A retired educator once told me, “Parents don’t have rights, they have responsibilities.” Considering this viewpoint alongside the comment below, I can’t find any context in which these statements are appropriate.
In the same vein, former state Governor Terry McAuliffe (D-VA) said, “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what to teach.” Not to mention, the National School Board Association incited FBI Director Merrick Garland to declare war against parents.
In light of all the anti-parental rights sentiments infecting our education system, I declare:
Children are an inheritance, a reward, and a gift from God (Ps. 127:3). Therefore, they belong to their parents/guardians, not government employees. If your beliefs run contrary to this truth, then the following commentary was written with you in mind.
Two incidents lead to my discussion on parental rights in education. The first involves backlash I received after posting this flier in a parent group on social media:
Group members were appalled that I used the page to inform parents of their right to choose how their children are educated. One said, “I wonder what teachers would think?” Another member incoherently stated that teachers were being “used as political pons.” (I think she meant “pawns,” but we’ll blame public education for the error). The elementary shoving match in the comment section revealed that my primary opponent was, in fact, a teacher.
I was pitifully accused of being a “political operative” and called out for not focusing on strengthening relationships in the district. Never mind that I’m one of five people willing to attend board meetings. I’m also willing to find common ground with opposing leaders to improve academic success and student safety.
Our Parental Bill of Rights is one radical majority vote away from destruction. So, if giving parents options to circumvent government schools triggers you, then you’re part of the problem.
The second incident occurred on January 25, 2024, when teacher and Peoria Education Association (PEA) President, Trina Berg, requested public comments be moved to the end of the board meeting. Berg stated:
“My request is that we consider, and you have a discussion, and vote on moving public comments to the end of the board meeting. The reason why is because we have business we have to do. And I would appreciate it if we actually came in and did our business first … People still have the ability to speak on whatever they want, but it’s when business is done.”
Wouldn’t you know that public comments were relocated from position 5.1 to position 9.1 at the February 8 board meeting. Peoria Unified School District (PUSD) Board President Rebecca Proudfit — appointed by the financially compromised Maricopa County Superintendent Steve Watson — led the charge in compliance with Berg’s request.
When confronted about moving the comments, Proudfit claimed some teachers were uncomfortable with the atmosphere at PUSD board meetings. She also said the results of a survey — somehow received by educators but missed by parents — favored changing the meeting format. When pressed further about the timing of her decision, Proudfit said, “[Berg] did email me afterwards to say thank you … But I swear I wouldn’t do anything like that just because someone asked me to do it.”
Bear in mind, this is the same Trina Berg who staged an illegal sick out in defiance of the board’s decision to resume in-person learning after the 2020 winter break. District emails reveal that Berg and her co-conspirator, PEA Treasurer Jessica Batty (also a teacher), planned the union-backed catastrophe. At one point, Berg wrote, “[W]e are trying to show that this decision was especially dumb for retention.”
Berg’s shenanigans — which resulted in the closure of 13 schools — disrupted academic progress and left parents without childcare. So, why wasn’t this activist, posing as a teacher, fired?
The statement, “Teachers are not the primary stakeholders in public education,” is true contractually and financially. This is why teachers’ unions exist. Of course, educators typically have children, own property, and pay taxes in their district. But from a business standpoint, certified staff members do not hold revenue-generating positions — they are paid to provide a community service. For clarification: parents (and constituents) are patrons, students are beneficiaries, teachers are public servants.
Without parents and students, teachers wouldn’t have jobs.
When it comes to directing a child’s education, the law clearly identifies parents as the experts. And whether we consider parents “good” or “bad,” their rights are protected under the United States Constitution. The place of a teacher is to transfer knowledge, not propaganda, and foster an environment that’s conducive to learning, not excessive self-expression.
Communist dictator Vladimir Lenin — the man history deems responsible for the death of 10 million people — is credited with saying, “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.” This is the ideological framework of someone who aims to incite rebellion and break family bonds. I implore leftist educators to reject radical approaches to instruction, abandon hypercritical theories, and, instead, work to form an alliance with parents/guardians.
Finally, I commend sensible and honorable educators who practice transparency, partner with families, and build strong support networks for their students. You are the teachers we can entrust with our youth. Now more than ever, your skills and compassion are needed to shape young minds for the betterment of society and secure the future of our nation.
