# data[].attributes.headline
This post is explaining how education is propaganda

# data[].attributes.subject
This post is explaining how education is propaganda

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in a democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized.

Whatever attitude one chooses toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses.

- Edward Bernays, Propaganda (1928)
In 1622 by Pope Gregory XV founded the Office of the Propagation of the Faith ( congregatio de propaganda fide) as a new branch of the Catholic curia to bring the 'sheep now wretchedly straying' back 'to the springs of the waters of life'. In doing so he launched a discipline that has become synonymous with misinformation, subterfuge and mind-control. But is it all really so bad?

Pope Gregory's intentions were arguably altruistic. His aim was to save lost souls and place them on a path to heaven. In Propaganda (1928) father of public relations and nephew of Sigmund Freud Edward Bernays pursues this line. Though his work seems sinister to a 21 st Century reader, he argues for the public good of propaganda in shaping opinion and organizing what would otherwise be an irrationally functioning society.

Is there a role for this thinking in the public education of today? What would a benign propaganda consist of in schools and society? In many countries, national curriculum implicitly serves this purpose. In Singapore propaganda is more explicit, with bus stop adverts and billboards vaunting the merits of school and proclaiming a 'thinking school, learning nation'. Are we ok with that? Should we be? Must all propaganda make us think of Orwell's Big Brother?

This entry was posted in HISTORY OF PEDAGOGY. Bookmark the permalink.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in a democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested,...

# data[].attributes.headline
What is Allowed When it Comes to Opinions of Teachers

# data[].attributes.subject
What is Allowed When it Comes to Opinions of Teachers

# data[].attributes.body
Some school teachers aren't sure how to or if they should speak their stance in the election.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A little enforced New York City regulation requires that teachers remain politically neutral when performing official duties. In 2008, Mayor Michael Bloomberg ruled that public school teachers could not wear political buttons in the classroom. The teachers' union challenged the ban but it was upheld by Federal District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan. Kaplan declared it was up to individual school districts to determine whether buttons in the classroom interfered with learning. However, he warned "school officials may not take a sledgehammer to freedom of expression." A similar ban on political buttons in San Diego schools was upheld by California courts in 1996.

Courts have often given unclear guidelines in rulings on a teacher's first amendment rights. However, what is clear is that school districts have flexibility in enforcing their policies - within limits. In 1972, a New York court sided with a teacher who was suspended for wearing an armband protesting against the Vietnam War. The court held that the teacher's actions did not interfere with educational interests. In 2008, courts overturned an attempt by the University of Illinois to stop employees from attending political rallies and from displaying political campaign bumper stickers on campus.

In Pickering v. Board of Education (1968), the United States Supreme Court ruled that school employees have Constitutional protection when they are speaking about issues of a public nature. In that decision the court overturned a school district's decision to fire a teacher for commenting on school expenditures in a letter to a local newspaper.

Last week a foreign language teacher in Smithtown, New York was "administratively reassigned" after she posted on her Facebook page, "This week is Spirit Week at Smithtown HS West. It's easy to spot which students are racist by the Trump gear they're sporting for USA Day." While I do not believe her remarks are appropriate, the teacher did not express her views in her classes and is not accused of making remarks at school. As of this time there has been no formal disciplinary action by the school district and no court case.

Social media remains a minefield for teachers with no clear guidelines. An article by Michael Simpson, Assistant General Counsel for the National Education Association, documented a series of teacher firings for online posts.

In 2013 the New York City Department of Education (DOE) issued guidelines for "recommended practices for professional social media communication between DOE employees, as well as social media communication between DOE employees and DOE students." Of course, the guidelines were not really recommendations. DOE supervisors were designated as responsible for monitoring and providing feedback on employee use of professional social media sites.

The guidelines also included "recommendations" for "Personal social media use" for "non work-related social media activity." They include:

* DOE employees should not communicate with students who are currently enrolled in DOE schools on personal social media sites.

* DOE employees are encouraged to use appropriate privacy settings to control access to their personal social media sites.

* The posting or disclosure of personally identifiable student information or confidential information via personal social media sites, in violation of Chancellor's Regulations, is prohibited.

* Personal social media use, including off-hours use, has the potential to result in disruption at school and/or the workplace, and can be in violation of DOE policies, Chancellor's Regulations, and law.

