Teacher Care and Keeping

Back in May I was at a school board meeting. Part of the discussion between the board members and an HR presenter was that the district has a hiring and retention problem. The numbers say we’re not as bad as the state average, but still it’s not good. (The video starts at the discussion; the numbers are shown a few minutes before.) They had the data on pay comparisons with other districts, so they ruled that out. And they just couldn’t imagine what was the cause. "Just personal reasons" was all they’d gotten from exit interviews.

board members ask question of the HR presenter
at the CFISD board meeting in May 2023
screenshots from here

It brought to mind conversations I’d had with teachers. One in particular had mentioned multiple times to me about the huge burdens being placed on teachers. I have recently followed up with her, and another teacher, about their experiences.

I waited until after the school year ended and things calmed down, and then made contact with Debbie (not her real name). By the time we conversed, she had actually quit her teaching job and will be looking for “a career in anything but teaching.”

She wasn’t alone. Her entire grade quit; the school will need five or six new 2^nd grade teachers by fall. And she said other grade levels are similar. She added that the “administration is completely ignoring the teachers, if they are unaware of why teachers are leaving.” They had lost a 2^nd grade teacher the year before. Without replacing that teacher, they spread the burden—the students—among the remaining teachers, supposedly temporarily, but it lasted the full year. And the teachers got no compensation for their extra work. Debbie pointed out to me that it was a way of saving money, just burden the remaining teachers, and they don’t even have to pay for the additional teacher.

Debbie was triggered just by my questions. It was traumatic for her. I first knew her when her children were babies; they’re all grown and graduated now. She taught piano lessons when they were younger, but as they got well into school, she began teaching in 2012. She’s a good, kind person, and wants to be a good teacher. But she said the stress was overwhelming—with even more new policies being added next year.

from the HR presentation at the May Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District board meeting
screenshot from here

This is 2^nd grade. It’s not rocket science. Really, what is it a school district needs from a 2^nd grade teacher beyond teaching the kids how to read and write and do basic math? Anything beyond that should be a bonus. But teachers report that they aren’t even allowed to effectively teach the basics.

About pay, she said,

The school board took away our stipend and gave us a 3% raise, which makes our pay the same as the past two years. Our health insurance is going up, so we will make less money than last year. Inflation has gone up 10%. Our days are 1 hour and 15 minutes longer than when I started in 2012, with no compensation for the added hours.

It doesn’t really matter how you compare to nearby districts; if you’re compensating teachers less than you used to—or failing to keep up with the rising cost of living—you’re expecting them to sacrifice to keep a job. And it’s a job you’re making harder.

from the HR presentation at the CFISD board meeting in May 2023
screenshot from here

I was unable to get from her all the details about the credit system for teachers. They need to earn a certain number of credits every two years—on their own time and budget. This could include taking college courses, taking state-provided courses. It could include participating in the superintendent’s book club—which happens to include mainly books pushing the LGBTQ and racist CRT agendas. (Good riddance to this superintendent.) I’m going by memory, and I’m sure I’m missing details. But Debbie had a colleague who had taken a required course, and they were approaching the end—and they placed the final exam on top of her daughter’s wedding. If she didn’t complete the credits, she would lose her teaching job. She asked to be able to take the test another day. They refused. And they suggested that, if she really cared about her job, she would prioritize that test over her daughter’s wedding.

One issue Debbie had relates to a policy issue. Parents have been appropriately concerned about content being taught in schools. Of highest concerns have been CRT (essentially teaching racism, and distorting the history of the country, which was outlawed in Texas two years ago), and, even worse, sexualizing materials, including pushing the LGBTQ agenda. The attack has been on multiple fronts: libraries, curriculum, and classroom materials. The libraries and curriculum can be attacked at higher levels. But teachers have been basically allowed to provide their own libraries in class.

Teachers generally provide these classroom libraries at their own expense—often including the shelving. I would note that classroom libraries were not a thing when I was in school; we had the school library for that. We checked out books at the library weekly, which we could keep in our desks and pull out to read when we had free time. That seemed adequate. But all of my children’s classrooms had class libraries, and they’re a nice luxury. The books are known by the teacher and are aimed at the right grade level.

But if a teacher is one of those who push a “woke” agenda, there’s no accountability unless a parent goes into the classroom and goes through all the books to monitor them, and then goes through a difficult bureaucracy to get harmful materials removed. I remember this coming up in discussions during platform work in 2022. I said the way it was being asked, it was going to be onerous for teachers. And apparently it is. It may be part of the READER Act, passed this legislative session, going into effect this fall. But Debbie was dealing with something that was already policy, so I’m not sure if that came from the legislature or the district (which doesn’t have a problem with the materials per se; read here).

Debbie said they were going to force her—and all other teachers—to spend their summer cataloguing every book or any other material she had brought for classroom use. It would be on her own time, uncompensated, of course. She had, she said, over a thousand books and items. The result was that she and all the other teachers she knows removed their class libraries, which she felt like was a real loss to her students.

That kind of oversight seems above and beyond what a teacher should be expected to endure. On the other hand, that’s only true if we have teachers we can trust. We learned during COVID not to trust, when parents could actually observe. This means, not just the untrustworthy teachers are affected, but the good ones as well, unfortunately.

I could say here, as I often do, that if you have teachers you can’t trust, you shouldn’t be sending your children to them. Pull them out. Homeschooling is an option—and I think it’s a better option than private school—for parents who care and are committed to doing whatever it takes. But I understand that not every family can do that—or at least they can't see how they could.

