Chandler Unified School District (CUSD) teachers are pushing the adoption of a rebranded version of social-emotional learning (SEL) referred to as “Windows, Mirrors, and Sliding Glass Doors” (WMSGD). SEL itself is a guise for controversial educational approaches such as Comprehesive Sex Education (CSE) and Critical Race Theory (CRT).
Windows, Mirrors, and Sliding Glass Doors was first introduced as the “windows and mirrors” concept in 1988 by a white woman, Emily Styles. It was later picked up and popularized in a 1990 essay by a black woman, Dr. Rudine Sims Bishop, with the addition of “sliding glass doors”—children not only see into others’ perspectives (windows) and reflections of themselves (mirrors), they are able to step into others’ perspectives (sliding glass doors). The essay insisted that children can and must understand the world through multiculturalism, and that books should reflect that reality. Multiculturalism signifies a diversity of cultures, ethnicities, and races; it’s an offshoot of intersectionality, which reduces an individual to different aspects of their identity — such as race or sexuality — in order to create a hierarchy of discrimination, oppression, and privilege.
Bishop claimed that children could be affirmed, uplifted, or even offended by books. In reference to children’s interaction with majority-white literature, Bishop asserted that “nonwhite” children understand how they are “devalued” in modern society. She further suggested that a lack of diversity within children’s books contributed to racism, or a “dangerous ethnocentrism,” which she claimed was still pervasive.
“When children cannot find themselves reflected in the books they read, or when the images they see are distorted, negative, or laughable, they learn a powerful lesson about how they are devalued in the society of which they are a part,” claimed Bishop. “Children from dominant social groups have always found their mirrors in books, but they, too, have suffered from the lack of availability of books about others. They need books as windows onto reality, not just on imaginary worlds. They need books that will help them understand the multicultural nature of the world they live in, and their place as a member of just one group, as well as their connections to all other humans. In this country, where racism is still one of the major unresolved social problems, books may be one of the few places where children who are socially isolated and insulated from the larger world may meet people unlike themselves. If they only see reflections of themselves, they will grow up with an exaggerated sense of their own importance and value in the world—a dangerous ethnocentrism.”
Windows, Mirrors, and Sliding Glass Doors doesn’t just address race—since it’s steeped in the principles of cultural responsiveness and equity, it also offers a framework suitable for broaching topics of sexuality. One example of this is the children’s book on gender identity, “It Feels Good to Be Yourself” by Theresa Thorn, marketed for children 4-8 years old.
On all fronts, the Bishop teaching approach mirrors SEL.
In the push for adopting Windows, Mirrors, and Sliding Glass Doors, it appears that the teachers are being led by their most esteemed peers. During CUSD’s Governing Board meeting on Wednesday, the first to advocate for a Windows, Mirrors, and Sliding Glass Doors curriculum was Chandler High School (CHS) teacher Sara Wyffels. She claimed schools weren’t effectively humanizing or providing unspecified resources to their students. Wyffels has taught with CUSD for 15 years and earned Arizona Teacher of the Year in 2021.
“I would like some support to humanize public education: the teachers, students, and curriculum,” said Wyffels. “This is an amazing opportunity to validate students as humans existing in this world and to provide resources to meet the needs of our children.”
Wyffels added that she not only teaches Spanish to her students, she validates students as humans and provides other resources to fit their needs — though she didn’t specify what those “needs” were, or what she was providing. Wyffels also asked for assistance from parents and community members for herself and all other educators because their teachers were “in crisis.”
The Declaration of Independence already identifies and protects the dignity and worth of individuals. That validation of humanity is further secured by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” reads the Declaration of Independence.
In a written reflection inspired by a Proverb from the Bible, former President Abraham Lincoln further clarified one of the main purposes of the founding documents.
