According to the Columbia Daily Tribune, officials at three Missouri schools aren’t very happy with the Obama campaign-themed school supplies their schools received from a supply company recently. As a matter of fact, the supply company, Pencil Wholesale, is having to travel across the state to recall the pencils and notebooks that look very similar to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign logo.
The school supplies have pictures of stacks of coins – pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters – and read “Change We Can Believe In.” It also features the red, white, and blue “O” that was a signature mark of the Obama campaign. (See the photo to the right.)
At least two families of students at Columbia Elementary School have complained about their children purchasing the notebooks and pencils from a school vending machine and Principal Mary Sue Gibson alerted the supply company, saying she didn’t want to “get into that political arena.”
Greg Jones, a sales representative with the company says the design was an accident. “The art department was trying to be cutesy,” he said of the school supplies. “I wish I could do it over, but for now, I can just make it right.” He also stated that the supplies were not designed by Pencil Wholesale.
Jones said he delivers supplies to about 800 schools and he will be traveling around to the schools who may have received the controversial supplies to see to it that they are removed, but finding all of the pencils and notebooks has been a difficult task.
“It’s turned out to be really ugly. We’re trying to get them out of the schools as fast as we can,” he said in a statement.
Harry Potter, Junie B. Jones, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. These are book titles you are likely to find in your child’s school library. But what if you walked into your child’s classroom and saw titles such as Queer 13, Love & Sex: Ten Stories of Truth, and Growing Up Gay/Growing Up Lesbian on the bookshelves? According to a new report by Scott Baker of Breitbart-TV.com, the possibility of children as young as preschool age reading about subject matters that include public masturbation, prostitution, five-year-olds playing sex games, thirteen-year-olds having oral sex, affairs with older teachers, and the taste of semen, could become a reality in the not-so-distant future.
The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) is an organization whose mission, according to their website, is to educate teachers, students, and the public against homophobia and heterosexism in schools. The group was founded by Kevin Jennings, who served as the Executive Director of GLSEN for many years. Where is Kevin Jennings now? He’s working under the Obama administration as the “Safe School Czar”
According to Baker’s report, GLSEN “strives to influence the educational curriculum to include materials which the group believes will increase tolerance of gay students and decrease bullying.” This includes a suggested reading list for all students and is divided into three sections, K-6, 7-12, and books for teachers. The book list is featured on the GLSEN website, which even allows for online ordering for students and teachers who want to use the reading materials in their classroom.
OK, not that big of a deal. While I don’t think it’s appropriate to talk about relationships of any kind (gay or straight) outside of a parent-approved sex education class, I do think students need to be taught to be tolerant of people who are not like them. I understand the desire for children of all walks of life to be treated appropriately. But wait, there’s more.
Around the time the book list was developed, GLSEN put out a press release, praising the passage of the Dignity in All Schools Act by the New York City Council. In the press release, GLSEN claims they focus on :educational resources, public policy agenda, student organizing programs, and development initiatives.” In other words, one of their main focuses is influencing education. This group has an agenda.
Again, I have no problem with schools teaching tolerance, but not as suggested by a gay and lesbian group. No offense to gays and lesbians, but I would not want to see children given tolerance lessons by any group that is ultimately about sexual relationships, regardless of the sexual orientation of those involved. This is what many liberals and gay agendists don’t seem to understand. It is inappropriate for children to be talking about sex of any kind in school, unless they are participating in a class in which sex is part of the curriculum and only then, after their parents have approved of the content. These books force sex onto students who may or may not be ready for the topic.
Also, as the report states, it’s not about censorship. No one wants to ban these books, but forcing them onto a population of students under the age of eighteen is inappropriate. GLSEN does advise adults to review the books, but also insists the books were reviewed by staff members and contain appropritate content. The actual content of the books is too graphic to post here, but upon reading specific passages, I, myself, was shocked beyond belief. As an adult, I do not read books containing such language and I certainly would not want my children doing the same.
Kevin Jennings was heading the organization in a very “hands-on” role at the time this book list was published. Whether or not he knows about the list is not certain, but it is likely. Would you want the man behind the organization promoting such books to have any hand in educating America’s students? Decided for yourself. To read passages from some of the suggested books, please visit the full report at Gateway Pundit. Please be cautioned, the passages contain very explicit and pornographic language.
