1

What “Comprehensive” Sex Education Really Means

**WARNING: the content of this article is not suitable for children.**

When you hear the term “comprehensive” as a way to describe legislation, you can be sure the government has big plans to invade a new corner of your life.  “Comprehensive sex education” for public schools is no exception.  That’s why it’s critical HB 2675 be stopped!

HB 2675 would mandate that  highly objectionable sex ed material be forced on our public schools and into the impressionable minds of our children.   HB 2675 has already passed in the Illinois House and has moved to the Illinois Senate. Lawmakers must fully understand the type of curriculum this bill would mandate.

And we need your help to inform them and to safeguard children’s innocent minds!

For an good exposé of what our children are being taught and the rationale behind these types of curricula, which often come from organizations like Planned Parenthood, watch this video from American Life League:

 **WARNING: the content of this video is not suitable for children.**

We know for certainty that one of the books mentioned in the video, It’s Perfectly Normal, is being used in Illinois schools.  It’s Perfectly Normal is written with 10-yr-old children in mind.  If the “comprehensive” sex education bill, HB 2675, is passed, it will establish a one-size-fits-all approach to sex education and remove local community control over choosing true “age- appropriate” curriculum, another term used in the bill.  (See what the national organization for “comprehensive” sex ed curricula, SEICUS, deems as “age-appropriate.”)

If HB 2675 is passed, young children will be exposed to graphic sexual information to which most parents would find highly objectionable and inappropriate. And teaching books like It’s Perfectly Normal will become more prevalent state-wide.  

According to HB 2675, children as young as eleven years old would be required to define sexual orientation using the so-called ‘correct’ terminology, such as ‘heterosexual, gay, and lesbian.’  Masturbation would be taught as normal and that everyone does it, with step-by-step instruction. Not just the biology of sexual reproduction would be presented, but explicit details of sexual intercourse. Slightly older children would be ‘educated’ on how to use condoms, obtain contraceptives or even an abortion without parental consent or knowledge, and would be encouraged to experiment with ‘alternative’ sexual behaviors.  

This bill has already passed the Illinois House and is now being considered by the entire Senate. Please join us in trying to stop this bill!  This sensitive topic should be controlled by parents and teachers, not groups who are in the business of selling sex to make a profit. 

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state senator today to ask him/her to vote NO to HB 2675.  You can also call the Capitol switchboard number at (217) 782-2000 and ask to be transferred to your state senator’s office or call IFI for their number.

We can stop this through prayer and action! Please email and call your senator today.


Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute. 




Planned Parenthood’s Sex Education Bill Advances

On Wednesday, May 1st, Mrs. Tammy Schulz traveled with 2 of her children from Oak Park to Springfield to testify in opposition to a terrible sex education bill being pushed by Planned Parenthood of Illinois.  It was scheduled to be heard in the Senate Executive Committee on Wednesday. However, the committee began late, recessed early, immediately went into closed session and then adjourned for the yearly House vs. Senate baseball game.   The bill was called the following day and passed along party lines, 9-5.  It now advances to the full Senate for consideration.  It has already passed in the House.

Mrs. Schulz was prepared to quote from two “complete” and “comprehensive” sex ed curricula. One was obtained from the Illinois Senate Education Committee in 2011 as an example of a compliant curriculum. The other was taught at the Stratford Middle School in Bloomingdale, Illinois.  (WARNING – GRAPHIC & SEXUALLY EXPLICIT LANGUAGE:  compliant curriculum and It’s Perfectly Normal.   You can watch Mrs. Schulz in a video taken outside the Capitol giving a shortened version of her testimony HERE.  WARNING: THIS ALSO CONTAINS SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONTENT.)

The bill, HB 2675 is sponsored by State Senator Heather Steans (D-Chicago).  It requires that any public schools that currently teach sex ed would have to teach Planned Parenthood’s idea of “complete,” “comprehensive,” age-appropriate,” and “medically accurate” sex education.

No one would disagree that age-appropriate and medically accurate information should be taught until you read how SEICUS (Sexuality Education Information Council of the United States) defines “age-appropriate” and “medically accurate.”   Furthermore, as Laurie Higgins has pointed out numerous times, the terms “complete” and “comprehensive” are ambiguous.  (Read more HERE.)

Mrs. Schulz considered spending the night with her 2 children if she would be allowed to give her testimony the next day when the bill would likely be called.  Being a neighbor of Senator Don Harmon (who chairs the committee that heard the bill and whose children won’t be exposed to this graphic information because they attend a Catholic school), she appealed to him to allow her to testify. His answer was that the bill had been heard in the senate before (that was in 2011) and that he couldn’t promise anything. Apparently minds are made up before a bill is called and it’s only a formality to hear testimony from witnesses who travel hours or even fly in from out of state to shed light on a bill’s negative and/or positive effects.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state senator today to ask him/her to vote NO to HB 2675.


Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.




Illinois Should Not Mandate Inappropriate Sex Education

Written by Scott Phelps

Once again, members of the Illinois Legislature are trying to mandate explicit, inappropriate sex education, as they attempt to do year after year. House Bill 2675 is peddled as an attempt to reduce “teen-pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases,” but this is a ruse. We are aware of no research indicating that contraceptive-based sex-education classes have ever shown a reduction in teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. While the bill’s supporters claim “abstinence doesn’t work,” the reality is, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), most high schools students are abstinent and the trend is a growing — especially in Illinois where abstinence programs have been taught in over 1,200 schools and organizations.

Over 20 years, as abstinence programs have become more popular with schools, the national teen birth rate has fallen by a remarkable 45 percent, and in Illinois by 49 percent. The national teen pregnancy rate has fallen by 37 percent, and in Illinois by 40 percent. The CDC reports that most high school students have never had sex.

Regardless, legislators want to require all schools that teach abstinence-until-marriage as the optimal health outcome to also teach teens to use contraception. This is problematic since most students aren’t sexually active, and requiring schools to teach contraception to unmarried youth will codify the sexual revolution, which began in the sixties with the goal of separating sex from marriage. Researchers, such as Dr. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia, and Dr. George Akerlof, a Nobel-Prize winning economist at the University of California Berkeley, have documented the role of the sexual revolution in declining marriage rates, increased premarital sex, and a host of consequences. The sexual revolution has been an unmitigated disaster for the American family, increasing the poverty rate.

Wilcox and Akerlof argue, “the sexual revolution — aided in part by widespread contraception — led to dramatic increases in non-marital childbearing.” Akerlof states: “Just at the time, about 1970, that the permanent cure to poverty seemed to be on the horizon and just at the time that women had obtained the tools to control the number and timing of their children, single motherhood and the feminization of poverty began their long and steady rise.”

Sadly for America’s children, as the sexual revolution has been mainstreamed into our educational system and media outlets, America has shifted away from its long history of marital and familial stability. More American children are born out of wedlock than ever before, with a non-marital birth rate of 41 percent overall and 72 percent in the black community. This is a terrible injustice because research indicates that these children are far more likely to suffer a clearly defined set of social consequences compared with their peers born to, and living with, their married parents.

Most high-school students are abstinent, and this should be encouraged because these teens aren’t getting pregnant, aren’t having abortions, and aren’t spreading STDs. Abstinent teens do better academically. Abstinence-until-marriage is objectively, the safest, healthiest choice for our youth. Politicians should allow schools to encourage teens to reserve all sexual activity and childbearing for a marriage relationship and to do so without compromise.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state senator today to ask him/her to vote NO to HB 2675.

Click HERE to read Scott’s powerful testimony, which he presented to the Illinois House Human Services Committee on March 13, 2013.


Scott Phelps is executive director of the Abstinence & Marriage Education Partnership near Chicago, and cofounder of the National Abstinence Education Association in Washington D.C.




Middle School’s Anti-Bullying Activity: Girls Asked to Kiss Girls

If you want to see where the deceitful effort of homosexual activists to exploit bullying-prevention for their own selfish and pernicious goals goes next, look at what recently happened in a New York middle school.

School administrators colluding with college students from the far Leftwing Bard College held a bullying-prevention workshop for students at Linden Avenue Middle School during which the college facilitators asked girls to kiss girls.

When confronted by angry parents who were not notified ahead of time about this activity, Principal Dr. Katie Zahedi claimed that “the sessions were…about saying no to unwanted advances….In planning the discussion, we made it clear that absolutely no discussion of any sexual acts is appropriate to middle school, and they used the examples of a kiss….It was…ultimately about respect and safety.”