Another teacher I talked with—who quit a year ago (I hadn’t been aware until we talked)—added more information. She had been an elementary art teacher. While she had taught art at all levels, and in multiple districts, this is where she was for the final two years. She isn’t likely to go back to public school teaching. Again, her issues were frustrating and systemic. And they bring up so much negative that we limited it to one long session, and then she promised me she was going to put it out of her mind and go back to not thinking about it again. Ever!

In our district they call art, music, and PE “large group” classes. She felt belittled by that, as though they don’t matter except to babysit larger numbers at a time. She persuaded the staff at her school to call them “specials.” They have real skills that not every teacher can offer. They deserve respect.

They have a rotation that handles several classes. Not every class is overwhelming in size, but every day there is one such class. Her biggest had 53 students. She didn’t have an aide. This was hands on and active, with kids moving around and doing things, often with messy materials, and with her going from student to student. 53 is a ridiculous number of students for such a class. When she asked for help, the administration would refer her to resources about classroom management—as if it was her personal lack of skill that made handling 53 elementary kids a difficult task. They were blaming her. They told her there wasn’t money for aides, even though other teachers could get aides when they needed them. If they didn’t have enough aides, maybe it was because they didn’t pay enough for them. That’s what some former aides had told her.

I’ve noted this before, but the priorities of this district seem warped to me. We have 41% of 3^rd graders (the year they’re tested) who cannot read at grade level. The school has one purpose: teach kids to read, write, and do basic math. They fail at this. But they have a brand new administration building, named for the retiring superintendent who has been a blight on the district—at the highest superintendent pay in the state at over half a million a year. This building can house more employees—all of whom work outside of the schools—than any district should have. All administration professionals. Not teachers, bus drivers, or anyone else that interacts with children. But they can’t afford aides in a classroom of 53 students. Hmm.

I'm not questioning the intentions or abilities of all of these employees; I'm just wondering what they've been hired for when we have so much need in the classrooms—which we are told we can't afford.

The newly opened Mark Henry Administration Building for CFISD; there's 
an additional building on the left, not pictured. There's a big marquee
you can see from the freeway. How many admin workers can this place hold? And why?

While “specials” aren’t the basics, they are some of what makes for a well-rounded person. And they’re considered the fun classes. But this school, Susan said (not her real name), sucked all the fun out.

The overburdened teachers asked if they could add other “specials” classes, like computers, for example. That would lower the class size for all the specials. But they were told no. No money. No room for that.

Susan suffered the worst experience of her life in this teaching stint. A student accused her of hitting him. It didn’t happen. The mom went directly to HR, who went to the principal, who eventually talked with Susan. The administration appeared to believe the student and disbelieve her. They did a thorough investigation, interviewing her, the student, the parent, and multiple students who were there when the supposed incident took place. Fortunately, the students verified her claim that no such incident happened. She was cleared. But that had not been a sure thing, because you don’t know whether kids will lie for one another for some reason you don’t perceive—especially for a teacher who sees them weekly in a large group, rather than daily in a smaller classroom. Eventually the mom admitted that her child was known to lie. You’d think she might have considered that before putting the teacher through this ordeal. Not at any time did this teacher feel support from the school administration or the district.

When I’ve talked with other people (including school board candidates) about challenges for teachers, the first thing they mention is class discipline. They can’t really discipline. When the teacher calls a parent about their disruptive child, often they tell the teacher to handle it. Or they blame the teacher.

Susan says what it comes down to is too many homes where kids aren’t taught basic polite behavior. If the child is allowed to bad mouth a parent without repercussions, they’ll do it to a teacher or any other authority figure. What we have are kids who don’t get the parenting they need at home. 

But teachers are not parents. We need to expect more from students—they tend to rise to expectations. But we also need to expect more from parents. And we need administrators who deal with problems that are getting in the way of learning for all the rest of the kids.

While Susan’s and Debbie’s experiences aren’t unusual, and probably all teachers feel overburdened, not all teachers are ready to give up teaching. They put up with whatever is required—for a couple of reasons. They feel called to teach; it’s their life’s work. And/or they need this job and don’t see any other path but to suffer whatever it takes. Fortunately, Susan and Debbie had alternatives.

Debbie says the district knows the problems they’re causing teachers; they just don’t care. Or they don’t believe them. I wonder about all those hundreds of employees sitting in plush new offices in the administration building, out of sight of actual school life. Are they just out of touch?

The “woke” agenda people talk about how much they care about the kids. Don’t let that fool you. They also say they care about teachers—but they really mean they care about teacher unions (read here), and that’s pretty much the opposite of caring about teachers or students.

We’re in school board season. For some reason (probably purposely to have low turnout) school board elections are in odd years. This weekend begins candidate signups. I’ve been in a group of precinct chairs vetting candidates—since January. We think we have some that will prioritize the will of parents and community—and our values. We hope that electing good people will make a difference. We got three good board members elected two years ago. The other four positions are on this year's ballot, with just one incumbent. We think we have a good chance. It will be satisfying to see what a conservative, parent-focused board can do as a majority.

One thing is certain: you don’t get the schooling you want for your kids without a whole lot of your personal involvement.

