Well, it doesn’t. But that’s not a bug, instead, it’s a feature
How? How does this help them? pic.twitter.com/BRJuB8VhRB
— Fight With Memes (@fightwithmemes) October 20, 2024
Category: Education & Schools
The government school system has become more of a jobs program for adults than an education initiative for kids.
Abolish the Department of Education. pic.twitter.com/988vP81ieD
— Corey A. DeAngelis, school choice evangelist (@DeAngelisCorey) October 17, 2024
By Daniel Alman (aka Dan from Squirrel Hill)
October 15, 2024
Time and time and time again, “diversity,” “equity,” “inclusion,” and other similar words are being used as excuses to dumb down educational standards.
Here are 24 examples:
1) The New York Times wrote, “The Board of Regents on Monday eliminated a requirement that aspiring teachers in New York State pass a literacy test to become certified after the test proved controversial because black and Hispanic candidates passed it at significantly lower rates than white candidates.”
Original: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/nyregion/ny-regents-teacher-exams-alst.html?_r=0
Archive: https://archive.ph/GzyQM
2) The New York Times wrote, “A 2009 Princeton study showed Asian-Americans had to score 140 points higher on their SATs than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics and 450 points higher than blacks to have the same chance of admission to leading universities.”
Original: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/white-students-unfair-advantage-in-admissions.html
Archive: https://archive.ph/MEDXn
3) Patrick Henry High School, San Diego’s largest high school, cited “equity” as its reason for removing some of its classes in advanced English, advanced history, and advanced biology.
4) The Vancouver School Board cited “equity and inclusion” for why it got rid of its honors courses in math and science at its high schools.
BLUF
Ultimately, there are no easy solutions to the complex problem of school shootings. But we can make our schools far safer without sacrificing our fundamental freedoms
The Best Way To Prevent School Shootings Is Armed Staff
In the wake of tragic school shootings like Apalachee High School in Georgia, our nation grapples with a critical question: How do we best protect our children?
Sadly, too often, the debate devolves quickly into partisan talking points. The Biden-Harris administration seized on this tragedy to call for more laws that would restrict Americans’ right to self-defense, but which would have done nothing to stop this shooting. In fact, at both the federal and state levels, it is already illegal for a 14-year-old to purchase and possess a firearm, but, neither those laws nor others, like the Gun-Free School Zones Act, deterred this evil.
More recently on the debate stage, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris attempted to amend her clear anti-gun record, despite previously voicing support for confiscating guns as a candidate in 2020.
It’s crucial to set politics aside and approach this debate with facts.
The reality is that many of our schools remain soft targets, vulnerable to those intent on causing harm. “Gun-free zone” signs offer false security, deterring only the law-abiding. We need a multifaceted strategy that hardens schools as targets while empowering responsible adults to protect themselves and those in their care.
Received this from a follower. A classroom door in Boston teaching students to hate America.
Homeschool your kids. pic.twitter.com/gNBFZJUEpU
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 16, 2024
It’s nice we even have video for PID of an actual threat to the U.S.
Do We Need a ‘New Constitution’ to Protect Democracy™? Berkeley Professor Weighs in
Erwin Chemerinsky, Berkeley Law School dean and author of “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States,” is not a fan of the United States Constitution, which obviously makes him an ideal academic to teach the next generation of lawyers how to practice law.
Via Los Angeles Times (emphasis added):
No matter the outcome of the November elections, it is urgent that there be a widespread recognition that American democracy is in danger and that reforms are essential. No form of government lasts forever, and it would be foolhardy to believe that the United States cannot fall prey to the forces that have ended democracies in many other countries.
Although the causes are complex, many of today’s problems can be traced back to choices made in drafting the Constitution, choices that are increasingly haunting us. After 200 years, it is time to begin thinking of drafting a new Constitution to create a more effective, more democratic government.
Signs abound that American democracy is in serious trouble. Confidence in the institutions of American government is at an all-time low. The Pew Research Center has been tracking public trust in government since 1958. It has gone from a high-water mark of 77% in 1964 to our contemporary 20%.* A poll in September 2023 indicated that only 4% of U.S. adults said the American political system worked “extremely or very well.” A recent Gallup poll had only 16% of Americans expressing approval for how Congress is performing its job.
