RMT: Update on the Technocratic Ed Reform

Back in Sept. of 2014, I researched and wrote about the ties between CCSS, STEM, and the Technocratic Party. Seeing  how much education reform has been firmly put in place without citizens input, I wondered if there has been any more recent activity.

From the original article, the 3 basic ideas behind the lesser know Party are the following,

1) Technocrat is driven to utilize technology – invented or otherwise – into a domestic and a foreign policy.

2) Technocrat’s mission is to improve our nation with: prosperity, abundance, liberty and security.

3) Technocrat continuously pursues a better vision for our nation and humanity.

If you’re wondering what this means in the scope of the size of government needed to pull all this off, check this quote out:

Wow! That’s a bit scary, right? Well, again, since the original publishing, have there been changes? We’ll take a look today.

A New Line:

Maybe the education reform isn’t new, Technocratic beliefs aren’t new, either. BUT I did find this new line: “Technology and innovation are critical to the prosperity of a nation, which creates a robust and a dynamic economy.” Followed by, ” ATA (America for Technocratic Action) is taking action to start the ground work for the coming change.” To be fair, the group says it believes in capitalism. That’s fine and well, but it is the level of technology and innovation we need to be looking into. You see, the Technocrats are relying heavily on technology/innovation to be the vehicle for all this change.

Stop and think about how much technology and innovation the CCSS Machine is using to reduce quality education to a dismal version. According to my previously published article one of the biggest Technocrats influencing education is Mr. Bloomberg (as in Bloomberg Foundation). Somewhat related to the Technocrats are AT & T, The Atlantic magazine, and others. (Be sure to go back and read the original article).

See the screen shot (click to enlarge) to see the updated agenda for not only America, but education as well:

What the Technocrats Withheld on the Updated Website:

If you visit the updated Technocratic website, you’ll see all these categories with headings like we’re used to seeing. You know, “About Us”, “News”, etc. However, go to access the information and you must sign in with Twitter or Facebook OR create an account to view their policies on things like education. Website address is: http://www.technocraticparty.us/about

So, knowing what I’ve already found out from research and seeing that there’s been some change, but not entirely sure of WHAT it involves. I decided to go back and see if Technocratic and Socialism are related. After all, considering how the agendas of the CCSS Machine and Socialism appear to be, the Technocratic one doesn’t sound far from the mark either.

Technocratic Socialism:
From the following website, http://www.technocraticsocialism.org/policies/, here’s what the view of education by the members of the Party have, “Public education up through 12th grade should be mandatory and federally funded, with little involvement by local communities and no faith or culture-based exclusions. There should be experimentation within the public school system, with a variety of educational and organisational methods as options, provided the schools remain public, secular, compliant with a universal service obligation, and otherwise meet reasonable metrics. Higher education should be entirely funded through the general tax burden, and should continue at intervals for all citizens with an option of up to two university-level classes every five years.” This website is not American. For the first clue, note how ‘organization’ is spelled. It’s the International English spelling, not the American one. Clue #2 is when you access the entire policy page, you’ll see phrases like, “In countries like America”. I urge you to read the entire policy page. Note at the top of the page the comment about issues to be pushed and how America is ‘pushable’. 

The Economist has an eye opening article on Technocracy. It shares that Singapore is the best example of a modern technocracy. China’s mentioned as well. So is America, from many years ago. Here’s an excerpt, “Technocracy was once a communist idea: with the proletariat in power, administration could be left to experts. But the appliance of science to politics was popular under capitalism too.” To see the entire article, http://www.economist.com/node/21538698

What Hasn’t Changed:

The push for STEM, is still as much in the Technocratic platform as ever. The belief that Congress must enforce more legislation and funding for programs associated with STEM is also just as strong. Knowing how much of a part Congress has played in education overreach; seeing that the Technocratic Party believes the National Science Foundation (and other groups) should ramp up the education/social policy agenda, it wasn’t surprising to find one such tie between the technocratic belief and a NSF grant of $15 million dollars. The topic? A dissertation study on changing the public’s perception of climate change to satisfy an old technocratic debate. The grant was awarded in 2012 and was set to expire in 2014. You’ll find the entire description here: http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1155402 (the technocratic phrase is in the ‘potentially broader impact’ section.

To Ponder:

When I was doing more research to update this article, I found a book on “Google Books” (the on-line libary) by James D. Finn titled “Extending Education Through Technology: Selected Writings by James D. Finn. The search phrase I used was “NSF Technocratic”. The Google Book took me to pages 141 to 144. Near the bottom of page 141, “Science, Technology, and Invention on a large scale have become such a handmaiden of industry in the United States that research and development are now regarded as basic keys to progress in our economy.” On page 142 the author is expressing how ‘free’ technology should remain (his words were ‘can’t be confined’). He compared the freedom needed for technology to best serve humans with that of religion or of love. He went on to say there must be a great temptation by those who are technologists to ‘not take over’. It is his next few sentences I want to quote, “As an example of this phenomenon close to the heart of educators, it might be well to examine the activities of the National Science Foundation and the National Academy of Sciences. It will be found, I suspect that the two of them have already overtaken some  functions of the U.S. Dept. of Education, the NEA and its departments and other possible ‘nonscientific’ educators, and are, busily spawning a new scientific educational bureaucracy. Such a bureaucracy is but the beginning-and there are many others in other fields of a movement I have dubbed “Neo-Technocracy”. Finn then goes to the express the Neo-Technocrats move into positions of power. FYI: Mr. Finn was a professor at the University of Southern California. He died in 1969.

I am so glad the good professor stated what he did above! Fast forward to my blog and you’ll find I, too, have looked into the NSF and the NAS. Here are my published findings:
Here’s my up close look at the National Science Foundation (an arm of the federal government) https://www.commoncorediva.com/2015/02/18/wybiupclosewithnsf/
To access the National Academy of Sciences(chartered by Congress) :
 https://www.commoncorediva.com/2015/04/08/wybi-ccss-and-ngss-where-dumb-meets-dumber/

Well, there you have it. An update on the Technocratic influence in America. Did you notice how easy it was to circle back and find some of the same organizations? Let someone else know about this. We’ve got work to do!