Consolidation Agenda The Real Agenda Behind Consolidation

The Real Agenda Behind Consolidation 

     Mahoney Outsmarts Entire General Assembly          

            Unless legislators who believe in freedom and local control start doing some research,  digging deep, and studying the various aspects of  the plan that has already been designed for a national, federalized educational plan as well as a micromanaged economy, the people of America are going to lose their freedom; and only the elite will have any control.  The outcry against consolidation is mild compared to what it would be if  the public knew what was really happening,  and the goal toward which we in Arkansas and other states are rapidly marching.  The irony is that most legislators and others in authority don’t even know there is a model and don’t  realize they are casting their vote time after time for components of that model that when put together will be the very plan that will destroy our educational system and our freedom. 

            I am a retired teacher, who along with another Arkansas teacher, have  studied educational and political issues for years and have networked with educators and legislators from several states.  We  have been able to predict  numerous times what was coming next in education  based on our research.  We now know why the Governor and bureaucrats are pushing  for consolidation despite all the studies that indicate smaller schools are better.  Read on for our prediction on this matter.

            The reason for the push for consolidation is so they can divide the large schools into schools within schools (career academies)  with each academy (school within the school) offering different career paths so the  government  can guide the children into a career paths chosen for them by the government and businesses – based on predictions of jobs the economy will need. Small schools aren’t large enough to divide into different career paths.

             Several clues give away the plan. In an article in the Gazette, Feb 9, 03, there was an article that discussed small schools vs. larger schools with emphasis on the good aspects of  larger schools.  The article mentioned several large school districts that have divided their districts into schools within a school, called career academies.  In discussing McClellan Magnet High in Little Rock, the article read,   “The school’s staff and 1,066 students have been organized into three academies, engineering, multimedia, and business finance…the  North Little Rock district has received funding to open two career academies –health sciences and human services, and business leadership. Other large districts were noted in the article as having the career academies, and magnet schools now being pushed by the bureaucracy are becoming career academies. Note also the great expansion of  career training course  offerings demanded by the recent tentative  increase by the Arkansas State Board of  Education (18 now required, up from 9)  Coincidence??.  Don’t think so!  Look around and watch for other indications.

            In a School-To-Work Conference held in Little Rock in March, 1997, Mary Swoope, the State Program Coordinator for School-To-Work said, "School-to-Work is systemic.  It changes everything.  It is the  whole program."       Marc Tucker, who is probably the greatest influence in education in this era, said  In a booklet, The Certificate of Initial Mastery: A Primer,  dated April,  1994  "We would abolish vocational education as we know it and at the same time give it new life as an essential element in a new form of upper secondary education." (p. 18)  [In essence all schools and colleges will become vocational education.]  For more on Marc Tucker  see below!

            Channeling students into career paths as young as elementary grades has been the goal of  School-To-Work (STW) for years now.  Henry Hyde, a long time respected U. S. Representative and congressional leader said, "All future federal funding for education support . . . Goals 2000 plan, a plan which enables federal agencies to control the nation's workforce.  School-to-Work chooses careers for every American worker.  Children's careers are chosen for them by Business Councils and federal agencies at the earliest possible age.  In some cases that is third grade.  Goals 2000 utilizes America's educational system as the infrastructure for the nationalization of the labor force in the United States."  (For an article that details more of  Henry Hyde Quotes and major aspects of  School To Work, see  Detailed Article on Major Aspects of  School To Work.

            Establishing these career academies is why the Governor and the bureaucrats are determined to push consolidation even though there are no studies to indicate its success. And didn’t Ray Simon, himself, say the purpose of  the regional schools was not to save money.  The Gazette tried to make that  statement look like a slip of  the tongue in its editorial   2-23-03, but Mr. Simon really knows money is not the reason for the consolidation.  If  there weren’t something sinister in the plan, the Governor and the bureaucracy would just tell the people why they want the consolidation. The emphasis in education has changed from what is good for our children to what is good for our State.  Does that remind you of  any political philososophy.?  Our children have become test scores, human resources to be exploited for our economy.  Of  course, it won’t work.  It never has, but ideologues and Utopians keep trying anyway. 

