Friday, March 11, 2005
Utah and No Child Left Behind
Then it can pass laws involving what I call de facto coercion: under the strictest interpretation no law requires Action A (let us call it), but if you do not do A, then (because of lack of money) you are unable to do B. Since doing B is not just desirable but perhaps essential (possibly even to maintaining your very life), you do A. Why would this not be called coercion?
Lynn Stuter's article shows that this is what is happening in the State of Utah, which has indicated (see previous post) that it wants nothing to do with George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind--which Stuter colorfully gives yet one more alternative acronym: the Every Child A Worker Act. She cites the previous legislation which No Child Left Behind simply follows up, including the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 and the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (she somehow missed the School-To-Work Act of 1996). All these, on top of Goals 2000 (the pinnacle of outcomes-based education) completed the job begun decades ago--arguably with the Rockefellers' General Education Board back in 1902--of transforming government schools from educational institutions emphasizing academics to job training centers emphasizing job skills, obedience, collectivization and politically correct attitudes. Utah cannot pull out, because its government schools have grown dependent on Federal Government dollars for their very functioning.
Dependency. It always was a bad idea, and always will be. No matter where the chains of dependency flow from.