by Karen Schroeder of Advocates for Academic Freedom

Leaders of educational policy have found that local control of schools hinders their ability to convince students that America’s success and well-being is interdependent with other nations. Before interdependence can gain acceptance, American citizens must abandon their present life style.

The Aspen Institute prepared a succinct document called A New Civic Literacy; American Education and Global Interdependence which shows that educational and political leaders believed that local control of education had been slowing public acceptance of interdependence. Never-the-less, Dr. Ward Morehouse, who developed educational programs for world citizenship for the New York State Department of Education, explained that interdependence may impose burdens that must be widely shared. “We the people are ready to make major adjustments in our life styles and work-ways if (a) someone with credibility tells us that it is in the public interest and (b) the distribution of the burden is obviously fair.”

Does this position sound familiar?

Dr. Morehouse assumes that interdependence is a goal of the American people and that its implementation simply needs the guidance of a leader with credibility. He warns that the American educational system is “caught in a bind” created by state and local control of schools. He joins a myriad of educational theorists who explain that only the federal government can handle the major issues involving energy, food, population, global environment, oceans, communications, trade, investment, and money.

Believing the federal government should control money and salaries, the American public allowed political leaders to create the Federal Reserve and pass the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution. Simultaneously, educational and political leadership assumed that Americans had been well prepared to accept interdependence and all of the educational and political implications involved.

Therefore, increasing federal funding and creating policies which place the federal government in greater control of educational policy have been essential steps toward assuring the success of this agenda. Justification is based on the premise that interdependence issues are “perceived as national concerns”.

The American public has been conditioned to believe that perceptions must be respected as truth. This manipulation of language discourages discussion of interdependence, a relationship in which the individual owns and controls nothing because everything he accomplishes depends upon the generosity and talents of collective world nations. He must surrender private property and freedom. Our founding fathers would be appalled that our citizenry would surrender so much.

Those imposing social or political agendas upon the classroom are not held accountable for the impact their policies have on the academic success of students. One example is Cooperative grouping of children. That is a method of instruction which encourages children to surrender their individual dreams and academic goals for the collective. College professors continue to recommend cooperative grouping of students as an essential method of instruction although academic achievement suffers in the process. The First Days of School by Harry and Rosemary Wong and Handbook of Social Justice in Education by William Ayers and others are examples of works which advocate cooperative grouping as a technique for new teachers. Both books are also required reading during professional seminars.

Most important to these educational experts are the social and political changes being developed in American society. Many Americans have been conditioned to accept a President who says:

If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on

your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.

When the American public cheers a President who advocates these collectivistic values, the policy wonks at the Aspen Institute have good reason to smile for they have successfully changed American values, standards, and expectations. This they accomplished without spilling a drop of blood or taking a life.

They destroyed the dreams of many Americans, and they used the educational system to do it. Taxpayers who want to stop the destruction of America’s Republic must demand that federal mandates be removed from the educational system and the funds be re-allocated to the states.

Please consider financially supporting Advocates for Academic Freedom! Your donations are used to contribute conservative current-events materials to school libraries and to provide informational materials to parents, educators, and taxpayers about social and political policies which impact the educational system. AAF works with grassroots groups to address educational issues at the federal, state, and local level. Donations can be made online via PayPal or checks can be made payable to: AAF and mailed to: 331 South Main Street; Suite 307, Rice Lake, WI 54868



Filed under Educational Articles


  1. I appreciate this site very much, and in general agree and support it. However, you do need to read Harry and Rosemary’s book, The First Days of School, before you misrepresent it like this. This book has no political agenda and it also is not required reading for teachers (but it should be). The book is on how to manage a classroom effectively for students to be able to achieve. It’s about the importance of establishing classroom routines so teachers don’t have to deal with discipline issues and can get on with what we do best – teaching. Please be a bit more careful in the future with how you represent other authors and notable figures.

    BTW – I am a strong conservative, am a public school teacher and like many of us, choose to stay there because I love teaching kids (not because I want to promote an agenda either way). And I still love this site!

    • Just an FYI, this is a submission, it does not necessarily reflect an official position of Conservative Teachers of America as an organization. Ms. Schroeder is a usual contributor here, she is a conservative. This piece is her opinion and perspective. One of the goals of this website is to present various conservative viewpoints in the educational arena. We all will not agree from time to time. Thanks for the respectful comment!

    • From Karen Schroeder

      I have read the First Days of School by the Wongs. I have read every word of two different copyright dates and I have those copies at my desk. The majority of the book explains how proper implementation of cooperative grouping will improve the classroom environment!
      Our school hired three new teachers who had just graduated from college. Their colleges included Augsburg, St. Cloud, and Mankato. These teachers were required to purchase and to read the book, First Days of School. These new teachers referred to the book as their “professional Bible”. My school district provided an in-district seminar in which they used grant money to purchase copies of the book First Days of School. The teachers were divided into groups, each group assigned a chapter to read, and then each group reported on what they learned.
      I do not believe that the Wongs have a political agenda but the educational policy people who have promoted cooperative grouping of children do have a political agenda. Educators who do not recognize that political agenda but encourage the use of cooperative grouping are promoting that political agenda.
      I never shoot from the hip! I always have copies of the original work and I read them before I quote from them.

      • Three teachers and a few colleges who had to read the book does not make for a sweeping generalization. I do also think that you are reading more into cooperative grouping than what it is. Like statistics, one can make a point either way.

        I personally know the Wongs and they are contributors to my education site. I can assure you, politics is not what drives them. The love of kids, teachers and learning does.

      • And why is that a bad thing to have a book on classroom management? Since you have the book, you know then the intent of it and that using it for an example in this piece is not truly correct. It is mostly about classroom management, not cooperative grouping per say.

        Three teachers and a few schools do not lay the grounds for sweeping generalizations in reporting. Saying it is required reading simply is not accurate.

        I do know the Wongs personally and they are contributors to my education site. They are not political.

        If you feel that cooperative grouping is a political agenda (which I disagree with) you ought to provide alternatives. Have students stay in their seats all day and not work together? Not learn how to work with alternative points of view?

        I think your premise in your post is laudable, but you don’t back it up with factual data, use sensationslism to make a point and if we are to retain conservative values and teachers in our schools we have to be better than that and not shoot ourselves in the foot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s