[Original article written on May 3, 2016, updated here.]

The Heritage Foundation drafted NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). American jobs and companies have moved to foreign countries rendering American workers jobless. NAFTA has also impacted American education. Yet those in the Heritage Foundation call themselves “conservatives”.

Upon receiving a solicitation for financial support from the Heritage Foundation, education expert, Charlotte Isberyt, supplied the following documentation, including the solicitation email from Heritage:

Let’s hope tax-exempt Heritage Foundation (HF) is very, very hungry… starving. Pass this documentation on to everyone with a note that Heritage Foundation drafted the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Donald Trump, when he says he opposes the free trade agreements, should let Americans know that HERITAGE FOUNDATION drafted NAFTA!

Very few Americans know that HF, the No. 1 tax-exempt research and policy foundation in the United States, while garnering support from American conservatives due to its opposition to much of leftist agenda, SUPPORTS tax-funded school choice/charters with unelected boards AND the North American Free Trade Agreement that has robbed Americans of hundreds of thousands of jobs? It also supported the U.S.-Soviet and Carnegie-Soviet education agreements signed in 1985.

Documentation for Heritage’s positions is found in DDD which is a FREE download on this website. The original 3D, from which below quoted entries is taken, is now out of print, but the updated/abridged version is available at Amazon.com and also on this website.

Here are 3D Index entries on Heritage, NAFTA, education, etc:

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), pp. 279, 291–292, 304 impact on education, pp. 315–316; “The Educational Implications of NAFTA” pp. 321

To make it easier for you, I have cut and pasted the text of all the above entries:

3D, page 304:

THE 1993 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION OF WASHINGTON, D.C., dedicated to their twentieth year celebration, revealed the following:

The idea of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) originated with Heritage Fellow Richard Allen and has long been advocated by Heritage policy analysts…. The idea of creating a North American free trade zone from the Yukon to the Yucatan was first proposed by Heritage Distinguished Fellow Richard Allen in the late 1970s, refined by then Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, and further developed in a major 1986 Heritage Foundation study. (p. 4)

[Ed. Note: The Free Trade Agreement got the ball rolling for the development of skills standards by the newly formed National Skills Standards Board, endorsed by the U.S. Labor Department Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) study originated under Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole, and eventually led to the School-to-Work Opportunities Act and the dumbing down of American education curriculum for workforce training. With all of this emphasis on “standards” it should be pointed out that NAFTA allows exchanges of all categories of professionals, with those coming from Mexico and Canada having met their own countries’ standards, not necessarily equal to those required in the United States. If this process evolves the way most of these exchange processes have in the past, that disparity will be addressed in one of two ways—by changing U.S. standards to match foreign standards, or by altering both NAFTA nations’ standards to align with international standards like ISO 9000or ISO 1400 monitored by UNESCO. This should be of concern to professional organizations in the United States.]

3D, page 315-316:

THE IMPACT ON EDUCATION OF THE UNITED STATES SIGNING THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT was discussed in an article entitled “USIA’s Grants Go to Schools in NAFTA Nations” published in the September 12, 1993 edition of The Washington Times. Some excerpts follow:

United States Information Agency Director Joseph Duffey attending a four-day “implementation” conference at Vancouver, British Columbia, yesterday announced the first North American three-way university affiliation grants to involve exchanges of faculty and staff among Canadian, Mexican and U.S. universities for teaching, lecturing, research and curriculum development. “We often have university affiliation grants,” Mr. Duffey said in an interview before he left for Vancouver. “This is the first time we’ve decided to start awarding three or four a year that involved three countries in North America.”… Each USIA award will carry about $100,000, plus travel and per diem expenses, for exchanges of faculty, administrators and educational materials. The agreement, part of the broadened dialogue that has come out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, will support an array of projects focused on history, economic development, international trade and the environment. “What we seek to do is, among other things, nothing less than dismantling barriers to academic mobility,” Mr. Duffey said in a speech at the conference. Mr. Duffey said he expects the North American countries to succeed in achieving a sense of regional community where the quest for a common community of nations in Western Europe has foundered. “We’re trying to reverse the tradition of nationalism and people, who in looking to their identity, look backwards to the past,” he said. “Instead, we want them to look to the future.” (p. A–5)

3D, page 321:

1994 U.S. COALITION FOR EDUCATION FOR ALL: A HISTORY WAS PUBLISHED IN 1994 BY THE U.S. Coalition for Education for All based in Washington, D.C. Excerpts from that publication follow: U.S. delegates from government agencies and non-governmental organizations participated in the 1990 World Conference and helped to prepare the Education for All (EFA) goals and action plan. In February 1991 the U. S. Coalition for Education for All (USCEFA) was created to promote EFA awareness and activities in the United States and to serve as a link to the global EFA movement.… In 1991, USCEFA held its first major conference, “Learning for All: Bridging Domestic and International Education.”……From this conference the USCEFA’s agenda unfolded. USCEFA organized a symposium entitled “Integrating Social Services and Education: A Look at Collaboration and Delivery.”

At the first meeting of the International Consultative Forum on EFA, U.N. sponsors singled out USCEFA as a model for national initiatives supporting basic education worldwide. This forum selected USCEFA to lead an international task force to explore the involvement of media in education…

USCEFA’s 1994 main events included: a symposium entitled “The Educational Implications of NAFTA” [North American Free Trade Agreement] that addressed educational issues emerging in the wake of the signing of the NAFTA agreement; co-sponsorship of a global teleconference entitled “Global Interdependence: the United States and the Third World.” USCEFA’s most prominent 1994 event is its December conference; “The Revolution in World Education: Toward Systemic Change.” This conference explores systemic change in education and the achievement of educational goals and outcomes around the world…. USCEFA will continue to cooperate internationally to keep the spirit of the Jomtien Conference alive and to make Education for All a reality at home and abroad.

3D, pages 291-292:

BRITISH COLUMBIA TEACHERS’ FEDERATION IN 1991 PUBLISHED “WHAT IS THE MARKET Model?” Excerpts from this interesting flyer made available to Canadian teachers follows: AIMS: The Market Model aims to reduce learning to an instrument serving social power. More specifically public education is enlisted in the Market Model to serve the needs of corporate capital in an information age of global production.


1. In Canada the market model started in higher education, and is now moving tosecondary schooling.
2. Cuts in government funding, with corporate funding targeted to particular projects.
3. Purpose of education—to compete economically in the international marketplace.
4. Demands that public education be redesigned to serve as a knowledge producer forprivate corporations in the national economic competition.
5. Textbook production and distribution under control of private corporations.
6. Academic teachers are conceived as “business persons” who provide goods and services under Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA.


“New Reality”
Competition, Market Discipline
“The Campus as Corporation” (Strangeway, 1984)
Curriculum Products
Resource Units or Resource Packages
Uniform Standards Skills

MAIN SOURCE: McMurtry, John, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 25, No. 2, 1991.

[Ed. Note: Many of McMurtry’s tongue-in-cheek ideas are to be found in so-called “conservative” think tanks’ papers on education restructuring. Number 6 under “Features” is particularly offensive in that the idea of teachers becoming “private contractors” instead of school system employees is being discussed and proposed around many a policy maker’s table in this country. What a peculiar thing. If teachers are being trained not to concentrate on subject matter or “lower level skill development,” what would they have to market? The ability to “train” students to perform certain tasks in a certain way in a certain period of time? Market Model Maniacs?] ”