Is Public School a Healthy Place to Socialize a Child? (Part 1)

Every homeschool parent has been questioned by friends and strangers and asked if their decision to homeschool isn't a futile attempt to "shelter" their children from "real life." The inference being that they are foolishly sheltering their children. I read a Facebook posting from one homeschool mom who posted a news article exposing yet another teacher of sexual assault, she wrote, "Seriously? I almost want to start a file and fill it with links to all these stories and every time someone asks me why I feel like I should "shelter" my kids, I'm going to send it to them and ask them why they don't?" This comment prompted me to write a series on the subject, "Is public school a healthy place to socialize a child?" For this part one we will start with the question about sexual abuse in schools today and explore whether more parents ought to seriously consider sheltering their children from the risk.

It takes but a few minutes to find dozens of terrifying stories of sexual abuse that would leave any parent absolutely ill, which may be one reason we choose to believe the cases are isolated. Research for this part of my article left me physically sick and I had to set it aside for a few days. It's impossible to be unaffected by stories like the 6th grade teacher charged with committing lewd acts on a child and genital penetration by a foreign object, the middle school principle who raped a student in his office while the parents were just outside, multiple cases of teachers initiating group sex with students, and teachers tweeting naked pictures of themselves to students. There are dozens more as bad or worse than these, and at the center of everyone is a child victim.

Almost as disgusting, is the number of people I've found who make comments like, "this kind of sexual abuse is the dream of every 14 to 17 year old boy." The number of people out there with warped ideas like this shouldn't surprise me, after all, we live in a nation where every 30 minutes a porn video is made and 30,000 people are 'consuming' pornography every second. I believe it is logical to conclude that in some part the pornification of America is making its way into our public institutions. It is a common argument in favor of porn, that what happens in private has no bearing on public life, but people who believe that, need to wake up and pay attention to how it is affecting our children.

I believe the sexualization of our culture is weakening the ability of adults to protect children. Before you say that adults who rationalize or ignore the sexual abuse of children, are just creepy perverts in the shadows of our society, consider the legal protections for children that are breaking down over this issue? In 2012, the Arkansas Supreme Court says 18-year old students can have sex with their teachers, a loop-hole in a Maryland law allowed part-time teachers have a sex with students, and a Texas court says sexting between student and teacher is protected by free speech. It makes you wonder if our society has the moral fortitude to tackle the rash of sexual abuse in schools today.

So, am I blowing it out of proportion? How common is Sexual Abuse in schools anyway? Is this list a misrepresentation of the danger? The best study we have to estimate the scope of sexual abuse in public schools, reports that more than 4.5 million students are subject to sexual misconduct by an employee of a school sometime between kindergarten and 12th grade. That is 10% of children, which is why it so disturbs me when parents I know are uncomfortable when I post these stories of sexual abuse. One friend felt the need to remind me that, "Most teachers are dedicated, hard-working people who wouldn't dream of hurting a child." Of course they are, but when I hear this argument I think, "What level of sexual abuse in school is tolerable? At what point should parents be concerned?" A CBS story got it right when they said, "Any institution that has allowed children to be harmed by predators deserves to be taken to task for it. No institution should get a pass. And no profession should get a pass. Not preachers, not priests — not even teachers."

I will admit that better studies are needed, but the political will to investigate the issue on a national scale doesn't seem to be there. Why not? Remember the political and media uproar in the nation when allegations of sexual abuse by Catholic Priests was uncovered? CBS news reported that, "During the first half of 2002, the 61 largest newspapers in California ran nearly 2,000 stories about sexual abuse in Catholic institutions, mostly concerning past allegations. During the same period, those newspapers ran four stories about the federal government's discovery of the much larger — and ongoing — abuse scandal in public schools." Sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times greater in real numbers than the sexual abuse that rocked Roman Catholic Church and yet homeschool parents continue to be looked at as the backward ones because of their desire to shelter their children.

