The Transformational Potential of Flipped Classrooms

If 2012 was the year of MOOCs (massive open online courses) in higher education, then the flipped classroom was the innovation of the year for K–12 schools (see “The Flipped Classroom,” what next, Winter 2012).

Both the New York Times and the Washington Post spilled ink over the phenomenon. Several authors resorted to old-fashioned books to discuss flipping, including the two teachers who allegedly originated the technique (see Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in Every Class Every Day by Jonathan Bergmann and Aaron Sams). None of that tells us anything about the number of teachers who actually flipped their classrooms. No one has offered any firm measure of the practice or, more importantly, assessed its impact on student learning.

In case you missed all the hype, the flipped classroom is a form of blended learning in which students learn online at least part of the time while attending a brick-and-mortar school. Either at home or during a homework period at school, students view lessons and lectures online. Time in the classroom, previously reserved for teacher instruction, is spent on what we used to call homework, with teacher assistance as needed.

How can this improve student learning? Homework and lecture time have merely been switched. Students still learn through a lecture. And many online lectures are primitive videos.

There is some truth in this characterization, but it misses the key insight behind the flipped classroom. If some students don’t understand what is presented in a real-time classroom lecture, it’s too bad for them. The teacher must barrel on to pace the lesson for the class as a whole, which often means going too slow for some and too fast for others.

Moving the delivery of basic content instruction online gives students the opportunity to hit rewind and view again a section they don’t understand or fast-forward through material they have already mastered. Students decide what to watch and when, which, theoretically at least, gives them greater ownership over their learning.

Viewing lectures online may not seem to differ much from the traditional homework reading assignment, but there is at least one critical difference: Classroom time is no longer spent taking in raw content, a largely passive process. Instead, while at school, students do practice problems, discuss issues, or work on specific projects. The classroom becomes an interactive environment that engages students more directly in their education.

In the flipped classroom, the teacher is available to guide students as they apply what they have learned online. One of the drawbacks of traditional homework is that students don’t receive meaningful feedback on their work while they are doing it; they may have no opportunity to relearn concepts they struggled to master. With a teacher present to answer questions and watch over how students are doing, the feedback cycle has greater potential to bolster student learning.

The flipped classroom does not address all the limitations of the brick-and-mortar school. Although in the best flipped-classroom implementations, each student can move at her own pace and view lessons at home that meet her individual needs rather than those of the entire class, most flipped classrooms do not operate this way. As Salman Khan, the media’s personification of the flipped-classroom, observes in The One World Schoolhouse, “Although it makes class time more interactive and lectures more independent, the ‘flipped classroom’ still has students moving together in age-based cohorts at roughly the same pace, with snapshot exams that are used more to label students than address their weaknesses” (see “To YouTube and Beyond,” book reviews, Summer 2013).

This arrangement also doesn’t tackle the root causes of the lack of motivation that persists among many low-achieving students.

Some in the media have suggested that the flipped-classroom approach may only work in upper-income, suburban schools. If low-income students lack access to computers at home or to reliable Internet access, flipping may be a nonstarter in some schools. If students can’t benefit from online instruction at home, then they need to receive instruction in the classroom or risk falling behind. Some fear that in relying on parents to provide technology and support, the flipped-classroom model may exacerbate existing resource inequalities. Schools can make computer labs available during afterschool hours, however, and parental assistance is less critical when watching an online video than when solving homework problems.

What is perhaps most telling is that the “no-excuses” charter schools that serve large numbers of low-income students well—KIPP, Rocketship, Alliance, and Summit among them—are not flipping their classrooms. Even as these schools adopt blended-learning models, the flipped classroom isn’t among them. The models these schools are employing give students more support as they need it and actively guide students to more ownership over their learning. These models also do not rely on students having access to high-speed Internet-connected computers at home; online learning occurs during the school day.

Even if the flipped classroom does prove of some benefit to some low-income students, this change in structure alone is unlikely to produce the vast improvement in student learning our country needs. But that doesn’t mean the innovation is insignificant. The flipped classroom might still have an important indirect impact on the American education system, as one brand of digital learning. The optimal use of digital learning will vary in different contexts and communities. Some people will attend full-time virtual schools, with even the “classroom” experience occurring online; most will attend brick-and-mortar schools that employ some version of digital learning.

