Education Archives - Page 99 of 134

A Funders’ Guide to the Common Core State Standards

August 12, 2015/in Budget and Finance, Culture War, Education, Policy, Politics, Taxes/by Mercedes Schneider

In fall 2012, three philanthropic mega-organizations, Education Funder Strategy Group, Grantmakers for Education, and Growth Philanthropy Network, united to form the Common Core Funders Working Group (CCFWG).

The goal of this mega-mega philanthropic machine is to cement Common Core into American public education.

Here is a description of the purpose of CCFWG as noted in December 2013:

Recognizing the unique possibilities provided by Common Core standards, committed foundations are planning, learning, and acting together in a concerted way over the next two years as the “Common Core Funders Working Group.” A collaborative effort between the Education Funder Strategy Group, Growth Philanthropy Network and Grantmakers for Education, the Working Group seeks to leverage and organize the unique contributions of philanthropy——including resources, leadership, nimbleness, and independence——to support states and schools districts in successfully transitioning to the new Common Core standards.

The Working Group organizes funder interests and leadership on Common Core implementation issues at the national, state, and local levels. To learn more about getting involved——or simply to get added to the Working Group’s regular e-newsletter summarizing reports, research, and development with the standards——contact Grantmakers for Education.

In July 2015, CCFWG published a nine-page report summarizing what it “had learned” in its efforts over three years, from 2012 to 2015– as well as its decision to continue those efforts. Here are excerpts from the beginning of their July 2015 report, including their take on Common Core– and their assumption that they should promote it in schools that their own children are highly unlikely to attend– public schools:

The Common Core State Standards–finalized in 2009 and adopted by 46 states and D.C.—define a 21^st century visionfor what young people need for success in college and careers in mathematics and English language arts. As such, their authors and many advocates believe the standards present an unprecedented opportunity to elevate the quality and effectiveness of teaching and learning in America’s schools—and to tackle persistent problems in new ways.

With their emphasis on problem-solving, critical thinking and writing, the Common Core standards can usher sweeping changes in schools, districts and states. And the transition to these higher expectations has shone a new light on many problems (such as allocation of resources towards ineffective professional development activities, and lack of scrutiny in the adoption of quality teaching materials) that have hampered effective teaching and world-class education in U.S. schools.Education funders interested in supporting the success of Common Core standards have therefore been pushed to consider solutions to deeper challenges and to consider more powerful ways of exerting influence and encouraging change. [Emphasis added.]

Two notes: First, these CC mega-funders considered Common Core “finalized in 2009,” when Common Core was not officially released until June 02, 2010. Second, they see their role as one of “exerting influence” in “powerful ways.”

And here are the concluding paragraphs of the July 2015 CCFWG report. Of course, the Common Core mega-funding push mustcontinue:

The challenges and needs posed by the Common Core standards remain. Funder support —for better teaching materials and better tests, for communications and advocacy, for teacher development—will still be critical and even decisive in the years ahead.

Working individually and jointly, philanthropy has influenced the adoption and implementation of the new standards. But the need for aggressive and well-organized advocacy and communications; the simultaneous potential and limitations of funder collaboration; the lessons about continuous improvement; and remaining questions about philanthropy’s role in systems change all remain pressing needs for continued support and future undertakings. [Emphasis added.]

CCFWG has plans to pay for “better tests”; it plans to continue to “advocate” for the Common Core “adoption” it has “influenced,” and its goal is to create “systems change”– with the “system” changing to “define the 21st century vision” for publicly educating the economic classes to which these rich folk do not belong.

In December 2013, Grantmakers for Education (GFE) and the Helmsley Trust produced this executive summary of three reports to help would-be Common Core funders. (Find more GFE reports here.) Here is their floral treatment of the glory of Common Core– “according to the project’s leaders”:

Announced in 2009 by the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers and voluntarily adopted by most states, the Common Core State Standards offer a new blueprint for what students in virtually every corner of the country will learn in English language arts (ELA) and literacy as well as mathematics. The Common Core are designed to be “robust and relevant to the real world, reflecting the knowledge and skills that young people need for success in college and careers,” according to the project’s leaders. States and local school systems are working overtime to implement and adjust to the higher expectations. Meanwhile, advocates and critics are engaged in spirited discourse over whether the standards can effectively drive improvement in K-12 education.

Note that the “spirited discourse” over the Common Core experiment follows the adoption– and still philanthropy is more than willing to push Common Core.

It must be just fine since “the project’s leaders” say so.

The opening of the executive summary is a more realistic in its portrayal of the 2009 “announcement” of Common Core (though by the time of the announcement, 46 states and three territories had already signed the Common Core memorandum of understanding).

Here are some noteworthy excerpts from the December 2013 funders executive summary:

…Funders should explore whether the Common Core affects their existing grantmaking strategies, and how they might use the standards as a rallying point to help accelerate pre-existing work and goals. …

Reflecting on grantmaking goals and objectives, funders should think about how to acknowledge the Common Core in their education investments. …

In addition to grantmaking, are there other leadership roles we can play to focus attention on the Common Core? …

But this excerpt is my favorite, by far:

The new standards have come under political and public attack in multiple states, and the opposition is expected to grow. Despite the states’ collaborative development and voluntary adoption of the standards, opponents on the right argue that the Common Core is a federal mandate. Opponents on the left are concerned about how the standards will affect teachers under new accountability systems, and about a perceived over-emphasis on testing. As a result, anti-Common Core campaigns are emerging in states across the country—some organic, but many highly coordinated and well-funded.

The Common Core—with its focus on raising expectations for how well students write, solve problems, and think critically—represents the culmination of reforms that many grantmakers have been trying to advance individually and in isolated efforts.Now, funders can use their resources and bully pulpit to help protect and advance the new standards. …

Funders can play a key role in helping build and maintain public will in support of the new standards. Some foundations have chosen to exercise their voice directly,publishing opinion pieces and convening key stakeholders to express support for the Common Core.Others have chosen to fund advocacy groups to support the work. Funders may also leverage their relationships with key stakeholder groups, such as the business community, which can provide powerful local voices in support of reform.

Advocacy shouldn’t stop with the new standards: Funders can play an essential role in helping state education policy leaders understand the value proposition of the new, common assessments most states will likely use. The reality is: Standards, no matter how good, aren’t very helpful if they aren’t well-measured. [Emphasis added.]

Common Core needs public support. So, let’s buy some.

We’ll call it “leveraging our relationships.” This is all the more important since Common Core opposition is “well organized and well funded.”

These are millionaires and billionaires soliciting Common Core pushes who are writing about supposed “well funded” Common Core opposition. Their solution? Manufactured support via the purchasing of pro-CC organizations, fabricating CC support meetings, and writing “I’m rich so my opinion is valuable” op-eds about an education initiative from which rich kids are exempt.

And Common Core needs common assessments; so, let’s “help” education policy leaders “understand” the need for the tests that must accompany Common Core. (The feds, who are supposedly not puppeting state involvement in Common Core, publicly agreed in 2009 to foot the bill for Common Core assessments. So, no need for philanthropy to directly pay for the assessments. However, indirect funding is always, uh, “helpful”….)

If it isn’t tested, it doesn’t count… for the lower- and middle-class kids. After all, that’s who the moneyed, CC-exempt are using their “bully pulpits” to advocate for–

–the Common Core guinea pigs.

Common Core is Creeping into Everything

August 11, 2015/in Culture War, Education, Policy, Religion/by Dr. Mary Grabar

Common Core is spreading like a plague. It’s entering pre-school, college, downloaded lesson plans, and even vacation Bible school. And it’s disguised in the Orwellian Every Child Achieves Act, which is now in committee.

Toddler Common Core

In Connecticut, preschools have adopted Common Core for children ages 3 to 5. According to the Bristol Press, the curriculum used by the Bristol Early Childhood Center has changed to meet the expectations of the new Connecticut Early Learning and Development Standards. The new curriculum ostensibly covers pre-academic skills, which according to the course description, will “foster development of social, emotional, physical, language, [and] cognitive areas and integrate key areas of content including literacy, mathematics, science, technology, creative expression and the arts, health and safety, and social studies.” That sounds more “academic” than “pre” to me. (But for our Department of Education no function is beyond its purview, including teaching parents how to “’bridge the word gap’” for newborns. Now 24/7 government boarding schools have been put on the table by Arne Duncan.)

Studying the Bible the Common Core Way

When I heard about vacation Bible schools making their Bible story readings Common Core compliant I thought that maybe some ill-informed and well-intentioned teachers thought they could keep students up on their schoolwork. But the Courier Journal reports that Jefferson County Public Schools have been offering Common Core training to “interested Vacation Bible School providers.” This, however, came after “enlisting the religious groups to help combat the ‘summer slide’” (emphasis added). The teachers have imbibed the public school lessons: Olivia Hanley of Midwest Church of Christ, oddly, approved of the Common Core method of “critical thinking” for Bible study. More than 30 Louisville-area church officials attended training this year, more than had attended last year. No doubt, efforts to expand reach are underway. My question is: how much of the public school funds went into recruiting and training Bible school teachers? And why are public school employees going to churches as part of their official duty? What gives them the authority? Surely, there must be someone out there who otherwise would scream “separation of church and state!” (say, for putting a Christmas tree in a school auditorium) who might be interested in this matter.

Common Core in Downloaded Curriculum Material

Common Core, even without such outreach efforts, is creeping into schools in non-Common Core states, as Education Week reports. They estimate that 1 in 12 of the teachers downloading Common Core-compliant curriculum materials are in states that do not have Common Core in place. That means that at least some Common Core teaching is going on in non-Common Core states. Of course, when most states adopt Common Core it stands to reason that most of the curricula produced (including textbooks) will be Common Core-compliant.

Common Core College

As I wrote last fall, Common Core is in college. According to the 2013 National Center for Postsecondary Research working paper, The Common Core State Standards: Implications for Community Colleges and Student Preparedness for College, over 900 public and private colleges and universities have committed to using Common Core tests for placement. Therefore, they have committed to changing their standards to Common Core. This year, three higher education groups issued a joint statement asserting their “Commitment to College- and Career-Ready Standards and Assessments.” They pledged not only to support Common Core in K-12, but to “change practices in our higher education institutions. . . . includ[ing] adapting our placement policies.” They will also prepare new teachers and assist veteran teachers “in the delivery of high-quality instruction supporting these higher standards.” They pledge, in other words, to allow the U.S. Department of Education to give professors directives on how to teach. Even better, they pledge to train the professors for the Department.

