More than 100 students walked out at Huntington High School in Huntington, West Virginia, to protest a religious revival in school.

The students “staged a walkout to protest a school-sanctioned religious revival that some of their teachers required them to attend.”

Earlier this week, teachers told students that during a non-instructive class period called COMPASS, they had to go to an assembly where a Christian prayer revival was set to take place. At the assembly, teens were told to close their eyes, raise their arms in prayer and give their lives to Jesus Christ. They were also told that if they didn’t follow the Bible, they would go to hell after they died.

According to reporting from The Associated Press, one student texted his parent, asking, “Is this legal?”

The tenets of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution — and a number of Supreme Court rulings — suggest that it was not. According to the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, public schools cannot prevent students from expressing or sharing religious beliefs during school hours. However, school officials cannot impose prayer or other religious practices in the building, even if students are not required to take part; to do so constitutes a violation of students’ religious freedom.

Many students at Huntington High School — and their parents — agreed that the revival was not appropriate, and that it violated students’ rights.

“I don’t think any kind of religious official should be hosted in a taxpayer-funded building with the express purpose of trying to convince minors to become baptized after school hours,” said senior Max Nibert, one of the students who led the walkout. “My rights are non-negotiable…”

A spokesperson for Cabell County Schools claimed that the event was optional, and that two teachers made a mistake when they told students they were required to attend.

But once students were at the revival and tried to leave, some were told they couldn’t do so. A Jewish student reported being told they “needed to stay” at the assembly because the classroom where they would otherwise go was locked and unsupervised.

In other words, while the event may have been quietly billed as optional, there were no other options available for students who didn’t want to attend.

How long will it be until the U.S. Supreme Court, with its new-found devotion to unrestricted religious liberty, rules that religious observances in the schools are hunky-dory?

Katherine Stewart has been writing for years about Christian nationalism and its pernicious influence on American society, especially public schools. Her latest book is The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous World of Religious Nationalists.

She wrote this article about the January 6 insurrection for The New York Times:

The most serious attempt to overthrow the American constitutional system since the Civil War would not have been feasible without the influence of America’s Christian nationalist movement. One year later, the movement seems to have learned a lesson: If it tries harder next time, it may well succeed in making the promise of American democracy a relic of the past.

Christian nationalist symbolism was all over the events of Jan. 6, as observers have pointed out. But the movement’s contribution to the effort to overturn the 2020 election and install an unelected president goes much deeper than the activities of a few of its representatives on the day that marks the unsuccessful end (or at least a temporary setback) of an attempted coup.

A critical precondition for Donald Trump’s attempt to retain the presidency against the will of the people was the cultivation of a substantial population of voters prepared to believe his fraudulent claim that the election was stolen — a line of argument Mr. Trump began preparing well before the election, at the first presidential debate.

The role of social and right-wing media in priming the base for the claim that the election was fraudulent is by now well understood. The role of the faith-based messaging sphere is less well appreciated. Pastors, congregations and the religious media are among the most trusted sources of information for many voters. Christian nationalist leaders have established richly funded national organizations and initiatives to exploit this fact. The repeated message that they sought to deliver through these channels is that outside sources of information are simply not credible. The creation of an information bubble, impervious to correction, was the first prerequisite of Mr. Trump’s claim.

The coup attempt also would not have been possible without the unshakable sense of persecution that movement leaders have cultivated among the same base of voters. Christian nationalism today begins with the conviction that conservative Christians are the most oppressed group in American society. Among leaders of the movement, it is a matter of routine to hear talk that they are engaged in a “battle against tyranny,” and that the Bible may soon be outlawed.

A final precondition for the coup attempt was the belief, among the target population, that the legitimacy of the United States government derives from its commitment to a particular religious and cultural heritage, and not from its democratic form. It is astonishing to many that the leaders of the Jan. 6 attack on the constitutional electoral process styled themselves as “patriots.” But it makes a glimmer of sense once you understand that their allegiance is to a belief in blood, earth and religion, rather than to the mere idea of a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

Given the movement’s role in laying the groundwork for the coup attempt, its leaders faced a quandary when Mr. Trump began to push his repeatedly disproven claims — and that quandary turned into a test of character on Jan. 6. Would they go along with an attempt to overthrow America’s democratic system?

Some attempted to rewrite the facts about Jan. 6. The former Republican Representative Michele Bachmann suggested the riot was the work of “paid rabble rousers,” while the activist and author Lance Wallnau, who has praised Mr. Trump as “God’s chaos candidate,” blamed “the local antifa mob.” Many leaders, like Charlie Kirk, appeared to endorse Mr. Trump’s claims about a fraudulent election. Others, like Michael Farris, president and chief executive of the religious right legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom, provided indirect but no less valuable support by concern-trolling about supposed “constitutional irregularities” in battleground states.

