The danger of a federal curriculum: concealed within a Trojan horse of civic education, the federal government is well on its way to establishing a federal curriculum in our public schools.

What red-blooded American wouldn't want their child to learn about the U.S. Constitution? What responsible citizen of this great country wouldn't want students to learn about civics and government?

It is on this sort of rhetoric that the federal government has relied as it has quietly insinuated itself into controlling what is taught in public schools, establishing form and precedent for a federal curriculum.

Constitution Day

Last month, any federally funded school--elementary, secondary, or post-secondary--that didn't hold some form of program relating to the U.S. Constitution was in violation of a new federal law that mandates September 17 (the date the Constitution was signed in 1787) as "Constitution Day and Citizenship Day." When September 17 falls on a weekend or holiday, Constitution Day will be held during the preceding or following week. The law was passed as part of a 2004 spending bill (Public Law 108-447), and was introduced by Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.). It is ironic that Byrd, who is considered by many of his colleagues as an "expert" on the Constitution, and who reportedly carries a copy of that same document in his breast pocket, is the sponsor of such an unconstitutional law. Any serious reader of the Constitution, let alone an expert, knows that control of education is not a valid role for the federal government, and is in fact a right reserved to the individual states by the 10th Amendment.

What Byrd lacks in expertise on the Constitution, however, he makes up for in the area of rhetoric, claiming in a speech promoting Constitution Day that "an informed public is our best defense against tyranny." If by this statement he means that "a truthfully and completely informed public is the best defense against tyranny," we'd be in agreement, but in actuality, his voting record reveals a dearth of strongly held constitutional principle, and what he likely means is "a marginally informed, well-meaning public is the most easily manipulated by government."

Citizens need to grasp the danger of such a law, which has absolutely nothing to do with the worthiness of teaching students sound constitutional principles. When the federal government usurps a power that belongs to the states and to the people, there is no way to control how the federal government will then choose to exercise that power. Today, it's a federally mandated "Constitution Day"; tomorrow it may be a federally mandated "Safe Sex Day" or "National Tolerance Day." Moreover, it may be not just a day but an entire academic year--not just a single topic but an entire federally mandated curriculum.

Not surprisingly, some educators are balking at the federal intrusion. "Institutions should be free to determine what they judge to be the best curriculum for their students," said Jonathan Knight, a spokesman for the American Association of University Professors. "It would be more in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution to encourage, rather than require, that institutions teach about the Constitution." However, Knight seems to be more worried about losing federal funding if a school doesn't comply with the regulations, rather than about the unconstitutionality of the law itself, calling the legislation "worrisome" because of the "seeming implication" that schools which fail to meet the mandate of the provision may be in danger of losing federal funding.

Becky Timmons, senior director for government relations at the American Council on Education, the leading lobbying group for colleges and universities, said, "I don't think most folks on campus perceive this to be an enormous slippery slope, but it's never good when the government tells them what to teach." She added: "It's the sort of thing that raises the question, 'If this, what's next?'"

Unfortunately, there are some people who think that Byrd's law does not go far enough. In a September 19 editorial, The Daily Campus (University of Conn.) stated that "if the government truly desires to make Constitution Day meaningful, it must specifically designate what needs to be taught and make sure it includes the information citizens need to understand laws and rights."

And as to the enforcement of this legislation, like the No Child Left Behind Act, the Department of Education intends to carry a big stick. Department spokeswoman Susan Aspey said there are "enforcement options" that may apply but said it is too early to speculate about what happens if schools don't follow the law. "We expect institutions to comply," Aspey said peremptorily.

Aspey should be careful what she asks for. The New York Law School complied with the mandate, all right, but with an ironic twist. On September 21, the school held a panel entitled "Is Constitution Day Constitutional: Byrd-Brained Idea or Welcome Opportunity?" Panelists discussed whether the mandated Constitution Day is constitutional and brainstormed about more appropriate ways to teach Americans about the Constitution. According to the New York Law School, the requirement "resembles a federally mandated educational curriculum--a mandate that many people would argue is not actually permitted by the Constitution."

We the People

President Bill Clinton's "Goals 2000" legislation, which passed in 1994, illustrates how the federal government is able to use federal curricula to indoctrinate children with errant and dangerous beliefs. Although the Goals 2000 Act claimed participation in the federal programs was "voluntary," it was clear that schools that didn't participate would lose federal money--thereby redefining "voluntary" as "coercive."

