DriveThru – Get What You Need

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?

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.

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.

A couple of comments to go with Bruce’s post about the President’s criticism of the Supreme Court below.

I thought that Obama was fairly gutsy to touch on so many political hot potatoes (even if/when I disagreed), but his direct criticism of the SC was rude and low–beneath the dignity of his office and the occasion.

Obviously, those in the three branches of government can criticize one another, but the State of the Union venue doesn’t usually allow for an in-kind response.  The President had the floor and could have responded when ol’ Joe Wilson’s ”You lie!” outburst interrupted the President’s last speech in this venue.  In contrast, the President’s premeditated remarks directed at five individual justices misused the bully pulpit for inappropriate chastisement of his branch co-equals.

So, Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat, in case you’ve been hiding in a cave for the last 24 hours.

And now Senator Max Baucus is saying that the Dems might use a complicated “budget reconciliation” process to pass health care, because it only requires 51 votes for passage.  Take that Scott Brown.  And the rest of America.  Full steam ahead on health care!

It’s like that guy who keeps asking you for a date, and you keep turning him down politely, until you finally have to just play your mean card and slap him so he’ll stop asking.  The Massachusetts election result was that slap.

Then you have President Obama saying the Senate should wait for Brown to arrive before moving on health care and oh by the way, last night’s election loss was Bush’s fault.

And Barney Frank said he thinks health care is dead but also, get rid of that pesky 60 vote cloture rule thingy so we can pass it.

The truth is that last night’s election result really *was* a barometer of how Massachusetts voters–and the rest of the country–feel about the Dems’ health care reform. But many Dems don’t want to say it, or say it fully.

Massachusetts didn’t suddenly turn into a red state after 60 years of blue.  Voters simply turned red with anger over the failed health care proposal being rammed down their throats by Democrats who rejected the writing on the wall polls, ignored the townhall complaints, and dismissed the tea parties.

And that means that as much as Americans may be disenchanted with politics, they still care enough to remind Washington that they won’t be trampled upon.  God bless America.

Yesterday was National Human Trafficking Awareness Day. Focus on the Family released a statement praising President Obama’s Proclamation on trafficking prevention. We focused on the link between pornography and sex trafficking and asked the president to direct his Justice Department to devote more resources to fighting porn and other “feeder industries” that fuel demand for trafficking victims.

One important point left out of our statement was a troubling aspect in the precise wording of President Obama’s statement. He wrote: “Whether they are trapped in forced sexual or labor exploitation, human trafficking victims cannot walk away, but are held in service through force, threats, and fear.”

The phrase “forced sexual or labor exploitation” is a departure from the language of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act which is the current law of the land and for which anti-trafficking activists have fought for years. Michael Horowitz highlights the danger of this subtle shift in language, which promotes “the notion that sex trafficking is not per se unlawful and that criminal sex trafficking offenses require proof of fraud, force or coercion that is a required element of proof in all forced labor/labor slavery cases.”

Convincing women to prove they were forced or defrauded is extremely difficult because of the brainwashing, threats and intimidation they receive at the hands of their traffickers. To adopt this greater and more difficult burden of proof would be an enormous step backward in the fight against sex trafficking.

You may remember the comedy “Oh God!” where George Burns (playing God, of course) comes to earth as an octogenarian, and interacts with a hapless supermarket employee played by John Denver. As part of the story, Burns shows up to testify in court and, in that scene, dutifully raises his hand to swear to tell the truth, and deadpans the closing words of the oath: “So help me, Me!”

Ironically, “so help me, Me” would probably be acceptable to Michael Newdow, the ubiquitous atheist who has sued Chief Justice John Roberts for including the words “so help me God” at the end of President Obama’s oath of office last January(at Obama’s request, I might add). His appeal is scheduled soon before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. (In preparation for those oral arguments, the ever-consistent Newdow has filed a motion asking the appellate court to forbid the usual opening command of the court’s bailiff: “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.”) Sheesh. More here.

Newdow’s argument about the oath is that the Constitution prescribes, in Article II, the entire oath of office for the president, and because of the so-called “separation of church and state” that our Founders were supposedly so concerned about, the Chief Justice cannot add “so help me God” to the end of the oath, even at the President’s request.

That’s the same Constitution that closes with “…in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven… .”

More on the oath’s history here.

On Friday’s Focus on the Family Action broadcast, Dr. James Dobson alerted listeners about recent actions taken by Congress and our President that could affect families and children for years to come.

He was joined by three members of our public policy team—myself as the education analyst; Tom Minnery, our Vice President; and Carrie Earll, the director of the Issues-Analysis team. Here’s a quick run down:

We began the broadcast by discussing our alarm over the appointment of “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings, including his commitment to pushing homosexual advocacy into schools down to the kindergarten level.

Also topping the list of concerns was President Obama’s pledge to work to overturn a federal law protecting traditional, man-woman marriage (the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA).

When Tom Minnery pointed out that the President’s pledge actually contradicts traditional-marriage measures passed in at least 45 states, Dr. Dobson expressed his distress: “Can you imagine, now, that the President of the United States stands up there and essentially contradicts and defies the will of the American people in 45 states? What gall!”

Also discussed was the “hate crimes” legislation, recently passed by the U.S. Congress. Carrie Earll expressed her concern about the “aiding and abetting” section that’s attached to the bill, which could eventually be used to attack pastors who dare to preach about homosexuality.

To listen to the whole broadcast, click here.

C.S. Lewis called it “chronological snobbery,” the belief that somehow people today are more “advanced” than our ancestors – that we’ve learned something about human nature that older generations didn’t know. 

Our President, on two separate occasions now, has said to gay activists, “There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones –good and decent people – who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families…”

In his latest speech to gay activists he adds, “You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.” 

Such statements reflect a presumptuous chronological snobbery.  And, it’s a slap in the face those of us who follow Scriptural teaching.  But even worse, these statements trample on Scripture’s teaching about God’s created intent for humanity and sexuality, swapping the truth for lies and exchanging real wisdom for political expedience and cultural trendiness. 

To read my longer analysis, and the transcipts of these speeches, please visit the CitizenLink commentary.

It’s been strangely quiet on the “Freedom of Choice Act” (FOCA) front of late. 

Back in March, a staffer for U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y) – who sponsored the legislation in 2007 – said reintroducing FOCA was a priority and that the measure would be submitted “sooner rather than later.”

Then, dead silence.

No legislation dropped in the Congressional hopper.  No fundraising emails from pro-abortion groups.  Nada.

So, what happened?  Federal healthcare reform legislation happened.

Pro-life groups began to decry FOCA and President Obama’s pledge to sign it as soon as he stepped into the 2008 presidential race.   FOCA is so radical that once exposed, the public would never go for it.  That fact coupled with the roaring voice of opposition rallied by pro-life groups and FOCA faded into the background.

Yet, a close look at the current healthcare reform legislation before Congress reveals that FOCA hasn’t gone away; it’s just changed vehicles. 

Under the Democratic proposals, abortion becomes a federal healthcare right with required coverage in the policy of every American and paid for by both private insurance premiums and taxpayer dollars.  Any federal or state law that conflicts by limiting abortion will be suspect and in jeopardy of being struck down for violating federal law.

What a coincidence!   That sounds alot like FOCA.  

The moral of this story is if you cannot pass a piece of legislation that’s upfront about enshrining abortion into federal law, do it through a back door.   Either way, the outcome will be the same.