Brave New Schools - Chapter 3

A New Way of Thinking

See Steps toward Global Mind Control & Glossary of Education Terms

Skip down to Cognitive Dissonance

Chronology of the NEA

"The challenge to humanity is to adopt new ways of thinking, new ways of acting, new ways of organizing itself in society, in short, new ways of living."[1]  UNESCO [See Reinventing the World]

"What's happening in America today ...is a total transformation of our society.  We have moved into a new era...  I'm not sure we have really begun to comprehend...the incredible amount of organizational restructuring and human resource development...The revolution...in curriculum is that we no longer are teaching facts to children."[2] [Dr. Shirley McCune addressing the 1989 Governor's Conference on Education]

"We are now between two ages, on the threshold of a new epoch in human history... A different mode of thinking will be required -- one based on those imaginative forms that provide a vision of human nature and destiny...."[3] [Dr. Donald A. Cowan, president emeritus of the University of Dallas]

The classroom discussion came to a close, and Ashley began to pack up her books. Her English class had studied Oedipus, the mythical king haunted by an oracle's tragic prediction that he would kill his father and marry his mother.  Moments before the bell rang, the California tenth-grader heard her teacher announce a writing assignment:

"You're going to consult an oracle. It will tell you that you're going to kill your best friend. This is destined to happen, and there is absolutely no way out. You will commit this murder. What will you do before this event occurs? Describe how you felt leading up to it.  How did you actually kill your best friend?"[5]

 "Yeah!" cheered some of the students gleefully. Others seemed more sober. A few raised their hands and asked if they could commit suicide to avoid murdering their friends.

"No," they were told. The oracle makes no mistakes and permits no other options.

Ashley felt eerie. What a strange assignment!  Why would her English teacher tell her to imagine something so horrible. I don't want to do this, she told herself.  Long after she told her parents, the awful feelings continued to churn inside.

The next day, Ashley's mother called the teacher and asked that her daughter be given an alternate assignment. "I can't encourage my daughter to write a story about murdering her best friend," she explained.

"Certainly Ashley knows the difference between fantasy and reality," said Ms Sawyer with a touch of sarcasm. 

"Of course, she does. But when you ask someone to imagine how they would go about murdering a friend, you could stir up nightmarish feelings...." 

"I have been giving the same assignment for years," answered Ms Sawyer. Then she added the standard argument parents across the country have learned to expect: "No one has ever complained about this before."

"That's a shame," responded the mother. "It seems to me that parents should be appalled!"

"If I give Ashley a different assignment she will be made to feel foolish."

"Are you saying that she will either get an F or be made to feel foolish? Is this a no win situation for her?"

The teacher didn't answer, but the next day she carried out her threat.  Staring straight at Ashley, she spoke to the entire class saying, "Of course you know the difference between fantasy and reality. And certainly you are capable of writing an assignment without becoming emotionally involved...."

Ashley did feel uncomfortable--but not foolish. She knew that she had chosen wisely.  She had refused to use her imagination to create horrible mental pictures that might never go away.  Nor had she yielded to the demand for conformity to group  standards.  In spite of the teacher's warning, she was confident that she had done the right thing.

 Ashley's assignment is not unique. This kind of emotional shock therapy has become standard fare in public schools from coast to coast.  While topics may range from homosexual or occult practices to euthanasia and suicide, they all attack the old moral and ethical boundaries. But why?   

The new paradigm. Ashley didn't know that her assignment illustrates a common classroom strategy used to desensitize students to traditional values. This strategy uses myths, shocking or disturbing stories, or  hypothetical situations that

  1. Evoke strong feelings,

  2. Challenge traditional values

  3. Produce cognitive dissonance, a form of mental confusion and emotional tension caused by incompatible values. Created through classroom stimuli such as hypothetical stories or pagan ritual that conflict with home-taught values, it forces most children to rethink and modify their values to resolve the conflict.

  4. Elicit a response that demonstrates a change in attitude, that can be measured, and that becomes part of a child's individual electronic data file.

All four are part of a planned process to teach students the "new thinking, new strategies, new behavior, and new beliefs"[6] needed for full participation in the 21st Century workforce. "[Our objective] will require a change in the prevailing culture--the attitudes, values, norms and accepted ways of doing things,"[7] says Marc Tucker, President of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), the master-mind behind the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM). He, like other leading change agents, is calling for a paradigm shift--a total transformation in the way people think, believe, and perceive reality.

