U.N.American Educationby Mary Miller, Director of Research
As 2010 dawned, the spirit of “change” in America was palpable. In previous articles, we have discussed many reasons for our attention and our concern. There is one topic; however, we have yet to put to print—U.N.American Education—the unAmerican infiltration of the United Nations agenda in the American classroom.
While the roots of infiltration are decades old, efforts in-creased dramatically with the beginning of the new millennium. On September 10, 2003, in Prague at the International Conference on Education for a Sustainable Future, the United Nations declared 2005 through 2015, “The Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD).”
In this meeting, the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was named as the lead agency for this global effort. On June 12, 2002, President George Bush announced that America would rejoin UNESCO and participate fully in its mission. This move was the beginning of the planned “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) project.
According to UNESCO:
• The “Decade of ESD” is a far-reaching and complex undertaking.
• ESD potentially touches on every aspect of life.
• The basic vision is a world where everyone learns the values, behavior, and lifestyles required for a sustain- able future and for a positive societal transformation.
As we keep peeling the layers, we find the concept of “Sustainable Development” (SD) was introduced in 1987 at the World Commission on Environment and Development. Their report, “Our Common Future” defined Sustainable Development as: “Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
While this goal sounds benign in concept, it is not benign in intent. Many of the concepts we are hearing from our government today are actually set forth in “Our Common Future”:
• A progressive transformation of the economy and society (pg. 43);
• International interdependence (pg. 47);
• Redistribution of assets [wealth] (pg. 50);
• Reduced material growth and more equitable growth (pg. 50-52).
• Ensured sustainable level of population (pg. 55).
• Merge environment and economics in the decision-making process (pg. 62).
• Create a new ethic focusing on the relationship between man and nature (pg. 71).
These concepts were later codified in the September 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development when the “representatives of the peoples of the world” adopted “Agenda 21.” “Agenda 21” sets forth the roadmap for global transformation with chapters defining how to:
• Change Consumption Patterns
• Promote Sustainable Human Settlements
• Plan & Manage All Land Resources, Ecosystems, Deserts, Forests, Mountains, Oceans, Fresh Water
• Rural Development
• Ensuring Equity
• Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) [increased role in change management]
The key, however, to the success of the “agenda” is Chapter 36: Education, Public Awareness, and Training: How to inte-grate Agenda 21 into all curriculums as the “defacto international education standard.”
No Child Left Behind
The foundation of No Child Left Behind actually goes back to former U.S. President George H.W. Bush when he endorsed UNESCO’s 1990 “Education for All” (EFA) initiative and promised to implement it by the year 2000.
In 1993, U.S. President Clinton signed Executive Order 12852 to create the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). The PCSD published “Education for Sustain-ability: An Agenda for Action.” This directive for educators to “serve society by fostering the transformations needed to set us on the path to sustainable development” became the frame-work for Clinton’s “Goals 2000.”
All 50 states adopted Goals 2000 (National Standards, Curriculum, and Assessments) to receive the funding that came with it. In October 2003, then-Secretary of Education, Dr. Robert Paige, took the agenda to the next level when he ad-dressed the U.N. Round Table on Education. He professed:
The United States is pleased to return to UNESCO. There and here, we agree that we must make education a universal reality. Our governments have entrusted us with the responsibility of preparing our children to become citizens of this world. UNESCO knows the importance of education on a global level by coordinating the Education for All Initiative (EFA). EFA is consistent with our recent legislation, the No Child Left Behind Act. (emphasis mine)
“Preparing our children to become citizens of this world....” Regardless of curriculum, the No Child Left Behind legislation held states accountable to implement their previously signed agreements for Goals 2000. States and districts that refused to align their standards, curriculum, and assessments with the “world-class standards” were threatened with loss of federal funding. Interestingly, No Child Left Behind requires full implementation by 2014 (within the deadline of “The Decade of Education for Sustainable Development”).
From a Biblical worldview, Sustainable Development en-compasses the framework to develop a one-world citizenship to support a global religion, a global economy, and a global government. According to the 2002 “Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit”:
• World Citizenship encompasses the constellation of principles, values, attitudes, and behavior that the people of the world must embrace if sustainable development is to be realized.
• World Citizenship encourages a sane and legitimate patriotism and insists upon a wider loyalty, a love of humanity as a whole.
• The hallmark of World Citizenship is “unity in diversity.”
“So long as disunity, antagonism, and provincialism characterize the social, political, and economic relations within and among nations, a global, sustainable pattern of development cannot be established.”
To prepare our children for World Citizenship, the United Nations has implemented many “new” curriculums into American Education. Many of you may be familiar with their titles, but may not be familiar with the agenda lurking just beneath the surface.
