Jordan School District Advertises for Goodlad

I was sent the following job announcement for a school in Jordan School District. This identical ad actually appears for a few of the schools in the district showing a requirement to thoroughly know Goodlad’s Moral Dimensions in order to be hired.

Job Title BYU Partnership Facilitator-Eastlake Elem.
Job Openings 1
Date Posted April 30, 2010
Job Description • Facilitate in-service education, curriculum development, and research/inquiry as related to the partnership.
• Assist principal in the selection of cooperating teachers to participate in pre-service training.
• Coordinate placement of pre-service students in the classroom.
• Instruct cooperating teachers to mentor and evaluate pre-service students’ performance.
• Team with BYU and district personnel to provide initial and on-going workshops, seminars, and site visitations for pre-service students.
• Communicate partnership program goals and activities to school faculty.
• Document partnership activities toward school renewal and improvement of teacher preparation.
• Demonstrate leadership in promoting all facets of the BYU/JSD Partnership.
• Direct an action research project within the school.
• Accept and complete occasional administrative assignments.
• Attend all partnership meetings.
Qualifications This is a full time position with the major responsibility being the mentoring and evaluating of interns, student teachers, and cohort students. This position requires a successful and respected educator with a minimum of five (5) years of elementary education experience. This position also requires excellent organizational, interpersonal, and communication skills.Experience in the following is preferred: • Advanced knowledge of curricular and instructional strategies (K-6)
Knowledge and understanding of John Goodlad’s Moral Dimensions
• Experience in collaboration and differentiation

119 Responses to “Jordan School District Advertises for Goodlad”

  • Tupelo:

    So, the conspiracy grows. Now JSD has joined ASD and BYU as evil entities who are promoting socialism to the children of Utah. I don't think I'll be able to sleep tonight for fear that the Goodlad bogey monster will get me. I wonder if they give the teachers a lobotomy after they are hired so that they won't question JSD's socialist agenda and make sure to indoctrinate all the kids.
    Let's see BYU (LDS run school) supports the Moral Dimensions and yet this website does not. So in other words, Oak knows more than the LDS leadership does about what is best for the education of our children. Sounds like Alpine is closer to God than Salt Lake City is. I think the believers in the ideas propagated on this website may want to fast and pray about their choice to follow Oak instead of the Church.
    I wonder if JSD is just using the Moral Dimensions to follow Ezra Taft Benson's idea that: “Preparing for life means building personal integrity, developing a sound sense of values, increasing the capacity and willingness to serve. Education must have its roots in moral principles. If we lose sight of that fact in our attempt to match our educational system against that of the materialists, we shall have lost far more than we could possibly gain.” -Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson p. 297
    This qoute clearly shows me that Benson would fully support the Moral Dimensions of:
    1. Enculturating the young in a social and political democracy: Foster in the nation’s young the skills, dispositions, and knowledge necessary for effective participation in a social and political democracy
    2. Providing access to knowledge for all children and youth: Ensure that the young have access to those understandings and skills required for satisfying and responsible lives
    3. Practicing a nurturing pedagogy (the art and science of teaching): Develop educators who nurture the learning and well-being of every student
    4. Ensuring responsible stewardship of schools: Ensure educators’ competence in and commitment to serving as stewards of schools
    I know those things sound evil to the followers of this website, but I still don't get how they can be evil. They talk about stewardship of the educators (a great LDS value). They mention educators are focused on the well-being of every student (I guess that is socialism if the fact that the lord loves EVERY person equally is also socialism). They support students gaining knowledge to live a responsible life (Brigham Young taught the same things while he was the LDS prophet). Finally, they promote our students to be involved in the politics and society of our nation (like the 12th article of faith states). How can you people think these are bad things?

  • bonniepence:

    The four items that you list sound innocent, but there is a lot more meaning behind those words than what meets the eye. Progressives and socialists want to make everything the same for everyone…eliminating choices and freedoms, redistributing and manipulating. See the following:

    About John Goodlad from the article (found on Google) The moral dimensions of teaching and preservice teachers: can moral dispositions be influenced? (Ethics and Teacher Education)
    Journal of Teacher Education| September 01, 1997 | Yost, Deborah S.

    “Enculturating the Young in a Social and Political Democracy

    This aspect of Goodlad's (1990b, 1994) educative mission has two components: a deep understanding and commitment to the democratic ideal of equality for all citizens and an ability to extend to all individuals a sense of freedom to pursue their goals. Teachers must understand that schools play a critical role in the socialization of students to democratic ideals and moral justice with respect to equal educational opportunity. Soder (1990) emphasizes that this knowledge is vital because significant inequities exist within and among schools.”

    Another excerpt from the same article:

    “The moral mission Goodlad and others (Goodlad, 1990b; Goodlad, Soder, & Sirotnik, 1990) define is not derived from empirical research on teaching. These moral dimensions emerged from discussions about what is good for teaching. The mission is philosophically tied to the aims of education as Dewey (1944) defined them:…”

    There is absolutely no way that President Ezra Taft Benson would ever support anything to do with John Goodlad's Moral Dimensions. Read President Benson's books. He was way ahead of all us in his awareness that progressivism would infiltrate into our lives.

    We can read from Conference in 1970 the following:

    “A Plea to Strengthen Our Families
    Elder Ezra Taft Benson. General Conference, October 1970.