To accomplish this paradigm shift, change agents have tried to keep their true goals and methods hidden from opposing forces. "Old paradigms do not retire gracefully," wrote Chester Finn, who helped President Bush and Lamar Alexander promote America 2000, "and the avatars of new ones are often scorned and savaged.... "[8]

"Paradigm shifts are complicated," he added, "...but shift we will."[9]

New Age author Marilyn Ferguson outlined the transformation in The Aquarian Conspiracy.  It is sobering to see that the changes she sought in the seventies have become reality in the nineties. Study her chart below.  Notice, in the first comparison, how she differentiates between the old paradigm's "right" information and the new paradigm's "right  things". To shift from the left to the right side, teachers as well as children must be made "open to" new concepts.  




Emphasis on content, acquiring a body of "right" information, once and for all.

Emphasis on learning how to learn... pay attention to the right things, be open to and evaluate new concepts, have access to information....

Hierarchical and authoritarian structure.

Egalitarian. Candor and dissent permitted.

...emphasis on the "appropriate ages for certain activities"

Flexibility and integration of age groupings.

Priority on performance.

Priority on self-image as the generator of performance.

Emphasis on external world. Inner experience often considered inappropriate in school setting.

Inner experience seen as context for learning. Use of imagery, storytelling, dream journals, "centering" exercises, and exploration of feelings encouraged.

Emphasis on analytical, linear... thinking.

Augments left-brain rationality with holistic, nonlinear, and intuitive strategies.

 As you can see, each paradigm has its own set of right values--and wrong ones.  Everything that was part of the old paradigm is being discarded., but Ms Ferguson's "egalitarian", integrated, feeling-centered learning has become standard practice in our land. Since the two paradigms are totally incompatible, today's change agents cannot tolerate Christian guidelines--nor can Christians embrace the new earth-centered values.

Christian children who read and know the Bible are likely to resist the global paradigm, therefore educators want to reach children before they learn old-paradigm truths. To fulfill the first national/international goal ("By year 2000, all children in America will start school ready to learn.") all new students must be open to new global ideals and freed from the old uncompromising beliefs that block progress.  Robert Muller explains why this is important in The Birth of a Global Civilization,

"In the long run, only the right global education will be our salvation on this planet.  Children are born with more or less the same senses into the world. But very soon they are "wired in" by a culture, a religion, an ideology, a nation. There is only one thing with which they are never really wired in: their membership in the entire human family... The lack of proper world education [is] one of our most glaring and dangerous deficiencies."[11]

Which culture or religion has "wired in" your children?  If biblical truth has shaped their world view, they will recognize and resist occult ideals.  On the other hand, if  their beliefs have been molded by television, movies and multicultural books, the schools will merely reinforce the new paradigm established in their minds. These children, who have no strong ties to church and traditional values, are considered ready to learn.  The others are not; they must be retrained or remediated.

Professor John Goodlad used the word resocialize. One of the most influential change agents in the global as well as national arena, he has served on the governing boards of UNESCO's Institute for Education[12] and Global Perspectives in Education. In 1970, he warned his fellow educators that "most youth still hold the same values as their parents.... If we do not alter this pattern, if we don't resocialize.... our society may decay."[13]   

Mastery Learning.   The strategy for resocializing our children is best known as Mastery Learning.  On the surface, its promise to parents sounds good: given enough time, every child can learn. However, like most of the new educational labels, it doesn't mean what we think it says. It refers, not to solid factual learning, but  to the psychological process of conditioning students to new-paradigm thinking. It is based on the behavior modification formulas of Professor B. F. Skinner, who said, "Operant conditioning shapes behavior as a sculptor shapes a lump of clay,"[14] and "I could make a pigeon a high achiever by reinforcing it on a proper schedule."[15]

What do pigeons have in common with children?  Behavioral psychologists might answer that both can be trained to respond to stimuli in predictable ways--given enough time and the right kind of stimulus. Of course, there are obvious differences between the level of achievement that can be expected from a pigeon and from human children. There are also different levels of ability among children (although educators seem reluctant to admit that fact).  Some students can memorize and retain huge amounts of abstract information (I'm not among them). Others can grasps mathematical concepts that mystify me. 

The new education system promises "high standards" for all students. The second of the national/international goals states that  "By the year 2000, the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent." Obviously, the "high standard" that 90% of students will attain can be no higher than their capacity and study habits will allow. In other words, the threshold must be set low enough for almost everyone to reach the same "egalitarian" level.

Remember, the word high is relative. The "high standards" will be high only to the neediest students--those who were failing both academically and socially. Those same "high standards" are tragically low to the students who aim for college and beyond. How would you have survived high school, college, or work if your teachers had followed this bit of advice from Professor Kenneth Goodman, a leading Whole Language theorist at the University of Arizona?  

