A school district outside Dallas will reportedly continue to allow some teachers to carry guns in school, and posted signs on school campuses warning that teachers “may use whatever force is necessary to protect our students.”
Argyle ISD teachers will continue to be allowed to be armed on campus under the state’s Protection of Texas Children Act.
The report said these gun-toting teachers are required to have a handgun license, pass a psychological test and go through emergency response training.
“I trust that the administrators of this school district will put my kid’s best interest at heart,” one parent told the station.
Argyle ISD Superintendent, Dr. Telena Wright says that continuous training is required, and some training even took place over summer break. However, the names and number of pistol-packing teachers will not be released for safety reasons.
Signs warning visitors that staff members could be armed will go up at the district’s three campuses beginning Monday and the policy will take effect next week, Argyle Superintendent Telena Wright said Wednesday.
Kendra Turner, a senior at Dyer County High School, said bless you to her classmate who sneezed and the teacher told her that the term was for church.
“She said that we’re not going to have godly speaking in her class and that’s when I said we have a constitutional right,” Turner claims.
When she defended her actions, the teacher told Turner to see an administrator. The student said that she had to finish the class period in in-school suspension.
When contacted by the media school officials claimed there was no ban on the words “bless you.” However, students sent WMC Action News 5′s Michael Clark a photo of the teacher’s white board that lists expressions that are banned as part of class rules. Among the censored words are “dump,” “stupid,” “my bad,” “hang out” and “bless you.”
School officials also claimed Kendra was not punished. But Kendra’s pastor saw the slip of paper that ordered her to In School Suspension.
The girl’s parents were told by school leaders that their daughter shouted “bless you” across the room and that it was a classroom distraction.
Some of Turner’s classmates supported her Tuesday by wearing hand made bless you shirts.
A Southern Cross measuring 30 feet by 22 feet is flying high above Mile Marker 134 on busy Interstate 95 in Virginia on private property. The group Virginia Flaggers says on its website that it raised the flag on an 82-foot flag pole on May 31 in a small, private ceremony that included a Confederate Color Guard and rifle salute.
The Flaggers group was formed a few years ago after the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts in Richmond removed Confederate flags from the Confederate memorial chapel on its grounds, and the city of Lexington banned the standards from city light poles. Group members are frustrated by what they see as political correctness run amok, and they frequently bring their banners to protest at sites where flags have been removed.
The group says that spot was chosen to honor the 246,000 Confederate soldiers who fought in separate battles in the Fredericksburg vicinity during the Civil War. It believes the flag represents pride, not racism.
Barry Isenhour, who is active in the group, said he doesn’t think of the flag as a symbol of a fight to preserve the institution of slavery, in part because he believes the war was a defense against Northern aggression. The historical meaning of the flag, he said, should not be distorted by the message of the hate groups that have carried it — groups that have been repeatedly denounced by the Flaggers organization.
But Aston Haughton, president of the NAACP chapter in Virginia’s Stafford County, told the Post he saw it differently. He said the flag “symbolizes racism, oppression. It reminds people of the days of slavery.”
“We have to see if we can work it from another angle,” he said. “Our mission now is to make sure they don’t keep going county to county and keep putting these flags up.”
Stafford County spokeswoman Cathy Vollbrecht said the county government “received inquiries and complaints from citizens” after the flag was raised in late May.
“After careful review, we determined that no laws have been violated,” Vollbrecht said in a statement.
During a May meeting, school board members approved a plan in which trained teachers (presumably health teachers) would hand out prophylactics after first having “a discussion with the student,” StatesmanJournal.com reports. Some of those students could have been as young as 11 years old.
But when parents and community members caught wind of the “condoms-upon-request” plan, they flooded a June board meeting to express their displeasure.
“Some members of the public were offended that schools were stepping into the parents’ territory of addressing their children’s sexuality, according to minutes of the June board meeting,” StatesmanJournal.com reports.
“Others said condoms were not an effective solution to the problem. A few said students may need mental health help, not condoms. Another said abstinence should be promoted, not condoms. Many said they wanted help finding an alternative solution. No one spoke in support of the decision.”