Another point of debate I have come across, is the observation that so many of these cases turn out to be false but that stigma lives on for those innocent teachers forever. There may be something to that observation. Hardly an official study, but a poll by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) revealed that a quarter of school staff had been falsely accused by a pupil of wrongdoing – such as slapping them or inappropriate sexual conduct – while one in six has faced malicious allegations from a pupil's family. Half of those questioned said there had been at least one false allegation in their current school."

I did find a number of stories of teachers who were falsely accused (here, here, and here), but do the cases of false accusation negate the concern that schools are not fostering a healthy safe environment? The very fact that some sexual assault cases are fabricated by students as a way to punish their teachers only unmasks another disturbing proof that American children are highly sexualized. Parents who work hard to protect their children's innocence and dignity by providing wholesome environments at home want to be confident that the environment at school won't undermine that effort. That confidence is deminished by the alarming stories of sexual abuse as well as the disturbing student behavior their children may be exposed to. While student behavior is not entirely the fault of school systems, it leads us to the next subject we will explore, are the influences of peers at school providing healthy socialization for a child? And further, what role are schools personnel and policy playing in condoning deviant student behavior?

Selected Teacher/Student sex scandal stories over past 2 years (THIS IS BY NO MEANS A COMPLETE LIST):

July 9, 2012 -- Teacher having sex in hotels with students

Sept 12, 2012 -- Two teachers have group sex with students

Aug 16, 2012 -- Another teacher having group sex with students

Oct 25, 2012 -- Teachers send naked tweets of themselves to students

Oct 25, 2012 -- Male teacher punches female student who refuses to have ex with him

Feb 25, 2013 -- Teacher offers to pay students for sex on Facebook

Mar 8, 2013 -- Female dance coach accused of having sex with a female student after every football game

Mar 14, 2013 -- A male assistant high school principle allegedly has sex with female student at prom

Sept 27, 2013 -- 6th grade female teacher was charged with committing lewd acts on a child and genital penetration by a foreign object

Oct 16, 2013 -- Male middle school principle rapes student in his office while the parents were outside his office

Jan 11, 2014 -- Female teacher pleads guilty to having sex with 14 year old student

Jan 23, 2014 -- Former female teacher is accused of sexually molesting 2 former female students

Jan 24, 2013 -- Married Female teacher has sex with a student at her home

Jan 29, 2014 -- Female teacher allegedly carries on lewd electronic communication with students that culminates in bedding the male student

Feb 21, 2014 -- Female teacher allegedly has oral sex with 13 year old student

Legal protections for students breaking down:

Mar 29, 2012 -- Arkansas Supreme Court says 18-year old students can have sex with their teachers

Feb 5, 2014 -- Texas court says sexting between student and teacher is protected by free speech

Feb 18, 2014 -- Legal loophole lets part-time teachers have a sex with students

The Rise of Dictators: What They Don't Teach in School

In my son's US History unit on the rise of dictators in the mid-20th century, there are three major factors the text book sites for why these dictators were able to rise to power; Militarism, Nationalism, and Expansionism. I looked over the assignment worksheets, "The Rise of Dictators", and found no question prompts for the students to discuss the role of statism, which is the single thread that defines each of these dictators.

The dictionary defines Militarism as the belief or desire, of a government or people, that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests. By that definition, any country that has a standing army ready to defend its interests is militant, but in truth, there is no comparison between a country that uses their standing Army to defend liberty and one that is bent on world domination. Further, it concerns me that a discussion of militarism as a major cause of this great evil might demonize the heroism of national armies who serve in honor to protect their nations. Both Stalin and Hitler, systematically exterminated the leadership of their standing armies and supplanted their own private political armies in the ranks of leadership. Only after they had torn down the old guard and taken political control of the army could they work their plans for military conquest.