The last recommendation is the one that concerns me and should concern the teachers' union. Saying something has the potential to disrupt, even if it does not actually cause a disruption, is an open-ended assertion of authority over a teacher's right to free expression.

To help teachers navigate treacherous waters, in 2015 the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) issued an updated version on the free speech rights of teachers developed by its Washington State branch.

According to the ACLU's interpretation of the Constitution and the law, "Generally, the First Amendment protects your speech if you are speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern. However, if you are speaking in an official capacity (within the duties of your job), your speech will not have the same protection. What you say or communicate inside the classroom is considered speech on behalf of the school district and therefore will not be entitled to much protection. Certain types of speech outside the school might also not be protected if the school can show that your speech created a substantial adverse impact on school functioning." They warn if as a teacher "You post a 'joke' on Facebook about your students being lazy" it is not protected speech even though you are making it in your private capacity.

In addition, "School districts have the authority to control course content and teaching methods. You are generally considered to speak for the school district when you are in your classroom. Therefore, your speech in the classroom does not have much First Amendment protection. This can be a murky area, however. Some courts have ruled that schools cannot discipline teachers for sharing words or concepts that are controversial as long as the school has no legitimate interest in restricting that speech and the speech is related to the curriculum. In general, you should exercise caution so as not to give the appearance that you are advocating a particular religious or political view in the classroom." The same goes for classroom displays.

While "The Supreme Court has ruled that students can wear armbands to school as an expression of their political views and that their right to free speech can only be limited if the speech would cause "substantial and material disruption" . . . The right of teachers to express their views in school on public matters is not so clear . . . Courts have also upheld discipline for teachers wearing T-shirts with political messages or slogans."

The ACLU warns that if school officials can show political expression outside the classroom "could adversely affect school functions or your effectiveness as a teacher, the First Amendment may not protect you." They offer similar advice for the use of social media, an area where "law is continuing to evolve." According to the ACLU, "if you use social media in your private capacity to express your beliefs on a matter of public concern, you may be protected. However, if you use social media to comment about students, school or other work-related matters, or you use it to engage in what might be considered conduct impairing your functioning as a teacher, the First Amendment may not protect you." None of the examples they offer of "conduct impairing your functioning as a teacher" are similar to what happened in Smithtown.

Education "experts" hedge a bit when discussing whether a teacher has the right to express their views during classroom discussions. In an interview with National Public Radio, Diana Hess, co-author of The Political Classroom: Evidence and Ethics in Democratic Education, reported that their study showed "teachers who were doing an excellent job who shared their own views with students, and there were teachers doing an excellent job who didn't share their views." She and her co-author Paula McAvoy concluded "there are times when it's probably better for teachers to share than other times when it's better for them not to share. That depends in large part on the context -- on who's in their class and what their goals are." However, they also argued the "feeling that the public seems to have that teachers by definition are trying to push their political views on students is just false."

In the fall 2016 issue of Teaching Tolerance, Maureen Costello, the publication's director, argues that in discussions on the current Presidential election campaign teachers should focus on promoting basic American values including that "Truth is essential to the 'American Way.'" In the classroom, this would include a heavy component of fact-checking statements made by candidates who should at least be held to the same evidentiary standards as students.

I like Costello's ideas. This weekend, The New York Times posted "A Week of Whoppers from Donald Trump" Between September 15 and 21 they documented 31 "whoppers," "falsehoods, exaggerations and outright lies." According to the article, "virtually all of Mr. Trump's falsehoods directly bolstered a powerful and self-aggrandizing narrative depicting him as a heroic savior for a nation menaced from every direction. Mike Murphy, a Republican strategist, described the practice as creating 'an unreality bubble that he surrounds himself with.'"

Students should fact-check statements by both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump at the Presidential debates. Politifact, FactCheck, and the Washington Post's Fact Checker are also useful sources. If one candidate comes across poorly when students fact-check their statements, that is the candidate's problem, not ours as social studies teachers.

According to the National Council for the Social Studies, "The primary purpose of Social Studies is to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world." In New York State, students in all grades K-12 are expected to demonstrate "the basic civic values of American constitutional democracy; and the roles, rights, and responsibilities of citizenship, including avenues of participation." Despite all the cautionary warnings, teachers would be professionally irresponsible not to involve students in political dialogues.