Common Core Hiding in the Every Child Achieves Act

All kinds of creepy Common Core things are embedded in the Every Child Achieves Act (ECAA), which is really a “rewrite” of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), according to Dr. Karen R. Effrem of Education Liberty Watch. The ESEA is more commonly known as Title I, the program under which low-income school districts receive federal funds. It is loved by state bureaucrats because it means more money for their districts, as one of them revealed at a meeting I went to in 2014.

But while Common Core is popular enough to make its way into vacation Bible schools, politicians know it’s toxic. So they disguise it. American Principles in Action calls the Act “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” and offers 21 reasons to oppose the 792-page bill (122 pages longer than the NCLB bill).

Even though new language seems to restrict the Department of Education from “for example, coercing states into adopting the Common Core national standards,” the “protection” is meaningless. The language replicates existing protections, both of which have no enforcement mechanism for the states. And, “ECAA negates the protections anyway” because states must be aligned to the “college-and-career-ready” standards – “code” for Common Core.

Such “college-and-career-ready” standards that override state and college standards for placement in credit-bearing courses also put downward pressure on states to keep Common Core, or similar standards, in place.

ECAA mandates that 95 percent of students take the state assessments and therefore interferes with parental “opt-out” rights for testing. These state assessments, in addition to NCLB’s requirement that states produce “individual student interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic reports,” require assessments on “behavioral/skills-based standards.” It does not protect against the plans to probe students’ “‘mindsets,’ ‘grit,’ or other psychological traits.” In fact, it offers incentives to states to do that. The I-TECH provision offers “free” money to states that agree to use “personalized learning” — or Brave New World technology that collects personal and psychological data on students as they use it.

Jane Robbins, Senior Fellow at the American Principles Project, says, “The main problem, to me, is that the bill claims to be diminishing federal authority when in fact its structure is highly prescriptive and tells states exactly what they must do in terms of standards, assessments, and accountability systems. So it’s not just bad policy, it’s active deceit.”

An analysis of amendments and votes is available at Education Liberty Watch. To see how you can fight this bill visit American Principles in Action here.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research website.

Miami-Dade School Board: Tax Payers will Pay over $250,000 for Attorney Fees in Landmark Case

August 11, 2015/in Courts & Law, Education, Policy, Taxes/by Dr. Rich Swier

On July 28, 2015, a judge awarded over $250,000 in attorney fees to employees who were victims of “unlawful reprisal” on the part of the School Board of Miami-Dade County in a landmark case. The plaintiffs worked at Neva King Cooper Educational Center, a special school for students with significant intellectual disabilities. The plaintiffs included Dr. Alberto T. Fernandez, Principal; Mr. Henny Cristobol, Assistant Principal; and Mrs. Patricia E. Ramirez, Staffing Specialist. They had impeccable reputations and outstanding evaluations. In May 2012, they were adversely and unlawfully transferred to alternate work locations for their participation in the school’s efforts to explore converting the school to a charter school. Their participation in the school’s charter school exploration was in accordance with and protected by Florida charter school law.

The Florida Department of Education (FDOE) Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigated the district’s actions, and on November 16, 2012 the OIG issued a Fact-Finding Report unfavorable to the district. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Education sent Superintendent Alberto Carvalho a letter notifying him that there was reasonable grounds to believe that “unlawful reprisal” against the employees had occurred, and that the case would be referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) for a hearing to take place. The judge, Edward T. Bauar, held the hearing from January 27-31 and February 14, 2014. He questioned the district’s reasons for the transfers. On June 30, 2014, he issued a recommended order in this unprecedented case: that the FDOE enter a final order finding that the school board violated Florida Statute (FS) 1002.33 (4) (a), Unlawful Reprisal, with respect to each plaintiff. The judge’s order also stated that the school board pay for plaintiffs’ attorney fees and pay Dr. Fernandez $10,590 for lost bonuses and other reasonable costs. The judge, however, did not rule that the plaintiffs be returned to the school, as they had been reassigned to comparable positions. FS 1002.33 (4) allows the district to place prevailing plaintiffs in “similar” positions. On November 6, 2014, the FDOE entered a final order which reiterated the judge’s recommended order: the school board violated Florida law when it retaliated against employees for their involvement in the conversion of the school to a charter school.

Ms. Milagros Fornell, Associate Superintendent, played a major role in the district’s actions. She was a member of the superintendent’s cabinet and reported directly to Superintendent Carvalho. Ms. Fornell has recently retired from the district.

On May 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in Federal court for violations of First Amendment rights for their involvement in the above-mentioned conversion charter school exploration.

The judge’s recommended order and his ruling over the attorney fees can be viewed at https://www.doah.state.fl.us/ROS/2013/13001492.pdf. The documents from the hearing can be viewed at www.DOAH.org, case number 13-1492. The final order can be obtained from the FDOE, case number 2014-3055.

Federal Student Loans Make College More Expensive and Income Inequality Worse by George C. Leef

August 6, 2015/in Culture War, Education, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Taxes/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

One day, Bill Bennett may be best remembered for saying (in 1987, while he was President Reagan’s education secretary) that government student aid was largely responsible for the fact that the cost of going to college kept rising. What is called the “Bennett Hypothesis” has been heavily debated ever since.

A recent report by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York lends support to the Bennett Hypothesis.

Authors David Lucca, Taylor Nadauld, and Karen Shen employed sophisticated statistical techniques to analyze the effects of the increasing availability of federal aid to undergraduates between 2008 and 2010. They conclude the institutions that were most exposed to the increases “experienced disproportionate tuition increases.”

By the authors’ calculation, there is about a 65 percent pass-through effect on federal student loans. In other words, for every $3 increase in such loans, colleges and universities raise tuition by $2.

It is very good to have a study by so unimpeachable a source as the New York Fed supporting the conclusion that quite a few others have reached over the years: Increasing student aid to make college “more affordable” is something of an impossibility. The more “generous” the government becomes with grants and loans, the more schools raise their rates.

Other studies have reached the same conclusion.

In his 2009 paper Financial Aid in Theory and Practice, Andrew Gillen showed that the Bennett Hypothesis was true, although more so at some institutions than others. In their 2012 study, Stephanie Riegg Cellini and Claudia Goldin found that for-profit schools unquestionably raised tuitions to capture increases in federal aid.

Such analyses are amply supported by personal observations about the way college officials look at federal aid. Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars writes that when he was in the administration at Boston University:

The regnant phrase was “Don’t leave money sitting on the table.” The metaphoric table in question was the one on which the government had laid out a sumptuous banquet of increases of financial aid. Our job was to figure out how to consume as much of it as possible in tuition increases.

Similarly, Robert Iosue, former president of York College, writes in his book College Tuition: Four Decades of Financial Deception (co-authored with Frank Mussano), “Common sense dictates a connection between government largess to the buyer and higher prices from the seller. For me it began in 1974 when grants and loans were given to students based on the cost of college. Higher cost: more aid from our government.”

It has always been difficult to defend the position that federal student aid has nothing to do with the steady increase in the cost of attending college; the publication of this study makes it much more so.

Despite their conclusion that financial aid increases costs, the authors of the New York Fed report suggest that aid is beneficial on the whole. They wrote, “[T]o the extent that greater access to credit increases access to postsecondary education, student aid programs may help to lower wage inequality by boosting the supply of skilled workers.” Now, while that is not a finding of the paper, it aligns with one of the justifications commonly given for policies meant to “expand access” to college — that it ameliorates the presumed problem of growing income inequality.

In this speech in 2008, for example, former Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke said, “the best way to improve economic opportunity and reduce inequality is to increase the educational attainment and skills of American workers.”

That argument is grounded in basic economics: if college-educated workers are paid a lot and workers without college education are paid much less, then by increasing the supply of the former, we will lower their “price” and thereby reduce the earnings differential between the two groups.

That sounds plausible and egalitarians embrace the idea. In a recent paper published in the Cambridge journal Social Philosophy and Policy, however, Daniel Bennett and Richard Vedder argue that, after decades of government policy to “expand access,” we have reached the point where doing so now exacerbates income inequality.

“It has become an article of faith that higher education is a major vehicle for promoting a path to the middle class and income equality in America,” the authors write. The trouble, they argue, is that while policies to promote college enrollment had a tendency to do that in the past, we passed the point of diminishing returns.

Key to the Bennett/Vedder analysis is that fundamental economic concept — diminishing returns. As someone buys or enjoys more and more of something, the benefit from each marginal unit eventually starts to fall. That applies to education as well as other goods and services. It applies to individuals, since there is some point beyond which the benefit from additional time spent on education isn’t worth what it costs.

It also applies at the societal level. At first, Bennett and Vedder observe, the students drawn into college by government aid were overwhelmingly very able and ambitious. They benefited greatly from their postsecondary education. Society not only became more prosperous due to the heightened productivity of those individuals, but, the authors show, more equal. Measured by Gini coefficients, income became less dispersed in the early decades of federal policies to promote higher education.

But what was apparently a beneficial policy at first is producing increasingly bad results today. Not only is federal student aid making college more costly, it now leads to a growing income gap. “Additional increases in [college] attainment,” Bennett and Vedder write, “are associated with more income inequality.”

Why?

The reason is that subsidizing college has led to a glut of people holding college credentials. As a result, we have seen a huge displacement in the labor market — college-educated workers displacing those without degrees. I have often called that the “credentialitis”problem; workers who have the ability to do a job can’t get past the screening by educational credentials that is now widespread.

Consequently, the latter group — the working poor — now faces increasing difficulty finding jobs in fields that used to be open to them.

Federal student aid programs were expected to have nothing but good economic and social consequences for America. Instead, however, they are simultaneously making higher education more costly (that is, soaking up more of our limited resources) and, owing to credentialitis, making the distribution of income more unequal.

Of course, the politicians who started us on this path meant well. Most of those who keep pushing us further down the college for everyone path probably believe that they’re pursuing greater equality and productivity. The truth of the matter, as studies like the two I have discussed here show, is that continuing to push the “college access” agenda is making America worse off.

This post first appeared at the Pope Center.

