Category Archives: Education

Posted on by

Once again, Joe Biden thinks that girls can be boys and boys can be girls

With several conservative states imposing common sense restrictions on the participation of males in women’s sports, it’s little surprise that the #woke Biden Administration wants to overrule them. From The New York Times:

School Sports Cannot ‘Categorically’ Ban Transgender Athletes, Under Biden Proposal

The proposed rules under Title IX would give schools flexibility for “fairness in competition” or for the possibility that participation could lead to injury.

By Sarah Mervosh and Remy Tumin | Thursday, April 6, 2023 | Updated 4:47 PM EDT

UPenn Women’s Swim Team, via Instagram. It isn’t difficult to pick out the one man male in a women’s bikini top. Click to enlarge.

The Biden administration proposed a rule change on Thursday that would forbid schools from enacting outright bans on transgender athletes from teams that are consistent with their gender identities, but offered some flexibility for “fairness in competition” and other exceptions.

What does “fairness in competition” mean, and just who will be judging whether a particular local decision excluding the ‘transgendered’ from a particular women’s or girls’ sport for “fairness in competition” reasons can stand?

The proposed rule change would make “categorically” banning all transgender students from athletic teams that are consistent with their gender identities a violation of Title IX, the law that prohibits sex discrimination at educational institutions that receive federal funding.

But it would also allow K-12 schools and universities to limit the participation of transgender students when including them could undermine fairness or potentially lead to sports-related injuries.

“Every student should be able to have the full experience of attending school in America, including participating in athletics, free from discrimination,” Miguel Cardona, the U.S. Secretary of Education, said in a statement.

Also see: Deanna Fisher: Trans Violence Is Acceptable To The Left

There are a few, few sports in which males and females can compete on an even basis, sports such as curling or a university rifle team. But every sport in which physical strength, size, speed, quickness or endurance make a difference would mean that males who believe they are female are going to have a significant physical advantage over real females.

In one sense, this proposed regulation recognizes that there really are physical differences between males and females, and that those physical differences make a difference in sports.

The Department of Education said the proposal was meant to offer “much needed clarity” about how public schools, as well as colleges and universities, should handle an issue that has led to intense and often vociferous debate, particularly when it comes to the question of women’s sports.

That “intense and often vociferous debate” has occurred where it should, among the public at large and our elected representatives.

Under the proposed rules, which must undergo a period of public comment, elementary school students would generally be able to participate in school sports consistent with their gender identity. But for older students, questions of fairness and physicality could come into play.

No one really cares if boys and girls play kickball together in elementary school, but puberty changes everything. It would be nice if we had a bit more common sense in our federal government when it comes to subjects like these.

Posted on by

When public officials are too weak-willed to do the right thing

The Catholic Church’s handling of sexually abusive priests has been an enormous scandal, almost as bad as the abusive priests themselves. In far, far, far too many instances, the Church ‘handled’ the problem priests, when the dioceses became aware of them, not by reporting such to law enforcement or removing them from any duties which brought them in contact with minors, but by transferring them to other parishes, without telling parishioners why, in the frequently vain hope that the priest had somehow been reformed and wouldn’t try it again.

In Philadelphia, then-District Attorney Seth Williams brought Monsignor William Lynn to trial not for abusing any victims himself:

His trial attracted a packed courtroom full of press, priest-abuse victims and outraged Catholics, along with a few church loyalists. Lynn, the longtime secretary for clergy, was accused of sending a known predator — named on a list of problem priests he had prepared for Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua — to an accuser’s northeast Philadelphia parish.

The trial judge allowed nearly two dozen other priest-abuse victims to testify about abuse they had suffered in the archdiocese over a half century. An appeals court later said their weeks of testimony over uncharged acts were unfair to Lynn — who some saw as a scapegoat for the church, given that the bishops and cardinals above him were never charged.

Also see: Fr Gordon MacRae: Msgr William Lynn is Free and a Prosecutor is “Disgusted”

By the time of Msgr Lynn’s trial, Cardinal Bevilacqua was retired, suffering from dementia, and was unable to defend himself; that is why he was never charged.

