Corey DeAngelis: Teacher’s unions fanatical hatred for children

One of my favorite people on Twitter is Corey DeAngelis. Every day I see him fighting for the rights of parents to get the education that they want for their kids. And he follows all the legislation that is being pushed in all the states. What I like about him is that like Ron DeSantis, he always seems to be taking ground from the secular left. Well, he has a new article in the The Federalist. Let’s read it.

It says:

Not a single state had universal school choice prior to 2021. In the past three years, eleven states have enacted it. This is a monumental achievement — and more victories for America’s children are imminent. School choice advocates are grateful to the power-hungry teachers unions, which overplayed their hand and sparked a parent revolution.

He says that there 11 states that have it, but there are more that have introduced legislation to get it.

What I like about Corey is that he’s not afraid to have an enemy in life. I was raised on Cyrano de Bergerac, a play about a French musketeer who always speaks his mind, and offends a lot of bad people. For me, it was always a good sign for your honor if you could point to bad people who opposed you. But today, it seems like the default view, especially of feelings-focused people, is to try to be liked by everyone. Well, Corey likes parents, and parents like Corey. But the teachers unions… they’re his enemies.

He writes:

The teachers unions-induced school closures harmed students academically, mentally, and emotionally, with virtually no reduction in overall coronavirus transmission or child mortality. Parents were understandably furious at the public schools that had broken faith with them during their time of need, and they weren’t going to just sit there and take it.

How did the unions respond to efforts to exert more control? By attacking parents, of course. No, it wasn’t the virus that needed to be defeated. It was you, mom and dad.

The unions publicly smeared parents who had the temerity to suggest that schools should do their jobs. In Chicago, home of the nation’s third-largest public school system, the local union took to Twitter to demonize those who favored reopening schools: “The push to reopen schools is rooted in sexism, racism and misogyny,” tweeted the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) on Dec. 6, 2020.

By the way, I noticed a Daily Wire article last week about how the Chicago Teachers Unions wanted 50 BILLION DOLLARS to fund abortions and migrant services, even as student performance is dropping:

Last year, Chicago Public Schools spent nearly $22,000 per student, much higher than the national average of $14,347.

Meanwhile, in 2022, only 12% of Chicago’s eighth graders were proficient in math, and only 19% were proficient in reading.

But let’s get back to Corey’s article. It’s funny that the teacher unions are claiming that parents who wanted schools to re-open were motivated by “racism”.

Take a look at this:

According to McKinsey, by the end of the 2020–21 academic school year, students “in majority-Black schools ended the school year six months behind in both math and reading, while students in majority-white schools ended up just four months behind in math and three months behind in reading.” If any policy had racist results, it was the union-pushed school closures and remote learning — which really should be called remotely learning — not parent-backed school re-openings.

Wow! So, the teacher unions fighting against re-opening schools actually hurt BLACK students the most. To me, it looks like the teacher unions are the real racists – the ones who deliberately cause harm to visible minorities.

I just want to quickly add that there are plenty of studies showing the harm that school shutdowns did to kids:

But it’s not just name-calling, there’s also spying on parents and persecuting them for wanting the schools open:

The California Teachers Association (CTA) even stooped to spying on parents, conducting what amounts to opposition research, the same as political candidates do on their opponents. A public records request uncovered emails from a union employee asking a public school principal for information about “the ideological leaning of groups that are funding the reopen lawsuits.” She noted that she had heard the principal had “lots of information regarding the Parents Association.”

I’ve read in other places that the secular leftists want to go after parents who oppose them personally – whether that be with doxing, death threats, violence, or other tactics. It’s a labor union, after all.

Elsewhere in the article, Corey notes how the union thugs went after parents who enrolled their kids in small “micro-schools”. These micro-schools would teach kids how to code, using free tools and online teaching videos.

The National Education Association (I think that’s the largest teacher union in America) wrote up opposition research reports to scare parents away from the micro-schools:

The first one warned union members and their allies: “The Opposition Report has documented widespread support for micro-schools.”

The report identified more than 20 additional microschool networks and related organizations, and recommended that their staff and allies familiarize themselves with a list of anti-microschool talking points the NEA had developed, such as that the microschools “do not guarantee students or educators the same civil rights protections that are required in public schools,” their staff are “not required to be credentialed,” and their students “are not held accountable to state standards of learning.”

Well, that’s enough for now. Corey has a new book out about the fight between parents and teacher unions. It’s called “The Parent Revolution: Rescuing Your Kids from the Radicals Ruining Our Schools”. Check it out. I have the audio version on my wishlist.

Secular leftists claim that conservatives want to ban books: is it true?

I found a very interesting article from January 2024 in The Free Press that sheds some light on the claims by the secular left that conservatives want to ban books. In the article, the author James Fishback looked a variety of school districts to see which conservative books they stock in their libraries. Then he compared those numbers with the numbers of liberal books.

Here’s the article from The Free Press:

Over the last couple years, the media have peddled a narrative of “book bans” sweeping the nation. Book bans (ostensibly by the right) are “eating away at democracy,” according to The Guardian, and are “taking an emotional toll,” warned CNN.

[…]So I decided to investigate just how one-sided things actually are. I surveyed the library catalogs of 35 of the largest public school districts in eight red states and six blue states, representing over 4,600 individual schools. All of these records are publicly available online. (Here are just three online catalogs I searched: Broward County, FL, Austin, TX, and Oklahoma City, OK.) What I discovered isn’t so much a problem of banned books. It’s that kids are often exposed to only one side of the story.

