Socialist Schooling Philosophy and the Democrat’s Agenda

In 1976, the official government jargon was that the Peoples Republic (Poland) was still in the socialist stage of development proceeding toward the ultimate goal of communism . To achieve this goal, the government focused its efforts on the education of the populace – younger people in particular. Prior to 1990 all textbooks were published in two state controlled publishing houses. The Minister of Education certified that the textbooks reflected the views of the administration. The educational objective was to produce students that would be good socialist citizens loyal to the ruling party and who would never question the hierarchy of power .
As Dr. Tran quoted in his article:
“Determined efforts were made to make the pupils identify with the model of a socialist man (sic) committed to building a socialist society, acting in conformity with the principles of socialist morality, manifesting his respect for and love of work and anxious to master the basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism (Tomiak, 1988, p. 1008).”
(Tomiak, the reference cited by Dr. Tran, was a professor at the University of London and was an expert on communist/socialist educational systems.) Polish history was revised to reflect a more or less past harmony with the Russians (although such was not the case) and caused the historians of the time much consternation in trying to reconcile actual history with the ideology of the government. Economic studies stressed that centralized planning was superior to capitalism and prohibited the distribution of books that presented contradictory views. Religious topics were totally excluded from the curricula. Polish patriotism was downplayed as too nationalistic and multinational socialism was substituted in its place. Polish heroes were relegated to historical footnotes if not entirely omitted from the history books. They attempted, with great difficulty, to show that a free (socialist) Poland arose from a historical feudal system that enslaved the people. The whole philosophy of education was to support the ultimate goals of the government. Teachers were expected to support the interests of the government and paid little attention to the interests and needs of the pupils.
To ensure that future generations of well trained and properly indoctrinated bureaucrats, professionals etc., would be available, education was made mandatory and free. Free meaning that there was no tuition cost. Not everybody could go to a university. To gain entrance into a higher education facility, a potential student had to have superior grades in high school and pass written and/or oral exams.
A quick summary of the school system taken from reference 123 is as follows. It was mandatory that students attend school up to the age of fourteen. Children 3 to 6 years old could attend kindergarten. It was compulsory that all age 6 children go to grade 0 which was considered to be a preparatory class for entering the primary grades 1 thru 8. Students were graded on a scale from 2 to 5 with the latter being the highest rank. Students with only 2 marks were not promoted and had to repeat the class. Upon completion of the primary schooling (eighth grade) and depending upon their grades, students had three options for proceeding into the higher grades. Students with the highest rank usually went to study at the “lycea” a four year course focusing on science, arts and physical education. Pupils with rankings of 3 to 4 went to the “technikum” (a 4 to 5 year course) specializing as secondary medical and economics schools. To be enrolled in either of these schools, a student had to compete and pass an entrance examination based on the Polish language and mathematics. Prior to 1983, potential graduates had to pass two written examinations for Polish and for mathematics in their last year of school before graduating. Post 1983 the law was slightly changed. They still had to take the written Polish language test but had the choice of mathematics, history or biology for the second test. If they passed the written test they then went on to an oral test of the Polish language and a second oral test of their choosing. If they passed these exams they were issued a certificate that they had completed their “matura” (the equivalent of a diploma). Free college tuition was available to the holder of the “matura”. The colleges decided how many students they would accept. To get into college the prospective student had to pass an entrance examination that could be written, oral or both.
Students that had rankings of less than 3 when they finished primary school went on to basic vocational schools were they learned to be machinists, hairdressers etc. and then went into the work force.
Prior to the government being overthrown in 1989, there were only state run schools. Private schools did not exist.
How does our public school philosophy, dominated by the principles and beliefs of the Democratic Party, compare with the communist/socialist agenda? First let me rewrite Tomiak’s opinion of the communist/socialist state and relate it to the Democratic Party:
Determined efforts were made to make the pupils identify with the model of a Democratic Party (socialist) man committed to building a Democratic Party (socialist) society, acting in conformity with the principles of Democratic Party (socialist) morality, manifesting his respect for and love of work and anxious to master the basic tenets of the Democratic Party (Marxism-Leninism).
The words in parenthesis belong to the original quote. Thus far there is no difference between the ambitions of the socialists and the Democratic Party. In fact their educational philosophy is identical: destroy American history, relegate American heroes to a footnote in the history books, stress the flaws in the capitalist system and eliminate nationalism in favour of multinationalism.
