Utahs Republic

Archive for the ‘Education’ Category

By Buffy Snell

I have lived in American Fork for 15 years, and have had 4 children excel in many ways because of the exceptional teachers of Alpine School District (ASD).  Understandably then, I am respectful and grateful to the staff.  At the same time I have noticed that relativism, a prevalent educational philosophy, is making its way into local classrooms and I feel parents need to be aware of what their children may be learning. Relativism teaches there is no absolute truth—that nothing is certain because it is subjective. Even though our community would largely agree that such a view is false; proponents of relativism, such as John Goodlad, have been influencing educators in our district for many years.  Our children and our country are reaping the consequences.  In fact, in a recent address to the Chapman University School of Law, Dallin H. Oaks has strongly condemned moral relativism because it leads to a loss of religious freedom.   (https://newsroom.lds.org/article/elder-oaks-religious-freedom-Chapman-University)

John Goodlad not only views morality as relative, but patriotism as well:

“…educators must resist the quest for certainty. If there were certainty there would be no scientific advancement. So it is with morals and patriotism.” –John Goodlad, Education for Everyone: Agenda for Education in a Democracy”, Woods Learning Center, pg. 6

If this were true, teaching children allegiance to our country and that 2+2 =4 would NOT lead to “advancement.”  I am deeply troubled that undermining views such as this would be allowed to influence the minds of an American classroom, especially my child’s.  Because of alarming instruction given to my son, I’ve filed a transfer request from his Jr. High Geography class. I have chosen to share the details of that transfer in hopes that the community will increase their vigilance and hold accountable those who are vested with the responsibility to teach and promote our American form of government.  Following are the details.

1. My son came home from his Geography class relaying that his teacher had explained to him why Communism “isn’t really that bad.” (those were my son’s exact words)

His teacher’s response to me was that he explores the pros and cons of many forms of government so that students can understand why different systems of rule appeal to different people.  He did this, he said, as a way to promote critical thinking.  He also said:

“I do not promote or decry any government, religion, or economic system over another one. It is not my place to put one thing above or below another– that is the job of parents and for the students to decide on their own….I have students who come from homes of MANY different political and religious backgrounds.”  He also said, “I will not infringe on people’s right to decide for themselves.”

While religious neutrality is important in a school setting, educators are required to promote our American form of government.  According to Utah Code I.53A-13-109 teachers are responsible for:

“reaffirming values and qualities of character which promote an upright and desirable citizenry…. Civic and Character Education are fundamental elements of the public education system’s core mission …students shall be taught in connection with regular school work…respect for and an understanding of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of Utah… and qualities of character which will promote an upright and desirable citizenry and better prepare students to recognize and accept responsibility for preserving and defending the blessings of liberty inherited from prior generations and secured by the constitution.” https://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE53A/htm/53A13_010900.htm

Not only has the teacher failed to prepare students to recognize and accept responsibility for preserving liberty, he has failed to help them think critically.  Critical thinking can only be done when students have an adequate amount of information.  And significant facts about Communism were clearly missing.

I have no problem with a teacher who wants to teach children about Communism.  In fact, it’s important that he does—as long as children are given enough information from which to draw a proper conclusion.  For example, one of the “pros” discussed about Communism was equality. But to truly educate children about the economic realities of Communism, one would have to inform them that the rulers live lavishly at the people’s expense and that “equality” of impoverishment and subjection could never be considered a “pro” for anyone but those running the government.

In addition, teaching that Communism “appeals” to some people and a Republic “appeals” to others, not only communicates relativism—that there is nothing certain because it is subjective; it gives children the impression that there is actually something good about oppression. When done in conjunction with a teacher who is unwilling to promote one form of government over another, it’s not surprising that a child comes to the FALSE conclusion that Communism “isn’t really that bad.”

Communism has been described as “the greatest crime against humanity in the 20th century” and has resulted in the estimated death of 100 million people. https://www.autentico.org/oa09347.php

2. Because of something his teacher said my son came home believing that Mormons are naive and uninformed. He was very upset about a certain aspect of our religion (which he learned from the teacher) and wasn’t sure that he wanted to be Mormon anymore.  According to my son, his teacher said he knows more about the Mormon religion than most Mormons because he goes on the Church web site all the time and Mormons can’t even go to the highest kingdom of heaven unless they practice polygamy. These remarks are disparaging and a contradiction of what he expressed to me in point 1 above.  The teacher was criticizing Mormons, not only for their views, but for their alleged ignorance.  The law states, “employees may not use their positions to …disparage a particular religious… belief or viewpoint. (See 53A-13-101.1. https://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE53A/htm/53A13_010101.htm)

When I reported these incidents to the principal, he defended the teacher and blamed my son for “misinterpreting” classroom dialogue without even verifying whether or not other students had similar views. He skillfully avoided my questions during our meeting, and refused TWO follow up requests for a WRITTEN response to the following:

1. Would it concern you (specifically) if teachers in your school taught as if they believed this statement by John Goodlad?

