The Common Core Curriculum State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) was previously examined in “Education in America – Part III – Common Core State Standards – Educational excellence or secular cultural conformity?” [See Archives – August 9, 2013] This article takes a more in-depth look at the concerns about Common Core and the nationalization of education.

Initially, the CCSSI was a state-led effort that established a single set of educational standards for kindergarten through 12th grade in English language arts and mathematics. In that initiative, states were to voluntarily adopt Common Core standards to unify and strengthen educational standards and expectations. However, the seemingly voluntary adoption of standards by the states has evolved through the power of the federal purse strings into mandated standards under various federal programs.

The nation’s governors and education commissioners, through their representative organizations, the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), led the development of the Common Core State Standards which were published in December 2008. However, the federal government under the Obama administration effectively hijacked the program in February 2009 through a $4.35 billion stimulus money “executive earmark” (meaning no-strings-attached) transfer to the Department of Education to create and fund a program that became known as the Race to the Top (RTT), a federal grant competition that allowed cash-strapped states to compete for federal stimulus money. [Race to the Top]

Strings!

But the federal purse had strings attached. To receive stimulus money, the states had to “commit” to the adoption of common education standards. The state commitments had to be made within two months of publication of the standards. State consent came from gubernatorial and bureaucratic offices without any consent of the people or their elected representatives as most of the state legislatures were not in session. The short time frame did not allow for thoughtful review and deliberation of the federal standards by citizens and their representatives. Forty-two states made the commitment (under a federally-imposed definition of commitment) without a single state legislature approving the commitment to adopt common educational standards.

And More Strings!

On May 22, 2012, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) announced another “strings-attached” $400 million federal grant program whose funds would go directly to qualifying local school districts. The program effectively bypasses state governments and undermines state sovereignty. The program is called Race to the Top-District (RTT-D) and includes the following elements. [District-Level Race to the Top]

To qualify, a district must serve at least 2,500 students of whom 40% or more must qualify for a free or reduced-price lunch program.

Each district must create plans for “individualized classroom instruction aimed at closing achievement gaps and preparing each student for college and career.” [One would think that the experts at the DOE would know the average child spends about six and one-half hours per day in the classroom. Using a typical elementary school classroom with twenty-five students as an example, each child would be allotted about sixteen minutes in which to receive “individualized classroom instruction.” And from the allotted sixteen minutes we must subtract the time necessary for lunches and other activities, the time needed for general group classroom instruction by the teacher, and all of the other daily interruptions. One wonders if any of these so-called DOE experts have ever taught in a real-world classroom.]

Districts must demonstrate commitment to RTT’s four core reform areas which include adopting standards acceptable to the DOE and building massive student-data tracking systems. [Standards are not voluntary if the standards must be acceptable to the DOE, and this requirement debunks the supposed voluntary nature of Common Core Standards.]

Districts must show they can track students from pre-K though college and tie the outcomes back to individual teachers. [One wonders how a local school district will obtain the outcomes of a student’s college career. Perhaps the task of accumulating that information will be assigned to the National Security Agency due to its vast stores of information on the private lives of American citizens.]

Applying districts must promise to implement evaluation systems that consider student outcomes – not just for teacher and principal performance, but also for district superintendents and school boards. [Does this mean that the DOE will have the power to fire school superintendents and locally-elected school boards? If the DOE’s power is not direct, perhaps federal funds will be withheld should the local officials not comply with DOE suggestions as to needed personnel changes.]

Applicant school districts must form partnerships with public and private organizations to . . . offer services that help meet students’ academic, social, and emotional needs . . . .” [Thus, it appears that local school districts are answerable to the DOE as to whether students are socially and emotionally well-adjusted. In effect, school teachers will now be responsible for providing time and services for their students’ social and emotional needs in addition to the individualized educational instruction as previously mentioned, all in a six-and-a-half-hour school day.]

RTT-D is a power-grab through which the federal government will skirt citizens’ elected legislative bodies and negotiate directly with school districts in implementation of federal educational policies. RTT-D will also undermine the state governmental structure by grouping school districts together on policy decisions and thereby making it more difficult for the group to disengage from federal programming.

