Posts Tagged ‘Schools’

Part 2 Protecting Against Mass Murder: A Workable Armed Security Plan

SchoolsThere are things that make schools particularly attractive targets for evil men or crazies who want to inflict harm on others or who want to hurt society: Schools contain large numbers of helpless children and a few adults who can pose no threat to an attacker; Being gun-free zones, schools guarantee that the will be no armed person in a school, with the possible exception of a school resource officer; and, once the slaughter starts, the attacker knows that it will take several minutes for the police to be called and to respond. The attacker also knows that if there is a single policeman assigned to the school, he could get rid of that threat to him by simply removing the officer or distracting him in some way; and even if the officer is not disabled the attacker would simply have to begin his attack in one of the more remote classrooms. For these reasons our children are like lambs in a slaughterhouse
The only real protection against a terrorist (and no matter their motive, the people who stage these attacks are terrorists) is to have numerous people in all parts of the school who can be first responders to an attack. The outcome at Sandy Hook Elementary School would have been very different had the first teacher who confronted the attacker, and the Principle who confronted him had done so with a gun.
Schools should be Attack Free Zones; meaning that if an unauthorized person enters a school they are considered a deadly threat and if they do not immediately surrender, they will be shot. This means that schools would have to have the ability to control all access to the school and to identify and control visitors or those on authorized business.
The two most rational objections to arming school personnel are 1) that they would create a confusing battlefield for police who respond- it would become difficult for the officers to identify the perpetrators as opposed to the armed school personnel; and, 2) School personnel are not trained in the needed skills and procedures. I think there is some valid concern on both points. However, if the arming of school personnel is done properly both these points become moot.
First the personnel would have to pass the normal gun ownership background checks, second, they would have to pass the concealed carry class, and third they would be required to be trained and sanctioned by the local police department, and would operate under direction of the police department as a reserve unit of the police. This takes away the concern about qualification.
There are probably several employees at most schools who are already competent marksmen and trained in gun safety. There are likely military veterans or reservists, concealed carry permit holders, reserve officers, or shooting hobbyist on the school staff. These people would be the obvious first class of trainees. The goal would be to have most employees, including administrators, teachers, classified staff, custodians, and bus drivers qualified and armed. Since the reasons schools are such enticing targets for evil or crazy people is because they know they will easily be able to do great harm, having this type of reserve protection would take away that primary attraction as a target.
The second valid concern is identification of school police reservists. First, since they are under the direction of the police, trained by them, and mingle face to face with officers they would be known by sight to the police. Second they would be provided with a recognizable police vest which they would don in the event of an attack anywhere on the school. The teachers in classrooms would lock down their classroom, direct the children to take cover, and then take a defensive position to stop the attacker from entering.
Teachers involved in other activities with students would move them to designated safe areas and take up a defensive position to protect the children. Administrators and other non-teaching personnel would don their vests and move quickly to the trouble area, firing on an attacker at the moment they are encountered.
The reserve officer school personnel would be organized into rank leadership based on competency and training and the senior officer (who might be a teacher or a janitor rather than an administrator) would assume command of the crises until a ranking police officer is on the scene.
Chances are, that in most cases based on this scenario by the time police arrived all school reservists would be “in uniform”’ the threat would be neutralized, and all arms would be holstered, avoiding the chaos envisioned by detractors.
Chances are good that this would prevent injury or loss of student life; or at the worst would limit the number of such casualties.
I will cover reestablishing a healthy American gun culture in Part 3.


Terry Moe, one of the leading experts in education reform in the country, professor of political science at Stanford University, fellow at the Hoover Institution, and author of the newly releasedSpecial Interest: Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools, has a message for the teachers unions:

Rest In Peace, because your days are numbered.

e is one of the major movers and shakers in the school reform movement. He co-wrote a book in 1990 that arguably launched the school choice movement as we know it today. Politics, Markets and America’s Schools was a game-changer twenty years ago.

His latest book, Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools, takes a look at the teachers unions and argues that they are the primary reason why the quarter-century long school reform movement has failed.

But soon, the unions will no longer be an obstacle to reform. Why? Technology.

Moe argues that the incredibly massive revolution in information technology will deliver a death blow to teachers unions. In this profile of his life and impact on the education reform movement, Moe says:

“In the final analysis, what technology requires is a substitution of technology for human labor. Computers will do a lot of what teachers do now.” Jumping forward in his chair, he lights up: “Technology is cheap. Labor is really expensive. Education has always been very labor intensive, so if our education system can substitute technology for labor and still provide kids with high quality education, then great!”

Moe explains that technology will fundamentally change the politics of education. “In the future, we will have fewer teachers per student. This means fewer union members per student. Also, teachers don’t have to be concentrated in the same geographic place—because when students do their learning online, their teachers can be anywhere. This fragmentation and dispersion will make it harder for unions to organize.”