Especially individuals in their 20s and 30s are losing faith in democracy. A Brookings Institution study found that 29% of “young Americans say that democracy is not always preferable to other political forms.”
*These people never ask fundamental questions like: why is trust in government at an all-time low? Nothing is different about this guy’s analysis; he simply chalks it up to some vague failings of “democracy” without legitimizing the mistrust, which isn’t fit to be printed in the self-anointed guardians of Democracy™ like the Los Angeles Times.
**Here I feel compelled to offer the obligatory but necessary caveat that we don’t actually have a pure democracy. In generic terms, “democracy” means rule by the people. In practice, pure democracy is merely mob rule, which is not and has never been a foundation of Western civilization excepts for brief stints of upheaval like the French Revolution — and we saw how that story ended.
Continuing:
There is an alternative to a spate of separate amendments: starting fresh by passing a new Constitution. It does not take much reflection to see the absurdity of using a document written for a small, poor and relatively inconsequential nation in the late 18th century to govern a large country of immense wealth in the technological world of the 21st century.
It may seem strange and frightening to suggest thinking of a new Constitution at a time of great partisan division. But that existed in 1787; in many of the states, the Constitution was just barely ratified.
We’ve seen the state of gun research in this country. It’s an absolute laughingstock, or it would be if there was an ounce of intellectual integrity anywhere in the science community.
Social science research is always going to be a little bit wonky, in part because experiments are difficult to impossible to conduct. However, that just makes it that much more important to get what research options that remain open to you right. Yet with gun research, not only does that not happen, but those who screw it up are celebrated.
Meanwhile, one researcher got a finding that his field disagreed with and he’s being crucified.
For example, William English, an assistant professor at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business, has been subpoenaed, attacked in The New York Times and accused of all sorts of breaches of professional conduct because he had the temerity to administer a huge survey on defensive gun use that was honest.
They are persecuting English in order to, as he put it in The Wall Street Journal, “warn off other academics thinking of doing similar research, and to influence courts where states are losing on the merits.”
English supervised the 2021 National Firearms Survey. Data from this survey of 54,000 American adults estimated that citizens use their guns defensively about 1.67 million times annually; indeed, the survey found that “in most defensive incidents (81.9%) no shot was fired.”
To gun-control activists in politics and the media, this finding had to be marginalized. They don’t want people to know that law-abiding Americans need their freedom.
English said that the “attorneys general of Illinois and Washington started issuing subpoenas” for his “documents and communications.” Meanwhile, members of the media contacted him “armed with politicized talking points identical to those used by the state attorneys general in their subpoenas.”
That is legitimately troubling.
I’ve seen some of the attacks against English, ironically coming from people whose “research” wouldn’t have been deemed acceptable for a middle school science project, and they’re ugly. They claim there are issues with his methodology, and that his research was flawed from the start.
This is funny considering this:
The media, however, could not find any actual problems with the research. English’s survey questions had been peer reviewed. He used a professional survey firm that is also “used by researchers at such institutions as Stanford, Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.”
“My survey results are hard to refute because they line up with other independent surveys from Pew and Gallup at the national level,” said English.
In other words, he did everything the way his field demanded and came up with an answer they didn’t approve of, but rather than self-censor like so many others, he published them.
And for that, he’s being attacked by the anti-gun political establishment, the anti-gun media, and his colleagues who share the same sentiment.
It’s like they say, if you’re taking flak, you must be over the target.
English has most definitely been over the target because the truth is an enemy of the anti-gun agenda. We know criminals get guns from illegal sources, and those illegal sources obtain them through some degree of theft. Either they steal them personally or get them from someone who does. That doesn’t make it in the news reports despite that coming directly from the ATF. That’s the truth, but it undermines gun control, so it doesn’t get the headlines that some ridiculous study that claims hunting leads to shootings.
In showing what he did, English broke the cardinal rule of gun research: Thou Must Advance Gun Control
Uvalde Police Timid, Bungling During School Shooting, New Records Reveal
If you want something done right, do it yourself. That includes protecting family, friends, and neighbors.