    “As a watchman on the tower, I feel to warn you that one of the chief means of misleading our youth and destroying the family unit is our educational institutions. President Joseph F. Smith referred to false educational ideas as one of the three threatening dangers among our Church members. There is more than one reason why the Church is advising our youth to attend colleges close to their homes where institutes of religion are available. It gives the parents the opportunity to stay close to their children; and if they have become alert and informed as President McKay admonished us last year, these parents can help expose some of the deceptions of men like Sigmund Freud, Charles Darwin, John Dewey, Karl Marx, John Keynes, and others.”

    Although Goodlad had many good ideas about teaching the youth, he was a progressive and followed the teaching of Dewey among others, who President Benson referred to as a deceptive man.

    The home is the place where morals should be taught. The schools should teach the regular curriculum of math, science, English, health, art and music, sports, and history and get rid of the notion that the schools know what is best for the student. This responsibility lies with the parents.

    Our country was founded as a republic. We shouldn't be teaching students that we are a democracy, because we are not. Students should be taught the truth, not propaganda from socialists.

  • Bonnie is exactly right. Goodlad has some good points but his goal is the elimination of God from daily life. He's a humanist. We're not criticizing the church, we're pointing out that his philosophy of moral relativism is poison and that a number of people aren't aware of his motives that go along with his educational philosophy.

  • Tupelo:

    Oak, as has been pointed out to you before, Goodlad did not want to rid God from schools. He wanted to rid any one single version of religion or one group's specific views of God from schools. He did not want one religious group to be able to force all of its beliefs on every child in education. The 5,000 year talks about this issue also- that our founding fathers did not want any one single religion to rule over the people but that all religion would have equal authority and access in our country (and our public educational system). Since the founding Fathers also created public education, I guess they did believe in socialism a little bit (at least Howard Stephenson would have us believe that public is an evil socialist plot).

  • Tupelo:

    Bonniepence, it is good to see that you know how to google. But you do not show original thought. Parroting Benson's quote from 1970 does not prove anything. Whenever looking at history you must understand the time period and the political, cultural, and economic circumstances surrounding and influencing that quote. Benson was at the time a John Bircher Republican who was living in the throes of anti-communism and so anything related to communism was viewed as evil. Also, his over-reaction to those men listed was politically motivated. There are lots of LDS leaders who have supported the ideas of those men over time. Benson was attacking them because communist sympathizers were using some of their teachings to promote the idea of collectivism. This is also around the time period of the Equal Rights amendment that the church stood out against in 1972. Benson was trying to attack the logic being used to promote that amendment.
    Socialism has always existed in this country. We are not and have never been a pure Free-market capitalist society. There has always been government involvement in our economy. Pure capitalism is a fantasy that some people have. Some Socialism is required for a large group of people living together in harmony. Government involvement in our lives is a necessity. That is why the church has a 12th article of faith. Without government and rule there would be Chaos- which goes against the Lord's plan for us.

    This whole Republic issue is being blown out of proportion. As Dallin H. Oaks (a lawyer) wrote in 1992 about the constitution, “To begin with, a direct democracy was impractical for a country of four million people and about a half million square miles. As a result, the delegates had to design the structure of a constitutional, representative democracy, what they called “a Republican Form of Government.” There were logistical problems to creating a pure democracy in our country not just that it was “evil.” Even this apostle points out what you people keep denying, a Republic is a Form of Democracy- you know the Democracy that BYU is promoting to the local school districts.

    Oak, I can't believe you keep jumping to the conclusion that Democracy means mob rule. That is an overreaction. Dallin H. Oaks also said, “Perhaps the most important of the great fundamentals of the inspired Constitution is the principle of popular sovereignty: The people are the source of government power.” And as Lincoln said in the Gettysburg address, “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
    All I have ever spoken for is the people. You seem to feel that if the people have their way then our country will fall apart. You are trying to create fear of something (socialism) that does not exist to promote your own personal agenda.

  • Tupelo, Goodlad is a follower of John Dewey. Dewey was one of the original signatories of the humanist manifesto which was based on the communist manifesto. The humanist manifesto declares *itself* a RELIGION. Dewey and Goodlad are not about not forcing religion on people, they are all about forcing THEIR religion on people, that it's only the senses that can determine what is true. There is no spiritual side to anything.

    If you've never researched how our Founding Fathers viewed public education, please do so. It's a far cry from the system we have today.

  • Tupelo, what you keep missing since you've obviously not read enough on this site, is that even though many people use the word democracy to mean representative government, the use of the word by Goodlad and folks like Bill Ayers is in the meaning that knowledge and morals should be democratic and voted on for public acceptance. If you're LDS I suggest you read Elder Christofferson's talk from April 2010 conference where he addresses this point.

    The purpose of this site was to put the word republic back into the Utah state history standards so we don't forget what that word means. Then ASD came along and linked their website to a radical with whacked out beliefs and it opened a can of worms leading to John Goodlad who is a modern day Korihor. I suggest you read the quotes from Goodlad here. They are not the words of an altruistic individual.
    https://www.utahsrepublic.org/democracy-media-fi

  • buffy:

    The difference between Ezra Taft Benson's teachings and socialism (the counterfeit) is not always obvious, even to many Latter-Day Saints. There is a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of results. God's love for EVERY person is unconditional. His rewards are not.

    Goodlad teaches that education is an “inalianable right”. He promotes “rights” without responsibility. He teaches that their should be no distinction between those who excel and those who do not.

    Ezra Taft Benson said, “It has been erroneously concluded by some that the united order is both communal and communistic in theory and practice because the revelations speak of equality. Equality under the united order is not economic and social leveling as advocated by some today.”

