Were Billions Wasted to Fuel Intentional Merging of Students and Technology?
Updated
While the headlines have returned to the pre-pandemic propaganda-fueled norm—ignoring “the massive scale and enduring persistence of COVID-19 impact in education”—studies consistently warn that the pandemic’s negative impact on schools and children remains a harsh daily reality. Numerous reports in both the United States and abroad confirm that the damaging effects of the tyranny shrouding the pandemic are widespread, highly individualized, and unevenly distributed. Massive in scale, studies show that different age groups face unique problems, from developmental delays in younger children to learning gaps and mental health issues in older students. Experts predict it could take decades to fully recover, with some studies suggesting education may instead face a “new normal” that reflects ongoing challenges.
A recent analysis in England, published by the Association for School and College Leaders (ASCL), forecasted that the shockwaves of the pandemic “will hit schools in a series of waves, with different age groups requiring varying solutions for their problems with learning, behavior, and absence.” Titled “The COVID-19 pandemic may be a thing of the past – its impact in schools is not,” ASCL’s report indicates that repairing the damage to children’s education caused by pandemic closures and lockdowns will disrupt schools in England for years and may only clear the system in the mid-2030s, with the overall impact in the system persisting even beyond that date.
The United States is in no better shape. A recent Vox headline, which focused on a new report by the Center on Reinventing Public (CRPE) Education, loudly confirmed “the scary truth about how far behind American kids have fallen.” In June, the deep-state puppet the AP reported that in the United States schools have “started to make progress toward getting students back on track,” stating that nationally, students made up one-third of their pandemic losses in math and one-quarter of the losses in reading during the last school year. Still, as expected with DEI a central theme post-pandemic, the AP reported that improvements have been slow and uneven across geography and economic status, with millions of students “often from marginalized groups” making up little or no ground.
How can this be considering that schools in the U.S. received a record $190 billion in pandemic aid from the federal government? The massive influx of funds was the most significant one-time federal investment in American education in history. The fact it had little impact doesn’t make sense. In the United States, two separate studies released in June 2024—one from researchers at Harvard, Stanford, and Dartmouth and the other from the University of Washington—both concluded that the money helped, but not as much as it could or should have. For every $1,000 in federal aid spent, districts saw a slight improvement in math and reading scores. With billions to spend, why weren’t the results better? Harvard economist Thomas J. Kane, who, along with Stanford’s Sean Reardon, E.D.M., led one of the studies, commented:
“The money did contribute to the recovery. Could the money have had a bigger impact? Yes.”
On June 26, 2024, the New York Times reported that the Biden administration celebrated the mediocre study results as proof that the federal government’s investment in March 2021, when the pandemic was still active and some schools remained closed, helped get students back on track. Altogether ignoring the modest return on the dollar, Neera Tandem, Biden’s domestic policy advisor, recently insisted the studies “make clear that the president’s investment in education helped millions of students regain ground faster.” Like the declaration that the untested mRNA COVID-19 jabs would end the pandemic once the masses were injected, the Biden administration’s manipulation of the state of education in America is alarming.
Education policy experts and economists in the U.S. also expressed concern. The Times noted they were disappointed with the lack of success in healing our children, given the billions spent, stating that past research demonstrates, for example, a greater bang for the buck from smaller class sizes. OK, that looks good on paper, but did it happen? As is the case with other areas of massive government spending under the cloak of the pandemic, the overall negative outcomes affecting our children raise serious questions about whether the unprecedented billions in federal aid came with appropriate levels of oversight. After all, school districts were overflowing with cash, and yet it turns out there was minimal tracking of exactly how the massively expensive experiment in taxpayer money was spent from district to district. The project was supposed to protect and nurture our children. Perhaps it moved the needle—some schools got new HVACs—but like the $7.5 billion to build hundreds of public EV charging stations that instead realized just eight, the Biden administration’s careless school spending failed our children.
So here we are, and the question persists: was the billions dollar disappointment at our children’s expense intentional, serving only to further usher in the authoritative deep state agenda? Considering the orchestrated lockdowns and blatant disregard for the overall health of our nation’s children, it certainly seems possible. From early on in the pandemic, mainstream media reported that college students were experiencing strange symptoms even if they didn’t have COVID-19—like forgetfulness, trouble concentrating, and an inability to think clearly. Big Pharma-funded news outlets and social media platforms opportunely labeled the phenomenon “pandemic brain.” According to recent studies, now on the flip side of the pandemic, professors report that students are missing assignments at higher rates, and, with increased dependence on technology, they document triple the phone usage in class. These are young adults. Likewise, national data indicates, for example, that fourth graders may not catch up to 2019 levels in math until 2036, and reading recovery could take even longer.
Is the end game an Artificial intelligence-driven school? There is currently a massive and well-funded movement to move in that direction. Insisting that the current school model is all man-made and “not enshrined in the laws of physics,” New Classrooms hopes to modernize the student experience “through thoughtful design, research, and whatever technology tools (including AI) are at our disposal now and in the future.” In other words, New Classrooms aims to shift from “the century-old paradigm of schooling” where all same-aged students learn the same thing simultaneously to an individually tailored acceleration undoubtedly led by AI.
The Bezos Family Foundation, Chan Zuckerberg Education Initiative, Barr Foundation, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation are among the partners of New Classroomsthat have committed $1 million or more to support its work. As of 2016, New Classrooms had partnered with 40 schools in 10 states and Washington, D.C., to implement its teaching model, Teach to One. Interestingly, a 2019 evaluation of Teach to One found that “one of the most highly touted personalized-learning models” had no significant impact on students’ scores on state math tests. This conclusion should have drawn attention to the much less rigorous study released simultaneously by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that suggested the program helps accelerate students. But, alas, like the millions of adverse events following the contaminated COVID shots that have been ignored, protecting the future is not the objective.
Perhaps the post-pandemic propaganda-fueled headlines, which the mainstream news insists are ignoring “the massive scale and enduring persistence of COVID-19 impact in education, aren’t really ignoring them at all. Instead, they are complicit in compelling the narrative that, despite the wasted billions, the old way doesn’t work. Indeed, all signs point to an attempt to massively overhaul education. Make no mistake, that overhaul will further nudge the merging of our children (and their children) intrinsically with technology. Also known as transhumanism. Stanford study author Reardon emphasized the solution isn’t “hurrying up,” sharing that “one of the barriers, ironically, is the desire—the instinct—to get back to normal.”
Perhaps England will get it right (although doubtful), but here in the United States, like the failed health agenda, the education agenda is not harmonious with one that genuinely cares for our children. Instead, it is reasonable to deduce that experimenting on multiple aspects of their young lives is a working part of a more nefarious agenda that is fueled by corruption and greed the likes of which many can’t fathom. But we know it exists—we see it clearly. Recklessly blowing billions to further bankrupt our nation doesn’t matter. Is it intentional? Sure seems to be. Either way, these diabolical acts targeting our children must come to an end.