"What we say is, you learn to spell by reading and writing. In that context, there is some risk taking, and kids invent spelling. We don't want to discourage kids from using words just because they can't spell them."[16]

 "Our state's educational leaders decided it was terribly insulting for kids to have to learn number tables or how to spell words," said Maureen DiMarco, the top education adviser to California's governor, Pete Wilson. "So we ended up with math books without arithmetic, and literature books without reading."[17]

Not only is the new teaching dumbed-down, it is entirely different. A broad knowledge base is no longer important -- to the contrary, it is a detriment to the new training system. Students armed with facts and strong convictions resist manipulation.  On the other hand, students with limited knowledge and few convictions can easily be conditioned and controlled. They may provide just the kind of manageable workforce for the global economy many change agents envision. 

In an article titled "Experts Say Too Much is Read Into Illiteracy Crisis," Thomas Sticht, Senior Scientist at Applied Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Inc. and a member of  (Labor) Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, usually called SCANS[18], explain that

 "Many companies have moved operations to places with cheap, relatively poorly educated labor. What may be crucial, they say, is the dependability of a labor force and how well it can be managed and trained -- not its general educational level, although a small cadre of highly educated creative people are essential to innovation and growth. Ending discrimination and changing values are probably more important than reading in moving low income families into the middle class."[19]

 The stimuli used to "change values" are the shocking stories, the values clarification exercises, and the questions and suggestions written into each student's Individual Learning Plan (IEP). This IEP is continually adjusted to a student's progress and degree of resistance. The national or state assessments that measure progress match the SCANS competencies as well as national standards. (see Pam Hoffecker's report in Part 2). Therefore, Dr. Sticht's chilling statement cannot be dismissed as fringe sentiment.

Sophisticated, computerized assessment strategies have been developed to meet the need for continual learning, testing, remediation, re-testing....  In her excellent expose of the globalization of our schools, former U.S. Department of Education official Charlotte Iserbyt quotes Dustin Heuston of Utah's World Institute for Computer-Assisted Teaching (WICAT). He says,

"We've been absolutely staggered by realizing that the computer has the capability to act as if it were ten of the top psychologists working with one student. You've seen the tip of the iceberg. Won't it be wonderful when the child in the smallest county in the most distant area or in the most confused urban setting can have the equivalent of the finest school in the world on that terminal and no one can get between that child and the curriculum?"[20]

From the new paradigm perspective, this sounds "wonderful". Each child will have his or her own personal high-tech program for learning. It offers immediate rewards for "right" thinking and corrections for old paradigm thinking. As Mr. Heuston pointed out, "no one [especially parents] can get between that child and that computer." Parents may be allowed to monitor some selected computer programs--but not the ones that raise concern.

            Teachers across the country already use hand-held computer scanners during class-time and recess to record students responses that indicate progress toward behavioral goals. They simply scan the students' bar coded name and bar coded response, then transfer the information into the computer at the end of the school day.

            The scanners simplify individualized record keeping for teachers--but parents, beware!  Jeannie Georges, in her excellent report, Outcome Based Education, asks a sobering question: " But what if Jennifer doesn't happen to fall directly into one of the categories expected by the computer? No time for extensive notes or explanations; just file her under "authority-challenged."[21] 

            Challenging parental authority has been encouraged for years, but try resisting the new school authorities! Mastery Learning is full of rewards for compliance and punishment for resisters. While computerized "teaching machines" offer subtle corrections to correct unacceptable beliefs and group facilators use ridicule and strategic arguments to shame students into compliance, the new system can simply remove students from homes that resist the new-paradigm values. (See  Chapter 7)

             Both teachers and students are rewarded when students surrender their independence, "master" the new thinking "skill", and respond correctly to stimuli.  Disturbing lessons like Ashley's speed the process. When hypothetical situations introduce new values and evoke strong feelings, students remember them better and question their own beliefs more readily.

            At this point of cognitive dissonance, the curriculum may call for group discussion.  This allows well-meaning teachers or trained facilitators to use the time of mental confusion to confirm new-paradigm suggestions through group consensus.  Teachers trained to lead these group discussions use the same tools to manipulate students as do animal trainers: positive and negative reinforcement. If students conform, they will be accepted. If they fail to conform, they face rejection and exclusion.  Since most students have neither the desire nor the discernment needed to resist this form of brainwashing, they will conform to the group and compromise their standards.  

           That is exactly what the change agents had in mind. In 1990, the National LEADership Network Study Group on Restructuring Schools released a study titled "Developing Leaders for Restructuring Schools: New Habits of Mind and Heart."  It encourages teachers to "create dissonance"  and "encourage risk taking."[22]  Risk taking involves testing the moral boundaries learned at home and moving beyond: instead of trusting your parents, dare to think for yourself, transcend old boundaries, create your own values, leap into the unknown....

Most students seem ready to take those risks--they no longer have the strong convictions needed to hold them back. The result is family and social disintegration.  Jeanne Georges' report on Outcome-Based Education, gives this tragic glimpse of contemporary reality:

"Kids are being told there is no meaning to life. There is no right; no wrong. They are to make their own decisions based on feelings and whims, and--if the parent interferes or restrains the child or attempts to discipline the child--children are to turn the parent in to the state for mental or psychological abuse.

