Is the government controlling our youth through government dictated curriculums in schools?

Question

By teaching what "they" think is important, are "they" dumbing down americans to make them more dependant on government?
Why are the school systems still failing to teach what will make them sucessful in life and not just "work for the machine - check to check"...and pay taxes or make a career of collecting social benifets.

Answer 1

The fault lies with everyone.

Parents should be more involved in their children's lives.
Teachers and administrators should be held accountable for the results that they obtain.
The students should be expected to show that they actually learned something.
You and I are at fauld because we don't care enough to DO something about this mess.

Answer 2

Thats been my thought for awhile too. I think that the gov't is dumbing our children so the govt can control and manipulate them. Im glad that im out of school. Granted im techincally still in College. But grade schools are failing to teach kids what it really takes in life. Taking a bunch of tests arent going to teach kids anything. Here in FL they are making kids take the FCAT which teachers have to basically teach JUSt that... teach kids what will be on that FCAT, and if they fail that test, they have to retake that grade. I have many friends who are teachers and complain about this sort of stuff way too much. Teachers don't get paid enough for all the bullshyt they put up with. I hope it changes real quick, and for the better. The govt wants control... It will soon be the gestapo! G-d I hope not!

Answer 3

I do not believe our government is controlling our schools to "dumb down" American students. I believe that our Gov. is working with what they have. Today's students lack the parental influence a child needs. Too many parents totally depend on the school system to raise their child and leave important life skills to the schools. Can you think of a better way to mass educate millions of children that lack the simple concept of respect and the idea of what a good education gives?

On that note...my two cents:

I believe that anything regarding religion to include evolution should be left to the parents. If a parents is raising a child with Christian beliefs and to follow the bible, the teacher and Gov. should respect that and not contradict it.

Sex is another topic that should be left out of school. Excluding the natural aspects of sex i.e. reproduction process, all sex related topics should again be left to the parents. Sexual preference and sexual deviates should not be discussed.

Answer 4

could have sworn that this u . s . replaced into based upon the concepts of ensuring STATES RIGHTS and that the federal government served in basic terms as a results of fact the skill of preserving the states united. yet you're precise, progressive want no longer something greater effective than for the Feds to run all of it. a similar federal government that spends $a million.sixty two for each $a million.00 it takes in.

Answer 5

Teachers and administrators have one of the hardest jobs because there are so many people lie you who think that they could do their jobs better. I don't know whether you could or not, but if you think they should teach other things then get involved politically. Otherwise stop being so critical, they are doing the best they can. Maybe if our schools were better funded...

Answer 6

yes that and the false media.

Answer 7

YES. M.C. is on the right track........many decades ago, the government began "dumbing down" our public schools. I've included in this answer an excerpt from the interview of Norman Dodd (the entire interview, along with other disturbing and enlightening documents, can be found at supremlaw.org) Pay particular attention to the last two paragraphs----this is rather long, but worth the read.




Welcome to the Reality Zone. I am Ed Griffin. The story we are about to hear represents a missing piece in the puzzle of modern history. We are about to hear a man tell us that the major tax-exempt foundations of America, since at least 1945, have been operating to promote a hidden agenda. That agenda has nothing to do with the surface appearance of charity, good works or philanthropy.

This man will tell you that the real objective has been to influence American educational institutions and to control foreign policy agencies of the Federal government. The purpose of the control has been to condition Americans to accept the creation of world government. That government is to be based on the principle of collectivism, which is another way of saying socialism; and, it is to be ruled from behind the scenes by those same interests which control the tax-exempt foundations.

Is this a believable scenario?

Well, the man who tells this story is none other than Mr. Norman Dodd who, in the year 1954, was the staff director of the Congressional Special Committee to investigate tax-exempt foundations -- sometimes referred to as the Reece committee, in recognition of its chairman, Congressman Carroll Reece. I conducted the interview we are about to hear, in 1982. I had no immediate use for the material at that time, but I realized that Mr. Dodd's story was of great importance.

Since he was advanced in age and not in good health, I wanted to capture his recollections on videotape while he was still with us. It was a wise decision, because Mr. Dodd did pass away just a short time afterwards.

In later years there was a resurgence of interest in Mr. Dodd's story, and we released the videotape to the public in 1991. And so, what now follows is the sound track taken from the full, unedited interview, broken occasionally only for a tape change, or to omit the sound of a passing airplane. It stands on its own as an important piece in the puzzle of modern history.

[begin interview]

Griffin: Mr. Dodd, let's begin this interview by a brief statement, for the record, telling us who you are, what your background is, and your qualifications to speak on the subject.

Dodd: Well, Mr. Griffin, as for who I am, I am just as the name implies -- an individual born in New Jersey and educated in private schools, eventually in a school called Andover, Massachusetts, and then Yale University.

And, running through my whole period of being brought up, growing up, I have been an emphaticable [sic] reader, and I have had one major interest and that was this country, as I was led to believe that it was originally founded.

I entered the world of business knowing absolutely nothing about how that world operated. And, I realized that the only way to find out what that world was, and consisted of, would be to become part of it. And I then acquired some experience in the manufacturing world, and in the world of international communications, and finally chose banking as the field I wished to devote my life to.

I was fortunate enough, to secure a position in one of the important banks in New York. I lived there. I lived through the conditions which led up to what is known as the crash of 1929. I witnessed what is tantamount to a collapse of the structure of the United States as a whole.

Much to my surprise, my superiors, in the middle of the panic in which they were immersed, confronted me. I was confronted with the question, "Norm, what do we do now?"