“There is something back of these, entwining itself more closely about the human heart. That something is the principle of ‘Liberty to all’ — the principle that clears the path for all — gives hope to all — and, by consequence, enterprize [sic], and industry to all. The expression of that principle, in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy, and fortunate. Without this, as well as with it, we could have declared our independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity. No oppressed people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters,” wrote Lincoln. “The assertion of that principle, at that time, was the word, ‘fitly spoken’ which has proved an ‘apple of gold’ to us. The Union, and the Constitution, are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple — not the apple for the picture. So let us act, that neither picture, or apple shall ever be blurred, or bruised or broken. That we may so act, we must study, and understand the points of danger.”
Though she wasn’t as explicit about her support for implementing a Windows, Mirrors, and Sliding Glass Doors curriculum, CHS World History teacher and 2021 Chandler Woman of the Year Gloria Garza-Wells said that test scores were down because they weren’t meeting the needs of students and their families.
“By offering a curriculum centered on honesty, integrity, and courage we can provide the windows and doors to make sure that every child is seen,” asserted Garza-Wells.
CHS dual enrollment English teacher and Arizona State University (ASU) faculty associate Dr. Monica Baldonado-Ruiz praised Bishop’s idea that students should see their identities reflected in the curriculum and the ways they’re taught. As she began to cry, she apologized for “get[ting emotional.”
“For most of their school experience, many of our students have only seen windows. They have not been reflected in the curriculum. Their experiences have not been celebrated or highlighted as points of genius. I speak as one who never saw herself reflected in curriculum until she went to college,” said Baldonado-Ruiz.
Former Arizona Superintendent of Public Education Diane Douglas wrote at length in an Arizona Daily Independent opinion that the push for “safe sex” education for children wasn’t safe for the children at all. Rather, Douglas asserted that children lacked the maturity to process sexuality materials.
“There is NO kind of sexual activity—heterosexual, homosexual, bi-sexual, any SEXUAL—that is ‘safe’ for emotionally immature school-aged children—male or female—even those who have reached that miraculous, chronological ‘age of majority’—18 years old. Nor is it my business how consenting adults choose to privately express their sexual beliefs and inclinations unless it crosses the line into abusing children or stealing their innocence with public sexual exhibitions or desensitizing and sexualizing children; deluding them that they too should and can be safely, sexually active,” wrote Douglas.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
In the wake of multiple federal court rulings striking down all provisions of President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandates, Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD) has suspended their vaccine mandate for employees. A number of colleges and universities followed Biden’s executive order requiring federal contractors to get vaccinated.
MCCCD notified employees that it would hold onto the policy detailing their now-suspended mandate on their website, indicating that they would await further ruling on the subject. For the time being, their January 7 deadline is no longer in effect.
“Given the rapidly changing landscape, if an employee would like to voluntarily provide your vaccine information or continue with the accommodation process you may certainly do so,” wrote MCCCD. “MCCCD will leave the Federal Vaccine Mandate submission structure (including this website) in place and will continue to monitor the situation.”
All three of Arizona’s public universities — Arizona State University (ASU), Northern Arizona University (NAU), and University of Arizona (UArizona) — also have employee vaccination mandates in place. UArizona and NAU told AZ Free News that they were reviewing the court ruling and its potential impact, and indicated that ASU was as well.
“At this time, we continue to strongly encourage employees to get vaccinated and verify their vaccination status,” said UArizona spokeswoman Holly Jensen.
Pima Community College also has a vaccine mandate; spokeswoman Libby Howell told Arizona Republic that they were keeping their mandate in place despite the ruling, but noted that their governing board may decide to vote to suspend it next week.
The federal contractor vaccine mandate was suspended nationwide on Tuesday by U.S. District Judge R. Stan Baker, a Trump appointee to Georgia’s southern district court, in the State of Georgia, et al., v. Biden, et al.
Baker’s opinion concurred with those issued by judges in separate rulings on other mandates prompted by Biden: that the president’s exercise of power didn’t align with the Constitution or other legal precedents. Baker also cited the ruling of another federal judge in Kentucky, Gregory Van Tatenhove, a Bush appointee, who previously suspended the same order in several states: Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.