Unlike school vouchers for low-income students, charter schools in disadvantaged communities, or bonus pay for teachers in inner-city schools, digital learning is not designed for just one slice of the population. It’s not a policy that parents might support in theory but, because it has no practical impact on them, won’t spend political energy promoting or defending. Rather, if it works as well as its proponents hope, digital learning will gather political support from a wide swath of the American public.

And it may well turn out that the flipped classroom is most effective in private schools or upper-income suburban schools. If that’s how those students make the best use of digital learning, that’s OK. As Khan says, “Blue jeans didn’t become cool until Hollywood started wearing them.” In the world of digital learning, the flipped classroom may just be one good brand.

The Educational Value of Field Trips

The school field trip has a long history in American public education. For decades, students have piled into yellow buses to visit a variety of cultural institutions, including art, natural history, and science museums, as well as theaters, zoos, and historical sites. Schools gladly endured the expense and disruption of providing field trips because they saw these experiences as central to their educational mission: schools exist not only to provide economically useful skills in numeracy and literacy, but also to produce civilized young men and women who would appreciate the arts and culture. More-advantaged families may take their children to these cultural institutions outside of school hours, but less-advantaged students are less likely to have these experiences if schools do not provide them. With field trips, public schools viewed themselves as the great equalizer in terms of access to our cultural heritage.

Today, culturally enriching field trips are in decline. Museums across the country report a steep drop in school tours. For example, the Field Museum in Chicago at one time welcomed more than 300,000 students every year. Recently the number is below 200,000. Between 2002 and 2007, Cincinnati arts organizations saw a 30 percent decrease in student attendance. A survey by the American Association of School Administrators found that more than half of schools eliminated planned field trips in 2010–11.

The decision to reduce culturally enriching field trips reflects a variety of factors. Financial pressures force schools to make difficult decisions about how to allocate scarce resources, and field trips are increasingly seen as an unnecessary frill. Greater focus on raising student performance on math and reading standardized tests may also lead schools to cut field trips. Some schools believe that student time would be better spent in the classroom preparing for the exams. When schools do organize field trips, they are increasingly choosing to take students on trips to reward them for working hard to improve their test scores rather than to provide cultural enrichment. Schools take students to amusement parks, sporting events, and movie theaters instead of to museums and historical sites. This shift from “enrichment” to “reward” field trips is reflected in a generational change among teachers about the purposes of these outings. In a 2012‒13 survey we conducted of nearly 500 Arkansas teachers, those who had been teaching for at least 15 years were significantly more likely to believe that the primary purpose of a field trip is to provide a learning opportunity, while more junior teachers were more likely to see the primary purpose as “enjoyment.”

If schools are de-emphasizing culturally enriching field trips, has anything been lost as a result? Surprisingly, we have relatively little rigorous evidence about how field trips affect students. The research presented here is the first large-scale randomized-control trial designed to measure what students learn from school tours of an art museum.

We find that students learn quite a lot. In particular, enriching field trips contribute to the development of students into civilized young men and women who possess more knowledge about art, have stronger critical-thinking skills, exhibit increased historical empathy, display higher levels of tolerance, and have a greater taste for consuming art and culture.

Design of the Study and School Tours

The 2011 opening of the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Northwest Arkansas created the opportunity for this study. Crystal Bridges is the first major art museum to be built in the United States in the last four decades, with more than 50,000 square feet of gallery space and an endowment in excess of $800 million. Portions of the museum’s endowment are devoted to covering all of the expenses associated with school tours. Crystal Bridges reimburses schools for the cost of buses, provides free admission and lunch, and even pays for the cost of substitute teachers to cover for teachers who accompany students on the tour.

Because the tour is completely free to schools, and because Crystal Bridges was built in an area that never previously had an art museum, there was high demand for school tours. Not all school groups could be accommodated right away. So our research team worked with the staff at Crystal Bridges to assign spots for school tours by lottery. During the first two semesters of the school tour program, the museum received 525 applications from school groups representing 38,347 students in kindergarten through grade 12. We created matched pairs among the applicant groups based on similarity in grade level and other demographic factors. An ideal and common matched pair would be adjacent grades in the same school. We then randomly ordered the matched pairs to determine scheduling prioritization. Within each pair, we randomly assigned which applicant would be in the treatment group and receive a tour that semester and which would be in the control group and have its tour deferred.