The jury found that Msgr Lynn allowed Fr Edward Avery, who had a history of sexually abusing children, to live in a Northeast Philadelphia rectory, where he later assaulted a 10-year-old altar boy. Fr Avery pleaded guilty in the 1999 attack and was sentenced to five years in state prison.

Finally, after two separate appeals by Msgr Lynn, vacating his convictions, current District Attorney Larry Krasner, who had nothing to do with Msgr Lynn’s trial, finally offered a plea deal to end the whole farce, and Msgr Lynn pleaded no contest to “a charge of failing to turn over records to the 2002 grand jury,” and saw no further penalty; he had already served three years in state prison for the offenses of which he had been improperly convicted.

Now, why do I bring this up? It was a paragraph from this article , referred to me by Kirby McCain:

The boy was transferred out of Richneck and placed in a different institution within the district, but was allowed to return for the 2022-23 school year when he was enrolled in Zwerner’s class.

Here’s the article:

Virginia teacher shot by 6-year-old files $40M lawsuit after she says school ignored warnings

The lawsuit mentions new details about the boy, who is identified as John Doe, and an alleged pattern of troubling behavior.

by Erik Ortiz | Monday, April 3, 2023 | 7:30 AM EDT| Updated 6:10 PM EDT

Abigail Zwerner. Photo by Carlos Bernate for NBC News.

Almost three months after Virginia teacher Abigail Zwerner was shot by a 6-year-old student, she filed a $40 million lawsuit Monday alleging school administrators shrugged off multiple warnings from staff and students who believed the boy had a gun and posed an imminent threat on the day of the shooting, and did so knowing the child “had a history of random violence.”

The Jan. 6 shooting of Zwerner at Richneck Elementary School in Newport News stunned the country as police announced the child’s actions were intentional. The student shot her with a 9 mm handgun while she sat at a reading table in their first-grade classroom, according to officials.

The injured educator’s complaint, filed in the Newport News Circuit Court, says Richneck Assistant Principal Ebony Parker chose to “breach her assumed duty” to protect Zwerner, “despite multiple reports that a firearm was on school property and likely in possession of a violent individual.”

What follows is a fairly lengthy list of safety warnings ignored, which can be boiled down to this:

Lawyers for Zwerner said Monday on NBC’s “TODAY” show that the school leadership knew of at least three separate warnings that the boy was believed to have a gun and some other students reported seeing it.

The NBC News article is not behind a paywall, so you can easily see them yourself. But this is the important part:

School knew of boy’s behavioral issues

The lawsuit mentions new details about the boy, who is identified as John Doe, and an alleged pattern of troubling behavior.

While in kindergarten at Richneck in the 2021-22 school year, the boy strangled and choked a teacher and was removed from the school, according to the complaint.

That same school year, the boy also pulled up the dress of a female student who had fallen on the playground, the complaint says, and “began to touch the child inappropriately until reprimanded by a teacher.”

The boy was transferred out of Richneck and placed in a different institution within the district, but was allowed to return for the 2022-23 school year when he was enrolled in Zwerner’s class.

He was placed on a modified schedule last fall after “chasing students around the playground with a belt in an effort to whip them with it, as well as cursing at staff and teachers,” according to the complaint. At least one parent was also required to attend school with him daily “because of his violent tendencies.”

“Teachers’ concerns with John Doe’s behavior was regularly brought to the attention of Richneck Elementary School administration, and the concerns were always dismissed,” the suit says. “Often when he was taken to the school office to address his behavior, he would return to the classroom shortly thereafter with some type of reward, such as a piece of candy.”

Why was this child even allowed to be in a public school? Yes, I know he was only six years old, but he was clearly violent and out of control. Despite his age, this boy should have been institutionalized in some form. Yes, the assistant principal allegedly ignored notifications that the boy had a gun the day of the shooting, but the truth is that he should not have been in that school in the first place. That he brought a gun to school was simply the last manifestation of the problem; the problem is that he was wholly uncivilized and the teachers and administrators knew it. He was assaulting teachers and students long before he brought the gun to school.