None appeared willing to condemn Mr. Trump for organizing an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to President-elect Joe Biden. On the contrary, the Rev. Franklin Graham, writing on Facebook, condemned “these ten” from Mr. Trump’s “own party” who voted to impeach him and mused, “It makes you wonder what the thirty pieces of silver were that Speaker Pelosi promised for this betrayal.”

At Christian nationalist conferences I have been reporting on, I have heard speakers go out of their way to defend and even lionize the Jan. 6 insurrectionists. At the Road to Majority conference, which was held in Central Florida in June 2021, the author and radio host Eric Metaxas said, “The reason I think we are being so persecuted, why the Jan. 6 folks are being persecuted, when you’re over the target like that, oh my.” At that same conference, the political commentator Dinesh D’Souza, in conversation with the religious right strategist Ralph Reed, said, “The people who are really getting shafted right now are the Jan. 6 protesters,” before adding, “We won’t defend our guys even when they’re good guys.” Mr. Reed nodded in response and replied, “I think Donald Trump taught our movement a lot.”

Movement leaders now appear to be working to prime the base for the next attempt to subvert the electoral process. At dozens of conservative churches in swing states this past year, groups of pastors were treated to presentations by an initiative called Faith Wins. Featuring speakers like David Barton, a key figure in the fabrication of Christian nationalist myths about history, and led by Chad Connelly, a Republican political veteran, Faith Wins serves up elections skepticism while demanding that pastors mobilize their flocks to vote “biblical” values. “Every pastor you know needs to make sure 100 percent of the people in their pews are voting, and voting biblical values,” Mr. Connelly told the assembled pastors at a Faith Wins event in Chantilly, Va. in September.

“The church is not a cruise ship, the church is a battleship,” added Byron Foxx, an evangelist touring with Faith Wins. The Faith Wins team also had at its side Hogan Gidley, a deputy press secretary in the Trump White House, who now runs the Center for Election Integrity, an initiative of the America First Policy Institute, a group led in part by former members of the Trump administration. Mr. Gidley informed the gathering that his group is “nonpartisan” — and then went on to mention that in the last election cycle there were “A lot of rogue secretaries of state, a lot of rogue governors.”

He was presumably referring to Brad Raffensperger, the Republican secretary of state of Georgia who earned the ire of Trumpists by rebuffing the former president’s request to find him an additional 11,780 votes. “You saw the stuff in Arizona, you’re going to see more stuff in Wisconsin, these are significant issues, and we can’t be dismissed out of hand anymore, the facts are too glaring,” Mr. Gidley said. In fact, the Republican-backed audit of votes in Arizona’s largest county confirmed that President Biden won Arizona by more votes than previously thought. But the persecution narrative is too politically useful to discard simply because it’s not true.

Even as movement leaders are preparing for a possible restoration of a Trumpist regime — a period they continue to regard as a golden age in retrospect — they are advancing in parallel on closely related fronts. Among the most important of these has to do with public education.

In the panic arising out of the claim that America’s schools are indoctrinating young children in critical race theory, or C.R.T., it isn’t hard to detect the ritualized workings of the same information bubble, persecution complex and sense of entitlement that powered the coup attempt. Whatever you make of the new efforts in state legislatures to impose new “anti-C.R.T.” restrictions on speech and teaching in public schools, the more important consequence is to extend the religious right’s longstanding program to undermine confidence in public education, an effort that religious right leaders see as essential both for the movement’s long-term funding prospects and for its antidemocratic agenda.

Opposition to public education is part of the DNA of America’s religious right. The movement came together in the 1970s not solely around abortion politics, as later mythmakers would have it, but around the outrage of the I.R.S. threatening to take away the tax-exempt status of church-led “segregation academies.” In 1979, Jerry Falwell said he hoped to see the day when there wouldn’t be “any public schools — the churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them.”

Today, movement leaders have their eye on the approximately $700 billion that federal, state, and local governments spend yearly on education. The case of Carson v. Makin, which is before the Supreme Court this term and involves a challenge, in Maine, to prohibitions on using state tuition aid to attend religious schools, could force taxpayers to fund sectarian schools no matter how discriminatory their policies or fanatical their teachings. The endgame is to get a chunk of this money with the help either of state legislatures or the Supreme Court, which in its current configuration might well be convinced that religious schools have a right to taxpayer funds.

This longstanding anti-public school agenda is the driving force behind the movement’s effort to orchestrate the anti-C.R.T. campaign. The small explosions of hate detonating in public school boards across the nation are not entirely coming from the grass roots up. The Family Research Council, a Washington, D.C.-based Christian right policy group, recently held an online School Board Boot Camp, a four-hour training session providing instruction on how to run for school boards and against C.R.T. and to recruit others to do so. The Bradley Foundation, Heritage Action for America, and The Manhattan Institute are among those providing support for groups on the forefront of the latest public school culture wars.

