When humanist John Dewey and his disciples took over the emerging government-education system created decades earlier to advance collectivism, the fledgling system was still in its infancy.

By the time he died in 1952, though, it was a well-oiled collectivist machine that would obliterate America’s religious, intellectual, and political heritage more effectively than any force previously imaginable.

Dewey is often lauded as the founding father of the “progressive” education that now has more than 85 percent of American children in its grip. Although he wasn’t alone—he stood on the shoulders of fellow collectivists Robert Owen and Horace Mann—Dewey certainly deserves much of the credit, or blame, for unleashing it on the United States and humanity.

Like Mann and Owen before him, Dewey had ulterior motives when he dedicated himself with missionary zeal to the cause of “education reform.” Fortunately for future generations and historians, he was a prolific writer who cranked out a seemingly never-ending stream of essays, papers, manifestos, and articles. His views and objectives, then, are hardly a mystery.

Dewey wanted to fundamentally transform the United States. He wanted it to look more like the Soviet Union, in fact. To do that, he believed a total transformation of education and society was required—literally “changing the conception of what constitutes education,” as he wrote in “The Relation of Theory to Practice in Education” in 1904.

Education must bring about a “new social order,” he argued.

As was the case with virtually all of the key figures involved in the government takeover of education, Dewey rejected Christianity and even the very existence of God. More on his religion later. He also rejected the individualism and liberty that defined America up to that point, with its strong protections for God-given rights, private property, and free markets.

Instead, Dewey worked fiendishly to continue the severing of American and Western education’s Christian roots. The process was launched by Owen, the Welsh communist whose commune in Indiana failed. It formally took root under Mann in Massachusetts, when he imported the Owen-inspired Prussian model of education. But that was all to be just the beginning.

By the time Dewey and his disciples worked their magic, the scheme would culminate in a nation in which the overwhelming majority of high-school seniors violently reject the biblical worldview, and in which most young people describe themselves as socialist.

On top of that, the system would produce a nation in which less than a third of those same seniors would even be considered “proficient” in reading and math, according to federal data gathered from the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Replacing Freedom With Collectivism via Education

Interestingly, Dewey was from Burlington, Vermont—socialist Bernie Sanders’s stomping grounds. And like Sanders, Dewey styled himself a “democratic” socialist. But many decades before Sanders visited the Soviet Union on his honeymoon while it was slaughtering and torturing dissidents, Dewey made a pilgrimage to Moscow under Bolshevik rule.

Of course, Karl Marx called for government control of education in “The Communist Manifesto,” and so the Soviets complied. Decades earlier, Owen, another communist, did the same. Dewey picked up where they left off, fervently advocating total control of all education by the state with even more passion than Sanders does today.

Writing in the far-left magazine New Republic, Dewey provided glowing reports about the communist system being imposed upon the people of the Soviet Union. He was especially pleased with its so-called education system, celebrating the way it was instilling a “collectivistic mentality” in Soviet children in his “Impressions of Soviet Russia and the Revolutionary World” published in 1929.

Despite his fondness for Soviet totalitarianism and the communist “ideology” behind it, Dewey would publicly criticize Stalin and Stalinism later in life. His model for a communist United States, by contrast, was outlined in Edward Bellamy’s 1888 book “Looking Backward,” a fantasy about a wonderful collectivist America in the year 2000 where all private property would be nationalized by government.

Dewey’s socialist views were hardly a secret. In “Liberalism and Social Action,” he wrote that the “only form of enduring social organization that is now possible is one in which the new forces of productivity are cooperatively controlled.” “Organized social planning,” he continued in his well-known 1935 work, “is now the sole method of social action by which liberalism can realize its professed aims.”

In common with virtually all the totalitarians of the 20th century, Dewey understood that the education of children would be fundamental to achieving his Utopian vision of collectivism. “Education is a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness,” he claimed. “The adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness is the only sure method of social reconstruction.”

Out With 3 Rs, in With Collectivism

In his important 1898 essay “The Primary Education Fetich [sic],” Dewey argued strongly against the then-heavy emphasis on reading, writing, and arithmetic in the younger years. It produced highly literate, independent-minded individualists with faith in God and freedom. That was not conducive to a collectivist Utopia, obviously.

Instead, Dewey thought the main focus of education during those precious early years should be socialization and emphasizing collectivism. In particular, the reformer wanted to ditch reading and writing in the primary grades to concentrate on giving children “the habits of thought and action” that he believed were “required for effective participation in community life.”

An astute operator, Dewey recognized that the liberty-minded and overwhelmingly Christian teachers, taxpayers, and parents of America of that era would never knowingly support his radical educational and political ambitions if they understood them. “Change must come gradually,” he explained in that same essay. “To force it unduly would compromise its final success by favoring a violent reaction.”

So instead of going to the American people, Dewey went to the Rockefeller oil dynasty, which was giving away unfathomable amounts of money for “educational reform” through the “General Education Board.” The “philanthropic” outfit gave Dewey millions of dollars to create an experimental school to try out his ideas—a school that successfully cranked out reading-disabled collectivists.

In his crucial 1916 work “Democracy and Education,” Dewey argued that the education regime he envisioned would be “the process through which the needed transformation may be accomplished.” And so, he set about taking control of the education system.

Having failed as a primary- and secondary-school educator, Dewey’s effort to seize control of the school system began with a leadership position in education at the Rockefeller-funded University of Chicago. Later, he went to Columbia University’s Teachers College.

From his ivory-tower perch, Dewey would train up legions of teachers and disciples to unleash on an unsuspecting United States and carry forward his vision. It worked. Dewey became the founding father of America’s “progressive” public education system, and his ideology went mainstream.

Another Dewey “achievement” while in academia was resurrecting quack methods for teaching reading that had been discredited in the 1840s under Mann in Boston. That incredible saga—the root cause of America’s current illiteracy crisis—will be the subject of a future piece in this series.

Perhaps even more important and far-reaching than being able to advance his views on education and politics was Dewey’s influence on the religious views of Americans. Dewey was a self-proclaimed humanist, with his public declarations on religion fusing atheism with socialism and communism. His success on this front is unquestionable and will be the subject of an upcoming piece in this series as well.

In fairness to Dewey, Owen, Mann, and the lesser-known characters behind the government takeover of education, they didn’t have the 20th century in the rearview mirror. It might be said, in their defense, that they did not know the ideology of collectivism, when implemented, would lead to the untimely deaths and mass slaughter of hundreds of millions of people. Now, we should know better.

This article was originally published by The Epoch Times, and is one report in a series of articles examining the origins of government education in the United States.

Last Thursday, IFI’s lawyers filed a “friend of the court” brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take a case (Carson v. Makin) that could end discrimination against religious schools. The case involves a Maine school program that pays the private school tuition for students who live in an area that lacks a public high school. The schools eligible to receive this tuition are, according to the Maine Department of Education, private secular schools and nominally religious schools, but not schools that intentionally teach subjects from a religious (biblical) perspective.

IFI’s attorneys reminded the Court of the law’s confusion decades ago when the courts picked through the religious school’s practices to see if any money was actually being spent on religion. Although much of this confusion has evaporated over the past 30 years, there still remains the question of whether an intentionally religious school can receive public funding if it uses those funds for religious teaching (whether it is paying the teacher for a Bible class, new Bibles for the chapel, or teaching courses from a religious perspective).

The First Circuit Court of Appeals  (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire) said no the school cannot receive this money and use it for religious purposes. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah), however, in 2015 ruled that the schools could receive this money, the Tenth Circuit reasoning that to give money to nominally religious schools but not intentionally religious schools was treating the same category of schools differently, which is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Because of this split in the two Circuits, there is a good chance that the Court will take and decide this case.

Jim Davids, who co-authored the amicus brief and is the General Counsel of IFI’s Justice & Freedom  Law Center, remarked, “I very much hope that the Court takes the Carson case and ends the discrimination against religious schools. Christian schools historically have done a great job educating our children to be productive and good citizens, training them to value life, liberty, and property, all natural rights derived from Judeo-Christian values. The Christian love taught at these schools is in sharp contrast to the public schools’ teaching of Critical Race Theory that teaches racial groups to hate each other. Which is to be preferred – “love thy neighbor” or “hate your [imagined] oppressor [who has never truly hurt you]?”

Before government took over education in Massachusetts and eventually the rest of the United States, the state and the nation had a thriving education system that produced the best-educated population on the planet up until that time. But then, Horace Mann came along, and everything changed.

Early American schooling was dominated by homeschooling, along with a vibrant free-market education ecosystem. Outside of education at home, which is where most children learned to read, the landscape featured mostly schools run by churches and entrepreneurs, as well as private tutors.

Many of America’s Founding Fathers, like the broader population, received the bulk of their basic education at home. Even poor children could receive a formal education, though, provided largely by churches and philanthropists. The Quakers, for example, ran schools that welcomed anyone, whether they could pay or not.

Tax-funded K-12 government schools—especially as they exist today—would have been inconceivable to Americans from the 1600s to the mid-1800s. Education without the Bible and God would have been not just inconceivable to those people, but outrageous, if not an oxymoron.

And yet, long before government seized control over education, Americans were incredibly well educated. Literacy data and vast amounts of anecdotal evidence from that era show that literacy levels were significantly higher in the mid-to-late 1700s than they are today. Modern studies on the subject confirm that.

Most children learned to read at home before ever stepping foot in a formal school. And they did it using simple, cheap primers that were vastly superior to almost everything in use today when it comes to reading instruction.

Then, everything changed. An ambitious lawyer-turned-politician-turned-educational-reformer with almost no experience as an educator came on the scene. He had grandiose ideas and messianic delusions that would eventually see the complete restructuring of the entire educational system in the United States. His name: Horace Mann.

Inspiration and Beginnings

In the first article in this education series, The Genesis of Public Schools: Collectivism and Failure, the almost unknown origins of the government-school movement in America were exposed. It all began with with a now-obscure communist named Robert Owen and his failed collectivist colony in Indiana known as “New Harmony.”