“As another Court that has preliminarily enjoined the same measure at issue in this case has stated, ‘[t]his case is not about whether vaccines are effective. They are.’ […] Moreover, the Court acknowledges the tragic toll that the COVID-19 pandemic has wrought throughout the nation and the globe,” wrote Baker. “However, even in times of crisis this Court must preserve the rule of law and ensure that all branches of government act within the bounds of their constitutionally granted authorities. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that, while the public indisputably ‘has a strong interest in combating the spread of [COVID-19],’ that interest does not permit the government to “act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends.”
The reason that Baker applied his ruling nationally — as opposed to a limited application like Tatenhove’s Kentucky v. Biden ruling — was because the intervening plaintiff, Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. (ABC), is a national company.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Kyle Rittenhouse told Louder With Crowder (LWC) on Wednesday that Arizona State University (ASU) wasn’t honest in their characterization of his enrollment status, and declared he will attend ASU in the spring despite student activists’ pushback late last month.
Rittenhouse was vindicated by a jury of all charges last month, proving he’d lawfully exercised self defense during the Kenosha riots. During Wednesday’s episode of political news and comedy show Louder with Crowder, Rittenhouse explained that he’s a student at ASU currently.
“Yeah, it’s online. I took a compassionate withdrawal from my classes. My professors offered it and then a week later they gave me a compassionate withdrawal which – thank you for that. But then they came out with a statement saying, ‘Oh no no, he’s not enrolled at ASU anymore.’ I’m enrolled, I’m just not in any classes, but I have a student portfolio,” said Rittenhouse.
AZ Free News inquired with ASU about the technicality of student portfolios and enrollment. ASU spokesman Jay Thorne told AZ Free News it couldn’t go into detail about Rittenhouse’s enrollment status due to FERPA law. Their official statement contradicted Rittenhouse’s claim, saying he wasn’t enrolled currently.
“Kyle Rittenhouse did not go through the ASU admissions process but was enrolled in two publicly available online courses for this semester. University records show that he is now no longer enrolled, a status precipitated by his own actions,” stated Thorne.
That wasn’t all that Rittenhouse had to say about his future education. Rittenhouse also told LWC that he wasn’t deterred by the socialist and social justice student protestors at ASU.
“There weren’t even a lot of protestors there. It was a very, very small amount. And then people are just like, ‘I thought you were getting an education?’ and I’m like, yes, that’s what I want to do,” explained Rittenhouse. “I want to go to law school. I’m going to ASU in the spring in person. I want to do my four year undergrad there before I take the LSAT and go do my three years of law.”
Some recognizable faces were among the protestors’ number. One of the featured speakers there was Mastaani Qureshi – one of the three women found guilty of ASU’s Code of Conduct for harassing two white male peers with apparently rival political beliefs out of a common space on campus. Mastaani apparently took issue with another white male that represented apparently rival political beliefs, Rittenhouse, for his potential attendance at ASU. She claimed he was a white supremacist, vigilante, and killer.
“We want to say that Kyle Rittenhouse is not just any random killer, he’s a white supremacist killer. He is a vigilante. He is the descendant of white Americans who killed black and brown people. White supremacists back in the day were also acquitted of all charges if we have read history,” asserted Mastaani. “Kyle Rittenhouse didn’t get a guilty verdict because he was f*****g white!”
The entire Kenosha ordeal has shaped Rittenhouse’s career goals. Rittenhouse originally expressed an intent to study nursing, a desire reflected by his reason for being in Kenosha that fateful night last August: to put out fires and administer first aid to anyone present. Then on Wednesday, Rittenhouse confirmed with Crowder that he intends to study law instead of nursing because of the prosecutorial misconduct he witnessed and experienced during his trial.
“I want to be a criminal defense attorney,” said Rittenhouse. “I’m big on, no matter who the person is, I believe everybody deserves fair and good legal representation.”
OJ Simpson jury consultant Jo-Ellan Dimitrius helped select the jury for Rittenhouse’s trial. Rittenhouse said that she was an amazing support for them.
