Utahs Republic

Posts Tagged ‘Education’

Last month I got this disturbing letter from a parent in Park City regarding the Inclusion Center in Salt Lake City and the programs they bring into schools. You need to be aware of this program because it’s being brought into schools around the state and several of them are identified below that have the program next month.

Hi Oak,

I am curious to know if you are familiar with the Inclusion Center in SLC and what they represent?

They went into my daughters 10^th grade English class at Park City High on Wednesday and did a demonstration about Racism. Although a subject worth exploring, their presenters  put the kids in a very awkward position forcing them to answer very specific questions which really had no good answers. They were asked “if a Black, Mexican & Muslim wanted to sit with you at lunch, which one would you choose to let sit with you?”  They were forced to make a choice and when doing so, the presenters got in their face and told them they were racists. They told them they were over privileged white kids (hello, this is Park City and it’s not the kids’ fault it is predominately Caucasian, and some areas are very affluent. Why? Because their parents worked hard. The presenters told them that because of them the blacks & Hispanics were being mistreated. They told them it was their responsibility to make things right with the minority groups of kids.  They also asked them  “why is it the Blacks all sit together, the Mexicans all sit together, etc?”  And told them it is their responsibility as over privileged white kids to go and sit with the minorities and make them feel part of their group.  We have very few blacks, but quite a large Hispanic population. They choose to all hang together and speak Spanish. So how is it the evil white kids are supposed to communicate with them?  Why is it the band kids all sit together, the football players all sit together, the cheer leaders all sit together, the track team kids all sit together,  regardless of race or religion, etc.?  Because they hang out with kids that have the same interests as them, period.   The Mormons and non-Mormons seem to be able to hang out together or not hang out together, as they choose. And no one makes a fuss about that.  The kids came out of there feeling guilty for being white, something they have no control over. I am so angry about this I can’t even tell you.  I called to counselor’s office to tell them if this happens again, my daughter has my permission to excuse herself. However, they were all out of the office at a meeting in Alpine School District.  I am very frustrated that our schools are forcing the Inclusion Center agenda on our kids.

Mrs. X

Mrs. X followed up that email with this one with more details.

I looked at their website, www.inclusioncenter.org They “appear” to be about diversity, service, and leadership and are clearly targeting the youth.  My daughter came home today with new stories.  Today, the teacher had a discussion with the class about their experience with the demonstration.  The kids spoke up and let him know that they were made to feel extremely uncomfortable. That the speaker boxed them into a corner and forced an answer/opinion out of them so she could show them how raciest they are without realizing it.  She also put words into their mouths. When pressing for an answer to an awkward question,(ex: if you had to be black, Hispanic, or Muslim living in Utah, which would be easier, which would be your choice?)  if the kids answered they didn’t know how to answer or didn’t have an opinion, she would say something like, “So what you are saying is you wouldn’t want to be any of the choices because they are treated badly and you like being white”  things like that. Apparently she flat out called them racist repeatedly.  The program was called “White Privilege”. I have since talked with the counselor who said the program is really about awareness but agreed with me that if my child feels uncomfortable they should be able to excuse themselves. But she could not give her that privilege.  She also agreed with me that kids will group together with kids that have the same interests as them, regardless of race or religion, but in the same breath said this program is important for the kids to sit through.   Then I spoke with the teacher who said that the purpose of the program IS to make the kids feel uncomfortable. To make them realize that they are over privileged and get through to them they have so much more than minorities.  Gee, did anyone express how they got more?? Like their parents WORKING for it. Hello!!! He apologized that my daughter didn’t like it, and said the kids had elaborated the same in their discussion today.  He kept saying it is designed to open up awareness and that’s why they do it the way they do.  After 10 min of my objections, he backed down a bit and said perhaps this particular speaker didn’t go about it quite the right way.  My daughter also said in the end of their class discussion today perhaps the speaker didn’t come off quite right.  The teacher actually arranged for it to be presented, but then left the room.  He told me he likes for his classes to “go through” this exercise. Sounds like Indoctrination to me.