A decade ago, the radical aims at the ideological core of the Christian nationalist movement were there to see for anybody who looked. Not many bothered to look, and those who did were often dismissed as alarmist. More important, most Republican Party leaders at the time distanced themselves from theocratic extremists. They avoided the rhetoric of Seven Mountains dominionism, an ideology that calls explicitly for the domination of the seven “peaks” of modern civilization (including government and education) by Christians of the correct, supposedly biblical variety.

What a difference a decade makes. National organizations like the Faith & Freedom Coalition and the Ziklag Group, which bring together prominent Republican leaders with donors and religious right activists, feature “Seven Mountains” workshops and panels at their gatherings. Nationalist leaders and their political dependents in the Republican Party now state quite openly what before they whispered to one another over their prayer breakfasts. Whether the public will take notice remains to be seen.

Rachel Levy is a public school parent and teacher in Virginia. She wrote this article as part of the series created by the Network for Public Education called “Public Voices for Public Schools.” Rachel recently ran for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates. She learned about politics at the ground-level. And she saw how much the public appreciates its public schools.

She wrote:

I was proud to tell voters that I was a teacher. I am proud to be part of a profession of smart, resourceful, responsible, and caring people who do socially useful, meaningful, and intellectual work. Unfortunately, that same sense of ease people felt when I told them I was a teacher, the same sense that I am a responsible and reliable member of the community may be tied to the sense right now in this pandemic that teachers are expected to take care of everyone else and put the health and lives of others above our own and our own family members. It may tie into the practice of not allowing teachers and educators input into the policies, practices, and working conditions that determine the quality of our working lives and the quality of education we’re able to provide.

My message to voters was that our public school teachers are not expendable, replaceable or disposable. To value our public schools is to value our teachers. To value our public schools is to value democracy.  

Just as the January 6th insurrectionists came for our democracy, there are people coming for our teachers and for our public schools. I don’t believe that teachers and education alone can solve poverty or build democracy. But our public schools are a building block of our democracy, and we need them and our teachers to be strong in order to weather the current fascist storm.

From the response I got on the doors campaigning, I’m confident that the public agrees.

Please open the link and read the full story.

On February 15, San Francisco will hold a recall election for three members of its school board. Big contributions are pouring in from the pro-charter plutocrats.

The pro-recall campaign has collected nearly $2 million. The anti-recall campaign has raised a small fraction of that, about $30,000.

Arthur Rock, a California billionaire who has given many millions to Teach for America and charter schools, has given $399,500 to support the recall.

If you set aside the pandemic and the renaming of schools and look at the long term, one of the major issues facing San Francisco Unified School District, and other districts around the country, is the rise of charter schools.

Charter school proponents, led by the likes of Michael Bloomberg and Betsy DeVos, are in essence trying to privatize public education. They want to create a market system where parents get vouchers and can send their kids to private schools or public charters (which typically do not have unionized teachers), starving the public-school system of money.

We all know the outcome: The charters and private schools, which set their own admission policies, will take the students who have the most advantages and need the least help. The public schools will wind up having to educate, with far less money, the most vulnerable populations, who will wind up will lower-quality schools—and economic inequality will get worse, which is fine with the billionaires.

Rock is a big charter-school and voucher proponent.

Again, set aside the pandemic for a moment. The current members of the SF School Board who are facing a recall have been dubious, at best, about charter schools. That may mean a lot more to Rock and his pals that whether Lincoln High School gets a new name.

The Mayor has endorsed the recall. If the recall passes, she gets to choose the new members. If the recall succeeds, the path will open for more charter schools.

The New York Times recently wrote about Twitter’s suspension of the personal (not the official) account of Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene. Twitter applied its rule of “five strikes and you’re out” because she posted misinformation about COVID and vaccines that could cause harm to others. Among other things, she had posted on Twitter that COVID was not dangerous and that vaccines should not be mandated; that the vaccines were “failing”; and that many people who got the vaccines had died.

While reading this article, I learned of a website called The Center for Countering Digital Hate. This organization published research on the dozen most influential social influencers who spread misinformation about vaccines.

The Center surveyed major social media platforms and found that 12 people were the source of 2/3 of the lies about COVID and the vaccines. The only name familiar to me was that of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The leading influencer was one Dr. Joseph Mercola. His Twitter handle was @drmercola. Perhaps he was banned by Twitter. But he now reappears as @mercola.

At the time the CCDH report was written, the COVID death toll in the U.S. was 500,000. It is now over 800,000. It’s likely that the Dirty Dozen caused some of those deaths (and will be responsible for many more) by encouraging resistance to the life-saving vaccines.

Palm Beach County is set to approve prayer meetings in schools.

The Boca Raton News reports:

BOCA RATON, FL (BocaNewsNow.com) (Copyright © 2022 MetroDesk Media, LLC) — The Palm Beach County School Board is set to approve a policy that permits religious meetings on school grounds and during the school day. BocaNewsNow.com first reported on the controversial proposal in January. BocaNewsNow.com has now learned the policy is set to be approved at the School Board’s March 2nd meeting.