George C. Leef

George Leef is the former book review editor of The Freeman. He is director of research at the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.

Who Is Doing More for Affordable Education: Politicians or Innovators? by Bryan Jinks

August 3, 2015/in Budget and Finance, Education, Policy, Politics, Taxes/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

With a current outstanding student loan debt of $1.3 trillion, debt-free education is poised to be a major issue leading up to the 2016 presidential election.

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has come forth with his plan for tuition-free higher education.

Senator Elizabeth Warren supports debt-free education, which goes even further by guaranteeing that students don’t take on debt to pay other expenses incurred while receiving an education.

Democratic Party front-runner Hillary Clinton is expected to propose a plan to reduce student loan debt at some point. And don’t forget President Obama’s proposal to provide two years of community college to all students tuition-free.

While all of these plans would certainly increase access to higher education, they would also be expensive. President Obama’s relatively modest community college plan would cost $60 billion over the next decade. What makes this an even worse idea is that all of that taxpayer money wouldn’t solve the most important problems currently facing higher education.

Shifting the costs completely to taxpayers doesn’t actually reduce the costs. It also doesn’t increase the quality of education in a system that has high drop-out rates and where a lot of graduates end up in low-paying jobs that don’t use their degree. Among first-time college students who enrolled in a community college in the fall of 2008, fewer than 40% earned a credential from either a two-year or four-year institution within six years.

Whatever the other social or spiritual benefits of attending college are, they don’t justify wasting that so much time and money without seeing much improvement in wages or job prospects.

Proponents of debt-free college argue that these programs are worth the cost because a more educated workforce will boost the economy. But these programs would push more marginal students into college without any regard for how prepared they are, how likely they are to graduate, or how interested they are in getting a degree. If even more of these students enter college, keeping the low completion rates from falling even further would be a challenge.

All of these plans would just make sure that everyone would have access to the mediocre product that higher education currently is. Just as the purpose of Obamacare was to make sure that every American had a health insurance card in their wallet, the purpose of debt-free education is to make sure that every American has a student ID card too — whether it means anything or not.

But there are changes coming in higher education that can actually solve some of these problems.

The Internet is making education much cheaper. While Open Online Courses have existed for more than a decade, there are a growing number of places to find educational materials online. Udemy is an online marketplace that allows anyone to create their own course and sell it or give it away. Saylor Academy and University of the People both have online models that offer college credit with free tuition and relatively low examination fees.

Udacity offers nanodegrees that can be completed in 6-12 months. The online curriculum is made in partnership with technology companies to give students exactly the skills that hiring managers are looking for. And there are many more businesses and non-profits offering new ways to learn that are cheaper, faster, and more able to keep up with the ever-changing economy than traditional universities.

All of these innovations are happening in response the rising costs and poor outcomes that have become typical of formal education. New educational models will keep developing that offer solutions that policy makers can’t provide.

Some of these options are free, some aren’t. Each has their own curriculum and some provide more tangible credentials than others. There isn’t one definitive answer as to how someone should go about receiving an education. But each of these innovations provides a small part of the answer to the current problems with higher education.

Change for the better is coming to higher education. Just don’t expect it to come from Washington.

Bryan Jinks

Bryan Jinks is a ?freelance writer based out of Cleveland, Ohio.

Arizona: Criticize Common Core and Dept. of Ed. Official Might Call You a “F***tard”

August 2, 2015/in Education, Policy, Regulation/by Mercedes Schneider

In September 2013, the Arizona Daily Star noted that then-Governor Jan Brewer “ordered state agencies to stop using the term ‘Common Core’ when referring to the new education standards, in response to hostility from critics over what they see as a federal intrusion.”

The Daily Star article continues:

In an executive order, the governor said she was “reaffirming Arizona’s right to set education policy.” Her order spells out “no standards or curriculum shall be imposed on Arizona by the federal government.”

But it concedes the standards adopted by the state Board of Education in 2010 already are being implemented. And Brewer herself referred to them as Common Core in her State of the State speech and her budget request to the Legislature.

Press aide Andrew Wilder said the order changes nothing except the name, which going forward will be “Arizona’s College and Career Ready Standards.’’

Brewer’s decision was arguably a sleight-o-name intended to fool the Arizona public into accepting Common Core.

Still, there were critics in Arizona, vocal critics like teacher Brad McQueen.

If anyone insists that Common Core is not politically loaded, send that person this June 2014 story out of Arizona:

By Brad McQueen

Ever wonder why more public classroom teachers don’t speak out against the Common Core and their Superintendents of Instruction and Governors who support it?

I am a Tucson teacher who wrote my first anti-Common Core op-ed this past February in the Arizona Daily Independent and it was subsequently reprinted by other online news sources. I followed up the publication of the op-ed with an interview on a local radio station. This was the reaction of the Arizona Department of Education bureaucrats in emails recently obtained by the Arizona Daily Independent:

_____________________________________

EMAIL #1:

From: Hrabluk, Kathy (Associate Superintendent)
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 2:37 PM
Subject: AZCCRS (Common Core) criticism

Fyi regarding a teacher named Brad McQueen. He is on a roll criticizing AZCCRS (Common Core)… he also has an article in the Capitol Times (2-27- 14) stating many misconceptions that has been floating around. Just thought you might want to check your list of teacher teams (from which teachers are selected to work on tests at the Dept of Education). He is one unhappy camper.

_____________________________________

EMAIL #2

From: Hunting, Irene (Deputy Associate Superintendent Assessments)
Subject: RE: AZCCRS (Common Core) criticism

Thank you. We have made a note in his record.

Irene Hunting

________________________________________

Irene Hunting, Deputy Associate Superintendent of Assessments, instantly “notes” my file to make sure I am never called again to work on tests at the AZ Department of Education. I have worked on our state’s standardized test, the AIMS test, and other assessments for the last five years for several weeks over each summer break. Not only do I enjoy the challenging work and I enjoy contributing toward creating our students’ tests, but the summer work has always supplemented my teacher salary. But when you speak out against the cult of Common Core, they are punitive. Sarah Gardner, AZ Director of PARCC Assessments, joins the conversation and also makes sure that I will never work on tests again at the AZ Department of Education or anywhere else for that matter.

________________________________________

EMAIL #3

From: Gardner, Sarah <Sarah.Gardner@azed.gov
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 1:46 PM
To: Stephanie Snyder (PARCC,Inc.)
Subject: RE: question

Given that Brad McQueen gave a negative statement to the press about Common Core and assessment, you may want to remove him from the invitation list…

This was such a surprise for Arizona as Brad has been on many committees, both for our state assessment as well as involved with Common Core and formative assessment based on CC (Common Core) for our state

Let’s make sure he is not going to Denver later this month. Please remove Brad McQueen from the list.

Sarah Gardner, MAEd-C/T
Director of PARCC and Innovative Assessments
ADE – Assessment Section (602) 542-7856________________________________________

Angela Escobar then sends the following email, on taxpayer-paid time, after discovering that I had gone public with my anti-Common Core views during a radio interview:

________________________________________

EMAIL #4
From: Escobar, Angela (AZ Dept of Education)
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 2:44 PM
Subject:Brad McQueen is on the radio

What a f*cktard.

Angela

Lovely. and that as coming from a department of education official.

Notice that the education officials still refer to the supposed “Arizona” standards as what they really are: Common Core. And Common Core can have no criticism because that makes CC marketing more complicated.

For the rest of Brad’s story, click here.

In March 2015, the Associated Press (AP) reported that legislation concerning the repeal of Common Core was defeated in the Arizona Senate 16-13 after making it through the Arizona House.

Arizona still has Common Core, and at least the 2015 legislation was willing to call it by its true name.

According to the AP, current Arizona Governor Doug Ducey doesn’t think repeal is “necessary” because he has asked the board of education for a standards review.

If Arizona’s standards review entails altering Common Core, then it is arguably no longer Common Core.

If.

I wonder if Escobar will be available to encourage those participating in Arizona’s Common Core standards review to keep CC exactly as is under threat of being called f***tards. Perhaps not. In July 2014, Escobar had her hand slapped for her slurring McQueen.

Common Core lesson learned?

Shaking my head….

Immigrant Woman Shocked by Suffering on U.S. Campuses

July 31, 2015/in Culture War, Education, Politics/by The Peoples Cube

GAINESVILLE, FL – Reading reports from a conference on white privilege held at the University of Florida, local immigrant Diana Yahaira Vasquez Alban, couldn’t help but empathize with the pain and suffering of minority students and academic staff in American colleges, which appeared to be much worse than the poverty and crime she had experienced in her native South America.

“I had no idea that such discrimination existed in this country, and I feel bad for these poor people,” said the 26-year-old Green Card holder from Peru, who was moved to tears by the coverage of the event in the UF’s online student newspaper, Independent Florida Alligator.

Held at the University of Florida’s Center for the Study of Race and Race Relations, the conference focused on drawing attention to white privilege, which is the science that explains how persons born with white skin are granted certain advantages that are denied to persons born with darker skin, but also encompassed other privileges such as male privilege, heterosexual privilege, and Christian privilege.

Peggy McIntosh

The event’s keynote speaker was Peggy McIntosh, author of “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” who explained that “white privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools and blank checks,” and that “those who happen to be born into the group that is given the benefit of the doubt, given jobs, assumed to be good with money, assumed to be reliable with families are given a tremendous power. I urge all whites here to use your white power, which you have more of than you were taught, to weaken the system of white power.”

But it was the accounts from attendees of the conference that broke Alban’s heart. “The lady told her listeners to turn to people around them and talk about ways they had been discriminated against,” she said.

“There was a video of one lady, and she had such a hard life that she was crying and yelling at everyone,” recalled Alban, referring to a video clip of UF Levin College of Law 3L Alejandra Garcia, local activist and granddaughter of Cuban refugees. “She screamed a lot of things, like people thought she was a Mexican, that boys stare at her butt, that she should be able to use any bathroom she wants, and that her professors don’t… I didn’t understand about the professors.” A review of the video clarified that professors at the law school failed to nurture the goddess within Garcia.

Lowering her gaze, Alban sadly commented, “I saw many very bad things happen to women in Lima, but my house didn’t have electricity or water, so we didn’t have to suffer about bathrooms like the lady. I didn’t like when rats would crawl on me at night and I would wake up and have to break their necks, but I…” Alban paused briefly to compose herself. “I’m sorry, I just don’t understand why Americans are so mean to that lady to make her act like that.”

