DriveThru – Get What You Need

In case you were wondering where homosexual activism in public schools can eventually lead, Maine is giving a pretty good preview right now:

“… a boy who identifies himself as a girl is by law allowed to use girls bathrooms, locker rooms and participate on girls sports teams, or vice versa.”  That’s the summary from Maine’s Bangor Daily News, reporting on school guidelines currently under development by Maine’s Human Rights Commission.

So now we are on the cusp of allowing boys into girls restrooms based on their stated identity choice of the day. It’s hard to imagine an environment more sexually confusing for kids—or fraught with risky situations— than that.

At issue is the Maine Human Rights Commission’s efforts to adopt guidelines for schools on how to deal with gender-confused students. While they are being touted as just “guidelines,” the reality is that schools found in violation of the commission’s policies are more vulnerable to losing a lawsuit.

Meanwhile, according to the Bangor Daily News report,  gay activist groups—in particular, the local Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) chapter—have helped develop these guidelines. (GLSEN is the controversial group founded by “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings. It is devoted to promoting homosexuality and ”transgender” behavior to kids all the way down to the kindergarten level.)

The Maine School Management Association has raised concerns that the Human Rights Commission is overstepping its bounds by giving schools specific mandates. And then there’s concerns from both secondary schools and colleges about “fairness” issues in sports  and how teams are classified under NCAA guidelines.

This is just some of the chaos we will continue to see if identity politics and homosexual activism are given free rein in our public school systems.

For more about how transgender-activism is affecting schools’ and states’ policies, check out our “Transgender” Madness commentary.

More than 1 million students don’t finish high school each year—that’s nearly one in three, according to President Obama.

Hmm. How to fix this problem.

Hey …I have an idea. What about actually making the schools accountable to parents? How about letting parents use a portion of their tax dollars to choose the best school, public or private, in their area?

That puts the power in parents’ hands. It’s a market-driven way to spur reform —and best of all, there’s factual proof school choice works.

Oh wait—that idea’s already been axed by the Obama administration.

That’s the problem with big government. It always wants to keep the power in its hands. In fact, when it comes right down to it, it looks like this government would rather support firing teachers, than empowering parents.

This week President Obama and his education secretary, Arne Duncan, stirred the waters by praising a Rhode Island school board that fired all the staff—teachers, principals, counselors, everyone— in a small-town high school that was graduating less than half of its students. The board took this action after the teachers’ union blocked reform efforts minus significant extra pay.

In fact,  President Obama has made the Rhode Island school board the new poster child for his latest education initiative— $900 million worth of federal grants so states can “turnaround” their lowest performing schools. (This follows last year’s $3.5 billion allotment.)

“Turnaround” means they have choices ranging from converting the school to a charter, putting it under new management or, as is happening in Rhode Island, firing and replacing at least half of the staff.

While the effort to rescue kids trapped in failing schools—and buck unions entrenched in the status quo—is extremely heartening, at the same time, a top-down, government-directed strategy remains short-sighted.

Because it still makes the schools primarily accountable to big government—not parents, who are actually closest to the kids and the neighborhood schools they attend, and therefore have the best understanding of what’s really happening on the ground.

For instance, parents in Chicago—where Arne Duncan first tried out this “turnaround” strategy—have voiced concerns about whether their children actually end up in a better school after the original one is transformed or eliminated. They pointed to a study by the Consortium on Chicago School Research “showing that most students affected by closings were transferred into schools that also were academically weak,” reported a New York Times article.

Why not avoid these entanglements by just putting the power in the parents’ hands in the first place? After all, we know school choice works. But there’s scant evidence that turnarounds work.

And what was that again President Obama said about making “whether it works” the test for his policies?

For years, there’s been a push among liberals for national standards. (Remember the failed attempt during the Clinton years?)

But thanks to this country’s long tradition of giving states and local communities primary control over what’s taught in our taxpayer-funded classrooms, those efforts have failed.

But now the “experts” in Washington, D.C., think they’ve found a way around that obstacle: The Obama administration and cronies have been loudly promoting “voluntary,” “common standards,” developed by a consortium of organizations (including those in the academic testing industry, the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers).

So far 48 states have joined this effort, with Texas and Alaska being the only hold outs.