In the simplest of terms, the next time you hear a student shout, “Jesus Christ” in a Palm Beach County School District public school building, it may not be due to a bad test score. It could be part of a meeting taking place down the hallway. https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-5926105894443862&output=html&h=187&slotname=8254940523&adk=875441547&adf=4220832208&pi=t.ma~as.8254940523&w=747&fwrn=4&lmt=1644372623&rafmt=11&psa=0&format=747×187&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbocanewsnow.com%2F2022%2F02%2F08%2Fprayer-meetings-in-palm-beach-county-schools-set-to-be-approved%2F&flash=0&host=ca-host-pub-2644536267352236&wgl=1&dt=1644372623166&bpp=1&bdt=499&idt=444&shv=r20220207&mjsv=m202202010101&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&prev_fmts=0x0%2C1112x200%2C716x90&nras=1&correlator=7283391033743&frm=20&pv=1&ga_vid=256188619.1644372624&ga_sid=1644372624&ga_hid=1915881953&ga_fc=1&rplot=4&u_tz=-300&u_his=1&u_h=1112&u_w=834&u_ah=834&u_aw=1112&u_cd=32&u_sd=2&adx=22&ady=2097&biw=1112&bih=728&scr_x=0&scr_y=0&eid=42531398&oid=2&pvsid=3347075741504762&pem=580&tmod=698260812&nvt=1&eae=0&fc=1920&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C1112%2C0%2C1112%2C834%2C1112%2C728&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7CoeEbr%7C&abl=CS&pfx=0&fu=128&bc=31&ifi=4&uci=a!4&btvi=1&fsb=1&xpc=njmrZwxB3S&p=https%3A//bocanewsnow.com&dtd=490


In the simplest of terms, the next time you hear a student shout, “Jesus Christ” in a Palm Beach County School District public school building, it may not be due to a bad test score. It could be part of a meeting taking place down the hallway.


A draft copy of the language expected to be approved includes these paragraphs: “A student may pray or engage in religious activities or religious expression before, during, and after the school day in the same manner and to the same extent that a student may engage in secular activities or expression.”

Additionally, “A student may organize prayer groups, religion clubs, and other religious gatherings before, during, and after the school day in the same manner and to the same extent that a student is permitted to organize secular activities and groups.”

“The Palm Beach County School District shall give religious groups access to the same school facilities for assembling as given to secular groups without discrimination based on the religious content of the group’s expression.”https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-5926105894443862&output=html&h=187&slotname=8254940523&adk=2978207074&adf=2017941226&pi=t.ma~as.8254940523&w=747&fwrn=4&lmt=1644372623&rafmt=11&psa=0&format=747×187&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbocanewsnow.com%2F2022%2F02%2F08%2Fprayer-meetings-in-palm-beach-county-schools-set-to-be-approved%2F&flash=0&host=ca-host-pub-2644536267352236&wgl=1&dt=1644372623166&bpp=2&bdt=499&idt=445&shv=r20220207&mjsv=m202202010101&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&prev_fmts=0x0%2C1112x200%2C716x90%2C747x187&nras=1&correlator=7283391033743&frm=20&pv=1&ga_vid=256188619.1644372624&ga_sid=1644372624&ga_hid=1915881953&ga_fc=1&rplot=4&u_tz=-300&u_his=1&u_h=1112&u_w=834&u_ah=834&u_aw=1112&u_cd=32&u_sd=2&adx=22&ady=2947&biw=1112&bih=728&scr_x=0&scr_y=0&eid=42531398&oid=2&pvsid=3347075741504762&pem=580&tmod=698260812&nvt=1&eae=0&fc=1920&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C1112%2C0%2C1112%2C834%2C1112%2C728&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7CoeEbr%7C&abl=CS&pfx=0&fu=128&bc=31&ifi=5&uci=a!5&btvi=2&fsb=1&xpc=HpSuBaGe8E&p=https%3A//bocanewsnow.com&dtd=493

“A group that meets for prayer or other religious speech may advertise or announce its meetings in the same manner and to the same extent that a secular group may advertise or announce its meetings.”

While permitting religion in schools, the Palm Beach County School Board is simultaneously creating new rules to govern student speech. Among them: “(School officials) must ensure that a student speaker does not engage in obscene, vulgar, offensively lewd, or indecent speech…” There is notably no definition of “indecent” included in the policy.

BocaNewsNow.com has learned that several organizations are considering legal action over several elements of the new policy, but are waiting for the School Board to vote it into effect.

Tim Slekar, Director of the Educator Preparation Program, Muskingum University of Ohio. He insists we do not have a teacher shortage. We have a shortage of respect for teachers as professionals. He wrote the following:

Enough Already! It’s NOT a teacher shortage.

The public is not begging for teachers yet, but districts are. At some point, if this pathway does not change, the public will also be begging for teachers.” Scott Klimek

It was 9:55 am and Mrs. Tichon’s kindergartners were focused on the literacy task at hand. Every Monday morning at 9:45 Mrs. Tichon’s 26 kindergartners had to spend 15 minutes completing a district mandated “literacy check.” And every Monday three of Mrs. Tichon’s children never finished at 10:00 am and had to miss recess. 