 "Parents find it much more difficult to discipline and teach their children. After all, why should the child obey the parent and spell words correctly when the teacher gives them high marks for "creative" and/or inventive spelling? Why obey when the parent can be thrown in jail for disciplining his own child?

"They teach there is no right way to spell a word; no right to way to pronounce it; no meaning in it; no absolutes.  Life becomes meaningless....

"This process is being implemented for the disorganization of mind and behavior -- or mental breakdown. What follows this despair is a total desolation with nothing left but mysticism. Those raised on mysticism and superstition are easy to lead--easy to program--easy to enslave.[23]

"The change agents are not blind to this pain and confusion. They planned it. To them, this crisis, like so many others, is an essential step along the way. Each serious crisis creates a felt need.  And each urgent need becomes an open door to a new solution--one that brings the paradigm shift closer to completion.  But the frog doesn't even notice that the water is starting to steam."  

Limit knowledge for lifelong labor.  To minimize resistance to the paradigm shift, educators had to purge the old-paradigm views.  NCEE President, Marc Tucker, proposes "breaking the current system, root and branch."[24]  Coming from the mastermind behind the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM)--the reward for conformity and the entrance pass to work and college--this is no minor opinion.  

That process began decades ago by censoring references to God, prayer, and traditional families from our history books. This secretive sabotage of America's heritage was documented by Professor Paul Vitz in his excellent book, Censorship--Evidence of Bias in Our Children's Textbooks.  Today, the movement that spread silently underground for years has suddenly taken wings--and too few people have noticed.

"The revolution... in curriculum is that we no longer are teaching facts to children," said Dr. Shirley McCune, Senior Director with the Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory (McREL)[25] at the 1989 Governor's Conference on Education in Kansas.  "We no longer see the teaching of facts and information as the primary outcome of education...  We have to understand that the only way anyone ever learns is from their own frame of reference...."[26]

From the new-paradigm perspective, McCune is right. Today's restructured education is based on feelings and personal relevance rather than facts and objective reason.  Much of the credit goes to a close associate of John Goodlad: educational psychologist, Dr. Benjamin Bloom, called "the father of Outcome-Based Education."  In his book, All Our Children Learning.  In it, he admits that....

 "the purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students."[27]

One of the quickest ways to change people's "thoughts, feelings and actions" is to hide or distort the basic facts and assumptions that have molded their culture. This tactic was effectively used to revolutionize the youth in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Facts were censored. Only politically correct information was allowed.  Literacy and general knowledge became less important than group conformity and obedience to the new leaders and their instructions. (See Nazi/OBE comparison in Part 2)

This same strategy has been established in our schools through Professor Bloom's Taxonomy. At first glance, his hierarchy of "thinking skills" makes sense: a sound body of factual knowledge should be the foundation of all thinking processes.  In reality, this model instituted a different message.  It reduced factual knowledge and comprehension to the rank of lower order thinking skills,  suggesting that traditional knowledge had become relatively insignificant--and could even be a hindrance. In contrast, the more subjective processes--application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation--were elevated to higher order thinking skills

"How in the world," you might ask, "can students apply, analyze, synthesize and evaluate without facts? How can they reach a rational conclusion without comprehension?"

They can't. In the absence of foundational facts, those higher order thinking skills can only lead to subjective, uncertain answers.  Without a broad knowledge base, children are rudderless and headed for disaster. Deprived of the factual comprehension needed for moral, spiritual and intellectual discernment, they cannot recognize deception. At the mercy of social revolutionaries, they are ready to embrace the New Age/Neo-pagan view of "reality" - which has no basis in real reality.

In other words, they can easily be manipulated. Well aware that knowledge is the foundation of thinking, Dr. Bloom had discovered a process that could control the outcome or end-product of thinking which was often an opinion or a value judgment. By censoring a students knowledge base, the teacher could direct the student's thinking.

Bloom's process works. Through biased information, carefully designed hypothetical stories, and pointed Socratic questioning, students are persuaded that their home-taught beliefs and values are incompatible with the needs for the 21st century. This is exactly what Benjamin Bloom and his followers intended. In his Taxonomy of Educational Objectives II, Bloom wrote, 

 "...a large part of what we call 'good teaching' is the teacher's ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the students' fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues."[28]

New beliefs through group consensus.  Why is it so important to "discuss issues"?  Because group thinking is vital to consensus building and conflict resolution, two of the many nice-sounding buzzwords designed to sell the deception to the public. Local school officials and well-meaning teachers are usually kept in the dark.  Like most parents, they trust the system and are shocked when they learn the true intentions behind terms that sound so good. To help them and others understand today's transformation, we need to know...