There is a belief by some that there exists “objective knowledge” and a
“correct” view of the world. This view is incorrect. All knowledge is partial
and subjective. There is no single worldview that deserves complete
acceptance. https://woodslearningcenter.org/Docs/EducationforEveryoneSummary.pdf

2.   I would like to know what the consequences are for violating the Utah Code and how the school plans to ensure that such violations will not continue.

After failing to get a response, I sent the following question to the Superintendent and the Board member for my district.

I would like to know what the consequences are for violating I.53A-13-109 and 53A-13-101.1 of the Utah code and what actions will be taken if there is a violation?

The correspondence from the Superintendent read,

“I encourage you to continue working with [the Principal] concerning this matter.”

My board member never responded to me.

What are my options?  If the teacher refuses to comply with the law; if the Principal fails to investigate; if the Superintendent simply deflects my concerns back to the Principal; and my elected representative doesn’t respond, how do I make sure that teachers are held accountable for what they teach in the classroom?

Although the teacher declined to address many of my concerns or promote our American form of government, he did apologize to my son for the offensive remarks he made about Mormons.  But I am troubled that the Principal refused to take any corrective action before amendments were made, choosing instead to blame my son.

The Principal informed me that the school would be happy to help me find a “better fit” for my son.  When I protested that the other Geography teachers at the school were also exploring the “pros” of Communism, I was informed that my child could do packets or go to a class at the High School.  I was also told that I am the only one who has expressed any concern. While that may be true, I believe it is because many parents are unaware of what is happening in some classrooms or what Utah law requires.  You can see below from a survey given to 10 students in this teacher’s Geography class that a high percentage of other children have drawn conclusions similar to my son’s—conclusions I consider dangerous to the future of our freedoms.

In the NNER Today 2009-2010 update published by the Center for the Improvement of Teacher Education and Schooling at BYU, it says:

“To join the NNER is to commit to action.  It means committing to the principles of the Agenda for Education in a Democracy and becoming stewards of our democracy.  As Dr. Goodlad has observed, education must be the foundation for seeking positive social and political change.”—Ann Foster, Goodlad’s Executive Director

Alpine School District is fully committed to the NNER and regularly attends their conferences. By committing to its agenda and allowing John Goodlad to influence education in our district, political change is upon us. Time is short.  And unless we hold public educators responsible for teaching this generation to preserve liberty, there will be no liberty left to preserve.

2010/2011 Survey for Geography Class (Semester I)

Y=Yes      N=No

Mr. Gray is a fun teacher.

8  marked (Y)

2  marked (M) for maybe

There are some good things about Communism.

9 marked (Y)

1 marked (N)

One of the good things about Communism is equality.

7 marked (Y)

3 marked (N)

We should respect others views, even if we disagree.  There is not one “right” view when it comes to different kinds of government.

10 marked (Y)– 100% lack the basic understanding that the American Republic is the most successful and superior form of government there is and well worth defending.

---

Ed. note: Are you really sure you know what’s being taught in your child’s classroom and what ideas your child is picking up on?

Ed. note 2: This article has been edited with the permission of the author so the article just focuses on the most pertinent issues which pertain to state law.

Aside from Elder Dallin H. Oaks’ great name, he’s also got a great legal mind. He recently gave a landmark speech on religious freedom and how our 1^st amendment protection is under attack. Several of his remarks are directly pertinent to the issues we are dealing with in Utah, while others are shocking to see them happening anywhere in America.

This talk is not an “LDS” talk. It is specifically non-denominational on this subject and he liberally quotes from non-LDS sources throughout his speech.  I have included a few quotes below but I encourage you to read the talk in its entirety (link).

“I submit that religious values and political realities are so inter-linked in the origin and perpetuation of this nation that we cannot lose the influence of religion in our public life without seriously jeopardizing our freedoms.”

“Whatever the extent of formal religious affiliation, I believe that the tide of public opinion in favor of religion is receding. A writer for the Christian Science Monitor predicts that the coming century will be “very secular and religiously antagonistic,” with intolerance of Christianity “ris[ing] to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes.”¹⁰

“A visible measure of the decline of religion in our public life is the diminished mention of religious faith and references to God in our public discourse. One has only to compare the current rhetoric with the major addresses of our political leaders in the 18^th, 19^th, and the first part of the 20^th centuries. Similarly, compare what Lincoln said about God and religious practices like prayer on key occasions with the edited versions of his remarks quoted in current history books.¹¹ It is easy to believe that there is an informal conspiracy of correctness to scrub out references to God and the influence of religion in the founding and preservation of our nation.”

“Granted that reduced religious affiliation puts religion “in the background,” the effect of that on the religious beliefs of young adults is still in controversy. The negative view appears in the Oxford book, whose author concludes that this age group of 18 to 23

“had difficulty seeing the possible distinction between, in this case, objective moral truth and relative human invention. . . . [T]hey simply cannot, for whatever reason, believe in—or sometimes even conceive of—a given, objective truth, fact, reality, or nature of the world that is independent of their subjective self-experience.”¹³

This is precisely what John Goodlad, John Dewey, Bill Ayers, and the NNER are working toward…democratic classrooms where truth doesn’t come from God, it’s only what you can see, feel, hear, taste, and touch. If you can’t, then truth is relative to the experience of the individual. This is such a dangerous position to hold for the future of our nation. It is almost unbelievable how strongly this false philosophy has permeated our state of Utah, in particular in Utah county.

