David Rice has written an excellent article regarding questionable benefits packages and payouts in the Ozark School District. Also a great exposure of the NGOs that have undue influence on school districts, robbing them of local control.
From the article:
"The School Board adopted the "PRIME CHOICE® Plan" offered by
Precision Retirement Group, which allows public employers to convert
certain forms of compensation like accumulated sick leave, vacation
time, and incentive payments into contributions to either a medical
trust called the "PRIME Plan" or special deferred compensation plans
like 401(a) or 403(b) accounts. Copies of the Prime Plan are at the end
of the article.
The materials promote these conversions as
allowing tax-free reimbursements for retiree health expenses in the
PRIME Plan trust, or opportunities to defer federal and state taxes in
the deferred compensation plans. They also advertise eliminating FICA
tax obligations for both the employer and employee.
While
portrayed as benefits for employees, such specialized retirement plans
allowing favorable tax treatments on back-end payouts have been
criticized by some as forms of excessive "golden parachutes" for
highly-compensated public officials and administrators."
Well worth reading, with links galore to get you up to speed on the issues.
There are many ways in which publicly-funded entities limit and
suppress the right of the public to speak freely.
Art. I, Sec. 8 of
the Constitution of the State of Missouri states: “That no law
shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech, no matter by what
means communicated: that every person shall be free to say, write or
publish, or otherwise communicate whatever he will on any subject,
being responsible for all abuses of that liberty…”
Right behind that is
“Sec. 9, Rights of peaceable assembly and petition. – That the
people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good,
and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for
redress
of grievances by petition or remonstrance.”
According to the
article, “Former Springfield City Attorney Howard Wright, who has
written about the subject on
his website [website is no longer active], said courts have found
that citizens must be given a "meaningful opportunity to
comment" when a public hearing is required. But as long as that
happens, "I think council has a lot of discretion to adopt rules
and procedures."
The article then
shares some of the rules and regulations local governing bodies have
applied to public speech at their meetings.
If you have attended
a public meeting lately, you may have run into some of the ways
boards limit and suppress speech. It is usually couched in terms of
timeliness, application to the current agenda, distractions and so forth, but what
actually occurs is an undue limit on the rights of citizens to
communicate to and with their elected and/or appointed boards in a
public setting.
The rules and guidelines seem geared toward troublemakers, but give precious little evidence that
citizens in general are not already acting in an orderly and polite
manner. Public forums can get boisterous, passionate, even
contentious at times, but citizens usually do a wonderful job of
policing themselves, and should not be made to suffer for a board of
thin-skinned individuals who want to control every action of the
audience and can brook no distraction of any kind.
Time limits on
public speech—giving citizens as little as three minutes to speak
on a topic—is one way in which free speech is suppressed. That is
not a “meaningful opportunity to comment.” Three minutes to
address a grievance or inquire of the board is often not enough time
to fully express an issue. Also, boards tend not to respond to the
issues addressed. They sit mute before the public, presumably hoping
the person and therefore the issue will disappear.
“The board encourages residents to utilize the process for placing
items on the agenda but will also specifically designate time for
district residents to provide public comments at regular meetings of
the board. The following rules will apply to the public comment
portion of the meeting:
The board will establish a time
limit for the public comment period.
No individual will be permitted
to speak more than once during this period.
The board will establish a uniform
time limit for each speaker.
Discussion will be limited to
items from the posted agenda.
All speakers must provide his or
her name and address prior to speaking.
If there is insufficient time for everyone to speak,
the board will encourage participants to submit their questions
in writing or utilize the process for putting an item on the
agenda.”
Regarding public
concerns and complaints, the District has this to say: “The district
encourages parents/guardians, students and other members of the
public to first discuss concerns with the appropriate district staff
prior to bringing the issue to the Board so that the issue may be
thoroughly investigated and addressed in a timely fashion. The
Board will not act on an issue without input from the appropriate
district staff and may require a parent/guardian, patron or student
to meet with or discuss an issue with district staff prior to hearing
a complaint or
making a decision on the matter.”
If citizens cannot
go to their elected officials without first going through what is
undoubtedly a filter, then who is truly representing the
people?
That very few individuals attend most public meetings may
have something to do with the extra burdens placed upon citizens. A
citizen should not feel as if their speech is of such low concern as
to merit a three-minute time limit for hearing an issue, or that the board “may require” a citizen to meet with
intermediaries (district staff) before addressing the board. (Note: the OSD time-limit policy is five minutes though they had been limiting individuals to three minutes as stated in the video below.)