Because It’s Illegal

There are a number of us in my community who are working at improving our school district, trying to get more parent-responsive schoolboard members, trying to get more school choice, trying to get rid of SEL, CRT,and sexualizing materials from our schools. One person in the group pointed us to a video clip from a Michael Knowles show, in which Knowles highlights a dad in upstate New York who addresses his school board in an exemplary way.

 

Michael Knowles highlights a parent addressing a school board,
screenshot from here

The dad sets up a scenario: your 15-year-old daughter’s birthday party. Would you give her this particular book—it was Girl in Translation—and he reads a passage from it. [This book is in my school district's libraries, by the way.] The passage depicts a sex scene in graphic detail. Then he asks, in the same level, unemotional tone, would they give that book to their daughter? Would they read that to her? He notes that their reaction of revulsion shows they would not. And yet the book is in the schools for 10^th-graders, coinciding with that hypothetical 15-year-old daughter.

Then he read them the US Department of Justice’s statement on their website concerning laws on obscenity. He simply points out that having the book available to minors is in violation of the US code, implying to those with ears to hear that, if they don’t clear up this problem, they will be liable and should maybe lawyer up.

Here in Texas we’ve been working through the legislature—without success thus far—to eliminate the “obscenity exemption,” which allows images or descriptions that would otherwise be considered pornographic to be allowed for educational purposes. The intention of the exemption has been to allow diagrams, etc., for health science and sex education. But it has been used as a cover for anything; once a book is in the school, you call it educational, even if it would get you charged elsewhere.

Novels, including graphic novels, are not used for science and sex ed. In our school district, those particular books are disallowed from use for sex ed by the SHAC committee (school health advisory committee).

So this got me thinking: we don’t have to depend on getting rid of that obscenity exemption. The schools are already in violation of US federal laws against providing porn to minors. And they’re against the Texas code as well.

Maybe we could use this law approach to get rid of these books in schools—starting with speaking up at school board meetings. And I would assume that might need to be followed up with lawsuits—criminal prosecutions, or civil suits wherever local prosecutors fail to follow through with criminal prosecutions.

To that end, I’m looking at what could be said at school board meetings. And maybe this can be a template for parents of other school districts to use.

In our district, community members get typically two minutes to speak, so what I have below may need to be divided up for multiple speakers. I’ll be showing materials related specifically to my district. But the books mentioned are widely used across the country. You should be able to go to your school district website and find out what books are available in the libraries. And you should also be able to track down your district’s policies for getting obscene books removed from libraries.

So, consider what is below to be addressing the local school board.

 

The Law

Suppose some nefarious person decided to illustrate a classic piece of literature—let’s say a collection of Keats poetry—with pornographic images. Would the book qualify as literature because of the literary value of the poems? Or would it qualify as pornographic because of those images?

The answer is, literature does not elevate the pornography to the level of literature; the pornography degrades the otherwise inspiring poetry into a work of pornography.

This is a matter of law.

According to the US Department of Justice website, which I’ve included in your handout: 

“transmitting obscenity and child pornography, whether via the Internet or other means, is…illegal under federal law for both adults and juveniles.”

Obscenity is not protected speech under the First Amendment. Violations are criminal offenses. Also, the standard for what is harmful to minors may be different from the standard for adults, and offenders convicted of obscenity crimes involving minors face harsher penalties than if the crimes involved only adults. I suggest you read the statement in your handout.

Department of Justice information page on Obscenity

The Texas Penal Code, also in your handout, explicitly defines obscene as depicting “offensive representations of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated.” Also included are depictions or descriptions of other lewd acts. I’ll let you read the details.

Texas Penal Code 43:21

Note that none of these defined violations is allowed if you just couch it in enough non-sexual material. One example in one book is enough to be in violation of the law.

 

Process for Removing Obscenity from Schools

I understand that Cy-Fair ISD has a process called “Request for Formal Reconsideration of Library Materials,” which was updated in November 2022 and put into use January 2023. 

After identifying yourself and your relationship to the district, and the particular book in question, the first question on the request form is: 

“Have you reviewed the resources in their entirety? (If not, please do so before completing and submitting this form.)”

If a book is 150 pages long, and you’re reading through and find one example of explicit sex—which meets the statute’s definition of pornography—you do not need to read the remaining pages to know that the book contains material that should not be made available to minors.

If someone made a cake with excrement in it, would you require that a person eat the entire cake before they can speak to complain about the foul ingredient? If there is obscenity in it, it does not matter what else is in it; you cannot justify providing it to minors.

This is not merely an assumption. We have had brave parents who have read the materials in full, filled out all your forms for the formal request for reconsideration, and then patiently waited.

The chart included in your handout shows seven books that have been through the process. All of these contain multiple, pervasive examples of obscenity, some in written form, some in graphic illustrations. The examples are unmistakably inappropriate for children. But the response from the review committees, expressed by letter from the school principals, is that each of these examples is “educationally appropriate” and will be retained in the schools where our children can access them. I’m unaware of any obscene books that have been removed via this process.

The chart is a compilation of materials provided by Bethany Scanlon in multiple blog posts
at the Conservative CFISD volunteer blog, where there is a post for each of these seven books,
including multiple photos of examples from each book, as well as the letters of response.

This is not something we can agree to disagree on. It is illegal to provide pornography to minors. You are doing so. You have librarians who choose and acquire these books. You have committees of people justifying them—in private meetings without minutes, in violation of the open meetings act, despite the AG’s directive that you provide names and minutes.

