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?

Warning: Graphic content discussed below.

Come what may, GLSEN—the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network—seems determined to promote sexually explicit content to our school children.

There’s been a public outcry in recent weeks over books GLSEN recommends for kids as young as middle-school age—which graphically describe things like teen-adult sexual interactions in parks and public restrooms.

Despite all this, the organization is stubbornly continuing efforts to push this material into public schools.

Consider GLSEN’s current plea to help it win $1 million from Chase Bank’s Community Giving charity competition. (The bank is allowing social networkers to vote for their favorite charity to win the money.)

GLSEN has announced that if it wins the money, it will use it to send a “Safe Space Kit” to “to every middle and high school in the country.” 

So, just what is in this “Safe Space Kit”? Among other things, instructions to educators to “use GLSEN’s BookLink …  to find appropriate books for your curriculum. … to find grade-appropriate literature for your school library.”

Yup, you got it. The same exact book list that has such “grade-appropriate” offerings as Queer 13. This book, which GLSEN thinks is appropriate for 7^th graders, includes a detailed and extremely disturbing description of a boy being raped by an older man. Afterward the boy exults about how “The whole world of rest-room sex had opened itself up to me.” And that’s just one of the many graphically lewd anecdotes in this book and others on the list.

GLSEN may deem this “grade-appropriate” for 7^th graders. But the majority of U.S. citizens and responsibly thinking parents don’t. And they are outraged. But sadly, GLSEN and its founder—the Obama administration’s “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings—remain deaf to the outcry.

Warning: Graphic content included below.

In states where gay activists are pushing hard to legalize same-sex marriage, we keep hearing the same claim: This will not have an impact on our public schools.

That claim is simply untrue, and we need look no further than Massachusetts for evidence to the contrary.

Massachusetts was the first state to legalize full-fledged gay marriage. Not long after it was legalized, National Public Radio (NPR) featured an interview with an eighth-grade teacher, Ms. Allen, who was exuberant about her new-found freedom to talk about homosexuality in the classroom.

“In my mind, I know that, ‘OK, this is legal now.’ If somebody wants to challenge me, I’ll say, ‘Give me a break. It’s legal now,’ ” she told NPR.

The NPR reporter went on to explain that due to the gay marriage debate, Allen now discusses “gay sex” with students “thoroughly and explicitly with a chart.”

Allen explained in detail exactly how she explains this chart to kids: “All right. So can a woman and a woman kiss and hug? Yes. Can a woman and a woman have vaginal intercourse?, and they will say no. And I’ll say, ‘Hold it. Of course, they can. They can use a sex toy. They could use’—and we talk—and we discuss that. So the answer there is yes.” (From: "Debate in Massachusetts over how to address the issue of discussing gay relationships and sex in public school classrooms,” All Things Considered, National Public Radio, Sept. 13, 2004.)

It’s also disturbing to hear what’s happening at the elementary level in that state. Consider the parents in Lexington, Massachusetts, who complained that their kindergarten and second-grade age kids were exposed to storybooks introducing them to the idea of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

Even more concerning were the school officials’ response to those parental concerns, as reported by The Associated Press: “Officials there say that since same-sex marriage is a part of life in Massachusetts, it comes up naturally and it’s impossible to notify parents every time the issue is discussed.”

“It certainly strengthens the argument that we need to teach about gay marriage because it’s more of a reality for our kids,”  Lexington Schools Superintendent Paul Ash said. (“Gay Marriage Foes Face Issue in Schools,” Associated Press, May 5, 2006.)

In light of these facts and public news accounts, is there really any serious question that legalizing gay marriage will tangibly and concretely affect our public schools? It’s simply disingenuous to claim otherwise.

On September 8 the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco held that a school administrator could forbid a religious instrumental piece at a graduation ceremony. The case, Nurre v. Whitehead,  involved a 2006 high school graduation ceremony, a student-selected instrumental piece titled “Ave Maria” (This one, not THAT one), and  a recent history of public complaints over a religious song sung at the school’s 2005 graduation.

Apparently stung by the public criticism of that 2005 graduation song, the school’s administrators banned the “Ave Maria” instrumental piece for the 2006 ceremony. The federal court supported the administrator’s decision, even though the court admitted that playing the musical piece would not have violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The dissenting judge, Milan Smith, argued that letting the school district off that easy would cause chilling of students’ free expression:

“…[T]he practical effect will be for public school administrators to chill – or even kill – musical and artistic presentations by their students in school-sponsored limited public fora where those presentations contain any trace of religious inspiration, for fear of criticism by a member of the public, however extreme that person’s views may be.”

I agree. Most school districts have shown a marked tendency to take the path of least resistance in student free expression situations, knuckling under to the first complainer wishing to exercise a “heckler’s veto” over any religious content. This decision puts the bullies in charge of students’ First Amendment rights.