Not today though! Mrs. Tichon had had enough. At 10:00 am she announced to her class that it was time to turn in their assignments and line up for recess. Of course the three children who never finished stayed in their seats and prepared to spend recess in the classroom completing the literacy check. “William, Lela, and Termain” Mrs. Tichon’s voice rang out. “Put your pencils down and please get in line. You are going to recess.”

Later that day Mrs. Tichon was summoned to the principal’s office during her lunch. She didn’t think anything of it at the time, so she picked up her things and went in to see her principal Ms. Stanever.

Ms. Stanever glanced up from her desk when she heard the knock on the door frame from Mrs. Tichon. “Please come in, close the door and sit down,” Ms Stanever whispered to Mrs. Tichon. Mrs. Tichon knew at that moment that something was wrong.

“Can you please tell me why William, Lela, and Termain did not finish their literacy check?” asked Ms. Stanever.

“Because it’s just not right to keep them in every Monday from recess. They’re only 4 years old. They need to play” Mrs. Tichon asserted.

“No. They must complete their literacy check so we can send their scores to central office to keep track of their progress. Without that data they will fall behind” replied Ms Stanever.

Mrs. Tichon was about to defend her decision more, but before she could say anything about early childhood and the need for free play, Ms. Stanever handed Mrs. Tichon a slip of paper. It was a “write up.” A slap on the wrist but it would come to define Mrs. Tichon’s identity that school year. By the end of the year Mrs. Tichon had accumulated 13 write ups and was considered a “troublemaker teacher.”

On June 9th—the last day of school—Mrs. Tichon packed up her room and took all of her belongings to her car. She drove home in tears and did not return the following year. She could not break another moral boundary again. She had become a kindergarten teacher because of a passion for igniting a flame of joy in young children and wanting to see them thrive. The system had other ideas.

This vignette was written before the covid 19 pandemic.  It’s a true story.  In fact, before the pandemic I surveyed well over 400 teachers from across the nation.  I wanted to hear directly from them why so many were leaving or about to leave.  The survey responses led me to teachers like Mrs. Tichon (Not real name) who were eager to tell me their stories about the demoralization they faced over the years as a classroom teacher.  

Sadly Mrs. Tichon was not an outlier.  In fact over 90% of the teachers surveyed indicated that they were quitting, going to quit, and/or seriously considering quitting.  Sixty percent revealed being treated for mental health issues that often led to marital problems and declining family dynamics. A majority indicated that they felt compelled to “teach for the test” rather than engage students in deep learning. And nearly all of them saw a future that had no connection to their vocational passions to make a difference in the lives of children. And this was before the pandemic.

At the time of these surveys I had been on my own mission to dispel the myth of the “teacher shortage.”  As a leader in teacher education, I was painfully aware of the declining enrollments in educator preparation programs.  My own teacher credentialing programs had seen a 20% decline over a ten-year period.  My institution was lucky.  Pre pandemic the national decline in teacher preparation programs was around 35% on average.  Some of my colleagues at other institutions watched their programs wither and close.  I met with potential students who wanted to become teachers and sadly listened as their parents spoke up first to remind their children that their chosen career path was not something the family supported.  My own children asked me quite regularly why I had become a teacher because from their experiences watching teachers, “Who would ever want such a crappy job?”

So when the media started telling the public about the “teacher shortage” I knew there was something incredibly misleading about that term.  And then when the solutions to fix the shortage—anybody can teach pathways—started to emerge it became very clear what was going on.  Policy makers were using the empty classrooms of demoralized teachers and the declining enrollments in teacher preparation programs to jam through “solutions” that further eroded the professional status of classroom teachers.  The war on teaching had evolved and the “anybody can teach” surge was deployed in earnest.

And then the pandemic changed the world of education as we know it.  First, teaching and learning went remote.  Teachers and building administrators became heroes.  They figured out ways to get wifi to families without privilege. Free lunches were passed out and sometimes even delivered to hungry students.  Teachers stayed remote for 14 hours a day to meet the needs of children that only had access to remote learning in extremely limited ways. 

Then the shift.  Concerned for their health and the health of the children and the school community, teachers found themselves at the receiving of end of the “Bad Teacher” rhetoric.  And once again, the media and politicians pummeled our schools and teachers for being selfish in this time of great national need—a national babysitter ranks. 

Teachers asked for “safe working conditions.” They asked for masks, covid tests, classroom ventilation systems and the ability to teach remotely when transmission rates were high.  These requests were too much and just more evidence of teacher laziness and not wanting to work.  The heroes had become zeros.  But they went back anyways—and some of them died.