I get it: the brat cannot be criminally charged because he’s only six years old, but, like Nikolas Cruz at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the administrators didn’t do anything about the ‘student’ because they were too soft-hearted and soft-headed and didn’t want to scar the poor dear. They simply did not do their duty to get these savages out of school entirely.

So, what will happen?

Newport News Commonwealth’s Attorney Howard Gwynn told NBC News last month that he would not seek charges against the boy, citing his age and inability to adequately understand the legal system, but said he was still weighing whether he might hold any adults criminally liable.

The family of the boy said in a statement in January that the weapon was “secured” in the home and that they have “always been committed to responsible gun ownership and keeping firearms out of the reach of children.”

The family also said the boy has an acute disability and was receiving the “treatment he needs” under a court-ordered temporary detention at a medical facility.

A bit late for that! Note that the “temporary detention at a medical facility” was ordered by the court, after the boy’s criminality became publicly known; if the school system had ever sought such a thing before he shot his teacher, it has not been reported. But my question is: if the Commonwealth’s Attorney is still considering whether any adults should be charged, is he weighing this only concerning the little savage’s parents, or are the school administrators who failed to take any serious action also being considered for charges? That is what happened to Msgr Lynn, and if Seth Williams went overly broad in his prosecution, and Judge Teresa Sarmina allowed it, such that the convictions were thrown out on appeal, Msgr Lynn and Cardinal Bevilacqua still did nothing positive to stop the sexual abuse of minors in the Archdiocese.

Msgr Lynn’s trial and convictions should have put the fear of the law into other diocesan officials; charging the school administrators in Newport News who took so many wrong decisions in this case would send a message to schools everywhere to not just ignore threats such as this kid, or they just might wind up behind bars themselves.

Posted on by

Trying too hard? The Philadelphia Inquirer tries to put lipstick on a pig.

As we have previously reported, the shooting of seven people near Strawberry Mansion High School has led parents of students at another school whose children were going to be transferred to Strawberry Mansion due to asbestos remediation to protest that vigorously, claiming that the Mansion was inherently unsafe. When the transfer actually happened, only 28 students actually showed up at Mansion.

So now The Philadelphia Inquirer is telling us what a great school Strawberry Mansion is!

Strawberry Mansion High School continues to fight an old reputation. But students say the school is an oasis.

“We will meet our students where they are, and really work to get them to their highest potential,” Strawberry Mansion Principal Brian McCracken said.

by Kristen A Graham | Monday, March 13, 2023 | 5:00 AM EDT

When Patience Wilson shares with people that she attends Strawberry Mansion High School, they often shake their heads and tell her all the bad things they’ve heard about her school.

But Wilson, a smiley 17-year-old senior, knows the real Mansion, the one behind the hasty headlines and deep-seated stereotypes.

The real Mansion, she says, is different: a place where students can start on a path to a building trades career, partner with nonprofits, spend their lunchtime in clubs and activities, and have access to trips, career and technical education programs, college classes, and adults who surround them with expectations and supports and love — no matter where they’re coming from or how long they’re able to stay.

“People usually judge us based on what’s happened in the past. But they’re not focusing on what’s happening right now,” said Wilson.

Reporter Kristen Graham focuses on Philadelphia schools, and it’s a good thing that the newspaper has someone who does that with such a large public school system. Mrs Graham then began to tell us about the school’s problems:

For years, Strawberry Mansion has fought on several fronts: against the challenges of its surroundings (the neighborhood has the highest number of shootings this year in the city; a full 52% of children under 18 in the immediate area live in poverty, according to Philadelphia and federal data), against a mismatch between available funding and concentrated student need.

It’s coped with a system that, because it emphasizes choice, has made things tougher for comprehensive high schools, which accept all students who walk in the door. Less than 10% of the students who live in Mansion’s attendance zone go to the school, according to district data, and those who do tend to be the most vulnerable.

