Indoctrinate U-You Will Be Assimilated!

So say the Stalinists at the University of Minnesota, according to Katherine Kersten:

In a report compiled last summer, the Race, Culture, Class and Gender Task Group at the U's College of Education and Human Development recommended that aspiring teachers there must repudiate the notion of "the American Dream" in order to obtain the recommendation for licensure required by the Minnesota Board of Teaching. Instead, teacher candidates must embrace -- and be prepared to teach our state's kids -- the task force's own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic.

Read the whole thing. And while you're at it, if your insides can take it, read the document upon which Kersten's article is based.

While matriculating at the School of Arts & Sciences back at UW-Eau Claire in 1988, there was a mandatory prerequisite for graduation called, "Human Relations." True to liberal doublespeak form, rather than being a class that centered on how relationships are formed, it was a wall-to-wall, semester-long diatribe about how whitey was oppressing everyone else. Every week, a guest speaker from the "victim group" du jour would walk into class, grab the podium, and bash every white male student in the room as to how they were oppressing the victim class, simply by breathing.

The only saving grace regarding the "Human Relations" course was that when you were done with all the nonsense you could go about your life and leave the hoop behind. Back then, they didn't actually demand an oath of loyalty to that rubbish as a prerequisite to earn a livelihood.

To wit:

The first step toward "cultural competence," says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize -- and confess -- their own bigotry. Anyone familiar with the reeducation camps of China's Cultural Revolution will recognize the modus operandi.

The task group recommends, for example, that prospective teachers be required to prepare an "autoethnography" report. They must describe their own prejudices and stereotypes, question their "cultural" motives for wishing to become teachers, and take a "cultural intelligence" assessment designed to ferret out their latent racism, classism and other "isms." They "earn points" for "demonstrating the ability to be self-critical."

The task group opens its report with a model for officially approved confessional statements: "As an Anglo teacher, I struggle to quiet voices from my own farm family, echoing as always from some unstated standard. ... How can we untangle our own deeply entrenched assumptions?"

And what of those who resist? Well, as they, as they say, "Haff ways..."

The task group has Orwellian plans for such rebels: The U, it says, must "develop clear steps and procedures for working with non-performing students, including a remediation plan."

I wonder if the "remediation" plan includes being sent to a 're-education' camp.

And what of the great unwashed who managed to escape the ivory tower all-seeing eye of the diversity police at U of M in past years without the benefit of their all-knowing indoctrination?

"Requir[e] training/workshop for all supervisors. Perhaps a training session disguised as a thank you/recognition ceremony/reception at the beginning of the year?"

Well Komrades, nothing left to do now but cue the music!!

In the Belly of the Beast...

It has been said, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." In that spirit, I attended an Education Minnesota political action workshop in St. Paul this weekend. To say that I felt like a fish out of water would be a gross understatement. To be fair, a number of my colleagues were there, whom I consider to count as friends and good people. But (not surprisingly) despite claims of nonpartisanship, the proceedings were anything but. The keynote speaker of the event was none other than Congressman Tim Walz. (click here for the entire speech)
Basically, it was a boilerplate stump speech, but since Mr. Walz considered himself among friends, he probably said a few things he many not have otherwise said.

A former social studies teacher himself, Walz stated that he began his teaching career teaching in the People's Republic of China (for reasons I'll explain later, I'm not surprised). Walz spoke of the impetus for his running for Congress. Specifically, he told of a time when he took two of his students to meet President Bush in Washington. Walz stated that his two students were not allowed to see the President because one of them had a John Kerry for President sticker. He related that he immediately called his wife and told her that he wanted to run for congress.

With respect to Obamacare, Walz first proclaimed "There are no death panels." Walz then went on to explain how his vote for Obamacare was a "proud vote" and an "easy vote" to cast. He went on to rail against the Tea Party movement, saying he was relieved to finally speak in front of a group "that wasn't swearing at (him)" He described the Tea Party movement as motivated and organized, but motivated "for the wrong reasons." He stated, dripping with condescension, that he was "amazed" at how many people had become "Constitutional scholars" during the month of August. Walz proclaimed that the Tea Party folks were "motivated to use the Constitution as a wall." (well, Congressman, that's exactly what the Constitution is, is a wall of protection of the people and limits the powers of government). With regard to the "Read the Bill" signs, Walz stated he read the bill," and that a Tea Party attendee then stated, "It's over 2000 pages," to which Walz reportedly retorted, "So I guess the Berenstain Bears are superior to The Grapes of Wrath, because it has fewer pages."