On Wednesday, the Gervais school board voted to halt the plan until more research could be done.
Read the full article at EAGNews.org.
Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) in Cleveland, Ohio, has “beefed up security measures” after four students were robbed in one of the university’s commons “in broad daylight” this past weekend.
The CWRU online student handbook clearly “prohibits the possession of firearms” on campus.
According to Cleveland.com, the students were studying in CWRU’s Wade Commons around 4:30 in the afternoon, when “three men, with hooded sweatshirts tied around their face and red bandanas, came into the RedCats room, pulled out a silver handgun and demanded belongings.”
On June 10, a woman walking on campus in front of the business school building was approached by two men and robbed at gunpoint. The gunman was not apprehended.
Read the full article at Breitbart.com.
I hope their “security measures” are not to simply put up more signs.
UW-Madison’s diversity guidelines state that if a course, major or program is in high demand, special status must be given to ensure the make-up of the class (and thus those taking the major) is racially and ethnically diverse with “just the right percentages.” Meaning, it would be justifiable for a placement in hard-to-get-in classes and prerequisites for specific majors be awarded to students based solely on their race.
Especially shocking is the language about “equity” in the distribution of grades. Professors, instead of just awarding the grade that each student earns, would apparently have to adjust them so that academically weaker, “historically underrepresented racial/ethnic” students perform at the same level and receive the same grades as academically stronger students.
At the very least, this means even greater expenditures on special tutoring for weaker targeted minority students. It is also likely to trigger a new outbreak of grade inflation, as professors find out that they can avoid trouble over “inequitable” grade distributions by giving every student a high grade.
In short, the new diversity requirements seem to say that campus commitment to diversity is so important that the grading system itself must be sacrificed. This would mean an environment now exists where academic performance no longer matters. That for the diversity crowd, all that seems to be of value would be that “historically underrepresented racial/ethnic” students be awarded “equitable” grades to their counterparts, regardless.
The school colors at Marshalltown High are red, white and blue. Blair Van Staalduine wore white because school officials had asked members of his class to wear white during school spirit week festivities. “The actual school chose the colors that each grade would be wearing,” Cathy Van Staalduine, Blair’s mother, explained. “Juniors wore white. So Blair, of course, being active in the school, dressed from head to toe in white.”
She noted emphatically that the “W” sign was for the color her son was assigned, “Somebody took a picture of him with his white doing a ‘W’ sign because they were wearing white. Blair says if they were wearing orange they would have done an ‘O’”.
The school’s principal, Aiddy Phomvisay (email: email@example.com) decided that a white student wearing white while making what appears to be a “W” sign was racist, and suspended Blair for three football games. There is still no word whether school superintendent, Dr. Marvin L. Wade, Jr. (email: firstname.lastname@example.org) approved of the school’s race-based punishment system.
Mrs. Van Staalduine says she tried to talk to the principal and he called her a racist, too.
The Van Staalduine family is now demanding that the principal quash the suspension and issue a public apology. Otherwise, they say, they will file a lawsuit to protect their son’s good name.
The incident initially happened back in April. The boy, Eric Lopez, was on the Ashton Ranch Elementary playground when another, unidentified kid allegedly bullied him into dropping his drawers – both his pants and his underwear – in front of a gaggle of other students.
The mother, Erica Martinez, claims that her son submitted to the threat.
At that point, teachers on the playground interceded and marched the five-year-old boy to the principal’s office.
Martinez said the principal, David R. Stoeve according to the school’s website, responded by compelling the little boy to sign a document in which he labels his own actions as “sexual misconduct.” The principal also gave the kid detention.
KTVK shows the boy’s chicken-scratch signature on the document. It’s surrounded by a bunch of legalese.
It’s not clear if the kindergartner can read complex documents in which he admits to “sexual misconduct.”
Arizona law governing the ability of minors to sign documents in any meaningful way is generally governed by common law.
Martinez, the mother, said she was not present when her son for the meeting between her son and the principal. She also says she was only informed later about the incident and the subsequent labeling of her son’s actions as “sexual misconduct.”
In other words, the principle bullied the small child into signing a false statement as punishment for being bullied.
The question remains, why are there so many idiots running government schools?