“It is well to remember James Madison’s warning:

“There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”⁴⁰

Part 4 of his speech completely focused on this issue of moral relativism. Here are a couple of great quotes from his talk.

“What has caused the current public and legal climate of mounting threats to religious freedom? I believe the cause is not legal but cultural and religious. I believe the diminished value being attached to religious freedom stems from the ascendency of moral relativism.

More and more of our citizens support the idea that all authority and all rules of behavior are man-made and can be accepted or rejected as one chooses. Each person is free to decide for himself or herself what is right and wrong. Our children face the challenge of living in an increasingly godless and amoral society.

I have neither the time nor the expertise to define the various aspects of moral relativism or the extent to which they have entered the culture or consciousness of our nation and its people. I can only rely on respected observers whose descriptions feel right to me.

In his book, Modern Times, the British author Paul Johnson writes:

“At the beginning of the 1920s the belief began to circulate, for the first time at a popular level, that there were no longer any absolutes: of time and space, of good and evil, of knowledge, above all of value.”⁵³

On this side of the Atlantic, Gertrude Himmelfarb describes how the virtues associated with good and evil have been degraded into relative values.⁵⁴

A variety of observers have described the consequences of moral relativism. All of them affirm the existence of God as the Ultimate Law-giver and the source of the absolute truth that distinguishes good from evil.”

“Moral relativism leads to a loss of respect for religion and even to anger against religion and the guilt that is seen to flow from it. As it diminishes religion, it encourages the proliferation of rights that claim ascendency over the free exercise of religion.”

In his conclusion he lists these 4 points:

1. Religious teachings and religious organizations are valuable and important to our free society and therefore deserving of their special legal protection.

2. Religious freedom undergirds the origin and existence of this country and is the dominating civil liberty.

3. The guarantee of free exercise of religion is weakening in its effects and in public esteem.

4. This weakening is attributable to the ascendancy of moral relativism.

This is ultimately what has been the debate in Alpine School district over the past year. Goodlad’s indoctrination center has been gradually teaching the need for democratic classrooms that are accepting of false notions in the name of tolerance for others’ beliefs. We face an incredible battle in the future to help people understand that only through belief in God and His absolute truths can we have any kind of anchor in this world that we can create common standards from. Without God, and religious belief in Him, we will be tossed as the waves of the sea.

There is much more in this excellent speech by Elder Oaks which covers persecution, the gradual loss of freedom, the redefining of rights, and anti-religious bigotry. I strongly encourage you to read the whole talk here:

https://beta-newsroom.lds.org/article/elder-oaks-religious-freedom-Chapman-University

Alpine School District just responded to criticism they received during a Senate Education Committee meeting last week. Their response on the Daily Herald website started with this statement:

“Members of the Alpine School District Board of Education take an oath of office to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Utah.”

Is it not beyond obvious that people can  take an oath and render it meaningless by constructing new meanings and understandings that are not grounded in fact? Our current president is a prime example.

As one of those that testified against some of the actions of Alpine School District during that senate meeting, let me say for the record that I disagree with the points made by the school district on the following grounds.

1) ASD has never been responsive to its primary stakeholders…parents. During one short period of time a few years ago when parents were upset at the district for removing the times tables from the curriculum, I received 4 separate phone calls and emails from individuals who spoke to the same administrator at the district who told each one of them they were the only parent to ever complain about the program. This was clearly an attempt to isolate parents and minimize their concerns. Prior to my involvement which started in 2005, hundreds of parents had been complaining to ASD since Investigations was first implemented in 2001 about the lack of solid math skills being taught. ASD ignored them all, confiscated books at 4 schools I am aware of, and threatened some teacher’s contracts if they taught the times tables to children. I have personally spoken with a teacher who this happened to along with her co-workers. Numerous other teachers have contacted me and told me they used to shut their doors to teach the times tables. How ridiculous is that?

2) This is clearly in dispute. One teacher in particular that was mentioned (not by name) had been teaching students the benefits of communism without the other horrific side of the story on the hundred million or so citizens put to death in the last century by communist dictators. When one student came home and told his mother “communism isn’t really that bad,” she thought maybe it was just her child misinterpreting what the teacher said. So she gave a survey to 10 other students in the class. 9/10 responded with “yes” to the statement “There are some good things about communism.” 7/10 responded “yes” to “One of the good things about communism is equality.” 9/10 responded “yes” to “Islam is a religion of peace.” 10/10 responded “yes” to “We should respect others views, even if we disagree.  There is not one ‘right’ view when it comes to different kinds of government.” There is one right view of government, and that is in following its proper role in protecting freedom and individual rights.

3) Testimony concerning Investigations math didn’t declare it a violation of state law to use the program. My testimony concerned Patti Harrington removing Investigations math from the approved list as a primary curriculum, yet ASD continues to allow Investigations to be used as a full primary curriculum in many classrooms across the district. They say they use “balanced math” which isn’t a program, and continue to let teachers use Investigations math solely. They also use 100% Connected math in many classes and that program has also been removed from the approved list by Patti Harrington because it is also an incredibly weak and ineffective program. These programs actually led to Utah raising it’s math standards a couple years ago.

