On October 3, 2003, then-U.S. Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, presented a speech to UNESCO. (UNESCO is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), an arm of the United Nations. In that speech Secretary Paige said:
UNESCO … [is] coordinating the Education for All initiative. Education for All is consistent with our recent education legislation, the No Child Left Behind Act. … UNESCO is a powerful forum for sharing our views, developing a common strategy, and implementing joint action. [Emphasis added.]
As recognized above by Rod Paige, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law is a “joint action” and a “common strategy” between the United States and the UN. To be more explicit, NCLB is the vehicle by which the United States is complying with two UN sponsored international education agreements—the World Declaration on Education for All (1990), as noted by Paige, signed by President George Bush Sr., and the update of that treaty, known as the “Dakar Framework for Action” (2000), signed by President Bill Clinton. How far we have departed from our Constitution which reserves education for the various states!
Why is this important? There are many reasons—first of all you cannot expect lawmakers to understand NCLB if they do not recognize that it is largely designed to comply with UN mandates. Most lawmakers are unaware of this reality. (The fact that NCLB is designed to meet the UN education agreements is not debatable—anyone who is familiar with the relevant information knows this to be true, as does Rod Paige.)
Secondly, the goals of the UN are in many respects at odds with the goals of the United States. This is clearly true for NCLB.
Why is NCLB bad policy for the United States? There are many reasons. In the first place, NCLB is designed to “close the gaps” in student scores. It is not designed to benefit all students, nor is it designed to benefit the majority.
Specifically, NCLB requires states to eliminate the learning gaps based on ethnicity, race and economic circumstances by 2014 (as required by the international agreements). If the achievement of average and advanced students improves, that makes closing the learning gaps more difficult. For that reason NCLB is a disincentive for schools to raise the achievement of all students. (Closing the gaps, as opposed to helping everyone, is a Marxist concept and is typical of the UN.)
Secondly, NCLB requires that schools raise all students to proficiency levels in reading and mathematics by 2014, again, as required by the international agreements. Since all students must be “proficient,” schools understandably are inclined to define “proficiency” at a low level. At the same time, resources that should be focused on all students will be directed to the lowest achievers instead.
Thirdly, NCLB, as required by international agreements, directs much of its funding to early childhood education–even though numerous studies have shown that early childhood education has no academic benefit past the third grade. At the same time, various social engineers are imposing a curriculum into early childhood education that includes the ideology of the feminists, homosexuals and globalists. This curriculum is obviously not in the national interest.
NCLB has been forced on our schools without the states or the public having accurate knowledge of what it is. Its goals are contrary to the goals of the United States. It should not be reauthorized.
Allen Quist heads Ed Watch in Chasaka, Minnesota.