As every adult knows, kissing can be either platonic or erotic (i.e., sexual). If the workshop facilitators were using kissing to simulate “unwanted advances,” they were sexual kisses. No one considers a platonic kiss to be an “unwanted advance.”

In a society in which sexual images and ideas, including homosexuality-affirming images and ideas, proliferate, no public school should be asking students to kiss any other student, particularly another student of the same-sex. Those parents who are desperately trying to teach their children that homosexual acts, including non-platonic, same-sex kissing, are profoundly wrong, should not be undermined in government schools.

Homosexuals and their allies don’t believe there’s anything wrong with non-platonic, romantic, or erotic same-sex kissing. What’s more, they harshly condemn, ridicule, and malign anyone who finds non-platonic, same-sex kissing disordered, immoral, perverse, or repugnant. And what’s worse still is that they are using public resources (i.e., government schools) to try to change the moral and political views and feelings of other people’s children.

Conservatives must be willing to say publicly, unequivocally, and unashamedly that homosexual acts are immoral and that we will not tolerate public schools promoting the subjective beliefs of the Left on this essential cultural issue. We must be willing to speak truth with the same boldness, certainty, and persistence with which the other side speaks lies. And we must do so even if it’s costly.

The central goal of homosexual activists and their “progressive” pals is not to eradicate bullying—a goal that every decent person shares. Their central goal is eradicating conservative moral beliefs and the sentiments that naturally accompany them or to make it socially, politically, and legally impossible to express them. If that means a loss of First Amendment speech rights and religious liberty and a loss of parental rights, so be it. The goal of normalizing sexual deviance trumps even the U.S. Constitution.

We often hear Edmund Burke’s warning that “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”  But we are such a foolish people that even when we know history and repeat it, we don’t recognize it.

There have been times in history during which approval of homosexuality was pervasive. Deviant desire conspired with a host of sophistical ideas, including false religious teachings, to defend homosexuality as good. What these societies shared too was the human degradation and corruption of family integrity that approval of homosexuality brings.

We look at this newest manifestation of the embrace of sexual deviancy and remain blind to the concomitant human degradation. We know history and blithely repeat it, foolishly saying this time it’s different. This time it’s all about love and safety. 


Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.




Fatuous Floor Debate in Springfield on Comprehensive Sex Ed Bill

All Illinoisans should be troubled that our lawmakers vote for bills without demanding any evidence proving that the bills will solve the problems that the bills’ sponsors cite as the reasons the bills are needed.

Case in point: last week’s passage of the “comprehensive” sex ed bill (HB 2675) in the Illinois House of Representatives, which followed embarrassing performances by “progressive” lawmakers that wouldn’t pass muster in high school mock legislative assemblies.

State Representative Camille Lilly (D-Chicago) sponsored HB 2675, citing the problems of unwed pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among teens as the reasons comprehensive sex ed is necessary, but never provided conclusive evidence that comprehensive sex ed would solve those problems or that abstinence education—which is type of curricula that “progressives” detest—is the cause of the problems.

This bill compels every school district that teaches about sexuality to use “comprehensive” sex ed curricula even though every school district in Illinois already has that right. In fact, 60 percent of school districts in Illinois already use “comprehensive” sex ed.

Why would lawmakers mandate that all school districts use the type of curricula that most districts already use and is apparently failing? Why rob school districts of the right and freedom to choose abstinence-based curricula, which by the way, are medically accurate, unless there is rock solid proof that comprehensive sex ed is more effective at reducing the rates of teen pregnancy and STIs. Why rob school districts of the right and freedom to use the type of curricula that the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce just last summer recommended?

I listened to the entire floor debate on this legislation. Let’s look at what passes for logic and evidence in Springfield and what our lawmakers find intellectually persuasive:

State Representative Kathleen Willis (D-Northlake) — a supporter of the bill — suggested that this bill is necessary in order that “young children” will not “find out their sex education on the playgrounds or from their friends?” Rep. Willis offers the peculiar proposition that there are only two possibilities: comprehensive sex ed or playground sex ed. There is, however, another alternative: medically accurate abstinence education.

The strangest exchange during the debate took place between Rep. Lilly and Rep. David Reis (R-Olney). Perhaps someone can make sense of Lilly’s nearly incomprehensible responses:

Reis: “What exactly is ‘age-appropriate’ curriculum?”

Lilly: “Age-appropriate basically deals with providing information at the age at which the youth is prepared to receive.”

Reis: “And who determines that?”

Lilly: “The schools, they determine the curriculums.”

Reis: So, the State Board of Education won’t be mandating a certain curriculum at a certain time with your bill.”

Lilly: It’s a local school decision made by local officials of the school system.

Rice: “You say that it’s not a mandate to teach a particular curriculum, but it is a mandate…that they [schools] have to teach something. Is that correct?”

Lilly: “This bill is not a mandate.

Reis: “It’s not a mandate to teach a particular curriculum, but it is a mandate that they have to teach something. Is that not correct?”

Lilly: “No, it is not.”

Reis: “Are you sure?”

Lilly: “I am positive.”

Reis: “If that’s the case, why do you need your bill?”

Lilly: “Currently, the schools already have comprehensive sex education on the books. This bill brings clarification and definition to the existing code.”

Reis: “But if each school district has their own control over their own curriculum, and what they do, and whether or not they choose to do this, why do you need your bill? Your bill is a mandate that they [schools] have to teach something.”

Lilly: “This bill brings a standard of comprehensive sex education throughout the state—comprehensive, basic standard of sex education within the public school system.”

Reis: “So, now you’re saying there is a basic curriculum that needs to be adhered to, and then if the local school system wants to teach more of that they can?”

Lilly: “No, each school has the opportunity to decide whether they would want to offer sex education to their schools. That decision is made by the local school professionals and officers.

Supporters of the bill, either confused themselves or trying to confuse others, repeat ad nauseum that this bill allows schools to choose their own curriculum. What they don’t clearly explain is that schools may choose their own curriculum as long as it’s a “comprehensive sex ed” curriculum. School districts may choose not to offer sex ed, but if they offer it—as most do—this bill robs them of the right and freedom to choose an abstinence-based curriculum. (Don’t be deceived by the adjective “comprehensive.” Comprehensive sex ed simply means it includes whatever “progressives” view as important. Click here to get an overview of what “comprehensive sex educators” view as complete and age-appropriate.)

State Representative Robyn Gabel (D-Evanston) then asked if this bill “would provide instruction on both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of…sexually transmitted diseases.” Perhaps Gabel would be surprised to learn no form of contraception prevents sexually transmitted diseases, and some forms of contraception don’t even reduce the risk of acquiring a sexually transmitted disease.

Gabel also asked, “Isn’t it true that numerous studies show that comprehensive sexual health education that stress abstinence as well as provides information on prevention results in positive health outcomes for teens and young adults?” Neither Gabel nor Lilly, however, cited these “numerous studies.”

Rep. Gabel went on to share an irrelevant but illuminating tidbit of parenting advice from her own life. When her daughter was a “preteen,” Gabel bought her the feminist sexuality bible Our Bodies, Ourselves, infamous for the inclusion of age-inappropriate material wholly unrelated to reducing teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. To read an excerpt from this book that Gabel thinks is age-appropriate for an 11 or 12 year-old, click HERE.

Rep. Gabel further shared this: “I would see my daughter’s friends just reading through this book, and her friends had no other place to go. They would call her on the phone. They would come over to the house to read the book.”

Does Gabel know for a fact that her daughters’ friends had no other place to go for essential sexual health information? Does she know for a fact that the parents of her daughters’ friends did not share essential sexual health information with their children? Could it be that the information in Our Bodies, Ourselves that her daughters’ friends found so compelling were ideas that were not essential to sexual health, or that it was information their parents would have found age-inappropriate? If her daughters’ friends were not getting the information presented in Our Bodies, Ourselves from their parents, was it Gabel’s right to present it to these young girls?

This anecdote epitomizes the arrogance of “progressives” who believe that children belong to the “collective” and who are so certain that their beliefs and values are the only correct ones that they are willing to usurp and circumvent the rights of other parents.

