View from the right: Who teaches reading? Grant-funded or district-funded teachers?
By Judy J. Howard
Who teaches reading? Grant-funded or district-funded teachers?
Ridiculous question, right? It would be if school children were actually learning to read in School District 205. Administrators keep telling taxpayers that schoolchildrens scores are getting higher. Just what does that mean? How did they get so low? Why are children not able to read according to their grade level? If NEA teachers have their way, testing will be eliminated. Greg Toppo, education writer for the AP, writes that the NEA does promise union support to state-level lobbyists who fight mandatory testing. Are you getting the picture?
As reading/math scores decrease, union teachers accelerate their fight to remove tests which will prove their inability to teach. Rockford School Supt. Alan Brown has announced our school district has received a $4 million grant to fund after-school reading programs. After school? Why arent they learning to read while in regularly scheduled school classes? If grant-funded teachers can teach children how to read after school, why do we need regularly scheduled reading teachers?
Pretty far-fetched? Not if it saves taxpayers $4 million. Of course, we could implement the NEAs suggestion. No testing, just ask your kids teacher. Lets see. If the teacher is unable to produce a student adequately reading, would he/she be willing to tell the parent/administrator that he/she has failed? Whos fooling whom?
I agree, parental responsibility has a lot to do with a childs (a kid is a baby goat) reading success. Even Earl Woods, Tigers father, would agree. In his Caring and Sharing presentation in Rockford, he told parents to empower their children to be the best they can be, giving suggestions to family-centered parents. If the school child is minus family-centered parents, its likely he/she will fail. By the way, Mr. Woods has every reason to be proud of his son. Tigers behavior and presentation prove his parents caring.
Public schools attempts to become surrogate parents have also failed. NEA teachers consistent attempts to produce students with acceptable grades, consistently fail. Their attempt to teach high self-esteem by dumbing down the children has resulted in confused, illiterate students. Just look at the test results. Now, if the NEA has their way, even the tests will be outlawed. How far will they go to cover up their failures?
Speaking of high self-esteem, Roy Baumeister has written a new book titled Violent Pride discussing current school shootings and disagreeing with the high self-esteem doctrine sold to public schools. He writes that high self-esteem is a likely precursor to violence after his study of convicted criminals. On narcissism, he writes, violent prisoners had a higher mean score than any other published sample. Is high self-esteem really more important than academic skills? When will we realize schoolchildren are not experiments? When will we understand if parents are not parenting, schoolchildren will fail? Do we really need NEA-supported legislators? If after-school teaching is successful, why do we need to employ regularly scheduled, apparently failing, teachers? Such questions demand proven answers.
Why write about the abortion/breast cancer (ABC) link? Because the ABC link is becoming more evident, even though liberals, and some conservatives, dont want to hear about it. The slope is getting slipperier. Journalist Dennis Byrne wrote in the July 2, 2001 Chicago Tribune that scientific evidence is being ignored between abortion and breast cancer. He quoted British authority Thomas Stuttaford, who initially denied the existence of a causative link between abortion and breast cancer. A year later, he noticed 33,000 British women diagnosed with breast cancer each year with an unusually high proportion having an abortion prior to starting a family. In fact, he found these women are up to four times more likely to develop breast cancer.
Surprisingly, here in Illinois, Lieutenant Governor Corinne Wood, a breast cancer survivor, identifies herself as pro-choice, reluctant to recognize the ABC factor. (www.abortionbreastcancer.com) Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, has been pleading with state legislators to open their eyes and review various ABC medical studies. She says, As early as 1986 when only two American studies had linked abortion with breast cancer, a researcher for the Centers for Disease Control, Phyllis Wingo, told the British journal, Lancet, that induced abortion before first-term pregnancy increases the risk of breast cancer. Why, then, dont abortion providers inform prospective abortion patients of the ABC danger? Dumb question! Money and politics is the answer!
Here is another failed social experiment. Liberals preach incessantly the importance of lowering the birth rate. The closer we get to recognizing the reality of the childs life before birth, the more experiments are announced. We are now being told about stem cell research using embryonic, before birth, stem cells. Thankfully, some conservatives recognize stem cells are also produced by adults, obtained from blood and bone marrow. Abortions slippery slope is a tragedy.