These hidden committees seem to be misunderstanding the law. They disregard the obscenity, because they like the gritty realism, or they don’t think there’s enough to call it pervasive, or they offer some other justification.

These books do not qualify as sex ed; the district’s SHAC committee has ruled against using them for that purpose, so you cannot hide behind an obscenity exemption.

 

Damage to Children

Another question on your Request for Reconsideration form asks how we found the problem book, as if hearing about it from another community member is some sort of campaign you can ignore, and you only have to listen if our own child found it in the school, meaning damage is already done to our child.

Yet another of your questions asks what damage we see could result from the book—as if we have to come up, from scratch, with the arguments that led Congress to outlaw giving porn to children. We already know it does harm.

It is disingenuous for the proponents of providing pornography to children to claim we concerned parents are the book banners—as if we were trying to eliminate Huckleberry Finn or To Kill a Mockingbird from our libraries. We are not talking about First Amendment freedoms. We’re talking about illegal materials that we all know are harmful and cause trauma to children; that is why the laws are written to particularly protect children.

If the Cy-Fair ISD schools that have refused to remove these materials from their libraries are following your own policy requirements, they are providing the complaint, the book, and their response to the superintendent and the school board, which must mean the superintendent and school board can call into question the final decision. That also means this superintendent and school board can be held liable for breaking the law—in addition to the librarians and staff who procured the materials for the purpose of making them available to minors, and the principals who approved their retention.

Your process for reconsideration has provided evidence. Failure to immediately correct these serious errors puts you personally at risk of prosecution.

It's Time to Get Them Out Now

This past week I met with some other community members to talk about school board races. November is most of a year away, but campaigns will be underway in just a few months. And campaigns—like war campaigns—take planning and strategy. Those are things I’m not good at. But I’m an interested taxpayer and I have a stake in the education of the next generation, as do we all. So we’re in recruiting mode.

Our school board, Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District (CFISD), will have four of the seven positions up for election this round. We had three in 2021, and we conservative school choice people won all three, but they’re still a minority on the board, here in a conservative sector of northwest Harris County, Texas.

CFISD's current board. Green are those elected in 2021.
Blue are the 2023 races; dark blue will be open seats, light blue incumbents.
Image adapted from the CFISD Board website

Of the four seats, two will be open, where board members are retiring, and two have incumbents, one of which is the most pro-woke and most formidable as an opponent. She claims to be a Republican; her voting record shows her to be. She’s got an influential position on a state committee. She’s a petite, lovely woman who seems sympathetic, gentle, and child loving. I believe I voted for her when she got in, before she had revealed her real intentions. Still, if we get a strong candidate, and if there’s momentum going with other strong candidates, I think she can be defeated. At worst, we could disempower her with a board in opposition to the woke policies she favors. She supported school library books such as I will talk about below (I wrote about this here).

What I’m seeing in her is, I think, a not uncommon reaction to having a child with LGBTQ issues. She lost a child recently—which is heartbreaking. I didn’t know the cause for a while, but if I’m understanding correctly, it was to suicide, a daughter with gender dysphoria. I think this board member is now seeing any lack of acceptance of transgenderism as bullying that is life-threatening to those particular students.

Here is my belief about LGBT issues, based on social science, which I’ve written about, according to Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, Jr.: One likely cause is childhood trauma, often sexual, that causes a dissociation with the child’s sexual identity. The child can’t understand something traumatic, and rejects a portion of themselves, in this case their femaleness or maleness. As with other dissociative disorders, there is standard talk therapy that can help. This particular type is called reintegrative therapy. The intent is to help with the unwanted dysphoria. The intent is to deal with the mental problems, not necessarily to change orientation. But the resolution of the trauma does tend to help a person be happier, more functional, and less obsessed with the unhappy feelings.

In short, the way to deal with the high possibility of suicide accompanying gender dysphoria or unwanted same-sex attraction is not to change the world and its attitudes, but to relieve the underlying trauma in the person with the issues.

Which is more compassionate?

·        going along with a child’s delusion, while attempting to change the attitudes toward human reproduction in the entire human race, and then going ahead with body alterations that will both make a person freakish and likely also infertile for life?

·        or providing therapy that will at least make the person more mentally healthy and has the possibility of total resolution of the problem?

Let me add something I think is relevant here. Childhood trauma is often something we all recognize as traumatic and confusing; sexual assault would qualify. But sometimes it’s something we as adults might consider relatively minor. One of the possible traumas is introducing sex prematurely into a child’s life. A child has natural reserves and modesty. Breaking that down can cause trauma and confusion. Breaking down that natural reserve is something pedophiles do. It is called grooming. That is why that word is currently being used in reference to school curricula that sexualizes kids at earlier and earlier ages.

What can a drag queen “kid friendly” event do? Sexualize—and traumatize—kids. It attempts to normalize something the kids know instinctively is not normal. The trauma can lead to gender confusion and dysphoria—the normalizing of which can traumatize and confuse more children.

Trauma could come from sexualizing books or media. This could be in the schools or just about any other place. But in schools is a particular problem, because there’s a loophole in the law—until we can get it fixed through the legislature—that provides what is called an obscenity exemption for pornographic materials.

If you try to read from these materials at a school board meeting, you’ll get shut down, because those meetings are livestreamed, and children can see them, and they’re obviously offensive. But the moment you put that vile material in a school setting, it is considered educational, and those who provide it are exempt from prosecution for providing pornography to minors.