We administered surveys to 10,912 students and 489 teachers at 123 different schools three weeks, on average, after the treatment group received its tour. The student surveys included multiple items assessing knowledge about art as well as measures of critical thinking, historical empathy, tolerance, and sustained interest in visiting art museums. Some groups were surveyed as late as eight weeks after the tour, but it was not possible to collect data after longer periods because each control group was guaranteed a tour during the following semester as a reward for its cooperation. There is no indication that the results reported below faded for groups surveyed after longer periods.

We also assessed students’ critical-thinking skills by asking them to write a short essay in response to a painting that they had not previously seen. Finally, we collected a behavioral measure of interest in art consumption by providing all students with a coded coupon good for free family admission to a special exhibit at the museum to see whether the field trip increased the likelihood of students making future visits.

All results reported below are derived from regression models that control for student grade level and gender and make comparisons within each matched pair, while taking into account the fact that students in the matched pair of applicant groups are likely to be similar in ways that we are unable to observe. Standard validity tests confirmed that the survey items employed to generate the various scales used as outcomes measured the same underlying constructs.

The intervention we studied is a modest one. Students received a one-hour tour of the museum in which they typically viewed and discussed five paintings. Some students were free to roam the museum following their formal tour, but the entire experience usually involved less than half a day. Instructional materials were sent to teachers who went on a tour, but our survey of teachers suggests that these materials received relatively little attention, on average no more than an hour of total class time. The discussion of each painting during the tour was largely student-directed, with the museum educators facilitating the discourse and providing commentary beyond the names of the work and the artist and a brief description only when students requested it. This format is now the norm in school tours of art museums. The aversion to having museum educators provide information about works of art is motivated in part by progressive education theories and by a conviction among many in museum education that students retain very little factual information from their tours.


Recalling Tour Details. Our research suggests that students actually retain a great deal of factual information from their tours. Students who received a tour of the museum were able to recall details about the paintings they had seen at very high rates. For example, 88 percent of the students who saw the Eastman Johnson painting At the Camp—Spinning Yarns and Whittling knew when surveyed weeks later that the painting depicts abolitionists making maple syrup to undermine the sugar industry, which relied on slave labor. Similarly, 82 percent of those who saw Norman Rockwell’s Rosie the Riveter could recall that the painting emphasizes the importance of women entering the workforce during World War II. Among students who saw Thomas Hart Benton’s Ploughing It Under, 79 percent recollected that it is a depiction of a farmer destroying his crops as part of a Depression-era price support program. And 70 percent of the students who saw Romare Bearden’s Sacrifice could remember that it is part of the Harlem Renaissance art movement. Since there was no guarantee that these facts would be raised in student-directed discussions, and because students had no particular reason for remembering these details (there was no test or grade associated with the tours), it is impressive that they could recall historical and sociological information at such high rates.

These results suggest that art could be an important tool for effectively conveying traditional academic content, but this analysis cannot prove it. The control-group performance was hardly better than chance in identifying factual information about these paintings, but they never had the opportunity to learn the material. The high rate of recall of factual information by students who toured the museum demonstrates that the tours made an impression. The students could remember important details about what they saw and discussed.

Critical Thinking. Beyond recalling the details of their tour, did a visit to an art museum have a significant effect on students? Our study demonstrates that it did. For example, students randomly assigned to receive a school tour of Crystal Bridges later displayed demonstrably stronger ability to think critically about art than the control group.

During the first semester of the study, we showed all 3rd- through 12th-grade students a painting they had not previously seen, Bo Bartlett’s The Box. We then asked students to write short essays in response to two questions: What do you think is going on in this painting? And, what do you see that makes you think that? These are standard prompts used by museum educators to spark discussion during school tours.

We stripped the essays of all identifying information and had two coders rate the compositions using a seven-item rubric for measuring critical thinking that was developed by researchers at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston. The measure is based on the number of instances that students engaged in the following in their essays: observing, interpreting, evaluating, associating, problem finding, comparing, and flexible thinking. Our measure of critical thinking is the sum of the counts of these seven items. In total, our research team blindly scored 3,811 essays. For 750 of those essays, two researchers scored them independently. The scores they assigned to the same essay were very similar, demonstrating that we were able to measure critical thinking about art with a high degree of inter-coder reliability.

