Sibby Online

Here is why we don’t need SB 115

Contact your House members (on the right hand side of this link, cliick on their name and you will find an email link), tell them to vote no on SB 115. It may be heard early today.

1). Today the House State affairs removed additional state aid to K-12, because we can’t afford it. Therefore, we certainly can’t afford to add more students to the authority of the Department of Ed.

2). We already have 82 pages of standards for early childhood, SB 115 is not necessary if all we want is standards.

3). We already have voluntary accreditation available from the same source that the standards came from, SB 115 if all we want is voluntary accreditation.

4). The pilot program in Sioux Falls can still go forward with the already created standards and a method to accreditation, SB 115 is not necessary for a private funded, voluntary accredited program that uses the current standards available from the SD DOE.

5) The only can that needs to be kicked down the isle is Senator’s Dempster’s for demeaning children by calling them Ugly Ducklings, simply due to their economic status. This elitist statement typifies the attitude that government not parents are more capable of raising children. If that doesn’t convince you that this bill is family unfriendly, see page 70 of the standards.

Thune sponsors common sense legislation

Your drivers license is honored in all 50 states, so this is just common sense:

On January 25, 2007, Senator Thune, along with Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, introduced S. 388. This bill would allow gun owners with valid concealed weapon permits to carry firearms in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. This bill would also regulate where concealed firearms can be carried in states that do not offer conceal and carry permits or licenses. This bill now has 22 bipartisan cosponsors, and Senator Thune is working to build even stronger support for this bill.

As an avid sportsman, Senator Thune strongly supports the Second Amendment which protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." Reliable evidence shows that right to carry laws reduce the murder rate and Senator Thune looks forward to passing this bill to give gun owners and Americans back the rights that are granted to them in the Constitution.

I don’s see Senator McCain on the cosponsor list. I am not surprised.

KELO-TV misleads on pre-K bill

PP at South Dakota War College mentioned that I am at Pierre. I am working on giving legislator’s the truth on SB115. This is just another example of the trickery employed by the education establishment and also the Drive-By media. KELO-TV has a report on our successful efforts to have SB115 voted down in the House Education Committee yesterday. They have found a useful idiot to help them with the propaganda. Excerpt:

Renae Boehmer spends 10 hours a day with infants and toddlers. Her at home daycare is a place parents expect their children to learn.

Boehmer says, "A lot of what used to be taught in kindergarten now has to be done in the pre-school years in order to make then ready."

Boehmer says she doesn't follow a strict curriculum...rather she works on things like how to get along in a classroom and everyday skills.

"A lot of what we have to do as pre-school providers is to teach them the social emotional skills so even if they don't know their abc's when they get to kindergarten they're ready to learn, they understand what it takes to pay attention and to be able to get along in a class room," she says.

If Senate Bill 115 were to have passed, it would have given pre-school providers the choice to follow state standards. And parents would have had the option to send their children to accredited providers.

Boehmer says she wishes the bill would have moved forward because following set benchmarks gives providers and children a common goal.

Boehmer says, "I'm just disappointed that it’s not going to happen because the children deserve the best. And while we still have opportunities to give them what we know to be good, this would have been something that we a could look at and go ‘Ok this is what to high quality education looks like for 3 to 5 year olds.’"

What I uncovered last weekend, those standards are already available at the South Dakota Department of Education’s web site. So Boehmer can already have "something that we a could look at and go ‘Ok this is what to high quality education looks like for 3 to 5 year olds.’" And I have already showed the current South Dakota providers that are already accredited by the same NAEYC organization that helped the SD DOE develop their standards. Boehmer’s use of "social emotional skills" terminology indicates that she has already been exposed to the program. There is little that is educational about "social emotional" skills. This is the indoctrination that the humanist’s use to brainwash the children with their worldview. Yesterday I brought that up with Senator Ed Olson, and argued that it was wrong for the State to forward the secular humanist’s agenda through children of those parent’s who have a Biblical Christian worldview. His response and body language clearly gave me the chilling indication that he has no problem with that interference and when I informed him that the bill just got defeated in Committee he immediately rushed over to Secretary Melmer.

