In the recent past, the code of conduct issued by your local school district was used to simply state common sense rules. But no longer.
Now, school districts across the country incorporate political messages into these documents, which are used to indoctrinate students. While simple rules, like “don’t hit each other” and “wear appropriate clothing,” can be found in these codes, they are now often accompanied by other stipulations that violate students’ constitutional rights.
So-called “equity” initiatives include bias incident reporting systems, penalties for “misgendering” and “deadnaming” students, and include extremely narrow interpretations of what constitutes “hate speech.”
I object to these documents being used to indoctrinate children in taxpayer funded public schools and therefore refuse to sign this code of conduct.
Here’s the template letter:
Dear [Insert Principal’s Name],
This email is to inform you that we will not be signing the district’s code of conduct because it violates students’ rights.
Mandating preferred pronouns that are contrary to a student’s biological sex is in violation of the 1st Amendment. Bias incident reporting systems, also detailed in our district’s code of conduct, restrict free speech and are being challenged in courts across the country. Finally, our district’s policy that bathroom and locker room use is based on gender rather than sex is a serious threat to the safety of female students in vulnerable spaces.
Please understand that our refusal to sign this document is a polite request that our school board members review and reconsider the policies that violate student rights and threaten their safety.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.
We all want American families to have the time and resources they need to welcome a new child. A new federal entitlement program would:
Require a new payroll tax,
Disrupt existing paid leave arrangements,
Leave all workers with less money in their paychecks,
Result in fewer job opportunities, particularly for women.
In reality most full-time employees have some paid time off. But this doesn’t mean all families have the time and resources they need when welcoming a child. Those who lack paid leave often end up leaving their jobs and using public assistance.
Here’s the breakdown of earned leave in 60 seconds:
What’s at Stake:
We all want American families to have the time and resources they need to welcome a new child.
Bad Solution:
A new federal entitlement program would:
Require a new payroll tax,
Disrupt existing paid leave arrangements,
Leave all workers with less money in their paychecks,
Result in fewer job opportunities, particularly for women.
In reality most full-time employees have some paid time off. But this doesn’t mean all families have the time and resources they need when welcoming a child. Those who lack paid leave often end up leaving their jobs and using public assistance.
A Better Path Forward: Earned Leave
Budget neutral and gender neutral
Does not raise taxes or expand government
Completely voluntary, doesn’t affect others
Qualifying workers can opt to receive benefit payments following the birth or adoption of a child. Workers’ retirement benefits would then be delayed or they could pay additional taxes to offset the earned leave benefits’ costs.
How This Helps:
All workers decide for themselves when they need benefits most, benefits they’ve earned.
Expands access to leave for those who are most vulnerable today (low-skill, low-wage workers). Family leave is critical because it:
Is associated with better health for mothers and babies.
Encourages greater involvement of fathers.
Encourages workers to return to work rather than leaving work force for government aid.
This is fair to workers who do not want and will not use earned leave benefits. They will not have to pay for someone else’s benefits. Employers would still have an incentive to offer employees paid leave benefits. Instead of making government bigger, this makes it work better.
We all want American families to have the time and resources they need to welcome a new child.
In reality most full-time employees have some paid time off. But this doesn’t mean all families have the time and resources they need when welcoming a child. Those who lack paid leave often end up leaving their jobs and using public assistance.
Here’s the issue of paid leave in 60 seconds:
What’s at Stake
We all want American families to have the time and resources they need to welcome a
new child.
Bad Solution:
A new federal entitlement program would:
Require a new payroll tax,
Disrupt existing paid leave arrangements,
Leave all workers with less money in their paychecks,
Result in fewer job opportunities, particularly for women.
In reality most full-time employees have some paid time off. But this doesn’t mean all
families have the time and resources they need when welcoming a child. Those who
lack paid leave often end up leaving their jobs and using public assistance.
A Better Path Forward: Earned Leave
Budget neutral and gender neutral
Does not raise taxes or expand government
Completely voluntary, doesn’t affect others
Qualifying workers can opt to receive benefit payments following the birth or adoption
of a child. Workers’ retirement benefits would then be delayed or they could pay
additional taxes to offset the earned leave benefits’ costs.
How This Helps:
All workers decide for themselves when they need benefits most, benefits they’ve earned.
Expands access to leave for those who are most vulnerable today (low-skill, low-wage
workers). Family leave is critical because it:
Is associated with better health for mothers and babies.
Encourages greater involvement of fathers.
Encourages workers to return to work rather than leaving work force for government aid.
This is fair to workers who do not want and will not use earned leave benefits. They will
not have to pay for someone else’s benefits. Employers would still have an incentive to
offer employees paid leave benefits. Instead of making government bigger, this makes
it work better.
We all want American children to be well cared for and ready for school. But the government should not unfairly subsidize one type of childcare (daycare/preschool) at the expense of all families.
Instead, we should empower all families to make the choices they feel are best for their children.