4) ASD maintains that they invite “responsible and civil participation” to address parent concerns. For nearly a decade, parents have tried to get the district to listen to their concerns in a civil manner. Civility to ASD seems to mean open your mouth and take your medicine. Parents concerns are met with deaf ears and an attitude of, “you’re not a professional educator, we know best.” Whether it is stubborn pride or their own indoctrination in Goodlad and Dewey’s philosophies, ASD is not about to start listening to responsible parents and taking their concerns seriously. They took down the “Enculturating the Young into a Social and Political Democracy” sign just before the November election, yet two senior administrators told parents they may take the sign down but they weren’t going to change their philosophy.  If the district was really concerned with continuous improvement and listening to parental concerns, they would have dropped Investigations math in 2002 right after they were flooded by concerned parents who tried to inform the district about the damage being done by their pseudo-math. In spite of overwhelming evidence that contradicts their position, such as Project Follow-Through, they barrel on, causing untold damage to tens of thousands of children who might otherwise have a future in a math related field.

Someone just sent me a link to this sad but hilarious news report. A school in Seattle banned children from using Legos because “[the students’ behavior began to mirror] a class based capitalist society—a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive.” They re-instituted playing with Legos after they put new rules into place. When they displayed the 3rd new rule I busted out laughing.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnZy5TIGyjo[/youtube]

[Guest article by Doug Cannon of Lindon, Utah. Doug is on the school board at Timpanogos Academy and has been involved in education issues for over a decade.]

The simplest answer is: No, you do not have a right to an education. Before getting deeper into that question, it is important to discuss the definition of “a right.”

Natural rights are also sometimes called negative rights, or unalienable rights (God-given rights). These rights are things that a human has already, and no other human has given it to them. Free speech is a natural right. You already had it, and I did not need to give it to you. You can talk all you want and say whatever you please. I don’t have to listen to you, but I cannot stop you from speaking without using force.

Realize, that exercising your own natural rights will not always be without consequences. Your right to speak freely does not mean you can threaten the life of another, or speak lies about someone in public without suffering consequences. That is a different topic.

Positive rights are rights given to you from another person, business, government, society, or some entity outside of yourself. A better word to use instead of “right” or “positive right” is the word privilege. They are real rights or privileges, but you must depend on that outside entity to provide it to you. It will always cost money to provide you with a positive right, and if it doesn’t directly use money, it will cost time or resources provided by that outside entity. We live in a society in Utah where our government provides a (somewhat) free education. As a Utahn, I can receive an education, but it comes with stipulations. A government must agree to give it to me, and pay for it by taxing its citizens. If I am too old for high school, I cannot attend high school. Therefore, it is a privilege, or a positive right.

A good test to decide whether a right is a natural right or a positive right is to put yourself on a deserted island and then ask yourself if you still have that right. If I were with my friend on a deserted island, perhaps he will say to me, “I have a right to an education!” and I will say, “Fine, go get one.” If he says to me, “But it is my right! Give me an education!” How did he get that right? If he does not have a right to an education when alone on an island, or if it would cost me time or money to give it to him, then he does not have that right when living in a society.

If that same friend on a deserted island says to me, “I have a right to speak my mind”, then I might reply, “No kidding. I can’t get you to quit talking about your free education.” Without using force, I cannot stop my friend from exercising his right to free speech. He can talk all he wants. I did not give him that right, nor did any government. The right of free speech is a natural right. Same with his right to life, right to choose a religion, right to make choices, right to perform his own labors, right to protect his own property, and so forth. Those are all natural rights, and no person or any government gave them to him.

The reason why so many people believe that education is a right is because our society voted long ago to give education to people and to pay for it with tax dollars. This brings us back to that Thomas Paine quote, “a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.” Thus, we have so long enjoyed free public education that if you or I try to tell people they do not have a right to it, they will raise the “formidable outcry in defense of custom.” This means that in Utah we can claim that education is a positive right, it was given to us by the government, and it is paid for by taxes. But, in the purest definition of the word “right”, education is clearly a privilege granted by an outside source, and not a right.

In fiscal year 2011 for the state of Utah’s budget, 50% of revenues will come from state income taxes and 49.7% of expenditures by the state will go toward the education system (UT Budget Report). Billions of dollars are spent on the education of our children and yet there are those in the public who shout that education is non-partisan. Nothing with that much money at stake is non-partisan. Powerful players vie for control of those dollars. Hundreds of companies provide “vital” services to our various school districts. They in turn scream for more money because of the “tremendous good” they can do with it. However, how do we know those funds are being spent wisely to get the most bang for our buck? Where is the accountability? It’s a never ending cycle where the schools ask for money and then bites the legislative hand that feeds them. We tolerate this as the public because we’ve become accustomed, or dare I say “enculturated” into believing that “good people” run our schools and so they can do no wrong. The people who run our schools may very well be “good people” but that doesn’t mean they have the education of our children as their top priority. One look at Alpine School District’s love affair with Investigations math and the removal of the times tables and long division will clearly illustrate the lack of common sense amongst “educators” and get you questioning what their real agenda is.