Oh one more fun little tidbit,  the middle school put my younger daughter through a “Cognitive Abilities Test” this week.  They sent home an open disclosure notice about it on the day she had already  taken it.  The high school gave that survey about drug & alcohol use week before last too. My daughter chose to take it, afterward, I wish I had not let her as it introduced her to many drugs she has never heard of in great description of what it looks like, where to get it and how to use it.  She had to basically defend herself 150 times answering she does not do those things.

What is happening to our schools?  Things are really getting scary.

It appears that self-loathing can be funded with taxpayer dollars. Then Mrs. X took a trip and saw the effects of the Inclusion Center on her daughter.

Hi Oak,

Interesting thing happened while on vacation as a result of that experience the school subjected my daughter to.   While in the airport a black woman came around clearing the tables. I noticed my daughter taking a really good look at her and got a strange expression on her face.  After the woman walked away she told me it made her feel strange that the black woman was doing a lower class type job.  I quickly pointed out the other workers in there of various ethnic groups including white people also clearing tables and also told her in today’s economy, they/we are all fortunate to have jobs.  Interesting seed the Inclusion Center has now planted.  Prior to this, she never would have noticed the color of anyone doing any type job. Then while viewing animals on our trip. There was a pen with alligators and turtles in it.  She quickly noticed that all the alligators were on one side and the turtles were on the opposite side. She jokingly stated “hey look, they are being racist”.  I laughed and asked, well which group is being raciest, the alligators or the turtles? I suppose if we counted how many there were of each we could have decided which was the majority and called them the racists. Then I pointed out that even in nature, it is natural for species to group together and to try and force otherwise is un-natural as with the Inclusion Center suggesting the white kids need to force themselves into the black and Hispanic kids groups, ie: sit with them at lunch etc.  Clearly that presentation has made an impression on my daughter.

Mrs. X pointed out that on their website they have announced Oppression Awareness week coming up in April, specifically mentioning West, Highland, and Judge Memorial High Schools. I would spread the word and help parents know what’s in store for their children should this program come to their school. Ask your school district board and school principals to not allow this program into your schools as well. With all the concern over our children’s self-esteem by the education establishment, this should be a no-brainer.

As I was preparing to publish this, Mrs. X added one more follow up regarding this teacher:

My daughter’s English teacher continues to persist in this topic. He claims he put the kids through this presentation in preparation to read “Night,” a book about the holocaust. His package of questions about the book that they work through as they read through the book had a “before you read” questionnaire that had nothing to do with the holocaust.  “What does it feel like to be an outsider? What does it feel like to be an insider? What does it feel like to be thought of as “less worthy” because of ones skin and/or hair color? How important is it for you to look right? How important is it for you to  be part of the crowd or certain group? How do you feel when you don’t belong? Do people (parents, teachers, employers, friends etc…) pick favorites? Have you ever been the favorite or least favorite? How did it make you feel?  Think about a book or movie you have seen that shows examples of prejudice or favoritism. Why do so many books and movies cover this topic?

Then yesterday, instead of continuing with the work package on the book “Night,” he spent the class time discussing racism again.  He asked the class to imagine in their head a scientist.  Then told them that he was sure they all imagined a white person and explained why that is racist. Then he asked them to imagine a criminal in their mind. Followed with, he was certain that every student imagined a male, and most likely a black male.

This is an English class. Not a history, or Social Studies class. What is this teachers motive?????  Of course his Obama 08 stickers around the classroom may be a hint.  I’d like to present to him the idea to have the kids read some CS Lewis.

Why do we send our children to school again? To learn to read and write, or get loaded on with this nonsense? Our children should not have to be subjected to this.

Click here to see a copy of the syllabus they used for the activity (I think the acronym mentioned at the beginning runs down the left letters which spell “U-Avoid-It”):

White Privilege

[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.

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).

“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.”

Now let me preface this post with *I am not advocating this type of school.* I am posting this to get your thoughts on what this information presents below. I am going through a period of study trying to figure out what an ideal school system might be today. We’ve had some discussions on this in the past and it’s a topic that needs more exploration. So with that said, there are 3 videos below. The first is a short history of compulsory education I came across online. The second and third are actual schools where the students are practically on their own. Very limited structure. Please watch these and leave a thought below. Could you put your child in a school like this?