Alban was particularly shocked by the story of UF sophomore Delvim Maclin, who said that before being awarded a “Bright Futures” scholarship to the state’s flagship university, he lived in a depressed, predominantly African-American neighborhood of Jacksonville, and that he often received suspicious stares from clerks as he used food stamps to shop for groceries.

Alban, who grew up in Peru sharing a single room with her grandmother, mother, and aunt, felt particular pain at Maclin’s plight. “We mostly ate just rice, but sometimes we could buy a chicken. Gato on the corner would smile at me as he killed the chicken, put it in hot water for just a little bit, and pulled out the feathers. He knew we didn’t have money, so he was happy when I could buy a chicken from him. I wish the black guy’s grocery store was more like Gato.”

“There was also this professor from Iran, he was very angry about the weird looks he gets from people at airports,” continued Alban. “And he can never get a seat in the exit row or first class because the airline people are racist, and that hurts his feelings a lot. The poor man is suffering, and I can’t believe that it’s America’s fault.”

Alban brought home the inequalities highlighted by the conference: “I had a hard time when two years ago I came to USA. I couldn’t get a job because my English is no good and I don’t have experience. But I improved my English and just worked any place I could, and it was ok. I have a job now that I don’t like, but is full time and I could buy a Hyundai and learned to drive. I hope I can find a better job next. But those poor people at the university… I’m going to ask Jesus to help them.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

How Should We Respond to the Birmingham Qur’anic Folios?

July 25, 2015/in Education, Religion/by Dr. Rich Swier

I received the following in an email from Tim who ministers to Muslims. Tim has researched the findings of the Qur’an they found in Birmingham and provides this response to the discovery of old fragments of Quranic texts at Birmingham University:

Many people have been e-mailing me in the past 24 hours with requests concerning the significance of the new findings from Birmingham University, about 2 folios (front and back) from an early Qur’anic manuscript.

See the BBC article: ‘World’s Oldest Koran Fragment found at Birmingham University‘.

Unfortunately, I am sequestered in some mountains to the east of Toulouse, in France, teaching for a week, and due to the infrequent internet access here, was completely unaware of this news until a number of you notified me.

The BBC article mentions that the two folios were tested recently by the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, which has an exceptional reputation internationally. What’s more, the 7th century has a more stable radiocarbon decay rate then say the 8th century, and has proven extremely stable from a wide sampling of leather, parchment and papyrus manuscripts from Europe and the Middle East. The Oxford laboratory dated these two folios, with a 95% accuracy, from between 568 AD and 645 AD. This means that it could be one of the earliest dated Qur’anic fragments in existence.

I have been asking for help to understand the significance of these findings from several experts in the field; one in particular, who has done some preliminary research on this fragment and the radiocarbon dating of Qur’anic manuscripts. He is in contact with Corpus Coranicum, a German Qur’an manuscript project that is doing the most detailed Radio Carbon dating with Qur’an manuscripts that has ever been attempted. They are endeavoring to reconcile Radio Carbon dating with the more established and trusted paleographic and codicological methods. So far they have dated more than 30 Qur’ans. Below is his and others synopsis of the current state of knowledge concerning these issues. Here are some useful things they have shared.

1) This is not the first manuscript fragment to be tested using Radio Carbon dating, as a few months ago scholars at the Tübingen University in Germany came out with similar findings on a set of fragments they tested at their laboratory. There is on going work on that manuscript which is showing a number of variants to the text, which are being prepared for publication.

(The entire Tübingen manuscript can be viewed online here. You can notice that many of the variants are visible as corrections that have been made to the text)

2) One has to remember that the Radio Carbon dating is not the date of the writing on the manuscript but only the parchment it was written on. This is quite significant, since the latest dating of 645 AD would only be the date that the animal died. The ink could have been applied many years or even decades later. In fact one of the Radio Carbon dating of the Sanaa palimpsest goes back before Muhammad’s prophetic career (pre 600 AD).

The current scholarly consensus, however, is that there are usually not a number of decades between the day an animal died and when it would finally be used for the writing of a manuscript, except in the case of re-using old manuscripts [see comments on palimpsests in no. 4 below]. Animals were often killed and their skins quickly converted to parchment in order to fulfill commissions for luxury manuscripts because often a large part of a herd were required for the production of the volume.

3) Dating of the ink and pigment is a new area of study, and will feature more prominently in future early Qur’anic manuscript projects. Then we will have much more accurate dating for early Qur’ans. This will add another criterion for constructing accurate dates for early Qur’ans.

4) Sometimes parchment, or velum manuscripts are erased (the ink would be washed off) and then written again over top. These are known as ‘Palimpsests’. The Tübingen fragments may have evidence of these layers of overwriting, which would mean that the script we are reading could have been written many decades later. We have not been told yet whether these Birmingham fragments could also be Palimpsests. If so, we could be looking at just the latest layer of writing of a Qur’anic text. Initial examination does not seem to indicate that they are, but it is a possibility one must consider, since sometimes the removal of the original texts was done extremely well and is difficult to detect after the fact.

5) According to the scholar, Avi Lewis, since the Radio Carbon test shows that these folios were possibly written between 568 and 645 AD, the parchment may have been written well before the years 610 through 632, the alleged time of the “revelation” of the Qur’an, maybe even before the time the alleged Prophet Muhammad would have been an adult man. That would be in agreement with other observations, e.g. that made by the late famous Taha Husain in 1926, who said that the Qur’an contains pre-Islamic metric poetry.

6) This article spends almost all its time praising the reliability of the Qur’an’s textual history, and doesn’t mention the variations in the text, which are well known to exist in almost all early manuscripts, including both the Sanaa MSS as well as the Tübingen MSS, a fact described in depth in the early traditions as well. The complexities of the Qur’an’s early textual history are glossed over in this article, and instead of a full, well-rounded picture of the Qur’an’s early transmission being given, a partial view which minimizes the aspects which disagree with an almost fundamentalist classical Islamic view is given.

7) David Thomas, one of those interviewed in the article is not an authority on Qur’anic manuscripts, and so speaks about the ‘stones and bones’ in 650 AD as if it was real history, without realizing that the stories he is quoting are not from the 7th century, but from the 9th century. Alba Fedeli is a qualified Qur’anic expert, yet while her name is mentioned, her views are not given. One also wonders whether the writer, Sean Coughlan, is knowledgeable about the highly specialized material he is reporting about. From other research carried out by Yassin Dutton, Francois Deroche and others, one finds just how different the early texts were from today’s published version—and how many diacritics, short vowels and other signs needed to be added to the text in order for it to be readable in that particular reading, suggesting just how much the text was altered over the course of time. This is not mentioned in this article, of course, because it is a blind spot for the writer.

In fact the entire tone of the article is one of advocacy, as if those who looked after the Qur’anic manuscripts were wooing the Muslim community, especially those living in Birmingham.

8) These particular Birmingham fragments show four instances of diacritical mark textual variants, one with grammatical implications, and another a nonsense reading (see the breakdown below), proving that even this text has early textual variants, as well as verse numbering differences.

9) It is difficult to imagine that these Birmingham folios would be so early, as it has such a well established page layout, as well as a developed Qur’anic Hijazi script style, verse numbering, and Surah divisions. These are not only better than later manuscripts, but certainly earlier than the established consensus by most Muslim and Western scholars concerning when a developed Arabic scribal and written literary culture would have existed.

10) The variations in this text confirm what we already know from the later Islamic Traditions, that there was early editing to create a basic textual form. Dr Brubaker’s thesis last year also proved this, as he found over 800 of these corrections in the 10 Qur’ans he looked at, all of which were dated from the later 8th – 9th centuries, proving that these variations and corrections continue for another 200 years.

11) Simultaneously, these early textual variations suggest that there are a larger number of textual patterns for the Qur’an than the Islamic traditions had recorded. This tells us that the community that followed the time of Muhammad (i.e. post 632 AD), were much more involved in establishing the precise wording and spelling of the text of the Qur’an than some traditions and many contemporary Muslim commentators have previously allowed, though some Islamic traditions do allow for them.

12) Even certain Muslims are skeptical of this discovery. Saud al-Sarhan, the director of research at the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, doubts that the folios found in Birmingham were as old as the researchers claimed, noting that its Arabic script included dots and separated chapters — features that were introduced a century or two later. He also referred to the possibility that these folios were washed clean and reused later, as palimpsests. One can understand the dilemma for many Muslims concerning these very early dates within the spectrum for the Carbon dating of these folios, as it suggests that they could have been created before Islam existed (i.e. 568 AD), forcing them to choose the later, post 632 AD dates.

13) Another scholar, Behnam Sadeghi, possibly realizing the problems these folios may pose for Muslims, has just written a clever response, suggesting that, due to the variants, these folios are possibly nothing more than ‘Companion Texts’ which were then corrected into one standardized form, at the time of Uthman (see his article here). Interestingly, he is forced to admit that these earlier texts included “words and phrases [that] were different…These differences sometimes affected the meaning”, though he suggests they didn’t change the tenure of the Qur’an. Not too many Muslims will appreciate such a public admission.

14) Overall, these Radio Carbon dates are not the last word in dating these early Qur’an folios. They are a new tool, and as such it will take time to discover their full accuracy and potential. They are a significant tool, however, and their use should be welcomed as one of many methods for discerning the likely age of a manuscript. The traditional methods of script analysis, art analysis, and analysis of the form of the manuscript in all of its physical aspects may need some revision, but they have served well and they will not be easily overthrown by a single scientific test. They will continue to be essential for gaining a complete and accurate understanding of the date of these manuscripts.

15) This all suggests that there has never been just one precise, or even complete text of the Qur’an which was preserved perfectly, and used by all Muslims, even today. It looks like these folios (whatever their final dates) belong to a school of textual variants, referred to in later traditions, and may belong to a larger manuscript, one that was then standardized into one final canonized text at some later date. When that canonized Qur’an was finalized is the answer we are all waiting to know. Hold this space.