And then, in the middle of teaching during a pandemic, somebody got “offended” when they found out that teachers were teaching the truth about history. “The truth shall set you free!”  Free to lose your teaching license and be on the receiving end of a social distancing nightmare. Now, as we flounder after two years of a pandemic that further demoralized teachers and turned the “shortage” into a full exodus it seems as if the “anybody can teach” crowd actually has won the high ground in the war on teachers and teaching.  In fact, the bar for becoming a substitute teacher has now been lowered.  Required?  High School diploma.

Now what?  Two words and a question mark.

But such a great question. It really is—If you actually take the time to ask it.  

As I look around, I am not hopeful it will be asked.  We are all too busy! Too busy to listen and hear Mr. Chanek explain that, 

“I became a teacher to inspire learners and learning. I wanted to work with explorers, thinkers, researchers and help them become even better at all of this. At first, this is what I did—engage learners.”

“In fact my classroom used to be a community of learners. We supported each other and didn’t label each other. However, things changed at some point. Instead of teaching learners, I had to teach data points. Then we started focusing on all of the deficits a learner brought to the classroom instead of allowing students to learn for understanding. As teachers we were constantly meeting to look at data and using that numerical data to supposedly create the best learning experience. I also noticed myself getting angry at kids who didn’t fit the mold because I felt that they would bring my teaching evaluations down. But my biggest ah ha was when a frightened student—heading into the foster care system—came into my classroom on the first day of testing. While our classroom welcomed him with open arms, another teacher took me aside to see if he was taking the tests. And if so, would his score impact our school’s score? I couldn’t believe what we had become.”

“From that moment I realized that I was being asked to do things that did not benefit kids. I was expected to label them according to some assessment that collected data points. I was expected to teach kids how to read fast instead of for understanding. I was expected to spend all of my professional learning time looking at data instead of actual student work. I wasn’t allowed to teach and students weren’t allowed to learn. I tried to actually teach covertly while playing the data driven/accountability game. It became tiring. I lost of part of my soul. This was not how I had started teaching.”

“I eventually made the decision to leave teaching—I was no longer inspired. I was doing double the work because I was attempting to still do best practice and fulfilling the mandates all while still swimming upstream. I was angry and depressed. My own children and spouse were suffering too.”

“One day I would LOVE to get back in the classroom. However, this will only happen when teachers are allowed to teach and their expertise is valued and not ignored.”

“Just let us teach!”

So simple and so profound.  Let’s let teachers actually engage students. Let’s empower teachers to ignite the passion for learning. Let’s stop being busy and recognize that our teachers are professionals who desire agency and deserve respect. 

Just let them teach!

The floodgates are opening for vouchers, as Republicans accelerate their war on public schools.

South Carolina Republicans introduced voucher legislation, joining a long list of other red states.

COLUMBIA — Republican legislators are on track to create a private school choice program in South Carolina after years of failed attempts, driven by parental complaints about closed classrooms and virtual-only non-learning amid the pandemic.

Legislation providing parents up to $5,000 yearly toward private tuition costs will likely advance to the House floor Feb. 9, a day after it easily cleared a Ways and Means subcommittee.  

“The unique circumstances of educating a child during the pandemic has taught us lessons,” Rep. Murrell Smith, chairman of the budget-writing committee and the main sponsor, said to open the one-hour meeting.

“The two things I think are very distinct and loud that we’ve heard is that parents want a voice in their children’s education, and they want a choice as to their children’s education,” the Sumter Republican said. “The time has come for those parents to have a choice right now. Kids who need the most help are victims of their economic circumstances as well as their geography.”

His proposal would set aside $75 million of the state’s surplus to create a three-year pilot program for up to 5,000 students annually in kindergarten through sixth grades. All children who qualify for Medicaid would be eligible for the tuition voucher, which in South Carolina means their parents earn at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, or $46,000 for a family of three.

Up to 500 students who are children of active-duty military service members would also qualify. 

If applications exceed the 5,000-student cap, the tuition aid would be doled out through a lottery…

This is not a silver bullet for education or for choice in education,” Murrell said. “This is a first step.”

The pilot is limited to elementary-age students, he said, since they’ve been most harmed by school closures. 

The subcommittee’s vote brought applause from an audience filled with fifth- through eighth-grade students from a Catholic school in Florence.

GOP senators are working on their own voucher proposal, though more slowly. A Senate Education subcommittee could advance its version Feb. 9 after weeks of meetings.

As introduced, that proposal would provide parents roughly $7,000 yearly for private K-12 education through a phased-in program open to 5,000 students initially and expanding to all Medicaid-eligible students, potentially costing hundreds of millions of tax dollars. But senators have been working on amendments to limit the possible cost. 

 

Denis Smith wrote the following post on the website of the Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding, founded by former state official William Phillis.

The Charter School and Voucher Wars Continue: A Tale of Two Cities, or Maybe Three
Denis Smith, retired school administrator and ODE Charter School Office consultant, discusses school privatization in 3 C’s—Columbus, Charleston and Concord.
Privatization of public education is a plague spreading faster than the COVID-19 virus. It is disabling the education of school children in public school districts across the state and nation. Legislators and governors throughout the nation are enabling this plague with tax funds.