If you are an aspiring teacher planning to attend the University of Minnesota, you better check any patriotic or non-racist thoughts at the door.
This is according to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), an organization which promotes civil liberties on American college and university campuses. The group sent a letter to Robert Bruininks, the University’s president, asking him to not adopt the policies proposed by the school’s College of Education and Human Development which includes the University requiring potential teachers be examined on topics such as “white privilege” and providing them with “remedial re-education” in they hold “wrong views.”
The letter stated:
The university’s general counsel should be asked to comment as soon as possible. If the Race, Culture, Class, and Gender Task Group achieves its stated goals, the result will be political and ideological screening of applicants, remedial re-education for those with ‘wrong’ views and values, withholding of degrees from those upon whom the university’s political re-education efforts proved inefective.
The letter was penned by Adam Kissel, an officer with FIRE. According to Kissel, the entire admissions process will be redesigned to screen applicants based on their beliefs and values. He says that the public University is bound by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, making it legally and morally obligated to uphold a student’s right to freedom.
The new plan asks the question:
How can we be sure that teaching supervisors are themselves developed and equipped in cultural competence outcomes in order to supervise beginning teachers around issues of race, class, culture, and gender?
So what exactly does the new plan have new teachers planning lessons about? Well, the “myth of meritocracy” in the United States for one thing. Also, “the history of demands for assimilation to white, middle-class, Christian meanings and values” and the “history of white racism.”
This path of educating students isn’t exactly new to American universities. The University of Delaware was caught teaching students that “all whites are racists” The curriculum was done away with upon outcry from alumni and the public, but the school still defended its program.
According to Minneapolis Star-Tribune columnist Katherine Kersten, Minnesota’s new plan would force prospective teachers to “embrace – and be prepared to teach our state’s kids – the task force’s own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic.” She goes on to compare the issue to China’s Cultural Revolution re-education camps.
FIRE compares the decision to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of the West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943). In that ruling, Justice Robert H. Jackson said, “Freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
Hopefully, University of Minnesota alumni and Minnesota state taxpayers will stand up against what is being forced upon their college students. Indoctrinating future educators with a specific agenda is dangerous not only to those educators, but to the thousands of students they will reach in their lifetimes.
Over 200 of Boston’s best teachers won’t be getting bonuses this year, at least not if the Boston Teacher’s Union has anything to say about it. The Union is strongly opposing a performance bonus plan for the best teachers in a move that has education experts scratching their heads.
The program was launched by Exxon Mobil and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundations in 2008 at the John D. O’Bryant School. It pays Advanced Placement teachers $100 bonuses for each student who passes the test. It also pays up to $3,000 a year for meeting other goals and after-school study sessions for Advanced Placement classes that count toward college credit.
The union feels the money should be divided up amongst all teachers – both good and bad. “There’s no one solely responsible for the development of these students. They should all share in the money,” said Union head Richard Stutman.
Jim Stergios, executive director of the nonpartisan Pioneer Institute sees it differently, “It’s insanity. They’re less concerned about promoting the interest of individual members than maintaining control over their members.”
School Superintendent Carol R. Johnson agrees, “(The union) is standing in the way off innovation. I think we have to realize we can’t do business as usual…. We have to be willing to make changes and give kids the opportunities they need,” she told the Boston Herald.
The program is just one of many ways Boston Public Schools is looking to boost its schools’ academic performance. And according to Morton Orlov, the president of the Massachusetts Math & Science Initiative at MassINSIGHT, the schools that currently accept teacher bonuses have seen a 39% increase in students passing Advanced Placement exams.
Competition is what drives the world and these days, many educational systems are experimenting with it. Paying teachers based on performance and motivating them to work harder to see to it that children succeed seems like a great idea and countless studies have shown that it almost always works out for the positive. But the Unions aren’t concerned with children acquiring knowledge and passing tests so they can get into college, they’re only concerned with keeping themselves in power and pleasing their members. If there was ever any proof that Unions hurt business rather than help, this is it. It may not seem like such a big deal to many when it comes to the corporate world but seeing how they could possibly affect our children should be an eye-opener for parents.