A CLOSER LOOK AT THE BIRMINGHAM FOLIOS

Let’s look at particular examples of differences from the two pages (front and back) of these Birmingham folios, which includes portions of Surahs 18, 19 and 20, though only the parts of Surahs 19 and 20 are continuous:

There are at least 27 alifs missing when compared to the current text, proving just how much Arabic spelling changed in the first 3 centuries of Islam. -There are 4 instances of consonantal diacritical marks that are different from what is now considered the standard. 3 of them have no correlation to known variant ways of reciting the text, while one of them is similar to a later reciter named Ibn ʻAmr (i.e. Surah Al-Kahf 18:26, ‘tushuriku’, the verb ’You make to share’, is written instead of ‘yushuriku, ‘He makes to share’, in the sentence, ‘He makes none to share in His decision and rule’).
In all three of the surahs represented on these pages we find the verses are numbered differently from that used in current Qur’ans.
The way the letter qaf is pointed is similar to another system of pointing used in early times and also found today in the Warsh Qur’ans, which are only in North Africa (i.e. qaf has one dot, fa’ has no dot). All this to say, that even if this particular manuscript can be proven to be early, it nonetheless shows variants which, if the Qur’an is perfect, complete and unchanged, just should not be there. It’s interesting that there was no reference in this article concerning the variants in this particular set of folios.

As more research will be done on this manuscript and other early ones, we will keep you informed concerning what the expert’s say. Till then, engage with your Muslim friends on these new findings, and make sure you show them the ‘other side’.

PAGE 1 FRONT: SURA 19:91 – 20:13 [19:91-98] Statements that Allah does not take to himself a son [91-94] all people are slaves with Him having full power over their Judgment [95-96] believe and do deeds of righteousness will result in His love for them [97-98] The Qur’an is easy in the prophet’s own tongue to warn his people. [20:1-4] The Qur’an is a revelation from Allah [5-8] Statements of Allah’s attributes [9-13] Moses speaks to Allah in the burning bush.

PAGE 1 REVERSE: SURA 20:13-40 [13-16] Worship Allah, or perish [17-37] Moses with Pharaoh and sent with Aaron [38-40] Moses’s early and adult years described.

PAGE 2 FRONT: 18:17-23 [The Qur’an’s version of the 7 Sleepers of Ephesus, from vss 17-26]

PAGE 2 REVERSE: 18:23-31 [A very graphic description of hell and paradise found in vss 29-31]

Thomas More Law Center Continues To Fight Against Common Core

July 22, 2015/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Education, Policy, Regulation/by Dr. Rich Swier

Continuing its national battle against the federal government’s attempted takeover of public education, the Thomas More Law Center, last week, filed a friend of the court brief in the Missouri Court of Appeals supporting a lower court decision that held the State’s participation and membership in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (“SBAC”) is illegal and SBAC itself is an “unlawful interstate compact … whose existence and operation violate[s] the Compact Clause of the U.S. Constitution.”

The lower court ruling which stopped Missouri from paying over $4 million in membership fees to SBAC, is being appealed by Missouri state officials, including Governor Jay Nixon.

The original lawsuit was filed by D. John Sauer of the St. Louis, Missouri, firm Clark & Sauer, LLC in September 2014 on behalf of concerned Missouri residents and taxpayers.

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, joined with Mr. Sauer in filing a similar lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of SBAC in North Dakota. A North Dakota District Judge will hear arguments next week on whether he should stop North Dakota from participating in SBAC.

The TMLC first became involved in the fight to stop Common Core in response to concerns of parents and teachers over the federal government’s control of curriculum nationwide and the standards themselves. As a result, the TMLC previously developed a Test Refusal and Student Privacy Protection Form and a Common Core Resource Page as a general reference and guide for concerned parents and individuals.

Both SBAC and the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (“PARCC”) were created in response to a federal Department of Education grant program designed to create academic assessments aligned to the Common Core State Standards. The assessments leave local schools little choice but to align their curriculum to the standards and assessment, allowing the federal Department of Education to effectively control public education.

SBAC’s state membership agreements, executed by officials in Missouri, North Dakota, and several other states, have raised concerns that state officials are handing over local educational decisions to SBAC, and by extension the federal government which violates federal statutes prohibiting the federal government—and, in particular, the federal Department of Education—from controlling educational policy, including curriculum decisions and educational-assessment programs in elementary and secondary education.

The new wave of testing ushered in by SBAC and PARCC sparked a national opt-out movement as students, teachers and administrators grapple with the heavy burden created by these assessments. The looming threat from the Department of Education of the loss of federal funding helped drive the controversy between parents and school administrators over parental opt-outs and test refusal. As a result of these parental opt outs, students across the country were formally disciplines and subjected to “sit-and-stare” policies; refused admittance to the classroom; lost honors, class trips, and athletic participation; and were even suspended.

Click here to read the Law Center’s friend of the Court Brief

The Hidden Costs of Tenure by Jonathon Anomaly

July 15, 2015/in Education, Policy, Science/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Conversations I’ve had with non-academics about university employment practices usually evoke surprise and skepticism. Most people have a hard time understanding the point of a system that makes it so difficult to dismiss faculty members who are not especially good at their job.

The recent motion in Wisconsin to remove state laws that protect teacher tenure has re-ignited the debate over providing special protections to teachers—protections that don’t apply to journalists, gardeners, or bloggers who are occasionally fired for expressing unpopular views.

In some ways, regulations that determine how university professors are hired and fired in the United States are analogous to the restrictive labor laws in Spain and Greece. By raising the cost of firing bad workers, they increase the relative cost of hiring good ones.

The consequence is persistent unemployment and low productivity in Greece and Spain. The consequences of our tenure system are the proliferation of poor teaching and arcane research in university departments that are immunized from market forces.

Those who pursue a career as a university professor are mostly incentivized to produce specialized work aimed at impressing people who may end up on their promotion committee rather than a wider audience.

In the sciences, this may be a good thing, since one’s peers are likely doing narrow but important work that uncovers the basic structure of the universe. But in the humanities and social sciences, it often leads to the pursuit of bizarre research that is inscrutable to outsiders and of little value even to scholars in related fields.

Another hidden effect of the tenure system is that it often sifts out the very people it is supposed to protect: those with unusual or unpopular ideas. The original justification for tenure was to protect teachers and scholars who hold unpopular views by making it difficult to fire them. But when tenure is the main game in town, the stakes associated with hiring a new faculty member are high, making departments risk-averse. Thus, in order to be considered for tenure-track jobs, candidates have strong reasons to conceal unpopular political beliefs and to pursue relatively conservative lines of research.

By “conservative” I do not mean politically conservative. Quite the opposite.

If most people in a department where you’ve applied are progressives, it is not likely that your allegiance to any non-progressive views will help your cause. Tenured faculty members who make those decisions are often unwilling to take a chance on somebody with eccentric or politically unpopular views, since when a tenure-track position is filled, the candidate who fills it will probably be a colleague for life.

This is not only unfair; it is contrary to the mission of most universities. Research by Professor Jonathan Haidt suggests that political bias negatively impacts the quality of research by stifling open debate. But it’s one of the unintended results of tenure.

Tenure can, of course, protect people with unpopular views. Consider Edward Wilson and Arthur Jensen, eminent scholars at Harvard and Berkeley who have argued, among other things, that different groups of human beings exhibit average differences in genetically-mediated characteristics, including general intelligence and impulse control. Tenure protected their careers, although it didn’t protect them from death threats and intimidation.

On the other hand, it is likely that many more controversial scholars will never be hired in the first place because those on the hiring committee are hostile to their ideas.

Tenure also makes it much harder to terminate faculty members. It was never supposed to be a guarantee that one will never be fired. According to the American Association of University Professors, tenure can be revoked if members of a department can demonstrate that a colleague exhibits incompetence, or engages in academic fraud or seriously immoral behavior.

But even when these things can be shown, it is often easier for faculty and administration to ignore the problem than to mount a costly battle to fire a colleague.

This is one reason many tenure-track jobs are being replaced with adjunct positions, which is a temporary fix for a deeper problem. In the long run, it is likely that the quality of student education and faculty research would increase under a system that offered faculty a greater diversity of contracts, reflecting a faculty member’s ongoing accomplishments, experience, and contributions to the university.

In effect, tenure is a barrier to entry in the academic job market that makes it difficult to replace poorly performing faculty with better alternatives. We should applaud rather than protest the recent decision of the Wisconsin legislature to force the University of Wisconsin to experiment with new ways of conducting the business of hiring and firing faculty.

This post first appeared at the John William Pope Center.

Jonathan Anomaly

Look Who’s Defining Sin… Say What?

July 14, 2015/in Culture War, Education, Featured, Religion/by Martin Mawyer

My first thoughts were, “Say what?” Yeah. And you’ll be saying “Say what” too after reading this statement from the president of the National Education Association (NEA), Lily Eskelsen Garcia.

First, for those unfamiliar with the NEA, it is the nation’s largest labor union – not just the largest teacher’s union, mind you. But the largest labor union in the country. Period. It has more than three million members.

Its mission is “to advocate for education professionals” blah, blah, blah. In other words, they are an organization of teachers who unite to demand more money, benefits, better work environments and whatever else they can get their hands on.

They also advocate for just about any left-wing liberal cause that enrages conservatives, even if it has nothing to do with teaching.

One of those left-wing causes is homosexuality. No surprise here for anyone familiar with the NEA. In their own words, the union states it has a “goal of changing public opinion on homosexuality, starting with the youngest generation.”

Clearly, they’re going after your kids, whether you like it or not. At least they’re upfront, honest and forthright about their mission. I’m sure that makes you feel better.

Even so, as brazen as this statement is (telling parents, “To hell with you, it’s all about what WE want your children to believe”) this isn’t …

… and I repeat, this isn’t the “Say what?” experience I’m talking about.

The “Say what” experience happened during NEA’s 2015 Annual Meeting on July 3 in Orlando, Fla.

That’s when the union president, Lily Eskelsen Garcia, took to the stage and said this after applauding the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing homosexual marriage:

“My son, Jeremy, called me and said, ‘Ma! Mike and I are no longer living in sin!’ My son and Mike are legally married in the great state of Utah.”

Can you join me in a “Say what” moment?

Does the Supreme Court now decide what is “sin”? Is this the new message to youngsters from the country’s largest teacher’s union … nay, the country’s largest labor union – that the Supreme Court will determine what is sin?

