I received an email from a concerned parent about the teaching of the Constitution in the Clayton and Parkway school districts. If you are not familiar with these districts, they are considered to be high achieving with good MAP and ACT scores. Any parent would want their child to attend in one of the districts' schools based on reputation, right?
Based on what this parent sent me via email, parents in these districts might want to take a closer look at the syllabus for the teaching of the Constitution. Just keep in mind, the teaching of the Constitution doesn't seem to be a huge concern to MO DESE, so perhaps it may not be top priority for these schools either. As we contended in our previous posting:
I accessed DESE's site for special day and week celebrations and while it is listed, there is no accompanying information what the Constitution is, what is represents, and how it outlines our important liberties. Perhaps this is because this administration believes the Constitution is a "living document" and as it is currently in flux, students shouldn't be concerned about it much. That's just a guess on my part.
Read the following email from this parent. I think we were right in our guess about the Constitution's importance and meaning not only on the national and state levels, but also on the local level:
As we talked about briefly last week, I am gravely concerned with the course our public education system is putting us on. And to be more accurate, I am concerned with the way social and political issues are framed by certain teachers, because - as we and they know - children are impressionable. The "values" and "principles" they learn early on shape the way they process information and make decisions in future.
My child has attended schools in the Clayton and Parkway School Districts. Two lessons in particular stand out in my mind as the most egregious subversions of the principles of our republic.
While in Clayton School District, she learned that the General Welfare clause of the Constitution is synonymous with "being happy" - i.e. that Congress being able to provide for the general welfare means that Congress should provide for everyone being happy and living a comfortable life. This is neither accurate, nor sustainable as a principle of Constitutional law. It is antithetical to the principles held by those who built what we have today; not because helping others to live a happy life is a bad principle, but because Congress can act only through coercion by force of law and coercion is antithetical to freedom.
Second, while attending a Parkway school, she learned that the Necessary and Proper clause of the Constitution is also known as the "Elastic Clause" because it allows Congress to stretch its powers to pass laws that help people (or something equally as expansive). This fundamentally eviscerates the notion that the Constitution is an enabling document that specifically grants only limited powers to the federal government. It's related to the concept of an "evolving Constitution," which is of course nonsense. As has always been the case with the law in the U.S. the law exists and the courts apply the law to facts, which of course change and differ, over time and from case to case. That the factual circumstances of cases change over time causes evolution in case law, but it is not because our statutes and Constitution "evolve." It is because the facts - to which we apply legal principles to arrive at a legal conclusion - "evolve."
It doesn't take years of education or even deep thought to learn that Constitution does not evolve or that the general welfare is a term used to describe a small set of projects that make everyone better off, not just some at the expense of others.
But that's what they're learning, whether through the ignorance or insidiousness of some teachers and the teacher's union.
I recommend that you read Allan Bloom's critique of John Dewey. Mr. Dewey was instrumental in setting up the teacher's union, was a socialist, and directly stated that they would change America through education. Whatever victory conservatives may score this election, the trajectory of these United States is set by the angle of our youth, who carry our principles forward.
Classes will be forming within the next few months to teach the Constitution to children and adults. We'll alert you to the time and place of these classes; search your communities for similar classes if you are not in the St. Louis area. If what is being taught in Clayton and Parkway is indicative of teachings throughout Missouri and other states, it is imperative you educate yourself so YOU can teach the Constitution correctly to your child. Otherwise, he/she might believe in the Bobby McFerrin version of the document: "Don't Worry, Be Happy".
"...she learned that the General Welfare clause of the Constitution is synonymous with "being happy..."
ReplyDeleteUnconscionable... and just how they present it in relation to "the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence.
"I recommend that you read Allan Bloom's critique of John Dewey. Mr. Dewey was instrumental in setting up the teacher's union, was a socialist, and directly stated that they would change America through education. Whatever victory conservatives may score this election, the trajectory of these United States is set by the angle of our youth, who carry our principles forward."
Exactly so. It is also worth it to keep in mind that Dewey was one of the originators of 'Pragmatism', which unfortunately many Americans think is synonymous with making 'common sense' decisions. It is not. It is the philosophical method aimed at destroying and discarding Principles. You cannot have an American understanding of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or anything else American if you discard thinking in Principles.
And Dewey well knew it.
Here's Joseph Story commenting on the lefties favorite clauses of the Constitution to twist out of shape, the
Preamble
and,
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1
To really load up on ammunition to defend the Constitution, see this site's Table of Contents for a clause by clause view of what the Founder's themselves had in mind when they wrote it, what ideas they used to do that, and how early Supreme Court Justices ruled on them:
The Founder's Constitution