The charter school and voucher wars continue: A tale of two cities, or maybe three


“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness,” Charles Dickens famously wrote. But if a latter-day Dickens were writing today, the tale might be about foolishness and not wisdom in the misuse of public funds. And the setting would not be two, but three cities, state capitals whose names, interestingly enough, all begin with the letter C. 
Certainly the times aren’t exactly Dickensian, but there is nevertheless the distraction of a raging global pandemic. Moreover, since today’s tale deals with recent events in these state capitals, that means we must relate a tale not of wisdom but of foolishness in the legislatures that sit in Charleston, West Virginia; Concord, New Hampshire; and Columbus, Ohio. The three states are alike in that they show a trifecta government in place, where both houses of the legislature and the governor’s office are under Republican control.
Which means that when the topic is the privatization of public education, where state funds are used in violation of state constitutional language to support private and religious schools and tax dollars are siphoned away from neighborhood public schools, there is no wisdom to be found on the front or back benches of these legislatures, only foolishness.
Or maybe that foolishness disguises deliberate, reckless behavior that enables a legislative wrecking crew intent on destroying public education, constitutional norms notwithstanding.
Let’s start with developments in Charleston, West Virginia. 

On Dec. 20, a circuit judge issued an injunction temporarily halting the opening of the first charter schools in the Mountain State. In that action, Kanawha County Circuit Court Judge Jennifer Bailey ruled that the creation of an unelected body, the West Virginia Professional Charter Board, violated the state constitution because an independent school district cannot be created within an existing county school district without the consent of the voters in the district or the county school board’s elected board of education. The judge’s action is expected to be appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court.
Note that the judge is merely asking the legislature — and inevitably appellate courts, to honor the principle of seeking the consent of the governed, as called for in the state’s constitution.
Meanwhile, in another state capital that begins with the letter C, opposition to legislation that would support vouchers in New Hampshire drew 600 people to Concord, and after thousands of citizens had contacted their representatives in defense of their public schools.

As a result of stiffening opposition from communities who see their school systems strapped for revenue following a series of tax cuts to state businesses, the New Hampshire legislature on Jan. 6 tabled House Bill 607, a new voucher bill that would greatly benefit private and religious schools. This action, taken at the very beginning of the legislative session, was in part a result of six lawsuits against the state “for avoiding its constitutional mandate to fund an adequate education.” Interestingly enough, the first in that series of lawsuits challenging the adequacy of state funding for public education in New Hampshire occurred in 1993, at the very time the landmark DeRolph v Ohio school funding case was winding its way through courts in the Buckeye State. 
Like the situation in the Mountain State, with its charter-loving legislature poised to further damage poor county school systems in a low-wealth state, we await further developments from the Granite State, where the legislature, like the situation in West Virginia, works hand-in-hand with a Republican governor to further undermine public education.
Which brings us to the charter and voucher war situation in the third letter C capital, Columbus.
Parallel with the anti-voucher developments in Concord, New Hampshire’s capital, the pushback against educational vouchers in Columbus also picked up steam on Jan. 4, when 100 school districts joined in a lawsuit against the state of Ohio for violating the constitutional requirement to fund an adequate system of public education. The emphasis here is on the word system, as that term is used in the singular form.
At issue is a huge expansion of the voucher program, or EdChoice, as it is commonly known. Since the establishment of the Cleveland Voucher Program in 1996, Republicans have schemed to expand what they call school choice, and what others argue is instead code language for school privatization and public school destabilization, a sure way to destroy public employee unions. 
Critics have long contended about the hypocrisy of Republicans who have long fashioned themselves as the party of strict constructionism when it comes to constitutional issues. In particular, the coalition of Ohio districts contend that the language in Article VI, Section 2 is abundantly clear: “The General Assembly … shall secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state …”
William Phillis, a former deputy state superintendent of schools and long-time leader of the public school advocacy group, Ohio Coalition for Equity and Adequacy of School Funding, argues that there is no ambiguity in the meaning of that part of the Ohio Constitution. He wrote recently:
“The definitions of key words are taken from Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, published in 1828.
System: an assemblage of things adjusted into a regular whole. The State is responsible for a system, not systems.
Therefore, the State is responsible for a (i.e.) one high-quality system of schools belonging to all. Private schools constitute a grouping of schools for which the State has no responsibility and is constitutionally forbidden to support.”