We express the impact of a school tour of Crystal Bridges on critical-thinking skills in terms of standard-deviation effect sizes. Overall, we find that students assigned by lottery to a tour of the museum improve their ability to think critically about art by 9 percent of a standard deviation relative to the control group. The benefit for disadvantaged groups is considerably larger (see Figure 1). Rural students, who live in towns with fewer than 10,000 people, experience an increase in critical-thinking skills of nearly one-third of a standard deviation. Students from high-poverty schools (those where more than 50 percent of students receive free or reduced-price lunches) experience an 18 percent effect-size improvement in critical thinking about art, as do minority students.

A large amount of the gain in critical-thinking skills stems from an increase in the number of observations that students made in their essays. Students who went on a tour became more observant, noticing and describing more details in an image. Being observant and paying attention to detail is an important and highly useful skill that students learn when they study and discuss works of art. Additional research is required to determine if the gains in critical thinking when analyzing a work of art would transfer into improved critical thinking about other, non-art-related subjects.

Historical Empathy. Tours of art museums also affect students’ values. Visiting an art museum exposes students to a diversity of ideas, peoples, places, and time periods. That broadening experience imparts greater appreciation and understanding. We see the effects in significantly higher historical empathy and tolerance measures among students randomly assigned to a school tour of Crystal Bridges.

Historical empathy is the ability to understand and appreciate what life was like for people who lived in a different time and place. This is a central purpose of teaching history, as it provides students with a clearer perspective about their own time and place. To measure historical empathy, we included three statements on the survey with which students could express their level of agreement or disagreement: 1) I have a good understanding of how early Americans thought and felt; 2) I can imagine what life was like for people 100 years ago; and 3) When looking at a painting that shows people, I try to imagine what those people are thinking. We combined these items into a scale measuring historical empathy.

Students who went on a tour of Crystal Bridges experience a 6 percent of a standard deviation increase in historical empathy. Among rural students, the benefit is much larger, a 15 percent of a standard deviation gain. We can illustrate this benefit by focusing on one of the items in the historical empathy scale. When asked to agree or disagree with the statement, “I have a good understanding of how early Americans thought and felt,” 70 percent of the treatment-group students express agreement compared to 66 percent of the control group. Among rural participants, 69 percent of the treatment-group students agree with this statement compared to 62 percent of the control group. The fact that Crystal Bridges features art from different periods in American history may have helped produce these gains in historical empathy.

Tolerance. To measure tolerance we included four statements on the survey to which students could express their level of agreement or disagreement: 1) People who disagree with my point of view bother me; 2) Artists whose work is critical of America should not be allowed to have their work shown in art museums; 3) I appreciate hearing views different from my own; and 4) I think people can have different opinions about the same thing. We combined these items into a scale measuring the general effect of the tour on tolerance.

Overall, receiving a school tour of an art museum increases student tolerance by 7 percent of a standard deviation. As with critical thinking, the benefits are much larger for students in disadvantaged groups. Rural students who visited Crystal Bridges experience a 13 percent of a standard deviation improvement in tolerance. For students at high-poverty schools, the benefit is 9 percent of a standard deviation.

The improvement in tolerance for students who went on a tour of Crystal Bridges can be illustrated by the responses to one of the items within the tolerance scale. When asked about the statement, “Artists whose work is critical of America should not be allowed to have their work shown in art museums,” 35 percent of the control-group students express agreement. But for students randomly assigned to receive a school tour of the art museum, only 32 percent agree with censoring art critical of America. Among rural students, 34 percent of the control group would censor art compared to 30 percent for the treatment group. In high-poverty schools, 37 percent of the control-group students would censor compared to 32 percent of the treatment-group students. These differences are not huge, but neither is the intervention. These changes represent the realistic improvement in tolerance that results from a half-day experience at an art museum.

Interest in Art Museums. Perhaps the most important outcome of a school tour is whether it cultivates an interest among students in returning to cultural institutions in the future. If visiting a museum helps improve critical thinking, historical empathy, tolerance, and other outcomes not measured in this study, then those benefits would compound for students if they were more likely to frequent similar cultural institutions throughout their life. The direct effects of a single visit are necessarily modest and may not persist, but if school tours help students become regular museum visitors, they may enjoy a lifetime of enhanced critical thinking, tolerance, and historical empathy.