Another blow to unions will be the myriad of choices families will have: “There will be state-level virtual schools. There will be virtual charter schools. And there will be hybrid schools: where kids actually attend a physical school in a geographic place, but take perhaps 80 percent of their coursework online. Most schools of the future, I suspect, will be hybrids.”

This revolution in education technology is already underway. Consider PA Cyber, an online charter school in Pennsylvania that was set up some ten years ago as an alternative high school for the students of Midland, Pennsylvania. The district was expecting fewer than 50 students to enroll—but by opening day, an astounding 500 had done so. Today, the school enrolls 8,000 students, graduates 1,000 of them yearly, meets all federal achievement standards—and does all of this with a student/teacher ratio of 35:1. The money it saves on labor it reinvests in technology.

One reason PA Cyber has been so effective is that an online education allows a student to work at his own pace. In virtual schools, computer visuals and audios walk students through a lesson on math or reading, and are completely tailored to the students’ academic needs. Via exercises the computer has the student perform, and other interactive features, the computer is able to gauge whether the student can move at a quicker rate, or needs to review some fundamental concepts from the lesson.

These are the themes of the latest book that Moe has co-authored with Chubb titled Liberating Learning: Technology, Politics, and the Future of American Education, which was published in 2009.

Typically, critics of virtual education voice two major concerns. The first is whether it will be as effective as a traditional one. The second concern has to do with whether students receive less attention from their teachers, since there will be fewer teachers per student.

“Technology will provide the biggest boost to school choice that has ever occurred in the history of education.”

Addressing the first point, Moe notes that more than a decade of research shows that virtual education is as effective as traditional education—even though computer learning is still in its infancy.

He adds that he would also expect virtual schooling to be especially consequential for social equity. “Take the kids who are doomed to go to school in downtown Detroit, where many of the schools are failing and many of the teaches are inadequate. Well, with virtual learning, these kids can have access to the best curriculum the world has to offer—and the best teachers too—precisely because technology makes geography and physicality irrelevant.” In other words, the kind of education a student receives is not dependent on whether the student is from the inner city. Wherever they are, they can have the best.

As to the second critique, Moe assures me that “for most of these computer programs, there are teachers. The teachers may not be in the room, but they are still connected electronically with their students, and are interacting with them. The teachers, moreover, are in a position to know a great deal about every aspect of their students’ learning process: when they are logged in, what material they have covered, what questions they got right and wrong, and more. The teachers can be in frequent contact with their students; they can also be in contact with parents. And the students in virtual classes will often have email, chat, and other kinds of interactions with one another—perhaps many more interactions than they might have in a regular classroom setting.”

In the case of hybrid schools, there will be real live teachers at the school. “Let’s say a third-grade kid is taking math from an online learning program. The computer is doing most of the teaching, and that frees the teacher up—to be a tutor, to address questions and problems, to provide support, and to enhance the learning experience in other ways.”

Beyond that, education may become more fun. “What is happening is that you have a lot of smart people in the education technology business saying, ‘ok how can we create a computer program that teaches U.S. history to fourth graders or math to second graders in a way that will hold their interest, motivate them, and get them excited about learning?’ It’s not a question of just teaching the material, but of making it engaging and fun. How do you keep kids interested? The answer may be video games. It may involve more visuals, more action, brighter and different colors. Compare that to 30 kids sitting in a classroom for forty minutes watching a teacher at the chalkboard.”


In 1990, when Politics, Markets and America’s Schools was published, Moe had declared that the school reform movement was likely to prove a failure. These days, he is more optimistic. “Technology will provide the biggest boost to school choice that has ever occurred in the history of education. Unions are trying their best to see that this revolution never happens, and that the traditional system is preserved—but they will ultimately fail.”

He concludes saying, “The revolution in information technology is historic in its magnitude and sweep, and far too powerful for the unions to hold back. There will be virtual options. The unions can delay it. They can dilute it. They can stand in the way. But they can’t stop technology from seeping in—and as it seeps in and continues to grow and develop and take root, it will change education as we know it. It may take twenty years, but it will happen. And that’s a very good thing—good for education, good for children, good for the nation.”



California wants lesbians as mandatory 'role' models

Family advocates call plan ‘worst school sexual indoctrination ever’

By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Lawmakers in the state of California are proposing a law that would require schools to portray lesbians, homosexuals, transsexuals and those who have chosen other alternative sexual lifestyles as positive role models to children in all public schools there.

“SB 48: The worst school sexual indoctrination ever” is how officials with the Campaign for Children and Families describe the proposal,SB 48,sponsored by state Sen. Mark Leno.

Openly homosexual, Leno boasts on his website of founding a business with his “life partner, Douglas Jackson,” who later died of AIDS complications.

That description as “worst” is considerable, considering the Campaign for Children and Families was a key player in the battle in the state in 2007 and 2008 over a variety of laws that now forbid any “adverse” portrayal of those alternative sexual choices in school, class, curriculum and by teachers.

On its website, the organization explains the plan by “homosexual activist” Leno “would require all students in social studies class to admire ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender’ role models.