             (There are many, many more instances that can be cited, but the above  should convey the idea.)

            According to an article in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette,.Mr. Simon stated  Feb. 9, 2003,  that “The proposed curriculum is virtually identical to that recommended last summer by the Blue Ribbon Commission for Public Education."   Isn’t it interesting that the Blue Ribbon Commission knew months before exactly how the Court was going to rule and can now read the mind of  the supreme court justices  who did not even mention enriched curriculum?

Read on to see where all these proposals originated.

            This  model and plan is not that hard to find.  Based on our research, we have been telling school board members for at least six years that the plan was to gut the control of  schools by school boards.  We saw it coming from the research we did

            We also told teachers, and anyone who would listen, that when  the benchmark tests were so hard in the beginning, with sometimes less  than 10% of  the students able to pass them, that in a few years the government  would make the test easier until everyone could pass the tests.  Then they would declare that education had greatly improved.  How did we know this?  It is a   propaganda plan that has been used in other states.  The purpose of this tactic is to make the public believe that government control of curriculum really does work and to get the public used to the idea that the government is supposed to control education.  As soon as the public is used to state government control of  curriculum, the national tests and national control will appear on the scene.(This has been the plan all along.)  Read on for further prediction.

            The national test  is probably the NAEP, and citizens from Pennsylvania were trying to warn people about that test as much as ten years or so ago.   The real clue for us to make  the assumption the NAEP will be the national test was found in an article  in the Gazette when Ray Simon was appointed to the U.S. National Assessment Governing Board, Sept. 21, 2002,.  The article said, “Simon will be one of 26 board members who form policy on the administration of the NAEP.  ..The testing program is expected to take on more importance as a result of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.  That educational reform act prescribes the use of the national exam as a check of the testing programs that each state must develop and administer in grades three through eight and at least one high school grade.” 

            The discussion will go something like this:    The No Child Left Behind federal law requires that every child in the United States deserves the right to an adequate, equitable, efficient education. Among states doing similarly on NAEP, there is much variation in how well students do on state tests.  The proportion doing well on the state tests is invariably higher than on NAEP.  This state of affairs is mass confusion, and leaves numerous students without an adequate, equitable, efficient education. We cannot allow any child to be left behind!   Then there will be enormous pressure to use the NAEP as the uniform test for all states (the very plan designed years before the actual happening.)  (Note: “The potential of NAEP as a national test was what caused it to be housed at a state agency, ECS, and to be forbidden to report any level of analysis smaller than "region."  The law was changed in 1988 to permit state-by-state comparisons – Quote by Gerald Bracey).” 

            Arkansas could save itself a great deal of  money by just adopting a nationally normed test as its benchmark test instead of  the state benchmark one and just wait for the dust to settle until the federal government picks the test for all the states.  How much better though it  would be to amend  the constitution and give control back to the local people.  Then we might be able to actually save ourselves from the federal takeover by appealing to the Supreme Court on the basis of our state constitution mandate for local control since the federal government has no constitutional right to control education.

            All the above maneuverings were set in motion years ago in the model developed by Marc Tucker, in a letter to Hillary Clinton ( see  for a copy of  this letter) and written in a booklet by him called, A Human Resource Development Plan  for the United States. a model  which controls all of  education and the economy.  Marc Tucker himself  says, much of his “vision” for education and the economy have now become a part of national laws and policies:  Some main aspects of his vision are as follows:  

"What is essential is that we create a seamless web of opportunities to develop one's skills that literally extends from cradle to grave and is the same system for everyone." p. 2

On the page where Marc Tucker describes his vision he says, "We have a national system of education in which curriculum, pedagogy, examinations and teacher education and licensure systems are all linked to the national standards. . . The new general education standard becomes the target for all basic education programs. . . . 4, 8

"A system of labor market boards is established at the local, state and federal levels to coordinate the systems for job training, postsecondary professional and technical education, adult basic education, job matching, and counseling. . . It is all taken care of at the local labor market board office by one counselor accessing the integrated computer-based program." p. 9

"The object is to create a single comprehensive system for professional and technical education that meets the requirements of everyone from high school students to skilled dislocated workers, from the hard core unemployed to employed adults who want to improve their prospects." p. 13 (Page numbers are from the booklet, not the letter to Hilllary mentioned above, but the letter has almost exact language.)