The proponents of these materials are very vocal. The defense is always the accusation that anyone wanting to remove a book from the school library is a Nazi book burner, or the same-old puritanical pearl clutchers who have tried to get classics like Huckleberry Finn banned.

If I weren’t paying attention, I could be swayed by such arguments. I’m against banning good books. I’m against banning books in general. However, I do believe we need books to meet certain quality standards to be in school libraries—paid for by taxpayers and given the approval of school authorities. If a parent wants their kid to read something I and many (most?) community members would find offensive or downright filthy, the parent can do that at home. [Warning: providing porn to a minor, even in your own home, might be a crime.] But that doesn’t mean the taxpayers and schools need to provide such materials to that irresponsible parent. Such parents can use their own money or a non-school library.

At our meeting about the school board last week, we had a presentation from a parent who is doing a project to get these books removed from our school libraries, and she was asking for help. (I hesitate to give her name and phone number here, but if you’re local, contact me and I’ll let you know how to reach her.)

You can’t just contact the school or school board and complain and expect a book to be removed. There’s a formal process called a request for reconsideration. It’s a “reconsideration,” because the book was “considered” when it was put into the school library. I expect there is a similar process in other Texas districts and in other states.

You’re allowed to submit the form if you live in the district, but there are a number of questions that make it look like they’re weeding out community groups that are coordinating such efforts. Here are the questions:

1.     Have you reviewed the resources in their entirety? (If not, please do so before completing and submitting this form.)

I just want to note here that I have seen some of these books, in person. I do not want to bring them into my home, and I do not want to put the words and images into my head. I am debating how to help with this project. Somebody’s got to do it. But at what personal spiritual risk?

2.     What brought this material to your attention?

3.     What concerns you about the resource? (Please be specific. Cite pages and the like.)

4.     What do you believe might be the result of using this material?

5.     Are there resource(s) you suggest that provide additional information and/or other viewpoints on this topic?

6.     For what age group would you recommend this material?

7.     What do you believe should be done with the material in question?

□ Reclassify library material.

□ Remove the material from the library.

□ Do not allow my child to use this material.

The project in our area was asking for parents with children in the schools—since there is a preference given to parents whose children have actually encountered the books, and the parent finds the problem after the damage is done to the child. Just a concerned taxpayer like me is not their priority. [This is why, when I vet school board candidates, I ask the question about who do they answer to and in what order; it should be taxpayers, including parents, then teachers, who need to be facilitated in what we hire them to do. They don’t answer to students; they are to educate them according to the requirements set by the community. And they don’t answer to teacher unions at all.]

Anyway, we can all help, but the advantage goes to parents with current students in the district.

If you’re like me, you’re shocked that these books exist, aimed at children. Sexual profanity that I never encountered before adulthood (and some that is still new to me) are pervasive in books aimed at middle-schoolers. There’s instruction on self-harm—some of it illustrated. There’s depiction of adult-on-child sex, with apparent approval intended by the author. There are graphic novels depicting sex acts of multiple varieties. 

These are in schools in my district. They are probably in yours.

We have people working to gather data on which books exist in which schools, so community members can target them. Each request has to be done book by book, school by school, parent by parent.  

If you’re wondering what the books are, there’s a book review site called BookLooks.org, a nonprofit intended to help parents identify questionable books. They have a fairly sizable list of books they have reviewed and rated. I tried them out with a book I had read: Neanderthal Opens the Door to the Universe, by Preston Norton. He grew up here, and I knew his family. The book has received awards. There is much to be said about its merits: it is engaging, creative, appealing, with a message about open-mindedness. It is also profane and troubling. I do not recommend it.

The BookLooks Summary of Concerns says: “This book contains excessive/frequent profanity; derogatory terms; sexual activities; sexual nudity; controversial religious commentary; alternate sexualities; drug use and abuse; alcohol use; violence; suicide; and hate.” I would add that religious people are portrayed as particularly mean, bigoted, and hypocritical. The book review site also includes actual references, with page numbers, from the book, which could be helpful in filling out that reconsideration form. And then it includes a profanity count. Without actually using the words, these include a** 116 times, f-bomb 62 times, s*** 178 times, plus sexual slang for various anatomical parts, among others.

BookLooks.org rating system, found here

This book was given a rating of 3, where 0 is safe for all and 5 is for adults only. 3 and up are recommended as minor restricted; in other words, there is reason not to have them in the schools. My assumption is that this book is in middle school and school libraries in your district. I don’t yet have a list of 100 or so books that activists are focused on getting removed. Those are books like Flamer (also rated 3), which I mentioned here. But it might be that any of the books rated 3 or higher (or even a lower rating, depending on age aimed at) on the BookLooks site might be on your personal list to get rid of.

Question 4 on the reconsideration form might be difficult for a typical parent to articulate—what the result might be. As a judge said many years ago about defining pornography, “I know it when I see it,” a parent might want to say, “It just ain’t fittin’.” It should be obvious that we don’t give sexual or sexualizing content to young children. It’s just wrong.

But it is also grooming. (I wrote more here.) It is attempting to immerse a child in a culture that accepts things that the child innately knows are unacceptable and wrong. It can traumatize. It confuses the child. It can lead to experimentation with sex—which for any school child is too early. It can lead to questioning that wouldn’t otherwise happen, resulting in unhappiness, depression, body dysphoria or various sorts. It can lead a child to discount the moral upbringing they get from their parents.

