Poor brainwashed child

Now this is fascinating -- and very very sad.

A couple of years ago, I wrote a column for WND entitled Help! My 15-year-old daughter is having sex! It sparked a lively debate among readers, many of whom flatly disagreed with my stance and defended teen sex as normal and healthy.

Just this morning (I get notifications of such things) another comment was added to the column from a 15 year old girl as follows. Some horrific swear words were "bleeped out" (I get the unedited version). Before reading her comment, please read the column first to understand the context.

As a fifteen year old girl, who is a virgin, a straight A student, a feminist, and a liberal (things you obviously don't agree with) the first thing that came to my mind after reading this is what the ***.

Firstly, I would like to comment on the homeschooling/ private school section of this. Children put in private schools, especially religious ones, tend to have sex earlier and party harder because when you are put in a strict environment you tend to want to rebel. Children who are homeschooled, if they don't have enough extracurricular activities, are weirdos. Sorry, but people have to interact with other people their own age. A fifteen year old shouldn't be spending all her time with her parents. You need friends and interaction to be able to learn how to function in society and be able to create your own opinions and ways of thinking.

Next, lets talk about the slut shaming in this. Having sex, no matter your age, does not make you a whore, slut, bad person, or anything negative. Sex is a decision between two people and they can choose to do whatever makes them comfortable. You cannot speak for someone you have never met. You do not know why she chose to have sex and you can't say it was from pear pressure because you do not know. Maybe she felt ready and her boyfriend felt ready so they made the decision to have intercourse with each other. Maybe she thought it would make their relationship better. Maybe she was horny and decided to just go for it. You don't know and it's not your place to guess or to judge. You also cannot speak for this girl's mother when you talk about what you think her parenting style is. You have not met any of these people so you cannot speak about them or for them.

I will also talk about how you say staying married is important. Single parents can raise a child perfectly fine. A person doesn't need a mother and a father, they just need female and male role models. Staying married won't change how early someone has their sexual debut.

Now lets talk about contraceptives. These are so very important because whether you like it or not teenagers are having sex. In every generation in the past, present and future teenagers have always been and will always have sex. Contraceptives like condoms, the pill, IUDs, the shot, the patch, etc. reduce the chance of a person getting pregnant. This is important because sometimes people don't want a kid. Is that surprising to you? People are going to have sex no matter what so providing birth control is necessary to prevent teen pregnancy.

You also made a facetious comment about abortions. Any living creature has the right to decide what happens to THEIR body and who gets to "use it". This means no one gets to use their body without permission. That could be a man, a woman, or in the case of abortions a fetus. You are in control of your own body and no one gets to use it unless you say okay. So if someone decides to terminate a pregnancy because they don't want a child to grow inside them, that is their *** damn business and it should not concern you. I am not pro-abortion, I am pro-choice. Meaning that I believe no one else should have a say in what you decide.

To close my argument, although i have so much more to say about this, I'll talk about this comment, "Too often, modern parenting techniques are antithetical to the old-fashioned time-tested ways to raise children, complete with restrictions, religious values, discipline, repercussions, training and high expectations of moral behavior." The reason for modern parenting techniques instead of old-fashioned time-tested ways is that people evolve with the times. If we didn't we all would be sold into marriage, people would be stoned for committing crimes, and we would burn "witches" at the stake. Times change and so should parenting techniques. When your baby cries you probably shouldn't give it whiskey or wine because we now know that alcohol is bad for people, especially infants. Swaddling techniques have changed. Car seats have changed. Dietary habits for kids has changed. Disciplinary acts for teenagers has changed. Approaches to dealing with teenagers expressing their sexuality has changed because now we now better. Do we know everything? No. Is that okay? Yes. Should we be open to other opinions? Yeah. Should you realize that things change and thats okay? Yup. No matter what you tell your kids are they still going to make their own decisions? Yes because everyone is an individual and you have to realize that. Get with the times and open your *** damn eyes because sheltering your kids isn't going to help anyone.