  •       What most people expect these words mean.

  •       What educators tell us they mean.

  •       What they really mean in the new-paradigm context. 

 Three sets of meanings for educational Buzzwords


expected Meaning

Stated Meaning

Real Meaning

Conflict resolution

Resolving conflicts

Learning to settle disputes peacefully

Learning to synthesize beliefs: trading old absolutes for blended beliefs and compromised positions.

Consensus building

Agreement through open discussion

Seeking mutual understanding on any given topic

Reaching a preplanned outcome by isolating, labeling, intimidating, censuring or ignoring opposing voices.

Co-operative learning

Students working together

Preparing to work in a global society with people whose values differ from yours

A means of standardizing beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviors, since all must express respect for each other's ways. Faster or more intuitive students help slower students reach same outcome. 

Critical thinking

Rational, factual study and analysis

Teaching students to think for themselves

Criticizing traditional values and authorities, often through group discussion and forced decision-making. 

Higher Order Thinking

Logical integration of  facts

Application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation

Making conclusions based on a pre-determined, politically correct set of opinions or judgments.

Values clarifi-cation

Help students clarify and express the traditional values

Discuss and clarify personal values

Ridicule, reject and replace old values with moral relativism and self-made choices--often determined through group consensus.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a free-flowing exchange of facts and ideas. Organized discussions can be either good, neutral or manipulative, depending on the purpose, direction and control.  But when teachers lead group discussions based on biased information toward a preplanned consensus or conclusion that conflicts with prior values, they are manipulating the students. Few children are equipped to resist this kind of pressure. Remember, Ashley was the only student in her English class who refused to yield to an immoral homework assignment.

A set of guidelines on group discussion was given to students at Homestead High School in Cupertino, California, along with a recent version of the infamous and much-used "Nuclear Shelter Assignment."  Ponder these guidelines in the light of the assignment which follows..  

Group discussion[29]

 Group discussion is a way of thinking together. It is a method of pooling your ideas and information with that of others to come to some general conclusions. A leader generally guides the process of the group, but each person must have the responsibility of contributing his share.

 The purposes of group discussion

  • To gain information, facts and ideas.

  • To solve problems of interest.      

  • To learn to participate in discussion of  social or public affairs.

  • To learn principles of good leadership and social cooperation. 

  • To become open-minded and to respect the ideas of others.      

  •  To make each feel he is taking an active part in the democratic way of life by expressing his own ideas. 

It sounds good, doesn't it?  However, "pooling your ideas" refers to the process of synthesis, which means the group must come to some kind of consensus.  When a particular value conflicts with another value, students are forced to decide which option to take, which leads to situation ethics. For example, when a boy saw a friend steal a book, should he be honest and tell the truth, or should he be loyal to his friend and tell a lie? The students reach consensus together.

It doesn't matter how much the group's beliefs and values differ.  Each group member must still agree to be open-minded, to respect and appreciate every other view, and to work toward a consensus.  The method is based on an evolutionary decision-making process developed by Georg Friedrich Hegel. Each person would bring their thoughts and ideas (their thesis) into the group. Then the group works together toward some kind of common ground, a "better" thesis called a synthesis, since it blends or synthesizes all their ideas.   

Thesis 1: a child's belief in the Great Spirit  +  Thesis 2: another child's belief in God   

= Synthesis:  new communal belief in many gods       

Here is how the process might work: if one person believes in God (thesis 1), another in Buddha (thesis 2), and another in the Great Spirit (thesis 3), they may agree that "there are many gods" or that "every path leads to the same ultimate reality."  This new thesis, of course, would not be considered absolute or final truth. It would merely be a higher step in the ongoing evolution toward ever greater understanding and perfection.  

  • How does this process fit the old Judeo/Christian world view?

  • How does the above conclusion fit the old Judeo/Christian world view?

  • How do both fit the new paradigm?

  • As you may expect, Christian children often feel anything but free to "express" their beliefs and ideas in this kind of group. That's part of the plan.

Now take a look at one of the many versions of the nuclear shelter assignment: 

            ...Suddenly the Third World War breaks out and bombs begin dropping everywhere. People are running to fallout shelters. You get a call from one of your fallout shelters asking for help.

            It seems that there are ten people, but there is only enough space, air, food and water in the fallout shelter for six people for a period of three months. They want you to make the decision about who should go into the shelter....

            In making your decision, there are two important things to keep in mind. First, it's possible that the six people you choose might be the only six people left to start the human race over again. Therefore, the choice you make is very important. Second, if you don't make the choice in time, you will be leaving it to the ten to fight it out with the possibility that more than four might die.