To me, it was amazing that a guy who served over 20 years in the National Guard could so cavalierly speak of the document which he swore an oath to protect. Walz also didn't miss the chance to take gratuitous swipes at Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, as well as at his predecessor, Congressman Jim Ramstad. Walz did state that he felt that the governor's race was the most important race in Minnesota, and that he would release his entire campaign staff to work to have the endorsed DFL candidate elected governor.

After Walz spoke, it was off to congressional-district breakout sessions, where attendees were shown the DFL caucus process, and how attendees could get themselves elected as delegates. They stated that although they were cough non-partisan, they chose the DFL process because there were reportedly no Republican candidates who bothered to fill out the Ed MN candidate screening form.

I must say, however, that all was not lost. The next morning there was an outreach session held to accommodate the few Republican attendees at the convention. During that session (which was attended by some democrats, as well) an Education Minnesota Republican Caucus was formed, with around 30 signatories, including myself (there were between 300 and 400 total attendees to the convention proper). The stated aim of the caucus is to bring education issues to the Republican party. But again, one of the session organizers, who I believe was himself a fairly liberal democrat, brought up the issue of getting rid of Charter Schools and Home Schools (which I happen to be for; as I believe competition to be an important factor in increasing the quality of education), and exhorted us to bring the issue to the Republican platform.

Yes, I'm a public school educator. But I'm first and foremost an American, and I realize that not everything that is in the self-serving interest of public school educators is compatible with what is in the interest of America as a nation. I just wish the union and educators in general would recognize that, as well.

Well, Rome wasn't built in a day. The educational agency for which I work didn't organize into a union until just over a year ago. While I was against joining a union, as long as it was going to be thrust upon me, I decided that if I was for all intents and purposes going to join a union, I would have a say in how it's run. I therefore became our local's vice president last year, and I am secretary this year.

As I always say, the future belongs to those who show up. One could sit and whine and complain until the cows come home. But it is the one that becomes involved that can ultimately actually make a difference. Since we ultimately have a stake in the outcomes in terms of how traditionally liberal leaning organizations operate, it is our duty as conservatives to take a seat at the table once in a while and say, "Not so fast, here!"

I hope that more conservatives will consider getting involved, as well.

Defining the word "Miracle" down...

We've all seen or heard of miracles in our lifetimes. The miraculous healing of a sick friend with cancer; the parting of the Red Sea by Moses; the miracle of the five loaves and two fishes.

Now a Minnesota legislator has somehow gathered the gonads to dub increased spending of taxpayer dollars without accountability as a "miracle."

From an internal MN House email:

Dear Colleagues,

The New Minnesota Miracle education finance reform bill is outside my office (381) for signatures. This is the bill stemming from the Governor's education finance reform task force and the P.S. Minnesota report. It equitable and adequately provides funding so all students, no matter where they live and what their challenges are, have the opportunity to graduate from high school ready for success in college, university, technical schools or to go straight into a good job. The House K-12 Education Finance Division held numerous hearings around the state last summer and fall on this bill and received rave reviews in every area of the state. It is scalable, so can be phased in with a little or a lot of funding. Either way, it provides accountability guideposts to measure how our state is doing by our students.

Mindy Greiling

Hmm... accountability guideposts... does that mean that there will be accountability attached to student performance a/la higher achievement scores? Will there be new goals to strive for to provide taxpayers and taxpaying parents measures of the effectiveness of educational programming and the money spent on it?

Hmm... if that's the case, it might not be such a bad thing.

But wait a minute.

Considering the Newspeak that we have come to know by which liberals re-define the English language, using such terms as "contributions" or "investments" to mean "tax increases," or "reproductive health" or "choice" to connote abortion, I felt compelled to ask Ms. Greiling exactly what she meant by the words, accountability guideposts. The exchange went as follows:

[Dear Representative Greiling],

You had mentioned "accountability guideposts" contained in the (381)Minnesota Miracle Education Bill.