The school board at
the Ozark School District has questionable requirements, even going
to so far as to suppress the speech of their own members through requiring points of order in order to address citizens and calling for the question before sufficient time to discuss the issue has occurred. Citizens have a right to hear the speech
of others, as well as to speak.
At an October 2023
board meeting discussion regarding addressing citizens in a public
meeting, it was decided that individual board members must first
address the board president for permission to speak with a citizen.
If you watch the whole discussion, it becomes clear that the board
intends to keep tight control of not only citizen participation, but
of the board itself. Watch the discussion (prompted at 12 minutes):
....
If you have attended an Ozark school board meeting, it becomes clear that the tight
control is not because there are routinely violent, or otherwise
inappropriate outbursts (although the News-Leader reported boardmembers accusing the public of such things.) If you watch the online
board meetings, it is clear the board as a whole is not comfortable
with any type of disagreement, even with other board members.
Attorneys, in particular those of the Missouri School Boards Association (MSBA)
have been involved. At about 34 minutes in, Patty Quessenberry, who
is running for re-election to the school board again after serving for 27
years and who is currently the president-elect of the MSBA, even
mentions that the board has conferred with an attorney about the
new policy they are discussing.
At 39 minutes in
Quessenberry actually asks how to proceed if one of the dreaded
outbursts happens but she hasn’t noticed
it happened. Board Member Christina Tonsing even mentions she has not
heard a lot of what the other board members claim are outbursts.
The discussion then goes on to what certain audience members said or
didn’t say, whether it was rude, and whether the board members had
actually heard what they thought they heard.
Board Member Guy
Callaway suggests that some of the citizen comments were misconstrued
by not only board members, but others in the room. Apparently, board members
are conferring with others present, many of whom are
school employees.
This is some nasty
uprising from citizens, eh?
In November's meeting, a citizen questioned the board about an incident that occurred in October, when a citizen was removed from the meeting in violation of the board's new policy. See his comments here (video prompted). You will see the board attempts to shut him down:
The ever present timer rings while he is still speaking. He was the only public speaker for the meeting, which is very common. No one responded to the citizen's comments. The board moves right on to the next agenda item. It is as if he didn't exist.
It isn't until Board Member Christina Tonsing brings up the issue some time later that it is addressed. If she had not brought it up through the Community Engagement Plan on the Agenda, it would not have been referred to at all.
At approximately 1:04:00 in the video, Board Member Tonsing requests the Community Engagement Plan be pulled from the Consent Agenda, so it can be discussed. The board seems reluctant but Tonsing is allowed to share her views on the plan and how it came about, and she makes a connection between that and the issue of public comments in her quest to have the item pulled from the agenda.
Also, please note that though the transcript repeatedly states it is Board Member Amber Bryant speaking, it is actually Tonsing. The item was pulled from the agenda and Tonsing asks the board for their responses. Crickets, except for Guy Callaway who felt that the board had done their duty to solicit community engagement, of which there was apparently very little. The motion is quickly approved to accept the consent agenda.
At the December 2023 board meeting, a very important subject comes up, that of due process for teachers. Board Member Tonsing begins to make a case for modifying the MSBA's proposed changes in district policy, as it may violate the "federal process" for teachers going through a suspension or termination process. (It is helpful to read the transcript of the video clip.) The proposed change reads:
"The fourth potential change/addition in policy - A
member of the community has requested the following be placed into
policy: Teacher and staff discipline - Any administrator, teacher, or
staff of the district who is disciplined has the right to fair
treatment. Therefore, any performance improvement plan presented to a
district employee must be presented to the board at the next meeting by
the superintendent. The superintendent will establish a timeline for the
improvement required and update the board monthly on the employee's
progress or lack thereof. Further, no Notice of Deficiency will be
presented to a district employee until that employee has been invited to
a board meeting to be heard and the board has approved the notice. At
the hearing, the superintendent must present the failures of the
Performance Improvement Plan in correcting the employee's shortcomings,
including a summary of follow-up on the PIP."
In a clip from the board meeting (see below), which was recorded by the Ozark Schools Support Team and is not available at the district's YouTube Channel (interesting, eh?), you will see Board Member Bryant quickly shut down discussion by 'calling the question,' which is typically used when debate and discussion has been extensive. In this case, the board immediately voted to accept only the changes that had been proposed by the MSBA, completely suppressing any discussion.
The public was given no chance to hear a response or discussion of the issue, even though Ozark School District has an elevated turnover rate of teachers, with some controversial personnel decisions in the recent past. The board shut down Tonsing and simply voted the changes as recommended by the MSBA.
