November 19, 2007
November 7, 2007
Lodi Unified School District
Superintendent William Huyett
James Areida Education Support Center
1305 E. Vine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Re: Teacher Training Day, October 22, 2007
Dear Board Members and Superintendent Huyett:
Eagle Forum of Sacramento stands for the political, social and economic principles upon which our Nation is founded. We attempt to educate and inform citizens of issues that many times will affect the most influential unit of our society, the traditional family.
I have recently corresponded with you regarding the teacher training day you had on October 22, 2007. Some teachers in the Lodi Unified School District were concerned about the racial content of the programs and DVDs that you chose to introduce. In spite of my correspondence, LUSD continued with the programs.
If each of you stays current with news and media, you will know that the University of Delaware recently instituted a program by Dr. Shakti Butler, the same person that provided you with the â€œMaking Whiteness Visibleâ€ video that you introduced in Lodi. Amid much public outcry and outrage, the University of Delaware immediately ceased the program. I find it very alarming that LUSD ignored public and employee alarm and instead went forward with this program.
Dr. Butlerâ€™s definitions include: â€œA RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexualityâ€; â€œREVERSE RACISM: A term created and used by white people to deny their white privilegeâ€; and â€œA NON-RACIST: A non term. The term was created by whites to deny responsibility for systemic racismâ€¦.â€ (Emphases added.)
The Lodi Unified School District seems terrifyingly unaware that a state and federal sponsored public education institution in the United States does not have the legal right to engage in a program of systematic thought reform. The First Amendment protects the right to freedom of conscienceâ€”the right to keep our innermost thoughts free from governmental intrusion. It also protects the right to be free from compelled speech. As the Supreme Court declared in the landmark case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943): â€œIf 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.â€ The Court concluded that â€œthe purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitutionâ€ was precisely to protect â€œfrom all official controlâ€ the domain that was â€œthe sphere of intellect and spirit.â€ The LUSDâ€™s teacher training education program is an unconscionable and unconstitutional incursion into the private conscience of teachers whose greatest offense is simply choosing the LUSD as a place of employment.
When you have a black principal allowed to get up and rant about how she wakes up knowing she is black and does not have white privilege, and support a video talking about how whites are racists that whites think they are better than blacks, you are promoting racism. When this same black principal makes over $75,000 a year, and drives an expensive luxury sports car, and is talking to white teachers about how she is oppressed because she is black, you are promoting racism. When these same teachers are told that they cannot critique the comments made this day, you are engaging in denial of freedom of speech, and the right to freedom of conscience.
When you allow Kino Carson to go into childrenâ€™s classrooms and tell them that the Statue of Liberty is a black woman, you are promoting racism. When you bring in â€œCycle of Inquiryâ€ where teachers are told to choose low-performing students and the only criteria is that at least one must be black, you are promoting racism and racial profiling. When Odie Douglas and Barbara Johnson are planning to go around talking with various teachers and at meetings, although the content of their speech is not yet known, Eagle Forum of Sacramento concerned that it will be promoting racism.
The legal problems posed by programs such as these are abundant and cut to the core of the most essential rights of a free people. Possible claims include violations of the right to privacy as well as federal and state constitutional claims for having and enforcing an unconstitutional speech code, and for violations of the right to freedom of conscience.
To be clear, however, Eagle Forum of Sacramento is not a litigation organization, and our objection to programs such as these is far more than legalistic. What makes programs like this so offensive is their brazen disregard for autonomy, dignity, and individual conscience, and the sheer contempt it displays for all of the Districtâ€™s teachers.
As aggressive as organizations like Eagle Forum may seem, at the heart of all concepts relating to freedom of the mind is a recognition of our own limitationsâ€”like us, those in power are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, and therefore have no right to dictate to others what their deepest personal beliefs must be. Concerns for free speech and freedom of conscience are rooted in the wisdom of humility and restraint. The teachersâ€™ training day that you had on October 22, which presumes to show teachers the specific ideological assumptions they need in order to be better people, crosses the boundary from education into unconscionably arrogant, invasive, and immoral thought reform. We can conceive of no way in which teacher training programs such as this can be maintained consistent with the ideals of a free society.