Dr. Allan Carlson is a noted author and lecturer and former Reagan appointee who served five years on the National Commission on Children. In a recent lecture he succinctly described the problems of the Common Core Standards program: more testing, more centralization, more experts, less creativity, and more money for a failing system. [Common Core: The Dangers of Federal Power in Education]

School systems attempting to withstand the assault on their autonomy by rejecting the Common Core Standards, a national curriculum, and national testing will be financially starved into submission. Even faith-based private schools will feel the pressure to conform to Common Core standards. Because Common Core standards are leading to a national curriculum and national testing, ACT, SAT, GED, and other testing programs are being aligned to the Common Core standards. Yet, private school students take those same tests. Inevitably private schools will be pressured to teach to the Common Core standards even if that which is taught is contrary to what they believe. Otherwise, their students will not do well on the Common Core aligned tests. Also, credit transfers from a faith-based school not in alignment with the Common Core may not be accepted by other Common Core aligned schools. And accreditation agencies that require accredited schools to be aligned with the Common Core may not accredit non-complying faith-based schools. [Common Core: The Dangers of Federal Power in Education]

The DOE website disingenuously states that, “Education is primarily a State and local responsibility in the United States. It is States and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation.” [The Federal Role in Education] But, the Obama administration and a rapacious federal bureaucracy have seized control over America’s educational system which makes a mockery of the DOE assertion that education is primarily a state and local responsibility.

The federal government is developing a national curriculum under the guise of the Common Core Standards Initiative. Not only is a national curriculum being established but for the first time ever the participating local school must certify that its curriculum complies with federal standards. Federal bureaucrats will determine what children all across America will read and be taught and for how long. Local school administrators are becoming mere toadies answerable only to faceless bureaucrats in Washington. Locally elected school boards would be virtually powerless if not obsolete. And if parents have questions, objections, or concerns about their child’s education, to whom would they turn? With local education in the grasp of a nationalized educational system, the local school board, their local state representative and state government, and even their national representatives will be powerless to address a parent’s concerns. And this massive accumulation of power without accountability is occurring in the absence of any explicit Constitutional authority.

President Woodrow Wilson warned against the concentration of federal powers, and his warning is applicable one hundred years later with regard to the transfer of control of America’s educational system to the federal government.

The history of Liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it. When we resist, therefore, the concentration of power, we are resisting the powers of death, because concentration of power is what always precedes the destruction of human liberties. [Quoted by William J. Federer.]

Parents, local school officials, and state legislators should be extremely concerned about the destruction of local control of America’s educational system and should strongly resist attempts to do so through the Common Core standards.

George Will summarized the progressive education establishment’s defense of the voluntary nature of Common Core. “If you like your local curriculum, you can keep it. Period.” [George Will] Hmmm. That has a familiar ring to it. I wonder where I’ve heard that before…

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Larry G. Johnson, “Education in America – Part III – Common Core State Standards – Educational excellence or secular cultural conformity?” culturewarrior.net, August 9, 2013. https://www.culturewarrior.net/2013/08/09/education-in-america-part-iii-common-core-state-standards-educational-excellence-or-secular-cultural-conformity/ (accessed October 30, 2013).

“Race to the Top,” Truth in American Education, http://truthinamericaneducation.com/race-to-the-top/ (accessed October 30, 2013).

U.S. Department of Education, “District-Level Race to the Top to Focus on the Classroom, Provide Tools to Enhance Learning and Serve the Needs of Every Student,” ED.gov, May 22, 2012. ww.ed.gov/news/press-releases/district-level-race-top-focus-classroom-provide-tools-enhance-learning-and-serve (accessed October 30, 2013).

“District-Level Race to the Top–Race to the Top IV,” Truth in American Education, http://truthinamericaneducation.com/race-to-the-top/district-level-race-to-the-toprace-to-the-top-iv/ (accessed October 30, 2013).

“Common Core: The Dangers of Federal Power in Education,” Video Lecture, Family Research Council, September 25, 2013. http://www.frc.org/eventregistration/common-core-the-dangers-of-federal-power-in-education (accessed October 30, 2013).

U.S. Department of Education, “The Federal Role in Education,” ED.gov., http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html (accessed October 30, 2013).