We measured how school tours of Crystal Bridges develop in students an interest in visiting art museums in two ways: with survey items and a behavioral measure. We included a series of items in the survey designed to gauge student interest:

• I plan to visit art museums when I am an adult.

• I would tell my friends they should visit an art museum.

• Trips to art museums are interesting.

• Trips to art museums are fun.

• Would your friend like to go to an art museum on a field trip?

• Would you like more museums in your community?

• How interested are you in visiting art museums?

• If your friends or family wanted to go to an art museum, how interested would you be in going?

Interest in visiting art museums among students who toured the museum is 8 percent of a standard deviation higher than that in the randomized control group. Among rural students, the increase is much larger: 22 percent of a standard deviation. Students at high-poverty schools score 11 percent of a standard deviation higher on the cultural consumer scale if they were randomly assigned to tour the museum. And minority students gain 10 percent of a standard deviation in their desire to be art consumers.

One of the eight items in the art consumer scale asked students to express the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement, “I would tell my friends they should visit an art museum.” For all students who received a tour, 70 percent agree with this statement, compared to 66 percent in the control group. Among rural participants, 73 percent of the treatment-group students agree versus 63 percent of the control group. In high-poverty schools, 74 percent would recommend art museums to their friends compared to 68 percent of the control group. And among minority students, 72 percent of those who received a tour would tell their friends to visit an art museum, relative to 67 percent of the control group. Students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, are more likely to have positive feelings about visiting museums if they receive a school tour.

We also measured whether students are more likely to visit Crystal Bridges in the future if they received a school tour. All students who participated in the study during the first semester, including those who did not receive a tour, were provided with a coupon that gave them and their families free entry to a special exhibit at Crystal Bridges. The coupons were coded so that we could determine the applicant group to which students belonged. Students had as long as six months after receipt of the coupon to use it.

We collected all redeemed coupons and were able to calculate how many adults and youths were admitted. Though students in the treatment group received 49 percent of all coupons that were distributed, 58 percent of the people admitted to the special exhibit with those coupons came from the treatment group. In other words, the families of students who received a tour were 18 percent more likely to return to the museum than we would expect if their rate of coupon use was the same as their share of distributed coupons.

This is particularly impressive given that the treatment-group students had recently visited the museum. Their desire to visit a museum might have been satiated, while the control group might have been curious to visit Crystal Bridges for the first time. Despite having recently been to the museum, students who received a school tour came back at higher rates. Receiving a school tour cultivates a taste for visiting art museums, and perhaps for sharing the experience with others.

Disadvantaged Students

One consistent pattern in our results is that the benefits of a school tour are generally much larger for students from less-advantaged backgrounds. Students from rural areas and high-poverty schools, as well as minority students, typically show gains that are two to three times larger than those of the total sample. Disadvantaged students assigned by lottery to receive a school tour of an art museum make exceptionally large gains in critical thinking, historical empathy, tolerance, and becoming art consumers.

It appears that the less prior exposure to culturally enriching experiences students have, the larger the benefit of receiving a school tour of a museum. We have some direct measures to support this explanation. To isolate the effect of the first time visiting the museum, we truncated our sample to include only control-group students who had never visited Crystal Bridges and treatment-group students who had visited for the first time during their tour. The effect for this first visit is roughly twice as large as that for the overall sample, just as it is for disadvantaged students.

In addition, we administered a different version of our survey to students in kindergarten through 2nd grade. Very young students are less likely to have had previous exposure to culturally enriching experiences. Very young students make exceptionally large improvements in the observed outcomes, just like disadvantaged students and first-time visitors.

When we examine effects for subgroups of advantaged students, we typically find much smaller or null effects. Students from large towns and low-poverty schools experience few significant gains from their school tour of an art museum. If schools do not provide culturally enriching experiences for these students, their families are likely to have the inclination and ability to provide those experiences on their own. But the families of disadvantaged students are less likely to substitute their own efforts when schools do not offer culturally enriching experiences. Disadvantaged students need their schools to take them on enriching field trips if they are likely to have these experiences at all.