Here’s the issue of child care in 60 seconds:
What’s at Stake
We all want children well cared for and ready for school. But government shouldn’t favor one arrangement (daycare/preschool) over others. Instead, we should empower all families to make the best choices for their unique situations.
Most parents prefer family or home-based daycare.
Most working mothers would prefer to work less and spend more time with their children. High taxes and living costs make it difficult for families to live on one salary.
Between 2005 and 2017, the number of home-based childcare providers fell by about 50 percent
Unfortunately, governments tend to subsidize larger, institutional childcare centers, making it harder for home-based centers to compete, and leaving families with fewer options.
Institutional daycare is parents’ least preferred option.
53 percent of married and 40 percent of single mothers think one parent staying home is best for children.
Just 6 percent of parents think a quality daycare center is optimal.
Greater daycare or preschool enrollment does NOT improve outcomes and may cause harm.
A federal study of Head Start showed no academic benefits and some emotional harms.
While intensive programs can help very at-risk students, there’s no evidence of benefits for the general population.
The Better Way Forward:
Make daycare more affordable.
A Mercatus Center study found that low child-staff ratios did not improve the quality of child care, but significantly increased costs.
Increasing child-staff ratios by one infant, for example, could “reduce the annual cost of child care by between $850 and $1,890 per child across all states, on average.
Policymakers should support all families. Rather than increasing subsidies for daycare, policymakers should help all families with young children by reducing tax and regulatory burdens and supporting strong, flexible labor markets so families can make the childcare decision that they feel is best.
Critical Race Theory is an academic discipline with Marxist roots.
Instead of working to close the achievement gaps, teachers unions and many public school districts are introducing radical concepts to impressionable students—pushing divisive and damaging curricula on race, teaching kids as young as elementary school about Critical Race Theory (CRT) and “white privilege,” and even dividing them into “affinity groups” based on race.
Due to backlash by parents, many schools/teachers now claim that they are not teaching CRT or systemic racism. They instead now call it structural racism, diversity training, making sure everyone is welcome and included, the golden rule… but in most cases the content and experience are based on CRT principles.
Here’s the issue of Critical Race Theory in 60 seconds:
What It Is
Critical Race Theory (“CRT”) is an academic discipline with Marxist roots.
CRT is an off-shoot of Critical Legal Studies, a radical/Marxist field of study that analyzes the effect of economic power on law.
While Marxists view history as an ongoing class struggle, CRT views history as an eternal racial struggle.
CRT Posits That
In America, racism is the rule, not the exception;
American law and institutions are “illegitimate hierarchies”;
Equal opportunity reinforces, rather than reduces, racism;
Private property is a white construct
In recent years, Prof. Ibram X. Kendi has repackaged and popularized CRT under the name “Anti-Racism.” Kendi argues that:
Non-whites cannot be racist, all whites are racist, and denials of racism are evidence of racism.
One cannot be truly anti-racist without being anti-capitalist.
What’s At Stake
American Education
Using dishonest rhetoric about “equity” and “anti-racism,” schools across America are eliminating opportunities, such as advanced or honors courses.
Schools are encouraging teachers to adopt lessons on “white privilege” and to utilize “color conscious” teaching methods.
These lessons discourage critical thinking and chill free speech by suggesting that objectors are complicit with white supremacy.
Enlightenment Ideals and the American Constitutional Order
CRT claims that Enlightenment ideals such as reason, neutrality, logic, and the scientific method are racially-biased endeavors.
CRT regards America’s constitutional structure as a mere smokescreen for racial oppression.
CRT prioritizes group identity over individuality and encourages institutions to treat people differently on the basis of race.
Public school students are being used by activists as political pawns
As a result of teachers union actions and overzealous school district policies, students in public school districts across the country have been:
Denied access to in-person learning. Many have fallen behind as a result—and have not caught up.
Forced to wear masks in the classroom despite negligible evidence of any health benefits and growing concern of harm.
Taught components of Critical Race Theory (CRT), a deeply-flawed theory that divides students and teaches them to mistrust one another.
Exposed to age inappropriate sexual topics. Some schools are actively transitioning children without parental consent. Anti-parent tactics are being employed in pursuit of a leftist agenda.
Schools are withholding pertinent information from parents, such as the classroom curriculum and their child’s gender identity.
Those who dare to speak out have been labeled “domestic terrorists” by the FBI, run out of public schools, or targeted by school board officials.
Students Deserve Better
Parents should be kept informed and be involved in all decision-making when it comes to the education of their children
As parents, we know what is best for our children. To ensure that children are provided with the educational opportunities they need to succeed in life, parents should be in the driver’s seat.
Educators have an obligation to keep parents informed about their child’s educational experience and the curriculum they are using in the classroom.
Masking should be an individual and parent-driven choice for children who are at low risk for disease related to COVID-19. Whatever decision parents make, schools have a responsibility to treat all children with dignity and respect.
Parents need more leverage. Instead of funding systems, funding should follow students so parents can make educational choices that reflect their values.
