This is an article from World Magazine involving the Texas Supreme Court. As articles go, anytime you read in a headline the word “Judge” or “court”, especially if it includes the word “Supreme” I pay attention because these are the people who can decree all sorts of mischief and make it the law of the land, no matter how nasty or idiotic. So naturally, when I see an article that has “homeschooling” and “Supreme Court” in the title, it gets my attention.
The article is a good read. But there are a few things worth noting before reading. First, no matter how red your state may be, you can rest assured that your public education institution is as blue as downtown Washington DC where the NEA and DOE are located. Second, even though the bloated, self-serving, money laundering scheme of an operation known as public education tries to snow the citizenry into thinking that it’s in the business of educating their children, in the end it’s just another hammer in the hand of liberal elites playing Whac-a-mole; the mole being anyone who doesn’t tow the party line. That would naturally include most homeschoolers.
So the point of the suit:
At issue is how much latitude local and state officials have in requesting proof—in the form of lesson plans or curricula—that homeschool students are being educated in a way that satisfies vague standards laid out by the Texas Education Agency.
At first glance this might seem fair enough, but there’s a gaping hole. My question is, how much latitude do the people have in requesting proof that the Texas Education Agency is not just a money laundering scheme designed to deduct cash from the teacher’s paychecks and deposit it into the DNC campaign fund via the NEA? Answer, none.
These squabbles arise every now and then, but one thing you can take to the bank. The state’s tolerance of homeschooling is proportional to how few are doing it. It’s in the business of business as usual, which is making sure that their system is producing an ever increasing supply of serfs.
Matt Walsh has a written an excellent column titled:
He addresses the violence in schools, its racial component and the institution’s view of the hierarchical value of some of those students over others in the system. He explains it like this:
…there is a hierarchy of Approved Victim Groups. Blacks are above teachers and women, but below gays and transgenders. Naturally, white men, white conservative women, and Christians are all at the bottom of the pyramid. Liberals don’t mind bullying and victimization so long as the hierarchy is respected. In other words, bullying must always be directed downwards, from the superior victim group to the inferior. That means a homosexual cross dressing fetishist who calls himself “transgender” may sexually harass underage girls by walking into their bathroom or locker room, and liberals will applaud. But if a straight man so much as looks at a woman sideways, or compliments her in a matter that makes her feel uncomfortable, liberals will say she’s been raped. Do you see how this works? Victimization must be ordered properly according to the liberal Victim Hierarchy. The highest victims can be victimized by no one, the lowest by everyone, and the ones in between only by those above them. It’s a very confusing system that requires years of study and many lost brain cells to understand.
Of course, the institutions values are fluid, if they exist at all. How can a person, or an institution, in one year promote and then celebrate a homophobic bigot named Barack Obama for president, and then before his first term is even up call all those who say the same thing evil because…, well, they’re homophobic bigots? And of course its suddenly ok that Obama said it, even before he evolved himself, because he’s a liar anyway… which is ok I guess because he is after all, Barack Obama. Such are the values in the fluid and mixed up institution that you should vacate yesterday.
So with this, perhaps you ought not be surprised if the school house is a little violent… and a little confusing. But I have a suggestion for you, a better way. Rescue your child from this hell and teach him yourself. It’s probably the only hell you’ll ever be able to rescue him from, and he’ll thank you for it some day, and it will all be worth it.
Secular Humanism worships man, especially his genius, because in their humanist mindset man is man’s only hope for salvation from man. But secular humanism is blind. It can’t see that secular humanism is the very problem.
So here we have a celebrated genius, Albert Einstein, who understands a thing that I have learned myself as a homeschool parent. Children are naturally curious. They will learn. They really don’t need a state certified teacher with full benefits, a powerful and evil union, and early retirement with a pension… to learn. No, it’s the institution that needs those things. Your child simply needs love, and for you to train him up in the way he was created to go.
As a homeschooler we administer standardized testing. But even though it is our children who write the tests, it is not they who are being tested. No, it is us, their parents / teachers. We want to be tested you see, because we love our children, and we want to make sure that we’re doing an adequate job of passing along the knowledge that they’ll need in life.
In the institution the testing is similar but twisted. It is similar in that it is the institution that is tested through your child. But it is twisted in that it is the institution that is the central concern of the institution. The motivation of the decision makers in the institution is for the best interests of the institution. That the institution’s existence is based on training your child is secondary. Your child is a statistic reported to higher ups. That’s just how it rolls in institutions.
Filed under Testing, Unions
This is a free version of a much larger work by Colin Gunn. I think every parent ought to take a sober look at the complete documentary. But at least here is a taste. Things have changed so incrementally over the years that the dramatic shifts are not noticed. What is found acceptable in one generation was cutting edge debauchery in another. The issues you see in this blog are only controversial now. They will be accepted without question in the future. Who knows what will be considered controversial in forty years? For sure, Christianity, and perhaps any questioning of the state’s wisdom in running your grandchildren’s lives.
From This article at Barbwire titled:
The article begins with this:
Was it a meeting of the National Education Association or the Democratic National Committee? At times it was difficult to tell.
That about sums it up. Your tax dollars hard at work getting Democrats elected. Of course some of the funds do go to education. Children are
educated indoctrinated in which political party to vote for and what kind of perversions ought to be embraced.
This is several years old, but does anyone believe it’s any better? The General Counsel for the National Education Association, (NEA) the nation’s teacher’s union, Bob Chanin, had this to say about the union’s priorities in educating your children. Read or watch:
Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas; it is not because of the merit of our positions; it is not because we care about children; and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child.
The NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power. And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing (my note: actually they are forced by federal law to pay in many if not most cases) to pay us hundreds of million of dollars in dues each year because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them; the union that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.
This is not to say that the concern of NEA and its affiliates with closing achievement gaps, reducing drop rate rates, improving teacher quality, and the like are unimportant or inappropriate To the contrary these are the goals that guide the work we do. But they need not and must not be achieved at the expense of due process, employee rights, or collective bargaining.
That is simply too high a price to pay.
Politicians love to feed at the union troughs where they get their fill of campaign cash… with strings attached of course.