And here are the leftist books:

I looked up books written by some of the world’s most well-known progressive thinkers. Here is the percentage, out of the 35 school districts, that stock each book:

Title and Percentage of 35 Districts

The Communist Manifesto (Karl Marx) — 75%

Caste: The Origins of Our Discontent (Isabel Wilkerson) — 60%

The 1619 Project (Nikole Hannah-Jones) — 54%

Stamped (Jason Reynolds and Ibram X. Kendi) — 71%

An African American and Latinx History of the U.S. (Paul Ortiz) — 40%

The New Jim Crow (Michelle Alexander) — 60%

Guide to Political Revolution (Bernie Sanders) — 40%

White Fragility (Robin DiAngelo) — 54%

So You Want to Talk About Race (Ijeoma Oluo) — 57%

This Book Is Anti-Racist (Tiffany Jewell) — 45%

White Rage (Carol Anderson) — 17%

And here are the conservative books:

Meanwhile, I looked up books written by some of the world’s most well-known conservative thinkers. Here is the percentage, out of the 35 school districts, that stock each book:

Capitalism and Freedom (Milton Friedman) — 8%

Created Equal (Dr. Ben Carson) — 5%

Woke Racism (John McWhorter) — 3%

Breaking History (Jared Kushner) — 2%

Social Justice Fallacies (Thomas Sowell) — 0%

The War on the West (Douglas Murray) — 0%

The 1619 Project: A Critique (Phillip W. Magness) — 0%

The Case Against Impeaching Trump (Alan Dershowitz) — 0%

Decades of Decadence (Marco Rubio) — 0%

The Diversity Delusion (Heather Mac Donald) — 0%

The Case for Trump (Victor Davis Hanson) — 0%

This is not surprising for anyone who understands the public school and library industries. These places are staffed and run by secular leftists. So of course they are going to cry about book banning, even when they are the ones banning the books.

Look:

It’s no secret that many school libraries have become reflections of politicized librarians. Take Emily Drabinski, president of the American Library Association and a self-proclaimed Marxist, who said during a socialism conference last September in Chicago that public education “needs to be a site of socialist organizing. I think libraries really do, too. We need to be on the agenda of socialist organizing.”

One last thing, I thought this was a very interesting quote from the article, especially since Christian parents and leaders seem to be fond of blaming men for the decline of dating and marriage:

And is it any surprise that 76 percent of Gen Z and millennial women wouldn’t date a Republican, according to a Change Research poll from September? They’ve likely never been exposed to conservative ideas, and thus, entirely dismiss conservatives as people.

Public schools should be a last resort for education the children of Christians and conservatives. They are not fair and balanced. They are biased. And they are dishonest. If I had children, I would never send them to public schools. I would make sure before marrying that we could afford to homeschool or send the kids to private schools. Government schools and libraries are child abuse.

J. Warner Wallace: I am not a Christian because it works for me

Some of my favorite Christians are the ones that start out as atheists, and do very well at life, but just change direction because they investigate the evidence. One person who had a fabulous career in law enforcement switched sides because of the evidence: J. Warner Wallace. And in a must-read post from Cold-Case Christianity, he explains his motive.

Excerpt:

Life on this side of my decision hasn’t always been easy. It’s been nearly seventeen years since I first trusted Jesus as Lord and Savior. I still struggle to submit my prideful will to what God would call me to do. Christianity is not easy. It doesn’t always “work” for me. There are times when I think it would be easier to do it the old way; easier to cut a corner or take a short cut. There are many times when doing the right thing means doing the most difficult thing possible. There are also times when it seems like non-Christians have it easier, or seem to be “winning”. It’s in times like these that I have to remind myself that I’m not a Christian because it serves my own selfish purposes. I’m not a Christian because it “works” for me. I had a life prior to Christianity that seemed to be working just fine, and my life as a Christian hasn’t always been easy.

I’m a Christian because it is true. I’m a Christian because I want to live in a way that reflects the truth. I’m a Christian because my high regard for the truth leaves me no alternative.

I think this is important. There are people who I know who claim to be Christian, but they are clearly believing that God is a mystical force who arranges everything in their lives in order to make them happy. They are not Christians because it’s true, but because of things like comfort and community. But people ought to become Christians because they think it’s true.

Truth doesn’t necessarily make you happy, though. Truth can impose intellectual obligations and moral obligations on you. Seeing God as he really is doesn’t help us to “win” at life, as the culture defines winning. But it does offer the opportunity for us to walk a similar path to the one Jesus walked. And that is very appealing for real Christians.

The Bible doesn’t promise that people who become Christians will be happier. Actually, it promises that Christians will suffer for doing the right things. Their autonomy will suffer, as they sacrifice their own interests and happiness in order to make God happy, by serving his interests.

Christianity isn’t something you add on to your before-God life in order to achieve your before-God goals. When you become a Christian, you get a new set of goals, based on God’s character and his design for you. And although you might be very successful in the world as part of serving God, there is no guarantee of that. Christianity is not life enhancement. I do think that Christians do well at not hurting themselves though, but because they eliminate selfish desires, not because God gives them stuff.

By the way, if you’re looking for a great speaker to invite to your university campus, J. Warner Wallace is the best, then Frank Turek is my number two choice. Wallace has the homicide detective background, and Turek is a former naval aviator. Two tough guys who are tough-minded about the Christian faith.