Policy Implications

School field trips to cultural institutions have notable benefits. Students randomly assigned to receive a school tour of an art museum experience improvements in their knowledge of and ability to think critically about art, display stronger historical empathy, develop higher tolerance, and are more likely to visit such cultural institutions as art museums in the future. If schools cut field trips or switch to “reward” trips that visit less-enriching destinations, then these important educational opportunities are lost. It is particularly important that schools serving disadvantaged students provide culturally enriching field trip experiences.

This first-ever, large-scale, random-assignment experiment of the effects of school tours of an art museum should help inform the thinking of school administrators, educators, policymakers, and philanthropists. Policymakers should consider these results when deciding whether schools have sufficient resources and appropriate policy guidance to take their students on tours of cultural institutions. School administrators should give thought to these results when deciding whether to use their resources and time for these tours. And philanthropists should weigh these results when deciding whether to build and maintain these cultural institutions with quality educational programs. We don’t just want our children to acquire work skills from their education; we also want them to develop into civilized people who appreciate the breadth of human accomplishments. The school field trip is an important tool for meeting this goal.

Education – Improve Learning, Test Scores and Performance Through 10 Universal Laws of Learning

In the effort to meet No Child Left Behind mandates as well as to increase performance through corporate training and development, how to make students or participants learn continues to vex highly trained educators and professional facilitators. From my 25 plus years of experience in business and education, I have come to accept and believe in these 10 Universal Laws of Learning.

Universal Learning Law #1

Learning is an innate desire within ALL human beings. To ignore this first law of learning is what makes any student disengage themselves from the learning environment.

Universal Learning Law #2

Learning is multi-dimensional for ALL human beings. We have numerous senses from which to learn.

Universal Learning Law #3

Learning is an ongoing process for ALL human beings. Learning should never be an event, but a continuum.

Universal Learning Law #4

Learning is a separate behavior from performance. Learning is the acquisition of knowledge. Performance is the application of knowledge.

Universal Learning Law #5

Learning needs to be relevant to each individual based upon his or her existing experiences or schema. Bordeom is a symptom of this law.

Universal Learning Law #6

Learning is a bridge between new information and the students’ or participants’ existing schema. The goal is to build the strongest and most flexible bridge possible.

Universal Learning Law #7

Each learning objective requires a one to one correspondence to each testing statement to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction. Do not play “gotcha” with your students.

Universal Learning Law #8

Learning is delivered in short sessions to allow time for interaction between students or participants.

Universal Learning Law #9

Learning must avoid the “Osmosis Factor” where a presumption exists that the students or participants will acquire certain knowledge and skills without direct instruction.

Universal Learning Law #10

The brain will only absorb what the butt will endure.

Possibly, these 10 Universal Laws of Learning will help you improve your own professional development, your school or your organization.

Obtaining An Online Bachelor Degree

If asked, most people would say that they would like to have a Bachelor degree. Having a Bachelor’s degree could make a real difference in the lives of many people. However, most people have a job, and taking the time off from their work is not a possibility to attend a traditional college or university. The classes at a traditional college are usually not conducive to working full-time. But times, they are changing. With non-traditional students who want to obtain a degree making their voices heard, colleges and universities are hearing this and responding to it by providing various types of online instruction. While it is a way for colleges to have more money, it is the perfect way for someone to earn an online Bachelor’s degree.

The most important aspect of earning an online degree is making sure that the degree is form an accredited college. If it is not accredited, it is not worth the paper it is printed on. Accreditation means that the school is recognized as an institution that provides classes and degrees based on certain curriculum, and that it is similar to the programs at other schools. Finding out if the school where you wish to obtain an online degree is accredited is the first step and the most vital step in the online degree process.

It is possible to get an online Bachelor’s degree is a variety of subjects. Requesting information from several schools will assure you that you find the best online program for you. You can also get financial aid at many of these schools, so make sure you investigate that option. Many of these online universities offer advice on career planning after you finish your degree, too.

There are tons of advantages to getting an online Bachelor’s degree through distance learning. There is no commuting in traffic and then trying finding parking spaces in overcrowded lots. You can arrange your class schedule around your life, instead of trying to arrange your life around your class schedule. Convenience and flexibility are perhaps the greatest assets of online learning. You still get to interact with teachers and other students, and can access the resources of the school through the Internet.