If you go to page 70 of the already written standards, you will find Standard 1, "Families/Cultures" that include these benchmarks:

By the end of their preschool years, most children will:

1: Identify themselves as individuals and as belonging to a family.

2. Describe what a family is and roles that family members can play.

3. Share family traditions and daily routines and demonstrate interest in learning about the traditions of families of others.

4. Demonstrate understanding that there are diverse families and cultures and all have value.

They all have value, except those that are Christian. We all know that the government has taken the position that they are not to allow Christian values in the government funded schools. Instead the children will be propagandized with multiculturalism and other far-left secular humanist propaganda. If we don't stop this, America's foundational priniples created by our Founding Fathers to establish freedom will be destroyed.

Expect a smoke out on this. And do not think these radicals are ready to give up.

Poor Children are Ugly Ducklings

This is what Senator Dempster said during a Hose Education Committee Hearing last Thursday:

I had the privilege of my father being a reader, so his son then was a reader. One of my favorite stories I always read to my children, was the story about the Ugly Duckling. Well we all know what the story is. An Ugly Duckling is born into, I don’t know what you call a group of ducks, was born and all of a sudden everybody picks on him and says Oh look at that duck, he’s not like me, he just isn’t the same as us. Everybody starts picking on him, and then all of a sudden, at the end of the story. What happens to the Ugly Duckling is that it is not a Duckling at all. But it is a beautiful Swan. And I would propose to you, that ultimately, that is what a pre-K program can do particularly with three to four year-old kids, who are living in poverty. Who are told everyday of their lives that they are Ugly Ducklings and have a tough time making it. In fact what pre-K does is gives the capacity to become themselves and gives them the capacity to grow.

I received this eamil by a Native American who took offense:

I have forwarded this message on to several Indian activists including Russell Means and asked them to respond by writing to all members of the HEC to vote no on SB115. I also asked that they forward the information on to others on their mailing lists asking them to follow suit. See what they think about us uneducated and poverty stricken ugly ducklings now!

Dempster showed the true elitism of these people.

Two more reasons to oppose SB 115

I don’t have time to expand on this, but I have two links at the top of my Public Education sidebar that you can read for some food for thought:

Statist Education Is history repeating itself ?

Hitler Said It Best

Voluntary preschool accreditation already here

Finally the media has started to report on the power grab the State of South Dakota is trying to sneak through the Legislature in regards to preschools. The Argus Leader has it on their front-page. I have been a critic of that paper, but I have to admit that Terry Woster did a pretty fair job of presenting the current status. Here is an excerpt:

Dempster said critics are seeing things that aren't in the initiative.

"There's nothing that says the public school system is, or even should be, providing these services. Just the opposite," he said. "We are having discussion with private providers about certification standards, saying it's a wonderful opportunity for (providers) to improve substantially the things they do.''

But we already have that. Here is a list of South Dakota Day cares that are accredited by the same National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) that I have already shown to be involved in the guidelines that Dr, Gera Jacobs, who is also governing board member of NAEYC, introduced on the South Dakota DOE web site. Note that there are three form Sioux Falls, the VA, Citibank, and Sioux Valley Hospital (now Sanford). So why should the taxpayers become responsible for voluntary accreditation, if that is available directly from the organization that is helping develop the State’s guidelines? Something just really stinks here.

And here is another interesting excerpt from the Argus Leader report:

Rounds said the state would like to work with private providers to certify their plans.

"I said to them (Sioux Falls) that it was a plan that was worth our consideration,'' the governor said.

The University of South Dakota has agreed to measure results. The program could be expanded to other communities in future years.

But Governor, there are already three Sioux Falls entities who are accredited by the same NAEYC that your DOE is working with. And the USD professor your DOE is working with is affiliated with that same NAEYC. What's up with that? Somehow I think this all has to do about money. And I don't think it is money for poor people. They are just political pawns here. I say that because nobody supporting SB115 wants to talk about the costs.

And speaking about measuring results, how about taking a look at the Headstart program. How effective is it versus the costs?