One solution to this problem is to have partisan school board elections. The 15 state school board members control half the budget of Utah and individually have territory which is double the size of a state senator. There is no way they can get a message out to voters to inform them of where they stand on issues. In local school districts we have similar issues. Large areas of territory are covered in some of the mega districts like Alpine, Davis, Granite, Jordan, etc… Those school board candidates are never closely examined by voters because it’s hard to get the message out to so many people on such limited funds. It’s also an advantage to the incumbent who may rely on some name recognition to carry him/her through a close race. Partisan school board elections would mean a much smaller number of delegates elected in OUR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS would examine those candidates up close and make a decision to shrink the list of candidates down to size.

I would like to hear from you about what you think are good reasons for and against partisan school board elections. I’ve put a couple lists below. Please comment on this topic below and add any items you can think of to either list. In the future I may update the list according to some of the comments. Thank you for your help.

If your comment is not related to this topic, I will remove your comment. This should remain an easy list for the public to scan down and see the pros and cons of partisan school board elections.

Reasons against (or things some will claim):

1. Education isn’t partisan so elections shouldn’t be
2. We’re in the most conservative state/district and now you want to control education with partisanship?
3. Party money may influence elections
4. Members will be more influenced by their party politics than their constituents

Responses/Reasons for:

1. Everything involving money is partisan
2. You think the NEA and UEA aren’t partisan?
3. If you think schools are already conservative what are you afraid of having partisan elections? Nothing would change.
4. The state history standards have a number of very liberal statements like calling health care a right and calling the constitution a “living document.” These are extremely liberal positions.
5. Nobody studies the candidates for school board in elections because they are non-partisan. Making them partisan means hundreds of delegates will examine candidates closely and see who would do the best job from their party. This raises the quality of candidates making them go through a close examination within their political party.
6. Having to sell yourself to delegates instead of to the public prior to a primary is much less expensive. This saves candidates time and money and allows more individuals to attempt to run for office without needing deep cash pockets right from the start.
7. Control over spending large amounts of money is principle based. Partisan control helps put board members in that have a known ideology.
8. We opted for representational government because “we the people” can’t examine every issue and vote on it with a good working knowledge of the issue. We elect delegates who volunteer to take the time to closely examine candidates and ensure they will represent us well. That’s how a republic functions.
9. Texas did this, got a conservative majority on the state school board, and for the first time in decades created history standards that teach both sides of the story.
10. State School Board Districts (15) are twice as big as State Senate Districts (29), and State School Board candidates never have the resources to even send one mailer to all the voters in their area. Voters who do not hear about a state school board member cannot make an informed vote. Nonpartisan elections are intended for small local races (like City Council) where you can presumably meet the candidate, and thus do not need a party affiliation.  But the 15 members of the State School Board in 2012 will likely have approximately 200,000 residents in their district!  There is no way they can meet with more than 20,000, under any circumstances.  In other words, party affiliation is absolutely necessary in any election on such a big scale.
11. The education budget of Utah is the largest single category of expenditures. Money is always partisan. Power flocks to money. Hiding behind the non-partisan curtain does not allow constituents to know where candidates stand on any issue. Members of the state school board support democratic bills over republican bills by a 2:1 margin according to a former state school board member. This does not represent the makeup of the state electorate.
12. Saying we don’t want political parties to influence school board elections guarantees that special interest groups will have greater say.
13. The vetting process of running through a convention race helps weed out unqualified candidates, but does so in a grassroots fashion.
14. Putting a party line affiliation next to a candidates name helps inform voters that may be unaware of where non-affiliated candidates stand on issues.

Case in point: These images show one candidates’ campaign material touting her as a conservative but there are many who would question her “conservative” credentials. Yet she gets away with saying this because there is no party affiliation and there are no delegates vetting the candidates. This will now start a trend of candidates quickly claiming the conservative “crown” and an unknowing public may believe whichever candidate can get that message out first. This is a disturbing trend that will only confuse and misinform voters. The delegate system works to help closely examine candidates prior to the public being bombarded with a variety of deceptive messages.

Think your child is insulated from progressive education just because you’re at a charter school? Think again. Read this letter I recently received from a parent.

My son was indoctrinated in Marxist philosophy in his eighth grade English class at his Utah County charter school.

I was delighted when the class was assigned to read the George Orwell classic, Animal Farm, which exposes the evils of Stalinist communism. One day a piece of paper from my son’s backpack caught my eye with the words, “Utopia Project”. Utopia. Communist buzzword. In this group project, based on their reading of Animal Farm, the students were to construct a system of government on an island (social constructivism). The project took a totally objective approach to governmental systems, as though all types of governments are valid and open to consideration. The teacher emphasized the need to be open minded about various types of governments. Based on what my son told me, there was apparently no distinction between governments of tyranny and governments of freedom; worse, there was no instruction or research on governments at all.

