105 Peavey Rd, Suite 116, Chaska, MN 55318
January 23, 2007
Tucker Plan Includes
Karen R. Effrem, MD
EdWatch Board of Directors
Marc Tucher's new and improved School to Work opus, Tough Choices or
Tough Times, besides treating our children as mere widgets or human
capital to be used as government and industry see fit, also seeks to
begin wresting control from parents about what our children think and
believe as early as possible, even before kindergarten. A key step
of his plan is to:
Provide high-quality, universal early childhood
As discussed in Professor Allen Quists recent article
Tucher's New Education Initiative, the Tucker plan seeks to
educate and train Americas children according to internationally
benchmarked standards. Internationally benchmarked standards are
content standards. This includes compliance with the United Nations
(UNESCO) 1990 international education agreement Education for All
(EFA) that set the framework for UN international content
As also pointed out by Professor Quist in his article
Re-Authorize No Child Left Behind, the philosophies of both
EFA and Tucher's first plan form the foundation of major federal
education legislation Goals 2000, Improving Americas Schools, and No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) Acts. These federal laws have resulted
in the imposition of national standards or a federal curriculum.
Professor Quist goes on to say regarding early childhood:
It is no coincidence that the list of goals in Goals 2000,
which are really mandates and form the foundation of NCLB, are
remarkably similar to the goals of EFA because both Goals
2000 and NCLB are the means of compliance with EFA. The
link between EFA and NCLB is clearly shown in this
statement in a 2003 speech to UNESCO by then US Secretary of Education
- 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
Tucher's emphasis on early childhood is no surprise if one
examines the philosophy of the UN in EFA. EFA clearly
wants to promote government control of children from a very young
age. Regarding early childhood, EFA says:
- 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
Notice that, according to the UN philosophy, these programs may or
may not involve families. This is in sharp contrast to American
history, tradition, and settled law that sees the parents and families,
not the state, as the pre-eminent authority in the raising, education and
medical care, including mental health care, of children.
- Learning begins at birth. This calls for early childhood care and
initial education. These can be provided through arrangements involving
families, communities, or institutional programs, as
One sees this same big-government Nanny State philosophy in the first
outcome on the Goals 2000 list, which says:
As will be explained below, even if preschool programs were
successful at closing the achievement gap and helping children succeed in
a global economy, which they are not, academic issues that are key to
those admirable goals are de-emphasized, and politically correct
indoctrination becomes pre-eminent. Rather than emphasizing the
learning of the alphabet, numbers, colors, and shapes, ready to learn
has become synonymous with making sure that children develop certain
attitudes about controversial non-academic topics, such as careers,
environmentalism and gender issues.
- By the year 2000, all children will begin school ready to learn.
Those same K-12 content standards, a de facto federal curriculum, are
being mandated in federal early childhood programs like Head Start
and replicated and mandated in many states. In the 109th Congress,
the Head Start bill passed by the US House (HR 2123) required that Head
Start curricula or teaching qualifications be linked via alignment with
or aligned to the challenging state developed K-12 academic content
standards. In other words, NCLBs federal curriculum was
being extended down to cover preschool children.
These aligned K-12 state standards and assessments of NCLB have
caused states no end of trouble due to dumbed-down, non-academic,
indoctrinating curricula that states have adopted in order to comply with
federal mandates. There is significant public opposition to
extending these outcomes and assessments to high school. Federal
legislation should not be extending them to the nations youngest and
most vulnerable children.
It is bad enough that poor, at-risk children in Head Start were required
to have those outcomes, but the House bill went on to extend the mandate
to ALL children covered by the state funded preschool programs.
So what standards are required in this EFA/Goals 2000/NCLB/Tucker
plan? The House Head Start bill also required that every state
align with either the radical Head Start Child Outcomes Framework
developed by the National Association for the Education of Young Children
(NAEYC See Child
Care Credentialing and NAEYCs Anti-Bias Curriculum and Michelle
Preschool Peaceniks for more details) or the state early learning
standards, which are based on this Head Start/NAEYC Framework. This
creates a seamless system of controversial government required outcomes
from birth through twelfth grade.
The academic areas of literacy or pre-literacy, math and science are
often so broad and vague as to be meaningless or else they involve
promoting certain views or attitudes. Although there are some
outcomes that are objective and academic, like Identifies at least 10
letters of the alphabet, especially those in their own name, far too
many are like these examples from the national
Head Start Child
State early childhood outcomes either take these national outcomes
word for word, they use the essence of them, or they go beyond them in
vagueness and subjectivity. Here are some examples from the states:
- Develops increasing abilities to understand and use language to
communicate information, experiences, ideas, feelings, opinions, needs,
questions and for other varied purposes.
- "Demonstrates increasing interest and awareness of numbers and
counting as a means for solving problems and determining quantity.
- Expands knowledge of and respect for their body and the
Even worse are the socioemotional outcomes that include very
controversial outcomes such as careers (obviously very important to
Tucker), gender issues, multiculturalism, and family structure
diversity. Besides being totally inappropriate to discuss with
young children, these outcomes will promote a radical worldview that is
unacceptable to most parents and is completely outside the purview of the
American system of government. In addition, quality rating systems,
referrals, and funding are all based on or require these outcomes, which
will then have the effect of driving private and religious programs who
do not wish to teach these radical outcomes out of business. These
outcomes are derived from even more radical curricula promulgated by the
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).
Here are some examples from Head Start:
- Texas: The child uses language for a variety of purposes (e.g.,
expressing needs and interests).
- Minnesota: Show eagerness and a sense of wonder as a learner or
Demonstrate increasing interest in and awareness of numbers and
- Illinois: Show an awareness of changes that occur in
themselves and their
The state early childhood outcomes propagate these same themes and
in some cases expand upon them. Floridas outcomes are on their job
development website. Tennessee admits that their outcomes are based on
both the Head Start Child Outcome Framework and the NAEYC
standards. Minnesota expands knowledge of gender to the even more
controversial discussion of gender identity whether children see
themselves as boys or girls, a key to the whole homosexual agenda.
Here are some examples:
- Develops growing awareness of jobs and what is required to perform
- Progresses in understanding similarities and respecting differences
among people, such as genders, race, special needs, culture, language,
and family structures.
- Develops ability to identify personal characteristics including
gender, and family composition.
In summary, universal preschool programs, as promoted by Tucker,
link to international agreements, are aligned with the same federal
curriculum that is destroying quality K-12 education, promote radical
indoctrinating standard that are inappropriate for young children and
well beyond the scope of government, and do not promote long-term
academic achievement. This plan and the federal laws that are being
used to implement it need to be dismantled. The US also needs to
withdraw from EFA. Americas freedom and future depend on
those tough choices, not the ones in Tucher's utopian plan.
- Florida Describes some jobs that people do.
- California Children show awareness, acceptance, understanding, and
appreciation of others special needs, gender, family structures,
ethnicities, cultures, and languages.
- Minnesota Begin to develop awareness, knowledge, and acceptance of
own gender and cultural identity
105 Peavey Rd, Suite 116, Chaska, MN 55318
EdWatch is entirely user-supported. The continuation of our research and
distribution work depends upon individual contributors.
Click here to contribute
to our work. To subscribe or unsubscribe to this EdWatch e-mail service,
email@example.com. Put "subscribe" or
"unsubscribe" in the SUBJECT of the message.
shopping cart here.