            The complicated part of Marc Tucker’s plan  is getting this monumental task accomplished in a democracy.  Or as Marc Tucker wrote in his letter to Hillary November 1992.  “The question is how to get from where we are to where we want to be.  Trying to ram it down everyone’s throat would endanger overwhelming oppostion…"Radical changes in attitudes, values and beliefs are required to move any combination of these agendas." 

            The real promoters of this model always stay a step ahead of the other legislators.  By the time the legislators or the public catch on, those in power change the names of the programs (like changing  School To Work to Careers Opportuniteis, etc.) and present other programs and  plans that catch the legislators and the public off guard.  They are constantly moving, jumping, switching, retreating, and deceiving  to get aspects of  their program in place.

            For example, when Arkansas’s OBE law, Act 236 of 1991was passed, it was sponsored by two conservative senators who were told by Bill Clinton “we’re just trying to get some values back into the classroom.”  There was only one vote out of 135 opposing it.  Seven years later in 1997 there had been so much controversy that most legislators were convinced it was a bad law and went into the legislative session calling the OBE law dead in the waters.  They openly admitted they had not understood the terms of  the law and did not  know anything about the organizations that were named in the law to help Arkansas put the law into action, and indeed we understand why.  As a teacher, I would not have understood it either without doing a great deal of  research.  But there were those few who did understand it.

              The legislators did strike out most of the ACT 236 law, but it had already done its damage and a great deal of leverage had been accomplished in providing numerous grant to superintendents to put in programs based on Goals 2000, etc.  Then  right at the end of the session the legislature passed  The Workforce Education Act of 1997 (which is another form of  School To Work (STW)  – now called Career Opportunities).  Even President Clinton and his Secreatary of Education, Richard  Riley said STW  was the next step to Goals 2000  the Outcome Based Edcuation law).    And opponents of  the OBE law, Act 236 voted for it in mass.  Legislators  had learned the OBE terminology but knew nothing of  the STW terminology and most of them had no idea there was any connection. (and most of us who were closely watching did not even see it until it was done)

            To return to the title of  this article.   Rep. Jodie Mahoney knows education.  He knows the plan. However, I am not sure that he knows the final goal.  There are many pieces to the puzzle that makes it all fit together.   He has done his homework. He knows the name of the experts and the trends in other states.  He knows all  about the educational plan in Kentucky, the one chosen by Bill Clinton to be the model for the other states. He knows all about School To Work (STW) or Careers Opportunities and has been smart enough to stay ahead of the other legislators. I am not making  a malicious attack.  I don't like doing this;  I feel I had to in order to make my points.  He and I disagree in our philosophies, and I recognize his ability and astuteness in accomplishing his goals.  If you think Arkansas has done well in its educational reform, then he deserves the credit in my opinion; if you think it has been a disaster, then I think he deserves the credit for that as well. I just want to challenge some legislators who still believe in democracy and local coal control to be as diligent as he is and learn how to bring in expert witnesses with our philosophy.  Basically all the studies and expert witnesses have been and will be politically correct ones.  Unless some legislators are courageous enough and diligent enough to study the issues and bring in witnesses on both sides of  the issue, we don’t have a chance but will continue to march toward loss of  our freedom.  It is human nature that if we hear something often enough we being to believe it.  That is the goal of  those who use propaganda to bring their agenda to pass.

               We appeal to our legislators:    Slow things down until more truth comes forth on these issues. We can still do something if  we will all work together on finding answers.

Written by Debbie Pelley and Iris Stevens

We could still do something so this scenario does not come to pass!



Educational Issues


 Detailed Article on Major Aspects of  School To Work

 Certificate of  Initial Mastery  and the NCEE by Virgnia Miller

 Congressman Henry Hyde's Quotes on STW

 Consolidation Studies










Hit Counter