I’m actually impressed that these two paragraphs were placed where they were, fifth and sixth in the story, because much of the remainder of the story is extremely positive about the school itself. But when Mrs Graham tells us that the neighborhood has the highest number of shootings in the city so far this year — and plenty of them in previous years — one thing is obvious: the concerns that the Building 21 parents raised are valid: it doesn’t matter how great a school might be if the students are getting shot!

There are several more paragraphs telling readers — and the newspaper didn’t restrict it to subscribers only, so if you don’t have too many Inquirer story reads, you can access it online — what the school has been doing to try to be better, almost to the point of pro-Mansion propaganda, Mrs Graham comes to this point:

On paper, Mansion’s statistics are startling: By the district’s measure, last year, 41% of the school’s ninth graders were on track to graduation. Just 9% met state standards in reading, 2% in math.

But the intense needs of Mansion’s students mean those numbers require lots of context. Consider the student who’s never been identified as requiring special-education services but who reads at a second-grade level. Or the teen whose attendance and grades are spotty but recently had been removed from his family’s care and now lives with a foster family, whom the school can’t reach.

If fewer than half, barely 41%, of freshmen are on a path to graduation, a figure I find questionable if “(j)ust 9% met state standards in reading, 2% in math,” it’s difficult for me to see how the school is doing its job. If there are students, in a high school, who need “special education services” going unnoticed by teachers when reading at the “second-grade level,” how are readers supposed to believe that the teachers are doing a good job? How would the parents of the displaced Building 21 students ever think that Strawberry Mansion High School is a good place to send their kids even without the question of violence in the neighborhood?

You know, I get it: Mrs Graham wanted to inform readers of the good things happening at Mansion, and pointed out several things that are supposed to be good, about vocational education to get some students into trades which don’t require college, several things telling readers how hard the school under principal Brian McCracken is trying. But when fewer “than 10% of the students who live in Mansion’s attendance zone go to the school,” it’s an inescapable fact: parents and students, people who are most familiar with the neighborhood and the school, are voting with their SEPTA passes, voting against the place. With fewer than 10% of the students in the school’s attendance zone going there, is it any surprise that the parents of the Building 21 students don’t want their kids there?

Posted on by

If this isn’t #grooming, then what is it?

As we have previously noted, the Central Bucks School Board required teachers, administrators and staff to use students’ proper names, references and pronouns as recorded in school records, unless the individual student’s parents approved a change, and is removing materials with sexualized content from school libraries. Of course, the homosexual lobby are just spittle-flecked with rage, claiming that this discriminates against homosexual, bisexual, and ‘transgender’ students, as though normalizing and promoting homosexuality and ‘transgenderism’ is some sort of civil right, and not an attempt at grooming.

So now, the Biden Administration is getting into the act, wanting to advance grooming of abnormal sexual orientations. From The Washington Post:

Are book bans discrimination? Biden administration to test new legal theory.

The federal government is investigating a Texas school district over its alleged removal of books featuring LGBTQ characters

by Hannah Natanson | Friday the 13th, January 2023 | 6:00 AM EST

The federal government has opened an investigation into a Texas school district over its alleged removal of books featuring LGBTQ characters — marking the first test of a new legal argument that failing to represent students in school books can constitute discrimination.

The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights is investigating the Granbury Independent School District, department spokesman Jim Bradshaw said this month. The probe is based on a complaint of discrimination lodged last summer by the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, said ACLU attorney Chloe Kempf. Continue reading →

Posted on by

Central Bucks School District is doing the right thing

I am pretty sure that The Philadelphia Inquirer and Devontae Torriente, a student at the University of Pennsylvania’s Carey Law School would approve of Central Bucks School Board’s Policy 321, on restricting “Partisan, Political, or Social Policy Advocacy Activities” if it was aimed at preventing teachers from hanging MAGA banners or wearing golf shirts with DeSantis for President on them. It goes without saying — though I’ll say it anyway — that the Inky and Mr Torriente would say that a teacher, staffer, or administrator posting Bible verses or flags or banners promoting a particular religion should not be allowed.