In conclusion, there are a myriad of ways that public boards suppress free speech. They do the voting public a great disservice by attempting to control narratives and stop discussion of matters that are of interest to citizens. Indeed, by limiting the free exchange of ideas, on both the part of board members, as well as citizens who have a right to speak, these publicly-elected boards undermine their communities and the well-being of their constituents.
“Unless the people, through unified action, arise and take charge of their government, they will find that their government has taken charge of them. Independence and liberty will be gone, and the general public will find itself in a condition of servitude to an aggregation of organized and selfish interest.” --Calvin Coolidge
To most parents the International Baccalaureate program is a
highly-respected organization that seeks to educate the brightest
students with a world-class education, readying them for higher
education and broader career opportunities. That perception
could not be further from the truth.
The IB program is an
organization that provides students with an education in Globalism
and Marxism through a SEL (Social Emotional Learning) system that delivers indoctrination to every student
enrolled. Just like many of the woke non-profit educational
organizations that “serve” the government schools, the IB program
is indoctrinating students (and their teachers) in a political system
that is anathema to the values of our Republic.
James Lindsay describes SEL as, "...composed of psychological and social work–based interventions on
children performed by teachers and other non-professionals (in
psychology and social work) in uncontrolled, non-therapeutic spaces in
order to teach them “right” and “wrong” answers to socially and
emotionally relevant circumstances. Some, such as your humble
encyclopedist, have suggested that the intentional implementation of
Social-Emotional Learning in schools should be a felony and involve the
relevant administrators going to prison. Some states in the United
States, such as North Carolina, seemed to preemptively anticipate this
potential issue with the implementation of SEL and proactively granted
immunity to teachers and school faculty administering SEL against
charges of practicing psychology on children without a license."
HISTORY OF THE IB PROGRAM
According to the IB organization’s website,
the seeds of the IB program began in 1962 with the founding of the
Atlantic College, one of the first educational institutions with an
international curriculum. Founded by German educator, Kurt Hahn, the
college as originally conceived was meant to bring understanding and
cooperation among students in order to overcome Cold War hostilities
among nations.
According to an article
on Wikipedia, “Drawn from all nations, the students would be
selected purely on merit and potential, regardless of race, religion,
nationality and background.”
Remember that point,
because if true, the IB program has largely abandoned that
selection process in favor of the racist policies of Diversity,
Equity, and Inclusion.
“KEY INFLUENTIAL EDUCATIONALISTS”
The IB organization names four individuals who were key to helping
form the program’s ideas on curriculum: John Dewey, A.S. Neill,
Jean Piaget, and Jerome Bruner. Three of the four were psychologists.
Let’s take a look at socialist psychologist John Dewey.
According to author Samuel L. Blumenfeld in a 1985 Imprimis
article¹, “In
1894 [Dewey] became professor of philosophy and
education at the University of Chicago where he created his famous
Laboratory School. The purpose of the school was to see what kind of
curriculum was needed to produce socialists instead of capitalists,
collectivists instead of individualists. Dewey, along with the other
adherents of the new psychology, was convinced that socialism was the
wave of the future and that individualism was passe. But the
individualist system would not fade away on its own as long as it was
sustained by the education American children were getting in their
schools. According to Dewey, “…education is growth under
favorable conditions; the school is the place where those conditions
should be regulated scientifically.” In other words, if we apply
psychology to education, which we have done now for over fifty years,
then the ideal classroom is a psych lab and the pupils within it are
laboratory animals.”
Also, according to Blumenfeld, “Dewey’s joining Cattell
and Thorndike at Columbia brought together the lethal trio who were
literally to wipe out traditional education and kill academic
excellence in America. It would not be accomplished overnight, for an
army of new teachers and superintendents had to be trained and an
army of old teachers and superintendents had to retire or die off.”
John Dewey also felt that literacy was overrated. According to
Blumenfeld, “But it was
Dewey who identified high literacy as the culprit in traditional
education, the sustaining force behind individualism. He wrote in
1898:
My proposition is, that conditions—social,
industrial, and intellectual—have undergone such a radical change,
that the time has come for a thoroughgoing examination of the
emphasis put upon linguistic work in elementary instruction…
The plea for the predominance of learning to read in
early school-life because of the great importance attaching to
literature seems to me a perversion.”²
Dewey and his Progressive colleagues managed to introduce the “whole word”
and “look say” methods of teaching reading, which were originally
used to teach the deaf to read. The widespread implementation of
these methods in public government schools has contributed to the
drastic decline in literacy among our children. And it was done on
purpose by one of the “key influential educationalists” the IB
program touts.