Call or email or House representative and ask them to not vote for SB115 because there are still way too many questions that nobody wants to answer.

Pre-K bill, very family unfriendly

That was reported by the Rapid City Journal as they covered their Saturday Cracker Barrel:

Other bills discussed included SB115, which calls for revising certain provisions regarding the rule-making authority of the Board of Education, including what one audience member called a "very family unfriendly" component of classification and accreditation of pre-kindergarten students.

The bill includes a preschool initiative designed to improve academic performance of children from low-income families. Lawmakers were asked the necessity of the law, because standards already exist.

"I am in opposition to the pre-K component of the bill," Kirkeby said. "It’s my understanding that the government is proposing using future fund money that is intended for research and economic development. It does not include everybody, and there are cheaper ways to help these kids."

Rep. David Lust, R-Rapid City, said he agrees with the goal of what is being done pre-K, adding, "But I don’t think this is the way to do it."

Sen. Bill Napoli, R-Rapid City, said he sees the same thing happening if this bill passes, as what happened in the past when kindergarten went from being voluntary to mandatory — a process he said took 10 to12 years.

"I would bet in 10 to12 years, we’ll be looking at mandatory pre-school if this bill passes," Napoli said.

Meet the Nanny-State's Grandma

In my previous post I discussed the "Eager to Learn" document that was passed out in the South Dakota Legislature last week by Dr. Gera Jacobs from the University of South Dakota. Take a good look at who the far-left wants to become the Grandma to all of your children.

In the South Dakota Department of Education January 2007 web based newsletter, you will find a report form Jacobs titled, "New guidelines help child care providers, teachers and parents as they care for young children". Here is the introduction:

Early Learning Guidelines have been developed for South Dakota by a panel of early learning professionals. These guidelines are designed to help teachers, caregivers, and parents understand what research says 3- to 5-year-old children are able to learn, whether at home or in a preschool or child care setting. The panel, which included South Dakota preschool, Head Start, and kindergarten teachers, child care providers, parents, and administrators, stresses the importance of helping children learn through play, which research confirms is the best way for children to learn.

So children learn through play…wow, what a revelation! What Grandma didn’t know that? Here is a link to those guidelines. I also found this June 2006 announcement about Jacobs:

Dr. Gera Jacobs, professor of early childhood in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction in the School of Education at The University of South Dakota, has been elected Affiliate Liaison of the governing board of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) – the nation’s largest and most influential organization of early childhood educators.

You will find this in the guidelines that Jacobs introduced on the SD DOE web site:

The panel wishes to extend special thanks to Marilou Hyson, Senior Consultant to the National Association for the Education of Young Children ( NAEYC) for her help in beginning the development of the guidelines and her continued guidance throughout the process.

What I have also uncovered is that the NAEYC is a part of a Global Alliance for the Education of Young Children. So now the secret end-game can be exposed…a new world order. This is fully explained by a highly researched piece of work by Cornelia R. Ferreira titled, "What is New Age Education?".

First we need to understand that this all did not happen over night:

In the 19th Century, three Yale graduates, members of Yale's Illuminati-connected Skull and Bones secret society, went to the University of Berlin. There they studied Hegelian philosophy, which taught that the State is absolute and which was to become the basis of both Naziism and Marxism. Hegel viewed the individual as having value only if he serves society, and society for him meant the State. The ultimate goal of Hegelianism, which is similar to that of the Illuminati, is a socialist global community in which evil is seen as ensuing from capitalism, individualism and religion.

Here is warning issued clear back to 1884:

In 1884, Pope Leo XIII warned that Freemasonry "endeavors to take to itself the education of youth. They think that they can easily mold to their opinions that soft and pliant age, and bend it whither they will; and that nothing can be more fitted than this to enable them to bring up the youth of the State after their own plan." For over a century schools have been implementing the revolutionary Hegelian-Hebartian-Wundtian system in which education is not meant to impart knowledge, but to condition children to live as future socialists and collectivists in a world society.