    President Benson did not believe in “educative” leveling and Goodlad clearly does.

  • buffy:

    Religion (including humanism)should not be taught in the schools. While we ought to teach “character”, teaching morality (Goodlad's philosophy) is problematic. Who's “morality” should we teach? Mine, or yours? Should we teach that homosexuality is o.k. or that it is not?

  • buffy:

    Religion (including humanism)should not be taught in the schools. While we ought to teach “character”, teaching morality (Goodlad's philosophy) is problematic. Who's “morality” should we teach? Should we teach that homosexuality is o.k. or that it is not?

  • lewisbarnavelt:

    So now Goodlad is in the same company as Bill Ayers? This just gets better every day. What are you smoking? Next thing you know Osama bin Laden will come into the picture.

  • lewisbarnavelt:

    Buffy, is this a quote by Ezra Taft Benson the prophet or Ezra Taft Benson, the John Bircher in the Eisenhower administration?

  • lewisbarnavelt:

    So do you see a problem with forcing Christian views on non-Christian children?

  • lewisbarnavelt:

    So you are saying that Goodlad is guilty of being a Marxist because of guilt by association? That is dangerous territory if you are basing your arguments on such scanty connections. Monty Python made a parody out of guilt by association in their “Witchcraft” skit where a woman was condemned for witchcraft because she is made out of wood since wood floats in water and because ducks float in water they must certainly be made out of wood and therefore if a woman weighs the same as duck, she must be made out of wood and therefore a witch.

    You have to do better than that Oak. If Goodlad supported Karl Marx or Bill Ayers (a domestic terrorist), please provide more evidence other than your long train of guilt by association connections.

  • Lewis, have you ever looked into why Ayers is so keen on education? He's all about transforming America into a true democracy. I never said Goodlad was a terrorist. Further, I've never brought teachers into this except where they have specifically and individually told students the United States isn't a Republic.

  • Do you see a problem teaching non-denominational morals from the Bible to all children?

  • Lewis, it's the philosophy of moral relativism and removing God from society that tie these all together. When Goodlad says “Most youth still hold the same values of their parents… if we do not alter this pattern, if we don’t resocialize, our system will decay,” I find that contradictory to a healthy society.

  • lewisbarnavelt:

    You are the one who used John Goodlad and Bill Ayers in the same sentence, I just pointed that out. When most people hear the name “Bill Ayers” they think of a violent activist, not an Athenian Democrat. You have a pattern of using associations such as Karl Marx and Bill Ayers to create a sense of alarm and urgency among your followers. Again, I just point it out. If you are going to lump extremists such as Bill Ayers into the company of John Goodlad, don't be surprised if people take it in ways you didn't anticipate.

  • lewisbarnavelt:

    No more than teaching non-denominational morals from the Koran, Tanakh (Torah), the Buddhavacana, the Vedas and Upanishads, Dianetics, Book of Mormon, etc. to all children.

    Of course, it seems to be quite an oxymoron to teach non-denominational values out of denominational scriptures.

  • lewisbarnavelt:

    Of course after noticing some of the decayed values of many parents today, there might be some wisdom in Goodlad's quote. Maybe we need to instill some healthy values in our children since too many parents aren't doing this.

  • Tupelo:

    Buffy, are your religious beliefs so shallow that you truly believe a public school can undue all the teachings you have taught your children over their lifetime? I have no fears that my children know what is truth when it comes to God and the afterlife. Schools don't even deal with those issues, so how can a school “oppress” my children? There is morality in the world that is not based on Christian beliefs- ask any Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Jew, or Jain. Which of those moralities shold be teaching in a public setting?
    It is exactly your paranoia that scares me about this website and the people that follow Oak's misguided beliefs. Our schools are NOT promoting anything ungodly. Our schools are NOT promoting socialism or communism. There is no evidence to prove that they are. All Oak can do is cast dispersions against one of the only entities (public education) in our country that is trying to help our children fit into our society. People like you seem to want to a society where those who follow the “true path” will receive more than all others- here on earth and in the afterlife. That goes against the teachings of Christ- our reward will be just as great as everyone else's. Yes, you seem to want to enforce the division of heaven onto us now- but that is God's job, not yours. We are commanded to love our fellow man as he loves us. Charity, compassion, and love are the ways of God. The fear and hate created by people like Oak Norton, Glenn Beck, Kieth Olbermen, etc. is not what we are supposed to be following.

  • Tupelo:

    Lewis, I am glad to see that I am not the only person that sees Oak and his followers for who they are. You are using some of the same arguments I am. This gives me hope that not all people are sheep who follow a wolf in sheep clothing.

  • Tupelo:

    “Scripture tutors us in principles and moral values essential to maintaining civil society, including integrity, responsibility, selflessness, fidelity, and charity. In scripture, we find vivid portrayals of the blessings that come from honoring true principles, as well as the tragedies that befall when individuals and civilizations discard them. Where scriptural truths are ignored or abandoned, the essential moral core of society disintegrates and decay is close behind. In time, nothing is left to sustain the institutions that sustain society.” -D. Todd Christofferson April 2010
    Oak, you are so good at twisting someone's words to your own perversions. Christofferson is not talking about our public schools. He is talking about people following the teachings of Man versus the teachings of scripture. To believe that BYU has been duped by Goodlad is rather arrogant of you. As I stated before, how can you claim to know more than the LDS leaders?
    I can't help but believe that this quote is talking about the people who follow the teachings of news station and radio talk show hosts – Men who mingle scripture with truth. These men claim to be promoting morals but yet they actually are trying to push mankind against each other. This directly contradicts the morals and values listed in the above quote.
    I agree with a post Lewis put earlier that our society is changing due to a change in parents involvement with their children and parental seflishness. I do believe that Christofferson is right that it is due to people turning away from scripture. I do not believe that our schools are promoting this change in society though. I cannot believe that if we had the word “Republic” instead of Democracy that society's ills would change our society for the better. That leap is so far beyond rationale thought I don't know where to start.