Perhaps the greatest rebuttal to calls for confidence in police is the conduct of law enforcement officers at Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas. There, on May 24, 2022, almost 400 cops not only stood around while a lunatic murdered children and teachers, but they prevented parents from stepping in to do what those in uniform wouldn’t. Now, new reporting gives greater insight into the depths of the officers’ inaction that day, and just how unwise it is to rely on them for protection.
Documented Police Failures
The failures of police officers in Uvalde aren’t open to dispute.
“At Robb Elementary, law enforcement responders failed to adhere to their active shooter training, and they failed to prioritize saving the lives of innocent victims over their own safety,” concluded a report by the Texas House of Representatives Investigative Committee on the Robb Elementary Shooting.
A U.S. Justice Department review similarly found “failures in leadership, command, and coordination.”
The rise of academic hate.
Faculty have gone from professors to extremists
Nicholas Giordano is a professor of Political Science, the host of The P.A.S. Report Podcast, and a fellow at Campus Reform’s Higher Education Fellowship. With 2 decades of teaching experience and over a decade of experience in the emergency management/homeland security arena, Professor Giordano is regularly called on to speak about issues related to government, politics, and international relations.
There are far too many radical professors who dominate academia, peddle hate, and dehumanize those who dissent from their narrow-minded ideological views. For instance, Rutgers University has placed professor Tracy Budd under internal review for a post where she hoped the failed assassination attempt on former President Trump would “inspire others.” Since Campus Reform’s inception in 2009, we have spotlighted the escalating extremism infecting our college campuses.
While many college professors still cherish the institutional values of education – robust debate, free speech, and intellectual curiosity – unfortunately there are too many professors who have become even more extreme and unhinged. Not only does their rhetoric reflect poorly on our institutions and my profession, but the impact of their radicalism is undeniable and dangerous. How dangerous? Consider how five members of the student council at a West Bank university, which has direct ties to several American colleges and universities, were recently arrested for planning a significant terror attack.
How long will it be before the same extremism fosters a terror attack within the United States as radical professors indoctrinate students with their hateful ideology? From the October 7th Hamas terror attacks, which resulted in the grisly death of nearly 1,200 innocent men, women, children, and babies, to the assassination attempt on former President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump to attacks on voices like the Leadership Institute’s Riley Gaines who was attacked by a student mob at San Francisco State University.
They have become so brazen that they don’t bother to conceal their extremism. What does it say about our institutions that some professors feel emboldened to openly promote hate, anti-Americanism, antisemitism, and even violence? For example, Columbia University professor Joseph Massad called the October 7th attacks “awesome” and a “stunning victory of the Palestinian resistance.” Professor Russell Rickford of Cornell University called the Hamas terror attacks “exhilarating.” Vanderbilt University’s Ayesha Khan stated that Hamas deserves “to resist their oppressors by any means necessary.” Professor Mike Tosca referred to Jews as “pigs,” and “excrement” that should “rot in hell.” Another Columbia University professor advised students to avoid mainstream media outlets because “it is owned by Jews.”
With regard to the Trump assassination attempt, the ideological zealots couldn’t control themselves. Berklee College professor Marty Walsh proclaimed, “Too bad the shooter missed. Maybe this will spawn copycat shooters.” Professor Martha Galindo from Ocean County College was also upset that the shooter missed. Morgan State University professor Stacy Patton likened Trump to Hitler in an opinion editorial and claimed that ‘Black people’ wish the assassin killed Trump because they are “wishing for the death of evil.” Some in academia, including Uju Anya from Carnegie Mellon University, suggested that the attempt on President Trump’s life was staged.
Regardless of political views, the fact that some in academia display support for terrorist organizations, express disappointment that the assassination attempt failed, and openly call for copycat attacks and genocide is deeply troubling. Their hateful rhetoric goes against the basic principles of decency and respect that should govern any academic environment.
With educators like these, is it any surprise that students support a terrorist organization like Hamas. Given the state of our education system, it shouldn’t shock people that 30% of Gen Z’ers believe that Osama bin Laden’s ideas were a force for good. Is it any wonder why some students chant ‘death to America’ and openly celebrate the attempted killing of a former President.
