Here is exactly why we desperately need a voucher system and Senate Bill 1 to pass! I have tried to alert parents about the obvious and extreme liberal Progressive indoctrination in this district, and this is more of the same. The symposium is a "scholarly" event held at Pine-Richland High School for the advanced students across all grades and subjects, for some voluntary and for some required participation for a grade, introduced 3 years ago with our new "conservative Christian" superintendent Mary Bucci. In 2009, John Dewey and his Progressive education ideas were featured. In 2010, Brazilian Marxist Paulo Freire's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" was the central theme. This year the topic is "Global Issues and Awareness" and it is April 19 and 20, 2011 and open to the public (see PRHS 2011 Symposium - the schedule lists topics and guests).
Tomorrow (April 19) Caleb Wheeldon of PETA, director of youth outreach, will lead a roundtable discussion. When I googled him, a photo came up that I had to share. This guy dressed up in a KKK outfit to protest outside the 2009 Westminster Kennel Club show, indicating that PETA believes that the oppression of the AKC (American Kennel Club) in breeding dogs is equivalent to the KKK's violence against African Americans. This seems like a slap in the face of former PR Middle School principal Kathy Harrington, who breeds and shows dogs (unfortunately Dr. H like most experienced sensible teachers and adminsitrators these days retired at the end of last year; she was awesome, really cared about the students, not their test scores and their impact on her career).
Here is the article: USA Today PETA KKK Protest http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2009-02-09-peta-westminster-kkk-protest_N.htm
This Caleb was also arrested for dressing up like Jesus outside a church's pig roast several years ago, but I couldn't find a photo. What we need is an organization to protest these events at schools - the Tribune Review is useless and biased and will not report anything negative about this district (I have tried) and these events will only be covered in the news if it is covered in the news...which is a bit of a problem. People can call PETA about animal issues and get them to issue press releases and protest, but thus far, there is no help for parents with this kind of concern.
I have more info about the other speakers/topics at the PR symposium - fair trade (as opposed to free trade?), collectivism vs individualism (gee whiz, I wonder which one will win?), roundtable with Citizens for Global Solutions (Dan Giovanelli)whose mission is to:
"We are a membership organization working to build political will in the United States to achieve our vision. We do this by educating Americans about our global interdependence, communicating global concerns to public officials, and developing proposals to create, reform, and strengthen international institutions such as the United Nations."
And roundtable with Global Education Motivators (GEM Bartolomeo Misana) which "was founded by educators in 1981 to help meet the complex needs of bringing the world into the classroom. GEM has consistently worked with students, teachers and administrators through on-site and distant learning workshops and classroom program support to promote a better understanding of the world and its people.
Believing that international communication exchange is a key to future world peace, the inclusion of cross cultural perspectives has become an integral part of GEM's global learning programs. Global awareness is closely tied to global responsibility.
An integral part of GEM's mission is to support the work and mission of the United Nations and the important role of civil society in today's world. "
And having a couple of speakers who do not seem to be completely Progressive one world order types does not make up for all this. I fear parents here would rather bury their heads in the sand and tell themselves the continual brainwashing of their children will not work.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
But you see- this is the higher order thinking that we keep hearing about. The more Marxist, globalist, activist, environmental concepts, the more higher order thinking. In my mind- they don't directly correlate. In fact, it could potentially be doing the opposite for the children. And for parents who aren't paying attention, it can be easy to trust this idea coming from the educators.
ReplyDeleteThe reading "Being critically literate in science" causes some alarm for me given the STEM initiative. It reads as a rebellious essay from a teacher's perspective - all the while appealing to young minds. Also - regarding the PETA activist, is this who is being held in high regard for the students? Who picked this winner? Sorry for typos if any- typing on a device.
Check out front page of yournorthhills.
ReplyDeleteYou Have reason to criticize the symposium. It is a basis for students and experts to discuss a topic of thier choice. It simply provides different view points. Frankly, the documents are a basis for the presenters to start from and respond to. It provides students to talk about issues that matter.
ReplyDeleteNO Reason is what I meant.