But there’s some dissension in the ranks lately—as states and  school boards discover they may have signed up for more than they bargained for. The first signs of that came when the Obama administration began citing the standards as a qualifier for Race to the Top money.

And many were taken aback earlier this month when “common standards” organizers revealed that “States that adopt the proposed common academic standards must use the document word for word,” reported Education Week.

In response to that surprise announcement, school board members in several states have voiced concerns about whether they could lose Race to the Top funds if they change their minds about swallowing the standards whole—and about the fact that they haven’t seen a final version of the standards.

One Montana board member (quoted in Education Week) repeated questions he’s been getting from concerned citizens in his state: “Where will we draw the line? First it’s standards, then curriculum, then textbooks.”

In Colorado, a state that recently revised standards, a board member expressed concern that they’re not “anxious to throw out our standards and start all over again…”

Just call it the first signs of buyers’ remorse.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to roll out plans that make this effort look less and less voluntary—including money budgeted for states to create “common assessments” (read tests) and yesterday’s announcement that Obama wants to require states to adopt “college and career-ready” standards in order to qualify for Title I funding for impoverished students.

Today, President Obama finally raised the veil on his much-awaited plans for revamping the nation’s signature education law (known as No Child Left Behind under President Bush).  

It’s the next step in what the Administration has been heavily promoting as the “common standards” for schools movement – a plan that dangles carrot money in front of states who agree to “voluntarily” abide by agreed-upon education standards. 

 But it looks like those carrots are transforming into sticks.

The centerpiece theme? Obama wants to “require all states to adopt and certify that they have college- and career-ready standards.” States that don’t meet that requirement wouldn’t qualify for federal funding for lower-income students (Title I).

So, who gets to decide the definition of “college- and career-ready standards”? Good question.

It seems the federal government would only certify state standards as acceptable if they 1) join the common standards movement (which some states have already discovered has more regulation than meets the eye) or 2) they are deemed certifiable  through a mysterious “process to be developed with universities,” according to a Washington Post article.)

What’s so sad about this, is that the more the federal government gets involved in policing education standards—the more parents will lose their ability to weigh in on what’s being taught in local schools.

Many conservatives expressed concerns when the Bush administration expanded the federal government’s role in public education through No Child Left Behind—but President Obama’s latest plans take federal intrusion a giant leap beyond that, opening the door toward unprecedented curriculum control and “assessment” testing.

(The White House press release calls “common standards” the “essential first step” and announces other funding roll outs designed to spur tie-ins like an “upgrade” in curriculum and “assessment” –read, tests–development.)

Right now, it’s easy to take for granted the fact that most parents can take a complaint about what’s in their child’s textbook to the local school board, or gather enough community signatures to gain a change in curriculum.

But if Washington succeeds with this latest power gab—your school board and your voice—won’t matter anymore. Because whoever sets the standards pulls the strings.

At last! We’ve discovered the secret behind the vast conspiracy to keep facts out of schools about the Founding Fathers and their beliefs in the benefits of faith, freedom and free enterprise: We now have proof that students who lack knowledge about these basic facts are more likely to form left-wing viewpoints!    

 Just kidding. Well, sort of.

“College Makes Students More Liberal, but Not Smarter About Civics,” reports a headline in The Chronicle of Higher Education. The article cited results of a study released this Wednesday by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.

Among other things, the study explains that someone who graduates from college is more likely to “favor same-sex marriage and favor abortion on demand” than someone who shares similar background characteristics, but who doesn’t graduate from college.

However, gaining “civic knowledge—as opposed to merely graduating from college—increases a person’s beliefs in American ideas and free institutions.” Among other things, a person with greater civic knowledge is more likely to understand the benefits of “free enterprise” and the relevance of the Ten Commandments.

Interestingly—on the very same day of this report—data was also released from the Pew Research Center detailing information on the Millennial generation ( people born after 1980). “In their social and political views, young adults are clearly more accepting than older Americans of homosexuality, more inclined to see evolution as the best explanation of human life …” summarized the Pew report.  (Young adults are defined as ages 18-29).

They are also more  accepting of “bigger” government. And “less than half of adults under age 30 say that religion is very important in their lives.”  