While sexuality amoralists like Lilly and Gabel wax concerned about the high rates of teen pregnancy and STIs, they intentionally omit discussions of the central reasons “progressives” push for comprehensive sex ed. They push for it because “progressives” have virtually no moral boundaries when it comes to sexuality, including the early sexualization of children and the affirmation of homosexuality and gender confusion as normative. While there is no conclusive research proving that comprehensive sex ed is consistently more effective than abstinence education at reducing rates of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections, it is indisputable that comprehensive sex ed is much more effective in advancing Leftwing beliefs about early and deviant sexual activity.

If you’re ambivalent about the value of this bill, perhaps this exhortation from State Representative Chris Welch (D-Westchester) will convince you: “This bill is keepin’ it real….These kids are having sex….It is important that we make sure that they do it properly and safely and that we can make sure the public health is maintained.” In the service of keepin’ it real, I’d like to suggest that “proper teen sex” is oxymoronic, perhaps even moronic.

State Representative Christian Mitchell (D-Chicago) prophesied with absolute certainty that the passage of this bill is the “fiscally responsible thing to do. We’re going to avoid spending money on the treatment of STDs. We’re going to avoid additional money on social services for unwanted children.” Apparently, Rep. Mitchell’s presumptuous proclamation is as good as actual evidence to those who voted for the bill.

State Representative Elaine Nekritz (D-Buffalo Grove) disingenuously expressed her deep concerns about the floor debates: “I find it troubling that we’re debating whether medically accurate, age-appropriate information is appropriate.” Any thinking and fair person knows that opponents of the bill have no problem with medically accurate information being presented to students. Opponents of this bill are concerned about the “age-appropriate” part. What the creators of typical comprehensive sex ed curricula view as “age-appropriate” is viewed by others as wildly inappropriate.

Rep. Nekritz then told a secondhand story about a teenage girl who found herself pregnant despite never having had intercourse. That is the “evidence” Nekritz believes is sufficient to justify a bill that prevents schools from using abstinence education. Did Nekritz bother to inquire about whether this young girl had received any kind of sex education and if so, what kind?

Rep. Lilly cited one CDC study but didn’t identify the study, so it’s difficult to fact-check. Lilly claimed that a CDC analysis found that “comprehensive sex ed is more effective than abstinence only.” According to the Washington Post, one 2009 CDC study found that “there is insufficient evidence to know whether programs that focus on encouraging teens to remain sexually abstinent until marriage are effective.” A 2012 CDC study of comprehensive sex ed and abstinence education concludes  that “No conclusions could be drawn on the effectiveness of group-based abstinence education.” And a 2012 criticism of the 2012 CDC analysis is found here.

In addition there is research demonstrating the efficacy of abstinence ed (here and here.)

It’s astonishing that lawmakers, many of whom are attorneys who should understand the importance of evidence, feel no compunction about voting for a bill following such a stupid floor “debate.” Since research is inconclusive at best, it seems utterly unwarranted to prohibit school districts from using abstinence-based curricula if that’s what they want to use.

To summarize, this bill will rob school districts of the right to choose the type (i.e., comprehensive vs. abstinence) of curriculum that the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce recommendedjust last year. And it will rob school districts of the right and freedom to choose the type of curriculum that myriad studies have demonstrated is at least as effective if not more effective than “comprehensive” sex ed curricula are at reducing the rate of teen pregnancies and STIs. Unbelievable.

This bill is now in the Illinois Senate.  Let’s hope the Senate floor debate proves more substantive than the fatuous House debate.

Take ACTION: Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state senator today to ask him/her to vote NO to HB 2675.



Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.

 




Friday’s Day of Silence: Partisan Abuse of Public Resources

This Friday, April 19, 2013 is the National Day of Silence which is sponsored by the homosexuality-affirming advocacy group, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). GLSEN’s raison dêtre is to transform the moral and political views of our nation’s children through our publicly subsidized government schools. The Day of Silence is GLSEN’s central socio-political tool for achieving that purpose.

GLSEN urges students in high schools and middle schools to refuse to speak for an entire day—including during class—in order to draw attention to the plight of those students who are purportedly silenced and bullied because of their homosexuality or cross-dressing.

IFI is again partnering with a broad coalition of conservative pro-family groups to encourage parents and guardians to express their opposition to the exploitation of instructional time for this Leftwing political cause. We are urging parents to ask their school principals if students and/or teachers are permitted to refuse to speak in class on the Day of Silence. If your principal says they are not permitted to refuse to speak, ask how that is communicated to parents, students, and faculty.

If your principal says students and/or teachers are permitted to refuse to speak, keep your child at home, which costs schools money. We also encourage you to send an email to your superintendent, principal, department chairs, school board members, and your student’s teachers explaining why you are keeping your child home. Click here  for a sample “call out” letter.

It is critical for parents, school administrators, students, and school board members to know that the ACLU has stated that students “have a right to participate in Day of Silence and other expressions of your opinion at a public school during non-instructional time: the breaks between classes, before and after the school day, lunchtime, and any other free times during your day. You do NOT have a right to remain silent during class time if a teacher asks you to speak” (emphasis added).

Despite what the Day of Silence advocates claim, this political event does, indeed, create disruption, distraction, divisiveness, and discomfort. Imagine if students were allowed to refuse to speak in class on other days for other socio-political causes. What if one group were allowed to refuse to speak in class to draw attention to the silenced voices of women in Afghanistan, or Christians in China, or political prisoners in Cuba, or suspected terrorists held at Gitmo, or animals used in scientific research, or dolphins caught in tuna nets? We have opened a Pandora’s box of pedagogical problems by allowing this form of political activism in the classroom. Many teachers and students on both the Left and Right dislike the Day of Silence, but no one hears about that. Teachers and administrators are afraid to admit publicly that they wish the Day of Silence would end.

What GLSEN does not admit is that their central goal is not the eradication of bullying—which is a goal every decent person shares. GLSEN’s “anti-bullying” emphasis is merely a strategic tool for effecting their central goals, which are the eradication of conservative moral beliefs and the creation of a social, political, and legal environment in which it’s impossible to express them. GLSEN believes that the existence of conservative moral beliefs creates an environment ripe for bullying and violence. Therefore, their goal is to transform the moral beliefs of other people’s children using public resources (i.e., public schools).

Homosexuality, like polyamory and hypersexuality, is a condition constituted by subjective feelings and volitional sexual acts. Our public schools would never permit a day of silence for students who are bullied for their polyamory or hypersexuality. Clearly, no administrator or teacher wants students to be bullied for these conditions, so what’s the difference? Educators fully understand that such a “day” would do far more than signal opposition to bullying. Such a day would implicitly teach that polyamory and hypersexuality are morally acceptable—which is not the right of educators to do. Allowing students to refuse to speak in class on the Day of Silence necessarily means that school administrators and teachers believe homosexual acts are inherently moral and are comfortable promoting that moral conviction—which is not the right of government employees to do.

GLSEN, correctly assuming that conservatives are cowardly, understands the efficacy of promoting homosexuality through bullying prevention activities. They know we’re too afraid to be accused of endorsing bullying to oppose their efforts. The truth is, however, that it’s entirely possible to oppose both bullying and the dishonoraable efforts of GLSEN to undermine the conservative moral beliefs of other people’s children using public funds.

It is entirely possible to work toward preventing bullying without specifically mentioning every condition for which students are bullied. The Day of Silence privileges two conditions for which students are bullied—homosexuality and gender-confusion—over all others. Broader, more general, more inclusive non-enumerated activities and events are fairer, more compassionate, more respectful of “diversity,” and less politically divisive.

If we don’t start opposing the use of public schools to undermine the moral and political beliefs of our children, it will not only continue, it will increase.

Call your school now.


 Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.




Warning: Comprehensive Sex Ed Returning to Springfield

Our relentless “progressive” lawmakers hell-bent on the early sexualization of children and the exploitation of public schools to normalize homosexuality have re-introduced the comprehensive sex ed bill (HB 2675), which if passed will foist on all schools the kind of sex ed program recently adopted by the Chicago Public Schools.

Chicago Public Schools Controversial Comprehensive Sex Ed Plan

Several weeks ago, Chicago Public Schools (CPS) unveiled its troubling new plan to further usurp parental rights while promoting “progressive” beliefs about sexuality to children—starting in kindergarten.  Yes, you heard that right. Not only do kindergartners need to start learning about sex, but they need to start learning about it from government employees. Parents are being deceived into believing that “progressive” educrats, whose ideas and socio-political goals are shaped by organizations like the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and Planned Parenthood, know better than parents do about what their children need to know and when.

