Education Secretary Arne Duncan has a solution for children who have no parents or grandparents in the home – create public boarding schools that are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Speaking at the National Summit on Youth Violence Prevention in Crystal City, VA on Tuesday, Duncan said, "One idea that I threw out … is the idea of public boarding schools. That's a little bit of a different idea – but the question is do we have some children where there's not a mom, there's not a dad, there's not a grandma, there's just nobody at home?"

He added, "There's just certain kids we should have 24/7 to really create a safe environment and give them a chance to be successful."

Duncan expressed the idea that schools should be open 12, 13, 14 hours a day, becoming "community centers" by offering a variety of after-school programs to keep children "safe."

Duncan's angle stems from the position of preventing youth violence. He claimed that most schools are safe havens where little to no violence occurs. The rationale is to keep children in school longer to keep them off the street where the majority of violence occurs. To him, this makes sense.

His proposal appears to be based on the Center for Disease Control's "Striving to Reduce Youth Violence, Everywhere." The material states, "Youth violence is a public health crisis in the United States. Homicide is the third leading cause of death of young people, with an average of 16 youth murdered every day. More than 700,000 young peoples, ages 10 to 24, were treated in emergency departments for physical-assault-related injuries in 2010."

Statistics from the federal National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) document violence in and out of schools.

In 2012, students ages 12 – 18 were victims of about 1,364,900 nonfatal victimizations at school, including 615,600 thefts and 749,200 violent victimizations, 89,000 of which were serious violent victimizations. The victimization rates for students in 2012 varied according to student characteristics. Between 1992 and 2012, the total victimization rates for students ages 12 – 18 generally declined both at school (from 181 to 52 per 1000) and away from school (from 173 to 38 per 1000). This pattern also held for thefts, violent victimizations, and serious violent vicitmizations. In 2012, a greater number of students ages 12 – 18 experienced victimizations (theft and violent crime) at school than away from school. That year, 52 victimizations per 1000 students occurred at school, and 38 victimizations per 1000 students occurred away from school.

However, according to Duncan, "Thankfully, in the vast, vast majority of communities around the nation, our schools are actually safe havens. [There's] very little violence happening in schools."

In looking at the NCES data, it would appear that more violence occurs in schools than away from schools, contradicting what Education Secretary Arne Duncan claims.

With this administration, the mantra of "the ends justifies the means" governs these officials' actions. If the "end" is to have more control over the indoctrination of children by "keeping them away from parents longer," the administration is "justified" in using whatever steps are necessary to do so. It seems the government is willing to "convert" and "expand" government controlled schools into "public" boarding schools, at taxpayer expense, to accomplish that goal.

Several questions spring to mind regarding Duncan's statement of "children where there's not a mom, there's not a dad, there's not a grandma, there's just nobody at home." Is Duncan referring to homes where both parents work and cannot be home with their children once the school day has ended? Is he referring to a single parent home where work hours prevent the parent from being home once school has concluded? He appears to be definitely referring to parents who do not have an extended "familial" support system to provide care for children after school. Could Duncan be referring to children who have no parents, grandparents or other family?

With the solution Duncan has proposed, the answer to all these questions would be "yes." It is a further example of government proposing a solution to a problem it helped create. Government supported the breakdown of the family unit, the nuclearization of families, the creation of single parent homes where men have become absent, and waged war against families who are proactive in educating their children through homeschooling and participation in school curricula.

It was government that created an economy where, in most families, both parents have to work to make ends meet. It was government that encouraged single female households through social welfare programs. It has been government attacking parents who home-school their children or families who live "off-grid" lifestyles producing happy, healthy, well-adjusted, educated children.

Radical femi-nazis also contributed to creating a "stigma" surrounding having and raising children, tying worth to a career and worthlessness to raising children.

Duncan has not forgotten there are already "after school" care programs and facilities, along with summer programs, that working parents can access to afford a safe environment while they are away working. It's not an ideal situation for any parent to have to leave the care of their children to someone else; however, there are already facilities and programs that do exactly what Duncan proposes. The only difference is the current programs are private or community based while Duncan's proposal is "governmental."

The argument will probably be made regarding lower income families who cannot afford "private" after-school programs or summer care. However, doesn't the "government" currently offer tax-payer funded subsidies for after-school childcare and summer childcare for low income households? The answer the government has for that is probably the subsidies being "inadequate to meet the current needs." Never mind the fact that in families where both parents work and pay for their child's after-school care and summer care their taxes are going to help pay for children of low income families.

Then, there's the good old standby of "it's for the children" to justify illegal government seizure of children disguised as "public boarding schools." No mention of cost was forthcoming to determine the financial impact this "expansion" of schools would have on taxpayers or parents of school aged children. How are parents to educate their children properly if the government controls the access and interaction parents have with their children under a 24/7 boarding situation?

While it's not clear whether this would be voluntary or mandatory, just the mention of something of this nature should raise the alarm with all citizens. It reeks of the United Nations scheme surrounding the "Rights of the Child" initiative. Even though the US has not ratified the treaty, it is a party to the treaty. However, what has stopped this administration from engaging in actions that violate the Constitution, which controlling education and children is not a function of the federal government?

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.