“The Democrat state legislators pushing this radical bill want to recruit boys and girls to support the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda, personally and publicly,” the organization’s Action Alert explains.

“They want them to become ‘LGBTIQ’ activists [and] help trample religious freedom, free speech, parental rights, business-owner rights, private property rights, the Boy Scouts, and everything else you hold dear.”

Equality California, an organization that advocates for homosexuality, said others sponsoring the plan include Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego; Assembly member Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco; Assembly member Toni Atkins, D-San Diego; Assembly member Rich Gordon, D-San Mateo; and Assembly member Ricardo Lara, D-East Los Angeles.

On his state website, Leno expressed his worry: “Most textbooks don’t include any historical information about the LGBT movement, which has great significance to both California and U.S. history.

“Our collective silence on this issue perpetuates negative stereotypes of LGBT people and leads to increased bullying of young people. We can’t simultaneously tell youth that it’s OK to be yourself and live an honest, open life when we aren’t even teaching students about historical LGBT figures or the LGBT equal rights movement,” he said.

He said it is confirmed that where schools promote homosexual lifestyles, those who exhibit that lifestyle “are treated more fairly by their teachers and peers.”

But the Campaign for Children and Families, which teaches people to stand up for “what’s right in God’s sight” and encourages them to challenge “liberal forces” and “impact the next generation,” is promoting a campaign to have state residents contact state officials with their own concerns

The message warns that if the plan becomes law,“children as young as kindergarten will be taught to admire homosexuality, same-sex ‘marriages,’ bisexuality, and transsexuality.'”

“Children will be enticed into political activism in support of everything pushed by ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning’ political groups, as the bill requires ‘particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.'”

Further, it would require that “teachers will be made to positively portray homosexuality, same-sex ‘marriages,’ bisexuality, and transsexuality … because to be silent opens them up to the charge of ‘reflecting adversely.'”

“This is radical, in-your-face sexual indoctrination that parents genuinely don’t want and children certainly don’t need,” the statement says.

The California Legislative Counsel’s commentary on the plan affirms it would “require instruction in social sciences to also include a study of the role and contributions of Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, European Americans, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans … to the development of California and the United States.”

It also would require”alternative and charterschools” to “take notice of the provisions of this bill.”

The law itself requires that schools teach “particular emphasis on portraying the role of these groups in contemporary society.”

The Campaign for Children and Families, run by executive Randy Thomasson, notes that it would demand that school boards select textbooks and other materials that actively promote homosexuality, because to be silent “opens them up to charges of ‘reflecting adversely.'”

It also notes parents would not be able to exempt their children from the mandatory teaching.

Thomasson told WND that this is the next progression following a multitude of earlier laws adopted in California that serve the dual purpose of cracking down on traditional families and promoting the “alternatives.”

“The California public schools are no longer safe places for boys and girls morally,” he told WND. “This new bill, SB 48, reflects the desire of the Democrat state legislators to recruit boys and girls to support the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda both personally and publicly.”

Under the law, he said, “textbooks, teachers and school boards will be forced to promote homosexuality, same-sex ‘marriage,’ bisexuality, transsexuality, sex change operations, cross dressing as positive role models.”

“Pushing this slop bucket in the face of impressionable kids is disgusting to most people,” he said.

It was just two years ago when the Campaign launched the Rescue Your Child effort to encourage parents to withdraw their children from public schools because of such indoctrination.

That followed work by the legislature and then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to establish Senate Bill 777 and Assembly Bill 392 as law. Those institutionalized the promotion of homosexuality, bisexuality, transgenderism and other alternative lifestyle choices by banning any “adverse” references in schools.

At the time, officials said SB 777 “functionally requires public school instructional materials and school-sponsored activities to positively portray cross-dressing, sex-change operations, homosexual ‘marriages,’ and all aspects of homosexuality and bisexuality, including so-called ‘gay history.'”

The second bill, AB 394, “requires public schools to distribute controversial material to teachers, students, and parents which promotes transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality, all under the guise of ‘anti-harassment’ training.”

Those laws ban in any school texts, events, class or activities any discriminatory bias against those who have chosen alternative sexual lifestyles, according to Meredith Turney, legislative liaison for Capitol Resource Institute.

But there are no similar protections for students with traditional or conservative lifestyles and beliefs. Offenders will face the wrath of the state Department of Education, up to and including lawsuits.

California also has mandated that public schools honor Harvey Milk – a homosexual activist and reported sexual predator, as well as an advocate for Jim Jones, leader of the massacred hundreds in Jonestown, Guyana. led a statewide battle against “Harvey Milk Day” before California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed theS.B. 572.

The bill designates May 22 – Milk’s birthday – a date of “special significance” and encourages all California public schools to “conduct suitable commemorative exercises … remembering the life of Harvey Milk and recognizing his accomplishments as well as the contributions he made to this state.”

Read more:California wants lesbians as mandatory ‘role’ models

SEO Powered By SEOPressor