William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, (Coppell, Texas: FAME Publishing, Inc., 1994, 1996), p. 698.

George Will, “Clunker progressivism: Present, too, is prologue,” Tulsa World, November 7, 2013, A-14.

The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) is a state-led effort that established a single set of educational standards for kindergarten through 12th grade in English language arts and mathematics that states voluntarily adopt to standardize and strengthen educational standards and expectations. The nation’s governors and education commissioners, through their representative organizations, the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), led the development of the Common Core State Standards and continue to lead the Initiative. The mission of the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) reads as follows:

The Common Core State Standards provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them. The standards are designed to be robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers. With American students fully prepared for the future, our communities will be best positioned to compete successfully in the global economy. (emphasis added)

The Common Core Curriculum is divided into two main sections: mathematical standards and English language arts standards (ELA). Mathematical standards appear very straight forward and of little cause for concern. Standards set for the ELA are not as straight forward. Standards are set for the ELA but also for literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Quoting from the ELA standards, “As a natural outgrowth of meeting the charge to define college and career readiness, the Standards also lay out a vision of what it means to be a literate person in the twenty-first century.”

This all sounds very noble and progressive. But for many in and out of the educational realm, there is a general Trepidation or uneasiness when it comes to embracing curriculum standards fabricated by a centralized quasi-governmental authority or coalition of authorities. A thoughtful examination of the mission statement of the Common Core State Standards Initiative reveals three significant concerns.

First, who decides what students are expected to learn in the areas of English language arts, history, social studies, and science? These subjects by their very nature deal with worldview and yield themselves to both political and cultural manipulation. To whom do we entrust to define the standards that lay out the vision of what it means to be a literate person? To defuse resistance in adopting the standards, the CCSSI states:

It is important to note that the 6–12 literacy standards in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects are not meant to replace content standards in those areas but rather to supplement them. States may incorporate these standards into their standards for those subjects or adopt them as content area literacy standards.

But a close reading of the CCSSI statement does not diminish those concerns of political and cultural manipulation in spite of assurances otherwise (e.g., radical interpretation and application of the so-called separation of church and state directives). Effectively, participating states must add the core curriculum standards as a supplement or adopt core curriculum standards as a replacement. But what if core curriculum standards are contrary to the existing standards desired by the citizens of that state? There appears to be no choice for states but to introduce standards that are in conflict with existing ELA standards (including history/social studies, science, and technical subjects) chosen by the citizens of that state. How long will it be before “supplement” becomes “replace”? Certainly the states do not have to participate in the CCSSI, but as we have seen in many areas of disagreement between federal and state authority, the federal government has the power of the purse strings to enforce their demands on rebellious state governments even though a state’s participation is supposedly voluntary with regard to participating in the Initiative. In addition to federal pressure, additional pressures will be applied to non-compliant and non-participating states from the educational and business organizations that substantially align themselves with the dominant progressive education juggernaut within those states.

Second, the standards are to be robust (strong) and relevant to the real world. This assumptive language is loaded with meanings that may not be fully comprehended by or acceptable to most people. For most educational professionals the reference to the “real world” means the humanistic progressive philosophy of education in which children are taught that morality flows from reason (based on experience) and science and that there is no one morality good for all societies. John Dewey summarized the essence of this philosophy, “The religious is emancipated from religion by transferring the object of our ‘idealizing imagination’ from the supernatural to ‘natural human relations’ or the ‘comprehensive community’.” In Dewey’s religious framework, value and meaning exist in humanity and does not flow from a transcendent God. Dewey’s religion focuses on humanity rather than God, and the goal of that religion is not a relationship with God but individual and collective self-realization through civilization. [Thomas et.al., pp. 375, 377, 380-381, 386-387.] It will be the educational professionals indoctrinated with the humanistic progressive educational philosophy who will craft and implement the common core curriculum standards and not the governors or legislative bodies of the participating states. After a mere glance at the existing standards and policies of the educational hierarchy, it becomes a foregone conclusion that the new CCSSI standards will not include a biblical worldview.