ReplyDeleteI have an abundance of reasons to criticize the Symposium, the teachers who sleected the biased readings for their bias, the Superintendent for being a liberal in conservative's clothing, and the School Board Directors - particularly Herko and Dawson - who said they would carefully review the readings. The readings do not provide different viewpoints, they reflect the same liberal, progressive, Marxist viewpoints as done in the 2009 and 2010 events. How is this higher order learning and critical thinking when the kids are simply reflecting the liberal bias of the educational system?
ReplyDeleteHi first Anonymous, yes the reading "Being critically literate in science" reminded me of last year's "Pedagogy of the Oppressed" by Freire where the author is hinting that the current mindset, traditional values, etc need to be challenged and replaced with his new liberal values. With so much emphasis on right brain, fuzzy feely science and math, the STEM would seem to be further neutering the science and math curricula. But since STEM in Pine Richland is a closely held secret to be mandated by the board and selected teachers and administrators, we won't know what STEM will look like for some time, as far as I know. In fact, it appeared that they planned the "STEM Addition" for $40 million without having any clear idea what STEM means. But it sounds good having a whole "STEM Addition" to someone out there who gives out awards to public schools.
ReplyDeleteJust found this STEM article which should relate to PRSD - havent read it yet but here is link. http://blbstudios.net/symposium/content/makingStemReal.pdf
ReplyDeleteBut now, setting pretense aside, let’s take a look at what you’ve actually done. Your investigative reporting has revealed some potentially troubling things about one speaker and then we have a series of cut-and-pasted mission statements from a few of the other speakers. But where is your evidence of rampant indoctrination? Forget evidence, where is there any kind of argument? We are meant to assume that these mission statements are indications of liberal indoctrination in the Symposium because they promote global awareness and discussion regarding issues which transcend national borders? Perhaps we could draw this conclusion ourselves if you in any way explained how being concerned about issues which people in both the United States and other countries face is a part of liberal progressiveness? We get a clue in one of your last sentences when you say, “And having a couple of speakers who do not seem to be complete Progressive, one-world-order types does not make up for all of this” (I’ve inserted some punctuation to make this sentence readable). So, being concerned with global problems and finding solutions means you automatically subscribe to the notion of one-world-order? And THIS is what the district is pushing via this brainwashing of the students?
ReplyDeleteBut wait, what’s that noise? Oh no, it’s the Red Alert Contradiction Alarm. Remember how we established that your point was that the district was indoctrinating students by only presenting them with one viewpoint? Now you admit that there were speakers there who did NOT subscribe to this particular ideology. Does this mean they presented other perspectives? Because this would be a big no-no in Indoctrinationland. It could lead to students questioning the one viewpoint we are trying to get them to adopt, maybe even (gasp) being critical of it. This sounds, oddly enough, more like education than indoctrination. You have rather obviously contradicted yourself.
Let’s take it a step further. Surely, there is more to this story. You mentioned that the Symposium is open to the public (which seems a rather dangerous thing to do if there are indoctrination watchdogs about), and you are obviously deeply concerned about the goings-on in the district. So I am wondering, which sessions did you attend? Which speakers or discussions did you find to be most disturbing? It is clear from your post that you were aware of this in advance, so much so that you had time to Google search various presenters. Surely if this is that important (and what could be more important than the indoctrination of our children) you found the time to go and see for yourself how this was all unfolding. It would be worth a vacation day from work to blow the lid off this conspiracy and save the children. So, please, regale us with the treacherous behind-the-scenes tales of brainwashing. Because, I have to tell you, if the extent of your evidence is a few generic mission statements, it is rather difficult to see how any good administrator or reputable news outlet is going to take your claims very seriously.
But we should more closely address your claim about the topic and these troubling mission statements that point toward the establishment of an evil, Progressive world order. As I indicated earlier, it is rather difficult to see how you could jump from these mission statements about global problems, awareness, and potential solutions to a conspiracy to enact this single world order. Is it not possible for me to be very patriotic and still believe that there are such problems and that cooperation between nations is necessary to solving them? Why should the fact that we acknowledge the existence of such issues instantly qualify us as subscribing to this notion of one-world-order? Presenting it as you have seems to indicate that you adopt either the isolationist view or the unilateral one. So, either we shouldn’t acknowledge world problems unless they directly affect us or we can acknowledge them and just do whatever we want. It is very difficult to tell because you have given us no indication of the proper worldview with respect to this question. You seem to presume, however, that there is some kind of either/or at play here. What are the other perspectives on international relations or global issues which you found lacking in the reading or speaker selection? This is what I mean about attempting to make positive change. What recommendations for readings or thinkers did you present to those members of the school board who approve such things?