International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO)
As of March 2010, there are International Baccalaureate (IB) programs in school districts in 47 states plus the District of Columbia. Almost 93% of the 1,095 IB World School sites are in U.S. public schools. IBO expects a worldwide tally of “10,000 schools and 2.5 million students enrolled in IB programs by the year 2020.”
There are currently three IB programs available for inclusion in school curriculum: The Diploma Program (DP) for ages 16-19; Middle Years Program (MYP) for ages 11-15; and Primary Years Program (PYP) for ages 3-12. In the U.S., there are currently 694 Diploma Programs, 336 Middle Years Pro-grams, and 200 Primary Years Programs.
As with all programs of the United Nations, there is a hefty expense to implement an IB program in a public school. In addition to the normal costs of operating an educational facility, schools pay “application process fees that involve three stages” of implementation: 1) a feasibility study (where teachers and administrators undertake IB-approved professional development) [perhaps the word indoctrination would be a better description]; 2) a trial implementation period of at least 12 months, during which the school will be visited and supported by an IB representative; and 3) an authorization visit [a judgement is made regarding the extent to which the school is suitably prepared].
Gone are the days in which a school district purchased curriculum and then simply “taught” it. Following authorization, a school pays to be monitored in the execution of the IB protocols:
• An annual program fee;
• An annual per-student registration fee;
• Two 3-consecutive day in-school workshops (includes per capita fee, administration fee, and meeting leader(s) daily rate plus expenses for travel, hotel, meals, and miscellaneous needs.
Each IB Program has two legal documents that “set forth the relationship” the IBO has with: 1) IB World Schools (“Rules for IB World Schools”), and 2) an IB student and their legal guardian (“General Rules”). Disputes as to violation of any “rules” do not end up before the local school board. IBO headquarters are located in Geneva, Switzerland and all disputes are brought before “one arbitrator in accordance with the Swiss Rule of International Arbitration of the Swiss Chambers of Commerce.” [Needless to say, that would be one meeting most parents would not be able to attend.]
Due to the growth of the IB program, a new International Baccalaureate global center is expected to open September 2010 at The Hague, Netherlands. IB staffs from Cardiff, Wales and Geneva, Switzerland are “being encouraged to relocate from their current offices.”
Other “Educational” Opportunities
School districts that cannot fund the IB programs are encouraged to seek funding via federal grants through:
• The Magnet Schools Assistance Program
• AP Test Fee Program
• GEAR UP
• Advanced Placement Incentive Program
• Smaller Learning Communities Program
• Academic Competitiveness Grants
[In a 2/1/2010 expose in the Arizona Daily Star, it was re-ported that the Tucson Unified School District has spent $939,000 on their IB program. Their IB Diploma Program be-gan in the 2008-2009 school year with 42 juniors and no seniors. In 2009-2010, the program covered 32 seniors. Despite the enormous cost-per-student ratio and mandatory budget costs within the State of Arizona, the district plans to implement IB in more school locations.]
Other U.N. programs that qualify for funding grants include Global Classroom and Model UN. All of these programs seek one result: develop students with “international mindedness.”
IB World magazine addressed the topic of “International Mindedness” for its subscribers, “While other organizations appeal to ‘global awareness’ and ‘international relations,’ IB focuses on mindedness and defines the IB learner’s approach.” Essentially, IB wants to change the way your child “thinks.”
At the heart of the IB Learner Profile is the intent of the pro-gram:
With the development of a continuum of international education, it is intended that teachers, students, and parents will be able to draw confidently on a recognizable common educational framework, a consistent structure of aims and values and an overarching concept of how to develop international-mindedness. The IB learner profile will be at the heart of this common framework, as a clear and concise statement of the aims and values of the IB, and an embodiment of what the IB means by “international-mindedness.
True to the cause of relativism, International Mindedness supports the idea that: “Our students need to be able to rationalize what is most likely true about the present, but also to ‘mind’—in the sense of ‘care’—enough about the future to dream up plausible alternatives and enact them.” (emphasis mine)
What are the foundations and truth the agenda of International Mindedness seeks to change? In the Declaration of In-dependence, America separated from tyranny and declared herself “independent” of other nations, kings and potentates.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” (emphasis mine)
The United Nations and its tentacles through educational programs founded under the “Education for Sustainable Development” agenda seek to destroy the principles of God-given liberty.
The presidential campaign slogan “Change You Can Believe In” was a mantra purposed to resonate with those who would recognize and support the Sustainable Development agenda. For those of us who missed the connection, we now realize this is not just a fight for the hearts and minds of our children. This is a fight for our very existence—for our right to openly worship the Creator God of the Universe—for our right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Sometimes, we ask ourselves if we should “get involved.” I found that answer out for myself recently. We are called to be the salt and light of the world. If we do not insulate ourselves in the “truth” and be that salt and light, we may end up isolating ourselves from reality...a reality of change we cannot live with.