Dog Brothers Public Forum
October 26, 2016, 02:24:32 PM
Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
Dog Brothers Public Forum
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
Science, Culture, & Humanities
Progressives and subversives have absconded the education system
Topic: Progressives and subversives have absconded the education system (Read 6916 times)
Progressives and subversives have absconded the education system
July 12, 2011, 10:36:35 AM »
What is most astounding about all this is all we hear about is how bad our education that so many children know astoundingly NOTHING about the nature and founding of the principals of our country.
They know all about slavery of blacks, the driving of Indians off lands, etc. Everything is political correctness.
I felt proud of being an American growing up.
Now children are taught to be ashamed of our heritage, our history culture, the legacies, the principals this country was founded on.
I remember in college in the 70's one history professor was rumored to be "communist" in his philosophy as though he was the execption. Now from what one reads this is at least at the Ivy league schools the *rule*, not the *exception*.
I just cannot believe we have children who don't know who Abraham Lincoln is from a picture or that the US was a colony of Britain.
This is astounding. This is a disgrace.
Last Edit: August 09, 2011, 06:11:53 PM by Crafty_Dog
Re: liberals have absconded the education system
Reply #1 on:
July 12, 2011, 01:53:46 PM »
Lets keep this line of thought on the Education thread. Please repost it there.
WSJ: The latest crime wave
Reply #2 on:
October 01, 2011, 02:30:48 AM »
By MICHEAL FLAHERTY In case you needed further proof of the American education system's failings, especially in poor and minority communities, consider the latest crime to spread across the country: educational theft. That's the charge that has landed several parents, such as Ohio's Kelley Williams-Bolar, in jail this year.
An African-American mother of two, Ms. Williams-Bolar last year used her father's address to enroll her two daughters in a better public school outside of their neighborhood. After spending nine days behind bars charged with grand theft, the single mother was convicted of two felony counts. Not only did this stain her spotless record, but it threatened her ability to earn the teacher's license she had been working on.
In January, Ohioan Kelley Williams-Bolar was sentenced to 10 days in jail, three years of probation, and 80 hours of community service for having her children attend schools outside her district. Gov. John Kasich reduced her sentence last month.
Ms. Williams-Bolar caught a break last month when Ohio Gov. John Kasich granted her clemency, reducing her charges to misdemeanors from felonies. His decision allows her to pursue her teacher's license, and it may provide hope to parents beyond the Buckeye State. In the last year, parents in Connecticut, Kentucky and Missouri have all been arrested—and await sentencing—for enrolling their children in better public schools outside of their districts.
These arrests represent two major forms of exasperation. First is that of parents whose children are zoned into failing public schools—they can't afford private schooling, they can't access school vouchers, and they haven't won or haven't even been able to enter a lottery for a better charter school. Then there's the exasperation of school officials finding it more and more difficult to deal with these boundary-hopping parents.
From California to Massachusetts, districts are hiring special investigators to follow children from school to their homes to determine their true residences and decide if they "belong" at high-achieving public schools. School districts in Florida, Pennsylvania and New Jersey all boasted recently about new address-verification programs designed to pull up their drawbridges and keep "illegal students" from entering their gates.
Other school districts use services like VerifyResidence.com, which provides "the latest in covert video technology and digital photographic equipment to photograph, videotape, and document" children going from their house to school. School districts can enroll in the company's rewards program, which awards anonymous tipsters $250 checks for reporting out-of-district students.
Only in a world where irony is dead could people not marvel at concerned parents being prosecuted for stealing a free public education for their children.
In August, an internal PowerPoint presentation from the American Federation of Teachers surfaced online. The document described how the AFT undermined minority parent groups' efforts in Connecticut to pass the "parent trigger" legislation that offers parents real governing authority to transform failing schools. A key to the AFT's success in killing the effort, said the document, was keeping parent groups from "the table." AFT President Randi Weingarten quickly distanced her organization from the document, but it was small consolation to the parents once again left in the cold.
Kevin Chavous, the board chairman for both the Black Alliance for Educational Options and Democrats for Education Reform, senses that these recent events herald a new age for fed-up parents. Like Martin Luther King Jr. before them, they understand "the fierce urgency of now" involving their children's education. Hence some parents' decisions to break the law—or practice civil disobedience.
This life-changing decision is portrayed in Betty Smith's 1943 novel, "A Tree Grows In Brooklyn," also adapted into an Academy Award-winning film. In the novel, Francie Nolan is the bright young daughter of Irish immigrants living in Brooklyn's Williamsburg immigrant ghetto in the early 20th century. An avid reader, Francie is crushed when she attends her local public school and discovers that opportunity is nonexistent for girls of her ilk.