Gary Tudesko, a junior at Willows High School in Willows, California has been suspended for having unloaded shotguns in his pick-up truck. However, the truck was not parked on school campus. The Willows Unified School District board of trustees voted 4-0 in a public hearing to expel the sixteen-year-old, after the guns were found by scent-sniffing dogs. When this occurred, Tudesko was brought out to the truck and asserted that the guns and shells were in the vehicle, allowing it to be searched. Police also found a three-inch knife and are holding all of the potential weapons.
The student’s mother, Susan Parisio, defended her son at the hearing and claimed that he should have stored the shotguns properly after a day of bird hunting, but insisted the district’s policies don’t extend to off-campus property. She also claimed her family has owned guns for her son’s entire life and that ammunition was found in other students’ cars but they were not expelled.
While the school’s principal and district officials did not dispute that the truck was not on school property, they did attempt to justify their decision. Principal Mort Geivett said the school is responsible for students traveling to and from school and it was his belief that students shouldn’t possess weapons within 1,000 feet of campus.
Tudesko apologized to the school board, but insisted that he didn’t want to be late to school and felt that parking in a public place that was on school grounds would prevent him from getting in trouble. The school board failed to comment on their decision.
So, was this a case of government officials using their authority to force their anti-Second Amendment rights agenda? I can’t be sure of that, but assuming there are no extraneous details, I can assume the School Board is out of line by expelling the student.
I understand the principal’s desire to be safe, rather than sorry, but I don’t feel that he was within his right, nor was the school board. Punishing a student based on “beliefs” rather than rules and regulations is, in my opinion, unconstitutional. The student was within his right to carry the guns in his car and never brought them on campus. As far as I know, the student didn’t even threaten or talk about bringing the firearms on campus. If the principal “believes” that students shouldn’t be allowed to bring weapons to school, he should act on making this into a school policy, not make one single student into an example and permanently ruin that student’s record.
Last month, we saw a few videos make national headlines of public schoolchildren being made to sing the praises of Barack Obama, but today the blog Big Hollywood claims they’ve received eleven more videos via email. The videos show kids ranging in age from elementary to high school students. Even more disturbing than children being forced to speak or sing praises for a man as though he is some sort of religious figure, is the fact that many of the songs and skits performed appear to focus on the President’s race and not his accomplishments. As a matter of fact, some of them took place before Obama was even sworn into office.
At West High School, located in Madison Wisconsin, students from “MULTICO”, a “two hour a day English class” decided to write skits based on “concerns and experiences of children and adolescents in a multicultural, multilingual urban environment.” How did they do this? By “performing” Obama’s victory speech, of course! At Morgan Park High School in Chicago, students perform a song “Change We Can Believe In.”
At Giffen Elementary School, in Albany, New York, fifth and six grade students created a rap about the current President. The rap has lines such as “I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave-owners,” and “The first black President. Now he’s in the white house…” with a chorus of the phrase “say yes we can” repeated.
At Gotham Avenue School in New York, fifth graders perform a song that starts out, “We believe in Barack Obama. He loves you and he loves your mama.” Kind of takes me back to my own childhood when I sang “Jesus Loves Me” in Sunday School. Doesn’t it you? If you think that one takes the Obama worship a little too far, how about this one from Powell Elementary School in Camden, New Jersey. It starts out with the line, “Barack Obama there is none higher” and goes on to talk about Obama’s “kingdom.”
The list goes on and each one is creepier and more disturbing than the last. It’s been a while, but if I remember correctly, when I was in elementary school, we sang nursery rhymes and patriotic songs. We performed plays such as “The Three Bears” and the my favorite from third grade: “The North Pole Goes Rock ‘n Roll.” Of course, Christmas themes aren’t allowed these days because someone might get offended. If I had a child in school and I found out their teachers were forcing them to participate in these types of activities, I’d be at the school in a heartbeat. I can only hope some of the parents of these kids feel the same way. Visit Big Hollywood for more and take a look at the videos of children being indoctrinated for yourself: ELEMENTARY EPIDEMIC: 11 Uncovered Videos Show School Children Performing Praises to Obama
From textbooks to teachers, and everything in between, this blog will document the intentional pervision of fact in our public and private educational systems.