It is clear that these extremists have become a dangerous influence on our youth. As a professor, it demeans our profession, and it’s why so many Americans have lost faith in our higher education institutions.
These extremists stigmatize the quality professors who remain committed to genuine education and the responsibilities placed on us as educators. They undermine the integrity of our educational institutions by molding an anti-American mindset. The consequences of their radicalism should be painfully evident to anyone who has been paying attention to the increasing political polarization and social division within our country.
Comment O’ The Day….
“This is not the result of inept teaching. It’s the result of a deliberate strategy.”
When Benjamin Franklin famously said, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it,” he was, as usual, prescient.
This summer, the democratic republic known as the United States of America is 248 years old, and civically minded organizations around the country are already busily working on plans to celebrate our nation’s 250th birthday in 2026. Such a milestone is a cause for real celebration; by most reckonings, we are the longest-lasting democracy in history. Democracies are fragile: The Athenian democracy never made it to 200. Americans should use this anniversary as an opportunity for sober reflection on the current state, as well as the future, of our own democratic republic.
There is much for which to be thankful, as America’s free market economy and all-volunteer military force are still the envy of the world. There is also much to give us pause regarding the durability of our institutions, the moral fiber of our leaders, and the prospects for free government at home and abroad. It should be obvious: Challenges to election integrity—typically a sign of disease in a free body politic—an assault on our Capitol, and a looming election in which 25% of voters are dissatisfied with both major candidates are not cause for carefree celebration.
Oxford philosopher of history R.G. Collingwood wrote, “All history is an attempt to understand the present by reconstructing its determining conditions.” In these times, it should come as a dire warning that without a doubt, most young American college graduates are nowhere close to having the historical perspective to guide them through the rough political climate we face.
How much do today’s college students really know about their nation’s past? The American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) has conducted a fresh national survey of college students to answer just this question. The results are concerning.
Sixty percent of college students could not correctly identify the term lengths of members serving in U.S. Congress. Sixty-three percent were unable to identify the chief justice of the Supreme Court. These are multiple-choice questions. Students did not have to recall John Roberts’s name, they merely had to recognize it, and a large majority failed. The same is true for the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, whose name was only known to 35% of students. Sixty-eight percent did not know that impeachment trials occur before the Senate, despite living through two presidential impeachments as well as the impeachment trial of a cabinet official.
If these students are not reading the newspaper, it does not seem to be because they are busy studying their history lessons. A majority of students believe—falsely—that the Constitution was written in 1776, rather than 1787. This suggests two things: First, most students do not understand the origin of our Constitution—how the Articles of Confederation proved unworkable, how James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and others gathered in Philadelphia to make amendments but emerged instead with a new form of government, which the American people then debated before adopting. (This explains another survey result, which shows that a majority of students could not identify the purpose of the Federalist Papers.)
Students who believe the Constitution was written in 1776 do not understand the purpose and meaning of the Constitution. Second, and more importantly, these students clearly have not learned the true events of 1776, and thus their yearly Independence Day celebrations on July 4th are sadly hollow and devoid of content. They enjoy the barbecues and the fireworks, but they often lack a basic understanding of what is being honored by the holiday.
America’s greatest president, Abraham Lincoln, once explained that the Constitution of 1787 was like a silver frame surrounding an apple of gold. The golden apple, he said, was the Declaration of Independence of 1776, the principles of which animate the republic, dedicate it to liberty and human equality, and cause it, so long as it adheres to such principles, to be a light unto the other nations, a beacon of freedom to all people. It was also President Lincoln who said in his Gettysburg Address that in America the government is “of the people, by the people, for the people.” Of course, only 23% of students were able to identify the source of that quote, and we may fear something yet more dangerous: that not many more understand what it means.
None of this is the fault of the students. Numbers like these do not arise from lazy pupils but from feckless pedagogues who are failing in their charge. Fewer than 20% of American colleges and universities require a course on United States government or history to graduate, according to data ACTA has compiled for our curricular study, WhatWillTheyLearn.com. This is unacceptable. Higher education that is worthy of its name would do better, and our universities must do better for our Constitution to endure another two decades, let alone two centuries. Every student should be required to take U.S. government and history to earn a college degree. Some states, such as South Carolina and Texas, already mandate this, and more should follow suit.