“She’s a phenomenal jury consultant. She’s more than that for us, though. She was a rock for my mom – someone my mom could lean on and hold during this entire ordeal,” said Rittenhouse.
The No Surprises Act passed by Congress in the waning days of Donald Trump’s presidency to better inform patients of the costs of medical procedures and other services doesn’t take effect until Jan. 1, but the Biden Administration is already getting pushback on how it intends to implement one provision of the new law.
That pushback is coming from health care providers who recently blanketed federal officials with negative comments about a regulatory rule issued by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the providers claim goes against the language of the Act, which was passed to formulate a nationwide process for resolving “surprise” or unexpected medical bills.
The two most common expected billing problems patients face in Arizona result from being treated by an out-of-network doctor at a medical facility within their network, or when a patient requires emergency or urgent care at an out-of-network facility.
For those in rural areas, a third common surprise billing issue involves charges for out-of-network air ambulance, or medical evacuation, services.
Under the new law, a patient’s copayment for an out-of-network bill will be limited to roughly what the patient’s copayment would be had the service or procedure been fully conducted in-network. Any unpaid balance can be challenged by the out-of-network provider, who must first attempt to negotiate the matter with the patient’s insurer or commercial health plan.
The rule also establishes an arbitration process the provider must follow if an agreement cannot be reached with the insurer / health plan. And after that, according to the American Hospital Association and other provider groups, is where the rule as currently written verves away from the intention of the new law
As put forth by HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, the rule requires an arbitrator to consider an insurer or health plan’s in-network median payment rate for the service or procedure in question as the “presumptively correct” rate. Priority is given to that rate over other factors mentioned in the Act, such as complexity of the billed procedure or service, whether a party engaged in good faith during negotiations, and the health care provider’s training and expertise.
“By directing arbiters to presume that the plan’s or issuer’s median contracted rate is the appropriate out-of-network reimbursement rate and creating a significantly higher bar for consideration of other factors means that the [independent dispute resolution] process effectively will be unavailing for providers,” according to Stacey Hughes, AHA executive vice president.
But not everyone in the health care industry is opposed to the rule’s presumption of the reimbursable rate during arbitration. Insurance companies and commercial health plan support the arbitration rules which make it harder for out-of-network providers to receive payment.
It is also seen as a way to force providers to sign on to more networks to reduce the cost of getting paid.
“The approach taken in the interim final rules is a clear win for hardworking people,” said Matthew Eyles of America’s Health Insurance Plans, a national association whose members provide health care coverage. “This is the right approach to encourage hospitals, health care providers, and health insurance providers to work together and negotiate in good faith. It will also ensure that arbitration does not result in unnecessary premium increases for businesses and hardworking American families.
For now, the Biden Administration appears to be standing behind the rule even though 35 percent of the U.S. House of Representatives signed off on a letter in November urging the presumptive rate rule be reconsidered.
The Biden-Harris Administration will continue implementing federal regulations from the No Surprises Act to not only protect the patients but also curb rising costs in health care,” Becerra said in response to the pushback. “We want costs to go down. When the arbitration process is wide open, no boundaries, at the end of the day health care costs go up, not down.”
The No Surprises Act was passed as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act.
The decision by President Joe Biden to sharply increase the tariff on Canadian softwood lumber to 17.99 percent is threatening housing affordability and has prompted calls from The Wall Street Journal and homebuilders for the White House to take quick action to reverse course.
More than one-quarter of softwood lumber—such as pine, cedar, fir, and spruce—used in America comes from Canada. The new tariff is twice the 8.99 percent rate in effect when Biden took office in January. It comes on the heels of wholesale lumber prices which tripled from July 2020 to July 2021, adding nearly $30,000 to the average cost of a new home, according to the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB).
The NAHB says the increased tariff is adding on average another $9,000 to the price of a new home compared to July. It is also pushing up prices of renovation and remodeling projects that are critical for ensuring affordable housing options in many communities.