Third, the entire scope and purpose of education is directed toward “the knowledge and skills that our young people need for success in college and careers”. But one must make a distinction between instruction and education. A body of knowledge may be known by simple instruction, that is, the transmission of facts and principles. But historically education encompasses a far broader mission. Education should not only contain instruction but training for a way of life. Training for life must involve recognition of the central authority—the central vision—the collective consciousness in which the world is viewed. In America up until the beginning of the 20th century, this meant a central authority derived from a biblical worldview. Therefore, the goal of education should involve far more than preparation for college and careers. The common core curriculum standards will not only perpetuate exclusion of the biblical worldview from education but in the long term result in even greater if not open hostility to that worldview as a basis for training for a way of life.

As America moves toward adoption and implementation of the common core curriculum standards, we must realize what the future holds. Schools will be required to teach things that are in opposition to the worldview of our Founders and most Americans today. That is happening now to a great extent, but there is still some restraint exerted by the states and local school districts. As national core curriculum standards are implemented, those restraints will be gone and the humanistic worldview of society’s “conditioners” (as C. S. Lewis called them) will reign supreme in bureaucratic halls of the state capitols and Washington, D.C. infested with these conditioners.

The loss of state and local autonomy in education was predicted long-ago by H. Thomas James of Stanford University:

As the states have denied, first to the family and then to local communities, the right to make decisions on education contrary to staff defined policy, so the nation may be expected to deny the states the right to make decisions on educational policy that are not in accord with the emerging national policy for education.” [Reagan, p. 186.]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

“Implementing the Common Core State Standards, Common Core State Standards Initiative, http://www.corestandards.org/ (accessed June 25, 2013).

“English Language Arts Standards,” Common Core State Standards Initiative, http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy (accessed June 25, 2013).

George M. Thomas, Lisa R. Peck, and Channin G. DeHaan, “Reforming Education, Transforming Religion, 1876-1931,” in The Secular Revolution, ed. Christian Smith, (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2003, pp. 355-356, 362, 365, 377.

Ronald Reagan, The Notes – Ronald Reagan’s Private Collection of Stories and Wisdom, Douglas Brinkley, ed., (New York: Harper, 2011), p.186.

As we have seen in Part I, education in North America at all levels was an indisputably Christian enterprise from the arrival of the Pilgrims in 1620 to the early part of the 20th century. The Bible and other books reflecting a biblical worldview were the foundation of American education, that is, the original common core curriculum. In Part II, we will describe the destruction of the original biblically-based common core curriculum by the humanistic progressive education philosophies of John Dewey and others.

The churches were the principal founders of the first colleges and universities in the American colonies and whose purpose was for the training of pastors. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, colleges and universities expanded their academic portfolios, and the cultural ties between the Church and higher education gradually weakened. However, the weakening ties generated little cultural controversy because the explicitly Christian and generally conservative ends of education were understood by the great majority of Americans. Nevertheless, as the end of the nineteenth century approached, “…the breach separating the universities and the churches widened suddenly and culminated in the extraordinarily rapid and dramatic ‘disestablishment’ of conservative Protestantism from North American academic life from about 1890 to 1930.” [Gay, pp. 204-205.]

John Dewey’s admirers called him the greatest American philosopher and the philosopher of American democracy. His views and teachings during his exceptionally long career would influence many facets of American life—art, knowledge, education, morals, politics, science, and religion—and publication of his writings spanned seventy years. The breadth of change during Dewey’s lifetime is astounding. Dewey was a grocer’s son born in Burlington, Vermont, on October 20, 1859, while James Buchanan was president, a year and a half before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration. With remembrances of the Civil War, he would live to see two world wars and the atomic age by the time of his death in 1952, just five years before Sputnik would herald the beginning of the space age.

Dewey’s progressive educational agenda was framed by child-centeredness and psychology. Children were taught that an understanding of morality flowed from reason based on experience and that there was no one morality good for all societies. Reason through science became the determinant of what was good for society and replaced character education as modeled by Judeo-Christian morality. In other words, the standards of the new morality flowed from the dictates of science and reason. In Dewey’s philosophy, there is no absolute, no transcendent being, no room for supernatural religion, and nothing beyond the possibilities of concrete human experience. Value and meaning in life exist in humanity and flow from individual and collective self-realization through civilization.

