- The Washington Times - Saturday, February 26, 2005

Any parent with a child in a public school has likely discovered our education system is little more than a means by which liberals indoctrinate children with socialist ideology.

If this seems a radical assertion, I assure you it is not. In fact, examples abound indicating its accuracy.

Take the “community box,” for instance. How many elementary school kids across the country show up the first day of school, only to have their brand-new supplies pilfered by their teacher and thrown into one big box, to be distributed henceforth as said teacher sees fit? (Karl Marx also had very little regard for private property rights.)

Or how about “cooperative learning” methods of instruction? I use quotation marks to point out how impossible it usually is to get kids to cooperate or learn when they sit in groups a pencil length from their neighbors. But if a teacher is blessed with darling little angels who would never think of misbehaving, students who have “more” knowledge are regularly expected to help those with “less.” (How’s that saying go again? “From each according to his ability.”)

Ever heard of social promotion? This egalitarian concept is standard procedure at most public schools, where students are promoted from one grade to the next regardless of academic aptitude. It practically takes an act of Congress to retain failing students these days, lest we give them the impression they are responsible for their accomplishments.

These are not isolated examples, nor is this short list exhaustive. This is business-as-usual in many American public schools. But as ridiculous as these concepts are, one would think some ideas would be beyond the pale. Not anymore.

According to a WorldNetDaily report, California schools have been barred from informing parents if their children leave school grounds “to receive certain confidential medical services that include abortion, AIDS treatment and psychological analysis, according to an opinion issued by the office of state Attorney General Bill Lockyer.”

It may come as a surprise, but it’s not altogether uncommon for high schools to allow students — namely, seniors — to leave campus for various reasons during the normal schoolday without informing the front office — say, at lunch time or to attend local college courses. But I would bet my lunch money parents are made aware of any such policies.

Make no mistake, this decree handed down by Attorney General Lockyer is not some unambiguous legal maneuver to protect the public school if it loses track of a student, or to safeguard a student’s doctor-patient privilege.

To the contrary,Mr. Lockyer is announcing his intent to protect organizations like teachers’ unions and Planned Parenthood, who have resisted efforts to require parental notification policies for medical procedures like abortions.

Think about this for a second. If California’s attorney general gets away with this absurd policy, your kid’s geometry teacher essentially has more right to know your child is pregnant — or has contracted HIV, or is potentially suicidal — than you do. And how is a “medical service” still confidential if someone other than a doctor and patient is aware of it?

In plain English, it isn’t. But this hasn’t stopped school officials and liberal lawyers from assuming they know better than parents what’s best for their own kids.

It is irrefutable there are many outstanding teachers, and still more who are appalled by the actions of people like Bill Lockyer. But alas, this has not prevented public school districts from believing they have the right to act tyrannically, even if usurping authority from abusive or irresponsible parents generates policies that apply equally to the vast majority who are not abusive or irresponsible.

In the “perfect” society, there is no private property because everything belongs to the state (or the “village,” in Hillary Clinton’s mind) — even your children.

It is a sad day in public education when teachers and administrators — who so adamantly proclaim their love for “the children” — would even consider actively deceiving parents by concealing matters that pose such clear emotional burdens to youngsters.

Story Continues →