The project was filled with leading questions suggesting some of the most radical limits on individual liberty, limits found in communist nations such as:

• Would the government provide equal housing?
• Would the government assign individuals to their jobs?
• Would the government put a limit on the number of children a couple can have?
• Are people “entitled” to entertainment, which could then be provided for free?
• Would the government distribute food in equal “rations”?
• Would people live not as family units, but be housed in government, non-family, group housing?

The students could only be directed toward devising a communist government because the only questions and possibilities involved the ones listed here. These are anathema to liberty-loving Americans and constitutional government as established by our founding fathers. They should not be suggested, even in the form of questions, to 14-year-olds in an English class who have been given no background in civics and history, and have no business setting up a fantasy government. Our founders extensively studied the Greeks, Romans, English law, native American tribal law and other cultures to come up with our constitutional government, which has outshined and outperformed every government known to man. Why even suggest replacing our divinely-established system with communist practices?

Animal Farm is celebrated for its anti-Stalinist revolutionary theme. In true “social constructivist pedagogy” the book was twisted into a piece of propaganda to get the children to have open minds about anti-family, Marxist practices. I was very disturbed that following this project, my son said he now feels it is acceptable and even desirable for the government to place a limit on the number of children that couples can have!

When we objected to the teacher she gave us pat answers and denied that she was trying to imply to the students that there may be a better way to do things than we do here in America. Then just what was she trying to do? Our concerns seemed to go right over her head. She was evasive when I asked her the source of the project. When we contacted the principal, he was very responsive and took swift, strident action to make sure the teacher understood why the project was in error and to make sure she would revise it. This teacher had graduated from the BYU School of Education the previous year.

Obviously, a lot of children in this area are going to say “no” to #3 and “live as families” to #6, but to put the other questions to young children who have no background in issues of tyranny and freedom is crossing the line into indoctrination. Talk with your children about the books they are reading in school. Many of them aren’t allowed to bring their books home. One reason is teachers want to ensure the books are in class the next day, but it’s also to prevent parents from seeing what the children are being taught (or not taught in the case of fuzzy math).

Interview
The Friday 10/29 interview with Hans Anderson before the November 2010 election, Susie Schnell and I were interviewed on air with Hans Anderson. Here is the audio if you would like to listen to it. In the interview we discuss some candidates, but then go into progressive education, humanism, math, and Alpine School District (naturally).

“Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.” – Thomas Paine, Common Sense (italics mine)

A month ago an article appeared in the Provo Daily Herald entitled, “Alpine district fights to save extended day kindergarten.” (https://bit.ly/hveGpk) In this article, ASD argues for continued funding for all-day kindergarten citing what an amazing job it’s doing to help prepare students for 1^st grade. Really? Any stats on that? How about the emotional toll on 5 year olds separated from their parents all day? Can we get any stats on the long term effects of that?

Among the credits ASD has amassed are:
1) creation of the state charter school board for refusing to approve charter schools within the district
2) providing the impetus for the legislature to raise the state math standards due to use of Investigations math (for which they still haven’t found a study to support it)
3) contributing to UVU’s 70% math remediation rate
4) getting the Utah state superintendent to ban Investigations and Connected math (then ASD told teachers it’s still OK to use them)
5) and now they are proponents of perhaps the most damaging program yet: all-day kindergarten and preschool where children as young as 3 years old are taken away from the nurturing care of parents in the name of “giving them a head start.”

In one longitudinal study comparing full-day and half-day kindergarteners, the study concluded that where disadvantaged children made gains over their half-day economically advantaged counterparts, by the start of 1^st grade these gains were lost, thus proving that length of time in kindergarten isn’t as big a factor as what happens in the home. https://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a917515793&db=all

Senator Howard Stephenson mentioned a couple of books to me a few months ago which I’ve been reading. The books are “School Can Wait” and “Better Late Than Early” by Raymond and Dorothy Moore. Raymond has been a classroom teacher, a school district superintendent, worked at a university, as well as a federal level policy maker. His experiences led him and his wife into researching the literature to find out what they could about when children are truly ready for structured school. The introductory paragraph of their book “School Can Wait” reads:

“We are losing ground academically and behaviorally in the education of our children. The expenditure of ever larger sums for our schools appears to provide little or no relief. The more time and money we spend, the greater the problem grows. It is possible we do not fully understand the developmental needs of our children and that we place our personal freedoms ahead of theirs. We are captivated or persuaded or pressured by conventional wisdom and practice in a system that places vested interests ahead of helpless youngsters. It is conceivable that we are paying our money for state “services” that endanger our children, then paying it again for state attempts at their remedy-remedy of the very problems that they, with our cooperation, have created.” (emphasis mine)

The education system is broken. Educrats have to come up with new twists and ideas on how to fix the problems we face and they never step back to consider if they may have created the problems in the first place. It’s unfathomable to them that they are the source of the very problems we see in our schools because that would contradict their own belief system. It’s beyond reason to them that they have been duped by prominent national educators who have an Agenda to dumb down our children and make them functional illiterates.