Last year I warned about a powerful coalition of organizations dedicated to eradicating moral norms regarding sexuality that had announced its plan to nationalize comprehensive sex ed, thus destroying the last vestige of local control. The comprehensive sex ed bill and CPS comprehensive sex ed plan embody the same ideas espoused in the National Sexuality Education Standards.

“Progressives” in public school are deceitful. Knowing how controversial this curriculum will be, CPS educrats whitewashed the curriculum with ambiguity and buffed it to a shiny glow with a patina of legislative credibility.

The CPS announcement cunningly implied that the new “sexual health education policy” aligns with state law. The announcement on the CPS website states that the curriculum “follows proposals that have been introduced in the state Legislature that aim to modernize Illinois’ sex education law and create a standard for sexual health education courses.” This statement is technically accurate, but to be even more rigorously accurate, it should have stated that “the curriculum follows a bill that was proposed and failed in the legislature.”

The CPS is trying to gussy up their mission to sexualize young children and undermine traditional views of homosexuality by using vague language about “accuracy” and “appropriateness.” Remember, however, when it comes to sexuality, there’s very little that the Left believes is inappropriate.

Public statements on this newly adopted sex ed plan for Chicago Public Schools have been long on generalities and short on specifics. CPS CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett stated that “students of all ages” should receive “appropriate information so they can make healthy choices in regards to their social interactions, behaviors and relationships” and that the new “sexual health education policy” will help students “build a foundation of knowledge.”

As mentioned earlier, what “progressive” comprehensive sex ed promoters deem “appropriate” is often wildly inappropriate. Teaching five year-olds that families headed by two homosexual men are equivalent to families headed by a mother and a father is appropriate to them. Allowing gender-confused little boys to cross-dress and use girl’s restrooms is appropriate to them. And reading picture books to first-graders that positively portray men kissing men romantically is appropriate.

The CPS press release explained that “younger students in this group will focus on the family [and] feelings.” Parents should be alarmed whenever a school administrator issues a statement of such obvious ambiguity. Use your imaginations. What might a sex ed discussion on “family” and “feelings” actually address? It is likely that starting in kindergarten, not only will children will be introduced to disordered family structures (i.e., families headed by homosexuals) and told they are normal and good, but they will also be introduced to the idea that “gender” is constructed by society. This paves the way for teaching kids positively about gender-confusion (and cross-dressing), which will likely take place in grades 3-5.

It is not the obligation of public schools to teach about every sexuality-related phenomenon that exists, and it neither the obligation nor the right of public schools to affirm every phenomenon, including phenomenon like homosexual relationships that many believe are immoral. Every parent should opt their child out of all sex ed classes. Teach your kids about sexuality at home. Those who will be teaching these classes will not be experts in child development, psychology, ethics/morality, theology, and biology—all of which subjects are critical to education on sexual health. Those who teach sex ed will, however, have been inculcated with non-factual “progressive” beliefs about sexuality, beliefs that are awash in ignorance.

The CPS will not be alone, at least not if our “progressive” lawmakers have anything to say about it.

Comprehensive Sex Ed Bill Just Won’t Die

New bill number (HB 2675), same lousy content. Let’s just call it the Zombie Bill—rotten on the inside but still shuffling about trying to infect society.

Currently any school district in IL that wants to use a comprehensive sex ed curriculum is free to do so and according to one source, approximately 60 percent do so. And they use comprehensive sex ed curricula even in the absence of research-based evidence proving that comprehensive sex ed curricula do a better job at reducing the incidence of sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancies, which were the problems the original bill’s sponsor (Senator Heather Steans) cited as the reasons her bill was needed.

“Choice,” the mantra of the Left, is exactly what our “progressive” lawmakers seek to take away from every Illinois community when it comes to sexuality education. Our Leftist lawmakers in Springfield want to force comprehensive sex ed curricula on every community while never providing a shred of evidence proving that comprehensive sex ed will solve the problems Sen. Steans originally introduced her bill to solve.

Constituents should demand their representatives provide substantive and satisfying answers to these questions:

  • Precisely why do you believe this legislation is necessary?
  • Do you have research that proves typical comprehensive sex ed curricula solve the problems you see within the adolescent population?
  • Can you provide research proving that comprehensive sex ed curricula are more effective than abstinence curricula in delaying age of initial sexual encounter (i.e., intercourse)?
  • Can you provide research proving that comprehensive sex ed curricula are more effective than abstinence curricula in reducing the numbers of sexual partners during adolescence?
  • Can you provide research proving that comprehensive sex ed curricula are more effective than abstinence curricula in reducing the number of STDs and STIs?
  • Can you provide research proving that comprehensive sex ed curricula are more effective than abstinence curricula in reducing the numbers of teen pregnancies?
  • Can you provide research proving that comprehensive sex ed curricula are more effective than abstinence curricula in reducing the numbers of teen abortions?
  • Can you provide research proving that students who have been taught in classes that use comprehensive sex ed curricula are more knowledgeable about STDs and STIs than students who have been taught in classes that use abstinence curricula?

Take ACTION:   Click HERE to send an email or a fax to your state representative to ask them to vote NO to the “comprehensive” sex education mandate in Illinois.  Unless and until your representatives satisfactorily answer these questions, urge them to vote no on HB 2675.

For more on comprehensive sex ed, click here , here , here.

 


Click HERE to make a donation to the Illinois Family Institute.




Teachers Promote Same-Sex “Marriage” During School in District 113

The week before the Illinois Senate was scheduled to vote on a bill to legalize same-sex “marriage,” student members of the Straight and Gay Alliance (SAGA) at Deerfield High School sent this email to every staff and faculty member:

Dear Faculty and Staff,

This Valentines Day, the United States [sic] Senate will be voting on whether or not to pass legislation that would make same-sex marriage legal in Illinois. No matter which way the vote ends up going, it is safe to say that this will be a historic day in the LGBT movement. Your students in DHS’s Straight and Gay Alliance would like to invite you to a school-wide event in which all supporters of marriage and civil equality for LGBT people wear purple apparel; a color that symbolizes allies and togetherness in the movement. It doesn’t matter if it’s a purple bowtie, necklace, skirt, or SAGA t-shirt (we will be selling more if you’re interested in purchasing one). For those of you who are either required to wear a certain color or you don’t have any purple clothes then please feel free to come up to a SAGA student in either entrance of the school tomorrow to get a purple ribbon you can wear as a bracelet. Any of your support is greatly appreciated.

The members of SAGA are excited to see the future changes in our own community due to this legislation. We can honestly say that there is no one who we trust more to support and guide the ensuing generations through this exhilerating (sic) and challenging time than the Deerfield High School faculty and staff. Thank you for all of your generosity and support.

Happy Valentines Day,

Your students in SAGA (emphasis added)

Many teachers did wear purple in support of this controversial and divisive legislative proposal.  I suspect the school did not notify parents and other taxpayers of this organized political event involving district employees during school.

What should deeply trouble taxpayers is that District 113’s School Board policy permits district employees to participate in political activityrelating to the support or opposition of any executive, legislative, or administrative action.” And why is that troubling? Besides the obvious truth that only “progressive” teachers will promote their political beliefs at school, this policy appears to be inconsistent with case law regarding the rights of teachers to engage in speech—including symbolic speech—while on the job.

When I first learned of this employee political action, I spoke with an attorney who told me the following: 

School officials who wear something purple on Thursday would be engaging in expressive conduct while performing official duty. The school club email to the entire faculty has identified what wearing purple expresses. 

A 2006 SC case, Garcetti v. Ceballos, held that “when public employees speak while performing their official duties, (i.e., “job duty speech”), this speech is not protected by the First Amendment and can be the basis for discipline or discharge.”

http://www.psea.org/general.aspx?id=3868

This position is confirmed in a 2008 article by Dr. Martha McCarthy, the Chancellor’s Professor and Chair of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at Indiana University:

The general legal principle is that public school personnel cannot proselytize the captive student audience.