These revelations should give us all pause—and make us consider the long-term cost of steeping an entire generation of students in the philosophy that they are nothing more than an accident of nature, that they have no higher destiny than to give into their most basic instincts and that there is nothing special about living in America, nothing costly about the freedom we enjoy.

Too many politicians these days treat their voters like jilted lovers.

During the campaign, they’re more than happy to court them and tell them what they want to hear. But once they’re elected to office and things are cushy and there’s power to be wielded—the average voters find themselves treated like an annoyance, something only to be dealt with when absolutely necessary.

That appears to be the mindset of some liberal politicians in New Hampshire.

After hearing a loud outcry from voters who didn’t want a politicized bullying bill to be used as a tool to promote homosexuality to public school children, the legislators changed the wording in the bill. Thankfully, there is no longer a mandate in the bill forcing every single public school in New Hampshire to teach about things like “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

But now the liberals who changed their vote are actually complaining that they were “bullied” into it by voters.

“In a telephone interview Friday, Rep. Burke cried as she describe feeling ‘intimidated’ into believing opponents would defeat the anti-bullying bill if she didn’t vote to remove the controversial language,” reported the New Hampshire Union Leader in the Sunday, Feb. 14 edition (not available online).

“I think we’re being bullied by a small group,” said Rep. Charles Yeaton, D-Epsom, who voted against changing the wording, told the paper.

Wait a minute. Being “bullied” is now defined as having to listen to what your voters think ? Isn’t the whole idea of elections to keep representatives accountable to the people who put them in office?  I guess we can now expect to see “elected official” added to the long and growing list of specially protected classes

This pitiful response also brings to mind what we’ve heard at the national level—when certain Democratic leaders actually accused the Tea Parties of being Nazis and militias and indicated that they needed police protection against them.

 Anything—to avoid the voters.

Christian conservatives on the Texas education board have found themselves under the microscope of  The New York Times.  In its magazine edition, the Times spent no less than 10 pages trying to dissect their motivations and beliefs.

So what’s with this newfound interest in Christians?

 It all boils down to this: Conservatives on the school board have dared to challenge secularist-leaning, politically correct, America-is-the-capitalistic-oppressor portrayals in the classroom, and instead are trying to give teachers the freedom to acknowledge the country’s accomplishments and its Judeo-Christian heritage.

So why is everyone in a tizzy?

Well, as they say, just follow the money: Of all the states, Texas has the most influence over the nationwide textbook market. With a $22 billion education fund, Texas uses a portion of that money “to buy or distribute 48 million textbooks annually,” reported the Times, rightfully concluding that the state could have significant influence over what children elsewhere in the nation see in print in their classrooms.

Now the alarm bells are raised especially high because the Texas State Board of Education is about to finalize adoption of social and history standards that will be effective for at least 10 years. Add to that furor, the fact that socially conservative board members dared to win a few battles acknowledging certain basic things about our nation’s history—like that we celebrate Christmas and that “religion (and virtue) contributed to the growth of representative government…”

What’s interesting about this article, though, is that despite some of the usual bias, the reporter acknowledged some unpopular facts, such as:

• “There is, however, one slightly awkward issue for hard-core secularists who would combat what they see as a Christian whitewashing of American history: the Christian activists have a certain amount of history on their side.”
• “Christian activists argue that American-history textbooks basically ignore religion—to the point that they distort history outright—and mainline religious historians tend to agree with them on this.”
• “The public seems to agree. Polls on some specific church-state issues—government financing for faith-based organizations and voluntary prayer in public schools—consistently show majorities in favor of those positions. “

What’s so encouraging about this is that even a traditionally liberal mag like the Times must acknowledge that the majority of Americans don’t actually want their kids to be force-fed secularist doctrines. Nor do they want teachers to censor objective facts about our nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage.

Sometimes you just have to laugh at the bias one often spots in liberal publications–you know, the usual ape-like caricatures of socially conservative Christians contrasted with the usual sympathetic portrayals of reasonable-sounding liberals. Is this purposeful or just the result of living in an echo chamber? It’s hard to tell.

I couldn’t resist pointing out one small example of this biased approach to news. An article published in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine goes into great detail describing the “shiny pate” and other characteristics of a conservative Christian sitting on the Texas State Board of Education.