And here is why we need to be weary about Professor Jacobs:

When the revolutionary Yale trio and other Americans who received doctorates under Wundt returned to the United States, they founded or took over teachers' colleges and departments of psychology and pedagogy in universities and spread the new educational system that combined the ideas of Hegelian totalitarianism with experimental psychology. Hegelianism stressed community over individualism, whilst experimental psychology helped develop the art of mass brainwashing. So even before 1900 education was merged with psychology, forming a new educational - actually anti-educational - system that is worldwide today.

Ferreira also includes what I have previously pointed out, the influence of secular humanism. After pointing the Hegelian influence John Dewey, the father of progressive modern education, obtained from those professors, we hear more about the new world order:

Dewey was also one of the founders of the religion popularly known as "secular" humanism, so his Masonic initiated education came to be called secular humanist education. It has gained increasing support for a world society, thanks to experimental psychology's conditioning techniques, which have turned schools into behavioral laboratories, with pupils the equivalent of lab animals. Today we're seeing the results of an educational policy that shifted from the development of intellectual skills to that of changing and manipulating human behavior to bring about the new world order.

And here are some specifics of global education:

Whatever the name, global education can be recognized by what it teaches: naturalistic humanism, feminism, Marxism, sex education, moral autonomy, environmentalism, pacifism, disarmament, conflict resolution, dialectical "critical thinking," world citizenship, compulsory community service, population control, evolution, religious indifferentism, paganism, syncretism, earth worship and occultism. These topics are not necessarily subjects, but are part of a new way of teaching that presents everything from the globalist point of view. It's a values-laden attitude infused into every subject from preschool to adult education so as to capture the minds of everyone and win their acceptance of the new world order. It's a political and religious indoctrination that imposes upon students radically liberal and anti-Christian biases.

And this is very disturbing, but very important to understand:

First is the destruction of loyalty to parents, Church and nation, as this loss of loyalties is necessary before one can be a world citizen. In 1889, Freemasonry deemed. that, in order to advance its universal socialist republic, "[freedom of thought and conscience of the children has to be developed systematically in the child at school and protected, as far as possible, against all disturbing influences, not only of the Church ..., but also of the children's own parents, if necessary, even by ... moral and physical compulsion."

This is why I refer to the positions of the far-left as being anti-family, anti-God, and anti-American. But the anti-parent element is of particular importance in regard to the current debate over state controlled preschools in South Dakota:

The classroom's war against Christianity was openly declared in 1983 when The Humanist, the journal of The American Humanist Association, published a prize-winning essay that proclaimed:

"... the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly view their role as the proselytizers of a new faith ... The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between ... the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism ... [and] humanism will emerge triumphant." 

The first line of attack was for the State to get children under its charge from the earliest possible age. The working mother, abandoning children to daycare, early childhood education and kindergarten, greatly facilitated this process.

This is very troubling. And Ferreira ends with this reference to the friends of Governor Mike Rounds who are helping create South Dakota’s preschool standards…the NAEYC:

In line with Carl Rogers' dictum on noise and messiness, the National Association for the Education of Young Children advises American and Canadian teachers’:

"The traditional elementary school classroom with neat rows of desks and students quietly working is not the best way to teach children ...

Don't:

• Use mostly structured activities led by the teacher.
• Expect children to sit quietly and listen for long periods...
• Focus on negative rules such as "Don't hit."...
• Use a lot of worksheets, workbooks or flashcards.

Do:

• Plan activities so children can work individually or in small groups [i.e., wander around and chat].
• Plan activities so children can help each other ...
• Expect a noisy classroom."

And no to spankings. The NAEYC, along with the American Humanist Association are listing among those who are against corporal punishment. And these people want to take their opinions into your homes. Ironically, a rebellious nine year-old proclaiming that he can’t be spanked, that was abuse, and he learned that at school was what helped turn me from a liberal and into a conservative activist. And there is no way I am going to allow these elitists think they can get away with being everybody’s Grandma.