I was thirty at the time, and I had no more right to have an answer to that question than the man in the moon. However, I did manage to say to my superiors, "Gentlemen, you take this experience as proof of something that you do not know about banking." And you better go find out what that something is, and act accordingly.

Four days later, I was confronted by these same superiors, with a statement to the effect that, “Norm, you go find out.” And I really was fool enough to accept that assignment, because it meant that you were going out to search for something, and nobody could tell you what you were looking for. I felt so strongly on the subject that I consented to it.

I was relieved of all normal duties inside the bank and, two and a half years later, I felt that it was possible to report back to those who had given me this assignment. So, I rendered such a report and, as a result of the report I rendered, I was told the following: "Norm, what you are saying is, we should return to sound banking." And I said, “Yes, in essence, that's exactly what it is that I am saying.”

Whereupon, I got my first shock, which was a statement from them to this effect: "We will never see sound banking in the United States again." And they cited chapter and verse, to support that statement.

What they cited was as follows: since the end of WWI, we have been responsible for what they call the institutionalizing of conflicting interests. And they are so prevalent inside this country, that they can never be resolved.

This came to me as an extraordinary shock because the men who made this statement were men who were deemed as the most prominent bankers in the country. The bank of which I was a part was spoken of a Morgan bank. Coming from men of that caliber, a statement of that kind made a tremendous impression on me.

The type of impression that it made on me was this: I wondered if I, as an individual, as what they call a junior officer of the bank, could with the same enthusiasm foster the progress and the policies of the bank. I spent about a year trying to think this out, and came to the conclusion that I would have to resign.

I did resign. As a consequence of that, I had this experience. When my letter of resignation reached the desk of the president of the bank, he sent for me. I came to visit with him and he stated to me, "Norm, I have your letter, but I do not believe you understand what has happened in the last ten days." I said, “No, Mr. Cochran, I have no idea what's happened.”

“Well,” he says, "the directors have never been able to get your report to them out of their minds and, as a result, they have decided that you, as an individual, must begin at once, and you must re-organize this bank in keeping with your own ideas." He then said, "Now, can I tear up your letter?”

And inasmuch as what had been said to me, what he was offering me, at the age of (by then) thirty-three, was about as fine an opportunity for service to the country as I could imagine. I said, “Yes.” And they said they wished me to begin at once, and I did.

Suddenly, in a span of about six weeks, I was not permitted to do another piece of work. And, every time I brought the subject up, I was kind of patted on the back and told, "Stop worrying about it, Norm. Pretty soon you will be a vice-president and you will have quite a handsome salary, and ultimately be able to retire on a very worthwhile pension and, in the meantime, you can play golf and tennis to your hearts content on weekends."

Well, Mr. Griffin, I found I could not do it. I spent a year, figuratively, with my feet on the desk, doing nothing. I just couldn't adjust to it. So I did resign. This time my resignation stuck.

Then, I got my second shock, which was the discovery that the doors of every bank in the United States were closed to me and I never could get a job, as it were, in the bank. So I found myself for the first time since I graduated from college, out of a job.

From then on, I followed various branches of the financial world, ranging from investment counsel, to membership in the stock exchange. I finally ended up as an advisor to a few individuals who had capital funds to look after.

In the meantime, my major interest became very specific, which was to endeavor, by some means, to get the educational world to actually, you might say, teach the subject of economics realistically, and move it away from the support of various speculative activities that characterized our country.

I have had that interest and you know how it is, if you generate a specific interest, you find yourself gravitating toward persons with similar interests. Ultimately, I found myself kind of at the center of the world of dissatisfaction with the direction in which this country was headed. And, I found myself in contact with many individuals who, on their own, had done a vast amount of studying and research in areas which were part of the problem.

Griffin: What point in your career did you become connected with the Reece Committee?

Dodd: Nineteen hundred and fifty-three (1953).

Griffin: 1953. And what was that capacity, Sir?

Dodd: That was in the capacity of what they called “Director of Research.”

Griffin: Can you tell us what the Reece Committee was attempting to do?

Dodd: Yes, I can tell you. It was operating and carrying out instructions embodied in a Resolution passed by the House of Representatives, which was to investigate the activities of foundations as to whether or not these activities could justifiably be labeled “un-American” -- without, I might add, defining what they meant by “un-American.” That was the Resolution and the committee had, then, the task of selecting a counsel, and the counsel, in turn, had the task of selecting a staff; and, he had to have somebody who would direct the work of that staff, and that was what they meant by the “Director of Research. “

Griffin: What were some of the details, the specifics, of what you told the committee at that time?

Dodd: Well, Mr. Griffin, in that report, I specifically -- number one -- defined what was, to us, meant by the phrase “un-American.” And, we defined that, in our way, as being a determination to effect changes in the country by un-Constitutional means.

We have plenty of Constitutional procedures, assuming that we wished to effect a change in the form of government, and that sort of thing. And therefore, any effort in that direction, which did not avail itself of the procedures authorized by the Constitution, could be justifiably called “un-American.” That was the start of educating them, up to that particular point. The next thing was to educate them as to the effect on the country, as a whole, of the activities of large, endowed foundations over the then past forty years.

Griffin: What was that effect, Sir?

Dodd: That affect was to orient our educational system away from support of the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, and implemented in the Constitution; and to educate them over to the idea that the task now was to effect an orientation of education away from these briefly stated principles and self-evident truths.

And, that’s what had been the effect of the wealth which constituted the endowments of those foundations -– foundations that had been in existence over the largest portion of the span of fifty years -- and holding them responsible for this change. What we were able to bring forward was -- what we had uncovered was -- the determination of these large endowed foundations, through their trustees, actually to get control over the content of American education.




Scary, isn't it?