The first video is 6.5 minutes, the second two are about 10 each and if you watch one you don’t necessarily have to watch the other, unless you’re really fascinated. They are similar schools. If you don’t want to watch or have time right now, you can read this brief essay from one of the schools. https://www.sudval.com/05_essay.html

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

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awOAmTaZ4XI[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgpuSo-GSfw[/youtube]

[Sudbury schools]

Just over a week ago I made a presentation at the Davis County 9/12 group on education issues. One of the parents in attendance shared this story with me about something a high school teacher told the class.

“Your parents lie to you all the time but in this class I will never lie to you.  I will tell you the absolute truth.  If I told you all the lies that your parents have told you I could go on from a year from Thursday.”

Davis County High School Teacher

I asked her what the teacher uses as an example of the lies of a parent.  He said that parents tell their children that if they eat their vegetables it will make them strong.  he points out that only protein builds muscle and strength.   Therefore the parents have lied. Wow.

This is why parents have to be involved in their schools. This is a teacher that should be fired. This is a teacher that illustrates the power of indoctrination and it reminds me of how Fidel Castro told children to close their eyes and pray to God for candy and when they opened their eyes there was no candy. Then he had them pray to him for candy and when they opened their eyes it was there for them. This is totally immoral.

If you’ve never read the Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis, you’re missing out on one of the gems of literature. The book is a series of letters from the perspective of a master devil (named Screwtape) to his nephew (Wormwood) who is a beginning tempter “in the field” trying to win souls for the devil. Screwtape encourages Wormwood and guides him through various episodes in tempting humans to fall into sin. Occasionally he scolds Wormwood for allowing his subjects to become involved in something that may lead them toward the enemy (ie. God).

Sometime after Lewis wrote the book, he wrote an essay entitled “Screwtape Proposes a Toast.” I have a quote from this essay elsewhere on the site but I felt the need to share this clip with you. The essay itself is a satire on the American education system and in this clip, Lewis skewers our system of dumbing down our children in the name of “democracy.”

To read the entire and VERY worthwhile essay, you can find it anywhere online but here’s one link this clip came from (including the site’s bolding).

Now, this useful phenomenon is in itself by no means new. Under the name of Envy it has been known to humans for thousands of years. But hitherto they always regarded it as the most odious, and also the most comical, of vices. Those who were aware of feeling it felt it with shame; those who were not gave it no quarter in others. The delightful novelty of the present situation is that you can sanction it — make it respectable and even laudable — by the incantatory use of the word democratic.

Under the influence of this incantation those who are in any or every way inferior can labour more wholeheartedly and successfully than ever before to pull down everyone else to their own level. But that is not all. Under the same influence, those who come, or could come, nearer to a full humanity, actually draw back from fear of being undemocratic. I am credibly informed that young humans now sometimes suppress an incipient taste for classical music or good literature because it might prevent their Being Like Folks; that people who would really wish to be — and are offered the Grace which would enable them to be — honest, chaste, or temperate refuse it. To accept might make them Different, might offend against the Way of Life, take them out of Togetherness, impair their Integration with the Group. They might (horror of horrors!) become individuals.

All is summed up in the prayer which a young female human is said to have uttered recently: “O God, make me a normal twentieth century girl!” Thanks to our labours, this will mean increasingly: “Make me a minx, a moron, and a parasite.”

Meanwhile, as a delightful by-product, the few (fewer every day) who will not be made Normal or Regular and Like Folks and Integrated increasingly become in reality the prigs and cranks which the rabble would in any case have believed them to be. For suspicion often creates what it expects. (“Since, whatever I do, the neighbors are going to think me a witch, or a Communist agent, I might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb, and become one in reality.”) As a result we now have an intelligentsia which, though very small, is very useful to the cause of Hell.