  • buffy:

    Tupelo, there are many adults who are confused about what truth is and I don't need their influence in my children's lives. I am particularly concerned about the homosexual agenda making it's way into the schools. And yes, teaching relative morality will oppress me and my children. For example, in states that gay marriage has been legalized, schools are mandating that grade schoolers are taught that homosexuality is good and normal. And parents are being threatened and thrown into jail for resisting. Christianity is being criminalized and there is hard evidence to prove it. I am glad you are sleeping well, but ignorance has always been bliss.

    Schools WILL be teaching morality if Goodlad gets his way. That is part of his agenda (you can google that). And as you have mentioned, there are too many “moralities” (Buddhist, hindu, muslim, etc.) to choose from to favor only one(Goodlad's) in a public setting.

    Also, where exactly in the Bible does Jesus teach that everyone will get the same reward?

  • buffy:

    Absolutely!

  • buffy:

    Ezra Taft Benson taught principles. Principles are true whether you are a prophet or a politician. But he was a member of the quorum of the twelve apostles when he gave the talk I referred to and it was given on April 12, 1977.

  • buffy:

    Speaking of wolves in sheep's clothing, have you even researched the man you are taking so much time to defend? Lewis has not…

  • buffy:

    Absolutely!

  • lewisbarnavelt:

    That is certainly your opinion, but the church distanced itself from the John Birch society rhetoric as did Ezra Taft Benson after some of his initial comments were made. What is ironic is that Spencer W. Kimball did believe in an educative leveling as evidence by his policies in regards to native Americans. Kimball was also a prophet and it is interesting to note that Benson killed the Indian programs established by Kimball when he became prophet, so you are certainly right that Benson did not believe in educative leveling. So while you cherry pick Benson's ideologies to support your beliefs, I will cherry pick Kimballs' ideology to support mine. Of course, I wonder what God's opinion is concerning educative leveling. That still remains a mystery.

  • lewisbarnavelt:

    Actually I have read one of Goodlad's book, The Moral Dimensions of Teaching, but I never got a Marxist feeling from that first read. I'm planning on re-reading that book to try and understand why the alarmists in Alpine and Highland have their underwear in a wad. I would hardly call myself misinformed, but I would certainly like to understand where Oak is coming from. For example, I've read the 5,000 Year Leap a few times, but Oak and I get different things out of that book, and just because you have read a book doesn't make it the word of God or immune from debate and criticism.

  • lewisbarnavelt:

    Religious based character development doesn't necessarily maintain a civil society. The “Inquisition” is a great example, not to mention the “crusades” period. Basic values such as honesty, integrity, compassion, etc are okay, but religions also tend to push character values that can lead to intolerance and a breakdown in civility. Remember, religions tend to think of themselves as correct while others are incorrect, which tends to creep into the “character values” being taught. A good example is that at my local school a parent had a conniption fit that a teacher was a coffee drinker and that students shouldn't be subjected to the smell of coffee. For this parent, this was a values issue, but in reality this is not a value, but a specific religious belief for a particular religion. Our schools don't need this type of nonsense which is what will happen if you let local mobs determine values in school. It might just be easier to identify some core values that all stakeholders can agree upon, and not promote one particular religion or another because not all kids belong to the same religion or a religion at all.

  • buffy:

    Lewis, I appreciate your responses and your willingness to intelligently consider another perspective. Seriously, I have a lot of respect for that. I am very interested in your quotes by Kimball? I've never read anything by him that would contradict Benson. And I am curious if you view the issue of normalizing homosexuality as one of those nonsensical character values that would lead to “intolerance and a breakdown in civility.”

    We are in complete agreement that values such as honesty, integrity, compassion, etc. (or character) are o.k. to teach. And that it would be oppressive to allow the coffee nazi to determine the rules for everyone (since her beliefs aren't “shared” by others.) So why aren't we in agreement that it would be just as nonsensical to allow Goodlad's “values” (not particularly shared by the rest of us) to determine what is taught in our schools, as it would be to promote the views of one particular religion?

  • Tupelo:

    Buffy, thanks again for proving that Oak's ideas of a Republic and not a Democracy is actually just a facade for ulterior motives. What the follower's/sheep of this website really want is to force their beliefs upon all people. Your paranoia confirms that this whole movement is based on emotion and not logic. Oak is simply trying to once again attack ASD to promote his personal biases and grudges against them. Once ASD and now apparently JSD and BYU change their evil ways, Oak will find a new axe to grind (I hope Oak and Mike don't find anything sexual about that metaphor) against ASD and anyone associated with them. He will never stop until, like Howard Stephenson desires, he can control everything about schools.
    This so called “Homosexual agenda” you write of shows your ignorance and prejudice. God has said that Homosexuality is a sin; but it is no greater a sin than lying, stealing, coveting, or falsely judging others. So by your rationale everyone in the world is promoting their 'sins' as “good and normal” unless we all walk around with the big 'A' on our clothes identifying our sins. In god's eyes all sin is bad and will not be tolerated in his presence- whether it is homosexuality or sloth. You are not the judge of whose sin is greater. You have been commanded to love your fellow man and let God do the judging of sins.
    Your fear that schools are teaching amorality are out of touch with reality. Public schools are the last bastions in our country to teach simple plain truth, values, and morality. Parents are so selfish now-a-days that the only thing left to teach our children is the schools. So common basic morals and values are taught in my kids local schools.
    Oak is just like the news and radio talk show hosts that are playing on people's emotions to create fear and anger over things that are not really happening. Those of you that follow him are not doing the right thing- you are like a lemming following others into the abyss.