Owen’s early 19th-century writings on education inspired the king of Prussia to establish a national government education system based on statist ideals—education of the state, by the state, for the state. Prussia’s totalitarian system included mandatory schooling for all children, powerful police forces to deal with non-compliance, segregation of children by age, instilling of a statist mindset in all children, and more. It was the first system of its kind anywhere on the planet.

But it would not be the last.

The Owen-inspired Prussian system captured the imagination of Mann and his wealthy associates. These mostly Harvard-educated elites were increasingly abandoning the Orthodox Christianity that defined early America in favor of liberal Unitarian and secular ideas about man and nature. They had an obsession with reforming man and society in their own image.

As a politician in the state legislature, Mann worked hard to expand the size and scope of government across all fields. But by the mid-1830s, the educational reformer was ready to advance Big Government in the United States in an unprecedented manner: the total takeover of education by the state.

With a governor friendly to their ideas in place, Mann and his wealthy backers launched their transformative education plan in 1837. This included setting up a state “Board of Education”—the first in America—that would oversee education throughout the commonwealth. Mann was chosen to serve as the board’s first secretary.

It was all supposed to be based on the Prussian model launched two decades earlier. According to Mann himself, one of the primary goals of the new education regime he was constructing in Massachusetts would be to “equalize the conditions of men” and eradicate poverty—in essence, the same collectivist ideology espoused by Owen and his disciples decades earlier.

The keystone of the system envisioned by Mann was a network of government-run “seminaries,” or “normal schools,” that would train all Massachusetts teachers to teach what the state wanted taught. It didn’t take long for the state-sponsored normal schools to begin indoctrinating future teachers with Mann’s naturalistic views on religion, including the introduction of the quack phrenology book “The Constitution of Man.”

Utopian Beliefs

Even though Christianity and the Reformation had fueled the spread of education, Mann, like Owen before him, only more quietly, rejected the Bible and Orthodox Christianity, putting him far outside of the mainstream in 1800s America. Under the guise of removing “sectarian” ideas, he worked hard to destroy the Christian roots of education across Massachusetts and beyond.

Mann shared Owen’s views on the nature of man, too. The prevailing Calvinist worldview in early America held that man was innately and totally depraved, and so government must be strictly limited in its powers. Men like Owen and Mann, however, believed people were basically good, and that the right set of policies and education would perfect mankind to create Utopia.

Mann and his cohorts believed fervently in the power of big government to wisely guide mankind toward an idyllic future. He regularly used lofty rhetoric about the benevolent, paternalistic role of government that would become the all-too-familiar siren song of the 20th century’s most ruthless totalitarians.

The views of Mann and Owen ultimately prevailed over the traditional understanding of education that had been refined and perfected over the centuries. But while Mann predicted that government schools would ultimately render obsolete “nine tenths of the crimes in the penal code,” in reality, their proliferation coincided with a downward spiral that would see crime and immorality explode to unprecedented heights.

Mann’s attitude toward other people’s children was bizarre, too, even by today’s standards. In his 1867 “Lectures and Annual Reports on Education,” Mann claimed that those engaged in the “sacred cause of education” were “entitled to look upon all parents as having given hostages to our cause.” Shortly before his appointment as education secretary, he gushed at the mere thought of having “the future minds of such multitudes” dependent in some way on him.

Purpose of Education

While Mann is often described correctly as one of the founders of public education in the United States, the full story is slightly more complex. Prior to Mann, Massachusetts did have some government intervention in education, including some “common schools” with roots in the early 17th century Puritan Bible colony. That history is well documented.

But regardless of what Mann might have told the conservative public at the time, what existed prior was completely different from what Mann introduced.

The commonwealth’s first education laws—in fact the first education laws in all of North America—included the “Old Deluder Satan Act” of the 1640s. The text of the legislation reveals a great deal about the mindset of that era.

The premise was this: One “chief project of that old deluder, Satan” is to “keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures.” With that in mind, lawmakers decided that towns needed to ensure everyone was capable of reading. So towns with more than a certain number of inhabitants were ordered to make sure children could read—the alternative being satanic deception rooted in ignorance of the Bible.

The modern conception of “separation of church and state” was completely alien to the Puritan founders, who laid the foundations for what would eventually become the United States of America. For them, the state was a divine institution ordained by God charged with carrying out God’s commands—primarily punishing evil, as defined by God. And that is why they felt it proper to use both church and state—inseparable institutions, in their mind—to educate children.

But even in Massachusetts, one of just a handful of jurisdictions that had any government involvement in education at all, the free market and Christianity still dominated the educational scene by the early to mid-1800s. Common schools were in steep decline, as the overwhelming majority of parents chose to educate their children at home and in vastly superior private schools.

At least, that was the case until Mann came along and created America’s first ever state-controlled, bureaucratic, property-tax-funded government school system. At the same time that was occurring, along with a militant secularization of education, Mann and his cohorts waged a campaign to demonize the phenomenal private academies across the state, as well as the parents who sent their children there.

Until Mann, across America and the broader Western world, education was regarded as a process of giving children intellectual tools and moral instruction. The primary end was to know God, with developing the intellectual abilities of children a secondary purpose.

After Mann, though, there was a radical transformation. So-called progressive education, as it came to be known, was the new norm. Under his vision, schools were to serve as tools for re-shaping human nature and society to achieve a heaven-on-earth ideal.

One of the most far-reaching innovations to enter the schools under Mann was the “whole word” method of teaching reading, as opposed to the phonics that had been used for thousands of years. It ended in total disaster. That story, which is crucial to understanding the modern illiteracy crisis, will be recounted in an upcoming article in this education series.

After unleashing government education on the people of Massachusetts, Mann went to Prussia to gain a deeper understanding of that regime’s centralized indoctrination system. Upon his return to the United States, he beat back conservative attackers upset about his schemes. Then he traveled the country like an evangelist shilling for government schools, successfully promoting the Prussian system in state after state.

The Utopians believed government schools would make Prussia and other jurisdictions that implemented them into paradises of enlightenment and progress. The reality, unfortunately, has not been nearly so nice. In Prussia, the statist educational system culminated in the total transformation of Germany into one of the most despotic horror shows in human history.

It’s not working out well for Americans today, either. Stay tuned to this space for more.

This article was originally published by The Epoch Times, and is one report in a series of articles examining the origins of government education in the United States.

Democrats have long pretended to be the party that fights to protect the little guy, all the while privately cozying up with Big Business, Big Tech, and Big Brother’s Press to oppress the little guys and gals.

Democrat policies decimated the black family and our big cities. Democrats wasted millions of Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars and countless work hours on Russian collusion disinformation and impeachment ruses. And then in de facto collusion with social media mega-millionaires and the corrupt leftist press, the “progressive” Hive threw the election to befuddled Biden and his henchwoman.

But the worker bees shaped by the “progressive” Hive mind are not done yet.

In their official congressional roles, Representatives Anna G. Eshoo and Jerry McNerney, two hubristic California Democrats, sent jaw-dropping letters on February 22, 2021 to the CEOs of Amazon, Apple, Alphabet, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Hulu, Roku, Charter Communications (Spectrum), Dish Network, Cox Communications, and Altice USA to pressure them to stop carrying Newsmax, One America News Network (OANN), and Fox News.

In other words, tolerant, diversity-loving, free speech-devoted leftists seek to ban every outlet and platform for the dissemination of ideas they hate.

Here are the jaw-dropping questions, Eshoo and McNerney are “asking” every company to answer:

1. What moral or ethical principles (including those related to journalistic integrity, violence, medical information, and public health) do you apply in deciding which channels to carry or when to take adverse actions against a channel?

2. Do you require, through contracts or otherwise, that the channels you carry abide by any content guidelines? If so, please provide a copy of the guidelines.

3. How many of your subscribers viewed Fox News on YouTube TV for each of the four weeks preceding the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks on the Capitol? Please specify the number of subscribers that tuned in to each channel.

4. What steps did you take prior to, on, and following the November 3, 2020 elections and the January 6, 2021 attacks to monitor, respond to, and reduce the spread of disinformation, including encouragement or incitement of violence by channels your company disseminates to millions of Americans? Please describe each step that you took and when it was taken.

5. Have you taken any adverse actions against a channel, including Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN, for using your platform to disseminate disinformation related directly or indirectly to the November 3, 2020 elections, the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection, or COVID-19 misinformation? If yes, please describe each action, when it was taken, and the parties involved.

6. Have you ever taken any actions against a channel for using your platform to disseminate any disinformation? If yes, please describe each action and when it was taken.

7. Are you planning to continue carrying Fox News on YouTube TV both now and beyond any contract renewal date? Are you planning to continue carrying Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN … both now and beyond any contract renewal date? If so, why?

Without a hint of irony, Eshoo and McNerney, card-carrying members of the Ministry of Truthiness, call conservative news sites sources of “disinformation.” No word about the misinformation and disinformation promulgated by Democrats in Congress and their propagandist minions in the press.

In this brave new dystopia being created by leftists, they have arrogated to themselves the “right” to decide what constitutes “misinformation” and “disinformation.” They have arrogated to themselves the “right” to decide what information, ideas, and beliefs make people “safe.” They have arrogated to themselves the “right” to define “safety.”

And, amazingly, from the crowd that rebukes “judgmentalism” and the notion of objective truth, leftists have arrogated to themselves the right to judge beliefs and then declare for the entire country which ones are true.

Once having declared which moral, ontological, and epistemological beliefs are true for all of America, the bees with their collective Hive mind buzzing, busy themselves with their stinging banning-business. And boy, does it hurt. I mean, girl sexually indeterminate human, does it hurt.

On no issue are the worker bees busier with their banning than on the “trans” issue. And since the minds of Big Business have been melded into the Hive mind, genuine “trans”-truth-tellers–i.e., people who tell the truth about “trans”-cultism–are being censored.