Tiffany Benson is the Founder of Restore Parental Rights in Education, a grassroots advocate for families, educators, and school board members. For nearly two decades, Tiffany’s creative writing pursuits have surpassed most interests as she continues to contribute to her blog Bigviewsmallwindow.com. She encourages everyday citizens to take an active role in defending and preserving American values for future generations.
Teachers who tutor can earn up to $8,000 in stipends as supplemental income, according to Arizona Department of Education (ADE) Superintendent Tom Horne.
The superintendent offered this estimate during the Arizona State Board of Education meeting on Monday. Horne called the supplemental income a “stipend for success,” since only teachers who bring students to proficiency through tutoring may achieve that $8,000 maximum.
“This [tutoring program] will have a secondary benefit, which is that it’ll improve the income of teachers, which we also place a very high priority on,” said Horne. “Teachers who take maximum advantage of [this program] can add as much as $8,000 to their income.”
The funds were made possible by the ADE’s reappropriation of $40 million in Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) federal funding earlier this month. The millions will cover an estimated 1.3 million hours of tutoring.
Horne’s predecessor, Kathy Hoffman, had issued that funding out of a total of $130 million to various vendors promising to counter the learning loss caused by the COVID-19 school shutdowns and remote learning. Those organizations were either unable to provide evidence of the academic impact of their work or show reasonable impact for the money received, according to Horne.
Horne noted that the $40 million for the tutoring program was on the low end. He disclosed during Monday’s meeting that vendors representing another $35 million hadn’t responded satisfactorily to his department’s request for proof of impact on learning loss.
Horne said those vendors representing an additional $35 million have been under further review. As a result of this ongoing review, Horne revealed that another $10 million in ESSER funds have been reappropriated as well.
“In our first go-around we had about $75 million that we were going to take back to use more directly for learning loss, but I only promised in my discussion with the press $40 million because we expected that some would come in and talk to us,” said Horne. “We’re in the $50 millions now.”
The tutoring program is open to students from grades 1-8 who didn’t test proficient in reading, writing, and/or math, at no cost to parents, beginning Oct. 2. Parents may choose between public school teachers or private tutoring companies to tutor their children.
In the ADE announcement of the tutoring program earlier this month, Horne explained that public school teachers would be paid $30 an hour and a $200 stipend for every student that shows a half-year learning gain from tutoring.
Horne also said that he was supportive of teacher pay raise legislation, citing a $10,000 proposed raise that Democratic leaders opposed.
“I believe teachers deserve more pay, which is why I supported Rep. Matt Gress’s recent bill for a $10,000 raise. I was shocked to see that the Governor and teachers’ union opposed it,” said Horne. “If they won’t help teachers get more money, I will.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
America is losing faith in its system of free public education. Test scores are down. Violence in schools is up. There’s a growing perception that things are out of control.
What’s odd about it all is how no one, seemingly, is interested in exploring why. State legislators don’t want to do it. Local school boards have other things on their minds. And the press is too busy covering real problems, like Donald Trump’s refusal to return classified documents to the National Archives, to spend any time exploring the reason kids are still being allowed to graduate from public schools without anything close to the mastery they need to get ahead in life.
Occam’s razor, named for its progenitor, 14th-century English philosopher and theologian William of Ockham, suggests the simplest answer is most likely the correct one. This would mean, one can infer, that the plight of our children is the fault of the teachers and administrators who run the schools.
Before continuing it is important to reflect on how teachers, especially, are like Members of Congress. Most voters believe, and have for decades, that while Congress as an institution is corrupt, moribund, and beholden to special interests, their representative is a fine, upstanding individual who is not part of the problem. That is also, the evidence suggests, how parents feel generally about the teachers whose responsibility it is to educate their children.
They too, it is reasonable to suggest, may fall victim to bureaucrats who, in telling them what to teach and how to teach it, end up perverting the process of education until our children’s minds are filled with mush.
Then again, perhaps not. It has been reported – but not as widely as it deserved – that some weeks back the Colorado Education Association, which claims to be the voice of 39,000 public educators in the Centennial State, adopted a resolution condemning capitalism. To wit:
The CEA believes that capitalism inherently exploits children, public schools, land, labor, and resources. Capitalism is in opposition to fully addressing systemic racism (the school-to-prison pipeline), climate change, patriarchy (gender and LGBTQ disparities), education inequality, and income inequality.
It is as alarming as it is illuminating. If most teachers in Colorado or indeed throughout the nation believe this, it becomes quite clear why the education system is failing our children. Those who teach are unable, unwilling, or unprepared to make our children see the world they are being prepared to enter as responsible adults.
