The United States was #1 in education.
Then in 1979 the Department of Education was created. It was rolled out over the following decade.
It started ballooning in cost. Yet the results kept going downward.
Education results decreased, while costs increased.
That's usually a sign of something called a mistake.
Unless it the outcome is actually what they wanted.
A well educated person should be harder to indoctrinate with propaganda.
However, if you decrease it in just the right places you might be able to indoctrinate some intelligent people. If you can convince an intelligent person they will help shield the lie. There seems to be a correlation between stubbornness and intelligence. The more intelligent a person thinks they are or perhaps has been TOLD they are the more it seems they don't want to admit to being wrong. In fact, they will always look for an excuse. They might even double down. Yet, because other people perceive them as intelligent they act as a support mechanism to keep the lies going.
They don't even realize it.
Then in 2012 as part of the NDAA under Obama there was something added to it that removed most restrictions on using propaganda against the U.S. citizens. (see the Smith-Mundt Act). A few months later with propaganda made ALLOWABLE the airwaves started blasting us almost nonstop with Black Lives Matter. It was not a thing prior to that.
That is just one area.
Were there places in the U.S. that the BLM narrative applied? Yes. Yet they were not EVERYWHERE but the propaganda pushed that they were everywhere. We had recently elected a Black President for his 2nd term. It was during his term that BLM became a thing, and this NDAA 2012 occurred.
Don't blame it on this one President. There were a lot of corrupt people and things had been moving toward this point for awhile. This just happens to be when some of the critical actions happened.
You see the typical method Marxists had used over the past century to incite revolutions in nations kept failing in the U.S. The typical Rich vs Poor narrative didn't actually work as well in the U.S. They had to create other types of division so they could foment chaos and incite the public into effectively fighting among themselves.
Once propaganda restrictions were lifted. They had the tool, they had spread throughout the educational system, and they also had taken over a lot of media. They had successfully indoctrinated many through the colleges, but the triggers to activate the people hadn't been pulled yet.
Then they were.
They used the media to throw fuel upon the fires of division anywhere it arose.
This increased it, sustained, and spread it.
They embraced any ideologies as they arose that might lead to even more division.
Media could be used to unite,
but the goal was to divide.
That is what they have been doing.
Now as to the education. Getting rid of the Department of Education is a step in the right direction. Education cost less before it's inception and the results were the best in the world at the time.
Dr. Ron Paul many years ago talked about getting rid of the Department of Education decades ago. I remember the first time I heard it I thought it was nuts.
I didn't realize it had only been created after 1979.
That means the rose colored glasses I'd been viewing my own educational experience through was focused on a time when it was only being rolled out and not in full force.
I graduated early into the process of rolling out the Department of Education.
Then years later as a father with children in school and me being involved in their education I began to see that something was seriously wrong and things were changing.
My first thing I was able to pinpoint was "No child left behind". That wasn't the only thing going on it was just the first that finally went CLICK and I understood because it negatively impacted my children.
That label they gave it has emotional appeal, and is very propagandistic in design.
Whom in their right mind wants to leave children behind?
That's kind of like someone walking up to you and asking
"Are you still beating your wife?"
when you have never beaten your wife. They are already framing you as guilty just by the way they state the question.
"No child left behind"
I had some children that were already reading by the time they entered pre-school. They were excited about learning.
It only took a few years before the boredom crept in. You see "no child left behind" also translated to all children taught at the speed of the slowest. That's how it seemed to be occurring. So any children that understand a particular area of study quickly soon will have no challenge, and as time passes that leads to boredom. How do they react to that boredom? In some cases their attention may wander. In other cases they may just lose interest and sit there.
My children it was the latter. The love of learning and excitement just drained away.
I wonder how many of those others though might act up in different ways and quickly be labeled ADD or ADHD and be given drugs to "fix" the problem...
I don't know with a certainty but I do think it likely some of that was occurring.
After all we can't admit that something we are doing is "wrong".
Instead we've indoctrinated many (including our educators) to double down and find some other way to shift the blame.
Was the past perfect?
NO!
Are there some things we do better today?
YES!
Yet, when something fails, costs more, and has lesser results then we should scrap it.
Go back to what worked better, and then come up with plans on how to build from there.
Just learn from the mistakes and don't try to build the same thing again.
In the scientific method the models we have are not perfect. If we allow the method to work the models we use just happen to be the ones that explain things best at the current time until we discover a new model.
A lot of models have to be allowed to be tossed in the trash during that process.
Learn from the successes AND the mistakes.