The work of two well-known “trans”- truth-tellers sparked controversial decisions among woke corporate behemoths recently. Those corporate decisions illuminate the dark cultural period the “trans” cult has ushered in, aided and abetted by the cowardice of those who know truth and the ignorance of those who should.

A few months ago, Target stopped selling an important book by Wall Street Journal reporter Abigail Shrier titled Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters.

The well-researched and positively reviewed book offers a damning critique of “trans”-cultic beliefs, specifically how the “offensive” and “insipid” redefinition of “female” by the “trans” cult is damaging adolescent girls.

Target’s de facto book-banning resulted in fierce blowback, which caused Target to reverse its decision within days.

Fast-forward to Feb. 2021 when the news broke that Amazon had quietly stopped selling another important book critical of “trans”-cultism, this one by Ryan T. Anderson and titled When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment, which Amazon had been selling for three years.

Anderson, founding editor of Public Discourse and president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is a political philosopher with degrees from Princeton and Notre Dame. Like Schrier, he is also faultlessly civil and winsome. No forewarning to Anderson and no justification from Amazon representatives when queried about Amazon’s book ban.

Amazon has some peculiar and opaque standards for determining which books won’t be sold on its platform. Customers can buy Adolph Hitler’s Mein Kampf, all sorts of homosexual porn, and the book Let Harry Become Sally: Responding to the Anti-Transgender Moment.

Within days of Amazon’s de facto book-banning, Target decided the time was ripe to once again remove Schrier’s book from their rainbow-hued shelves. The sanctimonious, judgmental Target execs refuse to profit from a critique of the “trans” cult that is profiting so handsomely from the confusion, sterilization, and mutilation of children and teens. No siree, those Target execs have standards to uphold—standards that look like a canary-yellow stripe running down their spineless backs. After all, men in dresses can be very scary.

In a December 2020 article titled “Leftists See Orwell’s Novel 1984 As a Blueprint for Progress,” I wrote this:

One of the many remarkable aspects of this time in America is that all the forces of oppression about which George Orwell warned in his novel 1984 are present and growing, and many of the oppressors can’t see it. Ironically, many of the oppressors view themselves as paragons of virtue when, in reality, they’re paragons of virtue-signaling, which constitutes a performative cloak of invisibility that conceals their totalitarianism.

Apparently, leftists read both 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 as blueprints for “progress.”

Some doctrinaire libertarians argue that private businesses should be absolutely free to make any business decision they choose, including choosing to ban tweets, posts, social media platforms, news programs, or books. But such thinking is flawed in an age when the public square is the Internet and gargantuan communication and sales monopolies are controlled by the Hive.

If conservatives cannot disseminate ideas and cannot earn a living if they express ideas the Hive hates, then our first freedoms to speak and exercise our religion freely do not, in reality, exist.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/audioLeftist-Hive-Mind-Banning-Ideas.mp3

If you appreciate the work and ministry of IFI, please consider a tax-deductible donation to sustain our endeavors.  It makes a difference!

Many parents, and even grandparents, in Illinois might be giving homeschooling another look after the passage of controversial new teaching standards and proposed new sex education instruction beginning in kindergarten for public schools. The 2021 APACHE Homeschool Convention, to be held March 11-13 at Cornerstone Baptist Church in Groveland, IL, will provide information to families interested in homeschooling, offer advice to homeschooling veterans, and include practical workshops for those at all levels.

The convention’s theme, “Stand Firm,” is based on Philippians 1:27 (NIV). In his letter to the congregation at Philippi, the Apostle Paul urged them to “stand firm in the one Spirit, striving together as one for the faith of the gospel,” which is one of the things the homeschool educators are being urged to do in today’s troubled times.

APACHE is the acronym for Association of Peoria Area Christian Home Educators and Arkasia Cox is the APACHE Committee Chair hosting the convention. She believes “parents should have the greatest influence over children.” Homeschooling is one way to keep outside influences that may not reflect parents’ faith values at bay.

Parents may have doubts, however, Cox said, “Most people don’t think they’re qualified, but they are.”

Increased interest in homeschooling

Multiple actions at the state level have caused many to consider homeschooling or reaffirm the choice families have already made. The General Assembly’s Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) voted Feb. 17 to approve the controversial new teaching standards some say would require teachers to abandon their religious beliefs and indoctrinate students. The Responsible Education for Adolescent and Children’s Health (REACH) Act recently filed in the legislature would begin sex education in kindergarten with lessons on personal safety, progressing to lessons in grades 3-5 on sexual expression along with gender expression and identity, to grades 6-12 where students would be taught the benefits of abstinence, birth control, and STD prevention.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused schools around the state, and country, to remain closed to in-person education for large portions of the last year. Parents and students have expressed widespread dissatisfaction with distance learning. A telephone survey conducted by Gallup in August 2020 found 10% of U.S. parents were planning to homeschool their children over 2020-2021 school year, up 5% from the previous year. According to the National Home Educators Research Institute, last year there were nearly 2.5 million homeschool students in grades K-12 or about 3% to 4% of school-age children in the U.S. The Institute’s president, Brian Ray, predicted that number to increase by at least 10% this year.

The first night of the event, Thursday, March 11, is free for new and first year homeschoolers. It’s the New to Homeschooling night with Illinois Christian Home Educator’s Kirk Smith from 6:30-8:30 p.m. Cox said it will also include a vendor market with curriculum and opportunities for families to have time to talk with others “experienced in the homeschool market.”

For experienced homeschoolers, opportunities abound. Convention keynotes include speaker and author Dr. Terry Mortenson from Answers in Genesis, and author of “Help! I’m Married to a Homeschooling Mom” Todd Wilson of The FamilyMan Ministries. Cox described Wilson as “an avid homeschool supporter who’s homeschooled his kids for years. He likes to speak to dads about why it’s important to homeschool.”

Local homeschool experts such as James Ware will lead breakouts on topics including, “10 Things I Wish I’d Known Before College.” Cindy West will teach on “Using Living Literature to Transform Your Homeschool” and “Our Whisper Journey” part of the popular Charlotte Mason homeschool approach.

The public usually has an image of homeschooling moms, but Cox says, “Dads can be as active as possible. They can be a huge encouragement just by saying you’re doing a good job. Supporting the moms is a huge relief off of the moms’ shoulders.”

A homeschooling mom herself Cox said, “Dads can do some of the homeschooling. It isn’t an 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday-Friday thing. I’m not so good at math. I told my husband, evenings and weekends — high school algebra — it’s up to him.” She also noted dads are great at teaching life skills to their children.

The convention can be a good time for homeschool families to meet and talk with one another “We try to connect homeschool moms with other homeschool moms for advice and support,” Cox shared.

For parents feeling overwhelmed before they even get started, she offered this advice, “Curriculum choices can be overwhelming. You know your child best as far as how your child learns. Research the kind of method you want to use. Don’t feel like you have to finish it if something isn’t working if you have to try something else.”

The conference is a family event. “We try to gear it for the entire family,” Cox shared. Family busy bags at given out at registration.

To attend the weekend portion of the conference – March 12-13 – the cost is $40 by March 1, $50 after, for an APACHE Subscriber Adult and Spouse and $55 by March 1, $65 after, for a Non-Subscriber Adult and Spouse. Children are $10 each, with a $30 maximum, fourth child plus attend free (age 2 through young adult living at home – attending with parents). Widows and widowers attend free.  Grandparents, if not homeschooling and attending with family, also receive free admission. For complete registration information, CLICK HERE.

Cornerstone Baptist Church is located at 18040 Unsicker Road in Groveland, IL, 61535.

For up-to-the minute news, action alerts, coming events and more you can now sign up for IFI Text Alerts!

Stay in the loop by texting “IFI” to 555888 or click here to enroll right away.

Click HERE to donate to IFI

Standardized tests show Americans are getting dumber and dumber with each passing year. And polls now consistently show that more than half of young Americans today prefer socialism over freedom. This is obviously not sustainable—at least if the United States is going to survive as a free society.

It’s also not an accident.

To solve this crisis, it’s essential to have an understanding of where public schools came from and what existed prior to their establishment. After all, before the proliferation of government schools, Americans were the best-educated people on the planet—just consider the Founding Fathers, and the “Federalist Papers,” to get a sense of the level of education that once prevailed in America.

The history of how the government was able to take over—and the characters behind that effort—is almost incredible. Much of that shadowy story, though, is barely known today, even among educational experts. That’s a problem, and potentially an existential threat.

When examined honestly, the history of public education—and a study of the key men who laid the foundations for the system that now exists—reveals a long-term plan by Utopians to totally re-shape humanity and civilization along collectivist lines. This agenda has been remarkably successful thus far, as the polling data show.

Everybody involved in education knows about John Dewey and Horace Mann, of course. These two socialist luminaries are almost universally credited with having created the modern public education system in the United States. Their backgrounds and views will be addressed in upcoming articles in this series on education.

But the true story of government schools has its origins long before Mann became the first education commissioner of Massachusetts, with his radical plan to have the government take over education, using the Prussian model.

New Harmony

Much of the earlier history of public schools—before Mann picked up the baton—remains not just obscure, but practically unknown. Were it not for the meticulous research of the late Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld, a passionate educator who devoted six decades of his life to studying education and the science of reading, it might still be awaiting discovery in dusty old libraries and university archives in the United States and Europe.

The real story of government education can be traced to a long-forgotten communist commune in Indiana called “New Harmony,” and its eccentric founder. Established in the 1820s by Robert Owen, a Welsh Utopian who rejected Christianity and private property, the idea behind the settlement was to show the world that collectivism was actually superior to individualism.

Like the communist experiments of the 20th century—Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea, the Soviet Union, and so on—New Harmony was a disaster, albeit not as bloody as the socialist experiments of later years. Within two years of its establishment, though, everybody knew New Harmony was a total failure.