Despite all this detail though, information is noticeably sparse on one of the main sources—Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network— used by the Times to counteract the social conservatives’ viewpoints.

It’s rather humorous—in a sad kind of way—that the Texas Freedom Network (TFN) is described by the Times with only two words— “watchdog group.” A simple internet research reveals that TFN—which adamantly opposes mainstream ideas like school choice and abstinence teaching— has strong links to Planned Parenthood. It was founded by Cecile Richards, former deputy chief of staff for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and daughter of the famously liberal former Texas Governor, Ann Richards. Cecile Richards is also the current president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and still serves on the board of TFN.

Kathy Miller, the current president of TFN—also sparsely identified by the Times as “the watchdog”—formerly served as a public affairs director for a Planned Parenthood state affiliate. So a more honest description of TFN would have been a “liberal pro-abortion group.”

Despite this obvious bias however, the Times did acknowledge some objective facts about our nation’s history.

President Obama and his administration have continued to ignore the loud outcry over the appointment of  a radical gay activist, Kevin Jennings, to head up the nation’s “safe schools” office.

Not only have they remained deaf to these concerns, but now they plan to give Jennings significantly more of our money to spend! President Obama’s proposed 2011 budget would allocate $410 million for programs overseen by Jennings. That’s an increase of $45 million.

So want does Jennings intend to do with this money?

For starters, he says he’s going to make “school climate” measurement a top priority—and, in fact, he’d love for “school climate” to eventually be made part of the “Common Core” national standards movement!  He plans to begin with “a new grant program coming out of this department where we’ll be providing possibly as much as $70 million for investments in school climate projects.”  (He revealed all this and much more in this month’s Phi Delta Kappan magazine. Scroll down to the “Safe at School” title.)

 So at this point, you might be wondering, What on earth does “school climate” really mean? I think it’s best to take that definition from Kevin Jennings–based on his record as the longtime founder and leader of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network).

Under Jennings’ leadership, GLSEN has provided students with a “school climate” continuum measurement tool.  This tool reveals a lot about Jennings’ true goals: A positively rated “inclusive school,” for instance, is defined as one where “LGBT themes are fully integrated into curricula across a variety of subject areas and grade levels.”

I.e., Jennings and GLSEN want homosexual, bisexual and transgender themes taught in every subject at every grade, all the way down to the kindergarten level, maybe even preschool.

By contrast, a “hostile school,” is one where “Curricula are devoid of LGBT themes” and homosexuality is “characterized” as “sin.” Does this mean that a school that acknowledges Christian students’ free speech rights to express their opinions about things like same-sex marriage is rated as “hostile”? Does this mean that if students disagree with lessons taught in class about homosexuality and same-sex marraige that they will be in violation of “school climate” safety policies?

Is this how Kevin Jennings will use taxpayer-funded money to measure our schools and force changes?

It remains to be seen, since his plans are still in the baby stages—but parents should stay on the alert.

The battle’s not over yet, but there are signs that New Hampshire legislators are finally starting to hear the voices of concerned citizens—who are fed up with having their parental rights robbed in the public schools.

This week members of the New Hampshire House Education Committee appeared poised to vote for a bill that would have resulted in the promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism in the classroom.

This was being done under the cover of a so-called “anti-bullying” measure that, if passed, would force all local school districts to add special protections for things like “sexual orientation” and “gender identity and expression”—and also would go so far as to stipulate that all schools promote these themes in their curriculum.

But New Hampshire citizens sent a loud, resounding message, which boiled down to: NO YOU DON’T. NOT IN MY KID’S CLASS.

Responding to a call to action from the pro-family group Cornerstone Policy Research, they flooded committee members with emails. As a result, during a subcommittee vote, legislators unexpectedly changed course—voting instead for blanket language providing protection to all students against bullying for any reason.

This is a more fair and reasonable approach to the problem of bullying because it provides equal protection to all kids–without allowing the issue to be hijacked by gay activist groups who use it as a tool to sexualize and politicize classrooms.  

But this is only one step in the battle. The new language must still be approved by the full Education Committee (as early as next week). And a liberal legislator is already threatening to insert the objectionable language back into the bill when it comes before the New Hampshire House.

We’ll keep you updated–and you can keep making your voice heard! Because it does make a difference.