LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY — The crackerjack Texas Board of Education has dropped a popular children’s book author from the third grade curriculum because board members confused him with an author of a book on Marxism.

The late Bill Martin Jr. wrote Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?, one of the most endearing children’s books of all time. Bill Martin, a philosophy professor at DePaul University in Chicago, wrote Ethical Marxism, which oddly has never been popular with schoolchildren.

So, which bright lights on the Texas BoE confused the two authors? For those of us living outside the Lone Star State, their names, Pat Hardy and Terri Leo, are not so important, I suppose. But I will note that they are both Republicans and both dead set on purging the Texas school curriculum of anything that isn’t 100% True Blue Amurrican. Rather than, say, check their facts, these two concluded that (1) Marxism is un-American, (2) political analysts frequently moonlight as children’s book authors (or vice versa) and (3) such authors would undoubtedly conceal their Marxist propaganda in children’s books as part of the worldwide commie conspiracy to overthrow This Great Nation™ through the hearts and minds of its children.

Thanks to the keen minds of Hardy and Leo, Texas schoolkids are now safe from the pernicious influence of Brown Bear, who is probably one of those commie Russky bears anyway.

January 26th, 2010 | Tags: Bill Martin, Republican, Texas Board of Education | Category: Civil liberties, Schools | Leave a comment

JISHOU, HUNAN — Ah, but the wheels of justice turn slowly …

‘Way back in June 2006, high school valedictorian Brittany McComb, after agreeing to school officials’ changes to her Christianity-laced graduation speech, proceeded to use her original text anyway. School officials’ “rapid response team” quickly cut off McComb’s microphone, to avoid anyone getting the idea a public school was preaching Christianity.

Mayhem ensued. Well, mostly legal challenges.

McComb, who is now a student in Biola University in California, acquired the legal backing of the Rutherford Institute, which filed a complaint in federal district court alleging Clark County, Nev., school officials had trampled her rights of free speech and equal protection under the law. The court found in favor of the school officials.

McComb took her case to the federal appeals court, which found no reason to overturn the previous ruling.

Then she took it to the Supreme Court, where it died a quiet death. (Technically, the SCOTUS denied a petition for a writ of certiorari, meaning the Justices were not going to tell the lower courts to hear the case all over again.)

So, what’s it all mean? McComb’s attorneys claimed that Foothill High School, by attempting to cut off her valedictory in midstream, abridged her rights of free speech and equal protection. The courts (all three, basically) said, “Not.”

November 23rd, 2009 | Tags: brittany mccomb, Foorhill High School, nevada, religion, Rutherford Institute, Schools | Category: Civil liberties, Commentary, Schools, religion | Leave a comment

JISHOU, HUNAN — Recently, I wrote a reaction to the Christian rightwing hijacking of the Texas Board of Education, and the anti-public education views of one of its members. A visitor named Joey swung by this week, and left this comment:

You will note that Joey has nothing directly to say about the Texas BOE, but definitely agrees that public education is a Bad Thing.

I don’t, though I am a critic of public education. My reply was this:

September 11th, 2009 | Tags: civics, compulsory, education, Jefferson, public education, Schools, TBOE, Texas Board of Education, Washington | Category: Commentary, Schools, Teaching | Comments (22)

JISHOU, HUNAN — So, it goes like this. A high school football coach loaded 20 of his players on a school bus, and took them to his church, where several of them were baptized while the school superintendent watched.

There were just two little problems with this trip. One, not all the kid’s parents signed off on this trip. Two, the kids go to a public school, so the coach and his superintendent more than likely violated federal law (like the Constitution).

Except they don’t see it that way, because the trip was “voluntary.”

Predictably, the high school is smack dab in the Bible Belt, in western Kentucky.

Here’s a little cultural background about western Kentucky, which Coach Scott Mooney and Superintendent Janet Meeks should have already known. Back in Kentucky’s early years, there were two main religious groups, the Baptists and the Catholics. When I lived in western Kentucky, my friends told me about the stories they heard about the “other” people, how Baptists almost drowned their young or Catholics go drunk during services.

Suffice it say, the two groups did not exactly trust each other, for a long time.

So, for Mooney and Meeks to so blithely whisk away 20 teenagers to their Southern Baptist church for a revival, a free steak dinner, and coincidentally to have some of them baptized either indicates the two are stupid or playing some dominionist games.

September 9th, 2009 | Tags: baptize, church, Civil liberties, coach, football team, kentucky | Category: Civil liberties, Commentary, Schools, religion | Comments (2)

JISHOU, HUNAN — As expected (by rational people), President Barack Obama will talk at noon today to students about overcoming hardships, staying on track, going to school, doing their work, and making a difference for their communities and their nation.

He even says, “God bless you and God bless America.”

I’ve read the text released ahead of time by the White House. I can’t find any socialist, Marxist, or any other kind of pernicious indoctrination. It’s not bombastic. It’s not demagoguery. In fact, he says exactly what he said he would say.

So why were people upset again?

September 7th, 2009 | Tags: Barack Obama, education, president, school, speech, students | Category: Commentary, Schools | Comments (2)

JISHOU, HUNAN — Maybe I can stop foaming at the mouth now. Two polls by Survey USA of Verona, New Jersey, shows people overwhelmingly favor President Barack Obama speaking directly to schoolchildren.

In fact, the people surveyed said it was entirely appropriate for any president to speak to schoolchildren. Most said they would want their children to hear the speech. And most said school districts should make the decision whether students should watch or listen.

Two identical polls were taken of 500 adults each in Fresno, California, and statewide in Missouri. Here are the results of the Fresno poll. The results of the Missouri poll are almost identical; you can check them for yourself.

Question 1: President Obama plans to deliver a national address to school children on the importance of them taking responsibility for their own success in school. Do you think it is appropriate? Or not appropriate? For President Obama to deliver this address?

Question 2: Do you think it would be appropriate? Or not appropriate? For ANY President to deliver this address?

Question 3: If you had a child attending a school that was going to show the address, would you tell your child to pay attention? Would you tell you child to NOT pay attention? Or would you keep your child home?

Question 4: Who should decide whether to show President Obama’s national address to school children? School districts? Or individual teachers?

September 5th, 2009 | Tags: Barack Obama, education, Schools, speech, survey, wingnuts | Category: Commentary, General stuff, Schools | Comments (2)