The utter implosion of this experiment in collectivism, which preceded Karl Marx’s “The Communist Manifesto” by some two decades, is the reason those early advocates of collectivism made the adoption of mandatory government schools for all children their top priority. The thinking was that the commune failed not because of anything wrong with communism or collectivism, but because the people living there had not been properly socialized and “educated” to be collectivists from childhood.

Just like Marx and Engels would claim decades later, the Owenites believed that what was needed were government schools that would take over child rearing from the earliest possible ages. And so that became their sole focus.

Character Education

Among other ideas, Owen rejected the prevailing Calvinist views of America in that era. These held that man is innately depraved and that his heart is desperately wicked. Owen believed the reason men were evil, selfish, individualistic, and violent was the result of their upbringing, not their nature. He believed human nature was essentially good, and that a collectivist education would help create what would later come to be known as the “New Soviet man.”

Even before he set up New Harmony, Owen had well-developed ideas on the sort of education that would be needed to build his imagined Utopia. He published some of his views on this subject in 1813 in a collection dubbed “A New View of Society or Essays on the Formation of the Human Character.”

“It follows that every state, to be well governed, ought to direct its chief attention to the formation of character, and that the best-governed state will be that which shall possess the best national system of education,” Owen declared.

“Under the guidance of minds competent to its direction, a national system of training and education may be formed, to become the most safe, easy, effectual, and economical instrument of government that can be devised. And it may be made to possess a power equal to the accomplishment of the most grand and beneficial purposes.”

Years later, Owen explained in his own autobiography that his essays on education had been given to the king of Prussia by the Prussian ambassador. According to Owen’s account, the Prussian ruler had “so much approved” of these ideas that he ordered his own government to create a national education system based upon them. And thus, the Prussian system of education—schooling of the state, by the state, and for the state—was officially born.

This Owen-inspired totalitarian model of schooling, which segregated children by age and coerced parents to surrender their children to the state for “education,” would eventually become the model for Massachusetts—and then the nation as a whole. And the history would gradually be forgotten as the rotten fruit of this system began to undermine traditional American values and ideas.

Secret Society

Long before the horrific communist slaughters and genocides of the 20th century, Owen and his ideas found enthusiastic supporters among certain segments of the American elite. One of Owen’s early disciples was Orestes Brownson, a prominent New England writer and editor who became totally dedicated to the cause.

Unlike Owen, who went to his grave passionately believing that simply getting control of the children through government schools would produce Utopia, Brownson eventually rejected collectivism, converted to Catholicism, and blew the whistle on the schemes of his former associates.

“The great object was to get rid of Christianity,” Brownson explained in “An Oration on Liberal Studies” after seeing the light. “The plan was not to make open attacks on religion although we might belabor the clergy and bring them into contempt where we could; but to establish a system of state, we said, national schools, from which all religion was to be excluded, in which nothing was to be taught but such knowledge as is verifiable by the senses and to which all parents were to be compelled by law to send their children.”

Today, that is the norm. But back in the early- to mid-1800s, it would have been inconceivable to average people.

The first element of the plan, Brownson revealed, was to establish a system of government-controlled schools. “For this purpose, a secret society was formed,” Brownson continued, saying the plan was to model it on the Carbonari in Europe.

“The members of this secret society were to avail themselves of all the means in their power, each in his own locality, to form public opinion in favor of education by the state at the public expense, and to get such men elected to the legislatures as would be likely to favor our purposes.”

While Brownson didn’t know how far the secret society’s tentacles extended, he did know that a “considerable portion of the State of New York was organized.” He knew that, he said, because “I was myself one of the agents for organizing it.”

By the very nature of “secret” societies, much of the history of this network remains concealed. But it is obvious that they found great success in advancing government schools. In less than a century, government education proliferated all across the United States.

Stay tuned to this space for more of that incredible history in the weeks and months to come.

This article was originally published by The Epoch Times, and is one report in a series of articles examining the origins of government education in the United States.

Written by Larry Sand

The fixation on equity is a loser for all concerned.

At the same time that the indoctrination of American students continues to work its way through the schools, its evil twin “equity” is advancing right along with it. As the race-obsessed Ibram X. Kendi explains, equity exists when “two or more racial groups are standing on a relatively equal footing.” In other words, if 10 percent of white kids are in a school’s gifted program, equity demands that 10 percent of black kids are also included. Kendi also claims, “There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy.” The terms “equality” and “quality” are nowhere to be found in the equity playbook.

The gaslighting here is palpable. What Kendi is apparently saying is that we must discriminate to put an end to (alleged) discrimination. But, insane or not, this is what is happening throughout much of the country. In reliably woke San Francisco, the top-rated Lowell High School will no longer admit students based on their academic performance. Instead, the school will use a lottery to admit its students. This will, of course, discriminate against Asian students who make up 50.6 percent of its student body.

Similarly, in New York City, the gifted and talented program has been deemed unfair. Mayor Bill de Blasio and his equally reprehensible schools chancellor Richard Carranza insist that the testing program is unjust because the students who wind up in the program “don’t reflect the diversity of the city’s population.”

In Fairfax County, VA, Thomas Jefferson High School for Science, a school for the gifted, was ranked America’s No. 1 high school last year by U.S. News and World Report. But the school board recently decided to eliminate the race-blind, merit-based admissions tests to the largely Asian school, arguing that high test performance was a “barrier” to black and Hispanic students.

As dedicated followers of Critical Race Theory, the equity mob also finds a racial angle in areas unimagined until recently. In Oregon, those in charge with running – and now ruining – public education have decided that focusing on finding the right answer in math “and showing your work” is a symbol of white supremacy. Teachers are also urged to adapt homework policies to fit the needs of students of color and “challenge the ways that math is used to uphold capitalist, imperialist, and racist views.”

Just last week Fox News reported that William Shakespeare is on his way to cancellation. A bunch of equity-obsessed English literature teachers told the School Library Journal that the Bard of Avon has promoted “misogyny, racism, homophobia, classism, anti-Semitism, and misogynoir (discrimination against black women)” in his writing. Jeffrey Austin, head of a Michigan high school’s English literature department, insists that teachers should “challenge the whiteness” of the assumption that Shakespeare’s works are “universal.” Washington state public school teacher Claire Bruncke has banished the Bard from her classroom in order to “stray from centering the narrative of white, cisgender, heterosexual men.”

Additionally, equity punishes the very people it claims to help.

As law professor Gail Heriot writes, one consequence of race-preferential policies is that minority students tend to enroll in colleges and universities where their academic credentials put them near the bottom of the class. “While academically gifted under-represented minority students are hardly rare, there are not enough to satisfy the demand of top schools. When the most prestigious schools relax their admissions policies in order to admit more minority students, they start a chain reaction, resulting in a substantial credentials gap at nearly all selective schools.”

In 1996, California passed Prop. 209, an initiative amending the state constitution to bar state schools from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. All the usual suspects were in a frenzy. Accusations that Berkeley was now “lily-white” were commonplace. But as researcher Elizabeth Slattery writes, while minority students did drop from 58.6 percent of the student body to 48.7 percent at Berkeley, the others didn’t drop out. They went to institutions like UC-San Diego, UC-Riverside, and UC-Santa Cruz. These schools are all part of the University of California system, attended by only the top 12.5 percent of California high school graduates.

Slattery notes, “At UC-Riverside, the results were impressive: African-American and Hispanic student admissions skyrocketed by 42 percent and 31 percent, respectively. Failure rates collapsed, and grades improved.”

Ultimately, the equity fanatics are leading us to a world of stupid. Woke students may feel very good about themselves, but as adults, when they discover they can’t balance a checkbook, figure out the square footage of their house or know how many ounces in a pound, they will realize they have been shortchanged.

No human I know picks a doctor, lawyer or plumber based on skin color. Instead, we choose the best person to get a particular job done. If the equity crowd prevails, your freedom to do that will be stifled, and the worst sort of groupthink and tribalism will be the norm.

This article was originally published by the California Policy Center.

Larry Sand, a former classroom teacher, is the president of the non-profit California Teachers Empowerment Network – a non-partisan, non-political group dedicated to providing teachers and the general public with reliable and balanced information about professional affiliations and positions on educational issues. The views presented here are strictly his own.

How far gone is Illinois? And by “gone,” I mean arrogantly and divisively leftist.

Well, despite statewide and even nationwide condemnation of the proposed “Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards,”  the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) failed to stop the controversial standards.

In a vote delayed by one day, JCAR voted 6-5 along partisan lines to, in effect, approve these standards, which will infuse the assumptions of Critical Race Theory/ identity politics/BLM into 1. all teacher-training programs, 2. all Professional Education Licensing (PEL), and 3. indirectly into all public school classrooms.

Not even yesterday’s plea from the left-leaning Chicago Tribune Editorial Board to JCAR not to pass these controversial standards—standards that the editorial board described as politicized—was sufficient to stop the Democrats in JCAR from further exploiting government schools for leftist propaganda purposes.

Ideological diversity—already a rare commodity in government schools—will be now be further diminished in favor of promoting arguable leftist beliefs about identity, “systems of oppression,” “sex and gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, racism, sexism, homophobia, unearned privilege,” and “Eurocentrism.”

The standards were created by a committee hand-picked by the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE), which is controlled by leftists. While having the effect of law, these standards constitute an amendment to existing school code, so they did not have to go through the normal lawmaking process, which would involve more transparency, floor debates in Springfield, and every Illinois lawmaker publicly voting.

In the wake of nationwide criticism of the “woke” standards, the ISBE issued a statement with this chuckle-worthy, chuckleheaded claim:

The standards were developed by a diverse group of educators from around the state.

Just curious, how many in this “diverse group of educators” are critics of Critical Race Theory and BLM, or find fault with the ideas of Ibram X. Kendi, Ta-Nehesi Coates, and Robin DiAngelo?

The ISBE’s statement also said the following:

The Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards apply to teacher preparation programs, not to K-12 school curricula. ISBE also will offer optional professional development on the standards to current educators. Educators and school districts maintain local control over what professional development they choose.