But that is a mere by-product. What I want to fix your attention on is the vast, overall movement towards the discrediting, and finally the elimination, of every kind of human excellence – moral, cultural, social, or intellectual. And is it not pretty to notice how “democracy” (in the incantatory sense) is now doing for us the work that was once done by the most ancient Dictatorships, and by the same methods? You remember how one of the Greek Dictators (they called them “tyrants” then) sent an envoy to another Dictator to ask his advice about the principles of government. The second Dictator led the envoy into a field of grain, and there he snicked off with his cane the top of every stalk that rose an inch or so above the general level. The moral was plain. Allow no preeminence among your subjects. Let no man live who is wiser or better or more famous or even handsomer than the mass. Cut them all down to a level: all slaves, all ciphers, all nobodies. All equals.Thus Tyrants could practise, in a sense, “democracy.” But now “democracy” can do the same work without any tyranny other than her own. No one need now go through the field with a cane. The little stalks will now of themselves bite the tops off the big ones. The big ones are beginning to bite off their own in their desire to Be Like Stalks.

It seems that no matter how many times I try to explain something, there are always a few people who feel they are gifted to look beyond what I say or write and that it’s just a cover for what I really believe. I’m not smart enough to live 2 lives that way and have one set of beliefs and values that I hide and keep separate from what I say publicly.

For example, this was recent posted on one candidate website.

[candidate] are you an advocate for traditional public schools?  Oak Norton and associates are anti-public education and pro-private education as indicated by his Powerpoint displayed on his website. You were endorsed by that group.  Does that endorsement mean that you are also against public education?  If so, why should we elect someone who associates with those who are anti-public education or makes bombastic and baseless comments such as Superintendent Henshaw is buddies with Bill Ayers?

Let me explain this one more time for the benefit of my readers. I am not anti-public education, I am anti-federal government involvement in public education (my own children are in a wonderful PUBLIC school). I am against dumbing our children down with weak math and revisionist history. I am anti-John Goodlad involvement in public education. It just so happens that the Alpine School District is tied at the hip with John Goodlad and his literature and teachings are being passed out to our teachers to read from and be taught in professional development. Goodlad is a humanist with dangerous beliefs. He is a socialist and uses his forums to transform America into a socialist state. He is friends with Bill Ayers and Ayers is the keynote speaker at the Goodlad conference this month. Vern Henshaw was on the executive committee of Goodlad’s national organization (NNER) when Bill Ayers was a speaker at another conference. ASD’s Superintendent is fully aware of Goodlad’s positions yet continues to allow his teachings to be disseminated to teachers. To anyone who hasn’t watched the presentation referenced above, here’s a link. Go see for yourself what was presented and you’ll discover a national movement to destroy religious morality, belief in God, and to separate children from their parents. The public education teachers that were present thanked us after the presentation.

This individual continues his post:

My feeling is that anyone who is associated with Oak Norton and subsequently the radical Eagle Forum, and the conspiracy theory-laden John Birch Society should not be serving the children of ASD. I’m also disturbed by the fact that Oak Norton supports the Texas education standards which indoctrinates children to learn about Phylis Schlafly, ultra-conservative movements such as the Eagle Forum, and rewrites history by inaccurately vindicating McCarthyism?  Do you support a core curriculum that makes an attempt to be politically neutral and teach students to evaluate and think for themselves or do you support the right-wing ideological indoctrination of our students as those who endorse you do?

So the attack continues. Lets look at how this person succeeds in labeling the situation by presenting the facts. The individual begins by naming the Eagle Forum and John Birch Society to be radical and shouldn’t be serving the children of ASD. I am a member of neither organization but I believe them to be wonderful groups who spend countless hours promoting freedom issues and support of the constitution. The JBS actually produced the 10 minute video found on this site in the upper right corner which explains the difference between a republic and a democracy. The Eagle Forum was founded by Phillis Schlafly, a woman who stepped forward in the 70’s to stop the feminist movement. Her efforts had a tremendous impact on the entire nation. This individual thinks children will be “indoctrinated” to learn about her contributions, but I disagree. This is what one single Texas history standard actually says about Ms. Schlafly.

Describe the causes, key organizations, and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract with America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the National Rifle Association;

If the individual feels this is conservative indoctrination to learn about such individuals and organizations that have had an impact on America, then why does he not decry the other side of the coin when further down the Texas standards later include the contributions of Hillary Clinton?