We ask for nothing less than the immediate and total dismantling of the all such programs that promote racism and white privilege theory within the District.
Very truly yours,
Education Director, Eagle Forum of Sacramento
July 24, 2006
U.S.A. Schooling the Communist Way
By Brannon S. Howse
After Part 1 of this series appeared, I received several e-mails that confirmed my fears: Far too many of my fellow citizens actually think school-to-work is a good idea.
“Why,” I wondered, “would any American think the merging of education with industrial production as found in the Communist Manifesto benefits our children?” It must be because they are educated beyond their intelligence, they love socialism and communism, or they don’t recognize Marxism even when it stares them in the face.
Let me be very clear on a few things. First, I do think vocational education is a good idea. I also think apprenticeship programs are an outstanding approach to career preparation for some people. Too many students are pressured to go to college just because “that’s the way to get ahead.” And I certainly do not believe state and federal governments should be the ones pressuring students to go to college or not or pressuring students to pick certain career majors. All students from first grade through the twelfth should receive a strongly academic education that will well prepare them to be thinking, creative persons in life and in whatever career they choose.
If you think school-to-work style education reform is not occurring where you live, then you need to ask whether or not your state receives any federal education funds. If your state is not receiving federal dollars, this communist brand of education reform may not be taking place. But lest you be even slightly optimistic, I’ll tell you plainly that I don’t know of a single state that has rejected federal education funds and the accompanying mandates. That means, it’s happening right where you live. Whether it is private grants, No Child Left Behind, or some other U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Labor program, states are rushing to comply with federal requirements so they can gorge themselves at Uncle Sam’s money trough.
Florida, Minnesota, Illinois, Oregon, and Washington are further along in their implantation of school-to-work/ready-to-work/Small Learning Communities, but make no mistake: Every state in the union has school districts that are in some way weaving this reform package into their systems, thereby moving America down the road toward a centrally planned economy.
Lynn Cheney, wife of Vice-President Dick Cheney, is the former chair-woman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. While serving with NEH, Mrs. Cheney wrote about the dangers of school-to-work:
A central thesis of school-to-work plans, for example, is that eighth-graders should choose careers. To help them along, schools administer interest and personality assessments that direct students toward specific occupations, often ones that have little to do with their ambitions. Kristine Jensen, a Nevada mother, told me that her daughter, an honor student who wants to work for NASA, had been advised to consider a career in sanitation or interior design. Eunice Evans, a parental-rights advocate in Pennsylvania, described a boy in her neighborhood that wanted to be a doctor but was told it would be more appropriate for him to be a gas station attendant or a truck-driver.
Mrs. Cheney also pointed out the goal of workforce development boards—backed profusely by federal funds—that now exist in almost every state:
To consider future market needs and decide which career choices schools should encourage. But predicting work-force needs is an iffy business. In 1989, for example, a prestigious study declared that by 1997, there would be a substantial shortage of humanities Ph.D’s, when, in fact, there is now a glut.
We need more public servants like Craig Hagen who will take a stand for what is right. In her congressional testimony, Lynn Cheney told Mr. Hagen’s story:
Concerned that schools in his state would get in the business of enforcing politically correct thinking led Craig Hagen, North Dakota’s Commissioner of Labor, to resign from his state’s school-to-work management team earlier this year. “I couldn’t remain in that position with my principles,” he said.
But abuses abound. In Las Vegas, for example, Rene Tucker’s daughter, Darcy, was pulled out of a geography class without her parents’ consent in order to be given a computerized career assessment. Although Darcy wants to become a veterinarian, the computer held that she should be a bartender or waitress, and it spat out a list of courses she ought to take toward that end. Mrs. Tucker said, “We’re Christians, and the school stepped on my toes as a parent. It is my job to direct my child’s career path, and it would not be in her best interest to be a bartender.” Given the gargantuan hospitality needs of the state, it might be in Nevada’s best interest to turn Darcy into one of the minions of the gambling and entertainment industry, but that approach to career path development sounds more like it belongs in the 1960s Soviet Union than in 21st century America.
