RSS Feed

February, 2014

  1. Teacher Training Under Increasing Scrutiny

    February 23, 2014 by Tunya

     

    “Transformation” is the “IN” word for changes to school curriculums in a good number of Western nations in this, the 21st Century.

    Some changes are occurring simply to stay in tune with changing technology — and to capitalize on its ability to assist learning and teaching.

    Some changes are being prescribed for purposes of globalization — employment, trade, peace, understanding of different cultures, etc.

    Other changes such as come under names as Common Core or Personalized Learning or 21st Century Skills are presumed shifts being imposed to change mindsets in preparation for more central control, either by nations themselves and/or United Nations style of world governance.

    Yet other changes are originating directly from teacher training facilities for left-wing ideological and political purposes.

    It is the latter change that is now gaining some concentrated appraisal as being out of step with what a democracy purports to be about, that is, informed citizens consenting to their governance structures. That is, NOT having one political philosophy implanted into a population through compulsory monopoly government schools.

    Here are just three recent signals that teacher training will be under greater examination in the future:

    1  Denver, Colorado, school system is training new teachers in new ways for their expanding demands, ways that will speed up the process and avoid politicized teachers: “Universities and colleges design their teacher training programs to stress radical left-wing social and political ideals, just like the unions. The colleges are also generally pro-union and work to instill that idea in students.”

    http://eagnews.org/denver-schools-operating-alternative-teacher-training-programs-for-professionals-who-want-to-switch-to-the-classroom/

    2  Australia has just announced —Education Panel to Review “Faddish” Teach Training. Feb 20, 2014

    “‘And there is evidence that our teacher education system is not up to scratch. We are not attracting the top students into teacher courses as we once did, courses are too theoretical, ideological and faddish, not based on the evidence of what works in teaching important subjects like literacy.’‘

    http://www.bordermail.com.au/story/2100816/education-panel-to-review-faddish-teacher-training/?cs=24

    3  The Lexington Institute, Lexington, Virginia has produced a study: Radicalization of Teacher Education Programs in the United States, 2012.

    “ . . .do parents who entrust their children to the government-controlled schools have a clue about the radical agendas that many ed-schools are pushing upon teacher candidates? . . . so it is that schools gradually concentrate less on their traditional mission of teaching useful academic skills and factual knowledge, and more on leftist indoctrination of the nation’s youth and radical transformation of schools and society.” (4,5)

    http://free.download2.net/r/radicalization-of-teacher-education-programs-in-the-united-states-e1921-pdf.pdf

    The Lexington Report is direct, gives names, texts, and considerable evidence of the pervasiveness of this left-wing project.  Worth a serious read if you care about your children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. 


  2. fight or flight – parents & education

    February 22, 2014 by Tunya

    Monty Roberts, horse whisperer, in his book says living beings have two responses to a challenge — fight or flight.

    Parents, on the whole, I find would rather flee than be involved in confrontation.  Sure, they want to advocate for their child, but if they have a choice, they will leave.

    Far too often advocating or just asking simple questions the parents is made to feel inadequate or simple-minded.

    On the other hand, I think teachers and the bureaucracy are "fight" minded.  They defen or rather seem "defensive"/

    Public education is really a scarce resource, and any extra but needed services are rationed out.  They usually go to the insiders first.  

    These are some of the reasons we need a lot more choices in public education.

     

     

     

     

     

     


  3. “Duty” Trumps “rights”

    February 21, 2014 by Tunya

    Erosion, usurpation, of parent rights has been going on a long time.  From public school sytems, from government agencies, from voluntary organizations, and especially from increasing literature challenging parental primacy in education.  And to be especially noted, from universities and faculties of education, sociology, anthropoilogy, ethnography, eco-psychology, political science, etc.

     

    Biologically, practicaly every creature on this EARTH has been endowed with an instinctual sense to bring their YOUNG to a state of SELF-SUFFICIENCY. 

    This is why the matter of DUTY trumping RIGHTS is important to uinderstand.

     


  4. Family Right to Education Choice #1

    February 20, 2014 by Tunya

    For a copy of Parent Rights in the Education of Their Children see:  http://genuine-education-reform-today.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/PARENT_RIGHTS.pdf
     
    The rights compiled here are those that generally apply in most democratic countries. They have been gathered from sources in Canada, United States, England, and Australia. Some of these rights are self-evident, some are inscribed in law. Others are simply standards which parents have grown to expect when good educational practice is followed.
     
    1. THE RIGHT TO CHOICE
     

    “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.” (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948)

     
    This means, that while parents have a duty to see that their children are educated to a reasonable level of self-sufficiency and citizenship, they can choose how this is to be accomplished: public, private or church schools, tutoring, correspondence courses, home study, or other styles. If a style other than a public school is chosen and the parents are challenged, the onus is generally on the state to demonstrate that the child is not being educated at a level equal to his peers in a public school. The mandate of the public schools is to make available to all children in the community an education which is free, appropriate and equal. Parents have a right to choose and expect at least that minimum for their child.
     
    Added notes, Jeb 20, 2014
    Those words above were written in 1975 when a group of parents sat down to gather and codify parents rights.  Much os what was written then undoubtedly apples today — with revisions or additions necessary to meet current times, especially concerning the ubiquitous presence of technology.
     
    HOWEVER:  On this topic of choice and parents as consumers/ clients, customers of the education system, I am ever watchful that some are trying to recast parental primary role into a more incidental support role.  Progressives generally quote the UN Rights of the Child and forget the UN Declaration of Human Rights when talking about children.
     
    Other progressives want to define "students" as the customers, and teachers as "oin loco parentis.
     
    Still others insist that the learners are "students and teachers" together.
     
    All these attempts at watering down the primary family responsibility in education need watching and challenging. 
     

  5. Maybe Going To Court Is The Only Way

    February 19, 2014 by Tunya

    [This is the comment I made, as referred to in the previous post]

    Maybe Going To Court Is The Only Way

    Parents have no clout when it comes to public education decisions. The Common Core standards and 21st Century Learning (Canada) initiatives are being rammed down our throats. There are similar initiatives in other parts of the globe.

    What is astonishing is the unusual agreement between traditional enemies in the system — the ed establishment and the teacher unions. What is evident is that the unions are getting on board because while centralized “standards” may prevail, the choice of materials is being left to the “autonomy” of local teachers or individual schools.

    Thus, the embedding of social justice, critical thinking and emancipatory lessons by teachers in their classrooms will proceed, maybe slowly, but progressive teachers will be emboldened as they go along. And, let’s not forget, critical thinking is no longer the logical, commonsense stuff we might expect. No, it is critical pedagogy, critical Marxist theory, and you’re right, unprepared teachers will be “grabbing” at what’s nearest and handiest. Left-leaning materials will be readily available.

    If we seriously believe that our children and grandchildren deserve both sides presented in controversial content we might need to go to court.

    In England when Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, was challenged by some parents no-one listened until a court case ruled otherwise. There is a UK law, Sec 406 of the School Act, which forbids the promotion of partisan political views in teaching.

    The Judge (2007) did not forbid the showing of the film, but being cognizant of students as a captive audience under the auspices of the School Act his legal guidelines include:
    – It is understood the film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument
    – If teachers do not make this clear they are in breach of the Section and guilty of political indoctrination
    – Nine inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of students when the film is shown.

    I have read blog comments from British students visiting America saying how shocked they are when this film was shown to US students without these guidelines.

    Hopefully, this story might encourage helpless parents to mount legal challenges to indoctrination in public schools.