“The doubling of duties on Canadian softwood lumber is ill-timed and ill-advised,” NAHB Chairman John C. Fowke wrote to Biden on Dec. 3. “As has been the case for decades, the domestic lumber industry cannot, nor will not, produce enough lumber to meet U.S. consumer demand. We rely on lumber from Canada to fill the production gap, so punitive tariffs on our closest and best trading partner on a product that American consumers desperately need defies logic.”
Top NAHB officials met at the Canadian Embassy in Washington DC last week to discuss the tariffs. After the meeting, Fowke send his letter to Biden, calling on U.S. trade officials to negotiate with the Canadian government for a lumber trade agreement that eliminates tariffs and ensures a fairly priced supply of lumber.
“The tariffs harm housing affordability by acting as a tax on American home builders and home buyers, and contribute to huge price volatility in the lumber market by putting upward pressure on lumber prices,” Fowke wrote.
The association, which has 140,000 members across the country, also called on Biden to support efforts to increase domestic lumber production. “Improving the health of our nation’s forests and increasing the supply of domestic timber are not mutually exclusive goals,” Fowke wrote.
Last month the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board noted that prices for U.S.-produced lumber is at more than 75 percent above pre-pandemic levels.
“For decades U.S. sawmills haven’t been able to meet domestic demand, but they’ve leaned on government to protect their market share,” the WSJ’s opinion stated. “The shortage would be much worse if not for Canadian lumber, which backs up U.S. output.”
The tariffs, the WSJ wrote, “will raise building costs in an already strained housing market.”
Then last week, The Washington Post’s editorial board published an opinion succinctly titled “Biden is hiking lumber tariffs at the wrong time.”
And the editorial board for the Las Vegas Review-Journal wrote that driving up the cost of lumber via tariffs will discourage construction and worsen inventory shortages for southern Nevada. “Much like the weather, politicians love to talk about affordable housing but none of them want to do anything about it. Put the Biden administration firmly in that camp,” the Review-Journal noted.
The city of Phoenix decided to suspend the city’s vaccine mandate after a federal judge halted President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal contractors. The city based its mandate for its employees under an interpretation of its workforce as federal contractors based on the amount of federal dollars and contractors it had.
The Phoenix City Council was scheduled to discuss their vaccine mandate during a policy session on Tuesday. Since the city announced the mandate’s suspension shortly before the meeting took place, officials instead modified the agenda item to showcase how well the city had handled the pandemic, the timeline of events preceding the mandate, and an explanation why the city classified itself as a federal contractor.
In light of today’s federal court ruling, temporarily blocking a requirement for all federal contract workers getting the #COVID19 vaccine, the city of #PHX will pause implementation of the federal mandate requiring city workers be vaccinated by Jan. 18. pic.twitter.com/0XRW1VtJBt
City Manager Jeff Barton offered a prelude to the presentation by insisting that the mandate was decided upon for the greater good.
“The January 18 vaccine mandate was not a city of Phoenix mandate. It was a federal mandate passed onto the city via executive order and with today’s ruling our city has halted implementation,” emphasized Barton. “Our fight against COVID-19 has forced us to be creative and innovative with our service delivery, and at times has forced us to make extremely difficult decisions as public servants for the greater good.”
Barton added that city administrators were “extremely flexible” with their COVID-19 policies for employees throughout the pandemic.
“I value their right to personal choice, religious freedom, and other convictions. But I also have an obligation to ensure the city operates within state and federal laws,” said Barton.
A week after the city announced their mandate, Councilman Sal DiCiccio called for a public vote on the mandate. DiCiccio said that the mandate would only strain further an already critically manned first responder force.
The response of first responders to the mandate was consistent with DiCiccio’s assessment. The Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA) and The United Phoenix Firefighters Association (UPFA) joined Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s lawsuit against President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal contractors and employees.
Another big win to stop Biden's unconstitutional COVID-19 vaccine mandates for federal contractors.