  • Tupelo:

    Lewis, don't mention the Mountain Meadows Massacre on Oak's website. He believes the false version of what happened that was presented in 1857 by those that killed those poor people; not the true account that was even upheld by the LDS church in 2007. He thinks Parley P. Pratt was killed by one of the Fancher-Baker wagon train even though every piece of historical evidence shows this is untrue. Then again, Oak has never shown that he believes in historical facts. He seems to only believe what he wants to pick and choose from. Quite frankly, I don't think he has actually read anything written by Goodlad or Dewey; he has only read things about them by people who wish to demonize these men. Oak does not appear to read things that might contradict his warped sense of reality- he only reads things that validate his beliefs. That way he can go through life without ever challenging his own beliefs and live in self-righteousness.

  • buffy:

    Tupelo, we are in agreement that all sin is bad and that God will do the judging. I'm not sure why we disagree, then, that teaching grade schoolers that homosexuality is NOT sin, is good.

    You have obviously been too busy judging to research the possibility that what Oak and others are saying could actually be true. And you have failed to show me in the Bible where Jesus teaches that we will all receive the same reward.

    Let me know when you are ready to have an intelligent, informed and challenging discussion.

  • Yep Tupelo. The truth has set me free. Thanks so much for exposing views I've never even written about. I think I'll go ahead and set up my new Rameumptom 2000 XL (http://www.oaknorton.com/rameumptom.cfm) so I can start loudly declaring how God has saved me and doomed everyone else to hell. Let the truth ring out! Shout it from the rooftops!!!

    Seriously though… “he thinks”? We've never had a conversation nor have I ever written about Parley Pratt. That's pretty impressive then that you know what I think about him. If you want to twist my words, at least find something I've actually written about. There's plenty to choose from on my websites.

  • lewisbarnavelt:

    Actions speak louder than words when you look at Kimball's Indian programs which came to a screeching halt when he died. Kimball was not one to make commentary on political matters as Benson was apt to do. Of course, Benson worked in the Federal Government and was part of the Eisenhower Administration and the fringe right wing group, The John Birch Society, as was Leon Skousen, the author of the 5,000 Year Leap and the Naked Communist. In fact Oak Norton's viewpoints are grounded in his revival of John Bircher rhetoric and literature. It is kind of funny in a way because when I was about 12 years old, I discovered some old John Birch literature in my grandparents' cupboard. I read it, and my grandmother proceeded to tell me how she was involved with the group for a time until she woke up to the realities of a group that is narrow in thought and vision and intolerant of others and their viewpoints. Oak's battle over the word “Democracy” is only a front for a much larger agenda that I have been working to peel away. Much of it is centered on public education as the record shows. Oak moves from issue to issue which have a common target: Alpine School District. The hullabaloo with the Lone Peak Boundary issues, Investigations Math, and now, an attack on governments where power is vested in the people–the dreaded “D” word. I wonder what is next, but I'm willing to bet that it will be centered on ASD and the public education idea.

    I'm not sure what you mean by “normalizing” homosexuality. I really don't care what goes on in people's bedrooms as long as it stays in the bedroom whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. One thing is for certain, hate speech often turns into violent actions, so I do believe that tolerance should be taught in regards to Jews, Gypsies, the mentally ill, the handicapped, and homosexuals. Of course I wouldn't want people engaging in sexual conduct in public, but that goes for all people and that should not be tolerated, but I'm comfortable enough with my heterosexual identity that homosexuals don't scare me and fear-mongering is a Nazi tactic that has no place in our Republic.

  • You know what's funny Lewis, you've brought up this Lone Peak boundary thing a couple times now or someone else brought it up and you're repeating it and I have no idea what anyone is talking about. If I was involved, I think I'd know and I'd certainly acknowledge it as I don't feel I have anything to hide from.

    So my *movement* from “target to target” is really just math and civics. Since I live in ASD and I actually started this site without intentionally naming ASD but using a video of their sign on this site's home page, it's not really an accurate characterization to say that I was attacking them. I was pointing out that there are those in the education system that aren't teaching our children what a republic is anymore. In fact I discovered that the state standards didn't even have the word listed anywhere K-12. Odd don't you think?

    It wasn't till someone else's email made the rounds and I got a copy about how ASD had linked their website to a radical who called our Founding Fathers “predatory elitists” that their name ever appeared on this website. So clearly, the intention of this website, and thus myself, was not to attack ASD, but actually to go to some length NOT to mention them (which would have been very easy to list in the video on the main screen) and just to remain focused on changing the state standards to include the word Republic.

    ASD dragged themselves into the public spotlight in their effort to enculturate our children with revisionist radical history.