Could you please expand on what the accountability guideposts would entail?

Thank you so much--

Leo Pusateri
School Psychologist

To which Ms. Greiling responded:

What I meant was that progress on funding adequacy will be openly measured by the public, by viewing at what pace we phase in the bill.

So, in other words, in Ms. Greiling's Newspeak vernacular, the term "accountability guidepost" has absolutely nothing to do with accountabilty geared toward greater student achievement. Rather, the word "accountability guidepost" has to do with how much money they--the government (via Joe Taxpayer) throws at education.

Some miracle.

Now if the Minnesota DFL Party would actually think about more efficient use of the money they already had and gear that money toward proven techniques that translate into greater student achievement, perhaps then, and only then, could it be termed, "The Minnesota Miracle."

The road to hell...

...Is apparently not only paved with 'good intentions' but with gold, as well...

Students in the $6 billion Reading First program have not made greater progress in understanding what they read than have peers outside the program, according to a congressionally mandated study.

The final version of the study, released yesterday by the U.S. Department of Education, found that students in schools that use Reading First, a program at the core of the No Child Left Behind law, scored no better on comprehension tests than students in similar schools that do not get the funding.

"It is a program that needs to be improved," said Grover J. "Russ" Whitehurst, director of the Institute of Education Sciences, the department's research arm. "I don't think anyone should be celebrating that the federal government has spent $6 billion on a reading program that has had no impact on reading comprehension."

In all fairness, the program was not found to be totally without merit

Whitehurst said the study showed some benefits. First-graders in Reading First classrooms were better able to decode, or recognize, printed words than students in schools without the program. Decoding is a key step in learning to read.

But simply teaching decoding skills in and of itself doesn't lead children to approach reading critically, nor to read for meaning (a skill sadly absent given today's schools' propensity toward indoctrination vs. education). But the money quote here is the long-honored government approach of putting good money after bad, in spades (emphases mine):

Reading First, though popular with educators, has been tarnished by allegations of conflicts of interest and mismanagement in recent years. Federal investigators have found that some people who helped oversee the program had financial ties to the publishers of Reading First materials.

Education Secretary Margaret Spellings has assured lawmakers that measures were taken to prevent future management troubles.

"Reading First helps our most vulnerable students learn the fundamental elements of reading while helping teachers improve instruction," Spellings said. "Instead of reversing the progress we have made by cutting funding, we must enhance Reading First and help more students benefit from research-based instruction."

Apparently, Margaret Spellings never got the memo that the program isn't working in the first place!! Given the now apparently dismal results of Reading First, perhaps reversing that so-called 'progress' would be a good thing. Despite its success in teaching early decoding skills, putting additional funding into Reading First in its present form is much akin to paying full price for a Rolls Royce with one axle, putting caviar in the gas tank, and expecting it to take you to work.

Why would a United States Department of Education Secretary not only extoll and defend the virtues of a $6 billion failed program as beneficial in terms of research-based instruction, but actually call for its expansion, when the research itself indicates that the program doesn't work??

Somehow, either the time-honored definition of insanity or abject waste of taxpayer monies borne of greed (or both) are at work here.

At any rate, this program is proof positive, IMO, that allowing a federal bureaucracy to run our educational system is about as effective as having Stevie Wonder run an air traffic control center.

Strib gets an F- for still being clueless...

The folks at the Strib have reached a new height low in cluelessness with this one:

State gets D+ for aid to teachers

A national study says Minnesota hasn't done enough to improve the quality of teaching its students.

By NORMAN DRAPER and JAMES WALSH, Star Tribune

Last update: January 9, 2008 - 8:28 PM

Anyway, you probably have an idea where this is going, so I'll cut to the chase:

On the plus side, the "Quality Counts" report showed that Minnesota students' chances for success based on education and family factors far outstrip those of students in most states. In that category, Minnesota got a B+, and ranked seventh nationwide.