A few years ago I testified before the Kansas state senate along with Rene Tucker. We were joined by an economist from Hillsdale College to urge Kansas not to implement school-to-work in that state. The anticipated tidal wave of federal funds was too much for the mere state of Kansas to resist, though, and on behalf of its people, the state legislature instead rejected common sense and freedom to imbibe the failed economic polices of communism.
In his now classic book, Brave New World, Aldous Huxley wrote,
To bring about the revolution we require…Enabling government managers to assign any given individual to his or her proper place in the social and economic hierarchy. Round pegs in square holes tend to have dangerous thoughts about the social system and to infect others with their discontents.
In other words, those who do not agree with the State’s worldview or “standards” will not be encouraged to pursue positions of power or influence either socially or economically.
A career exploration test already used in six states features 100 true or false questions, including these:
• I have taught a Sunday school class or otherwise take an active part in my church;
• I believe in a God who answers prayers;
• I believe that tithing is one’s duty to God;
• I pray to God about my problems;
• It is important that grace be said before meals;
• I read the Bible or other religious writings regularly;
• I believe in life after death;
• I believe that God created man in his own image;
• If I ask God for forgiveness, my sins are forgiven.
Now let that sink in for a moment, and then ask yourself this question: Why are such questions included on a career exploration test if not to determine the “proper place” to assign each student? The benign answer, of course, is to find out whether or not someone is suited to a job as a church pastor. But there is also a frighteningly non-benign possibility as Christian thought becomes increasingly marginalized in our culture. It could all too easily become the new frontier for “black balling” undesirables such as people who actually think God matters.
The goals of the Communist Manifesto and those who signed the Humanist Manifesto are being accomplished even now as we see the merging of education with labor policy—or what many are referring to as corporate fascism. The American Heritage Dictionary defines corporate fascism as “a philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises dictatorship through the merging of state and business leadership.”
The fact that so many Americans don’t even know this communistic education reform is sweeping our nation is perilous. What is even more alarming are the ones who know it yet believe it is a good thing. Liberal Republicans and Democrats alike have succeeded in achieving the goals that Secular Humanists and Communists have long sought for America’s children. And there, as they say, goes the future.
U.S.A. Schooling the Communist Way
By Brannon S. Howse
Several weeks ago, I was sitting in a hotel lobby sipping a Coke and visiting with my friend Michael Reagan who had just given a speech before several hundred people. Mike, as you may know, is a best-selling author, radio talk-show host, Fox News contributor, and eldest son of President Ronald Reagan.
A few minutes into our conversation, Mike remembered something he wanted to tell me. “Brannon,” he said, cocking his head in my direction, “I thought of you this morning when I read the newspaper.”
I wondered if he were about to crack a joke at my expense but noted that there was no trace of a smirk on Mike’s face. “Really?” I wondered, “What made you think of me?”
“Well,” Mike said before pausing for an instant (I wonder where he picked up that mannerism) “I was thinking of you because I read in the paper that Jeb Bush has become the first governor in America to sign into law a state-wide requirement that ninth-grade high school students pick a career major and focus on that major from ninth through twelfth grade. You’ve predicted something like that on my radio show more than once since 1993—also in your book for which I wrote the foreword.”
Mike was correct. It’s a prediction I hoped Americans would be wise enough to stop before it came to pass. As the education reporter and often the guest host of Michael Reagan’s program I had spend countless hours warning Mike’s listeners about Goals 2000, School-to-Work, Outcome-Based Education, HR6, No Child Left Behind, and other federal plans that have the goal of merging education with industrial production, thus turning our schools into vocational centers where students are “trained” rather than educated.
Republicans and Democrats alike are to blame for nailing this tenth plank of the Communist Manifesto into the educational foundation of schools right here in the good old U.S. of A. Lest you think I exaggerate, the tenth principle of the Communist Manifesto states that the goal of schooling for society’s children should be the “combination of education with industrial production.”