In…Weingarten v. Board of Education, a federal district court upheld the school district’s ban on employees wearing political buttons at school….The New York court ruled that students might view the political buttons as representing the school if worn by employees. This ruling is consistent with other decisions in which state and federal courts recently have upheld bans on teachers wearing buttons to promote political candidates or to criticize the United States and its involvement in Iraq and Panama.…

Controversies over political expression extend beyond distributing materials and wearing buttons. The Seventh Circuit in 2007 held that a probationary teacher’s expression of her opposition to the war in Iraq during a current events discussion with her students was not constitutionally protected. Also, a New York federal district court held that in an election year, a school district could require a teacher to remove the incumbent president’s picture from her classroom or to post the opposing candidate’s picture to ensure balance.

…While public educators have an absolute right to their political, religious, and other beliefs, they do not have a right to impose those beliefs on students. Thus, restrictions on public employees’ political activities in the classroom will likely be upheld if legally challenged. (emphasis added)

Prior to the day of the SAGA-sponsored political event, I asked Superintendent George Fornero if teachers would be permitted to wear purple on the day of the controversial legislative vote. He didn’t respond, so I sent this email to Fornero and the District 113 Board of Education:

Am I correct that staff and faculty may express their political views on legislative issues? Do teachers have permission to wear, for example, arm bands, bracelets, t-shirts, spats, or purple as part of an organized effort to express support for (or against) proposed legislation?

Since school board policy expressly permits district employees to participate in political activityrelating to the support or opposition of any executive, legislative, or administrative action,” and since district employees were permitted to wear purple in a public and organized political effort to express support for the legalization of same-sex marriage, would district employees be permitted to wear another color in a public and organized political effort to express support for the legalization of recreational drug use or gambling?

I would also like to know how the school board policy cited above squares with case law which consistently holds that teachers do not have a constitutionally protected right to engage in political activity while on the job.

As of this writing, I have received no response from any school board member and this response from Fornero:

I am writing to follow up on your inquiry with regard to the color of clothing worn by staff and faculty. Clothing color is a matter of personal choice, and may or may not be a reflection of person’s support for any particular public policy issue. I have no idea whether staff wore purple two weeks ago and, if they did, why they did so….The School District does not restrict the color of clothing that staff may wear on any particular day, although there are days when staff may be encouraged to wear school colors. There were no restrictions, no directives and no administrative communication to staff with regard to the color of clothing they could choose to wear on Valentine’s Day.…

The issues relating to the first amendment rights of public employees, and the rights of governmental entities to place limits on that speech in the workplace are complex and, as the article you quoted makes clear, regularly being interpreted and reinterpreted by the courts. The policy that is posted on the website is the Board’s current policy, which would govern these matters in our District. We would evaluate any actual situation based on the facts that related to that particular situation…

I have no further information to share.

Fornero’s obfuscatory response is the kind of response that gives politicians and bureaucrats a bad name. He had no idea whether employees wore purple on the day of the same-sex “marriage” vote? Really?

And why would he even mention Valentine’s Day? I didn’t ask whether the administration issued any directives regarding what to wear on Valentine’s Day. My question was whether the administration issued any directives regarding faculty engaging in expressive acts–including wearing particular colors–in support of a political cause.

Further, Fornero apparently expected me to believe that dozens of district employees just happened to wear purple on the day that SAGA members requested they wear purple in support of a controversial public policy issue. If I didn’t already know that he struggles with honesty, I might feel insulted by his apparent presumption that I am either stupid or gullible.

And is Fornero suggesting that the administration will “evaluate” each situation to determine which political issues teachers can express support for or opposition to?

As a District 113 community member, I am entitled to straightforward answers to the straightforward questions I asked.

Is this what we want in our public schools? Do we want teachers to promote their political views while on the government dime? Do we want teachers to exploit their access to our children to try to shape their moral and political beliefs? How do conservative students feel when the teachers who assign their grades have announced their political views on this, perhaps the most controversial topic in the country? And what would administrations and school boards think if an equal number of teachers wore paraphernalia in support of retaining sexual complementarity in the legal definition of marriage? Dueling t-shirts, what a great pedagogical concept.

Every taxpayer in every community should ask their administrators and/or members of their school boards if teachers are permitted to express their views on political issues while on the job,  including through symbolic speech like wearing buttons, armbands, bracelets, t-shirts—or the color purple.

Take ACTION:  Click HERE to send an email to to Superintendent Fornero, Principal Audris Griffith and the seven members of the District 113’s Board of Education.




The SPLC’s Newest Ideas for Public Schools

In addition to cowardice, one of the reasons that conservatives fail to oppose the myriad ways “progressives” exploit public schools to transform other people’s children into their social and political image is that we dismiss each new effort of theirs as insignificant. Such dismissiveness is proving costly.

In an effort to paint a more accurate (and therefore darker portrait) of public schools, this week I’ll  look at some recent events pertaining to public schools of which IFI subscribers may be unaware. Our hope is that these exposés will help parents (and others) understand why they must start taking a stand against the use of government schools/our taxes to affirm homosexuality and gender confusion. And one of the easiest ways to take a stand is to keep your children home from school on the Day of Silence, which is the homosexuality-affirming event sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) on Friday April 19, 2013.

Many IFI subscribers are well aware of the troubling anti-conservative hatred of the Southern Poverty Law Center which has led to its pernicious “hate groups” list that includes the Family Research Council, American Family Association, and IFI.

In keeping with the Left’s obsession with imposing their moral and political views on other people’s children, the SPLC created an “educational” arm called Teaching Tolerance. In a recent email to its subscribers, inluding countless public school teachers and administrators, they recommend that schools adopt a number of presumptuous Leftwing policies creepily called “nurturing practices.”

These are the “nurturing practices” they urge administrators, counselors, and teachers to adopt:

  • “Enforce dress codes among all students equally.  A school cannot Constitutionally (sic) forbid male students to wear dresses, for instance, if other students are allowed to wear dresses….Check your dress code today. Are there rules that apply only to some students? If so, take immediate steps to remove them from your student handbook.”
  •  “Help students whose gender is incorrectly listed on paperwork to correct the situation and ensure school staff and students address them using their preferred pronouns.”
  • “Allow each transgender or intersex student to use the restroom in which that student is most comfortable, whether it’s the gender-neutral restroom or the restroom that corresponds with the student’s self-identified gender.”
  • “Evaluate your administrative forms and communications. Do they use gender-neutral language or provide an opportunity for students to communicate their gender identity? If not, make the needed updates.”
  •  “Educate event organizers about students’ First Amendment right to attend events with a same-sex date and to wear clothing of their choice.”
  •  “Never reveal a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity without the student’s permission—even to the student’s family.”
  • “Conversion Therapy, [a]lso known as reparative or sexual reorientation therapy, this pseudo-scientific “therapy” has been denounced by all major medical and psychological associations and may cause a student great psychological harm. Educate school staff about myths perpetrated by those who conduct conversion therapy. It is impossible to “turn” an individual from gay to straight.”
  • “Prepare counselors and teachers to support students who are coping with the emotional side effects of conversion therapy.”
  • “Our article, ‘Therapy of Lies,’ http://www.tolerance.org/toolkit/toolkit-therapy-lies is a great resource for educating school staff about conversion therapy.”
  • “Religion can be a hot topic when discussing LGBT issues. All students are entitled to their religious viewpoints, but those viewpoints may not intrude on the rights of others.”
  • “Include language specifically prohibiting harassment based on nonconformity to gender norms, gender identity and gender expression. Give examples of harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation.”
  • Conduct student and teacher training once a year that discusses “The importance of diversity (including nonconformity with gender norms) in the student body.”

According to Teaching Tolerance, here are the practices that student members of homosexuality-affirming clubs (i.e., “gay-straight alliances or GSA’s) should adopt:

  • They should communicate their homosexuality-affirming views during daily announcements or school assemblies or by hanging posters on the wall.
  • They should “Publicly praise staff members who actively promote an inclusive environment.”
  • “At end-of-the-year award ceremonies,” they should “present special ‘Diversity Leader’ certificates to educators who actively promoted an inclusive school environment throughout the year.”