I recently attended a lecture where the idea of “cognitive dissonance” (CD) was raised. This term defines a situation where a person holds two conflicting ideas in their head and believes both of them. A person is able to reduce the dissonance through justification, rationalization, blame, denial, etc… For example:

A person lives in Utah and is a member of the predominant religion. Over and over we hear from General Authorities of the LDS church the role of parents as the primary nurturers and educators of our children. Yet educators declare that experts trained in pedagogy should teach our children at young ages to ensure they get a proper start. We believe both statements (CD) and then rationalize that as a parent we do what we can but there are just some things we can’t teach our children so we need the state schools to do it for us…so we let them.

Now lets say you’re an LDS Educrat (an Educrat might be defined as one who blindly follows the prevailing prophets of mankind’s educational philosophies). You’ve heard the teachings of your church leaders that parents are the primary nurturers and educators of their children and believe them, but you’ve been trained by “Experts” who tell you that children must be taught earlier and earlier by trained professionals. So you fight for more money for early education because you have rationalized that LDS leaders aren’t specifically speaking to you about your type of educational areas. They must only be telling parents that they should teach their children church teachings so let’s remove the children from their emotionally nurturing support structure and force them into schools younger and longer because no child can be left behind.

Quotes abound on this and other sites that express how John Goodlad and other prominent educators have a goal of separating children from parents as early as possible to prevent them from acquiring too much of their parent’s moral structure. Some education “experts” are even suggesting stepping into the homes after birth to begin the process of “expertly” raising that child. Excuse me? At what point do we wake up and say, “succeed or fail, that child belongs to a family who has been given the responsibility to raise that child without the intervention of do-good educrats and bureaucrats.”

The following letter is from an educator in Orem which explains what is really happening in these early education programs.

I am aware of the current push for all-day pre-school and kindergarten. (Deseret News 10/6/10, “Lawmakers Consider All-Day Kindergarten”) I have been a teacher at the Utah School for the Deaf/Orem and have watched the effects of all-day kindergarten and extended-day preschool. I did considerable research on this topic last year as the Utah School for the Deaf had extended its preschool to 1:00 p.m.  and proposed going  to all day for the 2010-2011 school year.  They also announced they would continue the all-day Kindergarten which has been in place for a number of years.  All this over the protests of teachers, parents, and specialists.

As a parent of 9 children (7 with special needs), a neurodevelopmental specialist, and a certified teacher I personally I fought with them over it, petitioned administration, and presented my data and arguments.  It all, ironically speaking, fell on deaf ears.  So, just as the other teachers and I warned, now little barely-3-year-olds are being bundled up on cold, early  mornings at 7:30 a.m. (earlier in some cases) put on vans for their hour long journey (for some of them) to their schools. Including the return ride. That’s 2 hours a day or more riding strapped in a car seat, in mid-winter, leaving home in the dark and returning home at nearly dusk and all in the name of early intervention!

I observed one little boy in a class younger than mine last year.  I did not know his age but since he was a husky, rather tall little fellow, I assumed he was 4-4 1/2.  He cried nearly every morning and frequently through the extended-day preschool day from the beginning of the year throughout the entire year. At the end of the year I was saddened when I became aware that he had just barely turned 3 when the school year began. I wonder if he still cries this year now that he sees his home even less and at only 4 years old?

If the early morning scene with the littlest children at school is the same as I observed last year, after awakening some of the children in their vans and getting them to stop crying whenever possible, the teachers do what they can intensively for a couple of hours then it’s lunch time and the children, developmentally speaking, are certainly ready to go home who were never ready to be there in the first place!  But, no, now we must keep them at school until 3:30 for reasons that do not make sense developmentally, emotionally, or academically as considerable research verifies. Just plain common sense and mothers’ hearts should tell us this!  In actuality, the children eat lunch and then need naps. It is developmentally appropriate and healthy for 3- 5 year olds to nap an hour or longer in the afternoon.  I observed how difficult it was for some of the little Kindergarteners last year to begin a nap but have to be awakened after a short time because certainly teacher time could not be justified watching napping children!  I can only imagine how tough it must be for the 3 year olds now! I would hold a little 5 year old in my arms as he napped, on occasion, because his awakening at school was often frightening to him. It was difficult to motivate the children to accomplish anything in the afternoons when often they awoke too early from naps calling for their mothers and slightly disoriented or were over-stimulated, unable to nap and “hyper”, running on adrenalin but really needing to be home cuddling with their moms, reading a book or napping in their own beds.  “But, children are resilient”, it is often said. “They adapt.”  And they do.  They suppress their natural, healthy emotional and physical needs. They suffer long-lasting adverse effects to the deep bonds with their parents as they are forced to be with “Not My Mom”, however compassionate and professional she may be, at very early ages and for most of their day-time hours and for all of childhood.  It results in what psychologists call “the de-personalization of children”.  Why do we have sick teenagers and angry, alienated youth?  Another discussion for another day.