It harms the child. And it harms the parent/child relationship. We have schools to educate the children, not to usurp the role of parents and to corrupt the children.

Groomers have a purpose. It is to lure children into a sexual lifestyle. Child traffickers do this. And pedophiles do this. Where this grooming has been allowed, it has indeed led to pedophilia. David Strom wrote a piece for Hot Air, “Groomers Everywhere,” in which he recounts the problem in Chicago area schools, referencing a CPS [Chicago Public Schools] Office of Inspector General’s report that “hundreds of Chicago Public Schools teachers sexually groomed, assaulted and raped CPS students last school year.”

The account gives this comparison:

To give you an idea of the scope of the problem, the allegations of abuse numbered more than 600 in a single year in a single school district. The Catholic sexual abuse scandals for the entire United States over 52 years included 11,000 allegations. That would mean that in the same time period the CPS would see 2 1/2 times as many incidents of abuse as the Catholic Church in the entire US.

Mark Levin referenced this article and added that you need to get your kids out of public schools. He ended with this:

Everybody can’t afford it. But the fact that we pay hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars every year for these school systems, and there’s so little if any accountability, and that parents are under attack by the Biden FBI, parents are under attack by the media, is really grotesque. School choice is the answer…. Anyway, keep an eye on your kids and what’s happening in your public school, ‘cause in many cases it ain’t very pretty.

At our meeting last week, several people recommended two documentaries for informing you on this subject:

movie poster image from their website

§  The Mind Polluters by Mark and Amber Archer

§  Whose Children Are They?

I watched Mind Polluters, which was free, and easy to stream; the other was going to require a DVD purchase, so I haven’t seen that yet. Mind Polluters was excellent, with plenty of good sources and examples, verifying what I've said above. They also recommended that you get your kids out of public schools.

 

I pulled my kids out in 2000. It wasn’t because of this kind of material. It was because the district schools failed to meet my children’s educational needs, and there were safety issues as well. We happily homeschooled for a decade and didn’t miss the public schools. It was a financial challenge, but not remotely as much as putting three children in private schools, which wouldn’t have solved all our problems anyway.

 

The thing is, with your kids, you only have those years once. If a school fails your third grader, that’s going to make his life worse as a fourth grader. The lack accumulates. What good would it have done to work with the schools to try to make things better? It would have been a gamble I couldn’t afford. And I would have lost a bet that the schools would quickly improve; they clearly did not.

 

Today we've only talked about the sexualization. There is also the CRT problem, the instilling of racism and an alternate history that leads to hating our country, and adopting Marxism. These are often hidden in SEL (social emotional learning) programs, and DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion). If they find we have caught on, they change what they call things. 

How bad does it have to get before you as a parent say, “That’s over the line; I don’t want my child exposed to that”?

 

Now that my kids are grown, I can be just a concerned taxpayer. I can try to get better school board members. I can work for school choice in the legislature. I can join in on a project like this local one to get obscene books out of the schools. But I have very little hope that enough changes will be made within a decade to satisfy any of us.

 

Yes, we need to work with the schools. But, for the sake of your kids right now, don’t wait. Get them to safety.

Local School-Related Irreconcilable Differences

Cy-Fair ISD school board meeting gets underway, April 11, 2022
screenshot from here

There's an action item at the bottom, so if you're in Texas, please don't miss that.

We have some irreconcilable differences in our school district. This month’s school board meeting was last Monday, April 11th. The public comment is where we see much of the conflict. There is one side that wants more power to the parents, more transparency, and less indoctrination and sexualization of our children. There is another side that wants to limit parent choice and to denigrate parent concerns.

Our school district is not unique in facing these differences. But what I want to emphasize is, this is not a problem seen elsewhere but not here in our backyard. It’s here.

School Board Member Concern

A friend passed along a blog post to me recently about some issues in our district. The blog post is anonymous. You can read it here.  Because I don’t know who wrote it, I can’t vouch for them. But I’ve read it and corroborated much of what is in it, and learned more to clarify a few things. 

A member of our school board recently joined a private group on Facebook of people in our community who have influence on what happens in our district. The group is called Cy-Fair Civic Alliance. Their description of the group says:

Cy-Fair Civic Alliance envisions a Cy-Fair ISD [Independent School District] that embraces the future, prioritizes an inclusive and equitable learning environment, and supports a diverse community where every child can thrive. Cy-Fair Civic Alliance works to engage, inform, and unite Cy-Fair ISD staff, parents, students, and taxpayers.

If you’re aware of the term “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (sometimes in different word order), then you can see why this is concerning. DEI is against diversity of thought, against equality of opportunity and instead favors equal outcomes, and excludes whoever they disfavor, which tends to be anyone with white skin, or possibly with Christian beliefs. This is an ideology spreading in businesses and institutions, like schools and governments. It’s often associated with ESG scoring, the social scoring system used in China.

The blog writer wanted to know what was going on in this group, so he/she joined, after answering several “progressive” questions. I wasn’t willing to answer those questions against truth, but I wondered what they were, so I went so far as to request membership, see the questions, and then withdraw the membership request. The questions are:

·        Please share your thoughts on diversity, inclusion, and equity in public education.

·        Why is Public Education important?

·        How do you see yourself contributing to this community? (Attending the board meetings, sending emails, sharing on social media, outreach, etc.)