This is a transparent effort to mollify and silence critics of the infusion of leftist beliefs on race, American history, homosexuality, and “trans”-cultism into curricula. But “deplorables” are not stupid. We all know that “teacher preparation” is intended to and will shape both professional development and curricula.

As a result of the widespread condemnation of the leftist-created standards, the ISBE begrudgingly tossed an insignificant sop in the direction of Illinoisans who oppose the divisive politicization of education. Nervous ISBE leftists changed the word “progressive” to “inclusive.” For example, here is an original pre-condemnation sentence from the standards:

The culturally responsive teacher and leader will … Embrace and encourage progressive viewpoints and perspectives that leverage asset thinking toward traditionally marginalized populations.

Here is the worthless, one-word, post-condemnation change ISBE wokesters threw to Illinois serfs:

The culturally responsive teacher and leader will … Embrace and encourage inclusive viewpoints and perspectives that leverage asset thinking toward traditionally marginalized populations.

As I wrote last week, the unelected wokesters on the ISBE committee that created these radical standards think Illinois conservatives are stupid. They think we don’t realize that their definition of “inclusive” excludes conservative viewpoints.

They also think conservatives won’t notice the inclusion of the adverb “traditionally,” which necessarily excludes contemporary marginalized populations, like the theologically orthodox Christian population, which is today excluded, hated, and cancelled.

This is what’s called a distinction without a difference—a distinction intended to dupe the deplorables.

In another document, the ISBE makes another chuckle-worthy, eye-roller of a statement about the effects of these new ideological diktats:

The standards will help combat the teacher shortage. They will help educators become better teachers and experience higher job satisfaction, which makes them more likely to stay in the profession.

No acknowledgment of the teachers who will leave the profession or of those future teachers who will no longer consider teaching in Illinois because they know that Illinois schools are places of oppression that require ideological submission.

Here are just a few of the controversial ideas that Illinois will now force teacher-training programs and professional licensure to impose on all future “teachers, school support personnel” and administrators. Please note, that “identities” include homosexuality, cross-sex impersonation, and “gender fluidity”:

• Value the notion that … there is not one “correct” way of doing or understanding something.

• “Assess how their own biases and perceptions affect their teaching practice and how they access tools to mitigate their own racist, sexist, homophobic, Eurocentric behavior or unearned privilege.”

• Be aware of the effects of power and privilege and the need for social advocacy and social action to better empower diverse students and communities.

• Encourage and affirm the personal experiences … students share in the classroom.

• Consistently solicit students’ input on the curriculum.

• Co-create, with students, the collective expectations and agreements regarding the physical space and social-emotional culture of the classroom.

• Create a risk-taking space that promotes student activism and advocacy.

• Invite family and community members to teach about topics that are culturally specific and aligned to the classroom curriculum or content area.

• Intentionally embrace student identities and prioritize representation in the curriculum.

• Implement and integrate the wide spectrum and fluidity of identities in the curriculum.

• Ensure text selections reflect students’ classroom, community, and family culture.

• Ensure teacher and students co-create content to include a counternarrative to dominant culture.

• Promote robust discussion with the intent of raising consciousness that reflects modern society and the ways in which cultures and communities intersect.

• Consider a broader modality of student assessments [i.e., grades and testing], such as … “social justice work.”

In my mind’s eye, I see more Illinois families planning their exit from public schools and more families planning their exit from this politically “woke,” intellectually slumbering, and morally vacuous state.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Illinois-Passes-Controversial-Leftist-Teacher-Training-Mandate.mp3

Please support the good work of Illinois Family Institute.

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Warning: Reader Discretion Advised

Leftists in Springfield are still not done using public schools to preach “woke” beliefs to Illinois school children, thereby driving more families out of Illinois—which is a bad thing for Illinoisans who can’t leave—and driving more families out of government schools—which is a good thing except for those who can’t leave.

State Representative Mary Flowers (D-Chicago) has filed a jaw-dropping bill, HB 80, that doesn’t propose merely “standards,” or “guidelines,” or even a type of curriculum. Oh no, Flowers is going for the whole enchilada. If passed, this bill would mandate the teaching of specific books on race and feminism: 20 non-fiction books and 9 fiction. Every book is written by a leftist. There is not one book in Flowers’ list by either a person of color or a colorless person who criticizes or dissents from leftist assumptions on race or feminism.

Flowers’ bill says,

Amends the School Code. Sets forth a list of nonfiction, fiction, and children’s books about racism that shall [must] be required reading for students in every public elementary and secondary school beginning with the 2021-2022 school year. Requires that the instruction in the material presented by each book be age appropriate and taught at the appropriate grade level. Effectively [sic] immediately.

Maybe I missed it, but I can’t remember ever hearing of a lawmaker commanding that every public school in Illinois teach specific books. Did Mary Flowers’ constituents elect her to select texts for their elementary, middle, and high schools?

Having worked with teachers, I can say with a fair degree of certainty, that this bill will not be popular with many of them.

This proposed bill adds to the list of bills and laws that are transforming our government schools into woke re-education camps and our children into leftists. The list now includes the re-introduced REACH Act that will require comprehensive sex ed starting in kindergarten;  the proposed “Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards”; the existing “LGBT” school indoctrination law; the homosexuality- affirming “anti-bullying” law passed in 2010; and the novels, plays, movies, essays, and articles teachers are already choosing to teach.

Here are some of the authors and texts on Flowers’ inclusive list of only leftist authors and texts:

bell hooks: Ain’t I a Woman: Black Women and Feminism

Ta-Nehesi Coates: Between the World and Me

Ibram X. Kendi (born Ibram Henry Rogers): How to Be an Antiracist

Robin DiAngelo: White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism

Ben Crump (opportunist extraordinaire in the mold of Al Sharpton and “Rev.” Jesse Jackson): Open Season: Legalized Genocide of Colored People

Jacquelyn Woodson (black and a lesbian, so a two-fer for intersectional identitarians): Brown Girl Dreaming

Jennifer Harvey (self-described “queer, antiracist-committed … white lesbian/dyke” and Drake University religion professor): Raising White Kids

Jennifer L. Eberhardt: Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What We See, Think, and Do

Mikki Kendall: Hood Feminism: Notes from the Women That a Movement Forgot

Layla F. Saad: Me and White Supremacy

Michelle Alexander: The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness 

Ijeoma Oluo (identifies as a “a black, queer woman who has often found herself demonized at the convenience of white America): So You Want to Talk About Race

Wesley Lowery: They Can’t Kill Us All

Reni Eddo-Lodge: Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race

Phew. Good thing Coates, Kendi, and DiAngelo are here. No “woke” list would be complete without those three Wokateers—all of whom profit handsomely from the racial division they help foment.

National Review’s Rich Lowry writes this about Ta-Nehisi Coates’ book, which Flowers wants to force all public schools to teach:

Coates has to reduce people to categories and actors in a pantomime of racial plunder to support his worldview. He must erase distinctions and reject complexity.

“‘White America’ is a syndicate arrayed to protect its exclusive power to dominate and control our bodies,” he writes. What is this “white America”? Is it Nancy Pelosi or Ted Cruz? Is it Massachusetts, or is it Utah?

In a monstrous passage about 9/11, he writes of the police and firefighters who died trying to save people from getting obliterated into dust: “They were not human to me. Black, white, or whatever, they were menaces of nature; they were the fire, the comet, the storm, which could — with no justification — shatter my body.”

Really? Firefighters go about shattering the bodies of black people without justification?

I suspect there will be many parents who object to their children being exposed to such a toxic ideology.

Here are just two quotes from the book by racist, pro-“trans,” pro-homosexual feminist Reni Eddo-Lodge titled Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race that Mary Flowers wants to force all Illinois schools to teach:

1.) “[R]acism is a white problem. It reveals the anxieties, hypocrisies and double standards of whiteness. It is a problem in the psyche of whiteness that white people must take responsibility to solve.”

2.) “The process begins with the individual woman’s acceptance that American women, without exception, are socialized to be racist, classist and sexist.”

We can’t overlook the list of books Flowers’ bill identifies as fiction, which includes Justin Simien’s satirical book Dear White People. One chapter in Dear White People is titled “So You’ve Decided to ‘Go Black’ and Not Come Back,” which has a section on busting the myth of “Giant Penises,” ,” that is, giant black penises:

Thanks to rap music and the tendency to exoticize people of color, the myth of the giant black d*ck has endured for some time. … the stereotype can lead to a number of awkward postcoital conversations and explanations. Though this stereotype might be helpful in wooing and courtship, there are few things less sexy than a man having to explain why his d*ck isn’t as big as his lover had hoped it would be. The truth is the average d*ck length and width is the same for men regardless of ethnic background. In spite of the sometimes helpful wide-angle lens on the iPhone used in d*ckpic-ing, most guys are packing between five and seven inches.

Please don’t send any email messages to IFI expressing anger that we have reported this. If you’re upset, contact Mary Flowers. She’s the person who wants to make this book required reading in Illinois schools.

Flowers also wants to force Illinois schools to teach bisexual Alice Walker’s novel The Color Purple, which includes lesbian sex and many references to various characters “f*cking.”

And here’s an excerpt from the novel An American Marriage by Tayari Jones that Flowers wants to force Illinois schools to teach:

Looking down at her outline in the dark, I felt myself wanting to explain again. But I could never tell her that I didn’t want to f*ck her like a man who just got out of jail. I wanted to do it like a man who was home visiting his family. I wanted to do it like a local boy made good. I wanted to f*ck like I had money still, like I had a nice office, Italian shoes, and a steel watch. How can you explain to a woman that you want to f*ck her like a human being?

The married black man in this scene has just been released from spending five years in prison for the crime of raping a white woman—a crime he did not commit. The woman with whom he has sex is a friend—not his wife.