I was the unofficial neurodevelopmental specialist for the Utah School for the Deaf/Orem. My work took me deep into neuroscience and research on global neurodevelopmental readiness for academic learning.  What is being done at the School for the Deaf (and any other school advocating this type of separation of tiny children from their parents) is so wrong and counter to everything natural, nurturing, and neurologically integrating— everything we learned during neuroscience’s 2000-2010 “decade of the brain.” It is outrageous to me. Time with parents is, according to data from many sources, the most critical factor for healthy cognitive and academic functioning and later adult life success  (New York Longitudinal Study; Carla Hannaford, Smart Moves: Learning is Not All in Your Head). Raymond Moore concludes in his book, Better Late Than Early, after a review of 8,000 studies on global neurodevelopmental readiness for learning and later academic achievement,  “Twenty minutes with mother=3 hours in a classroom.”

I wrote a draft proposal while at the School for the Deaf last year for a home-supported preschool program. Early intervention for deaf children from birth on is creating a miracle! Implanted with cochlear implants very early, deaf children are becoming typical speakers and excellent listeners by age 4!  Deafness need be no more in our day for most children!  So, I would never argue against early intervention for any child with special needs. There are just better ways than removing them from the richest language learning environment there is, the home. Among the data I gathered for the proposal were figures on costs of supported-home preschools versus public school preschools.  Two similar, high quality programs with comparable results created by the University of Wisconsin gave figures of $325 per child per year in the supported-home preschool program and up to $5,000 per year for the public school building venue “for Milwaukee’s deprived children” (I assume the same population we’d call high-risk as referred to in the Deseret News article).  These figures adjusted for inflation would still show great savings in dollars alone thru a supported-home preschool delivery model.  Isn’t now the time?

As I re-read the Deseret News article, “Lawmakers Consider All-Day Kindergarten”, I just shake my head and mourn at not only the foolishness of it but the downright damaging potential it has for Utah’s children—all of them, both typical kids and those with special needs. We have so enshrined public school education in Utah that people can’t see beyond it or any way to re-invent the old forms.  But these economic times will require something different.  So, if enabling mothers to spend more time with their young children is healthier, more educationally sound, and less costly, why are we not considering it?  The immediate response, of course, would be, “Most mothers of young children work outside the home, statistically speaking.  Supported-home preschools and kindergartens are not possible in this day and age.  Most parents need school for day-care, anyway.”  That is cynical to me. I personally know a growing number of courageous young mothers who understand the critical nature of quantity time with mom for all children up to at least age 8.  They and their husbands and extended families sacrifice much to allow the mother to stay in the home with her little ones gathered around her as long as possible.  It has, however, stopped being a value to many young families or something to strive for.  Some of them can’t even conceptualize it. They erroneously believe they are inadequate to be skilled early childhood teachers and nurturers of their children—that the professionals will do it better. Not now that we have the “decade of the brain” research and “theory of mind” data!  It just simply isn’t true and never was.

The information that Assistant Superintendent Brenda Hales presented, mentioned in the Deseret News article, needs to be seen over the long view.  Data I read tells me that whatever initial advantages may have been gained by children in all-day pre-school programs are gone by the end of 1st grade. (U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, January, 2010) The cost and negative impact on family life and future educational progress of the child is definitely not worth it.  Let’s explore children staying home with their parents longer and give them some professional support.  At very least let’s keep the current half-day Kindergarten arrangement! As the founders of our country intended, those who cannot possibly provide this early educational support for their children and who are the “poorest of the poor” should have the help of their countrymen with public school programs.  But, compulsory, universal all-day preschool through high school for America’s children was something they would have entirely opposed!

I admire former BYU education professor, Dr. C.R. Harms’ suggestion in his letter to the editor, Deseret News 2-21-10, “Start School at Age 9”.   He said in part, “A four-year elementary school starting at age 9 followed by a four-year secondary school, as done in days past, would solve many educational and financial problems,”  Outlandish? No, out-of the-box and entirely appropriate–if we care to listen to the neuroscientists and our hearts.

Kathleen Sorensen, M.Ed.
Orem, Utah

What a concept. Shaving 4.5 grades out of our system would save probably a billion dollars a year in Utah but that won’t stop the educators from vetoing it since some of them would lose their jobs (and for progressives who would lose their influence over young children). Some children may legitimately need early interventions, but as Kathleen points out, that could be done at home, even if in-home help was needed, for a lot cheaper than what we’re paying now.

Moving interventions into the home and supporting parents means children keep the nurturing influence of parents who have the God-given right to be the nurturers. If class size is so important to educators, how about a class size of 1? Lets support parents in their true role instead of assuming the state and the so-called “experts” can step in and do a better job.

Part of the service we should provide parents is the DVD “Gifted Hands: The Ben Carson Story.” This is a phenomenal true story about a failing young man who through the efforts of his uneducated mother, became an incredible brain surgeon who performed miraculous surgeries. I strongly encourage you to watch this inspirational movie. Here’s a link to a trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5qyOUKnlxA

In the meantime, I think leaving children at home for another year or two to mature and be more ready for school sounds intriguing. Maybe it’s an idea whose time has come.

I close by repeating part of Thomas Paine’s opening line from his famous “Common Sense,” the pamphlet that won the Revolutionary War.

“…a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.”

Milton Friedman’s brilliant response to Phil Donahue’s attack on capitalism.