It’s clear there is a certain viewpoint in the group. So when Cy-Fair ISD Board Member Julie Hinaman joined the group, she presumably answered those questions in a way that indicated she was in alignment with the group’s viewpoint.

welcome message for Julie Hinaman, 
posted on Cy-Fair Civic Alliance,
image found here

Hinaman was welcomed to the group with a post on November 9, 2021. The group was created November 4, 2021, immediately after the election in which three long-time school board members were replaced with what we hope are three members more aligned with parent values. It does appear that it was created in response to that school board changeout.

At the school board meeting last week, Hinaman was referred to as a founding member of Cy-fair Civic Alliance, which she denies. That might be a semantic difference; she joined during its first week of existence, but may not be a person involved in creating, or founding, the group.

One controversial issue that has come up with this group is their influence to reinstate in the Bridgeland High School library certain books that had been removed following parent concerns. The blog post includes screenshots of a book called Flamer, which was brought up by several citizens at the board meeting. It appears to be a graphic novel, and the samples shown in that blog post are particularly vile. They are sexually perverted in nature and involve minors. Clearly this violates the anti-pornography laws in place to protect young people.

So, to review, parents reported the content of these books to the school district (I don’t know to which entity), and some schools then removed the books from their libraries. CyFair Civic Alliance proudly announces in its Facebook group its success in getting the books placed back in the library at Bridgeland High School, where they had been removed. This post, by Tana Lam, is shown in the blog post, and was read during public testimony at the school board meeting.

During the meeting, Hinaman was accused of knowing about the content of the books in question, and knowing about Cy-Fair Civic Alliance’s personal contact with the librarian, making that decision to override parent concerns, and doing nothing about it.

CFISD Board Member Julia Hinaman, at the April 11 board meeting
screenshot from here

Later in the meeting Hinaman defends herself. She says,

I would like to correct a false statement made during public comments using my name…. While there is a board policy and a district process for reviewing library books, I have not been a part of the review process for any library book, because it is not part of my role of governance.

Regarding a Facebook group, I am a follower. I follow several different community groups across our community, just to stay in touch and to see what’s going on in our community. I am not involved in the management of that particular group that was mentioned. I am not a founder. And I’m unaware of the post that was referenced.

There’s a difference between “following” a group and being a member of a private group on Facebook. She had to join, and express her allegiance to the ideas of the group, so that’s a bit disingenuous.

Also, I haven’t seen her membership in any of the community groups I’m in, the kind that want to promote parents’ rights and school choice, for example.

About being unaware of the post that was referenced, that may be true, but it was testified to by multiple community members on both sides of the issue, so by this late point in the meeting she is aware of the post and of the involvement of the group for which she is a member. And by her very resistance to the parents calling her out, she is supporting the pornographic material being put back into the library. She could have expressed that she was unaware of the group’s involvement and then have added that she would not approve of such materials in our libraries, but she doesn’t do that.

On April 8, Cy-Fair ISD announced that Julie Hinaman had been elected to the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB), “taking an interim position representing Region 4, Position F.”

During our district platform work, where we took the resolutions from precinct conventions to develop wording to pass along for the state platform, one of the most common education resolutions was a demand to cut ties with various organizations, of which TASB was mentioned specifically. The platform wording we came up with was,

Sever Ties: We insist that local ISDs immediately sever ties with organizations that have opposed parental rights and the voices of parents, particularly concerning CRT-related materials and the sexualization of the child as in the LGBT agenda. These include but are not limited to the HB3 Reading Academies, the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB), the Texas Association of School Administrators (TASA), the Texas Association of Community Schools (TACS), the National School Boards Association (NSBA), the American Library Association (ALA), the Texas Library Association (TLA), and the International Baccalaureate Program (IBP), nor will we accept testing from the Next Generation Assessments and Accountability (NGAA).

Reasoning from the resolutions mentioned that TASB, among others, consistently lobbies against bills for parental rights and transparency, works with the National School Boards Association (NSBA) to label parents concerned with Critical Race Theory as domestic terrorists, and has worked to erode parental authority.

The SREC (State Republican Executive Committee) has also called out TASB for these issues.

In other words, being on TASB is not a reason to trust Julie Hinaman to represent parents in our district; it is a reason to distrust her.

Irreconcilable Differences

We can see that those who oppose parent values in our schools coincidentally favor books like those pornography examples we talked about. But they want, not only for those things to be in our schools; they want parents to have no place to go.

One of the public commenters at last week’s meeting called out the new board members, particularly Natalie Blasingame (not by name, but she’s the only new female board member), for having the audacity to suggest that underutilized campuses could be used for things parents want.

Dr. Tara Cummings, speaking at the April 11 school board meeting
screenshot from here

So, this was the testimony of Dr. Tara Cummings:

In response to the report [demographic report at Thursday’s work session], one of our trustees commented that she’s committed to making CFISD the very best choice for all families. I’m glad to hear that, but I’m a bit confused and concerned, considering some of the anti-public ed political candidates that she and our other new trustees have publicly endorsed.

Knowing that charter growth is a threat to our district and public education in general, it’s imperative that our trustees mind their votes accordingly, and that the community continue to pay attention to such.

This same trustee also stated in the future she hopes to see underutilized campuses “used for things families want.” Although I agree that the district must be judicious in making decisions about the facilities, our facilities now and in the future, the primary priority, and a factor that sets us far and above other educational options, especially charter and private schools, is the commitment to opportunity for all. The promise that all students, regardless of their zip code, campus, or circumstances are afforded exceptional and equitable educational opportunities.