             Here is all you know about the ten people:

              1. Bookkeeper; 31 years old

              2. His wife; 6 months pregnant

              3. Black militant; second-year medical student

              4. Famous historian-author; 42 years old

              5. Hollywood starlet; singer, dancer

              6. Scientist

              7. Rabbi; 54 years old

              8. Olympic athlete; all sports

              9. Female college student

            10. Policeman with gun

How would you respond? Notice that students are not  given an option to share the shelter with the whole group. They must assign four people to death.  Biblical answers and values don't fit the hypothetical context.  The only permissible options concern the social significance of individuals--and here some choices will be more politically correct than others. In the end, the students must deny the inherent worth of some human lives and entertain the notion that it is good to sacrifice less important people on the altar of a "greater whole."

These disturbing views of human worth are taught through death education, sex education, and environmental, global and multicultural education. Are students embracing them? 

They must. The mastery learning process prods them onward with its built in rewards and corrections--often hidden in the student's computerized IEP program. If the students fail to comply, the new assessments (based on national requirements) will expose the failure and punish the school. See Chapter 7- Silencing the Opposition

Since the new government tests match national standards, they show us what all students must learn to earn their graduation certificate. No one has exposed these connections more effectively than Anita Hoge. (Read about her exciting adventure in Part 2) When researching Pennsylvania's EQA (Educational Quality Assessments) and its relationship to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), she noticed an alarming emphasis on group conformity as a mark of good "citizenship." While emphasizing the new attitudes for citizenship, the NAEP, which developed the measuring scale, did not even consider factual objectives "such as (a) knowing structure of government and (b) understanding problems of international relations."[30]  Apparently, an understanding of the democratic process was considered unimportant--perhaps even a hindrance to the coming social order.

In the test assignment below, students were not given the option of saying "no" to vandalism. Instead, they had to role play the part of vandals in the given hypothetical situation.   The authors assumed that all students would participate given the right incentives. [31] 

There is a secret club at school called the Midnight Artists. They go out late at night and point funny sayings and pictures on buildings. A student is asked to join the club. In this situation, I would join the club when I knew...  

             YES              MAYBE            NO      
  1. My best friend asked me to join                                                               

  2. Most of the popular students  were in the club.  

  3. My parents would ground me if they found out I joined.

Guess what the "right" answer were?  Hint: The state seeks responses that demonstrate "willingness to honor self-made commitments to individuals or groups."[32] This response falls into the "citizenship" category which measures "Personal responsibility and integrity." Knowing that today's global values give new meaning to words like "responsibility" and "integrity", one can begin to understand why the desired answers would be "yes" to 1 and 2.

The state also wants to know if students would respond to the threat of punishment. Therefore, it gave students 1 point for a "No" to 3.

The key is control, says Anita Hoge. The establishment wants control over:

  • Knowledge (what students know and think)

  • Orientations (what they will be like, their attitudes and feelings)

  • Competence (what they can do)[33]

To control and change nations, leaders must know how to manage group behavior. A fascinating book by Gustave Le Bon called The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, shows why the group strategies used in international classrooms could produce a pliable population, one that can easily be manipulated for political and economic purposes.  In it, Le Bon describes the moral weakness of the group mentality.

"Little adapted to reasoning, crowds are quick to act...  How powerless they are to hold any opinions other than those which are imposed upon them.... [They are led] by seeking what produces an impression on them and what seduces them....

"[Crowds possess a] collective mind which makes them feel, think and act in a manner quite different...  [The member of a crowd gains] a sentiment of invincible power which allows [him] to yield to instincts which, had he been alone, he would... have kept under restraint.[34]

Could America be trading personal morality based on truth and reason for the moral relativism and irrational behavior of a crowd? "The great democratic danger," we read in The Closing of the American Mind, "is enslavement to public opinion."[35] If Americans yield to an impersonal group mentality, who will take charge?  Who will control mass behavior?  

Re-envision the world and its people.  Since traditional facts and reason are out, what is in?  Dr. Donald A. Cowan, founding fellow of the Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture and president emeritus of the University of Dallas, has a ready answer:    

"What will take the place of logic, fact and analysis in the coming age?  The central way of thought for this new era will be imagination.  Imagination will be the active, creative agent of culture, transforming brute materials to a higher, more knowable state...."[36]

This approach only makes sense when children are viewed through the deceptive filter of an holistic or pantheistic paradigm. "Holism refers to what is holy," explains Jeffrey Kane, editor of Holistic Education Review. "The key here is to begin with respect for the sanctity, the spiritual integrity of the child as an autonomous human being. What is sacred must be treated with reverence."[37] He continues,

"To educate holistically is to create experiences and provide direction that will enable the child to unfold spirituality, to root himself or herself as a spiritual being in a physical world... ."[38]

To those who subscribe to this holistic paradigm, the child's inner voice transcends factual knowledge and all moral absolutes imposed by others. Gone is the traditional understanding that children need instruction or wisdom from credible teachers, parents, pastors, or books.  No longer do children need firm discipline to counter the irascible tendencies of human nature. Authority is transferred to self, and obedience is surrendered to personal feelings. But these feelings are being trained to respond to new-paradigm values--values that students "choose" under the manipulative guidance of the Mastery Learning process.