ReplyDeleteGiven your comments in the past and your veiled insult of Dr. Bucci as being a disingenuous conservative Christian, let’s assume for a moment that this is the perspective you wish to see presented. Side-stepping the obvious problem I mentioned last year about the separation of church and state, let’s consider what Jesus might say about global issues. The ethics of the New Testament is one of enduring compassion with respect to our fellow man. Jesus himself exemplifies this compassion, which is specifically mentioned many times, but perhaps, most appropriately for us in the stories about healing the sick or feeding the multitudes with small amounts of bread and fish (I’m thinking here of MT 14:13 and 15:29). In fact, Jesus himself is deeply concerned about the welfare of others and about human relations. Jesus’ dedication to alleviating the problems of the sick, the poor, the hungry, the suffering serves as the shining example of Christian ethics. Nowhere in the various descriptions of Jesus’ words or actions do we find him placing a limitation on this compassion due to national borders or any other qualification. Love your enemy (unless he lives over there); treat others as you wish to be treated (except if they are gay or liberal or that thing you really don’t like about them); sell your possessions and give to the poor (unless those poor are starving children in Africa). I’m really pretty sure Jesus doesn’t say anything about giving to only those poor you feel like giving to, or am I wrong here? So we can see that Jesus is concerned with issues facing humanity, not those facing any particular segment of the world’s population. Really then, it would be exceedingly difficult to argue that Jesus would say we should not be concerned about global issues as they relate to human interaction. Neighbors aren’t just the people who live on your street so it seems you can’t really hold Christian ethics together with an isolationism which would absolve us from examining global issues of suffering and looking for solutions.
Now I have no idea what issues the students’ discussed with the speakers; I was not there. Perhaps they did not discuss issues of human suffering—things like genocide, or abject poverty, rampant medical epidemics, and starvation in third world countries. Perhaps they were discussing things more in line with the environment or the economy. Again, perhaps you can enlighten me as I am sure you were there and took copious notes. My point here is that what I presume to be your particular system of belief does not necessarily de facto preclude a discussion of global issues. If anything Jesus’ example invites us to further dialogue about the problems and possible solutions to the problems facing us as human beings not just as Americans. It should make us ask ourselves: how can I do more? You make it sound as though ANY discussion of these issues is immediately prejudicial. This parallels my explanation of your misrepresentation of the idea of bias last year (one you intentionally continue in your blatant mischaracterization of last year’s “central theme” at the beginning of this year’s post as well as in your response post regarding the teachers). You can argue that the readings or the speakers constituted a single view on these issues and that this is inherently prejudicial to that viewpoint because it does not admit of other perspectives. But you cannot argue that general topics like “Ethical Considerations in the 21st Century” or “Global Issues and Awareness” are prejudicial unless you want to maintain that these don’t really exist, which is an absurd proposition even if you are a moral nihilist.
ReplyDeleteLet me close by reiterating (even though I’m sure you stopped reading awhile ago) that my primary purpose here has been to defend those who for one reason or another don’t defend themselves against your accusations and insults here. In a response post you indicated that you “have an abundance of reasons to criticize the Symposium”, and these are: the teachers, the Superintendent, and the School Board members mentioned. Here is a newsflash: these are people not reasons and your critique of them is not a critique of the Symposium. It is my hope that Dr. Bucci, those members of the School Board you called out by name in a response post, and the teachers, parents, and administrators whom you have insulted are all able to take the higher road than you and I have and to see your post for what it truly is. We all know the saying that the squeaky wheel gets the grease and I have been in organizations where leaders reacted to outlandish accusations, devoid of any strong argument or evidence, by taking it out on their subordinates. Let us hope that Pine-Richland School District has leaders strong enough to rise above your vicious rhetoric and recognize the Symposium for what it truly is: a significant educational advantage for the students. If you want a little lesson on international relations, here’s a fundamental tenet of American foreign policy that I’m certain you’ll agree with: we do not negotiate with terrorists. The officials in the school district would do well to adopt such a policy when dealing with people who utilize fear speech to inflame the sentiments of a particular portion of the population. Rather than trying to scare people into action, perhaps you should present a compelling argument and offer realistic solutions rather than just raging into the wind.
