5/2/98

The East Greenbush Central School Districts technology plan is part of a vast left wing conspiracy. Now you may be thinking: "There goes Crawmer again, off the deep end", but hear me out. Remember when Dr. Allen Chartok lost tapes of an off air conversation he had with then Governor Mario Cuomo? In one tape played over the radio, Cuomo suggested the he and Chartok should make "a concerted effort" to achieve their mutually desired goal. In other words, they would conspire.

Mr. Cuomo conspired with many people including then first lady of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Clinton was the recipient of a grant of $100,000.00 from New York State taxpayers to create a Liberal [socialist] plan to bring American education into the 21st century. This plan has come to be known as 'Goals 2000' and 'School to Work', the principle authors of which include Marc Tucker and Ira Magaziner , of the National Center on Education and the Economy [NCEE]. The plan is a continuation of a long term goal of American socialists to merge the Dept of Education with the Dept of Labor . A major component of the co-operative effort [a.k.a. conspiracy] is a wide area network of computers connecting schools with the Depts of Education and Labor.

This Liberal\Socialist plan is a carbon copy of the education system of the former Soviet Union where Students were steered into careers based not on their desires but where their training would best serve the community. The similarities between our systems were brought to light in a report commissioned by the Department of Education during the Bush administration. The conclusions reached in the report were so damning to U.S. education policy, that publication of the report was stifled by educrats until, as a priority, it was cancelled by President Clinton during his first week in office.

The concept of a "trained work-force being the engine that drives the economy" was endemic to Soviet Marxism. Sadly, it has been resurrected in our country under the innocuous name, "school to work".

Further evidence of the collectivist nature of this plan can be found in this quote from Arthur Sanderson, co-chair of the technology committee: "One reason we need to spend money on technology is to provide equitable access to technology. We know certain homes have access and certain ones don't, so the schools can provide equity". Since when is it the government's job to provide "equity"?

I am going to make a suggestion. Let's put used computers in our classrooms. Other than the fact that the elitists in the administration would turn their noses up, I don't see why that would not be "equitable". I'm sure the average home doesn't have a brand new computer with expensive network capability. Mine is not an original idea. Many school districts all over the country have acquired technology by way of corporate donations. If, as claimed by the school board, the technological training of our children is to provide a skilled work force for corporate America, I think it's only fair [equitable] for them to provide the computers.

Well I hope I've been successful in goading one or two board members into challenging my rational. I haven't heard a word from BOE member James Baldwin since my response to his challenge to, "Let the debate begin".

DRC