So Francie and her father Johnny claim the address of a house next to a good public school. Francie enrolls at the school and her life is transformed. A teacher nurtures her love for writing, and she goes on to thrive at the school. Francie eventually becomes an accomplished writer who tells the story of her transformation through education.
The defining difference between the two schools, writes the novel's narrator, is parents: At the good school, "The parents were too American, too aware of the rights granted them by their Constitution to accept injustices meekly. They could not be bulldozed and exploited as could the immigrants and the second-generation Americans."
Were Francie around today, she'd be sad but not surprised to see how little things have changed. Students are still poisoned by low expectations, their parents are still getting bulldozed. But Francie wouldn't yield to despair. She would remind this new generation of courageous parents of the Tree of Heaven, from which her story gets its title—"the one tree in Francie's yard that was neither a pine nor a hemlock. It grew in boarded-up lots and out of neglected rubbish heaps and it was the only tree that grew out of cement." The tree, the narrator adds, "liked poor people."
The defenders of the status quo in our nation's public schools could learn a lot from that tree.
Mr. Flaherty is president and cofounder of Walden Media, which coproduced the 2010 documentary "Waiting for 'Superman.'"
TX: Boston Tea Party was terrorism
Reply #3 on:
November 21, 2012, 04:34:50 PM »
We are fuct
Reply #4 on:
August 27, 2014, 07:07:13 PM »
My son's school's new grading system:
A = 92-100
F =29 and below
We are fuct , , ,
ObamaCore: 'Why Johnny [Still] Can't Read'
The Systemic Dumbing-Down of America
By Mark Alexander • August 27, 2014
"If a nation expects to be ignorant -- and free -- in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." --Thomas Jefferson (1816)
In William Shakespeare's "Tempest," Act V, Miranda observes, "O wonder! How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, That has such people in't."
It is those words from which Aldous Huxley drew the title of his 1932 novel, "Brave New World."
In that celebrated work, Huxley describes a utopian future in which a central authority maintains totalitarian rule and obedience by re-education -- replacing historical comprehension with a common core of indoctrination, utilizing sleep-learning, psychological manipulation and classical conditioning.
Huxley's utopian apparition compares with that of George Orwell's 1949 dystopian narrative, "Nineteen Eighty-Four," and that of Ayn Rand in her 1957 work, "Atlas Shrugged," but all three were, and remain, significant expositions of the loss of Liberty and its inevitable terminus in tyranny.
Each reflects the outcome of a worldview advanced by the architects of statist totalitarianism -- Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin -- both of whom fully understood that state-controlled "education" was essential to the fundamental transformation from Liberty to tyranny.
According to Marx's "Communist Manifesto," "The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother's care, shall be in state institutions at state expense."
Lenin followed with this chilling demand: "Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted."
The modern instruction manual for implementation of Marx's Manifesto is Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," considered the holy book of so-called "community organizers" like Barack Hussein Obama. It is the contemporary outline of how to restructure institutions in order to achieve a totalitarian state.
Indeed, Alinsky dedicated the book to the patron saint of community organizers: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer."
The current caucus of Socialist Democrats occupying the executive, legislative and judicial branches of our central government subscribe to the following Marxist/Alinsky maxim: "Democracy is the road to socialism," and for four decades have used the educational indoctrination of youth to pave that road.
In 1955, Time magazine published a cover story, "Why Johnny Can't Read," an early indictment of post-war centralized government education institutions, which were graduating students who couldn't make the grade.
Of course, statists claimed the problem could be solved with more money and centralization of academic standards. In 1950, federal spending on K-12 was about $400,000. Since then, it has climbed to $71.2 billion. Spending for higher education has risen from $250 million in 1958 to $60 billion in 2013. Since the 1970s, spending per pupil has increased 138% while student enrollment has increased only 7.8%. Spending per student by state ranges from $6,000 to a whopping $29,000 in Washington, DC, where the graduation rate is a dismal 58%, and most who do actually graduate are unprepared for meaningful employment.
Obama insisted on an additional $60 billion last year “to keep hundreds of thousands of teachers on the job.” Since 1970, the number of teachers grew by 60% and non-teaching employees by 84%, while student enrollment increased, as noted above, by only 7.8%.
And what has all that centralization and spending achieved? Could it be that the problem is not the need for uniform curriculums and more spending? Arguably, federal government diktats regulating state and local government schools have resulted in a progressive and systemic dumbing-down of generations of young Americans. Indeed, Johnny still can't read.
Jimmy Carter codified this systemic progression by creating a cabinet-level secretary for the U.S. Department of Education. Ronald Reagan vowed to dismantle it, but as with most government programs once created, the union funding machines supporting Democrat majorities in the House and Senate created an insurmountable obstacle to that objective.