Alas, my dear readers--never let good news get in the way of a hit piece:

But those findings, based on such factors as family income, parent education and parent employment, suggest that students' home lives have as much to do with their success as their schooling.

Thank you Captains Obvious! Like that's some kind of revelation or something. Here's a bozo button for your efforts:

Your mothers must be proud.

But that's what happens when you have a couple of statists a la Norman Draper and James Walsh, who believe that the state should parent children. They blame parents for their childrens' successes; like it's a badge of dishonor that they're involved.

Word to Draper and Walsh: Success in education is next to impossible without parent support. The parents are the first and foremost teachers of their children. Not the school; Not the state; but PARENTS. If the parents don't value education, neither will their kids, no matter how much money you throw into education. And, speaking of money,

Still, it's the finding that Minnesota has fallen to near the bottom of the pack when it comes to teaching that was most startling. The state's low ranking comes mostly from a lack of various teaching programs and effectiveness measures that other states have.

When you can draw a direct causal line between those "programs" and teaching effectiveness, we'll talk.

For instance, Minnesota was docked for not having a statewide program to reduce class sizes, for paying teachers less than what workers in comparable professions are paid, and for not linking student achievement to teacher evaluations.

Here's something else for you to chew on Mssrs. Draper and Walsh: teaching is a calling. It's not everyone that's cut out for, nor has the desire to work with kids. Teaching is, in many ways, its own reward, and teachers wouldn't be in it if it were only for pay. And if someone isn't cut out for it, a high salary isn't going to keep him there teaching. And even if it does, you don't want someone who's in it just for the money to be teaching your kids.

Don't get me wrong, being in education myself, I wouldn't mind a fat paycheck. But I couldn't imagine doing anything else with my life, either.

And of course, all this talk has the usual suspects out making political hay with the issue:

State Rep. Mindy Greiling, DFL-Roseville, and chairwoman of the House K-12 finance division, argued that such findings show that "the chickens have come home to roost" in terms of the state's inadequate funding of education.

The problem, Ms. Greiling, is not underfunding the schools. The problem, Ms. Greiling, is quite simply the notion that schools are trying to stuff five pints of mud down a three-pint jar. Politicians and parents alike are increasingly trying to abdicate more and more parental responsibility on the schools. Clarion calls, such as "We need sex education in the schools! We need multicultural gender-fair, disability- aware (and every other P.C. liberal cause du jour) education in the schools! We need consumer education in the schools!" are legion.

And the schools are equally to blame; for they not only accept this increasing parental responsibility, but they largely act as if they're actually equipped for the task. In return, what you get is a curriculum that's a mile wide and a millimeter deep.

And then they sit and wonder why Johnny can't read nor write.

There's only so much you can do in a 7 1/2 hour day, Rep. Greiling.

You want to fix education? Quit having people in Washington, D.C. and in St. Paul who don't know jack about education making unworkable and unfunded mandates, rules and regulations that are more about anal paperwork than they are about educating children. Quit having those same yahoos asking the schools to continue to do that which they are ill-equipped to do; mainly, to be babysitters and parents for kids whose biological parents are too lazy or too afraid to actually be parents.

It doesn't take a village to raise a child. Villages do a horrible job of raising children.

Rather, it takes committed parents who are willing to invest time and effort in getting their kids ready and willing to learn during the time they're in school as well as to hold their children accountable for keeping up with their studies. Additionally, it takes parents who are willing to take back the responsibility for raising their children that was abdicated to the school districts.

Parents are the ones who should be teaching their kids about sexuality and values, not the State.

Parents, not the State, are the ones who should be teaching their kids their values. Period.

And, above all, it should be parents, not the State who discipline their child. Of everything that parents have abdicated to the State, the right to discipline their child has been the most detrimental. In my practice, I've seen more than my share of parents afraid to discipline their child (I'm talking corporal punishment--not beating here); under the fear that they'll be reported to the school or to the police (along with a share of kids who aren't afraid to do it).

So, Norman Draper and Steve Walsh, next time you want to write a hit-piece about how we're underfunding schools in Minnesota, you may want to take a deeper look into the actual causes of our educational woes.

Until then, I've no choice but to give you two clowns a F- for your level of factual reporting.