Before laughing off this crazy, overly exuberant rant of the country’s most powerful labor union president, consider the deeper message Lily Eskelsen Garcia is pushing.

Government will now decide what is sin and what is not sin. Not the Bible. Not God.

The word “sin” is decidedly a Judeo-Christian word. There’s no mention of “sin” in the Quran. There’s no such thing as “sin” in Buddhism. And there is no “sin” against God in Hinduism.

So, in reality, the NEA is only concerned about “sins” as defined by the New and Old Testaments. The government will now define those sins.

It’s mighty painful for the NEA – and others on the liberal left – to explain away biblical sins, with homosexuality being a big pain in the butt (no pun intended) as one of those difficult “sins” to dismiss. There are just too many Scriptures condemning homosexuality to brush them aside, reinterpret or reject.

So why not let the government – Big Brother – decide what is sin and what is not?

This is a big advantage for the NEA and their liberal lackeys, whether they are in government, business, media or law enforcement.

Homosexuality is not a sin according to the left. But refusing to serve a cake at a gay wedding is a sin, and punishable with a $135,000 fine, as experienced by the Christian owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa.

Gay marriage is not a sin. But opposing gay marriage is a sin and a punishable offense, as experienced by the CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, who was fired because of his opposition.

The liberal left would love for the government to be in the business of defining sin, as if they aren’t already.

Being anti-gun is not a sin. But being pro-gun can get you arrested, as experienced by a teen-ager in West Virginia who was arrested after wearing an NRA T-shirt to his middle school.

Abortion is not a sin. But protesting abortion can land you in jail, as happened to nine college students in Birmingham, Ala., this year who were arrested for distributing pro-life literature on a public sidewalk at Parker High School.

Radical Islam is not a sin. But exposing it can get you demoted, suspended or fired, as happened to Lt. Col Matthey Dooley who was fired as an instructor at West Point for teaching a course on “Islamic Radicalism.”

Being anti-religious is not a sin. But say “Bless you” after a fellow classmate sneezes may get you suspended from school, as happened to Kendra Turner at Dyer County High School in Tenesssee.

Opposing the goals of the liberal left is not just about being politically incorrect. It’s about sin. Because clearly these are not criminal acts. This is why they need to redefine these acts as “sins” that can carry severe consequences – jail, fines, loss of jobs, mandatory sensitivity training classes, suspensions and demotions.

The NEA teacher’s union doesn’t want children to think “Bible” when they hear the word “sin.” They want them to think government. And if the government does not consider something a sin, then it’s not.

But if it does consider your moral rantings or activities a “sin,” then …

… you better dig deep into your pockets, dust off your résumé and perhaps dress for orange.

I’ve got some disturbing news for the homosexuals who are celebrating their victory and newfound freedom from “sin” – handed to them by the Supreme Court:

The Court may have legalized marriage … but they are still NOT married. They will have to appeal to an authority higher than the Supreme Court for that dispensation.

Did I just hear a “Say what?”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Poll: 59% Believe Businesses Should Be Able to Decline Gay Weddings

After Supreme Court Gay Marriage Ruling, How We Can Protect Freedom for Everyone

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Lily Eskelsen Garcia.

Keep Sex out of Kindergarten by Hannah Phillips

July 12, 2015/in Culture War, Education, Policy/by Dr. Judith Reisman

It’s the first day of kindergarten. Each child is excited to learn about the alphabet, numbers, and – sex? Under the guise of “family life” or “health” education, children are exposed to graphic sexual images and ideas that damage their young minds. A child’s undeveloped brain is not prepared to make decisions regarding sexuality.

Obscenity Exemptions

Outside of the classroom, it is illegal to expose children to sexually explicit material. For example, Virginia law prohibits any person to “print, copy, manufacture, produce, or reproduce any obscene item for purposes of sale or distribution.”[1] Schools, however, are the exception. Under Virginia law, the prohibition does not apply to the “purchase, distribution, exhibition, or loan of any book, magazine, or other printed or manuscript material by any library, school, or institution of higher learning.”[2] According to Dr. Judith Reisman and Mary McAlister, children “are exposed to otherwise illegal sexually explicit materials because of ‘obscenity exemptions’ granted to schools, libraries, and other organizations.”[3] The young minds that should be protected in their innocence are instead exploited in the name of education.

Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education

Planned Parenthood and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) are the frontrunners of comprehensive sexuality education taught from kindergarten through twelfth grade. Many advocates claim that comprehensive sexuality education in early grades is necessary for a child’s healthy development. In 2004, SIECUS published its third edition of Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kindergarten through 12th Grade. A “national task force of experts” devised the Guidelines to “help educators create new sexuality education programs and evaluate already existing curricula.”[4] In addition to over 100,000 copies that have been dispersed across the United States, more than 1,000 people each month download the Guidelines from SIECUS’ website.[5] SIECUS praises the Guidelines as “popular and valuable.”[6] The National Guidelines Task Force that developed the Guidelines originally consisted of members from Planned Parenthood, Indiana University, and various public school systems. Although SIECUS claims that a “majority of parents want schools to provide comprehensive education about sexuality,” many parents do not know what schools are teaching their children.[7]

SIECUS’ Guidelines presents comprehensive sexuality education as a “lifelong process” that begins at birth and continues throughout adulthood.[8] As SIECUS’ ultimate goal, a “sexually healthy adult” will “affirm that human development includes sexual development which may . . . include . . . sexual experience,” “affirm one’s own sexual orientation,” and “affirm one’s own gender identities.”[9] The Guidelines recommend that schools teach children, ages 5 through 8, about masturbation, sexual intercourse, abortion, and sexual orientation. Little children are taught that “touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation” and that “some boys and girls masturbate” in a “private place.”[10] Educators are supposed to instruct five-year-olds on “vaginal intercourse – when a penis is placed inside a vagina.”[11] The Guidelines describe abortion as the solution for circumstances in which “women become pregnant when they do not want to be or are unable to care for a child.”[12] Kindergarteners learn that “human beings can love people of the same gender and people of another gender,” according to a person’s sexual orientation.[13] Under SIECUS’ Guidelines, sexual perversions are deemed natural, favorable, and void of all consequences. Similarly, Planned Parenthood promotes initiating comprehensive sex education in kindergarten because “sexuality is an integral part of each person’s identity.”[14] Although Planned Parenthood does not lay out its own guidelines for comprehensive sexuality education, it directs interested educators to SIECUS’ Guidelines.[15]

Schools and libraries provide children with access to explicit sexual material and ideas in books. Recommended by SIECUS’ Guidelines as a resource for children, the book It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health by Robie H. Harris covers topics such as sexual reproduction, sexual desire, sexual intercourse, and homosexuality. Although the book is designed for children ages ten and up, it includes cartoon images of a naked man and woman engaging in sexual intercourse, two men and two women in homosexual relationships, and multiple naked men and women depicted at different stages in life.[16] Advocates of comprehensive sexuality education in kindergarten assure cautious parents that sex education teaches only scientific facts. According to SIECUS, however, comprehensive sexuality education includes “forming attitudes, beliefs, and values about . . . identity, relationships, and intimacy.”[17] Sex education does not only teach facts, but it also teaches values. As religious and traditional values become irrelevant, sexual promiscuity becomes rampant.

The Man behind Comprehensive Sexuality Education

The current traumatization of children with explicit sexual images and ideas finds its roots in the work of “scientist” Alfred Kinsey in the 1940s. According to Stolen Honor Stolen Innocence, Kinsey claimed that “children are . . . unharmed by sexual activity even from birth.”[18] In his book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, Kinsey included several tables depicting the “erotic arousal” of between “1,746 to 2,035 boys and girls” based on “instrumental measurement” and “timed with a stopwatch.”[19] Kinsey recruited pedophiles, parents, and nursery personnel to molest and rape children under the guise of “scientific research.”[20] Kinsey used his infamous Table 34 to support his contention that children are capable of “orgasm.” Table 34 “reported around-the-clock experimental ‘data’ on infants and young boys,” with the youngest child being five months old.[21] The infants and children who were sexually stimulated responded with pain, fright, “extreme tension with violent convulsion,” or fainting – a reaction which Kinsey considered “orgasm.”[22] What Kinsey deemed an “orgasm” in infants, however, can only be interpreted as an absolute protest to the violation of their bodies. From his “data,” Kinsey concluded that children are sexual from birth and can benefit from “incest or sex with adults” and that all forms of sexual behavior are both permissible and beneficial.[23]

The recent shift toward teaching explicit sex education in early grades is entirely based on the fraudulent research of this child rapist. Before Kinsey’s reports were published, all sexuality education was the “responsibility of parents or legal guardians.”[24] However, after Kinsey, school teachers became the primary instructors of sexuality information and health. Kinsey’s corrupt ideas are currently taught under deceptive pseudonyms such as “sex education, AIDS prevention or awareness, family life, health, hygiene, home economics, physical education, even ‘abstinence’ education.”[25] Based on Kinsey’s false ideologies, Planned Parenthood endorses teaching children comprehensive sexuality education in kindergarten since “learning about sexuality . . . begin[s] at birth and continue[s] throughout our lives.”[26] The false contention that children are sexual from birth remains prevalent in our schools today. Just as Kinsey violated the fragile bodies of thousands of infants and children, schools are violating the fragile minds of children.

The Harm Caused by Comprehensive Sexuality Education

A Child’s Brain

According to Dr. Judith Reisman and Mary McAlister, every “child or young person who views sexually explicit images suffers real harm.”[27] This harm is irreversible on a child’s brain. Brains are “far more impressionable in early life than in maturity.”[28] A child cannot process auditory and visual information like an adult. In contrast to an adult, “young children’s brains are more vulnerable to developmental problems should their environment prove especially impoverished or un-nurturing.”[29] In “Soft Porn” Plays Hardball, Dr. Reisman recognizes that “the human brain experiences conflicting and confusing images and information when viewing pornography.”[30] An impressionable child is confused when forced to absorb sexually explicit material. Describing pornography’s influence, Dr. Reisman continues, “When one reaches a state of emotional arousal faster than the body can rally its adaptive reactions, a form of stress follows.”[31] Children who are exposed to sexually explicit images experience stress and anxiety that carries into their adulthood.