Starting in 1992, the transformation of America’s schools into vocational centers greatly accelerated. T.G. Stict, who served under Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, has observed, “Many companies have moved operations to places with cheap, relatively poorly educated labor. What may be crucial, they say, is the dependability of a labor force and how well it can be managed and trained, not its general education level.” In other words, as long as we can control people, who cares what they know?
Through programs like School-to-Work the “State” decides which children will go on to college and which go straight into the workforce following their “training certification.” State education authorities review a student’s educational history and determine the career track the individual will follow. The desires of Big Brother, I mean, the State take precedent over the wishes of the individual and his or her parents. Those who conform to governmental standards are rewarded with further education and a good job. Those who do not reflect the liberal, Secular Humanist worldview will likely be pushed to vocational jobs where their Christian worldview is less likely to have an impact on the culture.
The California PTA has noted that “School-to-Work is based on the premise that government control can do a better job of training individuals, satisfying occupational demands and managing the development of economic activities than can the effort and initiative of millions of individuals.”
The draconian educational measures of the past fifteen years have made strange bedfellows. President George H. W. Bush gave us America 2000. Although President Clinton later changed the name to Goals 2000, he supported the program and pushed through several federal bills that further meshed education with industrial production. President George W. Bush expanded what his father and President Clinton had begun when he cozied up with Ted Kennedy to give us a massive federal program with the irresistible sound-bite name, No Child Left Behind. Florida Governor Jeb Bush then took advantage of federal funds available from his older brother’s program and on June 5, 2006 signed into law the ninth grade career major requirement. Florida is the first state in the nation to require this state-wide. Under Florida’s new law, career exploration will begin as early as sixth grade. By ninth grade, students will need to declare their career major. Several other states are not far behind and will soon join Florida in this radical American implementation of the Communist Manifesto.
Did you know what you wanted to do when you were in ninth grade? Do you wish the government had decided for you then what you would be doing for the rest of your life to earn a living? Would that seem like a heavy-handed restriction on your freedom to be self-determining? (In case you need help on this test, the right answers are No-No-Yes.)
Students will be encouraged to select a career that will direct them either along a vocational track or a college-bound track. With the assistance (or coercion, perhaps?) of school career counselors, students will be channeled into the path that is “right” for them. But here’s one of the big problems that is guaranteed to arise: If a ninth grade student who decides on the auto mechanic track, for example, changes his mind in the eleventh or twelfth grade, he’s stuck without the schooling needed to go to college upon graduation. At that point, a vocational track student will not have taken courses needed for acceptance into college.
Some of you may consider this a good idea since not everyone should be college bound. And I agree that in many regards, college is a waste of time and money unless a person aspires to be a doctor, lawyer, nurse, engineer, or other such professional. Several studies reveal that many, if not most, of America’s millionaires do not have college degrees. Such notables as Rush Limbaugh, Bill Gates, President Harry Truman, and the late Peter Jennings never graduated from college. Yet while a college degree is not needed for success, an academically sound education from kindergarten through twelfth grade is essential for every student regardless of their post-high school plans. It is the only way to have an informed citizenry.
Perhaps even more critical, the federal government is not qualified to project the supply and demand of the workforce two years—much less ten—from now. Trying to do so is one of the stultifying aspects of centrally planned economies (remember the Soviet Union?). Whether the plan is called ready-to-work, school-to-work, school-to-career, small learning communities, or any other soundbite-crafted moniker, it is still a fulfillment of the Communist Manifesto, not the Declaration of Independence or any other foundational American document.
The frightening reality is that codifying these programs will only make an already dangerous situation worse. Even without Florida-style programs solidly in place yet, many students are already finding themselves channeled where they don’t want to go. In part 2 of this series, we will examine several examples of how honor students that are also conservative Christians have been funneled into jobs as bartenders and waitresses. And bear in mind as elections approach that you can’t simply assume a given Republican or Democrat is for or against such programs just because of party affiliation. You’ll have to find out where each individual candidate stands. Educational communism is not a party-specific issue. So be careful not to vote for someone who will add a communist plank to an election platform.