UPDATE: And this ban on spanking fits into the global education agenda theme of this post:

Seventeen countries, mostly in Europe, have banned corporal punishment of children in all settings including homes. One hundred nine countries have banned corporal punishment in schools. These legal actions were taken to reduce physical abuse of children and give children the right that other human beings have to be free from physical harm. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child through its Committee on the Rights of the child has called on all member states to ban corporal punishment of children and institute education programs on positive discipline. Last year, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly adopted a resolution calling for a ban of all forms of corporal punishment of children. An international study on violence against children currently before the UN General Assembly calls for a ban on all corporal punishment of children. The author of the report, Dr. Sergio Pinheiro says that calling for an end to all corporal punishment is challenging but "Children's rights to life, survival, development, dignity and physical integrity do not stop at the door of the family home, not do states' obligations to ensure these rights for children".

Another UPDATE: Here is a link to the from the NAEYC web site that supports the United Nations postion.

Here is more from the NAEYC web site, and catch the title, "It takes the World to Raise the Children". And their conclusion:

On our own life journeys, we need to experience globalization and discuss its concepts of balance, mutual support, and interaction with everyone we meet. OMEP-USNC offers opportunities to early childhood professionals to do just that.

Globalization . . . is now used to describe the reality of mass communication affecting all sectors of industry and culture. In the new order, countries are concerned about the ways to preserve their unique cultural characteristics and their role in the global markets. (Third World Summit on Media for Children program 2004)

OMEP-USNC continues to serve its members and the early childhood field by pursuing the mission "to promote high-quality education and care for all children in environments that promote peace and respect for all people in their surroundings"

Pre-K bill held up in House Committee

During Friday’s debate in the Hose Education Committee hearing on SB 115, the pre-school bill, Representative Van Norman asked this question:

The concern that I hear that I have as legislators we are entering a zone that is right now that is handled not by the Department of Education. We are expanding that service that government offers. Why we are using that mechanism instead of trying to come up with a different one. I understand that there is a donation, a large donation, to commence this project as a pilot. Why are we using the Department of Ed versus just leave it alone?

Senator Dempster responds with this:

This, because the Department of Ed is made up of people who have the intellectual rigor. And with the infrastructure that have the capacity to understand the importance of accreditation standards and what it take to deliver the product. But the end delivery, in our model, the pilot hopefully will be those private providers that are endorsed by this public entity.

So Dempster seems to be saying that the Department of Ed has the "intellectual rigor" that the private sector does not have. Typical of an elitist. And exactly what are those standards? Remember, Senator Ed Olson stated on the Senate floor that "they are virtually done". Representative Mike Buckingham of Rapid City starts asking about details:

Dr, Melmer, somebody I think from the Department of Education hand this out yesterday [here is a link to the executive summary of the "Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers"]. How much is this research in this is going to play in how you are going to set up the accreditation standards.

Melmer response:

Madam chair, the research arm that we are using is through the University of South Dakota. Gera Jacobs is the professor there. She has been very involved in the discussion up to this point on accreditation and teacher certification. She will continue to be involved. But in terms of that particular document Representative Buckingham, I am not familiar with the document. Gera Jacobs passed it out yesterday and I have not seen it so she worked with Deb Barnett mostly on the guidelines.

So Deb Barnett responded:

As Dr. Melmer indicated, Dr. Gera Jacobs did give this information to you. Since she passed it out yesterday, I have not had an opportunity to read through the whole document. But in our discussions, with Dr. Jacobs, who has vast experience and knowledge in the area of early childhood development. In the context of establishing any minimum standards. You know we certainly would look to the research in terms of laying a broad foundation that preschool programs offer a developly appropriate cirriculum. Again, the specific curriculum would be up to the programs. But there are certain developmental milestones in areas and approaches that have a strong research base, that would sensibly and reasonably play into minimum standards.

Buckingham then asked:

Now I am going down a really dangerous road and I recognize that. But can I assume, and that just puts you on the path that I am going on, that because you identified the professor from USD as your primary person to develop this, and she handed this out. That this would be the research that you would rely on?