The Rights of Parents

“Obscenity exemptions” provided for schools erodes the rights of parents. According to Pierce, the Supreme Court declared, “The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”[32] All parents have the right and responsibility to educate their children. President Obama, however, endorsed teaching “medically accurate, age-appropriate, and responsible sex education” in kindergarten as “the right thing to do.”[33] Who determines what is age-appropriate for a kindergartener? Planned Parenthood? Local school boards? The federal government? Since schools have “obscenity exemptions,” schools can expose children to sexually explicit material and deem it “age-appropriate” by their own standards. SIECUS considers teaching about masturbation, sexual orientation, and sexual intercourse to be “age appropriate” for five-year-olds. Parents have a duty to protect their children from harm. Schools that indoctrinate young students with comprehensive sexuality education usurp the authority of parents.

Conclusion

SIECUS “believes that all people have the right to comprehensive sexuality education that addresses the socio-cultural, biological, psychological, and spiritual dimensions of sexuality by . . . exploring feelings, values and attitudes.”[34] Do five-year-olds have the right to digest sexually explicit material in school? Does SIECUS or the federal government have the right to impose their perverse and twisted values on your children? On that first day of kindergarten, each child anticipates learning about numbers and the alphabet. Let’s keep sex out of it.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the Liberty Center for Law and Policy website. It is reprinted with permission.

REFERENCES:

[1] VA Code Ann. § 18.2-374.

[2] VA Code Ann. § 18.2-383.

[3] Judith Reisman and Mary E. McAlister, “‘Obscenity Exemptions’ for Educators Violate Children’s Civil Rights by Creating a Hostile Learning Environment” (executive summary, Liberty University School of Law, 2015), 1.

[4] “Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kindergarten through 12th Grade,” Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (2004): 5, http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/guidelines.pdf (accessed June 29, 2015).

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid., 13.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., 16.

[10] Ibid., 51-52.

[11] Ibid., 26.

[12] Ibid., 61.

[13] Ibid., 29.

[14] Planned Parenthood, http://www.plannedparenthood.org/educators/implementing-sex-education (accessed June 29, 2015).

[15] Ibid.

[16] Robie H. Harris and Michael Emberley, It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing, Sex, and Sexual Health (Somerville, MA: Candlewick, 2009), 14-20.

[17] “Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kindergarten through 12th Grade,” 13.

[18] Judith Reisman, PhD, Stolen Honor Stolen Innocence: How America was Betrayed by the Lies and Sexual Crimes of a Mad “Scientist” (Orlando, FL: New Revolution Publishers, 2013), 133.

[19] Ibid., 135.

[20] The Kinsey Syndrome: How One Man Destroyed the Morality of America, DVD, Directed by Christian J. Pinto (American History Films, 2008).

[21] Reisman, Stolen Honor Stolen Innocence, 144.

[22] Ibid., 146-147.

[23] Ibid., 170.

[24] Ibid., 133.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Planned Parenthood, http://www.plannedparenthood.org/educators/implementing-sex-education (accessed June 29, 2015).

[27] Judith Reisman and Mary E. McAlister, “‘Obscenity Exemptions’ for Educators Violate Children’s Civil Rights by Creating a Hostile Learning Environment” (executive summary, Liberty University School of Law, 2015), 1.

[28] Zero to Three: National Center for Infants, Toddler, and Families, http://main.zerotothree.org/site/PageServer? pagename=ter_key_brainFAQ (accessed July 2, 2015).

[29] Ibid.

[30] Judith Reisman, PhD, “Soft Porn” Plays Hardball: Its Tragic Effects on Women, Children, and the Family (Lafayette, LA: Huntington House Publishers, 1991), 17.

[31] Ibid., 18.

[32] Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925).

[33] Terence P. Jeffrey, “Obama: Sex Ed for Kindergarteners is the ‘Right Thing to Do,’” CNS News, http://cnsnews. com/news/article/obama-sex-ed-kindergartners-right-thing-do (accessed July 2, 2015).

[34] Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kindergarten through 12th Grade, 13.

Students Expect (and Demand) to Have Their Beliefs Confirmed by George C. Leef

July 10, 2015/in Culture War, Education/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

With so many more Americans going to college than in the past, you would think that anti-intellectualism would be a distant, rapidly fading memory. But you’d be mistaken, argue Mark Bauerlein and Adam Bellow, editors of a sharp new book The State of the American Mind.

“Instead of acquiring a richer and fuller knowledge of U.S. history and civics, American students and grown-ups display astounding ignorance of them, and their blindness is matched by their indifference to the problem,” write Bauerlein and Bellow.

Increasingly, Americans shrug at the idea of basic liberties but “accept restrictions on speech, freedom of association, rights to privacy, and religious conscience.”

The book they have put together shows the depth of these worrisome trends.

Each of the sixteen essays included is worthwhile. I am going to focus in particular on one that dovetails especially with the work of the Pope Center — Greg Lukianoff’s “How Colleges Create the ‘Expectation of Confirmation.’”

Lukianoff is the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a group that stands up for free speech on campus no matter who the speaker is or what the content of the message might be.

In his essay, he laments the fact that many college students have become so bold as to demand that school administrators silence speakers with whom they disagree and “protect” them from arguments contrary to their beliefs.

Or, it would be more accurate to say, “assume they disagree with,” because they refuse to allow the individuals to speak. Therefore, they are spared having to actually think of logical responses after listening to the speaker’s arguments. So is everyone else on campus, of course.

The “heckler’s veto” thus affects those would like to hear the speaker’s message just as much as those who think they’re entitled to silence perceived enemies.

Lukianoff presents quite a few instances, starting with one at Brown University, where Ray Kelly, former New York City police commissioner, had been scheduled to give a talk. A group of students managed to so disrupt the event that Kelly finally gave up and left the building. Afterward, a student who had been at the center of the disgraceful, anti-intellectual protest bragged, “They decided not to cancel the lecture, so we decided to cancel it for them.”

The intellectual climate on many campuses has been in decline for years, but it seems to be speeding up. Just a few years ago, the big new trend was the demand that lectures, books, and everything else on campus that might possibly offend anyone be scrubbed of ideas or images that might “trigger” a sensitive student. Lukianoff senses that we are moving further into this swamp as the “right not to be offended” morphs into “the right to have your views confirmed and not challenged.”

Although it occurred too recently to make it into the book, the Laura Kipnis furor is evidence for Lukianoff’s point. When a liberal feminist professor at Northwestern wrote an essay that took issue with the popular trope that college campuses are dangerous places for women and need more federal oversight, she was blasted by women students who couldn’t stand Professor Kipnis’ disagreement with their cherished beliefs.

The students did more than just wring their hands and write about their hurt feelings. They filed an official complaint against Kipnis with Northwestern’s “Title IX coordinator,” claiming that her writings had violated their rights. Thus began an amazing, Kafka-esque series of proceedings for Kipnis, which she details here.

My point is not that Title IX invites abuse, although it certainly does. My point is that we now have college students who think that it is proper to bring down the weight of federal regulation on the head of a professor simply for saying something that clashed with a view they expected to be reinforced.

It’s especially troubling that the students went after a member of the faculty. In the past, you would have expected students to at least show a bit of deference towards scholarly thought. “Maybe we should consider the possibility that Professor X has a point here….”

But now we find a new breed of know-it-all students who eagerly use the machinery of federal regulation to wreak vengeance on a professor for writing something they find disagreeable.

Lukianoff’s analysis of the reasons for this deplorable state of affairs centers on the way Americans increasingly “cluster” ideologically. That is, they tend to hear only opinions that coincide with theirs and, disturbingly, that phenomenon becomes more apparent as educational levels rise.

Citing Diana Mutz’s book Hearing the Other Side, Lukianoff notes that “people with a high school education or less are the most likely to engage in discussions along lines of political and philosophical disagreement, while those with higher levels of education are less likely.”

I suspect that observation is generally correct, but the effect is much more pronounced among leftist students. Students who have at least some sympathy for private property, free enterprise, and individual responsibility are very apt to encounter people, especially in the education system, who will argue against their beliefs. (“Denounce” would often be a more accurate word than “argue,” however.)

As Professor Michael Munger observed in this Pope Center piece last year, it is leftist students who are likely to get rewarded just for stating the “correct” beliefs. Conservative and libertarian students don’t develop that expectation of having their opinions validated and their egos stroked because they can hardly avoid intellectual combat. There is a huge ideological asymmetry here.

Moreover, leftist students themselves tend to cluster in courses where ideology is the primary focus and professors are prone to reinforcing their already formed views about the array of “social justice” topics.

As a means of countering this noxious trend of students who think that the point of college is to reinforce their existing beliefs, Lukianoff suggests that part of freshman orientation be devoted to “instruction in productive academic engagement.” That is, tell students “we fight offensive speech not with censorship but with contrary words.”

That is a superb idea. Orientations should be used for the salutary academic purpose of explaining to students what intellectual arguments are and how they’re conducted. An assignment might be to read that part of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty that deals with the importance of free speech and debate.

Schools should be just as interested in making sure that students know the rules of academic dispute as that they know the rules, say, about drinking on campus.

We hear again and again from college leaders that they want students to learn “critical thinking skills,” but evidence keeps mounting that the exact opposite is happening — that many students are learning how to make life miserable for those who dare to disagree with them.

Leaders who really care about the intellectual development of the students who come to their schools ought to pay attention to the alarm Greg Lukianoff is sounding.

This post first appeared at the Pope Center.

George C. Leef

George Leef is the former book review editor of The Freeman. He is director of research at the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education Policy.

About the Warner Amendment to the Senate ESEA Bill

July 10, 2015/in Education, Policy, Regulation/by Mercedes Schneider

On July 08, 2015, the Senate approved by voice vote an amendment to the Senate version of the re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015. The amendment in question, Senate Amendment 2086, sponsored by Senator Mark Warner (D- VA), allows states to spend the administrative portion of ESEA funding grants on “fiscal support teams.” Though not explicitly stated in the amendment language, such support teams could include education businesses and consulting firms.

Senator Mark Warner

In response to the above news, on July 09, 2015, investigative journalists David Sirota and Matthew Cunningham-Cook wrote an article in the International Business Times entitled, “Senate Passes Bill Letting Schools Give Education Money to Financial Consulting Firms.” The article implies that the Warner amendment has the potential to funnel ESEA grant funding to consultant bank accounts and away from needy children.