March 16, 2006
Preschool-for-All Initiative, What ‘Meathead’s’ Not Telling You, Part I
by Sharon Hughes
Actor Rob Reiner, who gained his fame as ‘Meathead’ on the popular All in the Family sitcom, has successfully taken his liberal television political views to California’s governement. But he has his eyes on the nation as well. The Washington Post describes his "dual crusade: to change the direction of politics and to improve the performance of kids in schools. He bids, someday, to be the Democrats’ answer to Ronald Reagan."
It was just a few years ago, in 1998, when Reiner’s Prop 10 passed and got him appointed as the first Chair of First 5 California Children and Families Commission by Govenor Gray Davis, to implement Prop 10′s "health care, preschool and other critical services to prepare them (preschoolers) to succeed in school."
Prop 10 put a 50-cent per pack tax on cigarettes and has generated more than $4 billion since 1999, with 20 percent of the money going to First 5. In 2004-05 alone First 5′s share of the money was $119 million. Today Reiner and his commission are facing a full-scale audit into allegations they used government money to promote his newest initiative, Prop 82, which will be on California’s June ballot. If passed, Prop 82 will establish universal preschool for all 4 year olds in the Golden State.
But what’s Reiner and his campaign not telling us about his newest initiative?
-Establish "free" voluntary, half-day state/government-run preschools for all 4-year-olds regardless of want or need.
-Will be funded by taxing the top 1.7% of income earners in California, increasing taxes to 11% on individuals with taxable income of $400,000 / couples of $800,000 or more.
-Will Cost an estimated $2.3 billion a year. (That’s $8,000 per child which is more than some kindergarten through Grade12 schools pay for a full day).
-Requires all pre-school teachers to have a Bachelor’s Degree.
-Kids who go to preschool will do better in kindergarten and elementary school, graduate from high school, attend college, get better jobs with higher salaries and become happy consumers who will be less likely to do drugs and commit crimes than those who don’t go to preschool.
-Based on a RAND Corporation study (funded by the pro-universal-preschool Packard Foundation) claims for every $1 spent on preschool, society will get back $2.62 in long-term benefits such as better student performance and lower crime.
Claiming he consulted with educational experts, interestingly Reiner failed to sit down with any associations representing preschools. He failed to consult with any of the California K-12 school reform groups. And he never talked with any home-schooling organizations. So, who did he consult? The existing interlocking layers of dysfunctional bureaucracy, California state, county and district levels of education, where parents, voters and taxpayers have very little say or control. Prop 82 will hand preschools over to the same bureaucracy .
Reiner also fails to consider the substantial analysis and findings on the effects of early preschool on under 5 year olds in his efforts to gain preschool for all. Consider:
Stanford University Findings:
In their review, "How Much is Too Much? – the Influence of Preschool Centers on Children’s Development Nationwide’ they detail their a
utilized data from 14,162 kindergartners and their parents and teachers. Which found that c
hildren from poor families had gains in cognitive skills when attending preschools by about 10%, and double that for English-proficient Hispanic children. However, they also found that there is l
ess evidence of cognitive skill gains
for youngsters from middle-class home, or for other children from lower-income families compared with their counterparts who remain at home with a parent.
The Stanford study also states that there is little known about possible impacts from the duration (the age at which children enter preschool) or the intensity (hours enrolled each week) of attendance. And that attendance in preschool centers, even for short periods of time each week, hinders the rate at which young children develop social skills and display the motivation to engage classroom tasks. This confirms other studies showing increased behavior problems caused by out of home care.
In January 2006
, UC Santa Barbara researchers found that whatever student achievement gains can be attributed to preschool attendance largely evaporates after a few years in elementary school. In other words, by about 2nd grade skill levels of children who attended preschool and those who did not were the same and remained so throughout the rest of their education.
UC Berkeley Professor Bruce Fuller issued a study last year that examined research on teacher education and preschool, and found that studies claiming to show a connection between teachers holding bachelor’s degrees and better student performance were statistically and methodologically flawed.
Georgetown University Professor William Gormley admits a universal pre-K program may or may not be the best path to school readiness. There is inconsistent evidence as to whether universal preschool helps improve the short-term performance of middle and upper-income children.