Barnett’s response:

I am not certain that this would be the sole source of research. There is a vast body of research in the area of early childhood. More than what I am familiar with. And certainly we have also have preliminary input from other early childhood experts from SDSU as an example and other higher education institutions that have early childhood programs. Plus input from other individuals that work in the area such as Headstart has a very long history with researched based performance and achievement standards as well. So as I said, there is a vast body of knowledge. And we hope to tap from the best and from several sources.

Buckingham then refers to Recommendation 1 of the research:

Each group of children in an early childhood education and care program should be assigned a teacher who has a bachelor’s degree with specialized education related to early childhood (e.g., developmental psychology, early childhood education, early childhood special education). Achieving this goal will require a significant public investment in the professional development of current and new teachers.

He then states:

That would be rather expensive.

Barnett responds:

That is the recommendation from the research, but that is the type of issue that would need to be discussed and debated and ultimately decided through the rule making process. And there are certainly research based advantages and there are also realities. That the expense and the availability and the professional development opportunities to raise people to that level. So, you know, we recognize that there are pros and cons in lots of these. It’s not an automatic done deal. We would certainly take a look at that recommendation, and ultimately decide through the rule making process whether it works for South Dakota or not.

So what are the standards that Senator Ed Olson said were "virtually done"? [see earlier post] Wouldn’t it be helpful to the legislature to have a look at them before voting on SB115? I would think so. Like Senator Greenfield said, there seems to be a cat and mouse game going on here. Here is how the research introduced Recommendation 1:

At the heart of the effort to promote quality early childhood programs, from the committee’s perspective, is a substantial investment in the education and training of those who work with young children.

And that seems to be what Senator Ed Olson was talking about during the Senate Education Committee hearing on this bill on February 1. In response to McNenny’s comment that the benefits are short lived, Olson countered with not so regarding programs that have "a high quality, high standards, with effectively trained teachers and provider." So Buckingham asks a really important question, how much is this going to cost? No having any idea about the cost supports Senator’s Brock Greenfield’s statement that we have the cart in front of the horse.

And I have another question. If you look at the "Eager to Learn" document, it says nothing about private providers. If I may copy a phrase used often by Senator Dempster, quite the opposite:

Recommendation 13: The committee recommends that the federal government fund well-planned, high-quality center-based preschool programs for all children at high risk of school failure.

Note the word "center-based". And that leads to another question, how do we determine "children at high risk of school failure"?

There are a lot of things that just don’t smell right. If the standards are "virtually done", then why not make them public so we can have the debate. Instead they tried to say this bill is only about giving the Department of Ed the go ahead to create standards. After confronting Ed Olson at today’s Cracker Barrel in Mitchell on that point, he admitted that the bill was to give "authority". And how much is that authority going to cost? Both in regards to the taxpayer and also in regard to the freedom of parents who are judged to have "children at high risk of school failure". It is hard to trust those who keep secrets.

This programs sounds like an extension of the coordinated Health and Education pilot program the State put into Mitchell’s elementary schools. It was due to that anti-family program that I began my transition form a liberal to a conservative and decided to become politically active. And now I know how the elite in Pierre think they are "intellectual" superior to the rest of us, and they can just do what the want with our children. Do they agree that you have to have a degree in early childhood development in order to have the "intellectual vigor" to raise your kids?

The Committee ended up deadlocked at 7 to 7, so this bill was deferred until Tuesday when an absent Committee member is expected to return. Email or call your House Representatives and tell them that you are not too stupid to raise your kids. Tell them that until they can come up with a reasonable estimate of the costs involved, legislative authority should not be given to the executive branch. But by the sounds of things, there are far too many legislators that are in the back pocket of a Governor who has sided with the far-left of the Democrat Party.

More on the Texas HPV controversy

WorldNetDaily has more on the Texas Governor’s executive order to make HPV vaccinations mandatory:

Ninety state lawmakers already have signed on as co-sponsors to a plan that would overturn Perry's executive order.

"The fact that Merck admits the vaccine is only effective for five years combined with the average age of 47 for a cervical cancer patient according to the American Cancer society illustrates that governor did not do his homework," said the pastors. "This has gone from a misuse of executive authority to the violation of the trust we place in elected officials to protect the citizens."