In a democratic republic such as ours, citizens must be informed for the commonwealth to function. As George Washington said in his Farewell Address, “In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.” Far from being enlightened, our students today are seldom even taught the basics. This must change, for the sake of the students and for the future of our nation.
This is the intellectual level of the teachers infesting our schools indoctrination centers today, Vapid, isn’t strong enough.
Arming teachers pic.twitter.com/S9szKs9DPG
— Dr. Annie Andrews (@AnnieAndrewsMD) July 1, 2024
W.Va. Campus Self-Defense Act to take effect July 1
On July 1, Senate Bill 10, the W.Va. Campus Self-Defense Act, will take effect in West Virginia. Passed by the West Virginia Legislature in 2023, the Campus Self-Defense Act allows a person to carry a concealed pistol or revolver on the grounds of an institution of higher education, with some exceptions, if that person has a current and valid license to carry a concealed deadly weapon.
The West Virginia University Campus Safety Steering Group has been working for many months in coordination with several sub-groups, including one focused solely on what is commonly known as campus carry, on how the law will be implemented across the WVU System.
These, in conjunction with signage, will assist in informing where licensed concealed pistol and revolvers are not allowed on the Morgantown, Keyser, Beckley and Health Sciences campuses.
Facilities has started installing signs in areas specifically exempt from the law under BOG Finance and Administration Rule 5.14 — Deadly Weapons, Dangerous Objects and the W.Va. Campus Self-Defense Act.
Ultimately, it is up to the concealed carry license holder to know the specifics of the law and BOG Rule and to follow the regulations while on campuses throughout the WVU System. Violations will be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Additionally, please review the FAQs for updated information, including a section specifically for Health Sciences, a step-by-step What To Do if You See Someone on Campus With a Gun guide and storage locker requests for qualifying students living in residence halls.
Occupants of “sole occupancy” offices wishing to request an approved sign for a prohibited area can do so by submitting a signage request.
Faculty members are encouraged to use the Faculty Senate-approved statement addressing concealed carry in their syllabi. It is available at facultysenate.wvu.edu/home.
The University wants everyone to feel safe on campus and works each day on measures to help ensure that. For example, the University Police Department offers active shooter, self-defense and verbal de-escalation training.
Private school founder destroys every argument against arming teachers
Florida’s Inspiration Academy has had armed staff for more than a decade.
When Eddie and Claire Speir founded Inspiration Academy 11 years ago, not arming teachers wasn’t even a consideration.
“It was because of Columbine. We were in a spiritual war — we still are — and some people were crazy. We knew it was our duty to protect our students. Columbine changed a lot of things for educators,” Speir told the Second Amendment Foundation Tuesday.
Speir and his wife retired and moved to Florida in 2013 after selling their Colorado-based software firm. “But God had other plans,” Speir said. The couple — with no formal background in education — launched Inspiration Academy, which began with just one paid employee.
Today, Speir has more than 200 students and dozens of teachers, coaches and other professionals. His staff is armed and dedicated to protecting their students.
“We, by God’s grace, look for and develop teachers with high character who would be honored and are prepared to give their lives for our students,” Speir said. “It’s shameful that every superintendent doesn’t feel the same way and develop a culture that reflects this attitude.”
The gun-ban industry has strong opinions about armed teachers, but they have no facts or data to support their arguments and certainly no actual experience. Speir has worked with an armed teaching staff for more than a decade, which makes him one of the country’s leading subject matter experts.
Federal Court Rules Maryland Parents Can’t Opt Kids Out Of Classes With LGBT Content.
The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled 2-1 against Maryland parents who sued their local school board for not letting their children in grades K-5 opt out of reading books supporting transgender ideology and gender transitioning.
The Montgomery County Public Schools board denied the parents their request to be notified when the books would be read to their children and the opportunity to opt out.
“The Board is violating the parents’ inalienable and constitutionally protected right to control the religious upbringing of their children, especially on sensitive issues concerning family life and human sexuality,” The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, litigated the lawsuit, stated, explaining:
In fall 2022, the Montgomery County Board of Education announced over 20 new “inclusivity” books for its pre-K through eighth grade classrooms. But rather than focusing on basic civility and kindness, these books champion pride parades, gender transitioning, and pronoun preferences for children.