To be quite truthful, I feel achingly sorry for this child. Liberals like to accuse conservatives of "brainwashing" their children to be good moral decent citizens. But can you honestly say this poor kid hasn't been brainwashed into liberalism? She parroted every talking point in the left-leaning spectrum without, I'm guessing, any true comprehension of how easy sex, easy contraceptives, and easy abortions can impact a young girl's life forever.

The progressive mindset that self-control must equal repression is a clear sign of this girl's immaturity. Hey, the sky's the limit, do whatever you feeeeeel like doing! Who cares what the consequences might be? If the 15-year-olds in question feel "ready" for sex, whoo-hoo! The kids are "horny" so they shouldn't bother their little heads about about self-control -- go for it! If the birth control fails, that's what abortions are for!

Thanks but no thanks. I'd rather have teens who are "weirdos" (her term) than teens like this young lady. I don't want to "get with the times" if the "times" produce fruit like this.

Common Core in a nutshell

A reader sent this. I thought it very apt in today's educational climate.

Trained to identify resistors

If anyone -- anyone! -- has ever questioned the public school system, you must watch this video clip.

This clip features an interview with Charlotte Iserbyt, who served as senior policy adviser in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (U.S. Dept of Ed) in the first Reagan administration. What she saw there caused her to become a whistleblower and ultimately to write the book The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America [full disclosure: haven't read it].

During interview, she relates how she had access to all the documents for the "restructuring" of not only American education, but global education. She was trained to "identify the resistors" (to the sex ed/drug ed/alcohol ed/suicide ed/death ed programs) and try and get them to join.

During some in-service training while on her local school board in Maine, she was given a thick manual called "Innovations to Education: A Change Agent's Guide" which gave specific and deliberate instructions on how to "con the Christians" and others who were upset with what the schools were trying to do, and how to "bring them over to your side."

All of this "change agent" training was (and still is) funded by the U.S. Office of Education, with funding starting in about the late 1960s. She described how "facilitators" would come to school districts to train teachers. And teachers throughout the years had to undergo constant training and re-training, along with sensitivity training to "break their values" so there is no right and no wrong.

Ms. Iserbyt mentions Dr. Benjamin Bloom, whom she describes as "the most important behavioral psychologist ever to live" after Pavlov and Skinner, as the one who implemented this system in the United States. She paraphrases his "blatant" beliefs: "The purpose of education is to change the thoughts, actions, and feelings of students" and how he defines good teaching as "challenging the students' fixed beliefs" in order to effect change. She describes how he could "take a student from here to there -- from a belief in God or his country or whatever to being an atheist and not believing in his country in one hour. They bring about the attitude and values change through the emotions of the child.

So what are your thoughts on this? Is Mr. Iserbyt a conspiracy nut or is she accurate in what she says she witnessed while in the Department of Education? Does anyone have any more information on this?

(Still no regrets that we chose to homeschool...)

Camping out for kindergarten

Here's an article that caught my eye a couple weeks ago: Parents Forced to Camp Out for Lincoln Kindergarten Spots.

The article detailed how "Dozens of parents in one Lincoln [Placer County, near Sacramento] community are being forced to camp out for three nights in hopes of getting their kids into a kindergarten class."

Apparently the area has experienced rapid growth in housing but not in schools, despite promises to build an additional elementary school. There are a limited number of slots for incoming children, so those slots are available on a fist-come-first-served basis.

Besides the misnomer "forced" (nobody is "forcing" these parents to do anything), I must question why so many people can't grasp the obvious: skip the school altogether. Keep the little tykes at home. Plenty of room at the kitchen table.

"Exhausted leftovers"

Here's a fascinating little piece called Why Urban, Educated Parents are Turning to DIY Education which focuses on affluent Seattle urbanites who are discovering the joys of homeschooling.

Unlike the rural knuckle-dragging UNeducated parents who dress their kiddies in prairie skirts and force them to churn butter (and then lock them away after hours lest they accidentally be socialized against their parents' wishes), these parents will, you know, do it right. This "once-unconventional choice 'has become newly fashionable,'" notes the article.

Whoo-hoo! Homeschoolers are on the cutting edge of hip happenin' fashion! --unless of course you're not progressive or urban, in which case you're "evangelicals or off-the-gridders who spend a lot of time at kitchen tables in the countryside"... which everyone knows isn't fashionable.