And if you find yourself incapable of being rational, civil, and in general acting like a mature adult, might I suggest finding some producer to heckle about the future of reality TV: “Bored Housewives of Western PA”. You could be a star.
So something obviously did not work properly there as my previous posts did not show up for some reason. I will repost it in entirety with Part labels to attempt to avoid confusion.
ReplyDelete(PART TWO)
ReplyDeleteLet’s at least be honest about this: it is, after all, obvious to anyone with half a brain that there is a very the sharp disparity between your charged rhetoric and any semblance of a rational argument made in support of your conclusions. You are more interested in inspiring a reaction by using fear-inspiring words or established tag lines of terror like “brainwashing”, “Marxist”, and “extreme liberal progressive indoctrination” than you are in attempting to illustrate that the Symposium actually is any of these things or part of this greater conspiracy you seem to indicate exists. Now, if I were to engage in your chosen technique, mobilizing fear as a motivator for action, I might be inclined to point out that Hitler stands as one of history’s greatest executors of just this kind of rhetoric. But attempting to paint you as a fascist or even a Nazi (you aren’t, right?) by drawing a comparison between you and Hitler based upon this similarity seems to me to be neither accurate nor intellectually honest but it sure as hell stands a very good chance of being effective in causing people to revile you, assuming the reader is simple-minded enough to accept obvious leaps in inference.
But let’s take a closer look at your approach here and see if we can highlight the problem. So your claim is essentially twofold: first, that the Symposium constitutes a form of liberal indoctrination mobilized by the district’s leaders and perpetuated at all levels, and that this year’s theme of “Global Issues and Awareness” and the requisite readings and speakers essentially constitute a continuation of this indoctrination.
Now, it is obvious that my attempt last year to get you to think about the nature of indoctrination, which is at the very heart of your claim, either flew right over your head or you simply refused to acknowledge it. Since you are super fond of looking things up on the internet (rather than reading directly from various sources or thinkers), let’s go to the Wikipedia page on indoctrination, shall we? There we find indoctrination defined as “the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.” So indoctrination as a process, as opposed to education, would seem to necessitate a consistent message about how this particular doctrine, or way of looking at the world to extend it to the way in which you use it, is the right one. It would then not be effective to present alternative viewpoints for critical analysis, as this would be counterproductive to the goal, and we certainly would never ask those being indoctrinated to ask too many questions or develop their own viewpoint. There are no viewpoints in indoctrination—there is the right way, our way, and everything else is wrong and dangerous.
(PART THREE)
ReplyDeleteAnd in fact this seems to be precisely your point! The Symposium apparently falls into this form of indoctrination precisely because it only presents one viewpoint and, of course, students would never be expected to critically examine or question the things they have read or the things the speakers have to say. Now let’s pretend you actually articulated what this viewpoint is beyond your tag phrase and proceeded to demonstrate how all the works the students read, the teachers, the speakers, administrators, and even the students all supported this vision either in word or deed and that dissent was not tolerated, then you would have a potentially persuasive argument. Of course, you would need to be this comprehensive to show that what is going on is really indoctrination (and not education) and that it is as pervasive and top-driven as you claim here.
But now, setting pretense aside, let’s take a look at what you’ve actually done. Your investigative reporting has revealed some potentially troubling things about one speaker and then we have a series of cut-and-pasted mission statements from a few of the other speakers. But where is your evidence of rampant indoctrination? Forget evidence, where is there any kind of argument? We are meant to assume that these mission statements are indications of liberal indoctrination in the Symposium because they promote global awareness and discussion regarding issues which transcend national borders? Perhaps we could draw this conclusion ourselves if you in any way explained how being concerned about issues which people in both the United States and other countries face is a part of liberal progressiveness? We get a clue in one of your last sentences when you say, “And having a couple of speakers who do not seem to be complete Progressive, one-world-order types does not make up for all of this” (I’ve inserted some punctuation to make this sentence readable). So, being concerned with global problems and finding solutions means you automatically subscribe to the notion of one-world-order? And THIS is what the district is pushing via this brainwashing of the students?