Just curious, who decided graphic lesbian sex was “age-appropriate” for any minor children, and what criteria was used to make such a determination? Who will decide which grade level is appropriate for graphic lesbian sex, language about “f*cking” friends, or about the myth of giant black penises?

While Flowers, evidently a devotee of Critical Race Theory, identity politics, and feminism, includes a few token colorless authors, she includes no ideological diversity, demonstrating that the only kind of diversity that matters to leftists pertains to skin color, biological sex, and disordered sexual predilections. What doesn’t matter is ideological diversity and intellectual exploration on these controversial topics.

In the service of inculcating Illinois minors with “progressive” beliefs about race, feminism, and sexual activities, leftists are fully committed to viewpoint discrimination. They have no interest in teaching children how to think critically via distinguishing sound, coherent arguments buttressed with relevant evidence from fallacious arguments deficient in logic, evidence, and coherence. Instead, they want to teach other people’s children what to think uncritically. Kinda, sorta, maybe sounds more like propaganda than pedagogy.

No one disputes the historical reality of the evil of the slave trade, the institution of slavery, and subsequent Jim Crow laws. Nor does anyone dispute the critical importance of ensuring that history is taught accurately.

The dispute broadly speaking is over how the history of racism should be taught. Many—including blacks—believe the way Critical Race Theory (and BLM and the 1619 Project) addresses slavery in America and its legacy is both imbalanced and inaccurate.

Further, the imbalanced and inaccurate coverage of American history promotes a false picture of an evil and systemically racist America, foments racial division, and robs persons of color of a sense of agency in and responsibility for their own lives.

In the racialist—or some would say racist—theories of those whose writing Mary Flowers wants to force into Illinois schools, there’s a difference between being an “antiracist” and being not racist. Being antiracist essentially means embracing all the beliefs of Critical Race Theory, including forced confession and public repentance by whites, and becoming a community organizer. According to the ubiquitous Ibram X. Kendi,

Being antiracist is different for white people than it is for people of color. For white people, being antiracist evolves with their racial identity development. They must acknowledge and understand their privilege, work to change their internalized racism, and interrupt racism when they see it.

Many believe those dogmatic beliefs are divisive and destructive and will accomplish nothing but feed the greedy Intersectional Industrial Complex. And many non-racist parents do not want their children taught the lie that those who harbor no racist views or engage in any racist acts are still racist by virtue of their skin color or lack thereof.

If Flowers and other leftists are genuinely invested in sound education—which necessarily entails the full and free exchange of ideas on race, race relations, feminism, and sexuality—they could and should revise both this bill and existing curricula on these subjects. They could and should remove half of the non-fiction selections to make room for books and essays by Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, John McWhorter, Carol Swain, Candace Owens, Larry Elder, Jason Riley, Anne Wortham, and Heather MacDonald.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state representative to ask him/her vote against this outrageous proposal that usurps the jurisdiction of local school boards and administrators by mandating specific left-wing reading assignments.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Springfield-STILL-Isnt-Done-Indoctrinating-Children.mp3

Please consider supporting the good work of Illinois Family Institute.

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Our notorious Illinois state lawmakers must really want to hasten the exit from Illinois public schools and the state. A woke committee created by the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) concocted a partisan amendment to the ISBE teacher standards. The amendment is called “Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards”—heavy emphasis on “leading.” The wokesters are trying to strengthen their iron grip on the hearts and minds of Illinois children by requiring government schools to disseminate leftist beliefs about identity politics—beliefs that derive from Critical Race Theory/Critical Theory and which inform BLM and the 1619 Project.

Rather than traveling the well-worn path of other laws, which would involve greater public notification and scrutiny as well as debates on the floor of the Illinois House and Illinois Senate, those tricksy little woke dogmatists and propagandists are working this proposed “rules change” through a rules committee in hope of avoiding the prying eyes and potential opposition of the citizens of Illinois over whom Democrats rule. If this passes the rules committee on Feb. 16, 2021—that’s 12 days from now—it becomes de facto law.

As I wrote in mid-November 2020, the goal of the leftists who created these “standards” is to infuse the assumptions of Critical Race Theory, identity politics, BLM, and the 1619 Project into 1.  all teacher-training programs/education majors, 2. all Professional Education Licensing (PEL), and 3. all public school classrooms. Further,

Knowledge of objective facts and the development of the capacity to think logically through critical examination of diverse ideas are relegated to the back of the “education” bus in favor of promoting propaganda about identity, “systems of oppression,” “sex and gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, racism, sexism, homophobia, unearned privilege,” and “Eurocentrism.”

This amendment will require—among other things—that teachers “value” the belief that “there is not one ‘correct’ way of doing or understanding something.” So, does that apply to the entire amendment? If it does apply to the entire proposed amendment, then by its own logic, it should be rejected.

If the claim is correct and there is no “one correct way of understanding” anything, then either schools must spend equal time studying all viewpoints on race, sex, privilege, eurocentrism, “gender identity,” and homosexuality, or no time studying any views on these topics. Further, leftist views must not in any way or context be affirmed as true.

Some intrepid reporters or educators should ask the “progressive” lawmakers who support this project these questions:

1.) Why is a heavily Democrat ISBE committee performing the job of lawmakers? Shouldn’t this proposal be a creation of lawmakers who present it to their constituents and who debate it on the floor of the Illinois House and Senate before the entire body votes on it?

2.) Since these standards “shall apply both to candidates for licensure and to the programs that prepare them,” will teachers be free to ignore all the ideas when it comes to classroom teaching, or would ignoring these ideas potentially result in the revocation of licenses?

The story of this proposed law—er, I mean “rules change”—has garnered national condemnation from numerous sources including National Review and Charlie Kirk and in so doing increased the likelihood of not only more parents opting out of Illinois re-education camps but out of Illinois completely. Fewer residents = smaller tax base = higher taxes for the serfs who remain. Good job, Illinois Democrats.

All that bad press evidently did result in one change to the amendment. Here was one sentence from the pre-condemnation amendment:

The culturally responsive teacher and leader will … Embrace and encourage progressive viewpoints and perspectives that leverage asset thinking toward traditionally marginalized populations.

Here is the worthless, one-word, post-condemnation bone ISBE wokesters threw to Illinois serfs:

The culturally responsive teacher and leader will … Embrace and encourage inclusive viewpoints and perspectives that leverage asset thinking toward traditionally marginalized populations.

Do the wokesters really think their deplorable serfs are that stupid? Do they really think we don’t know that their definition of “inclusive” excludes conservative viewpoints? Do they really think we won’t notice the insertion of the adverb “traditionally,” which necessarily excludes contemporary marginalized populations—e.g., the theologically orthodox Christian population, which is today excluded, hated, and cancelled?

This is what’s called a distinction without a difference—a distinction intended to dupe the deplorables.

Here is the plain, unvarnished truth about living as Christians in Illinois:

No Christian has a moral right to place their children under the authority and tutelage of any teacher who affirms homosexuality as a positive identity or who affirms cross-sex identities.

No Christian has a moral right to place their children under the authority and tutelage of any adult who asks children for their pronouns, or who refers to any child or teen by opposite-sex pronouns, or who allows students to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms.

No teachers who identify as Christ-followers have a moral right to ask children under their authority and tutelage for their pronouns. Nor do they have a moral right to refer to children by opposite-sex pronouns or allow them to use opposite-sex restrooms and locker rooms.

Any Christian teacher who does any of those things is implicitly teaching the false, ungodly idea that biological sex has no intrinsic purpose or meaning. Such acts teach the Gnostic belief in the severability of body from spirit. Such acts teach that maleness and femaleness derive from subjective feelings—not from God’s created order. Such acts teach that compassion requires girls, boys, women, and men to relinquish their God-given feelings of modesty and desire for privacy when undressing or engaged in personal bodily functions.

Scripture prohibits lying. Scripture teaches us to train up our children in the way they should go. Scripture warns that “it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.” Scripture commands Christ-followers to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s—not what is God’s. Scripture teaches us to take up our crosses daily and count it all joy when we encounter trials for Jesus who suffered grievously for us.

We don’t choose who is called to the frontlines of this battle for truth and righteousness. God chooses.

Do Christ-followers not understand what all this means with regard to placing their children in government schools that affirm “trans”-cultic beliefs and practices? Do Christian teachers in government schools not understand what this means in terms of what they may or must not do as teachers? Are pastors asking the parents and teachers they shepherd about their actions in those spheres? Are churches preparing ways to help the families they shepherd to exit schools that teach evil as good?

Andrew Klavan, Christian, novelist, podcaster, and wit par excellence writes,

All of you who have written to me to ask, “What do I do when my boss forces me to attend the class on the hateful philosophy of critical race theory, or what do I do when my teacher threatens to fail my kid if he doesn’t use the wrong pronoun, or what do I do when my Facebook friends threatened to unfriend me or my professor threatens to drop my grade, if I don’t pretend to toe the leftist line?” I hate to tell you the truth, but here it is:

If you love your freedom, you’re going to have to resist and pay the price.  …  You don’t even have to speak the truth if you don’t think you can risk it, but at some point, if ordinary individuals don’t at least refuse to lie, then the lies and the tyrants will win.

When we think about how our freedom came to us through Valley forge and Gettysburg and Normandy, it’s really not too much to ask that we say “no” from time to time to thugs like Jack Dorsey on Twitter and that woke dame in HR, who wants you to rat on your coworkers if they make an off-color joke. Mortal danger couldn’t stop the birth of freedom, [so] the question now is will wealth and comfort smother it in his featherbed, as we fear to lose our luxuries more than our forefathers feared to lose their lives?

It’s a strange thing to be summoned—not to battle—but simply to think and speak freely like true American women and men. But our enemies are the very people who supply us with the meaningless stuff we love so much, and we have no choice, but to sacrifice … if we want to save the country from the coming trial.

Take ACTION: It is vital that the members of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) hear from all Illinois taxpayers. Please click HERE to send a message to this committee urging them to vote against any proposal that would mandate all Illinois teachers be indoctrinated with left-leaning “woke” beliefs.