Evaluate the contributions of significant political and social leaders in the United States such as Andrew Carnegie, Thurgood Marshall, Billy Graham, Barry Goldwater, Sandra Day O’Connor, and Hillary Clinton.

This individual seems to have seen a group he despises and leveled charges. The John Birch society isn’t even mentioned in the standards so it’s further confusing to his point to bring them into his rant.

His last charge that the Texas history standards are rewriting history are amusing when our history books already contain a rewriting of history calling the Framers of our Constitution deists and accusing them of all manner of immorality. His specific charge deals with Senator Joseph McCarthy and the Venona papers. Have you ever heard of the Venona papers? Neither has most of the country because that was removed from our history books as well. I’d never heard of them till this year. Here’s what the Texas standards say:

Describe how Cold War tensions were intensified by the arms race, the space race, McCarthyism, and the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), the findings of which were confirmed by the Venona Papers.

This is a completely relevant standard. High schoolers should be taught what happened during the Cold War including the facts about what McCarthy was doing and what was later shown to be correct. Did McCarthy finger some people who were innocent? Possibly so, but to ignore the significant findings of the Venona papers would be the equivalent of indoctrinating our children in the false assumption that there were no Soviet spies and that McCarthy was on a baseless witch hunt. The Venona papers identified 349 persons who had some level of relationship with the Soviet Union, from Alger Hiss and other well known spies, to many whose code names have never been matched up with real individuals.

The Texas history standards are a landmark achievement for presenting history as factual and fair. It removes the prior revisionist history and adds important facts. Significantly more minorities are discussed with their contributions to America. America is repeatedly identified as a constitutional republic (for a change from democracy). And there is a newfound emphasis on the founding documents of our nation. If you haven’t taken a look at them, here’s a link to see for yourself.

https://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=3643

Here’s one I just noticed that is new to these standards:

Describe U.S. citizens as people from numerous places throughout the world who hold a common bond in standing for certain self-evident truths

I would love to have Utah adopt these standards. What an improvement over the current indoctrination of diversity and multi-culturalism!

On Saturday, September 18, 2010, there was a fantastic Constitution conference held in Salt Lake City with a wide variety of presentations. If you didn’t get a chance to attend, please try to do so the next time the opportunity arises. Stephen Pratt and other people from around the country came in to educate and present on various ways they have succeeded in taking back states’ rights. Personally, the coolest thing for me was when Sharon Angle spoke at the end of the day about her activist efforts in Nevada and how she finally found an attorney who found a way around the state Supreme Court which had a ruling that violated state law. Someone else may remember the story itself better than I at this point, but her solution was meaningful to me because this attorney used Article 4, Section 4 of the constitution to get the federal government to overturn the state court based on the duty the federal government has to protect republican government in the states. That clause in my amendment to the Republican Party platform is what caused it to be shot down last May by people who didn’t want to hear the feds have a duty to intervene in instances like this, and it’s exactly what saved Nevada citizens from an illegal tax hike. That was cool. :)

A close second was being able to co-present one of the workshops with Susie Schnell. Susie, if you don’t recall, is the parent in Highland who had the extremely negative experience with her daughter’s teachers and the school district democracy issue, that led to the Green Party radical in CA who believed the Founding Fathers were “predatory elitists.” You can read her story here if you’ve never seen it. It gets worse than that too.

Anyway, the workshop we presented was on education issues and how the national movement to dumb our children down and make them good little socialists is seeping into Utah schools. There are some quotes we found just last week before the presentation that you’ve never seen but will make your hair stand on end when you understand what the people behind public education intend for our children.

Here is a link to download the Powerpoint presentation, and here are the 5 parts of our 45 minute presentation, uploaded by Joyce Mitchell who was in attendance and filmed it. There is a higher quality version that will be out in a couple weeks by the official people that filmed the presentation, but you can hear and see everything here just fine.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Thomas Jefferson said, “it is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father.”

So should we end compulsory schooling started by Horace Mann in the 1800’s? Vote and then leave a comment why or why not. What would the major obstacles be?

[poll id=”3″]