Central Bucks’ new policy is an ‘anti-LGBTQ crusade’

I was once a closeted queer student in high school. Everyone who believes in freedom, equality, and fairness must do all that we can to defeat these policies. Children’s lives depend on it.

by Devontae Torriente, For The Inquirer | Thursday, January 12, 2023 | 12:00 PM EST

Devontae Torriente, from his UPenn Law School biography. Click to enlarge.

As a queer person in America, I am deeply troubled by the attacks on the LGBTQ community happening across the country. The anti-LGBTQ crusade has made its way to Pennsylvania and is now on display in the Central Bucks School District — one of the largest in the state.

Since Mr Torriente self-identifies as “queer”, I trust that I am able to use the description as well?[1]Actually, I chose not to use the term.

On Tuesday, the Central Bucks school board passed Policy 321, which the board named the “Partisan, Political, or Social Policy Advocacy Activities” policy. In a 6-3 vote, the board decided to ban teachers from hanging Pride flags and other types of “advocacy.”

The policy serves to target and further marginalize LGBTQ students in the school district. Even though the proposed policy makes no explicit mention of LGBTQ status, there should be no confusion about who it targets.

I was once a closeted queer student in high school. I know firsthand the mental and emotional toll that being forced into the shadows can take. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. This is why everyone who believes in freedom, equality, and fairness must do all that we can to defeat these policies. Children’s lives depend on it.

In this, the author conflates his deciding to remain “closeted” in high school with teachers not being allowed to hang homosexual ‘pride’ flags or banners in their classrooms. He still had the choice to disclose his homosexuality, and, in the middle of the last decade that would hardly have been controversial. There might have been students who would cease associating with him, some who would mock or bully him, but that has nothing to do with Central Bucks teachers not being able to advocate for, or against, tolerance of homosexuals.

No, Mr Torriente wants the public schools to advocate for the normalization of homosexuality. But that is clearly a political position, and a position with which some people disagree.

The policy is dangerous because, as the Education Law Center argued in an October letter to the school board, the policy will have a “harmful and chilling effect” on classrooms in the school district.

An updated version of the proposal — posted last month by the Bucks County Courier Times — prohibits school district employees from advocating to students “any partisan, political, or social policy issue.” The proposal does not specify what this means, but prohibits “flag, banner, poster, sign, sticker, pin, button, insignia, paraphernalia, photograph, or other similar material” related to these partisan, political, or social policies. (The American and Pennsylvania flags are exempt.)

This ambiguity, however, is no accident; it is the point. Because it is unclear what type of speech or actions are prohibited — and because teachers’ jobs are on the line if they violate the policy — many teachers will err on the side of caution, and avoid discussing sexual orientation and gender identity altogether.

And that is exactly the way it should be! The public schools should not be discussing “sexual orientation and gender identity” at all; those are personal matters, which teachers and staff ought not to be engaging with young and impressionable students. As we have previously noted, the school board required teachers, administrators and staff to use students’ proper names, references and pronouns as recorded in school records, unless the individual student’s parents approved a change. This was done to avoid legal repercussions if a particular student wanted to claim he was the opposite sex, and his parents sued the school for ‘enabling’ gender transition.

The author takes the position — without saying it explicitly — that acceptance of “LGTBQ” status is somehow beyond the range of political or religious debate, but that is clearly wrong. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, in their various denominations, are all based on religious laws which state that homosexual activity is inherently sinful, and if not all priests, ministers, rabbis and imams of those religions are willing to go along with that, many are. Mr Torriente wants the public schools to take a position which contradicts the religious faiths of many families. That some people’s political positions, regardless of their religious faith, or lack thereof, do not accept homosexuality or transgenderism as reasonable or acceptable, is clearly and obviously known, and the author wants to use the public schools to fight that political position.

The public schools must, of course, enforce the law: students who assault or bully others over their sexual orientation are just as much in violation of school rules and state law as assault or bullying over anything else. We have seen the results of a school board which did not enforce the rules and report to law enforcement an in-school assault by Nikolas Cruz; I am absolutely in favor of serious and strict enforcement of those rules and laws. But the public schools, with their legally captive audiences, should not be in the business of pushing political or religious positions. The Central Bucks school board is doing the right thing.

