Local media pundits:
Much has been said and written about the school board races. Let’s clarify and dispel some myths. First, there is no CRT taught in our schools Well, there wasn’t any blatant CRT in the old curriculums we’re replacing, but we don’t know if CRT concepts were incorporated in classroom study and discussion. (Just like we found video segments from CNN used in a high school civics classroom.) And to be sure, it can be subtle. But the timing and semantics of the issue/myth can’t be ignored.
For the last few years, all districts in the state have been reviewing and selecting new curriculums in all disciplines for purchase to use during the next 5-6 years. As we started following school board activities last year, we heard the IRC school district would be selecting new K-5 English Language Arts curriculum. To be clear, if CRT wasn’t in our schools – most curriculums from the Education Industry now contain all of the propaganda that’s in vogue. See this WSJ Op Ed: https://www.wsj.com/articles/education-schools-have-long-been-mediocre-now-theyre-woke-too-teachers-college-ideological-manipulation-propaganda-11660925293
We stopped the selection of the HMH English Language Arts curriculum that was rife with CRT and LBGTQ material. We stopped the selection of the SAVVAS Advanced Placement Math curriculum that was totally biased and hyped racism thru math problems(!). Jackie discovered the plan to offer a very biased teacher and staff professional training session based on the book Courageous Conversations and convinced the Superintendent to stop it. Parents identified biased, CRT books in the library which taught an inaccurate and politically charged version of recent history and asked for removal. The district set up a flawed book review system and it will have to be redone.
1 / 2
2 / 2
Savvas AP math
So, no, our schools weren’t steeped in CRT like some in this country, but there’s no doubt we were headed that way; concerned citizens and parents stopped the onslaught. With the revelations of the poor curriculums and vast numbers of residents/taxpayers agreeing, the progressives in town started a fight that still hasn’t subsided. No one has requested the books be ‘banned’ or ‘burned’ – any parent can buy the books or anyone can get the books at the public library. They’re just not appropriate to be in our schools. And like the Parental Rights bill (‘Don’t Say Gay’), the book issue was deliberately propagandized by the Left.
And that brief history brings us to this point in time. When I consider candidates for an office, I look at a number of things including their character, credentials, and experience. If they have already served in office, their voting record is also an important factor to consider. In all of the issues above and more, Jackie Rosario voted as I would have wanted her to, Teri Barenborg did not – in fact her latest mailer is a lie!
In all of your diatribes on the school board races, have any of you actually detailed the records of the candidates? I think not. Have you asked the other contenders how they would have voted? I know LaDonna Corbin was quoted as saying she thought “banning books was ludicrous.” So, what am I to conclude about her position on the subject? Better still, have any of you actually watched the videos of the meetings and heard the discussions or the public comments made? Have you talked to the public and researched the issues?
I was at many of the meeting and we’ve all been doing our homework. We’ve read excerpts from the hyper-sexualized books, and we know they have no literary merit. Many people in the community read them, too, and were appalled! There are the classics and many excellent books that contribute something to literature and learning without graphic sexual passages. Are they so bad? Is it so wrong to want to know why these terrible books stayed and a few were removed? Is that too much to ask as a parent or a taxpayer?