For example, one book tasks three- and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “[drag] queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another encourages fifth graders to discuss what it means to be “non-binary.” Other books advocate a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to “make sense” and that doctors only “guess” when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway.
A district court ruled against the parents, prompting them to appeal to the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which denied the parents’ request for a preliminary injunction but allowed the possibility of changing its position once the classes have already been taught, writing:
We take no view on whether the Parents will be able to present evidence sufficient to support any of their various theories once they have the opportunity to develop a record as to the circumstances surrounding the Board’s decision and how the challenged texts are actually being used in schools.
At this early stage, however, given the Parents’ broad claims, the very high burden required to obtain a preliminary injunction, and the scant record before us, we are constrained to affirm the district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction.
Judge Marvin Quattlebaum dissented, writing, “I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the parents have not produced enough evidence to establish that their free exercised rights have been burdened. The parents have met their burden. They have produced the books that no one disputes will be used to instruct their K-5 children. They produced declarations explaining in detail why the books conflict with their religious beliefs. They have produced the board’s own internal documents that show how it suggests teachers respond to students and parents who question the contents of the books.”
Supreme Court rules in favor of veteran who sued over GI Bill limits
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of a veteran who unsuccessfully tried to use both his Post-9/11 GI Bill and Montgomery GI Bill benefits, saying that Veterans Affairs officials erred in limiting his education support.
The 7-2 decision could have far-reaching impact on student veterans who use up their VA benefits but still wish to continue degree programs. Lawyers for the plaintiff have estimated as many as 1.7 million veterans nationwide could benefit from the ruling, but federal officials have estimated the number to be less than 30,000 individuals.
The case has been closely watched by veterans advocates for nearly nine years because of its potential ramifications. VA pays out more than $8 billion in education payments annually, and the Supreme Court ruling could boost that figure even higher.
The legal fight centered on Jim Rudisill, a 43-year-old Army veteran who was wounded in a roadside bomb attack in Iraq in 2005. Rudisill used all of his Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits shortly thereafter, but later wanted to tap into his unused Montgomery GI Bill benefits to attend Yale Divinity School as part of the process to become an Army chaplain.
When VA officials denied that move, Rudisill sued, claiming they were unfairly limiting his options. Writing for the majority, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called the government’s denial “nonsensical” and reversed lower court rulings supporting VA’s position.
Christian married couple quit their teaching jobs in California and started an ‘anti-woke’ school in Florida as a ‘counterbalance’ to progressive teaching which they claim has infiltrated the public education system.
Kali Fontanilla, 41, and her husband Joshua, 42, started the Exodus Institute, an online school, after becoming disillusioned by ‘overly politicized’ public schooling.
Kali and Joshua now teach classes designed around ‘traditional American values’ – and try to counter what they believe are skewed teachings about topics like gender, race and slavery in traditional schools.
The Fontanillas’ school has grown from a single student in their first class, in May 2022, to nearly 200 who are enrolled across their K-12 program and a separate ‘Young Patriots Academy’.
Their institute was founded amid growing discontent among conservatives nationwide about the perceived politicization of school curriculums. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has supported several state bills aimed at curbing the trend, including the Stop WOKE act.
Tennessee governor plans to sign bill that would let teachers carry guns in schools
Lee alluded to the pushback from Democrats, saying, “There are folks across the state who disagree on the way forward.”
Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee said Thursday that he planned to sign a bill state legislators sent to his desk this week that would allow school staff members to carry concealed handguns on school grounds.
“What’s important to me is that we give districts tools and the option to use a tool that will keep their children safe in their schools,” Lee said at a news conference Thursday after he shared his plans to sign the legislation.
Under state law, Lee, a Republican, has the option to sign the bill, veto it or allow it to become law without his signature.
The Republican-controlled state House passed the measure Tuesday largely along party lines roughly a year after a shooter opened fire and killed six people at The Covenant School in Nashville. The state Senate, which is also controlled by the GOP, passed the measure this month.