My advice to social studies teachers is that it is legitimate and legal to state your views on a political issue or candidate as part of classroom dialogue when you teach students responsible citizenship. This is especially important when it helps to open up discussion, model respectful commentary, and illustrate the use of evidence to support a point of view. If in doubt, check with you supervisor and union representative about local ordinances you need to consider. Find out what is recommended and what is mandated. And please don't write about your students on Facebook.

From Amazon: Drumpf for President: A Scary Fable by R. Pieces in Kindle and Paperback.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Federal District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Evidence and Ethics in Democratic Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Election 2016: What Teachers Can and Cannot Do

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A little enforced New York City regulation requires that teachers remain politically neutral when performing official duties. In 2008, Mayor Michael Bloomberg ruled that public school teachers could not wear political buttons in the classroom. The teachers' union challenged the ban but it was upheld by Federal District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan.

# data[].attributes.body
This is another example of propaganda because the students are not allowed to to think for themselves , because the teachers are putting things in their mind that might not even be true.

# data[].attributes.headline
Teacher Forces Student to Say "God isn't real"

# data[].attributes.subject
Teacher Forces Student to Say "God isn't real"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A seventh-grade assignment at a Texas middle school asked students to deny the existence of God, a student and her family said this week, prompting an apology from the school district.

The writing assignment asked students to answer whether each item on a list was a fact, commonplace assertion, or an opinion. It was intended to utilize critical thinking skills, not to question anyone's religious beliefs, the school said.

Jordan Wooley, a 12-year-old student in the class, said the teacher told students that God is a "myth."

Officials for the Katy Independent School District near Houston apologized for the writing assignment Wednesday, saying it should not have been used and was highly inappropriate. Still, the school said that they could not confirm the student's allegations that she was forced to deny the existence of God.

The West Memorial Junior High student "truly felt her faith was being questioned and she felt justified in defending it and I support that," Superintendent Alton L. Frailey said at a news conference, according to the Associated Press. "However, the assertion that the teacher deliberately tried to force her to deny her God or threatened her God, that was not corroborated."

"Today I was given an assignment in school that questioned my faith and told me that God was not real," Wooley told the Katy school board on Monday during its monthly meeting.

The 12-year-old said her teacher told them that anyone who said God was a fact "was wrong and that God is only a myth."

Wooley said the teacher "started telling kids they were completely wrong and that when kids would argue, she had told them that we would get in trouble."

"When I tried to argue, she told me to prove it," Wooley said, citing the Bible and stories about people returning from heaven. "She told me both were just things that people were doing to get attention."

Wooley said other students were negatively affected and that her friend went home crying because of the assignment. She told the board that the friend was going to come speak with her, but decided she couldn't.

"Another child in my class had asked the teacher if we could put what we believe on the paper, and she said 'you can if you want to get the problem wrong, which you will fail the paper if you do,'" Wooley told the board.

"I felt like this was really wrong and I didn't feel like it was fair for my faith and my religion to have anything to do with what I'm learning about in school," Wooley said.

The school district said it interviewed other students from the class and could not corroborate Wooley's accusation that the teacher was forcing students to deny God.

The school said in a statement that the teacher never used the word "myth" and that the teacher "welcomed all students' views."

The district said it would seek appropriate action for the teacher, whose name has not been released.

"The teacher is distraught by this incident, as some commentary has gone as far as to vilify her without knowing her, her Christian faith, or the context of the classroom activity," the district said. "Still, this does not excuse the fact that this ungraded activity was ill-conceived and because of that, its intent had been misconstrued."

On Tuesday, after the issue started to gain widespread attention, especially on social media, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted his support of Wooley and the following evening he invited her to the Governor's Mansion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Student Says Teacher Forced Class To Say God Is A "Myth"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A seventh-grade assignment at a Texas middle school asked students to deny the existence of God, a student and her family said this week, prompting an apology from the school district. The writing assignment asked students to answer whether each item on a list was a fact, commonplace assertion, or an opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
A father of a public student is filing a lawsuit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A public high school has been accused of radical Islamic indoctrination by forcing children to profess the Muslim statement of faith, ordering them to memorize the Five Pillars of Islam and teaching that the faith of a Muslim is stronger than the average Christian, according to a federal lawsuit filed Wednesday.