Some thoughts on these “nurturing practices”:

  • I will have to add “nurturing” to my growing list of words the Left is cunningly redefining. What they’re “nurturing” is compulsory affirmation of Leftwing beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality and cross-dressing. That’s not nurturing. That’s indoctrinating.
  • Someone should teach the dogmatists at Teaching Tolerance that “equality” does not mean sameness, and that treating different things differently does not constitute inequality.
  • No bullying prevention curriculum or policy specifically mentions or treats affirmatively every condition for which students may be bullied, so why should bullying prevention curricula or policies specifically mention or treat affirmatively homosexuality and gender-confusion? It’s as possible to work to eradicate bullying of homosexual students without affirming homosexuality as it is to work to eradicate bullying of promiscuous students without affirming promiscuity.
  • Teaching Tolerance expects us to believe that there are so many homosexual high school students who are homosexual and who have undergone reparative therapy and been harmed by it that public schools should spend valuable time and limited resources teaching teachers about Leftwing views of reparative therapy.
  • Can you imagine an outside organization encouraging students, teachers, and administrators to affirm conservative beliefs about heterosexuality and homosexuality in public schools? And can you imagine any conservative teacher using public resources (i.e., their jobs and curricula) to promote their views that volitional homosexual acts are harmful to those who engage in them and that widespread cultural affirmation of homosexuality will harm children, families, religious liberty, speech rights, and parental rights?

Please take a principled stand against the continued exploitation of public schools to propagandize your children with your money. Email your children’s teachers—particularly English, social studies, world language, and theater teachers—and ask them if they present any resources on issues related to homosexuality or gender confusion or if they initiate discussions on those topics. If so, ask them if they spend equal time having students study the best resources from both sides of the debate—which rarely if ever happens. Most “progressive” teachers in their infinite ignorance of all things conservative, won’t even know who the best conservative scholars, blogs, or websites are. Depending on their responses, you may want to either change teachers or opt your child out of any pro-homosexuality classroom activities.  

And finally, if your school is allowing students to refuse to speak during instructional time (that is, during classes) on Friday, April 19, 2013, keep your child home.  Read more about the Day of Silence Walkout here .


Click HERE to support the work & ministry of Illinois Family Institute.




“The Truth About Medical Marijuana” Conference in Palos Hills

Truth and Consequences of Marijuana as Medicine
 
A fact-checked, research-based discussion about marijuana and Illinois

Our speakers will sort fact from fiction about how marijuana impacts health and safety, Illinois youth, drugged driving and the workplace. They will explain what to expect if a medical marijuana law is enacted in Illinois, and how it will dramatically increase use and dependency. Join us to learn the facts.

This FREE conference on marijuana is for elected officials, educators, faith organizations, drug prevention and treatment providers, business leaders, and local governments. A complimentary lunch will be provided.

Click Here for full flyer.

The Guest Speakers are Nationally-Recognized Marijuana and Public Policy Authorities

DuPontRobert DuPont, MD
President of the Institute on Behavior and Health. He is a practicing psychiatrist and a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Georgetown University Medical School. He was founding Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). He is author of over 120 scientific articles and books on addiction and substance abuse, and is one of the world’s leading experts on addiction and treatment.

 

BarthwellAndrea Grubb Barthwell, MD, F.A.S.A.M
Founder and Medical Director of Encounter Medical Group PC and Director at Two Dreams Outer Banks Treatment Center. She was former Deputy Director for Demand Reduction at the Office of National Drug Control Policy. During her tenure, the Bush Administration widely publicized science-based facts about the dangers of marijuana use and the harms of legalization.

 

Peter_B._Bensinger_DEA_bwPeter Bensinger
President and CEO of Bensinger, DuPont & Associates, and former Administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration under Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan. He also served as Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections and Chairman of the Illinois Youth Commission. He is a recognized expert on drugs in the workplace.

 

REGISTRATION REQUIRED

Send your name, title, organization, address and phone number to ILACP@ilchiefs.org. Please call 877-244-3345 with any questions.

Moraine Valley Community College
M Building, Room 2
9000 W. College Parkway,
Palos Hills, IL 60465

April 15, 2013
10 am to 2 pm

Hosted by Educating Voices, Inc., and Illinois Partners Providing Marijuana Education.





Keep Your Kids Home on Homosexuality-Affirming “Day of Silence”

On Friday April 19, 2013 the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) is once again exploiting public schools to promote homosexuality and gender confusion as moral and normative through the political protest called the Day of Silence.

A coalition of pro-family groups* is urging parents to keep their children home from school on the “Day of Silence,” if your school is allowing students to refuse to speak in class.

GLSEN’s Day of Silence, which began on college campuses and is now disrupting the academic environment of thousands of high schools and middle schools around the country, exploits legitimate anti-bullying sentiment to undermine the belief that homosexual acts are immoral.

GLSEN shamelessly exploits teen suicide in order to falsely impute culpability for teen suicide to conservative moral beliefs.

GLSEN’s end game is the eradication of conservative moral beliefs and the creation of a social and political climate in which it is impossible to express them. Their cultural vehicle of choice for this radical social experiment is public education. What a strategic coup for homosexuals and their ideological allies: use our money to capture the hearts and minds of our children.

Efforts to exploit public education for the purpose of eradicating conservative moral beliefs are dramatically increasing every year. Homosexual activists and their allies are aggressively targeting younger and younger children through “anti-bullying” laws, policies, and curricula; through the effort to nationalize “comprehensive sex ed”; through laws mandating positive portrayals of homosexuality and gender deviance in curricula; and through events like the National Coming Out Day, Ally Week, Spirit Day, LGBT History Month, LGBT Pride Month, and the Day of Silence.

And conservatives do virtually nothing. Our complacence makes us complicit in the damage done to our children and our culture.

Moreover, we teach our children by example to be cowardly conformists. It’s time to resist and there’s no easier way to resist than to call your children out of school on the Day of Silence.

Parents and Guardians: Call your children’s middle and high schools and ask if students and/or teachers will be permitted to refuse to speak during class on Friday, April 19, 2013. If your administration allows students and/or teachers to refuse to speak during class, call your child out of school. Every student absence costs school districts money.

When administrators refuse to listen to reason and when they allow the classroom to be exploited for political purposes, parents must take action. If they don’t, the politicization of the classroom and curricula will increase.

If your administrator tells you that they do not permit students or teachers to refuse to speak in class, ask him or her how that is communicated to faculty and students and how it is enforced.

The ACLU has issued this statement to students regarding silence in class:

“You do have a right to participate in Day of Silence and other expressions of your opinion at a public school during non-instructional time: the breaks between classes, before and after the school day, lunchtime, and any other free times during your day. You do NOT have a right to remain silent during class time if a teacher asks you to speak.” 

The idea that homosexual acts are moral, good, or normative is not a fact. It is a non-factual, controversial moral belief. As such, no government employee or publicly subsidized institution has the ethical right to teach it to children implicitly or explicitly. It is entirely possible for schools to work toward the important goal of eradicating bullying without affirming or even mentioning homosexuality or gender confusion. There are many conditions for which students are bullied that are never mentioned or affirmed in public schools.

It is unconscionable that conservative parents remain silent, acquiescent, fearful non-participants in our public schools while homosexuals and their ideological allies engage continuously in vociferous, vigorous, and bold action.

Conservatives need to start acting and speaking as if we think our moral beliefs are objectively true. Conservative teachers need to create activities that require students to speak on the Day of Silence, and conservative parents need to teach their children by example to take a stand for truth.

Please call your children out of school if your administration permits students to refuse to speak on the Day of Silence. 

For further information, including parental instructions and a sample calling out letter, visit http://www.doswalkout.net/

Day of Silence WALKOUT Endorsements:

Abiding Truth Ministries

American Family Association

AFA Michigan

AFA Pennsylvania

Americans for Truth

Called2Action

Capitol Resource Institute

Christian Rights Ministries

Citizens for Community Values

Coalition of Conscience

Community Issues Council

CWA of Florida

CWA of Ohio

CWA of Texas South

CWA of Illinois

CWA of Washington

Defenders of Liberty

Don Feder, Don Feder Associates

  Faith2Action

Faith, Family & Freedom Alliance

Faith and Freedom Family Ministries

Good News Communications, Inc.

Illinois Family Institute

Informing Christians

Jimmy Z Show

Liberty Counsel

MassResistance

Matt Abbott, Catholic Columnist for Renew America

Mission: America

Montana Family Foundation

One By One

Sandy Rios, VP Family PAC-Federal

SaveCalifornia.com

 




Worried About Bullying? Be More Worried About Govt. “Fixed” Schools

 Written by Heather Wilhelm

Let’s face it: Kids can be really dumb. I know, because I was once a kid.