Other information to consider:
Lance T. Izumi
irector of D
tudies and S
ellow in California studies at the Pacific Research Institute says about Prop 82 specifically,
"Preschool for all is a seductive proposition, but the reality is that the purported benefits would likely be much less than what Rob Reiner and his cohorts are promising. And with experts arguing that Reiner’s cost estimate of $2 billion is way too low, universal preschool looks to be a very expensive bad idea."
John Bruer, author of “The Myth of the First Three Years” and President of the James S. McDonnel Foundation writes,"Brain science has nothing to say about what happens to babies’ brains when parents read to them. There’s nothing wrong with reading, but in other cultures they’re not as concerned with it as we are. We have to be careful in our attempts to use biology to justify our values. Human children thrive under a great variety of social and cultural conditions. Yes, kids should be ready to read when they start school. But starting at age 7 is not a biological constraint."
Dr. Karen Effrem,
pediatrician, and board member of the ICSPP (International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology) said regarding this issue,
"There is a significant element of indoctrination in these programs as evidenced
by the Head Start national standards and the National Association for theEducation of Young Children standards that bring up issues of gender
identity, homosexuality, environmentalism, and social activism with three andfour year olds. Preschool does not raise test scores. Despite a
quadrupling of the number of four year olds attending preschool nationally
over the past 40 years, test scores in reading, math, and science have
remained stagnant over the same period.” See her testimony before the Minnesota Senate Early Childhood Finance Division: Dr. Karen Effrem Testimony Against SF 2841 – Preschool Socioemotional Screening
And just for the record, Paul Haubner, a specialist for the National Education Association has said, "The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kind of values-education their children receive in school; that is what is wrong with those who say there is a universal system of values. Our (humanistic) goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values.“
I don’t think so!
When looking at Prop 82, or any universal preschool-for-all proposals, we need to keep in mind that while little kids need and deserve a secure place to spend their days where they can grow and develop during the first 5 years of life, that home is still a child’s best "preschool" for the vast majority of American children. If mom must work, daycare is a better alternative. More on that in Part II.
February 24, 2006
By Julie M. Quist Over the unruly objections of International Baccalaureate (IB) supporters, school board members from the Upper St. Clair, PA district voted 5 to 4 last Monday to end their K-12 IB program. Upper St. Clair is a top-performing school district in Pennsylvania with an IB program in place since 1998. The IB described the vote as the most significant challenge to come to IB, because it involves the K-12 curriculum. IB has been successfully challenged in cities which include Fairfax, VA and San Diego, CA.
Ironically, the qualities IBO describes itself as promoting, a "peaceful world" through "understanding and respect," were conspicuously missing from enraged IBO advocates in Upper Clair. For example, the Pittsburg Tribune Review, 2/21/06 states: As board members in opposition to IB stated their positions, the crowd in the high school auditorium became boisterous. Board members were met with boos and screams of "We’re going to recall you." The interruptions became so frequent and intense that board president Sulkowski requested police officers present come to the front of the auditorium. Sulkowski also threatened to clear the auditorium if the interruptions did not stop.
Parents and students had been mobilizing to save the program since some board members labeled it anti-American last week. More than 300 people attended a meeting Thursday to organize their opposition and parents and students picketed in front of the district administration offices Friday. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is threatening a lawsuit to force the district into continuing IB. Opponents of IB cited concerns about IB’s violation of local control, IB’s endorsement of the radical Earth Charter, IB’s promotion of the UN Universal Declaration of Independence, and its needless duplication of Advanced Placement classes. "Why do we not want to foster a strong Advanced Placement offering," questioned board member David Bluey, who holds a masters degree in education. IB is an international curriculum out of Geneva, Switzerland. The Pittsburg Tribune Review quotes IB’s deputy regional director, Ralph Cline, as stating, "There’s nothing in the curriculum of any of the programs that require any teacher or student to be taught about the Earth Charter or to support it." The IB publication "IBO: Myths and Facts," however,states that IBO "promotes the Earth Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the idea of multiculturalism." IB is coming under increased scrutiny across the country, largely because it is being expanded through additional federal grant money.