But wait, what’s that noise? Oh no, it’s the Red Alert Contradiction Alarm. Remember how we established that your point was that the district was indoctrinating students by only presenting them with one viewpoint? Now you admit that there were speakers there who did NOT subscribe to this particular ideology. Does this mean they presented other perspectives? Because this would be a big no-no in Indoctrinationland. It could lead to students questioning the one viewpoint we are trying to get them to adopt, maybe even (gasp) being critical of it. This sounds, oddly enough, more like education than indoctrination. You have rather obviously contradicted yourself.
Well for some reason my posts are being deleted so it seems I won't be able to display the entirety of my comments here. I've taken the liberty of creating a blog in order to put the entire thing in one place.
ReplyDeletehttp://anonymousresponse.blogspot.com/2011/04/anonymous-response.html
You sound like a teacher. Yes I read all of the readings. Yes I read all of the essays. You use way too many words. John Dewey, Paulo Freire, PETA, Fair Trade, Food Inc movie. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. When were parents and the community invited to provide input to this symposium? They weren't. How about readings about American Exceptionalism? Why not invite a commercial farmer to provide an expert opinion of the Food Inc. viewpoint? Why not invite Dr Harrington, retired Middle School principal, to address the PETA claims that dog breeding is bad (considering she breeds champion dogs). Anyway, I don't write this to convert Progressives, I write this to document the event and to try to explain to conservative Christian parents who want to see their own worldview reflected in their kids that they had better keep track of what their kids are learning.
ReplyDeleteThe implication of the board director saying that Bucci is a "conservative Christian" is that we should sit back, relax, and let her loose. She has not been good for the district.
BTW, the Bible says "There is no one good, not one" (Luke 18:19) and "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23) and "Jesus answered...unless a man be born again he cannot see the kindgom of God" (Jn 3:3). The biggest problem that humanity has is not poverty, or illness, or global warming, it is the need for a Savior to avoid an eternity in hell...yes a literal real hell. Christ didn't say "go fix world hunger" he said to preach his Gospel.
I am a student in Pine-Richland, and participated in the 2011 symposium. In regards to 1crosbycat's post "When were parents and the community invited to provide input to this symposium? They weren't." I would like you to be aware that in the role of public relations we wrote letters to the parents and guardians of students in the district inviting them to come take part in, and help further discussions with the students. Teachers selected the best letter which was then given to Rachel Hathhorne (Communications Director in PRSD) and put in the PRHS Ram Express available online at http://pinerichland.schoolwires.net/20211071074445387/lib/20211071074445387/Archives/Apr12011HS.htm Other than that, students that apply and are chosen for the role of "Letter Writers" in the symposium are the people responsible for who shows up and speaks at the symposium. Seeing as you don't know how the symposium is actually put together, you can find all job descriptions on the blackboard symposium website, and an overview of the symposium on the official website made by another student at http://blbstudios.net/symposium/
ReplyDeleteThis is ridiculous. PR is a great school and half of the things you are saying is really unnecessary. So stop... fuzzy little man peach.
ReplyDeleteThen I suppose the other half is completely necessary! What makes a great school anyway? We thought it was test scores, and saw PRSD ranked very high in PA. But test scores only matter if the tests are great - and are they? The PSSAs are based on the State Standards, which have been criticized, and soon they will be based on the nationalized standards.
ReplyDeleteYeah, someone invited the PETA guy. Nobody took him seriously, he made a bit of a fool out of himself because we all went out to the Chick-a-fil-a catering after his presentation.
ReplyDeleteWe all know that they're crazy. They value animal life more than human life. You think that the students were actually eating up what he said? Have some faith. High schoolers aren't that dumb.
Go to the symposium next time. I know for a fact you weren't there, because I happen to know who 1crosbycat is and didn't see you anywhere.
I'm not sure how you can expect students to function in the outside world without being exposed to and learning to respect other ideas.
ReplyDeleteYou talk about practicing good Christian morals in a educational setting. However do you practice these at home? No, you do not. Your daughter is listed as being married to another female on Facebook. I personally have no issue with this, and I feel people are accustomed to do as they wish. But I feel it's hypocritical to state a school doesn't practice good morals when you yourself are not attending school at the district, your children don't attend school at the district, and your family does not fulfill these morals you claim to follow.
ReplyDelete