Psychology, published by Dewey in 1896, was the first American textbook on the “revised” subject of education. It became the most widely read, quoted, and used textbook in American schools of education. Beginning with his twenty-five-year affiliation with Columbia University’s Teachers’ College, Dewey’s “…writings shaped the 20th Century U.S. curriculum…” [Iserbyt, pp. 5-6, 345.] His ideas on education would extensively permeate American education, and the devastating results are still being felt today.

One measure of John Dewey’s impact on American education can be judged by the level of criticism that was provoked by his teachings. In March 1959, President Eisenhower severely condemned Dewey’s philosophy: “Educators, parents, and students must be continuously stirred up by the defects in our education system. They must be induced to abandon the educational path that, rather blindly, they have been following as a result of John Dewey’s teachings.” [Hook, p. 3.] For an individual deceased for seven years to have his work and philosophy receive the stinging rebuke of a sitting president, that individual’s influence on American life, for good or ill, must be viewed as substantial.

Richard Weaver succinctly and superbly describes the disastrous consequences of progressive education’s revolt against the traditional idea of education.

Knowledge, which has been the traditional reason for instituting schools, does not exist in any absolute or binding sense. The mind, which has always been regarded as the distinguishing possession of the human race, is now viewed as a tyrant which has been denying the rights of the body as a whole. It is to be “democratized” or reduced to an equality with the rest. Discipline, that great shaper of mind and body, is to be discarded because it carries elements of fear and compulsion. The student is to be prepared not to save his soul, or to inherit the wisdom and usages of past civilizations, or even to get ahead in life, but to become a member of a utopia resting on a false view of both nature and man. (emphasis added)

For almost one hundred years, a major conflict has grown between the dominant American culture including the beliefs and values upon which the nation was founded and the ascendant progressive theory of education and its proponents. This conflict arose because of a systematic and successful attempt by a radical minority of educators and their allies to undermine through the educational system American society’s traditions and beliefs. Of all American institutions under assault, the subversion of American culture through the humanistic educational establishment’s progressive movement represents the greatest single threat to the central cultural vision upon which the nation was founded.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), pp. 21-22, 24-25, 289, 291, 304.

Craig M. Gay, The way of the (modern) world, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1998), pp. 204-205.

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, the deliberate dumbing down of america, (Ravenna, Ohio: Conscience Press, 1999), pp. 5-6, 345.

Sidney Hook, John Dewey – His Philosophy of Education and Its Critics, (New York: Tamiment Institute, 1959), p. 3.

Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1964), p. 117.

There has been considerable discussion in the press and halls of education with regard to The Common Core Curriculum Standards Initiative, an attempt by the educational establishment to standardize and strengthen educational standards and expectations at the elementary and secondary levels. Quoting from the Initiative’s English language arts standards, “As a natural outgrowth of meeting the charge to define college and career readiness, the Standards also lay out a vision of what it means to be a literate person in the twenty-first century.” In developing core curriculum standards, it would be worthwhile for the curriculum designers to spend some time reviewing what it meant to be a literate person in America from the arrival of the Pilgrims in 1620 to the beginning of the twentieth century. A few excerpts from such a review will reveal the heart of America’s Original Common Core Curriculum and its role in the creation of the greatest country in the history of the world.

• Harvard University was founded in 1636 under the following Rules and Precepts: “Let every student be plainly instructed, and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies, is to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life (John 17:3) and therefore lay Christ at the bottom, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning.” [Josiah Quincy, LL.D., History of Harvard University, (Boston, MA: Crosby, Nichols, Lee, & Co., 1860), p. 515.]

• The New England Primer first published about 1690 was the only elementary textbook in America for a half century, retained its central role in primary education until 1800 and continued as a principal beginning textbook throughout the 19th century. The eighty-page Puritan primer contained lessons in the alphabet, spelling, short religious instruction, commands to piety and faith, and Bible questions. [Reprint of 1777 edition of The New England Primer by David Barton, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuidler Press, May 2007).]