The writer of this piece, in between elitist pokes at those of us who have been homeschooling for years, still makes the obligatory speculations about homeschooled kids' socialization. She apparently doesn't know there are lots of second-generation homeschoolers out there, including my daughter's brilliant fiddle teacher who is ranked eighth in the nation (the rube), and all these people are getting along just fine in the Real World. But even this writer admits that urban parents are recognizing the benefits of family togetherness and wanting to avoid getting nothing but the "exhausted leftovers" of their children at the end of a conventional school day.

Unlike poor deprived rural homeschoolers, these hip happenin' Seattle parents can indulge their children with "Girl Scouts and ceramics and book club and enrichment classes and park outings," not to mention plays and museums and other stellar opportunities. (Whereas we pathetic troglodytes must make do with watching calves being born and canning vegetables. Sigh.)


I'm sorry, I probably shouldn't poke fun at these families for doing what I strongly encourage every parent to do, namely break away from the government academic prisons and educate their own children. But it's not the parents being interviewed that jarred on my nerves, it was the condescending pat-on-the-head tone of the writer. Conservative parents have known for years what these progressive parents are just discovering: one-size-fits-all education doesn't work for every child. But why is it backward if conservative parents homeschool but enlightened when progressive parents do it?

The writer of this piece also cannot seem to fathom that families are happiest when they spend time together. "[Y]ou can’t help but wonder whether there’s a cost to all this family togetherness," she writes. "There are the moms, of course, who for two decades have their lives completely absorbed by their children’s. But the mothers I got to know seem quite content with that, and clearly seem to be having fun getting together with each other during their kids’ activities."

Yes, Virginia, some moms like being moms. Surprise!

The writer quoted psychologist Wendy Mogel, author of The Blessing of a Skinned Knee (full disclosure: haven't read it), "who admires the way homeschoolers manage to 'give their children a childhood' in an ultracompetitive world. Yet she wonders how kids who spend so much time within a deliberately crafted community will learn to work with people from backgrounds nothing like theirs. She worries, too, about eventual teenage rebellion in families that are so enmeshed."

I confess, I almost snorted my tea out my nose when I read this. Teenage rebellion? I know very, very, very few homeschooling families whose teenage children rebel. I have two teens and they aren't even close to that state. Rebellion often arises from peer pressure which teaches that dislike of one's parents is cool, acceptable, and normal. This attitude is reinforced by government schooling which accomplishes the act of separating children from the influence of their parents.

Whereas homeschooled teens know better. They know their parents aren't the ignorant adversaries public schools would have them believe. This attitude is reinforced by their peers.

Oh well. I know I shouldn't get my gingham knickers in a twist over this type of article. I should be grateful that even progressive parents are supporting the homeschooling movement.

And while it would be nice if they wouldn't lump the rest of us into one ridiculously inaccurate category, I won't hold my breath. Tolerance, as we all know, is a one way street.

Voice from the trenches

Continuing the homeschool/public school discussion, a reader who is a public school teacher left a comment which was so profound I wanted to highlight it. Believe me, it's the folks in the trenches who see this issue most clearly.

This young man summed up today's public school system very well. Teachers use to have their child attend the school they taught at. Today, many have their children are in alternative education settings, from private school to homeschool. I know! I have been in education for 26 years. My daughter is homeschooled by her father.

Public school (at least here) wasn't always bad. I was proud of our district when I started here in the 1980's. Society has changed a lot and our community with it. At least 20 other employees in the district I work in do not have their children in public school, including an assistant superintendent. If this doesn't tell you to take your children and run from public school than I don't know what to say.

I work to be a part of the solution and not a part of the problem. My students are taught respect and manners in addition to academics in my classroom. Unfortunately, I see that is not the case in most classrooms. Our daughter did start in public school. Having to spend evenings, weekends, and summer to correct the behaviors she learned while at public school each had to stop. So we pulled her out half way through second grade. Now she is happy and learning. After her first week of homeschooling I asked her she missed public school, here is her comment: "No, it made me crazy."