In kindergarten, I accidentally tied myself to a playground tetherball pole, leaving myself stranded and dangling when the recess bell rang. In sixth grade, I permed my hair into a ball of frizz — on purpose — and then proceeded, on a daily basis, to painstakingly curl my bangs into a hairspray-crusted, dinner roll-shaped aesthetic tragedy.

In high school, I decided to go skiing before actually learning how to turn, or stop. (I did, at least, remember to say, “Excuse me! Excuse me!” as I barreled into the skiers waiting in the lift line, crash-landing in a tangle of ski poles, a snow pile freshly plowed by my face.)

So, yes, kids can be dumb. But they can also, as a new book reminds us, be disturbingly mean.

In “Sticks and Stones: Defeating the Culture of Bullying and Rediscovering the Power of Character and Empathy,” Slate editor Emily Bazelon examines bullying on a national level, tracking the lives of student victims and victimizers (sometimes, as the book points out, they are one and the same) and suggesting ways for parents, kids and schools to clamp down on mean girls, “thugs in training,” and abusive peer relationships.

With such a charged topic — press coverage of several recent student suicides, for instance, rushed to blame bullying while ignoring other factors — Bazelon’s book is well-researched and even-handed, recognizing that much of the hue and cry against modern American bullies stems from media-driven sensationalism. Bullying itself, she notes, is not actually on the rise. But modern technology can certainly make it worse, expanding schoolyard teasing into 24/7 torture.

Meanwhile, horrifying school shootings like Columbine or Sandy Hook add fuel to the fire, even though those perpetrators likely suffered more from mental illness than being snubbed by the in-crowd.

Regardless, the details churn the stomach: foul language, verbal abuse, and targeted taunting are literally child’s play in many schools; more advanced bullies push, trip, assault, pee on, and cyberstalk their targets. The book introduces readers to kids with a shocking lack of empathy, who are “untethered, at school and at home,” and often face depression and other challenges. Some schools profiled by Bazelon are filled with “gangs, weapons, and drugs”; others merely host a “deep culture of combat” — and this includes the teachers.

These are, it should be emphasized, public, taxpayer-funded, government-run schools. And yet, amid a sea of guidance counselors, teachers, and administrators, funded to the tune of $14,350 per student, apparently no one in Phoebe Prince’s Massachusetts school found it alarming that a young girl with a history of depression chose to write a book report on the following tome: “Cutting: Understanding and Overcoming Self-Mutilation.”

Prince would later commit suicide, and her alleged bullies would be prosecuted by the state’s DA. One would also think that at $14,906 per student (the latest numbers from Connecticut), a young girl named Monique, facing constant persecution, would be able to freely transfer to a different school. Silly us! Of course she can’t — until a lawyer with “connections” gets involved.

These are my opinions, by the way, not Bazelon’s. “Sticks and Stones” isn’t primarily concerned with the efficient usage of tax dollars; it aims to address the problem of bullying, and for the most part, it does a good job. But when I finished the book, I wasn’t really worried about bullying. Instead, I was filled with a slow-growing dread as I comprehended the breadth of the mission creep unfolding in America’s public schools — a spectacle to which “Sticks and Stones” serves as an inadvertent, perhaps unwitting, guide.

“The behaviors we’re seeing, you wouldn’t have seen ten or fifteen years ago,” says one superintendent of a troubled school. “We’re taking on the social and emotional education of students in a way we never used to have to do.” Another principal is more blunt: “I’ve worked hard to get the staff to understand that we are the family,” he says. “We are raising these children.”

Indeed they are, and in “Stick and Stones,” Bazelon advocates that they do even more. When it comes to the bullying of gay or lesbian students, for instance, she writes, “research shows that schools have to teach not just tolerance of an alternative lifestyle — the old code for keeping homosexuality at arm’s length — but acceptance. They have to teach, early and often, that there is nothing wrong with the sexuality of gay students or with the lives they lead.”

To do that, she argues, we should start them young, putting “books such as Heather Has Two Mommies or My Princess Boy on the kindergarten or first-grade bookshelf.”

You’ll have to excuse me for a moment, as I believe few dozen capillaries just ruptured inside my head. I think we can all probably agree that the bullying of gay and lesbian students is unconscionable. I also don’t care what consenting adults do in the bedroom, and I don’t think the government should care either. But I certainly do care if you try to promote sexual content to my 5-year-old while he’s at school. (I guess the good news, if one can call it that, is that many government schools can’t teach kids to read. Take that, Princess Boy! You might as well be written in Farsi!)

This isn’t, of course, really about sex. It’s about the government’s incredible and growing reach into our lives (Michelle Obama at the Oscars, anyone?) and a prime example of classic governmental “problem solving.”

Rather than addressing bullying problems by, say, not tolerating bullying in schools, we, the bureaucracy, shall heretofore attempt to overhaul the entire social and religious system of America. Good thinking, guys! But wait: Under the “forced acceptance stops bullying” philosophy, should schools also teach that there is also nothing wrong with poor hygiene or being dangerously obese? Those kids, after all, get bullied too.

Do we also need a copy of “Bobby’s Daddy Hasn’t Showered in Sixteen Days, and He’s Bingeing on Cheetos, and That’s OK”? (By the way, I am by no means equating being gay with being overweight or odorous. This should be obvious, given the large number of gay people who are trim, well-groomed, and well-dressed, but you never know.)

The common-sense solution to bullying, of course, would be to monitor kids, discipline them in a consistent manner, and have a well-communicated zero-tolerance policy. (Bazelon, to her credit, offers a thorough profile of a program, called the Olweus method, that does just that.)

You could also teach kids that all human beings are worthy of respect and love and should not be tormented, but that might be too simple for the people who brought you Obamacare. Plus, it’s just not as fun as social engineering. “You’re asking a school to do something differently than what’s done at home and church,” Whitney Pellegrino of the Justice Department tells Bazelon. “It’s a long process.”

If that quote doesn’t scare you, nothing will. Sadly, many families appear to have checked out of the whole “child-raising” thing, and it shows. Nature, as they say, abhors a vacuum, and so, apparently, does the government’s education establishment. When families check out or disintegrate, something will move in to take their place.

In other words, meet the new parents . . . and be at least a little afraid. 


Heather Wilhelm is a writer based in Chicago. http://www.heatherwilhelm.com/




Pre-K Won’t Help Kids

Written by Phyllis Schlafly, an American constitutional lawyer, conservative activist, author, and founder of Eagle Forum.

President Barack Obama ended his State of the Union speech on a warm-and-fuzzy note by calling for Pre-K programs for almost all children. The best thing he could do for pre-kindergarten children is to make sure he doesn’t hang trillions of dollars of debt around their necks, but that isn’t the route he is taking.

Instead, Obama wants to provide government daycare for all preschoolers who live in households where the income is below approximately $47,100. He doesn’t call it daycare or baby-sitting (which is a more accurate term); he calls it early childhood education.

Early childhood education means programs for kids from birth to age three (a massively expanded Early Head Start, home visits by nurses, parental education, and health services), more of the existing Head Start (mostly for three-year-olds), more “high-quality pre-school” for four-year-olds available to every child in America, and full-day kindergarten for all.

Obama went to College Heights Early Childhood Learning Center near Atlanta to formally unveil his extravagant program. He said, “Let’s do what works and make sure none of our children start the race of life already behind.”

The daycare advocates like to cite as models for success the so-called Perry Preschool Project and the Abecedarian Project. Those two projects took place a half-century ago, using highly trained teachers under optimum conditions; one project studied only 58 3- and 4-year-old children, and the other only 57.

The proclaimed purpose of Pre-K Ed is to close the gap between kids from high-income and low-income households. The defect in Obama’s announcement is that there is no evidence that Pre-K schooling can or will accomplish that – it’s not a program “that works.”

The federal program called Head Start was created in 1965 as part of Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty. It has been running nearly 50 years, now costing $23,000 per student, and incurring a total expense of $150 billion, but it still does not provide promised benefits.

Obama likes to say he is guided by “the science,” and he claims that “study after study” shows every dollar of Pre-K “investment” (that’s the liberals’ synonym for taxes) saves seven dollars later on. Obama’s falsehood is easily refuted.

In fact, all studies show that Head Start and all the early interventions do not achieve what they promised, and any benefits “fade out” by the third grade. His own Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) did an important Head Start Impact Study tracking the progress of 3- and 4-year-olds from entering Head Start through kindergarten and first grade, and then a follow-up study on the students’ performance through the end of the third grade.