Further, according to Aliya
Sikandar in
the Journal
of Education and Educational Development,
“Dewey
was largely inspired by Marx’s theory of social struggle and
conflict between classes. Marx’s theory of conflict is that the
society is stratified and layered with different strata and there
is a competition within these different classes. Marx stresses that
social analysis should focus on class structure and relations. Dewey
had an inspiration from Habermas’s thoughts, which are in the
traditions of Kant, and emphasize the role of education to transform
the world into a more humane, just, and egalitarian society.”³
Sikandar writes, “Dewey’s
main concern was a disparity between the experiences of child and the
kind of concepts imposed upon him. He believed that this gap curbs a
child’s natural experiences and abilities, forcing him to follow
the dictates of a formal education. Dewey is equally critical of the
progressive education which imposes concepts, such as the right of
free expression or free activity as these tenets of education also
impose ideas upon a child. Dewey was deeply inspired by the vision of
a liberal free society and realized the pressing need of freedom and
equality, emancipation from social bounds to liberate individual and
society from the structures of power.”⁴
These
and other Progressive and Marxist
ideas have morphed into the systems of delivery we see in today’s
International Baccalaureate program, as well as public schools all
over the nation. Hidden in the form of SEL and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), these same
pernicious ideas have been working to undermine and control the
intellect of students.
In
its slide presentation on the history of the IB, the organization
compares and contrasts traditional and progressive educational
trends. Traditional methods such as memorization are compared to
“critical analysis.” Testing goes from objective IQ
tests to a
“range
of skills testing.” A
didactic or moral-based teaching becomes “constructivism,” in
which
a child develops his/her own moral
understanding
through experiential methods of learning.
Machine-scored tests become criterion-referenced tests.
In
a nutshell, these progressive trends mean that objective testing for
IQ and content
mastery,
a shared curriculum that all students should master, and a moral base
for knowledge is all thrown out the window in the service of
indoctrinating children into a globalist, Marxist world view.
Indeed,
a great deal of the IB program is designed for this end.
Recently, the IB put out a DEI statement to read in part:
“Diversity,
equity and inclusion statement:
We aim to live these values through these commitments:
The IB will embrace diversity,
equity, and inclusion practices in our work—and reflect this
commitment as we develop our policies and procedures—both as an
employer and as an educational organization
We commit to promoting human
rights and the idea of one shared humanity in all our work, both as
an employer and as an educational organization
The IB commits to promoting
justice—social, economic and ecological—in our work, both as an
employer and as an educational organization
Alongside our community, we will
work to help protect the environment and the local ecosystems that
form it
The IB will foster a sense of
agency and enquiry in both the people we work with and the young
people we help to educate
We embrace learner variability so
that our learners are not excluded on the grounds of any of their
characteristics, and so that our stakeholders can develop and thrive
in a culture of equal opportunities for learning, personal growth,
and developing the ability to make positive change
The IB commits to act supportively
and with consideration for young people affected by difficult or
adverse circumstances, their own changing personal histories or
contexts, or other challenges affecting their life as IB students
We will work to promote the
voices, identities, and leadership of marginalized people in our
work, both as an employer and as an educational organization. We
will be transparent in all our policies relating to the people we
work with and as we work with our educational programmes and
resources through a diversity, equity and inclusion lens
We will explore new ways to open
our programmes and our work to new languages, cultures and contexts
The IB commits to being fully focused on the needs of our
staff, IB World Schools and their educators and students, as we
challenge ourselves to become a more diverse, open, inclusive, and
accepting organization, standing against racism, prejudice,
discrimination and marginalization wherever we can. “
It
is clear that a political persuasion is of utmost importance to the IB.
Words like diversity, equity, inclusion, promoting human rights,
justice, protecting the environment, promoting the leadership of
marginalized people, etc., are all the wording of today’s Marxist
lexicon. Cloaked in benign-sounding wording, these concepts mean
something very different to those imposing them on our children. And
unfortunately, many public schools have fallen for the IB program,
including the Ozark School District.
OZARK
SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE IB
At
the Sept.
21, 2023 Ozark School Board meeting, the IB program (a part of
the school since 2012), was evaluated. The presenters, Ozark High School Principal Dr. Jeremy
Brownfield and IB coordinator Stacie Moran, spoke in favor of the program. The slide presentation can be found here.