A recurring criticism concerns IB’s promotion of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Critics point out that students are not taught nor is the public informed that Article 29 of that UN document puts the United Nations in authority over individual rights — unlike America’s founding documents, which describe individual rights as "inalienable." Article 29 states: "These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." Another frequent criticism is IB’s emphasis on creating "world citizens." Former IBO Deputy Director General, Ian Hill states in the publication, Education for Disarmament, , speaking to the Disarmament Forum, that "IBO seeks to develop citizens of the world." ["Curriculum development and ethics in international education," 2001] Whatever we are a citizens of, we are governed by. Teaching "world citizenship" undermines our own American citizenship and the authority of our Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and Constitution. These documents describe the principles that make protect our freedom. As opposition to IB gathers steam, a bi-partisan bill will be heard in the Senate next week, S 2198, which would provide even more federal money to implement the IB curriculum nationally. President Bush’s American Competitive Initiative, introduce in January, also recommends more federal IB funding. INTRODUCTORY IB SEMINAR As an example of the political slant of IB curriculum, A.C. Flora High School in Richland, VA described the 2002 IB Introductory Seminar given in Danvers, MA "designed for schools from around the world interested in becoming part of the IB Program."
A. C. Flora’s Plan for Integrating Global Concerns into the Curricula:
- Math Studies curriculum explores problems concerning the weather, environmental protection, conservation, and energy.
- In HL Math the students will look at the global population problem, regional population problems, and models for the spread of disease, using data from problem areas such as the African AIDS epidemic.
- The statistics unit will examine a variety of problems from a global perspective, such as the disparity of wealth distribution between first and third world countries.
- The IB Physics curriculum will integrate global concerns and perspectives in the following ways: when studying electricity and magnetism, students look at power production and the third world, the control of emissions from power producing plants, control of emissions from automobiles, non-point source pollution and countries right to defend against it (for example, Canada’s right for compensation from the US for the production of acid rain);when studying the law of conservation of energy, they will examine the oil reserves on earth and the rights of OPEC countries to control the production of oil;
- Students will delve into some of the more pressing international pollution concerns, such as global warming, fossil fuels, heavy metals, and other waste products of an increasingly industrialized world.
- Because science … some examples include: environmental concerns (presently the honors level biology classes, which are pre-IB, are researching the Galapagos Islands oil spill from an Ecuadorian tanker. The students are writing persuasive letters to government officials. Worldwide environmental issues will always exist and can be integrated into the lessons.),
- In Theory of Knowledge, students will frequently address issues from a multicultural perspective. For example, ethical topics must always be discussed from the perspective of different cultures, such as Muslim, Native American, Western European, African, and so forth. Also, students will seek to identify and examine the validity of cultural stereotypes for example, the common assumption that Europeans use primarily linear rational thought, while people of the Far East think in non-linear, mystical ways.
- Students will look at languages in translation and how misperceptions can arise from translation and social and cultural biases.
- In Latin SL, an ancient language, students will examine the ancient world as a sounding board to measure and compare the global issues in a modern world. Students will discuss the impact on the Roman world, as well as their own, of such topics as women’s rights, slavery, and national imperialism.
At A. C. Flora the French classes have continuously integrated global concerns, such as pollution, endangered species, health issues (obesity, aging, AIDS, cloning), space research, human rights, and the death penalty.
February 9, 2006
Topic: Notice of parent’s desire to participate in child’s education
As the parents of _______________(Student or Child) who attends ______________Grammar, Middle or High School, we thank you for your effort to provide an excellent, academic-based education for our child. We are pleased with the potential for excellence in education that _________________provides, and we thank you for all you do to contribute to our children’s education.
I would like to address the issue of our family’s ability to review classroom material via this letter. We want to exercise our rights under the law and district policy to review materials and address issues with our child concurrent with the curriculum and within the framework of our family so we may actively participate in our children’s education.