Thomas More Law Center filed the lawsuit on behalf of John and Melissa Wood. They accuse La Plata High School in Maryland of subjecting their teenage daughter to Islamic indoctrination and propaganda. And when Mr. Wood complained - the school banned him from campus.
Click here to join Todd's American Dispatch - a must-read for Conservatives!
"Defendants forced Wood's daughter to disparage her Christian faith by reciting the Shahada, and acknowledging Mohammed as her spiritual leader," Thomas More president Richard Thompson said.

The Shahada is the Islamic Creed, "There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah."

The Thomas More Law Center said that for non-Muslims, reciting the statement is sufficient to convert one to Islam.
"The course also taught false statements such as Allah is the same God worshipped by Christians and Islam is a 'religion of peace,'" Thompson said.
Good grief. It sounds as if somebody turned La Plata High School into a taxpayer-funded Madrassa.

A spokesperson for Charles County Public Schools told me they have not seen the lawsuit and declined to comment.

Also named as defendants were the Charles County Board of Education, principal Evelyn Arnold and vice-principal Shannon Morris.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court, alleges that students spent only one day studying Christianity and two weeks studying Islam.

"During its brief instruction on Christianity, Defendants failed to cover any portion of the Bible or other non-Islamic religious texts, such as the Ten Commandments," the lawsuit states. "Instead, the class included disparaging remarks about Christianity and the Pope."
Students were also allegedly instructed that "the Islamic religion is a fact while Christianity and Judaism are just beliefs."
"Such discriminatory treatment of Christianity is an unconstitutional promotion of one religion over another," Thompson said.

"United States Supreme Court precedent does not create a double standard that allows for the promotion of Islam in our public schools while disallowing and silencing teachings of Christianity and Judaism," the lawsuit states.

According to copies of classroom assignments, the school taught that "Most Muslims' faith is stronger than the average Christian."

They also instructed students that Islam is a peaceful religion and they treated conquered nations with kindness and respect.

On a side note, I'm sure there are plenty of Syrian and Iraqi Christians who would love to weigh in on that classroom lesson.

The school also served as apologists for the Islamic faith, according to a hand out titled, "Islam Today."

"Nowhere in the Koran does it say you will go to paradise if you martyr yourself with a suicide bomb," the handout stated. "Important: The majority of Muslims do not live this way."

The school also instructed students on jihad "a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty; a personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual discipline."

If La Plata High School wanted to teach children about jihad, they should've replayed the video footage of what happened on September 11, 2001 - or the Boston Marathon bombing - or the San Bernardino massacre or the Chattanooga attacks.

The incidents alleged in the lawsuit occurred during the 2014-15 school year.

Wood, who is a Marine veteran, called the school on Oct. 22, 2014 to voice his alarm over his daughter's assignments. He requested his daughter be allowed to opt-out of the lessons and be given an alternative assignment.

The following day the vice principal told Wood that his daughter was required to take the class and would receive "zeros" on any incomplete assignments even if the assignments violated the family's religious beliefs and heritage.

It's unclear what was said in the telephone conversations - but on Oct. 24 th Wood was notified by the school's resource officer that he would no longer be allowed on school property - for any reason whatsoever.

Wood contends in the lawsuit that he never threatened any physical harm against the school or anyone in the school. The lawsuit alleges the ban is unfounded and retaliatory.

Folks, our public schools have become indoctrination centers - promoting Islam and marginalizing every other religion. I've reported on similar incidents across the country.

Why hasn't the Freedom From Religion Foundation weighed in? What about the American Civil Liberties Union? Their silence is peculiar.

I suspect their reaction would have been a bit different had La Plata High School been baptizing children and forcing them to memorize John 3:16.

Todd Starnes is host of Fox News & Commentary, heard on hundreds of radio stations. His latest book is " God Less America: Real Stories From the Front Lines of the Attack on Traditional Values." Follow Todd on Twitter @ToddStarnes and find him on Facebook.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Front Lines of the Attack on Traditional Values

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lawsuit: Public school forced my child to convert to Islam

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A public high school has been accused of radical Islamic indoctrination by forcing children to profess the Muslim statement of faith, ordering them to memorize the Five Pillars of Islam and teaching that the faith of a Muslim is stronger than the average Christian, according to a federal lawsuit filed Wednesday.