Now statists insist the solution to endemic academic decline is a uniform plan of indoctrination under the name "Common Core" -- a series of academic standards set by a horde of bureaucrats known as the Council of Chief School Officers. While some might argue that such standards could implement a degree of accountability, in reality what Common Core does is something far more perilous: It further centralizes the ability to craft and implement educational curriculums -- with the potential outcome of, well, I refer you back to Huxley and Orwell.
Forty-five states plus DC have embraced Common Core, although as conservative columnist George Will notes, they have done so in exchange for stimulus funds or waivers from federal regulations -- federal arm-twisting at its best. Even worse, some states adopted Common Core almost immediately after the June 2, 2010, release of the standards, leaving little to no time to evaluate their efficacy. Another Pelosian example of “passing” something to find out what’s in it.
According to Will, “The advocates of the Common Core say, ‘If you like local control of your school you can keep it, period. If you like your local curriculum you can keep it, period.’ And people don’t believe them for very good reasons. This is the thin end of an enormous wedge of federal power that will be wielded for the constant progressive purpose of concentrating power in Washington so that it can impose continental solutions to problems nationwide.”
Indeed, the ObamaCore mandates are the Department of Education's version of the Department of Health's ObamaCare mandates -- and the outcomes will be similar.
At a high school convocation speech to a youthful corps of what he hopes will one day become loyal Leftist sycophants, Obama claimed, “My administration has been working hard to make sure that we ... encourage the kind of change that’s led not by Washington, DC, but by teachers and principals and parents...”
Note the order in which he lists the agents of change: "teachers and principals and parents." And "the kind of change" led by teachers' unions and government school administrators across the nation is already in lock-step with what “Washington, DC” dictates. They’re both bent upon churning out, perhaps unwittingly, legions of "useful idiots" -- the necessary ingredients for ensuring the future envisioned by Huxley, Orwell and Rand.
For the record, there are tens of thousands of teachers across the nation who do not subscribe to these statist curriculums and the PC pacification of their students. They remain steadfast in their commitment to teach, not indoctrinate, and however few and far between they may be, in many communities they are the last defense against the socialist tide in classrooms. But the federal mandates are multiplying, and the net effect will further undermine any real educational opportunity for this and the next generations of young people.
Concern for the adulteration of educational curriculums to comport with the ideological objectives of the state, in effect asserting that ignorance is a virtue, has a long history.
Nineteenth century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli wrote, “Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.”
His contemporary, John Stuart Mill, warned, “A general State education is a mere contrivance for molding people to be exactly like one another; and as the mold in which it casts them is that which pleases the dominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, an aristocracy, or a majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by a natural tendency to one over the body.”
A clear example of such "despotism over the mind" would be the Common Core complicit revised Advanced Placement U.S. History exam, which reflects a radically revisionist perspective on our nation's genuine history. The College Board, which sets the curriculum-testing bar, makes only two references to George Washington, one to Thomas Jefferson, and nowhere to be found are Benjamin Franklin and James Madison, among others.
To that end, here is the advice the College Board provided for the practice AP essay:
"[A good essay] might note, for example, that the outcome of the American Revolution saw no broad change in the composition of those who dominated the social, political, and economic structure of the former colonies. Those individuals who were wealthy, powerful, and influential before the event continued to possess wealth, power, and influence later. George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson could serve as examples."
For the benefit of those whose understanding of American history is limited by Common Core and AP curriculums, I offer a few quotes from our nation's Founders --which appear nowhere in their syllabus.
"Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. ... Knowledge is power." --Thomas Jefferson
"Law and liberty cannot rationally become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge." --James Wilson
"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." --James Madison
"For no people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." --Samuel Adams
"Genius without education is like silver in the mine." --Benjamin Franklin
"In vain are Schools, Academies, and Universities instituted, if loose Principles and licentious habits are impressed upon Children in their earliest years..." --John Adams
"[W]e ought to deprecate the hazard attending ardent and susceptible minds, from being too strongly, and too early prepossessed in favor of other political systems, before they are capable of appreciating their own. ... Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." --George Washington
And again, let me reiterate these timeless words from Thomas Jefferson...
"If a nation expects to be ignorant -- and free -- in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Pro Deo et Constitutione -- Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis
How 60s Radicals ended up teaching our kids
Reply #5 on:
January 11, 2016, 10:16:56 AM »
Please select a destination:
DBMA Martial Arts Forum
=> Martial Arts Topics
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
=> Politics & Religion
=> Science, Culture, & Humanities
=> Espanol Discussion
Powered by SMF 1.1.21
SMF © 2015, Simple Machines