The Democratic Co-Chairman is Illinois Senator Bill Cunningham (D-Chicago). His office number is (773) 445-8128.

The Republican Co-Chairman is Keith Wheeler (R-North Aurora). His office number is (630) 345-3464.

More ACTION: Here is a list of all the members of JCAR, and their individual contact information. It is imperative that we respectfully contact these state lawmakers to urge them to reject these new divisive “standards” by the ISBE.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/audio_Illinois-Woke-School-Mandate-Garners-National-Condemnation_01.mp3

More Info: [SHORT VIDEO] The Revolution in Education in Illinois Continues (Pastor Calvin Lindstrom)

Please consider supporting the good work of Illinois Family Institute.

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Illinois Democrats are hell-bent on passing a new law—the REACH Act (HB 1736 and SB 647)—that will require every school-age child in Illinois public schools to be introduced to homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation through mandatory “comprehensive sex ed.” To be clear, that’s every child from kindergarten on up and the indoctrination will take place every school year, increasing in detail each year. This will be in addition to all the other pro-“LGBTQ” material in which leftists are drowning children via the proposed “Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards”; the existing “LGBT” school indoctrination law; the homosexuality- affirming “anti-bullying” law passed in 2010; and the novels, plays, movies, essays, and articles teachers are already choosing to teach.

Every year the amount of time and number of contexts in which positive images of and ideas about homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation—topics that no adult other than parents should introduce to children or teens—grows. Leftists have been planting a dark, impenetrable forest while self-neutering conservatives fret about the trash tree they just bumped into and left standing. Can conservatives not yet see the forest?

Leftists have their gimlet eyes always focused on the big picture as they play the long game to rule the country. And they know the big picture depends on shaping the hearts and minds of children. While conservatives dismiss the “little” offenses and fume briefly about the big offenses against decency, morality, and truth, leftists continue their march through every institution that shapes culture, including our schools which create our future culture-makers—or as we learned in 2020, our culture-destroyers.

Illinois made the national press recently for the youth mind-grab called the “Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards” that require teacher-training/professional licensure programs, all in-house professional development, and all classrooms to be infused with leftist beliefs about race, homosexuality, and cross-sex impersonation. That amendment will be decided in just a few days by a rules committee in Springfield composed of twelve lawmakers and controlled by leftists.

Meanwhile, here comes the REACH Act, which will enable leftists to reach deeper into the hearts and minds of impressionable children to shape their feelings and beliefs about sexuality under the viperish guise of protecting children.

IFI warned parents about this bill when it was first introduced last year. If passed, this legislation will require leftist-created “comprehensive” sexuality indoctrination to start in kindergarten. Currently, sex education is not required in Illinois, but if it is offered, the only type of curriculum that can be used is leftist “comprehensive” sex ed. That’s thanks to a 2013 law. More on that shortly.

Here are some morsels from the REACH Act (highlighted in yellow):

• “It is the intent of the General Assembly that comprehensive sex ed shall [must]… promote awareness and healthy attitudes about gender identity, gender expression” and “sexual orientation … and must be available to students in kindergarten through 12th grade.”

Since when did it become the job of public school teachers to promote “awareness” of homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation? When did it become their job to promote “healthy attitudes” about homosexuality and cross-sex impersonation? Who decides what constitutes a “healthy attitude” toward these phenomena, and on what criteria are such judgments made?

• “Comprehensive sex ed in kindergarten through second grade shall [must] include … instruction on the following topics: human anatomy … gender roles … [and] varying family structures.”

Discussing human sexual anatomy in co-ed K-12 classes is yet one more way for our leftists to dissolve feelings of modesty in young children just as those feelings are beginning to develop. Leftists view that as a good thing. Discussions of “gender roles” and of “varying family structures” are ways of introducing little ones to “trans”-cultic beliefs and homosexuality.

• “Comprehensive sex ed in the third through 5th grades shall [must] include information about diverse sexual orientations, gender identities, and gender expressions. … and an examination of the harm caused by gender-role stereotypes.”

No requirement that all competing views of “sexual orientation” be included or that criticism of “gender theory” be included.

No requirement that materials be presented that challenge the idea that all “gender-role stereotypes” are socially constructed and imposed.

No requirement that materials be presented that espouse the idea that “gender-role stereotypes” emerge organically from a recognition of sexual differentiation.

No requirement that materials be presented that discuss the possible ways “gender-role stereotypes” may serve a healthy cultural function.

No requirement that materials be included that argue that leftist gender theory is socially constructed and is being imposed on children with little to no public debate.

No requirement that materials be included that explain the serious health risks of chemical and surgical “treatments” to facilitate cross-sex impersonation.

No requirement that materials be presented on the social contagion that afflicts mostly adolescent girls called Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria.

No requirement that materials on desistance and detransitioning be presented.

• “[C]omprehensive sex ed must include … Discussion about … sexting” with 8-10-year-olds.

Leftists may be unaware of the many 8-10-year-olds who have never heard of sexting, never heard of porn, and don’t have cell phones. In those many cases, the passage of this law would mean the government would be introducing these young children to sexting. The innocence of their children that, at great effort and vigilance, parents have been able to preserve in the midst of this sex-saturated and defiling culture, the government would steal.

• Comprehensive sex ed “may not use stigmatizing or shame-based instructional tools or stigmatize parenting or sexually active youth,” “may not employ gender stereotypes” [you know, like saying only girls menstruate or only boys have penises], and “may not teach or promote any religious doctrine.”

In other words, schools must express only one judgment on homosexual behavior, cross-sex identification, and same-sex parenting: approval. So, what happens when the next sexual lobby gets their sexual identity added to the lawbooks? What happens when polyamorists are successful in having “polyamory” included in law as a “sexual orientation” as they already seek to do?

Enquiring minds wonder why this bill does not include these words: “Comprehensive sex ed shall not use stigmatizing or shame-based instructional tools to stigmatize religiously based parenting and shall not implicitly or explicitly teach or promote views critical of religiously based beliefs on the nature and morality of homosexuality or cross-sex identification.”

This bill follows the aforementioned comprehensive sex ed law passed in 2013. That bill required that any school that has a sex ed curricula in any grade must use only comprehensive sex ed—no abstinence-based sex ed. The bill’s sponsors argued at the time that the law was needed to reduce the number of STIs and unintended pregnancies among minors but then provided zero research proving that comprehensive sex ed achieves those goals better than abstinence-based curricula. And no Republican demanded such research.

The one good thing in the 2013 comprehensive sex ed law was that schools were left free not to offer any sex ed at all. That was then. This is now. The wolves waited for seven years, and then they pounced. Those little ones are so tender and tasty.

Last week, a video went viral of a justifiably enraged father taking a school board to task for the way his district was mishandling the education of children during the pandemic. Why haven’t there been an army of enraged fathers and mothers in Illinois taking school boards, administrations, and lawmakers to task for promoting evil ideas to their children? Why haven’t pastors and priests told parents that training their children up in the way they should go must never include even one positive teaching about homosexuality or cross-sex impersonation? Why haven’t churches made it possible for their members to remove their children from the ideological cesspools that self-identify as schools? Why are Christian teachers calling boys by female pronouns or saying nothing to oppose the sexual integration of children’s private spaces?

This is how leftists work:

Slowly they come, step by step, prepared for the wailing of conservatives, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Leftists bide their time, knowing the annoying sound and fury will shortly abate. Exhausted, conservatives will go home, abandoning all that messy, unpleasant opposition to the culture-unmaking of leftists. Conservatives won’t organize, won’t persevere, and won’t sacrifice. And the ones who do fight the evil-doers are alone and isolated because the masses of conservatives don’t want to do the hard work of culture-making.

They don’t want to say or do anything too public–anything that may affect their reputation in the neighborhood, their careers, or their children’s GPA. Even if they have the time and money to educate their children outside of government schools, they don’t want the hassle or expense. They don’t want to sacrifice those fantastic athletic and arts opportunities public schools offer. And they certainly don’t want to turn down a Big Ten or Ivy education for their children even if they—the parents—are feeding the very beasts who are destroying their children and freedom for people of faith in America.

There is no tiny sliver of the hearts, souls, and minds of Illinois school children that presumptuous Illinois lawmakers will allow to remain untouched by corrosive leftist beliefs on sexuality. And there is no child that presumptuous Illinois lawmakers view as too young to be exposed to those corrosive beliefs. Wail all you want, my conservative friends. Big Brother’s minions are patient. They’ll wait for the wailing to cease. They see in the distance a glorious time when wailing will be illegal.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state lawmakers to ask them to vote against the REACH Act (HB 1736 and SB 647). This radical sex education bill is heartily endorsed by Planned Parenthood of Illinois and by Illinois’ premiere “LBGT” activist organization, Equality Illinois, which should tell you everything you need to know about it.

Impressionable students in public schools should not be exposed to body- and soul-destroying messages that promote leftist beliefs about sexuality.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/audio_Another-K-12-School-Indoctrination-Bill-Coming-Through-the-Illinois-Sewage-Pipeline.mp3

Please consider supporting the good work of Illinois Family Institute.

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Tax-funded propagandists in media and academia across Illinois are demonizing the historic 1776 Report report on the public’s dime, without offering any examples of errors or inaccuracies among the facts presented by President Donald J. Trump‘s 1776 Commission.

Trump’s commission was created partly as a response to the debunked 1619 Project by the New York Times, which used deliberate lies to paint the United States as evil yet is being taught in government schools across Illinois. In particular, the previous administration sought to provide a counterweight to the indoctrination taking place in public schools. The goal:

“enable a rising generation to understand the history and principles of the founding of the United States in 1776 and to strive to form a more perfect Union.”

Among the taxpayer-supported Illinois critics of the historical document was fringe “history” professor Lionel Kimble Jr. with Chicago State University. In his ramblings against the report, quoted by Chicago’s tax-funded NPR radio station WBEZ, Kimble did not challenge a single fact presented by the commission.