Helpfully, and thanks of all things to the unnecessary pandemic-era lockdown of the nation’s schools undertaken at the apparent insistence of teachers’ unions and professional associations, parents have had enough.
There is no way to replace the learning and socialization lost to school closure. Leaders in some states like North Carolina, Oklahoma, Florida, and Arkansas are heeding the cries for help coming from parents by expanding education savings accounts and reforming the system so that education dollars follow the students rather than fund the systems.
To do this, they are showing great courage. They have taken on “Big Education” and in many places are defeating it by giving parents a role in deciding which school their child will attend.
As a practical matter, that means more and more children will be able to attend schools where Marxist doctrine is not presented as scientific fact, where a greater emphasis is placed on the “Three R’s” than the various ways to avoid pregnancy, and no one is going to be fighting over who gets to use what locker-room to shower and change after an athletic event.
Restructuring public education using free market principles like the supremacy of individual choice will break up the “Big Education” monopoly that is wrecking our children’s futures. Finally, after many years, there’s light at the end of the tunnel.
Peter Roff is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation. A former UPI senior political writer and U.S. News and World Report columnist, he is a senior fellow at several public policy organizations including the Trans-Atlantic Leadership Network. Contact him at RoffColumns@gmail.com. Follow him on Twitter and TruthSocial @TheRoffDraft.
Recent legislation mandates that public schools offer Mental Health Instruction and Social and Emotional learning (SEL) programs to their curriculum. But the legislation does not specify what those programs should consist of.
However, companion legislation does offer some guidance on SEL instruction by prohibiting instruction typical of Critical Race Theory (CRT) doctrine from being presented in classrooms.
The legislation gives seven specific prohibitions on social instruction: It prohibits teaching that:
1. One race, ethnic group or sex is inherently morally or intellectually superior to another race, ethnic group or sex.
2. An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race, ethnicity or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
3. An individual should be invidiously discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual’s race, ethnicity or sex.
4. An individual’s moral character is determined by the individual’s race, ethnicity or sex.
5. An individual, by virtue of the individual’s race, ethnicity or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed by other members of the same race, ethnic group or sex.
6. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish or any other form of psychological distress because of the individual’s race, ethnicity or sex.
7. Academic achievement, meritocracy or traits such as a hard work ethic are racist or sexist or were created by members of a particular race, ethnic group or sex to oppress members of another race, ethnic group or sex.
Parents are concerned that SEL programs may still be used to usher in controversial political and social ideologies concerning race relations (CRT), child sexuality (CSE) and neo-Marxist political doctrine (“Equity” as Wealth Redistribution), which may be buried in the details of certain programs. Parents would probably be far more comfortable if these ideological considerations were carefully scrubbed from SEL curriculum.
It may be far more effective to base SEL programs on agnostic, apolitical concepts that are generally accepted across cultural boundaries and are not agenda driven by activist special interest groups. Programs that focus on good character and positive behaviors, instead of specific identity group grievances and restitution typical of cultural Marxist doctrine, would most likely find far greater support in the community.
Here are several positive social behaviors that are generally accepted across many cultures that we used to present to students and which generated little controversy. Perhaps we never should have gotten away from these fundamental principles of behavior.
TRUSTWORTHINESS
Be honest. Don’t deceive, cheat, or steal.
Have integrity. Do what you say you’ll do.
Keep your promises.
Be loyal. Stand by your values.
RESPECT
Follow the Golden Rule.
Be accepting of differences.
Be courteous to others.
Deal peacefully with anger, insults, and disagreements.
Be considerate of others’ feelings.
RESPONSIBILITY
Do what you are supposed to do. Try your best.
Persevere. Keep on trying.
Be self-disciplined.
Think before you act. Consider the consequences.
Be accountable for your words, actions, and attitudes.
FAIRNESS
Play by the rules.
Take turns and share.
Be open-minded. Listen to others.
Don’t take advantage of others.
CARING
Be kind.
Be compassionate.
Express gratitude.
Forgive others.
CITIZENSHIP
Do your share to make your home, school, and community better.
Cooperate.
Stay informed. Vote.
Be a good neighbor.
Make choices that protect the safety and rights of others.
Protect the environment.