References

References
↑1 Actually, I chose not to use the term.
Posted on by

More public school failure in Kentucky

Linda Blackford is a long-time columnist for the Lexington Herald-Leader, and, despite being a long-time Kentuckian, she’s liberal to her core. We have previously noted the newspaper’s endorsements, and they are all to the left:

The voters of the Sixth District, and of Kentucky as a whole, rejected every one of the newspaper’s endorsements.

Come 2023, they’ll endorse Governor Andy Beshear, he who unconstitutionally suspended the free exercise of religion and freedom of peaceable assembly in 2020, for re-election, and in 2024, whichever Democrat runs for the Sixth District seat, assuming he’s not a kook like this year.

So I’ll admit it: even though I am subscribing to what my best friend used to call the Herald-Liberal, I don’t usually pay much attention to Mrs Blackford’s columns. I did, however read this one, in which she pushed for the Fayette County School Board to select “a person of color who understands what many of our students face in school”, as the replacement for Christy Morris, who resigned her position. The usual race-based drivel followed, and was mostly unremarkable and unimportant. There was, however, one very important statistic given:

Students of color make up about 53 percent of students, while about 48.5 percent of all students are considered low income.

Really? The Fayette County Public Schools are 53% “students of color”? According to the Census Bureau, a full 70.0% of Fayette County’s population are non-Hispanic white, with another 2.8% being white, but Hispanic as well. Perhaps they are being counted as “students of color”, “brown” perhaps, the way the left do these days. But it has to be asked: if Fayette County’s population are 70% non-Hispanic white, why are the public schools majority “students of color”?

Let’s face it: private schools are expensive! I know, as we put our girls in parochial schools for part of the time. Sayre School is the hoitiest and toitiest of the private schools in Lexington, with the high school tuition being $26,625 per year. That’s more than tuition at the University of Kentucky’s College of Law!

Lexington Catholic High School’s tuition is significantly lower, at $11,170 for one student, if the family are Catholic parishioners, and $13,690 for non-Catholics. That’s a significant chunk of change that people have been willing to pay rather than send their kids to the Fayette County public schools. In very liberal Lexington — Fayette Countians gave 59.25% of their votes to Joe Biden in 2020, in a year when Kentuckians as a whole voted to re-elect President Trump, 62.09% to 36.15% — much of the white population have rejected the public schools.

And today, the state Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a Republican plan to assist poorer families to afford private schools.

Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto of the bill was overridden with a slim 51-member majority in the House.

In his veto message, Beshear said the bill would “harm public education in Kentucky by taking money away from public schools.” In a post to Twitter on Thursday, the governor took his message a step further. He compared the EOA law to the newly passed law funding charter schools in Kentucky.

“Today’s ruling by the Kentucky Supreme Court couldn’t be more clear: state funding for private or charter schools is unconstitutional – period. It’s time for the General Assembly to invest in our public schools, our teachers and our children,” Beshear wrote.

Fayette County Public Schools argued against the law, saying that it stripped resources away from its schools and students.

The Kentucky Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, celebrated the ruling.

“This decision protects the power of the people to decide important questions of public education policy and holds the legislature to account to uphold their oath to support and defend the Kentucky Constitution… We simply can’t afford to support two different education systems — one private and one public — on the taxpayers’ dime, and this ruling supports that concern. This decision is proof that the courts continue to serve as an important check against legislative overreach,” KEA President Eddie Campbell wrote.

So, what do we have? The state Supreme Court’s ruling that the law was unconstitutional may well be fundamentally correct based on the state constitution, but the fact remains that, in the Commonwealth’s wealthiest county, about as many families who can afford to send their children someplace other than the Fayette County public schools are choosing to do so. Even before the law was passed — it never took effect because Franklin County Judge Phil Shepherd, a Democrat and stooge of Governor Beshear, issued an injunction against it — parents in Lexington who could afford it were voting against the public schools with their private school choices. They were still being taxed to support the public schools, but sure didn’t want to send their own kids there.