The conclusion was that Head Start had little to no effect on cognitive, social-emotional or health outcomes of participating children. The HHS report was released on the Friday before Christmas, hoping to avoid press coverage and to minimize public attention.

The principal goals of the billions of federal tax dollars poured into public schools during the George W. Bush Administration were to raise U.S. scores on international tests and to close the gap between high-income and low-income students. All that spending was a failure on both counts.

Head Start was based on the assumption that government schools can compensate children for the disadvantage of being poor. It’s time to face up to the fact that children are poor mainly because they don’t have a father provider-protector, and the problem we should address is the decline in marriage.

Obama’s Pre-K proposals are just a reprise of the perennial feminist demand for government-paid daycare. The feminists believe it’s part of the war on women by the patriarchy for society to expect mothers to care for their children, and they should be relieved of this burden by the taxpayers.

Can you believe? The feminists are still whining about President Richard Nixon’s 1971 veto of the Brademas-Mondale Comprehensive Child Development Act, which would have made daycare (now called Pre-K) a new middle class entitlement. A feminist article in the Feb. 14, 2013 New York Times claimed that Obama’s Pre-K proposal is a resurrection of Walter Mondale’s bill that was defeated under a tsunami of public opposition.

The feminists are thrilled that Obama has picked up where Mondale left off 42 years ago. Remember Mondale? He was defeated by Ronald Reagan back in 1984.

The real difference between high-achieving and low-achieving children is whether or not they live in a traditional family. There is no substitute for the enormous advantage to children of growing up in a home with their own mother and father.

A better formula for helping kids to achieve in school would be to stop giving financial handouts that operate as incentives to women to have babies without marriage.




To This Day Project

Here’s evidence that bullying can be addressed in compelling, innovative, and apolitical ways that do not introduce or affirm controversial, non-factual beliefs about homosexuality:




Homosexual Faux-Marriage and Public Education

The legal recognition of same-sex unions as marriages will have far-reaching, devastating and pernicious cultural consequences, including within our public schools. Here are some of the ineluctable changes in public education that Illinoisans can expect if “same-sex marriage” is legalized: 

  1. If Illinois legalizes “same-sex marriage,” parents can expect elementary school teachers to include homosexuality in discussions of family and marriage. 

  2. Elementary schools will not be able to keep picture books that portray homosexuality positively out of their libraries and classrooms. Those who still harbor the stereotype of librarians as conservative stuffed shirts will be surprised to learn that librarians and university programs in library science are, like teacher education programs, notoriously liberal.

    Ironically, the program one would most associate with diversity of thought and the free exploration of ideas has been actively promoting one set of ideas about homosexuality. The infamous American Library Association has been fervently soliciting homosexuality-affirming books from publishers while still making time to adopt formal positions on the legalization of same-sex marriage.

    Yes, picture books affirming homosexuality are already in many elementary school libraries, but there are libraries that have been able to keep them out. They just don’t purchase them. If Illinois changes marriage law to recognize homosexual unions as marriage, it will become more difficult for those communities that want to keep all images and ideas about homosexuality out of their schools to do so.

    Some make the absurd argument that since families led by homosexuals exist, schools must teach about them. The truth is, however, that schools have no obligation to teach about every phenomenon that exists, nor do they have to include resources that affirm every phenomenon that exists. Does anyone believe that if a student being raised by polyamorists were enrolled in a public elementary school, teachers or administrators would feel obligated to include books in their libraries that affirm polyamorous family structures? 

  3. Public schools will be hiring teachers who are in legal “homosexual marriages.” These teachers will put photos of their homosexual spouses on their desks and talk about their homosexual spouses to their students. Such images and ideas coming from teachers whom children love and admire will powerfully shape the feelings and beliefs of young boys and girls, particularly when such images and ideas are reinforced countless times in other cultural contexts. Such images and ideas will undermine what is being taught at home.

    Some will argue that schools are already hiring teachers in homosexual relationships, so the legalization of same-sex marriage won’t change anything. They are only partly correct. Although schools are, unfortunately, already hiring teachers in homosexual relationships, once the government recognizes homosexual unions as marriages, administrators and school boards—particularly in elementary schools—will have the social stigma that makes them reluctant to hire teachers in homosexual unions knocked out from under them. And this, of course, is the chief motivation for homosexuals to pursue same-sex marriage when they already have all the benefits and privileges of marriage through Illinois’ civil union law. 

  4. For years, activists within and without our public schools have been exploiting public education to advance their unproven, non-factual beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality. This will continue and intensify whether or not we change our marriage laws. But changing our marriage laws will inarguably make it more difficult to keep Leftist ideas about homosexuality in general and marriage and family in particular out of our schools. Our youngest, most impressionable children will be taught both implicitly and explicitly the following lies,  and all resources that challenge these lies will be censored as hate-filled bigotry: 
    • Children will be taught that homosexuality is normative and good. 

    • Children will be taught that homosexuality is morally equivalent to heterosexuality and equally able to contribute to human flourishing. 

    • Children will be taught that marriage has no inherent connection to either sexual complementarity or reproductive potential. 

    • Children will be taught that children do not have any inherent rights to know and be raised by a mother and a father. 

    • Children will be taught that men and women are inherently indistinguishable (Ironically, this is at odds with what homosexuals in other contexts claim. When homosexual men and women say they are only attracted to persons of the same-sex, they are implicitly acknowledging the truth that men and women are inherently different and that those differences are not merely anatomical). 

    • Children will be taught that either mothers or fathers are expendable. 

    • Children will be taught that mothers and fathers contribute nothing unique to a child’s development. 

    • Children will be taught that the government’s interest and involvement in marriage has nothing inherently to do with reproductive potential or the needs and rights of children. 

    • Children will be taught in social studies classes that including sexual complementarity in the legal definition of marriage was a violation of the civil rights of those who wanted to marry someone of their same sex. 

    • Children will be taught eventually that opposition to the legalization of “same-sex marriage” was equivalent to opposition to the legalization of interracial marriage. They will be taught that opposition to both was motivated by ignorance and hatred. 

Already liberal “educators” exploit bullying-prevention programs, sex education, and English, social studies, and theater classes to advance their personal beliefs about homosexuality. We have lost sight of the truth that no arm of the government has the right to propagate non-factual beliefs about the nature and morality of homosexuality—including public schools. 

One word about public school teachers who profess to be Christians: You are not exempt from the obligation to speak truth simply because it may cost you personally or professionally. You have an obligation to stand for truth and to protect children. Recently theologian and pastor Peter Leithart wrote about the moral obligation pastors have to stand for truth on the issue of homosexuality. He wrote that if they are not willing to endure persecution on this subject, they should get out of the business. I would argue that this moral imperative applies to Christian teachers in public schools as well. And yes, you will be hated. 

Far too many Christian teachers in public schools have stood by silently as lies and political activism have infiltrated public schools through plays, novels, essays, magazine articles, films, guest speakers, anti-bullying resources, sex education, discussions of “family diversity,” picture books, and professional development activities. Their silence ensures that in coming years the presence of homosexuality-affirming resources will be greater, the suppression of dissenting ideas greater, and the oppression of conservative teachers greater. They need to ask themselves if there’s anything they’re willing to sacrifice to protect children from lies? 

There are several obstacles that serve to prevent the public from recognizing the educational consequences of redefining marriage. First, we are an intellectually lazy culture that doesn’t want to spend any time imagining the logical outcomes of ideas, policies and laws. 

Second, we are a cowardly bunch, unwilling to express counter-cultural ideas unless we’re guaranteed that doing so will be cost-free. If we think that expressing our views to a teacher, administrator, school board, colleague, boss, friend, neighbor, member of our church, pastor, priest, lawmaker, or the local press will cost us anything, we choose self-censorship. Though the cost could be public excoriation, loss of employment, or a lawsuit, the cost we’re unwilling to pay is most often as trivial as having someone become angry with us. We should be ashamed of such cowardice. 

Anyone who proclaims that the redefinition of legal marriage will have no effect on the culture is either foolish or lying. Adopting what Robert George, Ryan Anderson and Sherif Girgis call the “revisionist view” of marriage will radically alter the cultural landscape in countless and profoundly harmful ways. 

Take ACTION:  If you haven’t yet sent an email or a fax to your state lawmakers — it is time to speak up now!  Click HERE to let them know what you think.