I forgot to tell you, she is high-functioning autistic. While attending public school she had what is referred to as melt-downs on almost a daily basis. Now that she is at home, we actually sometimes forget that she is autistic. Most of the bad behaviors are gone.

I apologize for going on so long. In closing, if you want society to raise your child, leave them in public school. The government will raise your child to be dependent of them. If you want to instill your believes and values, homeschool your child. Don't forget the words of that young man, "This place isn't any worst than the high school I attended."

"He had already been socialized."

In response to my WND column The Tyranny of Socialization, I received an email from a pastor that told an incredible anecdote. I asked permission to post his email here.
______________________________

Dear Mrs. Lewis:

While reading your article entitled "The tyranny of socialization" it brought back vivid memories of a particular incident that I will never forget.

I am a Baptist minister and have been pastor of the same church for over 15 years. I preached in the Kentucky prison system for a little more than 18 years. Some years ago I was counseling with a young black inmate that was soon to be released from the minimum security "adjustment center" (we have been discouraged from referring to them as prisons for many years) where he had spent 2 years of his life. He was a pleasant and likable young man. I was trying to encourage him and convince him that he did not want to return to a place like the "adjustment center." The young man smiled at me and said....

"Bro. Berry, I don’t mean to sound disrespectful and I know what you are trying to tell me, but in all reality this place is no worse than the high school I use to attend in Louisville."

Not knowing how to respond to that, I had prayer with him and wished him all the best. He had already been socialized.

Pastor Don Berry

Pastors and Christian education

A few days ago a reader named Dennis Rowan emailed and asked, "I am collecting some information about Christian schooling, and wish to know if you would list 2,3, or more reasons why you think most pastors fail to promote Homeschooling/ Christian schooling. Thanks."

I replied as follows:

1. I believe many pastors are still unfamiliar with homeschooling. We attend a small church with an older pastor. Prior to pastoring our church, he spent 30 yrs working as a hospital chaplain (in other words, not in day-to-day contact with children). Our children were literally the first homeschooled kids he had met. He was deeply skeptical at first about our schooling option, but over the last eight years of watching our girls grow up, he has totally changed his mind and now applauds our decision.

2. There is still a widespread belief in America - including among pastors - that things in public schools just aren't as bad as the critics claim. They remember what schools were like when they were students and tend to believe the good parts still exist. Unless the local public school is a blatant failure, the belief is that "our" schools are okay and everyone else's schools are the messed-up ones.

3. There is still a reluctance to criticize a parent's educational choice for their child, i.e. "it's none of my business." Unquestionably a decision to homeschool has a major impact on a family. But what if both parents work? How can a pastor suggest the family homeschool when it's perceived as "impossible"? Keeping one parent at home to school the kids might mean selling a house, moving to a cheaper house, changing a job for the husband, and/or all kids of other major upheavals for a family. It is not something a pastor can suggest lightly.

4. Frankly if a family hasn't already thought about homeschooling as an option, they're not likely to change their mind unless an experience with their own kid(s) convinces them. Many parents aren't likely to listen to (or at least, take seriously) a pastor's thoughts on the matter. And many parents, like pastors, tend to see their "own" schools as fine (see #2 above) unless a dramatic situation develops to change their opinion.

Just some thoughts, hope they're helpful.

Mr. Rowan assembled all the replies he received as well as his own thoughts on the matter, and pulled together this article which makes for very interesting reading.

And teach them WHAT?

So it seems music legend Elton John - whose music, by the way, I like very much - feels Americans aren't spending enough money on sex education in public schools. "With young people, the infection rates rise and until you inform people and make this disease [HIV] a non-stigmatized thing, you're never going to have any change and we're batting our heads against a brick wall. We need to get into schools."

I see. We need to make sexually-transmitted diseases a non-stigmatized thing. Funny, I thought they already were.

What, pray tell, would Elton want taught in the classrooms of America if he had his way? Kids in public schools are already taught to "do it" in every conceivable method, way, position, and combination except standing on their heads. (Or maybe they are.) Do you really think throwing more money at an issue which isn't the government's business will solve it? We've already thrown literally billions of dollars at "educating" young people about sex - and where has it gotten us? Rampant diseases and out-of-wedlock birth rates ranging from 40 to 70%. Yeah, we're just oozing success, and throwing more money will make all the difference.