  • buffy:

    I would still like you to provide me with some factual evidence that President Kimball was doing something that did not align with the principles that President Benson taught. And with all due respect, your grandmother's personal views don't count.

    I'm glad that you agree that Goodlad's philosophies should not be taught in our schools.

    You say, “One thing is for certain, hate speech often turns into violent actions, so I do believe that tolerance should be taught in regards to Jews, Gypsies, the mentally ill, the handicapped, and homosexuals.”

    Sounds good…until you start enforcing it in our educational and judicial establishments. Here are a couple of examples of discrimination (against Christians) that will result from “anti-discriminatory” hate crime laws:

    Statement by David Parker (April 27, 2005):

    “I, David Parker, am the father of a kindergarten student at Estabrook Elementary School in Lexington, Massachusetts. Since the beginning of this school year, my wife and I have learned that school materials and discussions about gay-headed households/same-sex union issues have been exposed to the children. There are definitive plans to increase the teacher/staff/adult mediated discussions of these subjects.

    “We have officially stated on many occasions—to the Lexington school administration—a request that we be notified when these discussions are planned, and want our 6-year-old opted out of such situations when arising “spontaneously”.

    “Our parental requests for our own child were flat-out denied with no effort at accommodation. In our meeting on April 27, I, insisted that such accommodation be made and refused to leave the meeting room. I was informed that I would be arrested.”

    Here's another, from World Net Daily (our own government has passed similar legislation in the United States)
    Posted: July 16, 2008
    9:28 pm Eastern
    © 2009 WorldNetDaily
    Christians will face prison for speaking out against homosexuality if Brazil's Senate passes a bill approved unanimously by its House of Representatives.
    The measure is considered the country's newest attempt to promote homosexuality, disguised as an act to combat discrimination, the Catholic News Agency reports.
    If anyone prevents actions of “homosexual affection” in public or private locations open to the public, they could face up to five years in prison for doing so, the Association of the Defense of Life reports.
    The bill also seeks to penalize private and public school administrators with up to three years in prison if they refuse to hire openly “gay” teachers.
    According to the CNA, the measure will force prison time for any “moral, ethical, philosophical or psychological expression that questions homosexual practices.”

    And one more

    “Dr. Mary Calderone, the first president of the Tennessee Sexual Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), called on educators to prepare children to step into a new world: “To do this, they must pry children away from old views and values, especially from biblical and other traditional forms of sexual morality.”

    You agree that one set of values ought not to be taught exclusively in schools. On the other hand, you think that we should teach tolerance and sensitivity (Goodlad's philosophy) toward those, like homosexuals, who believe differently(also Goodlad's philosophy). When you stop teaching character, and start teaching morality, or “tolerance” of amorality, you are left with Christian “intolerance.” You can't have it both ways.

    Are you SURE you've figured out who the wolf is?

  • buffy:

    One more thing…it's rather fuzzy logic to say that we should be tolerant of those who believe differently (like those who practice homosexuality and drink coffee), on one hand. And in the same conversation insist that,

    “there might be some wisdom in Goodlad's quote. Maybe we need to instill some healthy values in our children since too many parents aren't doing this. How many children come from abusive and split homes? Too many! How many parents are hooked on drugs, drink alcohol, profane, commit adultery, and neglect their children? Too many! Do we want the children who grow up in these homes to adopt these corrupt values that they learn in home?

    I could easily say to you, “Who are YOU to say that these parents, teaching their kids profanity, drug abuse, adultery and divorce is wrong? I can't believe how judgmental you are being!

    Unless you can admit that there IS absolute truth, tolerance of anything and everything goes. It will end civil society as we currently know it. You can't have it both ways.

  • Bryan:

