Earlier this month, LifeNews.com reported on a high school in Seattle, Washington that is now implanting intrauterine devices (IUD), as well as other forms of birth control and doing so without parental knowledge or permission.
The IUD is known as a long acting reversible contraception, and may even act as an abortifacient. So, a young teen in Seattle can’t get a coke at her high school, but she can have a device implanted into her uterus, which can unknowingly kill her unborn child immediately after conception. Or, if she uses another method, she can increase her chances of health risks for herself, especially if using a new method.
The high school, Chief Sealth International, a public school, began offering the devices in 2010, made possible by a Medicaid program known as Take Charge and a non-profit, Neighborcare. Students can receive the device or other method free of cost and without their parent’s insurance. And while it’s lauded that the contraception is confidential, how can it be beneficial for a parent-child relationship when the parents don’t even know the devices or medication their daughter is using?
As it turns out, Chief Sealth isn’t the only school in Seattle doing this. As CNS News reports, more schools are fitting young girls — as young as 6th grade — with the devices and doing so without their parents knowing.
Middle and high school students can’t get a Coca-Cola or a candy bar at 13 Seattle public schools, but they can get a taxpayer-funded intrauterine device (IUD) implanted without their parents’ consent.
Category Archives: Education
I loved reading the If You Give a Mouse a Cookie books to my daughter.
The somewhat Aesopian theme is that if you give the mouse what it wants – a cookie – it will just want more: a glass of milk, a straw, etc.
The story came to mind last week, a week that began with many vowing to inter the Confederate flag and that ended with the Supreme Court mandating that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. As far as culture-war victories go, the flag news was big, but the marriage ruling was tantamount to VE Day.
It might be too much to think that progressive activists and intellectuals would demobilize after such a “Mission Accomplished” moment. But a reasonable person might expect social-justice warriors to at least take the weekend off to celebrate.
But no. Even when the cookie is this big, the mice want something more. The call went out that there were new citadels to conquer. Within hours of the decision, Politico ran a call to arms titled “It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy: Why Group Marriage Is the Next Horizon of Social Liberalism.” On Sunday, Time magazine had Mark Oppenheimer’s “Now’s the Time to End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions.”
I very much doubt we’ll get a constitutional right for teams of people to get “married,” but I have every confidence the drumbeat will grow louder. Social justice – forever ill-defined so as to maximize the power of its champions – has become not just an industry but also a permanent psychological orientation among journalists, lawyers, educators, and other members of the new class of eternal reformers.
By no means are social-justice warriors always wrong. But they are untrustworthy, because they aren’t driven by a philosophy so much as an insatiable appetite that cannot take yes for an answer. No cookie will ever satisfy them. Our politics will only get uglier, as those who resist this agenda realize that compromise is just another word for appeasement.
Tempers flared among parents at the final Fairfax County School Board meeting for the school year, when 10-to-2 vote decided last Thursday 7th through 10th grade students that the sex education curriculum would include lessons pertaining to gender identity and transgender issues.
The school board vote happened one day before the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to legalize same-sex marriage across the country.
Those protesting the curriculum changes wore red t-shirts and bright stickers with the phrase, “Respect parents’ rights” while others supporting the board wore stickers that said, “Teach the facts.”
Changes to the Family Life Education curriculum spanned across each grade level, but the move of the more sensitive material from one section of the curriculum to another has opponents more than upset, despite the board’s insistence that students can opt out of such classes, if their parents choose to do so.
Fairfax County School Board member Elizabeth Schultz, one of the two dissenting votes on the curriculum change vote, told The Daily Caller that the curriculum committee, which is not a committee of the school board, spent a year going through particular sections of the family life education curriculum and recommended to the board to move parts of the family life curriculum, which included gender identity and transgender issues, over to the health curriculum.
“Once you move something out of family life, the family life education curriculum delivery method and into a health curriculum, by default, a parent no longer has the right to opt out,” Schultz said. ”And so there were huge sections, not just of the more controversial topics but even basic things about family units and emotions and social development they suggested to move to the health curriculum.”
Students who don’t want to be known by their legal name on campus – because they are transgender, a victim of sexual abuse or just want to sound more American – can now play coy at Ohio University.