Video prompted to the IB presentation:
The
slide
presentation, as clever as it was in attempting to downplay the
actual IB cost versus AP cost (in purely financial terms), could not
hide the taxpayer dollar waste as compared to the Advanced
Placement program. What wasn’t readily seen in the slides is
that the IB program for 2024 will cost taxpayers $228,246.80 for a
total of 74 students (the majority of whom will not be in the diploma
program). The diploma program currently has a total of 28 students,
both seniors and juniors. Dividing the total cost by the number of
students comes out to $3,084.42 for the IB program, while the AP
program calculation is a total of $871.64 per student.
What
Dr. Brownfield did in his calculations was to compare total “student
seats” (how many classes were taken by each student), instead of
program cost per student. And when one compares the policies of
colleges regarding both the AP and IB programs (see slide 12 of the
presentation), the cost to taxpayers cannot justify the IB program.
The ROI (return on investment) is not there.
Slide 12 of OSD IB Presentation
Later
in the presentation, the call is for expanding the IB program to the
Middle
Years Program, hiring additional staff and training. The purely
financial aspects of the IB program should see it dropped by the
Ozark School District. However, the political indoctrination alone
should be the stake in the heart of the IB program.
IB
STUDENTS SPEAK AT TOWN HALL
At
an Ozark School District Town Hall meeting on December 7, 2023, a
student in the IB program got up to speak. It starts out well. The
student describes her involvement at school and asks a great question
of the school board: What is the best form of education? Board member
Patty Quessenberry launches right into the progressive view of
student-directed education. She pays lip service to a “baseline,”
but then affirms that what interests the student is the most
important avenue of learning.
Next, board member Guy Callaway says
nearly the same thing. He mentions that his niece had been in the IB
program. Board member Christina Tonsing requests input from the
students about the
Academies program (read about them here,)
and shares that educational trends tend to come and go.
Then
Don
Currence, the mayor of Ozark, speaks
about some controversial opinions
that had been shared on a
Ozark community Facebook
page. Another
IB student gets up to speak. She wants more money for the arts. She’s
already spoken to Principal Dr. Jeremy
Brownfield, but she “wants more
details.” Partnerships with local arts organizations is mentioned
as a possible solution. School board member Amber Bryant shares that
a cost analysis is being done.
It’s
wonderful up to this point. But at the
40-minute mark one of the two
IB students gets up again to ask
about the
Ozark community page
on Facebook previously mentioned by Mayor Currence.
She wants to get rid of it. She wants to censor free speech in order to protect her teachers and fellow students. Later at
44 minutes in, a woman gets up and
suggests teaching
“media literacy,” which is a form of censorship masked as
educating
students how to discern mis- and disinformation.
WHAT
IS MEDIA LITERACY?
John
D. Sailor of the National
Association of Scholars describes
it this way: “But what,
exactly, is this pedagogy? The Critical Media Literacy Guide, a book
by UCLA professors Douglas Kellner and Jeff Share, offers a broad and
influential summary. Kellner and Share cite Marx’s observation that
“in every epoch, the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling
class” to argue that media literacy should be taught through the
lens of power and identity groups. Critical media literacy seeks to
undermine what it sees as the dominant institutions of Western
capitalist society—or, to use the academic jargon, to foster
“counter-hegemonic alternatives.”⁵
In
the video, which I urge you to watch from the prompt onward, then
Interim-Superintendent Lori Wilson,
and Curriculum
Superintendent
Craig Carson both admit that media literacy is being taught to very
young students up through high
school.
Towards
the end of the meeting, one of the IB students asks a question
regarding helping recent immigrants from Ukraine and Russia by
“growing” curriculum to make it “less of a culture shock.”
Perhaps
the globalist perspective taught in the IB curriculum is what prompted the remarks
in favor of
censoring free speech on Facebook (hardly known as a bastion of free
speech anyway), and concern for recent immigrants’ cultural
sensibilities.