    Oak, I think most of this discussion is missing the point. No one should be trying to either attack or defend Goodlad or Dewey. They are entitled to their beliefs, philosophies, and agendas. Everyone else is entitled to agree or disagree. The real question here isn’t whether Goodlad and Dewey are atheists, humanists, communists, socialists, or blood-drinking Satanists. The question is whether atheism, humanism, communism, socialism, or blood-drinking Satanism is being taught (directly or indirectly) to children in public schools as a matter of policy. I would argue that they are not, despite any connection the public schools have to Goodlad’s book of educational philosophy or organization.
    Let me offer an example of why this is a logical fallacy. Mitt Romney is a member of the LDS church. He associates himself with and espouses all of the Christian moral codes of conduct and philosophies of that religion. As governor of Massachusetts, did his Mormonism seep down through the government and slowly influence everyone in that state to convert? Did his leadership cause Massachusetts’ Lt. Governor, legislature, judges, and other government officials to espouse his beliefs? Obviously not. However, you, Mr. Norton, have made the assertion that a person’s political and/or religious beliefs are some sort of viral contagion that must inevitably spread from person to person regardless of any individual choice or intellect. You assert that coming into contact with the beliefs of another person is like coming into contact with infected body fluid as you posted earlier:
    “You may not question our local educators, but they aren’t questioning the national ones putting poison in the well. That poison does seep down and teachers who don’t study these issues and aren’t aware of creeping socialism/progressivism are slowing drinking the kool-aid that comes from John Goodlad’s and John Dewey’s progressive philosophy. Drinking it in will slowly poison them until they too believe the other false doctrine Mr. Goodlad espouses which was based on John Dewey’s philosophy that education is a responsibility that society must execute using techniques “previously ignored as trivial, futile, or even condemned as positively evil.”
    Really? I have to tell you, I just don’t see it. This sounds an awful lot like the kind of baseless diatribe that Sen. Joseph McCarthy spouted in the 1950s. McCarthy couldn’t show his evidence either. ASD’s current connection with Goodlad has been in place for several years. We should be seeing that “seep” by now. Give me the names of the teachers, administrators, and board members who are preaching humanism to the students. Show me the students who have turned aside from their parents’ religions, politics, or morals as a direct result of being educated in ASD. Open up that mysterious briefcase, Oak, and show me that you’re not just drumming up support for yourself and your own philosophies by tearing others down.
    Let’s push your ideas a little, and see how far you’d be willing to take them. If, for example, you discovered that an English teacher (who was faithfully teaching the English State Core) was an atheist, socialist, or humanist, your philosophy suggests you would want them fired. That, then, would also have to apply if he or she was Buddhist, Muslim, or Jewish because that teacher’s political or religious views would seep down like poison in the well and convert the children in the class. The problem with that thinking is clear. If you would want that person fired (or if you would pull your child out of that teacher’s class and put them into a nice Christian Republican or Libertarian’s) simply because of the teacher’s personal beliefs, then you are walking down the path to the fascism. If you think the teacher could effectively teach English regardless of personal beliefs or politics, then you have to admit that your argument against the public school’s association with Goodlad and Dewey is on very shaky logical ground. Now, if you can show hard evidence that the teacher is pushing his or her personal views as some sort of subversive agenda, you may have a case. So, if you can show hard evidence that ASD, JSD, or BYU is systematically pushing Goodlad’s social-human-atheism on the teachers and students, let’s see it. If you can’t, you need to be forthright that you’re working from conjecture and hypothesis rather than fact.
    Have you read the comments that people are leaving when they sign your petition? They think the evidence is there. They think the district and its employees are, in fact, part of a big conspiracy to poison the minds of the children. You’re creating a fervor, here, that is getting out of your control. This is the dangerous sort of McCarthyism that cost innocent people their jobs, reputations, and families in the 50s. This is the dangerous sort of paranoia that cost nineteen people their lives in 1692 Salem. I would advise you to pull back on the reigns. Stop dealing in fear, and start dealing in fact. Work on the changes you would like to see in the social studies curriculum or district mission statements through reasoned discourse rather than media and public innuendo. Realize that, intentionally or not, you are accusing, insulting, slandering, and maligning thousands of innocent, moral, and patriotic people. Realize that your invective is doing more harm than good. If your heart really is in the right place, reexamine your logic and your methods.

  • Bryan:

    Oak, I think most of this discussion is missing the point. No one should be trying to either attack or defend Goodlad or Dewey. They are entitled to their beliefs, philosophies, and agendas. Everyone else is entitled to agree or disagree. The real question here isn’t whether Goodlad and Dewey are atheists, humanists, communists, socialists, or blood-drinking Satanists. The question is whether atheism, humanism, communism, socialism, or blood-drinking Satanism is being taught (directly or indirectly) to children in public schools as a matter of policy. I would argue that they are not, despite any connection the public schools have to Goodlad’s book of educational philosophy or organization.
    Let me offer an example of why this is a logical fallacy. Mitt Romney is a member of the LDS church. He associates himself with and espouses all of the Christian moral codes of conduct and philosophies of that religion. As governor of Massachusetts, did his Mormonism seep down through the government and slowly influence everyone in that state to convert? Did his leadership cause Massachusetts’ Lt. Governor, legislature, judges, and other government officials to espouse his beliefs? Obviously not. However, you, Mr. Norton, have made the assertion that a person’s political and/or religious beliefs are some sort of viral contagion that must inevitably spread from person to person regardless of any individual choice or intellect. You assert that coming into contact with the beliefs of another person is like coming into contact with infected body fluid as you posted earlier:
    “You may not question our local educators, but they aren’t questioning the national ones putting poison in the well. That poison does seep down and teachers who don’t study these issues and aren’t aware of creeping socialism/progressivism are slowing drinking the kool-aid that comes from John Goodlad’s and John Dewey’s progressive philosophy. Drinking it in will slowly poison them until they too believe the other false doctrine Mr. Goodlad espouses which was based on John Dewey’s philosophy that education is a responsibility that society must execute using techniques “previously ignored as trivial, futile, or even condemned as positively evil.”
    Really? I have to tell you, I just don’t see it. This sounds an awful lot like the kind of baseless diatribe that Sen. Joseph McCarthy spouted in the 1950s. McCarthy couldn’t show his evidence either. ASD’s current connection with Goodlad has been in place for several years. We should be seeing that “seep” by now. Give me the names of the teachers, administrators, and board members who are preaching humanism to the students. Show me the students who have turned aside from their parents’ religions, politics, or morals as a direct result of being educated in ASD. Open up that mysterious briefcase, Oak, and show me that you’re not just drumming up support for yourself and your own philosophies by tearing others down.
    Let’s push your ideas a little, and see how far you’d be willing to take them. If, for example, you discovered that an English teacher (who was faithfully teaching the English State Core) was an atheist, socialist, or humanist, your philosophy suggests you would want them fired. That, then, would also have to apply if he or she was Buddhist, Muslim, or Jewish because that teacher’s political or religious views would seep down like poison in the well and convert the children in the class. The problem with that thinking is clear. If you would want that person fired (or if you would pull your child out of that teacher’s class and put them into a nice Christian Republican or Libertarian’s) simply because of the teacher’s personal beliefs, then you are walking down the path to the fascism. If you think the teacher could effectively teach English regardless of personal beliefs or politics, then you have to admit that your argument against the public school’s association with Goodlad and Dewey is on very shaky logical ground. Now, if you can show hard evidence that the teacher is pushing his or her personal views as some sort of subversive agenda, you may have a case. So, if you can show hard evidence that ASD, JSD, or BYU is systematically pushing Goodlad’s social-human-atheism on the teachers and students, let’s see it. If you can’t, you need to be forthright that you’re working from conjecture and hypothesis rather than fact.
    Have you read the comments that people are leaving when they sign your petition? They think the evidence is there. They think the district and its employees are, in fact, part of a big conspiracy to poison the minds of the children. You’re creating a fervor, here, that is getting out of your control. This is the dangerous sort of McCarthyism that cost innocent people their jobs, reputations, and families in the 50s. This is the dangerous sort of paranoia that cost nineteen people their lives in 1692 Salem. I would advise you to pull back on the reigns. Stop dealing in fear, and start dealing in fact. Work on the changes you would like to see in the social studies curriculum or district mission statements through reasoned discourse rather than media and public innuendo. Realize that, intentionally or not, you are accusing, insulting, slandering, and maligning thousands of innocent, moral, and patriotic people. Realize that your invective is doing more harm than good. If your heart really is in the right place, reexamine your logic and your methods.