Getting an online Bachelor’s degree can be the first step in getting a better and job and making more money. You can improve the quality of your life and have more leisure time. Since more and more people are expressing interest in this option, it is probably going to be a very accepted way to earn a degree in the future. The world is always changing, and this is just another way that education is changing with it. Getting a Bachelor’s degree has become a lot easier for many of those people who thought it was out of their reach until now.

Pre-Christian American Technology

The Caral pyramids are older than the ones on Giza’s Plateau according to some academics. The mummies found in the Hebrides and Canary Islands have similar interment procedures to those in Peru. There are many things that show advanced technology started in Peru and it is hard to know when it all began or what kind of culture may have taught the white people known as the Chachapoyas who were still the leaders of the Incas even though history tells us they were defeated a short time before Pizarro arrived.

“A team of archaeologists, led by Dr Mike Parker Pearson of Sheffield University, has recently found the remains of what are believed to be two mummified Bronze Age bodies, buried under the floor of a prehistoric house at Cladh Hallan on the Hebridean Island of South Uist. The house in which the mummy skeletons were buried was part of a unique Bronze Age complex, which is as mysterious as the preserved corpses that were buried there.

‘The skeletons looked very unusual…like Peruvian mummies’.” (1)

This book will explore two separate aspects or eras of the development of what Europeans think was all done in the Old World. Those eras will be post-Christianity and pre-Christianity. In both cases there will be elite white people with advanced technology and in some cases this technology seems to have originated in Peru. When we go even further back we will not be talking about white people. There are some Polynesian roots to this real history which will seem even more fantastic than the apparent outlandish claim that Peru (Puma Puncu, Tiahuanaco and the even more intriguing Pyramid complex in the Madre de Dios region that form a battery) is at least the equal of Egypt and Sumer in terms of contributing real original technology and culture. In fact the Brotherhood that colonized Sumer and Egypt might be these very people. We will try to pierce the veils of antiquity and overcome the destruction of records and evidences practiced upon South America by Empire Builders.

Our temerity and gall will fly in the face of ‘experts’ who decry postmodernized supposedly unsubstantiated assertions that seek to integrate the facts. These ‘experts’ continue their discovery by proclamation approaches to science and deny all facts in cases like the Kensington Rune Stone. You can and should decide for yourself, rather than accept the often disproven ‘experts’ whose arrogance knows few bounds. Consider the Scale of Nature that justified prejudice by putting the Hottentot and North American Indian just above the gorilla and far beneath many other supposedly civilized humans. This science was part of the basis for ‘Manifest Destiny’ and the genocidal treatment of Indians while dispossessing them in order to civilize them. The disgust I feel knows no bounds!

The Pope has asked for ‘forgiveness and renewal’. We think his academic henchmen and political mercenaries from the time of Columbus and the Treaty of Tordesillas have much to learn from him.

Pottery and sweat houses from NW Europe, skull shaping and trepanning among the elite, Parcheesi, rubber, the wheel, gold laminating, stone masonry that is earthquake resistant, and the royal purple dye of the Phoenicians may have originated in Aztlan and its colonies throughout America. The mathematical and astronomical knowledge enhanced by telescopes seems important when one knows La Venta, Mexico has brought lenses to archaeologists’ hands. The Mayans discovered the mathematical concept of zero and a decimal system that nonetheless relegated them to a low position on the Scale of Nature, even after the Pope declared the North American was human some three decades after Columbus. Long before that and back to the time of Goliath the American people were traveling to the Middle East.

The list of inventions and cultural impacts on the whole world that originate in America are seemingly never-ending yet the Canadian Museum of Civilization and all conservative emissaries of oppression maintain there was no cultural impact! Recently it was discovered that the Mayan language was both phonetic and pictographic but Bishop Landa had clearly stated this was the case while he burned their libraries and librarians. What do you think about a map traced five hundred years ago that identifies the Bering Strait as it was 12,500 years ago? We only achieved this level of detail in 1958.

Rituals and government like Pelota as an international court of justice and symbol of the movement of the planets around the sun originated in pre-Columbian America. Columbus’s interpreters did not speak Chinese or any Asiatic tongue and we know he was an agent of a Templar group like his brethren including Vasco da Gama who flew their red cross on the sails above their heads. We are nearly certain he had maps showing the way to North America and even the Britannica ridicules the Queen Isabella story about the funding of his expedition. I am sorry for the perpetual run-on sentences when I list a few of the achievements of these courageous people we have relegated to the dung heap of history and heresy.