The Post reports that the new policy is the result of an effort started nearly three years ago by the Student Senate’s LGBT commissioners, who “worked closely” with officials “on the technicalities of the policy”:
The preferred name and pronoun policy, which was approved June 4, will allow all OU students to state their preferred names and select their preferred pronouns in their Student Portal, said Delfin Bautista, director of the LGBT Center. This name and pronoun will then show up on professors’ class rosters, advising lists and anywhere a student ID card is swiped. …
“Hopefully, what this will create is there may be faculty who may never know the legal name of a student,” Bautista said. “They may have Rachel in class, and Rachel has always been Rachel, but they may never know that Rachel’s legal name is Richard.”
Thus, students no longer need to worry about their legal names unintentionally “outing” them because their legal name does not match their identity.
The school wants to play down the LGBT roots of the change, which are evident in the “pronoun” component: The Post says “the policy can benefit international students who choose to go by an American version of their name,” and Bautista also says it will benefit students whose parents divorced.
The new policy won’t apply to diplomas, however, so “Rachel” will forever be known in school files as “Richard.”
I weep for the future of education.
Anne Gassel just took her youngest child to her college orientation. There was nothing at this orientation that she hadn’t encountered at any of the others she had attended. Yet she walked away from this one “with a complete lack of nostalgia for college life.”
There were many reasons for this feeling, Gassel wrote at Missouri Education Watchdog. But the one that stood out to me was the low graduation rate noted by the school her child is attending.
“Of those that graduate with a degree, some will have degrees that prepare them for nothing that is highly valued by society,” Gassel wrote. “I remember last year at a college open house hearing from a young woman who had a degree in women’s studies. She told the parents sitting in the room that she was lucky to get a job with the university. I don’t think she realized how that sounded.”
She added: “Apparently the only thing a women’s studies degree prepares one for is working for a university admissions office to promote that degree to other gullible students.”
Gassel also criticized the “protective cocoon of pseudo real life,” in which schools provide counselors to help students deal with every minor slight they might be subject to. This, of course, does not prepare students for real life, where no such protections exist.
College is a lot different today than even when I was a student (which was just a few years ago). Now the “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” crowds run the campuses. My fear is of what will happen when these precious snowflakes who need counseling after hearing a different viewpoint get into the real world. Will they accept that they can’t avoid opposing views? Or will they fight to make everyone else kowtow to their beliefs?
Common Core started out as a state-led effort to create high standards that states would voluntarily adopt, but the Obama administration had different ideas. It disrupted that process by forcing states to adopt the standards, first through Race to the Top grants, and next through waivers. Waivers from onerous provisions of No Child Left Behind are granted only to states that agree to implement the White House’s preferred education policies — Common Core.
It says a lot when even The New York Times refers to the waiver process as “the most sweeping use of executive authority to rewrite federal education law since Washington expanded its involvement in education in the 1960s.”
The Senate’s bill, the Every Child Achieves Act, would reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Language I fought to include in this bill will, once and for all, end the Obama administration’s use of waivers to force or incentivize states to adopt Common Core standards.
And it will end the Obama administration’s — and, for that matter, any future administration’s — ability to use any tool of coercion to force states to adopt Common Core — or any set of standards at all, whether it’s Common Core by another name or some new set of standards. Period.
That’s one reason why in April the Every Child Achieves Act passed out of the Senate education committee on a unanimous vote. Republicans and Democrats alike voted to give control of academic standards back to states. The bill restores that responsibility to states, local school districts, teachers and parents.
For those of us of faith, it appears society has collectively lost its mind. Madness has set in. Yes, in fact, we see what Paul warns of in Romans 1. The people have been handed over to themselves and we are caught in the middle. It is a wildfire of the mind and society.
A lot of you want to check out of it. You want to take refuge, hide, and protect your families. You want to go for the Benedictine Model that Rod Dreher hints at — take shelter in the monastery and wait for the fire to burn itself out.
I actually think the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday hurts the Republicans in 2016. I think a lot of people whose votes they need will throw up their hands and walk away. They see a lot of Republican politicians declaring it time to move on. They see 300 Republicans, a lot of them from George W. Bush’s administration, supporting the decision. These cultural conservatives think it is time to get out of Dodge while the getting is good.
The 300 Republicans who wanted this case to go away as a political issue, might find that the base they have relied on goes away with it. They will not expand their base with black and hispanic voters as small government, cultural liberals. They will lose more of their base as they move away from cultural conservatism altogether.
Here is what I would say, though, to the conservatives thinking of departing for broad fields, no neighbors, and a life of small town values. The wildfire is burning. But, whether you think it nature or God, nature has a way of exerting itself and wildfires eventually run out of fuel or get rained on.