• Gouverneur Morris was a signor of the U.S. Constitution. Having been credited as the author of the preamble and having written large sections of the document, he was called the Penman of the Constitution. Morris was a gifted scholar and held a Master’s degree from King’s College (now Columbia College of Columbia University). Morris’s views of education reflected those of his fellow Founding Fathers when he wrote, “Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion, and the duties of man towards God.” [Jared Sparks, The life of Gouverneur Morris, Vol. III. (Boston, MA: Gray and Bowen, Vol. III), p. 483.]

• Thomas Jefferson called Samuel Adams “…truly the man of the Revolution…for depth of purpose, zeal, and sagacity, no man in Congress exceeded, if any equaled, Sam Adams.” Samuel Adams was noted for his piety (professed and real) and had deep religious convictions. His views on education paralleled those of many other Founding Fathers. “Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity…in short of leading them to the study and practice of exalted virtues of the Christian System, which will happily tend to subdue the turbulent passions of Men…” [Samuel Adams, “Letter of Samuel Adams to John Adams, October 4, 1790,” Writings of Samuel Adams, Ed. Harry A. Cushing, (New York: Octagon Books, Inc., 1968), p. 4:343; Ira Stoll, Samuel Adams – A Life, (New York: Free Press, 2008), pp. 9-10, 240.]

• Thomas Jefferson designed of the first plan of education for the District of Columbia which used the Bible and a hymnal as its principal texts for teaching reading to students. [Newt Gingrich, Rediscovering God in America, (Nashville, Tennessee, Discovery House, 2006, p. 46.]

• Noah Webster was a descendent of William Bradford of Plymouth Plantation. His 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language was produced when the American home, church, and school were established upon a biblical and a patriotic basis. The biblical worldview of Webster’s dictionary produced during the first half of the 19th century stands as a testament to the continuing power and force of the Second Great Awakening. Webster held a belief in the importance of intertwining the Christian religion with a free government. “In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed…No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.” [Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language 1828, Facsimile Edition, (San Francisco, California: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1967, 1995 by Rosalie J. Slater), p. 12.]

• Between 1836 and 1920, 120 million copies of the McGuffey’s Reader textbooks were sold. The Readers hailed American exceptionalism, manifest destiny, and America as God’s country although in more secularized terms beginning with the 1879 version. In a 1927 Saturday Evening Post article titled “That Guy McGuffey,” Hugh Fullerton wrote that, “For seventy-five years his (McGuffey’s) system and his books guided the minds of four-fifths of the school children of the nation in their taste for literature, in their morality, in their social development and next to the Bible in their religion.” [John H. Westerhoff III, McGuffey and His Readers, (Milford, Michigan: Mott Media, 1982), pp. 14-15.]

• As the nineteenth century neared its end, there was an extraordinary and dramatic struggle by the forces of humanistic progressive education to wrest power from conservative Protestantism in American education. The National Education Association responded to this struggle with a statement of protest in 1892: “…if the study of the Bible is to be excluded from all state schools; if the inculcation of the principles of Christianity is to have no place in the daily program; if the worship of God is to form no part of the general exercise of those public elementary schools; then the good of the state would be better served by restoring all schools to church control.” [Kansas Historical Society, Columbian History of Education in Kansas, (Topeka, Kansas: Hamilton Printing Company, 1893), p. 82.

This cursory review of American education between 1620 and 1900 conclusively illustrates that the Bible (along with supporting books with a biblical worldview such as The New England Primer and McGuffey’s Reader) was the central text and provided the standards for the original common core curriculum in educating American children. But the influence of the Bible in education was merely a derivative of the pervasive biblical worldview that permeated every facet of American life including the law, politics, trade and business dealings, science, social relationships, and culture in general. So complete was this domination at the time of the American Revolution that 95% or more of the population held the biblical worldview, whether a professing Christian or not. So it is not surprising that the Bible and other books reflecting a biblical worldview were the standards for the original common core curriculum and formed the foundation of American education. In Part II, an examination will be made of the destruction of the original biblically-based common core curriculum in American education by substitution of the humanistic progressive education philosophies of John Dewey and others.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

“English Language Arts Standards,” Common Core State Standards Initiative, http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy (accessed June 25, 2013).