling themselves universities and offering short-term, practical courses of study in business, the technical fields, education and the law are drawing large enrollments of students who have little or no interest in struggling through a four-year Liberal Arts program. But the shorter, more convenient approach they provide may not be the only reason they are becoming hugely popular. The atmosphere on university campuses may be too hostile for students for whom the term “education” equates more with practical immediacy and less with struggle and the spectre of political correctness. There is no sensitivity training required of accountants and computer specialists, at least not at University of Phoenix or DeVry University, and ITT does not offer a Black, Womens or Gay Studies major.

To be sure, Liberal Arts education is not dead, but it may be less and less inviting when the choice of a job is juxtaposed with what passes today for a university education. Universities will eventually realize that doctrinaire academics discourage the enthusiasm many people feel for paying enormous sums for the privilege of being indoctrinated. A degree from Harvard, Yale or Princeton is hardly necessary to get a job in teaching, finance or even law nowadays. Mostly, they are good for becoming yet another academic professor, and if the prevailing need seems to be for Social Liberal academic professors, then there will continue to be a market for their credentials, but market trends change even for university professors. Eventually, professors may have to jettison their leftist bent and then what will they do when this is the basis of all their thinking?

Such change can be difficult and slow. It may take decades, but it will come with an outcry from the rational elements of the population demanding that their children be educated in an open environment, free of forced ideologies and without the imposition of political correctness, where free speech and free exchanges of ideas takes place without restriction. But whether or not this promises to happen in our lifetime remains open to question.

FJ Rocca is an independent, conservative writer/blogger of fiction and non-fiction, most interested in the philosophy of American conservatism. Clarity is more important than eloquence, but truth is vital to human discourse.



Filed under College Education

Common Core Is An Insult to Everything Dr. King and President Lincoln Ever Taught

by C.E. White

This past week, President Obama was sworn into office as the 45th President of the United States of America. As a history teacher, I was elated to learn he would be placing his hand on two Bibles, one belonging to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the other belonging to President Abraham Lincoln, when he takes the oath of office to lead our great nation. Dr. King and President Lincoln helped define civil rights for America…historical heroes who transformed the idea of justice and equality.

As jubilant as I am that President Obama is symbolically using the bibles of two of the greatest Americans in our nation’s history, I am saddened that this administration seems to have forgotten what Dr. King and President Lincoln promoted regarding education.

In Dr. King’s “Letter from the Birmingham Jail,” he stated “the goal of America is freedom.” As a teacher, it is such an honor to teach America’s children about freedom and patriotism. However, over the past few years, I began to learn about a new education reform initiative called Common Core Standards. A few years ago, when I first heard of Common Core, I began doing my own research. My students represent the future of the United States of America, and what they learn is of utmost importance to me. I care about their future, and the future of our country.

My research of Common Core Standards kept me awake at night, because what I discovered was so shocking. I discovered that Common Core Standards is about so much more than educational standards. I wanted so badly to believe these changes would be good for our children. How can “common” standards be a bad thing? After all, isn’t it nice to have students learning the same exceptional standards from Alabama to Alaska, from Minnesota to Massachusetts?

As a teacher, I began to spend nights, weekends, summers, even Christmas Day researching Common Core, because these reforms were so massive and were happening so quickly, it was hard to keep up with how American education was being transformed. I quickly began to realize that the American education system under Common Core goes against everything great Americans like Dr. King and President Lincoln ever taught. The very freedoms we celebrate and hold dear are in question when I think of what Common Core means for the United States.

One of my favorite writings about education from Dr. King is a paper entitled “The Purpose of Education.” In it, he wrote “To save man from the morass of propaganda, in my opinion, is one of the chief aims of education. Education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction.”

When I sit in faculty meetings about Common Core, I hear “curriculum specialists” tell me that Common Core is here to stay and I must “embrace change.” I am forced to drink the kool-aid. These specialists don’t tell us to search for facts about Common Core on our own, they simply tell us what the people paid to promote Common Core want us to know. Didn’t Dr. King want us to separate facts from fiction? Why are we only given information from sources paid to say Common Core is a good thing? Isn’t that the exact same type of propaganda Dr. King discussed in his writings about education? Shouldn’t we discuss why thousands of Americans are calling for a repeal of the standards?

I am told that I must embrace Common Core and I infer that resisting the changes associated with Common Core will label me “resistant to change.” As a teacher, I definitely believe our classrooms are changing with the times and I am not afraid of change. Teachers across America are hearing similar stories about how they should “feel” about Common Core. This is a brainwashing bully tactic. It reminds me of my 8th graders’ lesson on bullying, when I teach them to have an opinion of their own. Just because “everyone’s doing it,” doesn’t make it right. In regards to Common Core, I am not afraid of change. I am just not going to sell-out my students’ education so that Pearson, the Gates Foundation, David Coleman, Sir Michael Barber, Marc Tucker and others can experiment on our children.

I agree with Dr. King, which is why I am so saddened at how propaganda from an elite few is literally changing the face of America’s future with nothing more than a grand experiment called Common Core Standards. Our children deserve more. Our teachers deserve more. Our country deserves more. Education reform is the civil rights issue of our generation, and sadly, parents, teachers, and students have been left out of the process.

President Lincoln once said “the philosophy of the classroom today, will be the philosophy of government tomorrow.” With Common Core, new standardized tests have inundated classrooms with problems of their own. Teachers find themselves “teaching to the test” more and more. These tests violate our states’ rights. I wonder if parents realized that all states aren’t created equal in Common Core tests? Shouldn’t all states, under “common” standards for everyone have everyone’s equal input on how students are tested?

What about privacy under Common Core? Why didn’t local boards of education tell parents about the changes to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act? Do parents realize their child’s data, including bio-metric data such as fingerprints and retinal scans, is being placed in a state longitudinal data system and shared with others?

If our philosophy of the classroom is to violate states’ rights, use children and teachers as guinea pigs, and hide from parents the fact that their child’s data is no longer private, it can only be inferred that the philosophy of government tomorrow will do the same. What is America becoming?

As I watched President Obama place his hand on the bibles of Dr. King and President Lincoln, the history teacher in me was overjoyed to watch such a patriotic moment in U.S. history. And yet, I was crushed at the realization that if we do not stop Common Core and preserve the United States educational system, the philosophy of our government tomorrow will not be the America we know and love.


Filed under National Standards (Common Core)