This process strips away the biblical foundations for a conscience--and with it, the child's capacity for genuine remorse or repentance. After all, sin and guilt cannot coexist with the global beliefs and values supposedly needed to bring peace and unity to the world. Therefore children must be set free both from old authorities and from the limitations imposed by a Bible-trained conscience.

Today, the various forms of values training or values clarification effectively erase those old moral values (right or wrong), social values (bad or good), and esthetic values (beautiful or ugly).[39]  In their place stands the politically correct notion that children are naturally good and endowed with inner wisdom.  Andy LePage, acclaimed author of Transforming Education, elaborates,

"Many, mostly traditionalists, still carry the cynical belief that we are, by nature, evil, irresponsible and untrustworthy. This belief is gradually being countered by a growing number who believe that, instead, and to the contrary, we are naturally inclined toward becoming life-affirming, cooperative, responsible and trustworthy.... Under [the] negative assumption, we logically act to repress and contain ourselves. Under the newer positive assumption, we logically act to liberate and express ourselves; even to fulfill ourselves. ...[It] is precisely... this limited view of ourselves as human that has our world today in such disarray and despair...

"The way out is to be found in re-envisioning ourselves...."[40]

The arguments by global-minded educators for stressing "higher order thinking" might sound something like this:  Don't bother teaching a lot of useless information. You don't know what facts will be relevant in the 21st Century.  Instead, teach children to

  • ponder the universal truths in myths and symbols,

  • to envision their own perfections,

  • to imagine a better world,

  • and to create their own stories of the future.

This will help them connect with their inner wisdom - which in turn draws inspiration from the global mind. Then teach them persuasive communication skills and encourage them to share their self-expressions with parents and others in need of enlightenment. 


Old Paradigm

New Paradigm

Biblical Truth

Earth-centered myths


Experience and feelings




Speculation and feelings


Politicized pseudo-science



Factual history

Fictional or multicultural stories

Objective thinking

Subjective feelings

Individual responsibility

Group thinking

While parents are waking up to the unprecedented crisis, international educators are racing ahead with their agenda. Students around the world are learning to see the world through the framework of the new paradigm, and parents who question the classroom tactics are usually ignored, appeased, ridiculed or reprimanded.  Like Ashley's mother they are made to feel that they alone imagine a problem, while the majority are sensible enough to appreciate the change.

The opposite is true. Listen to the prophetic words of Raymond Houghton, Professor of Secondary Education and Special Assistant to the President for Urban Affairs at Rhode Island College--and don't let anyone intimidate your family into believing the lie.

"...absolute behavior control is imminent.... The critical point of behavior control, in effect, is sneaking up on mankind without his self-conscious realization that a crisis is at hand. Man will... never self-consciously know that it has happened.[41] 

As you can see, a war is raging for the minds of our children.  That's nothing new.  Two thousand years ago, God said, "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." (Colossians 2:8)  Never has this warning been more relevant.

To keep our children from being caught up in deceptive philosophies, we need to train them to view reality through a biblical filter. If we don't, their schools, peers and culture will teach them the new paradigm perspective -- and Christian beliefs and values will no longer make sense. The change agents will have won, and globalist leaders will determine their standards for their new universal values.

If you want to guard your child's mind, look again at the left column in the chart above.  Then take time each day to train your children to....

God said, "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it." (Proverbs 6:22)  His Word also tells us to "impress [His truths] on your children. Talk about them when you sit... walk... lie down and.... get up."  (Deuteronomy 6:5-7)   Could He be reminding us, not only to share truth, but also to use all our ordinary conversations to communicate an attitude of trust in God and His wonderful promises? 

When you train your children to look at daily and future events from God's perspective, you build into their minds a mental framework that will accept what is true and good but reject what is false and wrong.  Remember,

"Be strong and courageous. Do not fear nor be afraid.... for the LORD your God, He is the One who goes with you. He will not leave you nor forsake you." (Deuteronomy 31:6) 

[1]  Our Creative Diversity, UNESCO, 1995, p.11.

[2]  Shirley Mc Cune, Senior Director, Mid-continent Educational Laboratory, address at the 1989 Governors' Conference on Education. Transcribed from conference video.

[3] Spoken at a 1988 forum address at the Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture. This address formed the nucleus for his book Unbinding Prometheus: Education for the Coming Age, published by the Dallas Institute Press.