As for Nationalism, whether or not it played a significant role, depends on how you define it. It's primary definition is a "patriotic feeling, principles, and efforts, that involves an individual identifying with, or becoming attached to, one's nation." This in and of itself is not the reason this kind of evil is allowed to prevail in the world. For example, a strong patriotic feeling among American citizens and our standing military, has for our history meant that one believes in and is willing to fight to protect the ideals enshrined in our founding documents, documents that are intended to secure individual liberty and equality under the law. Loyalty to ones country alone could not be the cause of such evil prevailing, it would have to take on the quality of being loyal to political ideologies that enslave the individual to state power. If by nationalism the curriculum aims to distinguish it from patriotism and define it as "involving the social conditioning and personal behaviors that support a state's decisions and actions regardless of their virtue and merit," then that form of "nationalism" certainly played a role in the support for such dictators and their success in working mass murder.

The dictionary defines Expansionism as "policies of governments and states for territorial or economic expansion; the doctrine of a state expanding its territorial base (or economic influence) usually, though not necessarily, by means of military aggression." Again this definition might apply to the expanding economic influence of the US during industrialization and modernization, yet these qualities alone are not responsible for the rise of dictators in the mid-20th century. The question posed to the students is, what role did expansionism play in the dictator rising to power and retaining power. This is a case where one should ask whether or not the people were persuaded to support the dictator because of excitement over the prospects of military conquest. In some cases the answer would be yes, but would it hold that a majority of the citizens of these countries wanted to conquer the world? Expansionism was in most cases the ambition of the dictator to expand their lust for power, but this came after they had subdued any dissent among their own people through terror and absolute control.

What part did Militarism, Nationalism, and Expansionism play in Stalin's rise to power and his goals and objectives?

What I would like to do is illustrate how much of history is lost when the rise of Stalin is limited to these three terms. Here are the basic facts of how Stalin came to power, highlight words are instances where Stalin's rise to power meets the three primary discussion points in my sons lesson.

First, Stalin was the successor of the communist revolutionary dictator, Lenin. To rise to power Stalin made himself indispensable to Lenin as a brutal enforcer of party loyalty, and a Bolshevik thug. The Russian people had lived under almost total state control for centuries, and the underclasses were terribly oppressed. Their absolute monarchy was brought to its knees by an enraged public with idealistic hopes of a workers utopia. The first world war brought greater suffering to the people and the conditions were ripe for the communist ideologies of Bolshevik revolutionaries. With Russians hungry, the provisional government destabilized, and loosing the war with Germany. Lenin laid in wait to high jack the revolution and place himself as dictator and communist party leader. Their was enormous resistance to Lenin even in the working class and Lenin employed French Revolution terror tactics to defend his power. As a communist theoretician Lenin held that workers could not develop a revolutionary consciousness without the guidance of a vanguard party. They institute a one party police state in order to accomplish their collectivists ideas.

The Russian people were not alarmed by centralized state power (Nationalism: social conditioning and personal behaviors that support a state's decisions and actions regardless of their virtue and merit), they had not experienced the advancement democratic reforms that had come to the rest of Europe. Under the rule of the Czar, the people were ruled by the iron hand and secret police of the absolute monarchy of czarism. The Orthodox Church propped up the rule of the Czars and the power of the aristocracy. When Stalin came to power he had no need to "convince" the people to support him, there was no general election of the people, the will of the people did not factor in, just the support of the communist party already in control of the nation. Stalin's concern was to make the party leaders believe he was the rightful heir to their beloved Lenin. Militarism (the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively) did not play a significant role in Stalin's rise to power. He inherited a Police State, secret agents NKVD (political police), who worked the will of Lenin and would now carry out every order of Stalin. Stalin's orders were iron clad law.

What influenced Stalin to ally himself with the communist revolutionaries? Was there nationalism working to socially condition Stalin? Did Czarism shape his personal behaviors?

Stalin's mother was a traditional christian woman, she had fierce loyalty to the orthodox church, and hoped her son would join the priesthood. Certainly his mothers values did not underwrite his goals as a young man. Stalin's father was hateful toward him and an abusive drunk, perhaps an influence that contributed to Stalin's violent nature. His education financed by a wealthy benefactor, Stalin was exposed to Darwinism and Karl Marx while at boarding school, and joined the communist party as a young graduate. This choice is the one that would shape his path more than any other. His convoluted dedication to a political ideology and his thirst for power would kill over 10 million of his own people. Stalin became an agitator, enforcer, and organizer in the communist/Bolshevik revolution. He carried out bank robberies and bombings. Stalin was a hardened man even before his time in prison and exile in the arctic circle, but these years would prove him a ruthless criminal.