Aristotle referred to happiness as the most we can achieve.

It is easy to be happy without all the things we obsess over. The balance of our constituent selves and the possibility of participation in creating a whole or in conjunction with that WHOLE is going to be hard to beat for enlightenment. But most people over the last little blip of human existence have bought into systems that deny the whole or any sense of ONENESS. We have seen a 5000 year ‘nightmare’ as James Joyce wisely stated. The thoroughly amazing thing about this – it is those elites who have told us they speak for God or are Divine Kings who in fact have used or led us into this soulful wasteland. We find a similar paradigm exists in scientism which denies the observable outcomes or effects of the soul and ESP.

Barthold Niebuhr said that bringing something back from the past or discovering anything, is a high that is akin to the greatest creativity. It is so wonderful to learn and see the way of those we have denigrated as barbarian or primitive as they frolic in the joy of adventure and oneness with Nature as they nurtured each other.

The Heliopolitan religion or ‘sun-worship’ which is all over the entire world is revisited by the people like Gene Savoy who found it was well developed in Peru. He also built craft in the design of the Phoenicians from records found there. Here is a little about the nature of ‘sun-worship’ to think upon.

“Long before the advent of Jesus, Mithra was said to have been born of a virgin mother, in a cave, at the time of Christmas, and died on a cross at Easter. Baptism was practised, and the sign of the cross was made on the foreheads of all newly-baptised converts. Mithra was considered to be the saviour of the world, conferring on his followers an eternal life in Heaven, and, similar to the story of Jesus, he died to save all others, provided that they were his followers.” (2)

Genetics will be a difficult thing for various historians who ardently support their tenured ‘me-too think’ to overcome. I get support almost every week for my history from just this one discipline of science. The claim that Australia or S. E. Asia is the origin of the first Americans has just hit the airwaves in September 2004 after I had finished writing this book. This is where I posit that pygmy people like Mungo Man who had chanting harmonic science came from and Churchward would love to see what is being shown from all so many disciplines today. Reuters carried this information – “We want to make headlines from heads,” said Professor Clive Gamble of Southampton University. “DNA will give us a completely new map of the world and how we peopled it.” (3)

When the Incas refused to raise their arms to defend their lives against the arm-weary Spanish who hacked them to death (to kill 7,000 in one day); were they operating in ‘RIGHT THOUGHT’? Were they more ‘civilized’ or simply heathen believers who were duped by some astrological stupidity? We think the 177 Spanish were allowed to do this by wiser people who knew the immortal soul and our part in a grander scheme of things. But it might also be a case of the Chachapoyas (white men who led the Incas) making a deal with the Spanish and allowing this to happen; then they were betrayed. I propose they were willing to courageously face the forces of Evil and greedy religious oppressors; much as the Cathars who sang hymns while walking hand in hand with their children into the fires set for them by the Dominican Catholics. We are similarly STUPID! Because we know we are like a grain of sand on John Donne’s beach; and we know ‘for whom the Bell TOLLS!’

Therefore this book will not hesitate to raise questions; I have no clear and definitive or closed-minded perception about most things I hope. We are not trying to interpret GOD for you – we know we are mere amazed gazers witnessing the majesty of something far greater. The result will enable our critics or enemies to ridicule us and demean our perspectives as ‘absurd’. For myself, I’ve often said ‘The only thing I’m prejudiced about – is PREJUDICE!’ I still abjure and despise such elitist empowerment of divisiveness between lifeforms. There is no room for a closed ‘mind’ (certainly ‘soul’) in LOVE, or any true pursuit of GOD (nature, reality).

After having written this book and twenty others detailing the ‘travelers’ impact on the world’s cultural evolution I found that the small and troublesome lice confirm my speculations and evidences. There are two types of lice although they look identical. DNA shows they developed separately and diverged from one source at least 100,000 years ago, but that is a population crash era. One time-line in the on-going research speaks to the other end of the evidences I have proposed for the arrival of people (Homo line) in the Americas. This suggests up to 1.8 million years ago. So the North and South Americas have a distinctive lice and it will be interesting to see if some remains of lice can be found on more recent human remains or mummies.