But materialism is by no means thenonly tune Mr. Alexander likes to hum.nOne of his favorite stories relates how,nsoon after the hordes of Michigandersnbegan to descend on the Tennesseenbackwaters, a union official told himnthat one of the main questions withnwhich his serfs always quizzed him was,n”Where can I get good schools for mynchildren?” The learning that producednTate and Lytic wasn’t good enough fornthe progeny of Detroit, it seems, andnMr. Alexander furrowed his brow tonhelp them out.nSoon the gubernatorial noggin splitnasunder with the Comprehensive EducationnReform Act of 1984, which thenLegislature promptly defeated by onenvote. The next year, after intensivencampaigning by Mr. Alexander, itnpassed, and today it serves as a modelnfor other states in reforming their educationalnsystems.nThe plan allows for such useful ideasnas merit pay for teachers, but its mainnutility is for business, a subject fromnwhich Mr. Alexander’s mind nevernstrays too far. His legislation emphasizesnmore adult education (for the retrainingnof workers), more computer instruction,nmore math, and more science for thenbudding Einsteins and Edisons in anstate where teaching Darwinism used tonbe illegal. How, after all, can Japanesenand Northeastern multinationals conscriptna New World work force if theynhave to make do with yokels drilled onlynin the Book of Genesis, reading andnwriting, and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance?nNow Mr. Alexander has gone tonWashington, from which perch he willnpreach his global gospel to the wholennation. This spring he and PresidentnBush unbosomed themselves of yetnanother “comprehensive reform” fornthe country’s schools. The plan strikesnall the strings on the educational reformers’nharps: merit pay, parentalnchoice, national standards, and vouchers.nBut buried amidst the good ideas,nbad ideas, and mere slogans, there’s onenpart of the legislation now in Congressnthat ought to make parent and pupilnalike reach for their spitwads.nThe New York Times modestiy describednit as “a plan for schools tonprovide children with a range of socialnservices,” and the official name for it isnthe “New American Schools” program.nUnder the direction of the non­nprofit New American Schools DevelopmentnCorporation, headed bynAlcoa’s chief executive officer PaulnO’Neill, the program will sponsor 535n”experimental” and “innovative”nschools using new organizational structures,nnew technologies, and newnteaching methods and linking formalneducation with “social services.” It’snlikely that the mental loins from whichnthe idea of the “New AmericannSchools” sprang were those of ChesternFinn, former aide to Senator DanielnPatrick Moynihan, former deputy toneducation czar Bill Bennett, and currentnprofessor at Vanderbilt University,nwhich, by a curious non-coincidence,njust happens to be in Tennessee.nThe “more social services” idea isnwhat Mr. Finn, affectionately knownnas “Checker,” calls “total schooling,”nand last winter, before the Alexandernplan hit the legislative calendar, thenWall Street Journal’s editorial pagenpoked at it with genteel skepticism.n”Some neoconservatives,” wrote thenJournal, “find so many youngsters bereftnof a supportive home life thatnteachers often have littie chance toninstill knowledge in the hours a weeknthey have with a child. The new thinkingnis that if an extended school facilityncould serve as the base for nurturingnand oversight — not necessarily by officialnpersonnel but by communityngroups or even parents themselves —nwe could catch kids before they fall bynthe wayside.”nThe idea of “total schooling” is thatn”dysfunctional homes” don’t providenthe right kind of socialization — notnjust instruction, but the processes bynwhich children are subjected to socialndiscipline, from toilet training to sharingntheir toys to using language tonresponding to authority. Therefore, arguenChecker and his supporters, thenschools should do it for them.nThe appeal of the idea is that somenhomes really are “dysfunctional” bynanyone’s standard. Some parents don’tnbother to buy shoes and clothing forntheir children, much less raise them tonknow how to get to school on time,nshut up while others are talking, ornaccept personal responsibility for whatnthey do or don’t do. But “dysfunctional”nis a slope down which whole societiesnmay slip. Once institutionalized,nMr. Finn’s idea that schools and socialnpolicy in general should provide thennnremedies for “dysfunctional” homesnwill become an invitation for the invasionnof not-so-dysfunctional homes byneducational and government authorities.n”Dysfunctional” will soon come tonencompass parents who don’t say thenright things to their children aboutnreligion, race, sexuality, women, globalnwarming, smoking, the hazards of notnwearing seat belts, the welfare of laboratorynrabbits, the oppression of lesbiannEskimo belly-dancers, and all the othernevils inflicted on the universe by thenmiddle-class white male hegemony. Innshort, whatever Mr. Finn’s intentions,nhis “total schooling” is an introductoryntextbook for the totalitarian manipulationnof the family.nIn a paper delivered last year beforenthe Center of the American Experimentnin St. Paul, Mr. Finn expandednon his idea, affirming that “we need tonpromulgate — and then enforce — andoctrine of accountability for parentsnas well as for their children.” “Wencannot confine ourselves within thenboundaries of what is conventionallynthought reasonable for public employeesnto do,” he entoned. “It is- noncoincidence that when a group ofnbusinesses opened a free private schoolnin Chicago designed to be a model fornefiFective education of disadvantagednchildren, one of the first decisions theynand the new principal made was thatnteachers in this school will routinelynmake home visits.” He also envisionsnthat “we are going to have to benprepared more frequentiy to removenchildren from their homes and sendnthem into other settings,” where theyncan receive the level of afi’cction Mr.nFinn deems appropriate. It’s one thingnto take a child away from its parentsnbecause physical abuse endangers lifenand limb, but Mr. Finn wants the statento confiscate the kid just because he’snnot receiving enough emotionalnwarmth.nMr. Finn’s ideas might seem better,nsuited for Stalin’s Moscow or GeorgenOrwell’s 1984 than for a Republican’snWashington, but the Vanderbilt professornis one of the country’s chief spokesmennfor neoconservative educationalnpolicy, and he and the Tennesseenschool czar are working closely together.nMoreover, the marriage is not asnstrange as it might seem, since there isna long history among educational re-n)ULY 1991/11n