Speaking of equitable, how ‘bout them equity audit recommendations? As a parent partner in education, which according to our new trustees makes me the primary stakeholder in education, what I don’t want is something along the lines of magnet-type programs. CFISD doesn’t need lotteries in order to provide a world-class education to every single one of our students. Opportunity for all means just that.

I’ve talked with Dr. Natalie Blasingame about what “used for things families want” might mean. She suggests that, if there were parents of 20 students that wanted, say, a particular track, maybe a Christian track, it would be possible—at no extra cost—to accommodate that choice. We simply use current facilities and willing current staff to fill the need.

While I am very pro-homeschooling, Blasingame wants the opportunity for the school district to try to meet the needs before a parent feels like they have to turn elsewhere.

Dr. Cummings here reveals a couple of divisive points. She claims, as though it’s common knowledge, that charter schools are a threat to public schools. Charter schools are public schools; they are a type of public school, with funding being part of public school funding; i.e., taxpayer funding.

Every student that goes to a charter school goes there because the public school they were assigned to failed to meet their needs—and because they were among the lucky ones to get a slot in a charter school, which the parents hoped would be a better option. The problem is, the waiting list for charter schools is long—too long. And we’re not getting enough new charter schools. Even though there is great demand, charter schools with proven track records, such as those coming out of Hillsdale College, are being refused a charter in Texas.

When Dr. Cummings says CFISD can “provide a world-class education to every single one of our students; opportunity for all means just that,” she doesn’t mean meeting the needs of all those students who have turned elsewhere because their needs aren’t met; she means she wants to keep them stuck in the failing situation along with everyone else that’s stuck there—so she can make sure all of the state’s education funding goes to indoctrinating them the way she wants.

Stacy DeMeier speaks at the school board
meeting on April 11,
screenshot from here

Another of last week’s public commenters, Stacy DeMeier, is what I refer to at times as a public school believer—like it’s a religion. And anyone who doesn’t agree with her is a heretic. She claims that charter schools are a threat. But, again, charter schools are public schools, just not her preferred sect. If the entire school system were changed so that all schools were charter schools, and parents chose the type they wanted for their child, public schooling would simply look different; it would not disappear. Funding might need to be restructured. Charters actually do cost more per child right now, unlike private and homeschools, which accomplish the goal at lower costs. But if there were a free-market deciding the costs, that could change everything for the better. But DeMeier doesn’t want better services at lower costs; she wants every child stuck in the type of classroom she believes in:

It’s pretty clear that if we, as a community, do not stand up to the recent attacks aimed at undermining public education, including book banning, false accusations of CRT in the curriculum, and the constant attacks on our teachers, then we will be left with a school district that is not receiving adequate funding it needs. We need to support pro-public education representatives. And we especially need board members who are not actively trying to take funds away from our district by supporting and publicly endorsing school choice voucher-loving politicians.

What she calls book banning is removing harmful pornographic materials from school libraries intended for minors. We’re not talking about depriving children from reading Huckleberry Finn for its depiction of racial issues, or Harry Potter because it mentions witchcraft; we’re talking about keeping out of school libraries actual pornography aimed at children. This used to be something parents and schools could agree on.

And there aren’t false accusations of CRT in the curriculum; there are actual examples of CRT ideology being taught—which have been presented in multiple previous school board meetings. I don’t know what she means by attacks on teachers, unless she means teachers who are going against the will of the parents and teaching things we’ve insisted not be taught. Such a teacher might feel “attacked,” if a parent calls for them to be accountable. But no, there are no physical or even verbal attacks on teachers, so that’s what you might politely call a mischaracterization—or, more accurately, a lie.

Ayse Endomayo speaks at the
school board meeting April 11,
screenshot from here

As for physical attacks, though, the person who bragged in that Facebook group about getting the book back in the library, Tana Lam—she reportedly attacked one of the parents—one of those testifying at this meeting and who regularly attends and testifies, Ayse Endomayo (sp?). According to Endomayo's testimony, this happened a couple of months ago outside the meeting. There was a police report filed. The school board has been made aware of it. And yet this person has been allowed to go into a school library and get pornography put back in.

So, what is a heretic in DeMeier’s public school religion? Someone who supports choice for parents who want their children’s needs met without indoctrination or sexualization of the child.

We are at an impasse. As parents, grandparents, and concerned community members, we’d better push harder than the public school religion inquisitors. And we’d better do it now. Because the harm to our children is already being done. The next school board election isn’t until 2023. We need better from our board now.

Call to Action

One more thing. The Texas Education Association (TEA) has, at the direction of Governor Abbott, updated their guidelines for selecting and removing school library materials. (Texas Scorecard story here.) The purpose of these statewide standards is to prevent the presence of pornography and other obscene content in Texas public schools, such as those we’re talking about here in CFISD. The new standards require a district librarian to read all materials brought into libraries, something that has not always happened. And the review and selection process will be transparent and will emphasize parental rights.

I got a text today suggesting that several hundred of us ought to contact our school board members to adopt these new library review policies. What the TEA has set forth is a model policy; it is then up to local school districts to adopt policies. That means the parents need to require it. Maybe a reminder that showing porn or other harmful materials to minors is against the law, so in order to protect themselves from prosecution, they’d better set an appropriate policy.