Humanist Reformers took control of America’s schools in the 1930’s with a goal of using them to create “a new social order”. It was to be a society in which God and His foundational concepts would either be ignored or denied. They stated their goals plainly in their books and speeches—but they didn’t proclaim them openly in the newspapers or meetings of the PTA. Therefore, few parents knew what was being planned for their children” (Excerpt from None Dare Call it Education by John Stormer, 1999, p. 113).
Below you will find excerpts taken from the Macroeconomics: Principles and Policy, 11th Ed. The two authors are William Baumol who attended the University of London for his Ph.D and now works at the Berkley Center for Entrepreneurial Studies at New York University and is also a Professor Emeritus at Princeton University.
Then we have Alan Blinder who graduated from Princeton, where one of his teachers was William Baumol. He received his Ph.D from M.I.T. He currently teaches at Princeton but worked for the Clinton administration from January 1993 until June 1994. At that time he began acting as the vice chairman for the Federal Reserve Board. “He thus played a role in formulating both the fiscal and monetary policies of the 1990’s, topics discussed extensively in this book” (p. v). So, it is clear he will not be biased about how things really went during the Clinton administration or during the 1990’s since he would largely share in the responsibility. (Insert sarcasm here)
Clearly, the two authors of this text are liberals and co-workers who could not offer one shred of balance to the topics they were attempting to teach students. Absolutely no critical thought has been given to their positions from an opposing economic view point. Both men are Democrats and believers in Keynesian economics. How might this bias be dangerous to our nation’s youth? Take a look at the short examples I have included below.
A sample of the bias in an AP Macroeconomics TEACHERS EDITION, here are the lecture notes to be used for teaching the concepts to students:
Reaganomics and its Aftermath
When Reagan assumed office in 1981, the economy went into a sharp tailspin, and soon the rate of inflation fell.
This was followed by a period of steady, non-inflationary growth during most of the 1980’s. In 1990-1991, recession hit.
(Key points to take away…things start off bad with Reagan and end on an even worse note.)
Clintonomics: Deficit Reduction and THE “NEW Economy”
Clinton’s initial objectives were spurring growth and increasing public investment.
Soon, however, the overriding goal in Washington became deficit reduction.
A variety of transitory factors pushed the economy’s aggregate supply curve outward at an unusually rapid pace between 1996 and 1999.
Strong economic growth continued through the late 1990’s, and inflation remained low.
(Let’s look at how they handle Clinton…well, he starts off as a brilliant economist and ends as a hero!)
Tax Cuts and the Bush Economy
The boom ended in mid-2000, just before the election of George W. Bush. Under his Administration, Congress passed tax cuts at the onset of the 2001 recession. The Federal Reserve also lowered interest rates 2000-2003 to combat the economic downturn. President Bush’s tax policy resulted in the return of federal budget deficits.
(Let’s see how Bush faired under these guys…seems his election was also responsible for a failure in the economy and then he made bad decisions to fix the problems that began in mid-2000, finally his policies resulted in the return of deficits…terrible)
This is just one small example of how these textbooks, which are used to teach our brightest students, are completely biased. There is not one positive thing to be brought out in the discussion about anything undertaken during the administration of a republican. No mention of the condition of the economy when Reagan took office, or of who might have been President before Reagan. You know, that guy…formerly known as the Worst President ever, Jimmy Carter. They skip over the terrific economic boom that took place under Reagan and then laud Clinton as the best thing to ever take office. I can hardly wait to see how these men handle the economy under Barack Obama.
In fact, they wrap the entire period under Carter in the following heading which proceeds the “Reaganomics and its Aftermath” (it’s interesting to note that terms such as “aftermath” are associated with disasters such as hurricanes, tornados, and other disasters… nice mental picture.)
The Great Stagflation, 1973-1980
The international price of oil was raised sharply in 1973 and again in 1979.
For that reason and some others, the period saw the emergence of “stagflation”, both unemployment and inflation increasing together.
(Notice there is no mention of Carter and the points begin by suggesting the problem was of “international blame” not something a US President could control. My favorite part is how they gloss over his failed economic policy with the line, “some others” and ignore the Iranian crisis CREATED by Carter, as the culprit behind the oil problems.)
The reason it is important to know these text are used in our classrooms is that these are used everywhere. It does not matter if you attend public, private, Christian, or are homeschooled. The AP textbooks are the same and the materials are strictly governed. Very little can be done to change the materials used but if a teacher, such as myself, wishes to teach the other side of the coin we must do so on our own time. It means teachers of AP must take even more time to research information to give balance to the material being taught to students.
Our nation’s economy is in peril because our future economists are being taught only one side of the economic equation. They are being forced to put a peg in a square hole and taught it fits just fine. Common Core and liberal bias will ensure the indoctrination of our children and the liberalization of our future. Parents and conservative educators can scarcely afford to wait one more second to act. If you are aware of Plato’s allegory of the cave, you may recognize that our children are the ones in chains and the current progressive education system holds the keys to those chains.
The progressive movement is growing stronger and bolder in their actions against families and our children. Melissa Harris-Perry of MSNBC continued the ball rolling publically with her statement that
“We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.” Hear her for yourself:
To be fair, this was not an idea that originated with Melissa Harris-Perry; I would hardly credit her with the intellectual capacity to come up with such an idea. She was merely a mouthpiece used to proclaim long held progressive views, which are now deemed ready for public consumption. A few short years ago Hillary Clinton created waves with her book, It Takes A Village, in which she indicated raising children was a community effort. While that may have been true at one time in history, it is now well established that today’s villages are filled with, and often run by, “village idiots”.
Many American conservative families are taking action by removing their children from public schools. Families who are financially able to balance the load are placing their children in private schools. Others are choosing to educate their children at home, but neither option is a guarantee that their children will be spared the progressive agenda. The AP text sited above makes the case that no matter where your child is educated they will be forced fed a steady diet of progressivism.
Just like parents must supervise how much junk food their child consumes, parents must supervise how much progressive doctrine their child is taught. Trying to remove all junk food from your child’s diet is virtually impossible and may result in a rebellion later that can cause eating disorders. Similarly, it is unwise to omit the teachings of progressive doctrine because children are prone to rebel. It is much wiser to teach them about the risk of junk food while allowing them to sample the various types within reason. It is also wiser to teach the ideas of progressivism while demonstrating the dangers of extreme versions of this ideology.
So, what can parents do you ask? The first step is recognizing we have a problem. The next step is formulating a plan to combat the problem and finally, to take action. Where are you in the process? If, like many parents you have been blissfully uninvolved in your children’s education, please get involved now. If, however, you are like more and more parents, who have been awakened to the threat our children face; it’s time to formulate your family’s plan. By all means, do not ignore this issue…act…break the chains before your child becomes another progressive lap dog feeding at the federal governments’ trough. One suggestion would be to review your children’s textbooks…you might learn something you wish your children had not! Your next step might be to attend school board meetings and SPEAK OUT! Whatever you decide…take steps now.