Lee on Thursday highlighted the legislation’s requirements that faculty and staff members wishing to carry concealed handguns on school grounds complete a minimum of 40 hours of approved training specific to school policing every year. They also must obtain written authorization from law enforcement, he noted.
“There are folks across the state who disagree on the way forward,” Lee said Thursday, adding that he thought the legislation would allow school districts the opportunity to decide “at the local level what is best for the schools and the children in that district.”
But the measure drew criticism from Democrats like state Rep. Bo Mitchell, who referred to the Covenant shooting in remarks on the House floor.
“This is what we’re going to do. This is our reaction to teachers and children being murdered in a school. Our reaction is to throw more guns at it. What’s wrong with us?” Mitchell said.
Tennessee isn’t the only state to have approved legislation allowing teachers to carry guns. At least 26 states have laws permitting teachers or other school employees to possess guns on school grounds, with some exceptions, according to the Giffords Law Center, a gun violence prevention group.
Any politician who tells you that a badly written law won’t be used in the worst way possible by some goobermint stooge, is lying to you.
MO Senate votes to protect homeschool access to guns to ease K-12 tax credit expansion
The Missouri Senate voted Wednesday night to ensure homeschool families are allowed to own firearms.
On a 27-4 vote, lawmakers approved legislation that originally was focused on cleaning up issues with Missouri’s virtual school program.
Sen. Andrew Koenig, R-Manchester, answers questions about his bill that would expand MOScholars during a committee meeting Wednesday Jan. 10, 2024.
But over the course of a five-hour recess in the Senate Wednesday, Republicans turned that legislation into a catch-all measure aimed at ensuring the House approves an even larger education bill approved by the Senate last month.
The bill approved Wednesday night was crafted to ease House concerns about a 153-page bill that passed the Senate to expand Missouri’s private school tax credit program and allowed charter schools in Boone County, along with other provisions aimed at bolstering public schools.
That bill’s sponsor, Republican state Sen. Andrew Koenig of Manchester, told The Independent he would prefer the House pass the Senate’s education bill without changes and send it to the governor’s desk. Any changes in the House would bring it back to the Senate for debate, putting its changes at risk.
After the Senate passed Koenig’s legislation last month, criticism began popping up on social media and in the Capitol about a myriad of issues — primarily that homeschooling families may face additional government oversight.
Despite assurances from gun-rights groups, one concern focused on the idea that homeschoolers’ inclusion in the private school scholarship program would result in home educators being subject to laws banning guns in schools.
The Missouri Firearms Coalition made a statement that it felt that gun-ownership was not threatened in the bill. And an attorney for Home School Legal Defense Association Scott Woodruff was adamant that he was not concerned about the provision.
“The idea (the bill)…. would make the criminal penalties of (state firearm code) apply to home schoolers with guns in their home is supported, at best, only by a long, thin string of assumptions and implications,” he wrote.
But House members were flooded with emails and social media messages expressing concerns, putting the bills’ chances of passing without being altered at risk.
Koenig said Wednesday that the ability to own a gun was not threatened by his bill.
“I don’t know that it was a problem, but this definitely makes it a lot stronger,” he said. “Anytime we can clarify something in statute, then we make sure that interpretation is stronger.”
The bill applies the existing homeschool statute to particular sections of state law — avoiding applying the definition of a “home school” to the state code that prohibits firearms on school grounds.
The legislation approved Wednesday night expanded beyond virtual schools to include changes such as connecting funding for K-12 tax-credit scholarships to state aid for public schools’ transportation. This is current state law, but Koenig’s bill separated the two.
The bill also exempts Warsaw School District from taking a vote to reauthorize the district’s current four-day school week. If Koenig’s bill passes, school districts that have switched to a four-day week in charter counties or cities with at least 30,000 residents will have to hold a vote to continue with an abbreviated week.
Similar provisions are included in amendments to Koenig’s bill filed by House members. Fifty-three amendments have already been filed on Koenig’s bill in the House.
House Majority Leader Jon Patterson, a Lee’s Summit Republican, told reporters on Monday that he would prefer to pass the Senate’s version of Koenig’s bill but there was not a guarantee to do so.
— NGorhamA4S4 💫🇺🇸💫 (@NGorhamA4S4) April 6, 2024