Allen Quist, in his book FedEd: The New Federal Curriculum and How It's Enforced, capably summarizes how the federal government took further control of our schools using the Goals 2000 Act. In particular, he quotes two sections of the bill. The first section delineates the areas that the federal government was given leave to intrude upon:

The Secretary [of Education] is authorized to carry out a program to enhance the third and sixth National Educational Goals [of Goals 2000] by educating students about the history and principles of the United States, including the Bill of Rights, and to foster civic competence and responsibility.

Part B contains the real kicker:

Such programs shall be known as "We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution." The programs shall (A) continue and expand the educational activities of the "We the People: The Citizen and Constitution" program administered by the Center for Civic Education and (B) enhance student attainment of challenging content standards in civics and government.

It is clear from the text quoted above that the federal government usurped the power to dictate what types of educational programs would be pursued in schools, and how these programs would be administered.

To implement a federal program about the Constitution, the U.S. Department of Education funded the production of We the People textbooks through the Center for Civic Education (CCE), a curriculum development group. What we have here, in a nutshell, is federal funds being used to publish national education standards and textbooks, which represents a huge step toward a federal curriculum.

Hardly an obscure California-based program, the We the People program is well known. According to the CCE website, "since the inception of the We the People program in 1987, more than 26 million students and 82,000 educators have participated in the program. We the People enjoys the active participation of members of Congress. " Of course, it comes as no surprise that the material in the We the People textbooks is biased by the political agenda of the folks who think federal control of education and federal control of all other aspects of life are a good thing. This bias is easily illustrated.

On page 51 of the elementary school edition of We the People, students are told the following: "Ideas found in the Massachusetts Constitution were used in writing the United States Constitution.... It [the Massachusetts Constitution] said that each town must provide free public education to all children. It also said that all children must attend school." The subtle insinuation is that these ideas on education found in the Massachusetts state Constitution were repeated in the U.S. Constitution--implying to impressionable young readers that the U.S. Constitution makes statements about compulsory education. They were not put in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, these ideas were not even in the Massachusetts Constitution when the U.S. Constitution was written but were added later. The same section of We the People asks: "Do you think other laws about schools are needed? Why are they needed?" Note that the second question assumes the answer to the first question is "yes"--for if not, the second question should have been phrased "Why or why not?"

Again in the elementary edition, the coverage of the Bill of Rights is extremely limited and biased. Nowhere in the discussion of the Bill of Rights, for example, is the Second Amendment mentioned--although the entire list of constitutional amendments is given in the very back of the book. Instead, five sections are devoted to the ideas of freedom of expression, freedom of religion, equal protection under the laws, due process of law, and the right to vote. And in those discussions are captions such as, "Education programs that receive money from the federal government cannot discriminate based on gender." Note that it doesn't say that there is no constitutional basis for educational programs to receive money from the federal government.

Artful Bias

In the high school edition of We the People, the same type of clever bias is found. In the section on affirmative action, the book goes through the motions of discussing the issue fairly, giving the argument for, then against, affirmative action. But the closing paragraph (which is likely what most students will remember) states: "Advocates of affirmative action respond by pointing out that the ideals of equality of opportunity and individual merit were never a reality in the past. For centuries a section of the population took advantage of privilege, social connections and the exclusion of women and non-whites. Some reverse discrimination is necessary, therefore, to remedy this past injustice by breaking down the legal and informal structures on which it was based." So much for an unbiased presentation.

And, predictably, the United Nations is presented in a positive--almost worshipful--light. For instance, on page 207 of the high school edition, is the following statement: "As fundamental and lasting as its guarantees have been, the U.S. Bill of Rights is a document of the eighteenth century, reflecting the issues and concerns of the age in which it was written," implying that it is hardly more than an historic relic, due to be overhauled. What, then, does the book recommend as a replacement? "It was an American president, Franklin D. Roosevelt," the book goes on to say, "who anticipated a new era in the history of basic rights." He helped formulate "the charter that founded the United Nations in 1945, and subsequently led to the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights of 1948."

Furthermore, the reference section of the high school edition is telling. The first four selections are the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution--but deemed equally important and included (among all the possible historically important documents) are the Emancipation Proclamation, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s letter from the Birmingham City Jail.

As bad as this subtle manipulation is, the critical issue is not about how bad or good the We the People books are; it is about the precedent that has been set and about the framework that has been established for creating a federal curriculum. Remember Hitler's emphasis on controlling the education of the youth? Whether it is Hitler or Presidents Clinton or Bush, no one man should possess the awesome power of shaping the educational curricula of the nation. Federal control of education brings a nation that much closer to a tyrannical abuse of government power.