First of all, some news: my personal life has been very hectic, as of late, and keeping up to date with everything that is going on, doing the extra research to write one or two pieces a week has been very demanding, more than I can justify to my own family. As such, the frequency of my posts will decrease for the time being, until everything can be sorted out. But I will keep on top of what is going on, and keep track of what is important.
On to the main topic: the elections of November 8th.
Many people have been saying this: elections are OUR responsibility.
We have to go out and vote!
We have to volunteer for election roles!
We have to properly inform ourselves of the choices before us!
Ignorance can no longer be an excuse.
So the other day I received election flyers in the mail, for our local school board election that will be held on Nov 8th, as well. It immediately stood out to me.
A large poster card flyer, with the names of two candidates. “Committee tested. Educator approved!” It touted both men as the ‘local educators’ choice for school board. That is a good source to get support from, it would seem. But that is not what caught my eye.
The first one, Danny Lee, had in his little blurb ‘Danny has been a constant voice for keeping Hillsborough schools a place for learning, not political theater.’ And the other candidate, Josh Gamse (there are 3 electable places) was touted as a scientist and former professor, and his blurb stated ‘Josh knows that in order for Hillsborough schools to thrive, the board needs to remain focused on academic excellence, not culture wars and political drama.’
Incredible to read that! Candidates who openly talk about the political theater that has been going on, the culture wars, the drama? Sign me on!
But then I looked closer. The mailer was paid for by Garden State Forward. A quick search showed that this PAC has a record of supporting liberal causes and candidates. So I dug deeper.
The local newspapers always have a write-up on each of the candidates, where they each get asked the same set of questions, so the readers can have a good idea.
Here is the link to the replies by Danny Lee, and here for Josh Gamse.
It is an election for school board, in this climate. So what are the important topics? As always, the finances, but this time around, sex-ed. Not that long ago, New Jersey has approved a new sex education mandate for all public schools in the state, required to start in the 2022-2023 school year, under a storm of protest and controversy.
Part of the goals for ‘Social and Sexual Healt’ state, by the end of grade 5: “All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation.”
“A board of education shall include instruction on the political, economic, and social contributions of persons with disabilities and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, in an appropriate place in the curriculum of middle school and high school students. N.J.S.A.18A:35-4.36 ”
You see immediately how the doors are opened. Depending on the teacher, this can be enriching, or can be a groomer fest.
But it doesn’t end there, with such rather vague missives.
In the section on learning expectations, the following is stated. BY THE END OF GRADE 2:
Under ‘Social and Sexual Health’, the Core Idea is stated as ‘Every individual has unique skills and qualities, which can include the activities they enjoy such as how they may dress, their mannerisms, things they like to do.’, and the Performance Expectations are “2.1.2.SSH.1: Discuss how individuals make their own choices about how to express themselves. 2.1.2.SSH.2: Discuss the range of ways people express their gender and how gender-role stereotypes may limit behavior.”
So the concept of ‘gender’ is introduced in grades 1-2!
In the category ‘Personal Growth and Development’, they are to talk about hygiene and what body parts are and how they work together to support wellness, but they include “2.1.2.PGD.5: List medically accurate names for body parts, including the genitals.” At an age when most, of not all children are still years removed from the maturity, physical and emotional, to deal with the topic of sex and sexuality, the topic is already breached. Again, with good, trusted teachers, perhaps something that can be done in an acceptable way, but where are the good, trusted teachers? Project Veritas has exposed, not even that long ago, how even very extreme positions are shamelessly and openly taught by teachers who care more about promoting their own views than properly educating children! Again, this opens the door wide for all kinds of abuses to enter our kids’ classrooms!
In the learning expectations to be met by the end of grade 5, we read for ‘Personal Growth and Development’ as Core Idea that ‘Puberty is a time of physical, social, and emotional changes.’ Correct, and this is something that, especially by the end of grade 4, 5, might become a reality. Puberty begins on average at age 11 for girls, and age 12 for boys, peaking or completing at or around age 16-17 for both sexes. It can start earlier, but the question remains: when do you start teaching this? By grade 5 does not seem a bad place to start, that I can accept. But notice, now, what they slipped into the ‘Performance Expectations’ for this topic: “2.1.5.PGD.4: Explain common human sexual development and the role of hormones (e.g., romantic and sexual feelings, masturbation, mood swings, timing of pubertal onset).” What is masturbation doing in this list? Again, opening the door wide for all kinds of excess, changing it from a pure preparation for the oncoming puberty and related changes that all children will have to navigate, to a focusing of attention on the sex aspects of their new development. How for will this go? Again, realistically, this will depend on the teacher your child has…
But by grade 5, the expectations encompass the whole gender agenda:
“All individuals should feel welcome and included regardless of their gender, gender expression, or sexual orientation.”, with the Performance Expectations
“2.1.5.SSH.1: Describe gender-role stereotypes and their potential impact on self and others.
2.1.5.SSH.2: Differentiate between sexual orientation and gender identity.