The key to the ultimate success of instilling Democratic Party doctrine in the young minds of America is to control their education. Instead of teaching that we are a united diverse nation as exemplified by our national motto E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one) our liberal schools are teaching the opposite: we are a nation divided into multiethnic and multicultural groups. We are not united by a common purpose and goal as elucidated in the Declaration of Independence. Instead globalism and not nationalism is being taught as the future of this country. We are not united by a common language, English, but rather are becoming like Europe. Soon, if we do not require English to be the one language for the United States, we will be Europe and most of us will not be able to converse with our neighbors.
Senator Inhofe (Republican) introduced legislation to make English the official language. The Democrats strongly opposed it. However he did get his bill passed with the following modification: the word official was changed to national. What is the difference between the words “official” and “national”? Official would have meant that bilingual language schools would not exist, government documents would be in English and immigrants would have to learn the language. Why would the Democrats oppose such a proposal that would bring immigrants into the mainstream of American life? Why would they want to keep the immigrants separate and ignorant of the English language? The answer is simple – votes and particularly the Spanish vote. National is a feel good word and causes the Democrats to appear as fostering a common language but it leaves things as they are. Even so, most Democrats opposed it .
“Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said the legislation struck him as invidious—if not in motivation, then in result. “While the intent may not be there, I really believe this amendment is racist,” he said. “I think it’s directed basically at people who speak Spanish.””
As usual, when they have nothing better to say and to hide their agenda, they play the race card. Divide the nation by playing one class against the other; keep the country in a state of multiple bifurcated classes.
We have governmental documents written in different languages. Why? Was this policy made to foster the integration of immigrants into society or to keep them from being aware of the history and politics of their adopted country? How can a person not knowing how to read English possibly know the political issues involved let alone know for whom to vote? How could such a voter be aware of what the politicians are saying in totality unless he can read? Certainly he can listen to snippets of political speeches on the liberal TV news but what can he learn of divergent opinion? The identity of the country is being destroyed.
The students are being taught that the United States is only a part of the World Melting Pot and not that the nation is the melting pot that promulgated the concepts of liberty and justice for all. If we are part of the World Melting Pot, does that mean we support oppressive societies that demean the rights of their citizens? The Democrats may actually believe this as they certainly support the rights of the terrorists that are trying to destroy our nation. Senator Reid should be happy to know that “The Internationalist”, a communist group, supports the Democratic Party position and favors bilingual schools in America . Why? Because they too want to destroy the one common denominator that holds the USA together: the English language. The Democrats, by segregating groups into individual ethnic and philosophical entities and keeping them ignorant of the foundations of our society, find it easier to guide them in the direction that the Democrats want.
Bill Ayers, an associate of President Obama, was part of a terrorist group that bombed the Pentagon and other governmental buildings. His only regret was that maybe he did not do enough. He never went to prison because of a technical loophole regarding improper surveillance of his activities. Eventually, he became an education professor at the University of Illinois in Chicago. He not only founded the terrorist Weather Underground organization but the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) was his brainchild . CAC adopted Ayers philosophy and stressed student radical political activism over achievement testing. In his books he recommended that teachers should be teaching opposition to American racism and oppression. Ayers obviously thought that societal changes could best be accomplished through the control of education. At least he did not tell the teachers to go out and bomb someone. Possibly with the years passing by he mellowed somewhat. But that doesn’t mean he gave up his violent radical ideas. It probably means that he knows if he carries out another act of extreme violence he will go to prison. I’m sure the police officials involved will not make the same surveillance mistake twice. He was quoted as saying “I’m a radical, Leftist, small “c” communist.127” His educational philosophies were adopted by CAC. As the Wall Street Journal put it:
“CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).”
Small wonder that Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi wanted to include millions of dollars in the stimulus bill for ACORN. As mentioned earlier, ACORN is an unofficial arm of the Democratic Party. It is supposed to be a non-profit organization but as is well known, they totally support the Democratic Party. Their members will even go so far as to generate fictitious votes for the Democrats if required. They are under investigation in this regard127. Bill Ayers activism must have passed over to Nancy Pelosi, Senator Reid and President Obama as all three will say or do anything to get more votes to foster their agenda in spite of what it might cost or the harm it could do to the country.
Rewriting history is an integral part of controlling the development of our young students and future voters. History must point in the direction of the Democratic credo that America is bad and must be changed. Republican congressman Tom Tancredo in a speech before congress showed numerous examples of what the history books were telling our students. Excerpts from his speech follow:
“This is what the textbook purports to be true. It said that this textbook was written ``in response to the bicentennial celebration of the 1776 American Revolution.'' You think good, nice idea, ``and it's lies.'' Its stated purpose is to ``celebrate our resistance.'' Who are they talking to here? Celebrate our resistance to being colonized and absorbed by racist empire builders?