“Whole Child” Concept
The newest iteration of SEL appears to be the “Whole Child” initiative, which combines the academic education of children and the management of their physical, mental, and emotional well-being. The “Whole Child” initiative is driven primarily by the Association of Supervisors and Curriculum Development (ASCD) in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in an apparent effort to expand government agency influence into the home life and parenting of children. It is described by the Whole School, Community, and Child (WSCC) model as having 10 components:
Physical education and physical activity
Nutrition environment and services
Health education
Social and emotional climate
Physical environment
Health services
Counseling, psychological, and social services
Employee wellness
Community involvement
Family engagement
Other collaborators are the Priscilla Chan/Mark Zuckerberg Initiative and Collaborative for Social and Emotional Learning (CASEL). Both these collaborators’ organizations have been criticized recently for surreptitiously weaving controversial Social Justice doctrine into seemingly innocuous education programs.
Whole Child programs can take on a variety of forms. The Chandler Unified School District’s approach includes several specific, and far less controversial, programs such as:
Athletics
Art Masterpiece
Mandarin Dual Language
Academy and Traditional Schools
Special Needs Programs
Band and Orchestra
Spanish Dual Language
Gifted Programs
STEM Programs
There seems to be no generally accepted guidelines on SEL programs and the proper balance of academic instruction (the realm of teachers) and social instruction (the realm of parents). Both communities appear to be encroaching upon each other’s “turf” with parents recoiling about intrusive social instruction in the classroom and teachers dismayed about alternative school choice options being exercised by parents because of their discomfort.
It is long past time to resolve these conflicts with clear and distinct boundaries with respect to the education of, and raising of, children. Our children will be the ones who benefit most.
Kurt Rohrs is a candidate for the Chandler Unified School District Governing Board. You can find out more about his campaign here.
As we see a steady stream of experienced teachers leave the profession, we should be questioning why they are leaving. Maybe it is not always about money.
If teachers are expected not only to educate our kids, but now to raise them as well, perhaps we should consider that teachers may not realistically be able do all the things they are being asked to do.
Teachers usually come to love their kids, care about them deeply, and want what is best for them. It is part of what being a teacher means. But is there a limit to how much intervention a teacher should have in a child’s life?
We are now seeing an aggressive effort by Progressive Liberals to reshape American society to match their own personal preferences. This has become most evident in school classrooms where there appears to be a deliberate intent to influence children to accept their particular worldview. So, are teachers now expected to step in front of parents to drive these controversial ideologies?
This is leaving parents concerned and dismayed by the social conditioning that is being exposed in the classrooms with regard to sexuality, race relations, and political ideologies. They are also becoming more agitated and outspoken as they perceive their own children being weaponized against them.
So are Progressive Liberals, in the form of “Woke” activists, engaging in a deliberate effort to pit teachers against parents in a rather ruthless bid to gain political power and control?
Are these activists now simply using teachers as tools to accomplish their political goals? This would be deeply disrespectful to the profession. If this realization sets in for teachers, it is quite doubtful that they will appreciate being used in this way. And hopefully, they will start to turn away from this scheme.
But teachers aren’t the only ones affected. Children can also feel caught in the middle between parents and teachers, which could leave them traumatized by this contrived conflict. It’s like children who watch their mother and father argue at the dinner table and, wanting to please both, don’t know which way to turn. This cannot be a healthy and positive situation for children. It is of little wonder that we seem to have more children displaying mental and emotional health issues than before. They are being unnecessarily over stressed.
We have also seen national teachers’ unions trying to bully, intimidate, and discredit parents who dare to question their efforts to control dialogue in the classrooms. They label these parents as “Domestic Terrorists” and threaten that dissenting parents be sanctioned by the Justice Department.
Because of these aggressive activities, there is a concern that the bond of trust between parents and teachers is being frayed almost to a breaking point. This is a great disappointment. Now, more parents want to pull their children out of public schools because of the dissatisfaction with this type of undesirable social conditioning. Many feel that their children are being taken away from them, so they are responding by removing these children from that perceived threat.
There is a responsibility for teaching professionals to develop and maintain healthy and positive relationships with parents, to explain to parents what they are teaching and why, to define the limits of their intervention in the raising of children, and to reassure parents that they are not trying to replace them. They must convince parents that public schools are the best place to send their kids—and that there are well understood boundaries of what will and will not be presented to their kids in the classrooms.
Kurt Rohrs is a candidate for the Chandler Unified School District Governing Board. You can find out more about his campaign here.