Not exactly.

Yes, the amendment grants consultants direct access to ESEA funds– but not to at least 95 percent of it.

For each of the grants in the ESEA document, limits are set regarding how much of the funding can be spent on administrative costs. These limits usually range from 1 to 5 percent. In the case of Warner’s SA 2086, the amendment refers to two sections from No Child Left Behind (NCLB), sections 9201 and 9203, both of which concern consolidation of administrative funds. According to these sections, states (and, under the supervision of states, the local education agencies) are allowed to consolidate the administrative allotments from various ESEA grants “if the State educational agency can demonstrate that the majority of its resources are derived from non-Federal sources.” (NCLB, pg 542).

So, yes, according to NCLB language to be retained as part of the Senate ESEA reauth bill, the state is able to spend ESEA funds on consulting firms; however, the states can only spend from the small percentage of ESEA funding allowed for administrative costs and only if the bulk of the state’s administrative funding comes from sources other than the ESEA money it receives.

Sure, it’s an opportunity for those consultants to make money, but not the unfettered opportunity for ESEA funding exploitation that it might appear to be upon first glance.

Real Heroes: Homeschool Parents — Home Education Inspires a Love of Learning by Lawrence W. Reed

July 4, 2015/in Culture War, Education, Policy, Politics/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

The hero in this story is not any one person but rather nearly two million Americans — moms and dads who go the extra mile and who, often at great sacrifice to themselves, are rescuing children in a profoundly personal way. They are the homeschoolers, parents who give up time and income to directly supervise the education of their children. They teach, they arrange learning experiences within their home and elsewhere in cooperation with other parents, and they inspire an appetite for learning.

Of all the ingredients in the recipe for education, which one has the greatest potential to improve student performance?

No doubt the teachers unions would put higher salaries for their members at the top of the list, to which almost every school reformer might reply, “Been there, done that!” Teacher compensation has gone up in recent decades, while indicators of student performance have stagnated or fallen.

Other standard answers include smaller class size, a longer school year, more money for computers, or simply more money for fill-in-the-blank. The consensus of hundreds of studies over the past several years is that these factors exhibit either no positive correlation with better student performance or only a weak connection. On this important question, the verdict is in and it is definitive: The one ingredient that makes the most difference in how well and how much children learn is parental involvement. Homeschooling is the ultimate in parental involvement.

When parents take a personal interest in their children’s education, several things happen. The child gets a strong message that education is important to success in life; it isn’t something that parents dump in someone else’s lap. Caring, involved parents usually instill a love of learning in their children — a love that translates into a sense of pride and achievement as their students accumulate knowledge and put it to good use. As one might expect, time spent with books goes up and time wasted in the streets goes down, but there’s so much more to the homeschooling experience, as explained by Marianna Brashear, curriculum development manager at the Foundation for Economic Education:

Much time is spent not just in books, but seeing the world and participating in field trips with hands-on learning. There is so much knowledge that is gained through real-world exposure to a vast array of subjects far more lasting than reading out of a textbook. The word “schooling” in homeschooling is misleading because education takes place in and out of formal lessons. The biggest waste of time in schools comes not just from indoctrination, but also from “teaching to the test,” where kids memorize, regurgitate, and forget.

American parents were once almost universally regarded as the people most responsible for children’s education. Until the late 19th century, the home, the church, and a small nearby school were the primary centers of learning for the great majority of Americans.

In more recent times, many American parents have largely abdicated this responsibility, in favor of supposed “experts.” The context for this abdication is a compulsory system established to replace parental values with those preferred by the states and now, to an increasing degree, by the federal government. (It’s important to remember how much the current system was established as a reaction to immigrants, especially Catholics. See Robert Murphy’s “The Origins of the Public School” in the Freeman, July 1998.)

Twenty years ago, a report from Temple University in Pennsylvania revealed that nearly one in three parents was seriously disengaged from their children’s education. The Temple researchers found that about one-sixth of all students believed their parents didn’t care whether they earned good grades, and nearly one-third said their parents had no idea how they were doing in school. I can think of no reason to believe things have improved on this front in the two decades since.

Homeschooling is working — and working extraordinarily well — for the growing number of parents and children who choose it.

Teaching children at home isn’t for everyone. No one advocates that every parent try it. There are plenty of good schools — private and many public and charter schools, too — that are doing a better job than some parents could do for their own children. And I certainly praise those parents who may not homeschool but who see to it that their children get the most out of education, both in school and at home. Homeschooling almost always goes the extra mile, however, and it is working extraordinarily well for the growing number of parents and children who choose it.

This outcome is all the more remarkable when one considers that these dedicated parents must juggle teaching with all the other demands and chores of modern life. Also, they get little or nothing back from what they pay in taxes for a public system they don’t patronize. By not using the public system, they are in fact saving taxpayers at least $24 billion annually even as they pay taxes for it anyway.

In the early 1980s, fewer than 20,000 children were in homeschools. From 2003 through 2012, the number of American children 5 through 17 years old who were being homeschooled by their parents climbed by 61.8 percent to nearly 1.8 million, according to the US Department of Education. That’s likely a conservative estimate, but it equals 3.4 percent of the nation’s 52 million students in the 5–17 age group.

Parents who homeschool do so for a variety of reasons. Some want a strong moral or religious emphasis in their children’s education. Others are fleeing unsafe public schools or schools where discipline and academics have taken a backseat to fuzzy, feel-good, or politically correct dogma. Many homeschool parents complain about the pervasiveness in public schools of trendy instructional methods that border on pedagogical malpractice. Others value the flexibility to travel, often with their children for hands-on, educational purposes; the ability to customize curricula to each child’s needs and interests; and the potential to strengthen relationships within the family.

“When my wife and I first decided to homeschool our three children,” says Bradley Thompson, a political science professor who heads the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism at Clemson University, “we did it for one reason: we wanted to give them a classical education — the kind that John Adams and Thomas Jefferson might have received when they were young boys.” He adds,

Within a couple of years, we added a second reason: we didn’t want our children exposed to the kind of socialization that goes on in both government and some private schools. Over time, however, we added a third reason: homeschooling became a way of life for our family, a way of life that was irreplaceable and beautiful. By the time our third child goes to college, we will have been homeschooling for 18 years. Those years have been, without question, the most important of my life.

Homeschool parents are fiercely protective of their constitutional right to educate their children. In early 1994, the House of Representatives voted to mandate that all teachers — including parents in the home — acquire state certification in the subjects they teach. A massive campaign of letters, phone calls, and faxes from homeschool parents produced one of the most stunning turnabouts in legislative history: by a vote of 424 to 1, the House reversed itself and then approved an amendment that affirmed the rights and independence of homeschool parents.

The certification issue deserves a comment: we have a national crisis in public education, where virtually every teacher is duly certified. There is no national crisis in home education.

Critics have long harbored a jaundiced view of parents who educate children at home. They argue that children need the guidance of professionals and the social interaction that comes from being with a class of others. Homeschooled children, these critics say, will be socially and academically stunted by the confines of the home. But the facts suggest otherwise.

Reports from state after state show homeschoolers scoring significantly better than the norm on college entrance examinations. Prestigious universities, including Harvard and Yale, accept homeschooled children eagerly and often. And there’s simply no evidence that homeschooled children (with a rare exception) make anything but fine, solid citizens who respect others and work hard as adults. Marianna Brashear informs me thus:

More and more early college and dual enrollment programs are available for rising 9th through 12th graders, and these programs, too, are quite eager to admit homeschoolers for their ability to take responsibility and to self-motivate, for their maturity, and for their determination to learn and succeed. For example, my 14-year-old daughter will be starting with a nearby technical institute in August and will receive high school and college credit simultaneously. She will be in a class with other high school students, and they are on track to receive AA degrees before graduating high school.

Homeschool parents approach their task in a variety of ways. While some discover texts and methods as they go, others plan their work well before they start, often assisted by other homeschoolers or associations that have sprung up to aid those who choose this option. Writing in the Freeman in May 2001, homeschool parent Chris Cardiff observed that because parents aren’t experts in every possible subject,

families band together in local homeschooling support groups. From within these voluntary associations springs a spontaneous educational order. An overabundance of services, knowledge, activities, collaboration, and social opportunities flourishes within these homeschooling communities.

My FEE colleague, B.K. Marcus, also a homeschool parent, identifies this natural “socialization” as a critically important point:

Homeschooling produces communities and participates in a division of labor. Homeschooling is social and cooperative, contrary to the stereotype of the overprotected child under the stern watch of narrow-minded parents. Traditionally schooled kids show far fewer social skills outside their segregated age groups.

A quick Internet search reveals thousands of cooperative ventures for and between homeschoolers. In Yahoo Groups alone, as of June 2015, about 6,300 results pop up when you search for the keyword “homeschool.” More than 800 show up in Google Groups. Facebook is another option for locating a plethora of local, regional, and national homeschool groups, support groups, events, co-ops, and communities.

In every other walk of life, Americans traditionally regard as heroes the men and women who meet challenges head-on, who go against the grain and persevere to bring a dream to fruition. At a time when more troubles and shortcomings plague education and educational heroes are too few in number, recognizing the homeschool champions in our midst may be both long overdue and highly instructive.

Common to every homeschool parent is the belief that the education of their children is too important to hand over to someone else. Hallelujah for that!

For further information, see:

National Home Education Research Institute
Institute of Education Sciences’ Digest of Education Statistics
“1,733,000 Homeschooled Children Up 61.8% in 10 Years” by Terrence P. Jeffrey
“Public School Successes, Home School Failures” by Dennis L. Peterson
“Toward an Educational Renaissance” by Chris Cardiff
“Homeschooling: The Public Schools’ Invasive Species” by Wendy McElroy
“Opposition to Common Core Spurs Jump in Homeschooling” from Fox News
“Homeschooling Goes Mainstream” by Milton Gaither in EducationNext
“The Dramatic Rise of Homeschooling: Hope for American Education” by Russ Hepler in The Federalist Papers Project
Homeschool Laws by State

Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. (“Larry”) Reed became president of FEE in 2008 after serving as chairman of its board of trustees in the 1990s and both writing and speaking for FEE since the late 1970s.

EDITORS NOTE: Each week, Mr. Reed will relate the stories of people whose choices and actions make them heroes. See the table of contents for previous installments.