The book describes defenders of the Alamo as slave owners, land speculators and Indian killers, calls Davey Crockett a cannibal, and it said that the 1857 war on Mexico, not war with Mexico, war on Mexico was an unprovoked U.S. invasion.”
“Here is what this one says about American history. It teaches that Sitting Bull had strength of character while Custer was a fool and rode to his death. Now I am not saying Sitting Bull did not have strength of character and purpose; but, again, look at the way all these things are presented. It discusses U.S. soldiers killing Indian women and children in Sand Creek and Wounded Knee, but fails to mention the Indian killings and the kidnapping of white women and children the summer before Sand Creek.”
“Further, it editorializes that George W. Bush's conservative administration and policies are extreme. This is a textbook. It states that the Reagan-Bush ``conservative agenda'' limits advances in civil rights for minorities and that the conservatives' bid to dismantle Great Society social programs could be compared to abandoning the Nation.”

The Bradley report compiled by historians, political scientists, journalists, public figures and educators, describes the deficiencies in the teaching of American history in our primary, secondary and college schools. Essentially, one of their conclusions was that schools are focusing on what is wrong with the United States rather than defining its successes. An excerpt from the report follows:
“The reasons for this failing are not hard to find—boring textbooks that lack narrative drive, a neglect of America’s heroes and dramatic achievements, curriculum standards that push the founding period out of high school into the lower grades, and teachers inadequately prepared in American history. Too often, students are taught more about America’s failings than its successes. Absent are those “mystic chords of memory” that Abraham Lincoln believed held our country together.
The teaching of American history should include America’s great public documents and speeches, and books with compelling narratives. The period of the American founding should be emphasized at all levels, including high school, by teachers who have majored in history. Students should first be taught about America’s great heroes, dramatic achievements and high ideals so they can put its failings in perspective. Meaningful, balanced history best prepares young people for informed democratic participation.
College does little to close the civic literacy gap. Studies show that large numbers of college seniors, even at elite universities, cannot correctly identify major national figures such as James Madison or phrases such as “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” They are unable to define representative democracy or the separation of powers. Most colleges do not require an American history or American government course. Where history is taught, it is often taught as a fragmented history, a history of this or that group, not of the nation as a whole.”
“In a nation that celebrates its diversity, we need to remind ourselves that we are also part of “one nation indivisible.” Americans by a margin of 80 percent to nine believe that our schools should focus on American citizenship, not ethnic identity. Majorities of Latinos (70 percent) and African-Americans (54 percent) agree. Parents of schoolchildren, regardless of background, also concur. Eighty nine percent of parents overall believe “there’s too much attention paid these days to what separates different ethnic and racial groups and not enough to what they have in common.”
Marcia Segelstein quoted Marvin Olasky, a contributor to the Bradley Report, as saying: “schools are producing 'Hate America First' voters." A quote from her article admirably shows what diversity should mean:
“According to James Ceaser, professor of politics at the University of Virginia and a participant in the project, the country's understanding and appreciation of diversity is important but should be balanced by emphasizing what we share. "In selecting the title 'E Pluribus Unum,' the Project embraces the conviction that plurality and unity are not necessarily in tension with one another, but are supporting ideas of the same national experiment. Plurality is only made safe when it is grounded in a deeper commitment to national unity. Unity is the precondition for healthy diversity."”
Why does the school curriculum push the teaching of the founding of the United States down from the high schools into the lower levels? Because the younger students tend to accept what the teacher says. In most cases, they have not yet developed to the stage where they can challenge the teacher’s authority or question the interpretation of history. The young mind is more malleable and can be shaped, formed and bent into the mindset of the sculptor. They are more readily brainwashed and more likely to accept the concept that our country is a bad country founded on incorrect principles.
The Washington Post reported on a survey that showed colleges are more liberal than the conservatives ever imagined. 72% of the teachers at colleges and universities classified themselves as liberals while only 15% claimed to be conservatives. In terms of political party preference 50% were Democrats with only 11% claiming to be Republicans. The most liberal departments were English literature, political science, philosophy and religious studies with more than 80% of the teachers saying they are liberal. No more than 5% said they were conservative. The study did not measure how the teacher’s political views affected course content or instruction. I can only imagine the outcome of such a survey.
Did the Democratic Party cause the history books to be written in a style detrimental to the United States? I can’t say and probably no survey could determine if this true or not. No Democrat would admit to it. But it is reasonable to assume that the liberal philosophy, derived from whatever source, has profoundly influenced what is presented to modern day students.
Gene Pelc