Educators Stress "Global" Values, See Nationalism as "Obsolete"
The globalist agenda rolls on. In October of 2007, the annual Frontiers in Education Conference met in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Among the papers presented at the conference was "Critical Theory, Globalization and Teacher Education in a Technocratic Era," written by three professors: Mark Malisa, Randall Koetting, and Kristin Radermacher.
The opening statements read:
"As globalization becomes the dominant term for describing and conceptualizing teacher education, colleges and schools of education will need to revisit their mission statements and rethink what it means to be part of the global community," the report states. It concludes by admitting that there will be resistance to these measures, stating "...a lot of work remains to be done in creating a critical consciousness that makes it possible to realize that global solidarity does not threaten nationalism."
Though these three professors in particular may not realize it, their objectives are part of an agenda that has been pursued for decades. Tax-exempt foundations, particularly the Rockefeller Foundations, Ford Foundation, and Carnegie Foundation were instrumental in influencing U.S. education policy. Are we to believe these rich bankers and industrialists had a genuine philanthropic interest in bettering the education system of the United States, or does it make more sense that they wished to use their money, power, and influence to carry out an elite agenda? I'm convinced it's the latter.
The opening statements read:"Our perspective is that of educators who view the current world as one that is highly internationalized and intensely global, rendering nationalistic orientations obsolete. We also view education and educators as involved agents in the construction of a just social world, and contend that this implies infusing the curriculum and teacher education with cosmopolitan sensibilities, frequently, through critical theory and critical pedagogy."The authors assert that national identity is anachronistic and obsolete in the new "intensely global" social order, and that children ought to be indoctrinated to accept this notion. The report states that American education programs must adopt a "global perspective" and that "the time of splendid isolation is over...purposes of education have changed."
"As globalization becomes the dominant term for describing and conceptualizing teacher education, colleges and schools of education will need to revisit their mission statements and rethink what it means to be part of the global community," the report states. It concludes by admitting that there will be resistance to these measures, stating "...a lot of work remains to be done in creating a critical consciousness that makes it possible to realize that global solidarity does not threaten nationalism."
Though these three professors in particular may not realize it, their objectives are part of an agenda that has been pursued for decades. Tax-exempt foundations, particularly the Rockefeller Foundations, Ford Foundation, and Carnegie Foundation were instrumental in influencing U.S. education policy. Are we to believe these rich bankers and industrialists had a genuine philanthropic interest in bettering the education system of the United States, or does it make more sense that they wished to use their money, power, and influence to carry out an elite agenda? I'm convinced it's the latter.