  • Tupelo:

    So Oak, would that radical history be like the history our “radical founding fathers” created, or the history you disagree with and therefore it is radical – just like I disagree with you so I am clearly a Liberal. Wait, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin were the real liberals- overthrowing a government and all. Even Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ were liberals. SO I guess I will take the Liberal comments as great compliments to be put into those men's company. Thank you.

  • Tupelo:

    Oak, It's good to see that you actually do have a sense of humor. I got a good chuckle out of this posting.
    Seriously though, while you may not see what you are doing the way I do, I have seen in my lifetime how people can ignorantly or not mislead people down a path of evil. Your followers are sheep and they are misinterpreting your pronounced ideals into something that I feel I must stand up against. You yourself are claiming through your words that you know what is best and the decision makers are all inept compared to you. That is arrogance and arrogance always leads to destructive forces in society.
    Now, as for Parley P. Pratt- your memory is not quite what I had hoped for. When the Daily Herald printed the article about how you believe there is a conspiracy in BYU and ASD, someone pointed out that you probably also believe that Mountain Meadows Massacre was a conspiracy. Your response said that if we understood what had happened to Parley P. Pratt we would know the truth of that event. It was that comment that made me come see what this site was all about and to speak out against the ignorance you have of what has actually happened in history.

  • Tupelo:

    Buffy, unlike you I research everything I can. My views of the world change as I gain new knowledge and insight into our world. I used to be prejudice against homosexuals until I actually stepped out of myself and saw that prejudice in any form is wrong. You are obviously quite passionate and emotional about the issue. I would argue that while homosexuals want to be treated as equal members in society, they have every right to do so. Mormons were once persecuted (still are in many parts of our country) and have no room to be attacking any other group of people. I am all for speaking out against sin- but homosexuality is the least of my concerns. I am more concerned about pornography, greed, distrust of other humans, and others. These are sins that affect more people than homosexuality ever will.
    As for God rewarding us equally- you apparently think that “the same” and “equally” are identical. Equally means you treat each person according to who their are and what they deserve it does not mean give everyone exactly the same thing. Christ has always claimed that we will receive equal reward in God's eyes- look at most of his parables. I am guessing though, that you are obsessed with the Sodom and Gomorrah homosexuality and have missed out on other things in the Bible.

  • So are you saying you believe our Founding Fathers were predatory elitists?

  • lewisbarnavelt:

    Sounds like you are a homophobe. You would make Adolf Hitler proud. Perhaps you will build death camps as well?

  • lewisbarnavelt:

    So you deny having any involvement in the Lone Peak boundary dispute or the Investigations Math dispute?

  • I'd have to see the conversation in context to really remember it. Without the context, my recollection is something about them blaming Brigham Young for the MMM and if Parley came up, which I honestly don't recall this, but some of the members of the church were quite upset about the Missourians driving them out of their homes and perhaps the murder of Parley Pratt so they took revenge. Honestly I am at a loss to know what I would have said that you associated with me.

    Regardless, if you enjoyed that humor, you should try my comic strip site.
    http://www.weaponsofmathdestruction.com

    It came out of the Investigations math era to help keep parents sane. Look for the voodoo doll comic. It's a caricature of ASD's superintendent and me. I gave him a signed copy which he appreciated. :)

    It's good to know my “followers” are sheep. I'm sure none of them actually read the petition on their own and decided it was a good thing for Utah. Just heard “Oak Norton has a petition” and ran out to sign it. :)

  • buffy:

    Your clarifications of equally and “the same” are not clarifications, unless you are saying what I originally said, that God has unconditional love for everyone, but that His rewards are conditional. Can you give me a SPECIFIC example of a parable that teaches that everyone will receive “equal rewards”?

    Also, I am glad that you are “for” speaking out against sin. But since you've decided that prejudice and judging are always wrong, I'm not clear when you would take the opportunity to do that…unless it involves those (like Oak) who have the courage to actually speak out. Your logic sends the mind in circles.

    As for homosexual “acceptance” being the least of your concerns, please see my conversation with Lewis to find out why it should be.