Students at a Brooklyn high school had their Regents exams “re-scored” by school administrators to allow them to pass, The New York Post reports.
Automotive High School is located in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, and has been identified by the de Blasio administration as a “renewal” school. De Blasio has vowed to improve the schools with $163 million in the upcoming school year.
According to the city Department of Education it was Aimee Horowitz, superintendent of Renewal schools, who reviewed and approved the requests of nine Automotive students to have their January 2015 Regents exams re-scored.
The practice of re-scoring tests just short of passing is known as “scrubbing,” which was banned by the state in 2011.
“This is Scrubbing Part 2,” A veteren educator told the Post, “The teachers used to do it. Now it’s the administrators.”
A student at the school spoke with a guidance counselor about having his exam re-scored as he was one point shy of passing. He was told to sign his name on a list, along with about 20 other students.
Five students received higher scores, three had them decreased and one stayed the same.
After finding out her son had his Living Environment Regents score raised from a 64 to a 72, she told the Post, “It’s not beneficial for him,” adding that, “It’s going to hurt him in the long run .”
Indeed, it is…
This celebration of a child’s every accomplishment, however slight, is something new. By the time a kid reaches 18, she will have accumulated boxes and boxes of diplomas, medals, ribbons, trophies and certificates for just showing up – whether she’s any good at anything or not.
There’s also a good chance that her parents will still be as heavily involved as ever – guiding, advising, applauding, and doing everything they can to protect their little snowflake from any sense of failure or rejection. The task of parental rescuing now extends well beyond the age the kid is old enough to vote.
A few weeks ago I found myself sharing a table with several business executives and a dean from a leading community college. All had stories to tell about overly protective parents. The dean described parents who help their kids write their essays (these kids are 20), and complain to him if they think their children’s marks are too low. A bank executive told us that it’s not uncommon for parents to call the HR department if they think their kid got an unfair performance appraisal. (He made me swear not to name the bank.) A manager with a major multinational told us how a mother called his office to complain about her son’s too lowly job description.
“I hear stories all the time from recruiters,” says Nate Laurie, who runs Jobpostings, Canada’s leading online student job network. “Parents call the recruiter and ask if he got their child’s resumé, or why their child didn’t get the job. When the kid goes for an interview, they go with her and sit in the waiting room.”
“A lot of parents can’t separate from their kids,” says my friend Barbara Moses, who’s a career counsellor. “Their identity is overly tied to their children’s success and failure. I hear mothers say, ‘We are having trouble finding a job.’ ”
One reason “we” are having trouble finding a job, according to Mr. Laurie, is that expectations are far too high. “Do what you love,” we urge our children, as if there’s a dream job out there just for them. But “do what you love” is probably the worst career advice in the world. It implants the notion that doing what you love can produce a sustainable livelihood – which isn’t always the case, alas. It also sends the message that if you don’t wind up doing what you love, then you’re a flop. That’s how you get freelance writers who are still living in a basement apartment at age 35 and wondering why things haven’t worked out the way they were supposed to.
Sometimes you have to compromise in life, but we don’t want to break this crushing news to our children. Personally, I’ve met far too many young adults who graduate from university with plans to work in development/save the world/find a career in environmental sustainability. There’s nothing wrong with these noble aspirations. What’s amazing is that no adults have ever leveled with them.
The trouble is, snowflakes are not very resilient. They tend to melt when they hit the pavement. How will our snowflake children handle the routine stresses of the grownup world – the obnoxious colleagues, pointless meetings, promotions that don’t come their way? How will they cope when no one thinks they’re special any more?
The College Fix gets results: After we broke the story of the University of California’s long list of “microaggression” phrases that professors should avoid, the state’s biggest paper has slammed the university system for its “over-the-top, politically correct list of unacceptable topics and questions.”
The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times says that some of the phrases are “not necessarily aggressive at all”:
If a professor asks a Latino, Asian American or Native American student to “speak up more” in class, is the professor really saying that they must “assimilate to the dominant culture”? If a university official says, “I believe the most qualified candidate should get the job,” does that really mean “people of color are given unfair benefits?”
Worse yet, the material posted on the UC website discourages faculty members from expressing legitimate political opinions. Surely a professor ought to be able to say that America is a melting pot, or that affirmative action is a bad policy because it is inherently racist. Since when are universities afraid of clashing or provocative beliefs?
Regardless of whether UC is actually punishing faculty, “the university is clearly discouraging certain kinds of statements, and faculty will take notice — especially those members without tenure,” the editorial says.