Stalin did not always follow Lenin's political line but he was useful to Lenin because he he was a great organize and could push men into desperate action. Stalin carried out massive executions on Lenin's behalf, he was the enforcer, and Lenin became more and more reliant on Stalin. Because of the violent revolution and the difficulty holding power, Lenin relaxed the confiscation and centralization of property, this angered idealistic Bolshevik revolutionaries and gave Stalin an inroad for political support. In the end of Lenin's life Stalin made himself his caretaker and controlled access to him. He made sure the people saw him as the heir to power.

How did Stalin hold onto power? Did he gain support from his people because of military conquest and expansion? What role did nationalism play in his holding on to power?

As soon as Stalin took power he moved his communist plans forward with rapid ruthless determination. He immediately confiscated all personal property, of both rich and poor alike. He sent armies of police (not military) to confiscate every asset, every horse or donkey, and even confiscated grain. He divided peasants into categories, those to be killed, those to be exiled, and those to be worked to death in the gulags; all part of his central plan to forcibly industrialize the nation. Land was seized and land owners were declared enemies of "the people". His mission, drag the peasants into the 20th century, if they resisted they were eliminated. The people saw the killing and the deportations but they believed it was the only way their workers paradise would come as promised by the communist. (Perhaps evidence of nationalism, except that Russians did not have a national tradition or social conditioning toward collectivism, this was a radical new social experiment.)

Stalin's revolution enslaved his people under socialist communist reform. He believed that any number of deaths was worth his collectivist paradise. He worked his people to death, 175,000 people died to build a canal that ended up a useless failure. 10 Million political prisoners were forced to work as slaves in gulags (concentration camps) for Stalin's collectivist vision. Those who were not made to work were left to starve. Parents were forced to choose to feed one child over another, choosing to withhold food from the sick ones. Stalin hid the truth of mass death in the country side from the people in the cities and propped up his collectivist utopia myth. Certainly there was social conditioning here but in large part it succeeded out of sheer fear and the nature of humans to ignore what they feel helpless to change as a way to cope.

Those who resisted, died. People of Ukraine resisted collectivism more than others. Ukrainians tried to flee to Europe but were trapped by Stalin who stopped the trains and barred the roads. The sheer murder of people was beyond imagination. 5 million people starved to death in the Ukraine while Stalin exported 5 million tons of grain. Stalin decided all his political opposition should die. Murder became government policy. 90% of congress was executed. 1100 party members sent to the gulags in Siberia. He turned the people against each other, planting informers among the people to report the"spies within". Under physical torture they would confess crimes they had never committed, and then the spies were executed. He decapitated the Russian Army, they were the national heroes of the revolution, he needed the middle soldiers to take command and be loyal to him. He had 30,000 officers executed. He killed every last leader from the revolution in order to gain complete control of the Red Army. Murder was Stalin's primary tool in retaining power, not militarism, nationalism, or expansionism. He murdered everyone who was even suspected of resistance, and then killed those who could reveal the truth of his bloody terror. 

While Stalin personally made death lists and ordered whole groups to die, he developed a national myth surrounding his leadership. Stalin provided the people plenty of propaganda, which they desperately needed to believe that Russia was making progress toward utopia. He was not a great orator but he was good at writing and editing, he wove a beautiful myth, he transported his carefully crafted speeches via gramophone records across Russia, he used movies to portray his myth, and he even rewrote his own history. Stalin rewarded his supporters lavishly, bestowing cars and luxury living on a select few. He did everything possible to hide the truth of his regime, his image in the eyes of millions was untarnished by his behavior. He cultivated himself as a man of the people and seized every opportunity to be photographed. He portrayed himself as the father of Russia, the benevolent patriarch. His picture hung in homes, while relics of the Christian faith were destroyed. He replaced religion, with the atheist statism, the religion of Bolshevism. Gulag prisoners wrote letters to Stalin to save them, the man who ordered their deaths, to them it could not of been his fault, he was a God. Stalin's regime was built on violence, blood, and a mountain of corpses and yet the power of the myth he built about himself was so powerful he was never held to account for the atrocities ordered by his own hands.