THE
UNESCO CONNECTION
Also during the meeting Ozark School Board Member Christina Tonsing asked about UNESCO (the
United Nations Educational
Scientific and Cultural Organization), which has been historically associated with the IB program. According
to J. P. Singh in “United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: Creating
norms
for a complex
world,”
“Auguste
Comte’s (1798–1857) “Religion of Humanity” ascribed to
science the basis of society and global solidarity that would replace
God as its ordering principle. Comte’s positivist theory of
humanity reflected science to be not just a source for Enlightenment
ideas of progress, but also to be its spiritual core. Comte provides
a precursor to the ideas of scientific humanism that became popular
in the 1930s. Julian Huxley, UNESCO’sfirst
director- general (1946–48),
tried to provide a similar manifesto in his pamphlet UNESCO: Its
Purpose and Its Philosophy:
“Thus
the general philosophy of UNESCO should, it seems, be a scientific
world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background.”8
The
thrust of Huxley’s
ideas was toward human perfection rooted in natural selection,
evolution, and one dangerously close to eugenics.”⁶
Kimberly
Ells writes about UNESCO in her article “The endgame of
Social and Emotional Learning programs the UN is pushing is to shape
all children to meet the needs of a global society.” Ells says,
“[A]ccording to the global
purveyor of SEL standards, 27 states so far have adopted K-12 SEL
competencies, and all 50 states have adopted SEL competencies for
pre-K students. But where is this massive push for SEL coming from,
and what are the motives behind it? The answer to this question is becoming clear: The United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
is a primary force behind the SEL movement worldwide.”⁷
Later in the
article, Ells asserts that UNESCO is ultimately concerned with making
global citizens who, “In short, proponents of the sustainable
development goals and SEL want to instill “pluralistic thinking”
in your child in the name of global peace. They want children to be
taught to value the “collective good” over individual liberties,
rights, and property despite the fact that the freest, most
prosperous nations in the world are founded on individual liberties,
rights, and property.”⁸
WHAT CAN WE DO?
This is the crux of
the matter with organizations like the International Baccalaureate
program and UNESCO. They are not in unity with the laws, values, and
culture of the United States of America. In fact, through deception
and clever wording, these organizations and many like them have been
subverting our educational institutions for decades.
The hour is quite
late. These organizations have not just a toehold, but a stranglehold
on our institutions. Parents and taxpayers should insist that
programs like the IB be dropped from the curriculum at the Ozark
School District. Teachers should be retrained if needed.
The Ozark School Board had a big vote to purchase property for up to $8.65 million on January 8. The banker on the school board and the real estate guy on the school board didn't bother showing up, oddly enough. And the third guy was:
Photo: Dan Hill
They aren't quite sure what they're going to do with the building (wink wink), but you can bet your bottom dollar it will need lots more of your Ozark property tax dollars to make it ship shape.
You have to spend money to save money, right? As Assistant Superintendent of Operations Curtis Chesick says, "This is an opportunity to save money on future growth."
Chances are your school is infected with Social Emotional Learning (SEL). The Ozark School District certainly employs it, claiming it is teaching children how to be kind or collaborative or empathetic or resilient, etc. Seems very innocuous and it is sold that way by the school district. It is, however, a method of indoctrinating children to think and act in ways that lead to an acceptance of DEI and CRT, gender ideology and so on--social and political ways of thinking that many parents do not approve of.
The video below is instructive because it tells the story of how one instructor became concerned about SEL in her school district. According to Jennifer McWilliam's website, "In 2019, Jennifer was working as a “Reading Intervention Instructor” when she became very concerned about the education transformation unfolding at her school and across our nation. As she began to research what was causing the shift in focus from academics to ideology, she learned about the driving force behind the change: Social Emotional Learning.
In September 2019, she started to inform parents and citizens about the concerning changes in the education system. In February 2020, Jennifer was fired for exposing the SEL program at her school."
🚨This 4th archived video was the first time I ever spoke about Social Emotional Learning (SEL). I hope this brings Courage to everyone joining the fight to protect children & save America. Video 1. Brief explanation / Video 2. recorded on 12/17/2019 #ExpelSELpic.twitter.com/dcEintP4P1
In the Ozark School District, Assistant Superintendent Dr. Craig Carson included in his December Board Narrative several instances where SEL is being implemented. On page 1 is a planned future "Curriculum Conversation" titled, "How Ozark teaches emotional regulation and socialization between peers."
On page 4 under Training is, "Academic Behaviors - POG in conjunction with SEL." Additionally, on page 7, Dr. Carson shares a consulting visit by Cassandra Erkens of Solution Tree, a company that pushes SEL as part of its efforts to "help" schools:
Here is a short and very helpful graphic from Courage is a Habit that explains SEL. Here is another one that explains the cycle of indoctrination. Lastly, here is a video from James Lindsay of New Discources, in which he exposes SEL. It is well worth the time it takes to listen to his podcast. Around 16 minutes in Lindsay explains how many leading educators are completely ignorant of SEL, its true purpose and how widely it is implemented in schools. As Lindsay says, it is a pretty package with something horrible inside.