(And then we wonder why our national test scores are an international disgrace. Who has time to concentrate on science and math when prophylactic activities with fruit are so much more important?)

To my way of thinking, we need to make teen sex more stigmatized, not less. In times past, there was always been a tiny (and shocking!) minority of girls who got in the "family way" before marriage; but societal stigma prevented most girls from tripping down this tragic path.

But no more. Now it's a free-for-all. Everything goes. Nothing is stigmatized. And Big Daddy Government helps these poor "victims" every step of the way so they never feel the repercussions from their poor decisions and in fact encourage additional bad decisions, thus trapping more and more generations into poverty and dependence.

WHY CAN'T PEOPLE SEE THIS?

I am so thankful we're homeschooling our girls and teaching them the proper timing and placement of sex, namely within a marital covenant.

And which path do you think will lead my girls toward a happier life? The old-fashioned prudish path of saving their virtue until marriage? Or the anything-goes hook-up-with-strangers path the public schools encourage with federal funding? Just asking.

Grrrrrrr. Okay, I'll calm down now....

An alternate opinion

A comment was posted on my Psychological Warfare post that was so interesting, I wanted to bring it forward so it wouldn't be buried.

I applaud the teacher--education regarding the care of our environment is a very important topic. We as a society need to be more environmentally responsible. We need to decrease our use of non-renewable resources and reuse what we have, not always buy new. I think there is way too much drama stated here that the 6 year was having "psychological warfare" used on him. This matter can be discussed at home as it well should be. What one chooses to use in their own home is their business, but as adults we need to lead the way in providing a healthy earth for future generations. That six year old is going to grow up and we want him and all six year olds to have a healthy planet in which to live. By- the- way, one must be careful in reusing plastic bags due to certain bacterias. I myself reuse them, but am very careful what I reuse them for. Some bacteria cannot be removed by a simple rinsing even with soap and water. If everyone would decrease their use of something that does not decompose or is non-renewable we could make a significant difference. The choice is of course where you intend to make your difference.

Psychological warfare

Here's a fascinating little tidbit.

It seems a Quebec mom was making lunch for her six-year-old son who attends kindergarten when the boy noticed his mother was using a Ziploc bag to wrap his sandwich. He screamed, "No Mommy! Not a Ziploc!"

It turns out the boy's teacher would "exclude him from a contest to win a stuffed teddy bear if he brought an environmentally unfriendly plastic baggie to school."

When the father questioned the boy's teacher, she responded, "You know, it's not very good for the environment. We have to take care of our planet and the bags do not decompose well."

I see. Look, the kid is six years old and he is now terrified of the implications of using a Ziploc bag. Psychological warfare, anyone?

I happen to be a huge fan of Ziploc bags. A box each of the gallon-sized and the quart-sized bags last me about a year because I wash and re-use and re-use and re-use them until they're in shreds. In fact, Ziploc bags are one of the few name brand things I buy (rather than the house brand equivalent) because the quality is high and I can get about a year's worth of use out of them.

Washed bags hanging upside down to dry.

Clearly this news incident goes beyond a mere plastic bag. This is an example of the psychological indoctrination children receive in public schools in the U.S. and Canada. "The key problem is we've got a teacher that is on a political crusade," said Michael Sanera (director of research and local government studies for the John Locke Foundation), "and thinks it's her responsibility to indoctrinate kids and not teach sound science."

I am not without some knowledge of science. My bachelor's degree was in zoology; my master's degree was in Environmental Education. And I am, once more, so thankful to be homeschooling my girls. Our kids are growing up with a balanced grasp of environmental issues, not the left-wing propaganda the Progressives love to force-feed innocent children in schools.

Look, if you choose never to use a Ziploc bag, more power to ya. But don't terrify little kids that we're all gonna die if they use a Ziploc, okay?