Under U.S. legislation, court decision, state education codes, and DISTRICT policies, parents have the primary responsibility for their children’s education, and students have certain rights that the school may not deny. Parents have the right to be assured that the schools do not unknowingly or knowingly impair or weaken the student’s beliefs, moral values and belief systems within his or her family unit. A student has the right to hold his or her values and moral standards without direct or indirect manipulation by the schools through curricula, textbooks, and AV material or supplementary assignments. Schools and families successfully working together as partners in education and communication of curriculum content will further strengthen the ability to provide students an excellent education in a way that strengthens individual families and our community.
Under the Federal Law (20 U.S.C. 1232h) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Act, we hereby request that our child not be involved in any school activity or material listed below unless we have first reviewed all the relevant material and given our written consent for their use:
Values clarification, use of moral dilemmas, discussion of religious or moral standards, role playing, open-ended discussions of situations involving moral issues, survival games including life/death decision exercises, contrived incidents for self-revelation, sensitivity training, group encounter sessions, talk-ins, magic circle techniques, self-evaluation, auto-criticism, strategies designed for self-disclosure including the keeping of a diary, journal or log book, sociograms, sociodramas, psychodramas, blindfolded walks, isolation techniques, death education including abortion, euthanasia, suicide, use of violence, discussions of death and dying, curricula or books and reading materials pertaining to religious beliefs (including elements of witchcraft), drugs and alcohol, nuclear war, nuclear policy, nuclear classroom games, globalism, one world government, curricula discussing anti-nationalistic views, evolution, discussion and testing on interpersonal relationship, discussions of attitudes towards parents and parenting, health education including human development, and education in human sexuality including birth control and pre-marital sex.
Psychological and psychiatric treatment or adult and peer counseling that is designed to affect behavioral, emotional or attitudinal characteristics of an individual or designated to elicit information about attitudes, habits, traits, opinions, beliefs, or feelings of an individual or group.
Under California Law (Education Code Sections 51101, 51201.5, 51240, 51500, 51501, 51513, 51530 51550, 51553, 51554, 51555, and 51820) we also request that our child not be involved in any school activity or material listed below unless we have first reviewed all the relevant material and given our written consent for their use:
Sex or family life education; AIDS or HIV education; the acquiring or use of birth control drugs or devices; abortion; infanticide; euthanasia or suicide; death education in any form; programs regarding death; homosexuality; bestiality; sadism, masochism; showing of R, NC-17, or X rated (pornographic) films; meditation, yoga, trances, guided imagery, or the conjuring of spirit guides and/or “imaginary friends;” witchcraft in any form; communism or other collectivist doctrines; any counseling, group or individual, other than behavior modification programs, except as recommended by the student’s personal physician and approved by us, or the use of questionnaires, role playing, or other strategies to question, expose, or criticize any private, religious or moral value of the above named pupil or members of his/her family; “values clarification,” “decision making,” or global education dealing with the aforementioned subjects.
We also ask you to provide us with two-week advance notice and the opportunity to review complete curriculum material for any discussion, workshop, assembly, speaker, or presentation defined by the district as controversial, including but not limited to the following:
Topics regarding religious, political, social, economic, ethical, and/or moral significance; Guest speakers presenting materials that are defined by the district as controversial or who are presenting material that is not relevant to course material; any topic about which someone might ask whether or not it is controversial.
The purpose of this letter is to protect and preserve our children’s rights defined under the pupil’s rights amendment, the Protection of Pupil Rights Act, California Education Codes, California Family Codes, and DISTRICT policy. These regulations and policies all provide procedures for filing complaints first at the local level and then with the U.S. Department of Education. If a voluntary remedy fails, federal or state funds can be withdrawn from those in violation of the law, and the individuals responsible might be held legally liable.
Our purpose and intent is to work cooperatively with the schools in congenial and positive attitudes and actions, with our child’s best interest in mind. We fully support your efforts to provide excellent, academics-based education within our community and for our child, and we are grateful for each teacher and administrator’s dedication to our child’s academic success.
Please feel free to call us with any questions at any time during the course of the year.
I request written acknowledgment of receipt and filing of this legal, written notice.
Teacher Signature:____________________________________ Date:__________________
Teacher Email:_______________________________________ Teacher P