“I went between laughter to confusion to utter disdain,” Kimble told the tax-funded “news” station, as if ridicule were a substitute for facts, logic, and evidence. “I had this visceral reaction as I read it, and I just was shaking my head through most of it.” Calling it “ahistorical,” and with “no basis in historical fact,” the far-left professor said he “wasted my time reading it.”

In reality, the 40-page report was absolutely filled with historical facts, as anyone can verify by reading it. Indeed, much of the report is composed of direct quotes and excerpts from primary-source documents and historical statements by key figures in American history such as the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., and more.

Saying that the report has “no basis in historical fact” when it is packed with primary-source documents and quotes from key historical figures shows Kimble either never read the report, knows nothing about what constitutes history, or is deliberately trying to mislead the people of Chicago.

Kimble then proceeded to offer powerful evidence that he had never actually read the report that supposedly made him laugh between his disdain and confusion. Ironically, he blasted the Trump administration because it “put this document out to say that America was perfect” right before the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday.

If Kimble had read the report, he would know that it dealt extensively with America’s failings. Indeed, the largest section in the report other than the appendix was about “challenges to America’s principles” including slavery (a scourge that has plagued virtually every human culture and civilization throughout history).

When asked by the Chicago NPR propagandist about its release before the MLK holiday, Kimble truly stepped in it. “I think that casts a long shadow on King’s assassination,” claimed the fringe “history” professor, whose book glorifying Big Government has not received a single review on Amazon in five years. “It tells people who believe in King and believe the things that he stood for that he died for nothing.”

But again, if Kimble had actually read the report, he would know that King was one of the most extensively quoted figures in the report. And ironically, considering his anti-American attitude, it appears that it is Kimble, not the 1776 Commission, who wants people to reject “the things that [King] stood for.”

Consider King’s own words quoted in the 1776 Report. “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir,” King said, adding that the founding documents protected the unalienable rights of black and white Americans.

Kimble’s rambling interview continued by claiming America is a “historical wasteland” where Americans “don’t talk about things” because “it doesn’t make Americans feel good about the atrocities that we’ve done as a nation.” Then he suggested that America, like National Socialist (Nazi) Germany, must repent more.

Yes, seriously; Brought to you by the taxpayers of Illinois and the Unites States of America. Efforts to reach Kimble to explain his bizarre comments were unsuccessful. A phone number listed for him on Chicago State University’s website had been disconnected, and no alternate number was provided by the recording.

Kimble and Chicago’s NPR were not the only tax-funded extremists to demonize the report and America without actually citing a single example of something wrong with it. Tax-funded propagandists at NPR Illinois did the same thing, quoting a tax-funded academic blasting the 1776 Commission’s report without identifying a single error in the document.

Legitimate journalists would have at least provided balance. They could have done this by quoting or interviewing any of the scholars and experts behind the report — people like the highly respected Dr. Carol Swain, the co-chair of the 1776 Commission and a (black) former law professor at Vanderbilt Law School, for example.

Instead, tax-funded propaganda outlets in Illinois chose to interview tax-funded pseudo-“scholars” whose specialty appears to be the fact-free demonization of America. No wonder opposition to tax subsidies for NPR and other far-left propaganda is growing so quickly across America.

Please consider supporting the work of Illinois Family Institute. 

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

Government school “education” in Illinois has dropped to a staggering new low, according to an article by Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council. “In the competition for ‘wokest school system of all,’ Illinois just might be the winner. But be warned, parents in the other 49 states, it’s coming for you too.”

National Review also has an article on these new “standards,” and the headline reads, “Ultra-Woke Illinois Mandates Are Top Threat to U.S. Education.”

IFI first alerted our subscribers to this alarming proposal back in mid-November.

On February 16, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) will make the final decision on whether or not to pass new teacher standards that will mandate teachers to “embrace and encourage progressive viewpoints and perspectives,” and so much more.

The Illinois Culturally Responsive Teaching and Leading Standards will turn Illinois schools into political indoctrination camps and only progressive viewpoints will be taught. Their goal is to change the hearts and minds of your children.

“Whiteness” is a huge problem, according to this article from EdPrepMatters, a liberal publication of the progressive American Association for Teacher Education. They boldly assert that it is “embedded in many so-called traditional values in the U.S.” and must be addressed and eradicated.

Another problem that needs to be corrected in your child’s mind is the problem “progressives” have with conservatism. The article goes on to state,

“some conservatives in the U.S. either lack a complex understanding of key terms and ideas (critical thinking, capitalism, socialism, communism, social justice, multiculturalism, etc.) or are willfully misrepresenting these concepts for political gain.”

And it does not end there. Propaganda promoting “systems of oppression,” “sex and gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, racism, sexism, homophobia, unearned privilege,” will be taught and reinforced through K-12 because, according to Illinois State Board of Education spokesperson Jackie Matthews, “Culturally responsive practices are especial in better supporting Illinois’ LGBTQ+ youth.”

And there you have it.

Parents, your children are at great risk. Covert efforts to undermine Judeo-Christian values and principle have been going on for decades, but they are now out-in-the-open and quickly becoming the core curriculum. Pulling your children out of these government indoctrination camps is imperative. God will bless your efforts and both your children’s and our country’s futures depend on it.

Take ACTION: It is vital that the members of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) hear from all Illinois taxpayers. Please click HERE to send a message to this committee urging them to vote against any proposal that would mandate all Illinois teachers be indoctrinated with left-leaning “woke” beliefs.

The Democratic Co-Chairman is Illinois Senator Bill Cunningham (D-Chicago). His office number is (773) 445-8128.

The Republican Co-Chairman is Keith Wheeler (R-North Aurora). His office number is (630) 345-3464.

More ACTION: Here is a list of all the members of JCAR, and their individual contact information. It is imperative that we respectfully contact these state lawmakers to urge them to reject these new divisive “standards” by the ISBE.

Please consider a gift to the Illinois Family Institute. 

Click HERE to learn about supporting IFI on a monthly basis.

State Senator Kimberly Lightford (D-Chicago) has been diligently working to expand the state’s compulsory school attendance laws. In February 2019, she introduced a bill to lower the mandatory age for school attendance in Illinois from 6 to 5 years of age.  This proposal passed the Illinois Senate on April 11, 2019 by a vote of 39 to 16.

Despite the COVID-19 lockdown, Illinois House members are headed to Springfield for a Lame Duck session. State Senator Lightford’s bill, SB 2075, is scheduled to be heard in the Higher Education Committee in Springfield on Saturday, January 9th at 10:00 AM. Illinois House sponsors include State Representatives Kambium Buckner (D-Chicago), Curtis Tarver (D-Chicago) and La Shawn Ford (D-Chicago).

There is no reason for the government to usurp the God-given authority of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. Parents are best suited to decide when their children are socially, emotionally, and cognitively ready for formal education.

State lawmakers are not going to fix what’s wrong with education by forcing kids to start school a year earlier. In fact, there is evidence that education isn’t about more seat-time for kids.

Moreover, we all need to realize that there isn’t much education going on in many of our government schools.

The decision to begin formal education–which increasingly serves the political and moral ends of liberals and their allies in the Teacher’s Union–rests with parents, not State Senator Lightford or any other politician.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state representative to ask him/her to vote against SB 2075 and the expanding role of government in the lives of Illinois families. You can also call your state senator through the Springfield switchboard at (217) 782-2000.

MORE ACTION:  File a Witness Slip:  Click HERE

Register on the left column.

Once you have verified your registration, you can file a witness slip on any bill.

Return to the Higher Education Committee Hearing Details.

Scroll down to find SB 2075 and click on the paper and pencil icon at the far right to “Create Witness Slip.”

Make sure you click OPPONENT for this over-reaching bill.

You may type “None” for Firm/Business/Agency and Title and “Self” for Representation.

Under Testimony, click “Record of Appearance Only.”

If required, check the Terms of Agreement.

Click Create Slip.

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!

An Illinois State Board of Education committee has bypassed the legislative process with an amendment that will incorporate Identity Politics, BLM, Critical Race Theory and The 1619 Project into teacher training standards and eventually Illinois public school classrooms.

Identity Politics at its core is Marxist, dividing humanity into the oppressors and those who are being oppressed.

Black Lives Matter (BLM) is an extreme leftist Marxist organization that is trying to destroy American ideals. They are also behind the movement to defund police.

Critical Race Theory implies that ALL people who were born with white skin are racist.  And that all whites have power because of their skin color and have used that power to hold back people of color. This is patently false.

The 1619 Project is an insidious attempt to rewrite history with an anti-American sentiment. The 1619 Project falsely claims that the Revolutionary War was fought to maintain slavery. Furthermore, it falsely claims that America was founded in 1619 when the first slaves were brought to our shores. The truth is that colonists broke free of England’s restrictive monarchy to form an independent republic that recognized our God-given civil liberties.

In an excruciatingly detailed 2,400- word document, leftists laid bare the comprehensive nature of the indoctrination they seek to mandate. These “standards” will apply to all teachers, administrators, school counselors, school psychologists, school social workers, school nurses, and speech language pathologists.

This is how garbage gets into our children’s classrooms: It starts by either leftist professors in education departments, or state boards of education committees, or in state legislatures using their positions to advance their ideological beliefs. Tax dollars should not be used to foster lies, division and hatred.

TAKE ACTION: It is vital that the members of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) hear from all Illinois taxpayers before the committee meets to vote on this proposal in February. Please click HERE to send a message to this committee urging them to vote against any proposal that would mandate left-leaning standards for educators in Illinois public schools.

The Democratic Co-Chairman is Illinois Senator Bill Cunningham (D-Chicago). His office number is (773) 445-8128.

The Republican Co-Chairman is Keith Wheeler (R-North Aurora). His office number is (630) 345-3464.

Subscribe to the IFI YouTube channel
and never miss a video report or special program!