Rebuttal to homeschoolers

Last night I received a lengthy and thoughtful rebuttal from a Christian public schoolteacher regarding the column I just posted called Lazy Homeschoolers.  Rather than letting the comment languish unseen, I thought I'd bring it to the forefront.
______________________

Good Evening. I read this post because someone on Facebook linked this article to their page, and I just wanted to give my opinion of the article. I am hoping that since you open your comment section to the public that you are in favor of all comments, even if they don't mirror your own.

First of all, I have to say that the article was offensive as a product of the American public schools, as an educator in public schools, and most of all as a Christian. Here are my reasons:

As a product of public schools, I can assure you that I have never been brainwashed by "atheist indoctrination" as the original writer, Ron Strom, assumes, nor do I know any fellow public-schoolers that have been. In fact, many of my teachers in school made it very clear to me that were Christians. Every once in a while, we were taught other religions alongside Christianity, but it was always taught as strictly informational and never invitational (which I found it very interesting to learn about these other religions, especially since I have since met people practicing these religions and it is much easier for me to talk to them about my religion when I am not completely ignorant about theirs). In 9th grade, we were briefly taught about the theory of evolution, which is another concept that students need to know about (and make the decision for themselves about what they think about it) if they ever want to be involved in a scientific field (how much credibility would a Creationist have if they had never heard of evolution? none). Other than these two instances, I don't remember any other controversial teachings in my K - 12 schooling. I think it is insulting to my parents, who certainly raised me in a Deuteronomy 6:7 kind of way. They sent me to public school because they knew that a teacher, who went to college for their specific subject area, could teach me calculus, physics, literature, and history better than they could (this is not an attack on parents who homeschool, it is just the opinion of my parents). They did not ever have to "deprogram" me of what I was taught at school because they taught me to find out things for myself, and if I didn't agree with something that I learned at school, they encouraged me to study it for myself and find out what the Bible said about that subject. They did a great job of bringing me up in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord." It seems as though the Wife of Noble Character in Proverbs 31 did a fine job of bringing up her children as well, even though she was planting a vineyard, trading, sewing, making and selling linen garments. Her husband was busy taking his seat among the elders of the land, so it doesn't seem that they had the time to be the only teachers in their childrens' lives.

As an educator in the American public schools, I can absolutely assure you that I (nor my co-workers) participate in "atheistic indoctrination" of our students. We would get fired. I can also assure you that, as a math teacher, I have never even imagined giving math problems about cocaine or chopped up body parts (as a previous comment stated). Now, I understand that not every teacher is perfect, and some teachers probably do not need to be teachers. I've also met a few inadequate parents that homeschool their children, but I certainly don't write blogs grouping ALL homeschool parents together and accusing them all of doing a lousy job. Please understand that when you copy a story such as this one, you are talking about millions of INDIVIDUALS that spend most of their waking hours caring for, loving, teaching, and planning for their students (some of which don't get that standard of care at their own homes). If you would like, I can send you information about how you can visit my classroom in order to form your own opinions about my teaching and what students are learning in my classroom. Until then, please do not judge me, my profession, and the product of my profession until you actually know what happens in my classroom.

As a Christian, this article offends me because if all of the Christians take their children out of public schools (as it suggests), who will tell the children left in public school about Jesus? I really wish you could see what a difference some of my students make in the lives of others by being in public schools and telling others of their faith. Jesus spent his time on earth eating with sinners, and in Mark 2:17, He says, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Shouldn't we do the same? I completely agree with your (and Mr. Strom's) idea that we are to provide our children with "spiritual instruction." But, how are our children to be "witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" if they are only around other Christians? I also think that it is belittling to my religion that you and Mr. Strom assume that Christians won't be strong enough to stand up to this "cultural swamp." 1 John 5:4 says, "for everyone born of God overcomes the world." I am not suggesting that every child should just be thrown into the world and hope that things turn out okay. I am suggesting that if a child/teen has a firm foundation in Jesus Christ, then sometimes they need to be among the sinners, sharing their faith.

I just don't understand where these children are going to live and work in which they will be constantly sheltered from "pop culture" and "peer pressure?" I'm glad that I was able to experience these things while growing up because it helps me know how to handle them now that I face them in even stronger proportions as an adult.