From what I have seen in my son's text books, I wonder how many students across the US are taught from curriculum that downplays the role of collectivist ideology and statism in facilitating the rise of murderous dictators?

LEGO MOVIE: An Analogy for Stop Common Core?

Went to the new Lego movie tonight with the family. When the villain was introduced as "Mr. Business" I thought, "Oh no, this one is going to be another progressive plot that demonizes business as the root of our problems and subtly suggests to our children that we need Big Government to swoop in and protect us." But as I watched the theme develop, I was surprised that the movie went in a very different direction. It is appropriate that a toy company that has been dedicated to the creative brain development of children for decades produced a movie script that illustrated perfectly the folly of education reform based on a blueprint of standardization.

I thought my fellow Stop Common Core activists would easily see the parallels between the themes in this story and why we so passionately oppose the federal education agenda. The villain in the movie was a great metaphor for the crony partnership between big business and government that is pushing a philosophy of standardization and micro-managed economies under the guise of education reform.

"Mr. Business," the villain in the movie, is also "The President" of their Lego city. I saw President Buisness as a clear symbol for the seamless merging of corporate interests and means with government power and force, essentially the use of private industry to accomplish the means of government. Just like Common Core. This villain wants to impose his "program" on everyone, he writes the instruction manuals, and he forces everyone to follow the instruction manuals with no deviation. Just like Common Core. He stamps out creativity and individuality, to say nothing for freedom. True to life, he uses his power as "the president" to send out his "police" to enforce his will. President Buisness  even calls his police robots his "micro-managers" and sends them out to micro-manage every detail. Just like what people fear will happen as the federal vice grip closes in on education and the federal/corporate union gains control of the instruction manuals in our local schools.

Unlike the standard progressive narrative, in the Lego movie it isn't the government that does the saving, it's the people. In fact the hero of the movie is just an ordinary Lego guy, Emmett, he is marching forward as part of President Buisness's micro-managed workforce, unaware until he falls into the truth and is thrust into action. It's funny when Emmett realizes that the President writes the instruction manuals and builds the voting machines. It's funny how Emmett is at first cheerfully placated by "President Buisness's" charisma and promises of "Taco Tuesdays". It's a spot on analogy for how Americans today have been blinded to the dangers they face.

Like so many hero stories, the villain is set on destroying the world, but it is particularly astute that the way in which he will destroy their world is that he will effectively freeze it in place, stop it's creative motion and movement forward. This is precisely what policies like Common Core will do. When government officials think they can make things "perfect" by micro-managing every detail they effectively freeze the creative endeavors that drive success and the pursuit of happiness in society.

In the end the movie forwards the idea that creativity and individuality are essential, that the enemy to happiness and progress are those who seek to control and "micro-manage" the creative process of individuals and societal development. Emmett learns that everyone is special in some way and that when they aren't limited to the "instruction manual" they can create incredible things. It is a celebration of creativity and uniqueness, the exact opposite of the creativity killing plans that are at the center of the Common Core Agenda.

As the theme applies to educating children day by day, I think the movie demonstrates what every parent instinctively knows and what educrats, politicians, and corporate-crats should wake-up to. It is simply a crime to squash the creativity and play of children in exchange for the promise of "global competitiveness." Like the villain in the movie, the Common Core Agenda seeks to build it's "perfect system" by centrally managing every student until it will destroys those characteristics of education and child development which most contribute to happy children and mature adults. The goal set by the Common Core architects will allude them as they will succeed only in destroying the dynamic, creative, and innovative abilities of a generation, effectively stalling the engine of creative progress and freezing our society in place.