[4]  Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (New York: HarperPerennial, 1932); 55.

[5]  This quote is written according to Ashley's recall.

[6]  Lee Droegemueller, Commissioner of Education, "Assessment! Kansas Quality Performance Accreditation (QPA), Kansas State Board of Education, Topeka, KS, January 1992.

[7]  Marc Tucker, "How We Plan to Do It," Proposal to the New American School Development Corporation: National Center for Education and the Economy, July 9, 1992.

[8]  Chester Finn, Jr., "The Biggest Reform of All," Phi Delta Kappan, (April 1990); 589.

[9]  Ibid., 592.

[10] Marilyn Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy (Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, Inc., 1980), 289-290.

[11] Robert Muller, The Birth of a Global Civilization (Anacortes, WA: World Happiness and Cooperation, 1991); 12.

[12] Charlotte Iserbyt, Back to Basics Reform Or... OBE Skinnerian International Curriculum? (Bath, ME: 1993), 24.

[13] John Goodlad, "Report of Task Force C: Strategies for Change," Schooling for the Future, a report to the President's Commission on Schools Finance, Issue #9, 1971.

[14] B.F. Skinner, Science and Human Behavior (NY: Macmillan & Co., 1953). Cited by Iserbyt,

[15] Richard Evans I., B.F. Skinner: The Man and His Ideas (NY: E.P. Duton & Co., 1968).

[16] Howard Witt, "New Age teaching spells trouble in California," Chicago Tribune, May 14, 1995.

[17] bid.

[18] See report by Pam Hoffecker in Part 2.

[19] Thomas Sticht and Willis Harman, "Experts Say Too Much is Read Into Illiteracy Crisis," The Washington Post, August 17, 1987.  Iserbyt, "OBE Choice: the Final Solution.4

[20] Dustin H. Heuston, "Discussion--Developing the Potential of an Amazing Tool," Schooling and Technology, Vol. 3, Planning for the Future: A Collaborative Model, published by Southeastern Regional Council for Educational Improvement, P.O. Box 12746, 200 Park, Suite 111, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709/ Grant from National Institute of Education, p. 8. Cited by Charlotte Iserbyt, Back to Basics Reform Or... OBE Skinnerian International Curriculum (Bath, ME: 1993), 27.

[21] Jeannie Georges, Outcome Based Education (Media Bypass Magazine, P.O. Box 5326, Evansville, Indiana 47716); 12.

[22] "Developing Leaders for Restructuring Schools: New Habits of Mind and Heart," report of the National Leadership Network Study Grow on Restructuring Schools, August 1990. Foreword written by Bruno Manno, Assistant Secretary of the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Cited by Dennis Cuddy, Chronology of Education, 93.

[23]Outcome Based Education (Media Bypass Magazine, Box 5326, Evansville, Indiana 47716), 3.

[24]Marc Tucker, "How We Plan to Do It," Proposal to the New American School Development Corporation: National Center for Education and the Economy, July 9, 1992.

[25]The Regional Educational Laboratories are private, non-profit corporations which are funded, in whole or in part, under Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Each lab operates under a contract with the Division of Educational Laboratories, Bureau of Research, U.S. Office of Education.

[26]Transcribed from a video recording of the Governor's Conference on Education in Wichita, Kansas, November 1989.

[27]Benjamin Bloom, All Our Children Learning (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981); 180.

[28]David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom and Bertram Massia, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook II: Affective Domain, (McKay Publishers, 1956), 55.

[29]From paper distributed to students at Homestead High School, Cupertino, CA.

[30]Anita Hoge, from audio cassette portion of Talking Papers: A "Hands on" Tool for parents to understand outcome based education (West Alexander, PA: self-published, 1994). "The National Assessment of educational Progress (NAEP) developed nine general citizenship objectives. .. These national objectives were used to provide the frame of reference for what was to be measured."

[31]Ibid., 18.


[33]Ibid., 11, 14.

[34]Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd (Burlington, VT: Fraser Publishing Co., 1982), xvi, xx, 9.

[35]Alan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987); 246.

[36]Spoken at a 1988 forum address at the Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture. This address formed the nucleus for his book Unbinding Prometheus: Education for the Coming Age, published by the Dallas Institute Press.

 [37]Jeffrey Kane, "Reflections on the Holistic Paradigm," Holistic Education Review (Winter 1993); 3.


[39]"Teaching of Values," Title III, Grant, Northwood Public Schools, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1968. According to Anita Hoge, this is the federal grant that funded Sidney Simon's development of values clarification techniques.

[40]Andy LePage, Transforming Education (Oakland, CA: Oakmore House Press, 1987), xii.

[41]To Nurture Humaneness: Commitment for the '70's (Washington DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, NEA, 1970).

Home | Armor of God | Persecution | His Word | Articles | Books