Thank you for your time.

Well I'll bet THIS went over like a lead balloon...

This is a Valedictorian speech given by someone named Erica Goldson.  Although I think it's brilliant, I can't imagine it sat well with the school administrators listening to it.

Go Erica!  And good luck with your future.

A speech every high school prinicipal should give

I lifted this article written by Dennis Prager (whose writing I much admire) off the WorldNetDaily website. I thought it made a lot of sense. Which, of course, is why it will never happen.
___________________________________

He writes: If every school principal gave this speech at the beginning of the next school year, America would be a better place.

To the students and faculty of our high school:

I am your new principal, and honored to be so. There is no greater calling than to teach young people.

I would like to apprise you of some important changes coming to our school. I am making these changes because I am convinced that most of the ideas that have dominated public education in America have worked against you, against your teachers and against our country.

First, this school will no longer honor race or ethnicity. I could not care less if your racial makeup is black, brown, red, yellow or white. I could not care less if your origins are African, Latin American, Asian or European, or if your ancestors arrived here on the Mayflower or on slave ships.

The only identity I care about, the only one this school will recognize, is your individual identity – your character, your scholarship, your humanity. And the only national identity this school will care about is American. This is an American public school, and American public schools were created to make better Americans.

If you wish to affirm an ethnic, racial or religious identity through school, you will have to go elsewhere. We will end all ethnicity-, race- and non-American nationality-based celebrations. They undermine the motto of America, one of its three central values – e pluribus unum, "from many, one." And this school will be guided by America's values.

This includes all after-school clubs. I will not authorize clubs that divide students based on any identities. This includes race, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever else may become in vogue in a society divided by political correctness.

Your clubs will be based on interests and passions, not blood, ethnic, racial or other physically defined ties. Those clubs just cultivate narcissism – an unhealthy preoccupation with the self – while the purpose of education is to get you to think beyond yourself. So we will have clubs that transport you to the wonders and glories of art, music, astronomy, languages you do not already speak, carpentry and more. If the only extracurricular activities you can imagine being interesting in are those based on ethnic, racial or sexual identity, that means that little outside of yourself really interests you.

Second, I am uninterested in whether English is your native language. My only interest in terms of language is that you leave this school speaking and writing English as fluently as possible. The English language has united America's citizens for over 200 years, and it will unite us at this school. It is one of the indispensable reasons this country of immigrants has always come to be one country. And if you leave this school without excellent English language skills, I would be remiss in my duty to ensure that you will be prepared to successfully compete in the American job market. We will learn other languages here – it is deplorable that most Americans only speak English – but if you want classes taught in your native language rather than in English, this is not your school.

Third, because I regard learning as a sacred endeavor, everything in this school will reflect learning's elevated status. This means, among other things, that you and your teachers will dress accordingly. Many people in our society dress more formally for Hollywood events than for church or school. These people have their priorities backward. Therefore, there will be a formal dress code at this school.

Fourth, no obscene language will be tolerated anywhere on this school's property – whether in class, in the hallways or at athletic events. If you can't speak without using the f-word, you can't speak. By obscene language I mean the words banned by the Federal Communications Commission, plus epithets such as "nigger," even when used by one black student to address another black, or "bitch," even when addressed by a girl to a girlfriend. It is my intent that by the time you leave this school, you will be among the few your age to instinctively distinguish between the elevated and the degraded, the holy and the obscene.

Fifth, we will end all self-esteem programs. In this school, self-esteem will be attained in only one way – the way people attained it until decided otherwise a generation ago – by earning it. One immediate consequence is that there will be one valedictorian, not eight.

Sixth, and last, I am reorienting the school toward academics and away from politics and propaganda. No more time will devoted to scaring you about smoking and caffeine, or terrifying you about sexual harassment or global warming. No more semesters will be devoted to condom wearing and teaching you to regard sexual relations as only or primarily a health issue. There will be no more attempts to convince you that you are a victim because you are not white, or not male, or not heterosexual or not Christian. We will have failed if any one of you graduates this school and does not consider him or herself inordinately lucky – to be alive and to be an American.