2.1.5.SSH.3: Demonstrate ways to promote dignity and respect for all people (e.g. sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, differing ability, immigration status, family configuration).”
This is openly the sexual and cultural agenda of a specific subset of society. Not even scientific! There is no sugarcoating the blatant attempt at indoctrination that is going on there.
Now by Grade 8, the following creeps in:
The Core Idea of ‘Social and Sexual Health’ is “Inclusive schools and communities are accepting of all people and make them feel welcome and included.”, which sounds nice, but then we read:
“2.1.8.SSH.1: Differentiate between gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation.
2.1.8.SSH.2: Develop a plan for the school to promote dignity and respect for people of all genders, gender identities, gender expressions, and sexual orientations in the school community.”
But then the focus shifts completely to promoting sexual behavior.
“There are factors that contribute to making healthy decisions about sex.”
The expectations are:
“2.1.8.SSH.7: Identify factors that are important in deciding whether and when to engage in sexual behaviors.
2.1.8.SSH.8: Identify factors that can affect the ability to give or perceive consent to sexual activity (e.g., body image, self-esteem, alcohol, other substances).
2.1.8.SSH.9: Define vaginal, oral, and anal sex.
2.1.8.SSH.10: Identify short and long-term contraception and safer sex methods that are effective and describe how to access and use them (e.g., abstinence, condom).
2.1.8.SSH.11: Develop a plan to eliminate or reduce risk of unintended pregnancy and STIs (including HIV).”
We are talking about 12-14 year olds, who get instruction on what anal sex is. How to prevent pregnancy and STIs. Talk about how to make the decision whether or not to engage in sexual behaviors.
In another ‘Learning Expectation’, this time reaching ‘by Grade 12’, we read “Identify trusted adults, including family members, caregivers, school staff, and health care professionals to ask questions and discuss pregnancy and other health topics.” Conspicuously absent, are Parents. Yes, yes, surely included under ‘family members’… But still ABSENT. Even if they are supposed to be the primary people responsible. Parents cannot be named ‘trusted adults’, for some reason, and this omission tells you where this program is aiming to go.
And on ‘Social and Sexual Health’, we get this:
“How individuals feel about themselves, their identity, and sexual orientation can be positively or negatively impacted by a wide variety of factors.”
With as Learning Expectations:
“2.1.12.SSH.1: Analyze the influences of peers, family, media, social norms and culture on the expression of gender, sexual orientation, and identity.
2.1.12.SSH.2: Advocate for school and community policies and programs that promote dignity and respect for people of all genders, gender expressions, gender identities, and sexual orientations.
2.1.12.SSH.3: Analyze current social issues affecting perceptions of sexuality, culture, ethnicity, disability status and make recommendations to address those issues.”
It is incredible how a very one-sided approach is used, and children are to be taught the full gender agenda, even linking and bringing in ‘current social issues’.
There is no place for any opposing view, and the standard is clear: the gender ideology is the prevailing and TRUE view, that all kids should learn. In that document, the option for parents to dissent or opt-out their children is not even clearly described, or offered. The intent is clear: any such exception is not inherent to the program, and thus something that can be taken away at any time. There is no construct where the opposing views are validated or accepted. There is only 1 truth that this program accepts, and that is that of the gender ideology. Yes, it contains also a lot of very necessary and good topics, about health, nutrition, etc., but that is not the point of contention. The poison is in the sexual health part of this curriculum.
And as I stated all throughout: some of those concepts and goals can be useful, if taught by a trusted and properly equipped teacher. But can we have any guarantee that the teachers assigned to our children will be of sufficient level and character to instruct, and not groom? Again, the recent revelations made by Project Veritas are clearly indicating that this is NOT me being paranoid. AT ALL. This is the reality we live in, and that our children are subjected to.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg, parents all over the country have had a very rude awakening when the forced virtual classes during Covid-19 showed them the inside of what is going on during the education of their own children. The wave of school board ‘take-overs’ by angry parents in recent elections is a very clear result of that awakening, and the fact that the FBI found it necessary to label parents who protest at school board meetings as ‘terrorists’ shows that those parents were absolutely over the target: something really wrong, but really important, is going on in our schools.
As a refresher, this WSJ article, titled “About those Domestic-Terrorist Parents”, sums it up well, pointing out it wasn’t just Garland and the FBI, who wrote a memorandum that warned about ‘threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff’, or the (since retracted and apologised for) open letter to Biden by the National School Boards Association that suggested “threats and acts of violence” at school board meetings might be “domestic terrorism”, but that the Biden White House had a hand in it, as well!
Why are they so afraid of this push-back by parents showing concern for what their own children are being taught? Why the defensive reactions by boards, if they really care about representing parents as well?
So, what did our two candidates, with the support of the NJEA, the New Jersey Teachers’ Union (a red flag all by itself), have to say on this topic? The question that each candidate was asked, was simple: “How do you feel about the current sex-ed curriculum in the district?”
Mr. Gamse said: “First, I would encourage everyone to read the district’s health curriculum. The Hillsborough school district has interpreted the state guidelines on sexual education and incorporated them into the curriculum appropriately.”