The lawsuit filed by Ohio school districts against the legislature for creating systems (note the use of the plural form here) of schools by using public funds to support private and religious schools in violation of the state constitution has received national attention. That is in addition to the privatization and voucher moves being engineered in the other two state capitals.
If only. Yes, if only the charter school and voucher-loving Ohio legislature could learn something from fellow legislators in the Granite State of New Hampshire and from a county judge in West Virginia. It starts by reading – and accepting – clear constitutional language, an exercise that Republicans (used to) call strict constructionism.
Those who value public services and the need for strict constructionism in following the letter of the law as written in state constitutions need to follow the drama found in this tale of three cities, Charleston, Concord, and Columbus. But if these hypocrisy-filled legislators continue their rampage of privatization unchecked, it will indeed be the worst of times, an age not of wisdom but of foolishness.
And you can add recklessness to that.
It was Mark Twain, the sage of Hannibal and Hartford — yet another state capital — who supposedly said that “no man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.” He knew what he was talking about.
To be continued. 

https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/01/21/the-charter-school-and-voucher-wars-continue-a-tale-of-two-cities-or-maybe-three/

https://vouchershurtohio.com/8-lies-about-private-school-vouchers/Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/OhioEandA

William L. Phillis | Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding | 614.228.6540 |ohioeanda@sbcglobal.nethttp://ohiocoalition.org

John Merrow, like millions of Americans, was appalled when the Republican National Committee attacked Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for serving on the House Committee investigating the insurrection of January 6. He was reminded of the film Spartacus.

He wrote:

In the 1960 movie “Spartacus,” the Roman Army puts down a slave revolt. The Commander of Italy offers to pardon thousands of slaves from crucifixion if they will identify Spartacus, the leader of the revolt. Spartacus (Kirk Douglas) stands to give himself up, but as he says, “I am Spartacus,” so does another slave (Tony Curtis), followed by first one and then another. Eventually all the slaves are shouting proudly and defiantly “I am Spartacus.” It is a memorable display of heroism and solidarity.

Today, to declare “I am Spartacus” is to stand with those who are being wrongly accused or persecuted, no matter the cost.

If ever there was a moment for traditional Republicans to stand and declare “I am Liz Cheney. I am Adam Kinzinger,” it is now.

Which brings us to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, two Republican members of the House of Representatives who were recently censured by the Republican National Committee “for their behavior which has been destructive to the institution of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Republican Party and our republic, and is inconsistent with the position of the Conference.” The resolution, passed overwhelmingly by voice vote of the RNC’s 168 members, also describes the January 6th insurrection as “ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.”

It hasn’t happened. No Republican is upset enough about the direction of their party to stand and declare, “Enough.” No elected Republican has had the courage to declare that he or she will no longer align with the GOP until it comes to its senses.

Twitter ‘outrage’ is no substitute for political courage, but that’s pretty much all we’ve gotten.

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan said in a tweet, “It’s a sad day for my party—and the country—when you’re punished just for expressing your beliefs, standing on principle, and refusing to tell blatant lies.”

Former Massachusetts governor and current Utah Senator Mitt Romney also turned to Twitter: “Shame falls on a party that would censure persons of conscience, who seek truth in the face of vitriol. Honor attaches to Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for seeking truth even when doing so comes at great personal cost.”

Nebraska Republican Senator Ben Sasse also Tweeted: “January 6th was not ‘legitimate political discourse’ and I’ll say it again: It was shameful mob violence to disrupt a constitutionally-mandated meeting of Congress to affirm the peaceful transfer of power.”

Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, who is not running for re-election, issued a statement through his PR team: “The Governor commends anyone who is willing to step forward and tell the truth, and disagrees with this vote. He has been clear that the January 6th riot was a violent insurrection and a sad day for democracy.”

No strong words from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and even retiring GOP Senators like Bob Portman of Ohio and Richard Burr of North Carolina have been quiet.

In the film, the defiant slaves pay dearly for their act of courage. Because Spartacus was not identified, the Roman leader crucifies nearly all of the slaves, saving two to battle to the death for the amusement of Roman citizens (with the victor then to be crucified).

The slave leader, Spartacus, learned an important lesson from what had happened: “When just one man says ‘No, I won’t,’ Rome begins to fear. And we were tens of thousands who said ‘No,’ and that was the wonder of it.”

While no Republican would be literally crucified for publicly declaring “I am Liz Cheney. I am Adam Kinzinger,” Fox News and other right wing voices would excoriate the defiant. However, it would not take ‘tens of thousands’ to halt the downward spiral the Republican Party has taken under Donald Trump. If enough Republicans had the courage to declare “I am Liz Cheney. I am Adam Kinzinger,” they might very well emerge strong enough to rebuild the Grand Old Party.

Today’s Republicans and the slaves of “Spartacus” differ in two crucial respects. The brave slaves in the film are being held in slavery against their will. Today’s gutless Republicans have chosen to be slaves. Their bondage is voluntary!

Since Merrow wrote this post, Senator Mitch McConnell criticized the Republican National Committee for censuring Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for their participation in the work of the Committee investigating the January 6 insurrection. McConnell did not agree with the RNC that the attack on the seat of the Government was “legitimate political discourse.” McConnell said it was “a violent insurrection.” Anyone who was in the Capitol at the time was running for their lives to a secure hiding place. Not a sign of legitimate political discourse.

The members of the RNC are sniveling cowards.