Now, please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of our country. As many of you do not know the words, your teachers will hand them out to you.

Teacher in the trenches

Sometimes people want to blame all the ills and evils of public education on teachers. Sometimes teachers are part and parcel of the problem, but many (possibly most?) times they're not. Here's a letter I received from one such person:

I was very interested in some of your comments on homeschooling. For several years, I home-schooled my four children until going through a (very unwanted) divorce. Since I was going to have to work, I thought it would be better to put the two still at home into public school. The difference between the older two who were completely homeschooled, and the two who had to go into public school is very apparent, especially in respect for education and in respect for others.

I know there were a lot more factors at play than the difference in education. They moved from a stable family to a broken home, older sister went to college, older brother moved out to get away from Dad – all in the space of about a year. And it is also true that they are the children of two people, so I am not the only influence on them. But I spend part of every day sick to my stomach at the decisions I have made, or that have been made for me. Have I ruined their lives by the decisions I have made?

After having trouble finding any kind of financially rewarding work in the area where I live, having no retirement savings, etc. I decided to go back to school. Since I had always loved school, had taught a couple of years in small religious schools, and had homeschool experience, I majored in Elementary Education, thinking that was something I would love, and that I would be able to save most of my pay toward retirement. I now question the wisdom of this decision. The school settings I go into are appalling. How can I conscientiously do the things I am required to do as a public school teacher? To say nothing of put up with what teachers have to put up with?

The wild and untamable students rule the schools and form district policy. In the local school district, rather than do whatever it takes to control students, the teachers and principals are being forced to allow more and more behavior to go unpunished. ‘Referrals’ numbers are supposed to come down, and statistics are more important than the students, so... It takes the kids about two days to realize that they can get by with today what they could not get by with in the past. Bullying, disrespect, and violence run the schools. I have seen veteran teachers so frustrated they hop up and down in anger, or just quit trying and sit in a chair.

The students who are in school to learn are left completely unprotected and untaught. Under the guise of a free and equal education for everyone, no one is getting a challenging and rewarding education, and no one is physically or emotionally safe, ever. The focus of daily activity, conversation, faculty/staff meetings, principal meetings, school board meetings is the students who are out of control. The blame ends up in the laps of the classroom teachers.

In the typical local public school classroom I do not use anything I learned at the College of Education. The training I need is for how to do crowd control at a state prison without the support of the warden. The teachers have been left hanging in the wind and the kids are in control. In many cases these kids have the full support of their parents! It is not uncommon for a teacher to be cursed for trying to ‘tell a child what to do.’

I have direct experience in several of the local schools. It is the exception rather than the rule to find a teacher who, with the support of her principal, is making her classroom a safe haven where no bad behavior is tolerated, and learning takes place in a loving, peaceful environment. I know of only one in the entire school district. I am sure she has no idea she is basically homeschooling 30 students!

Now I am graduated (with plenty of gray hair), wondering how to find a job in the middle of years of massive education cuts under our governor who touts herself as an “education governor.” I’m fearful I have taken the wrong path, and am in debt for nothing. I still love education, and genuinely like working with children of all ages, but am feeling hopeless about American education as an institution.

If you made it all the way through my venting session, I really appreciate it! Thanks for being a spot of sanity in the midst of craziness!

Warning: cartoon with *offensive* language

A friend sent this to me with the following note:

This is from a gal I know who teaches special ed. in New York. No kidding. And know what else she said? "I'd love to be able to say this!!! LOLLLLL"

I've debated the merits of homeschooling with her before, however, she's fully entrenched in the public school system and thinks everything is all the parents' fault. You know, much of it probably is-- especially the ones who use school as a way to get away from their bratty children. However, she can't see that the p.s. system is irretrievably broken. She doesn't WANT to see it. And, if she really feels the way she says in the cartoon, don't you think that perhaps SHE is part of the issue as well?

Ah, well. Can't fix everything or everyone, right? But the fact that a teacher felt the need to send this out to declare her feelings really threw me.

Sorry for the reeeallly bad word, but the cartoon is telling, at any rate.