This is a complete non-answer, that hides behind the authority of the new curriculum. He says that the previous board has correctly and appropriately interpreted and incorporated that new curriculum, but NOT A WORD about ‘how HE feels’ about it. He completely dances around this hot topic. Why? His tacit approval is very clear.
Mr. Lee had a lot more to say about this, and to his credit, attempts to properly explain his position.
“I have read through the approved curriculum, approved by the Board of Education during their meeting this summer. […]
Within this curriculum, there may be material that some parents may find objectionable and in conflict with religious or personal beliefs. While the duration of this content varies, overall, it is a small portion of the entire scope of the curriculum and what it entails. […]
Ultimately, upon reviewing the material that has been approved, the lessons appear to be age appropriate. However, topics relating to sexual education are nuanced and there is no right or wrong answer as to how and when they should be taught. Should any material be deemed inappropriate for a parent, parents can opt out of the lessons that they find objectionable due to religious or personal beliefs. Parents have a choice as to whether they want their children to learn this portion of the course, or to be excused. If they choose to opt out, they should be able to skip only the parts related to these lessons, to ensure that learning is not disrupted. The board should remain committed to engaging with various stakeholders to ensure that parents’ concerns are heard so that all parties with differing opinions have their concerns addressed.
On a final note, in each document in the curriculum, it should be noted that there is the curriculum goal of:
"Instruction shall encourage safe, welcoming, and inclusive environments for all students regardless of race or ethnicity, sexual and gender identities, mental and physical disabilities, and religious beliefs."
Considering that public schools are meant to be inclusive to serve all children, is that not a worthwhile goal to achieve?”
A few things to unpack: he admits that the curriculum contains elements that will be objectionable and in conflict with religious or personal beliefs. That is a good starting point: YES, it DOES contain such content! What parent wants their 13 year old to learn about anal sex? (Whatever people say, my son reported that his friend, from a different group within his grade, DID have classes talking about exactly that: anal sex. Students had to make up a song about male and female reproductive organs, and sing it in front of the class, or they had to play the ‘penis game’: who can shout the word penis the loudest? This is how the above is taught…)
Mr. Lee then states: “However, topics relating to sexual education are nuanced and there is no right or wrong answer as to how and when they should be taught.”
Well, the problem is not sexual education itself. I think we all agree that this topic has a place in a good education. I think most will agree that it has no place in K-4 settings. Perhaps, in general form, in grade 5-6, as that marks the onset of puberty for a good number of children. The main problem is the CONTENT of such sex ed, and the inclusion of openly and blatant gender ideology!
And on his last comment: This is the typical appeal to emotion. Yes, ‘inclusivity of all’ is a worthwhile goal to achieve, but teaching gender ideology as the only acceptable norm that should be presented (as 100% truth), is NOT part of that.
So while their flyer incorporated clear conservative language, and hinted at conservative positions, in a conservative township, this was a textbook example of propaganda and deception: when they say they want to avoid political theater, culture war, and drama to be brought into the schools, they mean they want to avoid any and all push-back against their preferred world view of gender ideology.
Several other candidates are not mincing words.
Joel Davis, for example, answered very strongly:
“The “Respecting Parents” theme is central to this issue. It is true that the schools have an enormous impact on the children who have been entrusted into their care, and so there must be some understanding that the schools serve at the pleasure of the community. When the government and the schools take it upon themselves to “fundamentally change” society by teaching students to distrust their own families and parents, no one should be surprised if there is a visceral reaction from the community.
Within that construct, if there are individual students who are challenged by gender identity issues, there must be some means in place to help those students deal with and understand their own situation. Nevertheless, it is ill-advised and unacceptable to begin to coach children as young as kindergarten that they might be the wrong gender, or in some way may not match up with their obvious sex. This sows confusion, and is disorienting.
Finally, if gender and “trans” issues must be discussed at school, or addressed in other ways, then equal emphasis has to be placed on the “trans-regret” narratives that are now more rapidly emerging. There is a growing community of now-twenty-something (and older) people who deeply regret that, as teens, they were permitted, or in some cases encouraged, to undertake irreversible, life-changing treatments. Those stories must be discussed if anyone is to lay claim to intellectual honesty.”
Josh Zobele would also be opposed to such attempts, and as such would be a much better candidate than Mr. Lee and Mr. gamse.
We have to be aware, and do our proper due diligence: find out who the candidates are, not just for the top positions of US Congress and Senate, but down to the school boards, and even the dog catchers. We cannot let ourselves be caught off guard, with people using ‘conservative’ language, to hide their actual intent. Too much is riding on this.
This is hugely important, for our children and our future in the first place.
VOTE.
INFORM YOURSELF.
PARTICIPATE.
OBSERVE.
SPEAK UP.
All is well.
Yikes! We’ve had some information on candidates for city counsel and school board and who is backing them. Good to research all of them. Appreciate your writings but family is #1. We’ll be here when you have time and something to say.
Thank you for the extensive research to look below the surface. Thank you, also, for the positive reference. Joel E. Davis