Most science and social studies textbooks, supplement materials, and curriculum guidelines need to be trashed and new ones created and issued to schools

Both the public and private sectors of most schools in America have swaths of books, supplement materials and curriculum that is based on completely fabricated “facts” about climate change and global warming. Climate alarmism programming and videos flood school science curriculum, YouTube and popular extension programming for hands-on experiments, activities and projects, like Bill Nye the fake “Science Guy,” anti-biological science perv Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and global warming propagators “Generation Genius.”

Hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted producing these propaganda-laden textbooks, workbooks, videos and science pamphlets in order to brainwash students into believing in the false climate change narrative. Globalists and communists want these kids to become adults who believe in these lies so they will vote for politicians who run these racketeering and embezzlement schemes at the expense of education.

The Democrats and Liberals have embedded their communist hate machine into education at all levels, teaching students to hate themselves, anyone who disagrees with their own (warped) opinions, and to think about sex and sex partners all day long. Most children and teens are suffering from gender dysphoria now, thanks to all the perverted, anti-science literature and social media claiming there’s no difference between male and female, that men can breastfeed, have babies and get their period, and that boys and men who claim to be pan-something can compete in female sports, which ends up being a total disaster for the females.

So, here are some ways for the incoming Trump administration to deconstruct and reconstruct America’s education system:

1. End Climate Change (Global Warming) – the big lie has infiltrated science curriculum and social studies books across all public schools. Show students how “Climate Change” is manipulated by weather weapon technology and modification systems and educate them properly about carbon and Co2.
2. Get rid of Critical Race Theory (CRT) – it’s just reverse racism and teaching minorities to hate everyone who is white.
3. Eliminate Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) and everything else that represents “Woke” in schools – it just gives students unfair advantages they did not earn.
4. Ban Gender Fluidity (PC Pronouns), Drag Queen Story Hour, and Furry Animal Identity – no more tampons in boys’ bathrooms or litter boxes for “furries” (kids who try to identify as cats, dogs, or other furry animals). Plus, stop allowing boys to compete in girls’ sports, at all levels.
5. Improve Curriculum for more Inquiry-Based Learning and Critical Thinking Skills – Have much less standardized testing of multiple-choice answers, rote memorization and closed-ended questions.
6. Promote self-esteem, self-respect, and individualism as a prime motivational tool.
7. Reveal how social media manipulates thoughts, actions, purchases, desires and enables cyber-bullying, violence and human trafficking.
8. Focus more on real-world math applications of skills and strategies.
9. Teach students how to do research outside of the highly biased Google search engine (and other mainstream poor sources like Wikipedia).
10. Promote project-based learning – where students incorporate multi-media projects, technology and innovations in small groups and working with partners, preparing them to function like entrepreneurs and most successful businesses.

Tune that internet dial to RealScienceNews.com for updates on ways schools can incorporate actual science in the curriculum instead of fake science propaganda, like climate change alarmism.

Sources for this article include:

• NaturalNews.com
• FoxNews.com

First came the mammoth $430 billion plan birthed before the ’22 midterms that made the student loans of 40 million borrowers eligible for cancellation.

That died the following spring at the Supreme Court only to be succeeded by the “Saving on a Valuable Education” plan, which drastically reduced the income borrowers must contribute toward repaying their loans at an estimated 10-year cost of $475 billion.

SAVE, which two Democrat-appointed judges enjoined in April, was then followed by four related rules canceling the debts of borrowers who have spent a long time in repayment without actually repaying their loans.

The latest proposal is another example of the administration’s ingrained reflex to respond to its own unpopularity with spending. Although the general objections to it are familiar, still, specific features of the latest plan are worth examining, especially because of their timing.

At this stage, the proposed rules would not be finalized until 2025. Moreover, the rules’ stated pretension is to provide an avenue for debt cancellation for “student loan borrowers for generations to come.”

The rules create two new paths for cancellation: a one-time automatic cancellation initiated by the secretary of education for loans at risk of default and an ongoing option that borrowers can access by application that “holistically” demonstrates the borrower’s hardship.

Purportedly, these address borrower needs not “sufficiently” covered in the preceding rounds of rulemaking or by readily available loan deferrals. That may be the closest the administration gets to acknowledging the redundancy of its plan that layers forgiveness atop forgiveness.

Much like the previous efforts, there’s a good deal of dissonance in how the administration presents the rule to different audiences. The Department of Education heralds the rules publicly as a courageous achievement, power procured through a righteous fight to provide “hope to millions of struggling Americans,” something no other administration has done before.

At least that last bit is true. But the rules themselves attempt to speak softly and modestly to a mostly legal audience, insisting that they are not the creation of some strange new power, but only a specification of how the secretary intends to apply the discretion that he has always had.

And though the rule is supposed to help “millions,” the secretary assures would-be critics that he will exercise his discretion only in “relatively rare” circumstances where “the costs of enforcing the full amount of the debt are not justified by the expected benefits.”

So, rest assured, dear taxpayer, these rules will save you money despite all appearances that your money is being given away.

Officious paternalism works tolerably well as a description of the rules’ tenor. The administration promises to anticipate and address borrower needs before they even arise by authorizing the Department of Education to cancel loans automatically if the department deems them at risk of defaulting.

How does the department make that determination? By consulting a “non-exhaustive” 17-factor list, of course. How else?

The borrowers the administration hopes to assist are evidently so distressed that they have not even bothered to apply for relief. Perhaps after years of COVID-19-based transfer payments and the gratuitous benefits of previous loan pauses and cancellations, borrowers are just accustomed to receiving without asking.

But then it falls to the rest of us to ask: Does any other segment of the population receive this much financial solicitude from the federal government?

The proposal’s most audacious quality is not its indulgent attitude toward borrowers, but its insouciance toward the matter of legal authority.

Since it took office, the Biden-Harris administration has combed the statutes for the few stray words they could morph into transformational debt-cancelling authority.

To date, they’re still searching for a rationale that would satisfy a judge. But the fact is, they are out of plausible alternatives, so they are recycling the same tortured reading of the Higher Education Act used to justify two of the preceding attempts.

Courts have already previewed the merits of this argument: Two Democrat-appointed judges have found that opponents of the rules are “likely to succeed on the merits” of their legal challenges. But that has in no way dissuaded the administration from this fourth attempt because the administration refuses to take the hint.

In the twilight of Biden-Harris administration, its policy approach resembles a movie studio that has misunderstood its audience and run out of ideas to keep them engaged.

These rules are sequels that appeal only to the most niche audience—the coalition of organizations dedicated to the abolition of student debt and their enablers within the Department of Education.

With the broader American audience, the approach is a liability. A poll conducted by University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy found that 40% of Americans “strongly disapprove” of the Biden-Harris administration’s repeated intrigues to transfer student debt to taxpayers. Another poll from the libertarian Cato Institute found that roughly 70% of Americans disapprove of student-loan cancellation when apprised of its effects on taxes and inflation.

Nevertheless, the administration persists in offering the same non-cure for the student-debt ailment. Despite the administration’s professed interest in addressing “root causes,” these rules, like their predecessors, barely acknowledge, let alone address, the variables that have made higher education such a debt-intensive undertaking or the variables that make the American economy one in which it is difficult for borrowers to repay the burdens they have assumed.

Instead, it cues up another installment of bourgeois socialism, a redistribution of monies to those who have spent too much money to attain fewer privileges than they would like.

The proposal, which was announced late Tuesday, comes as the school district faces a whopping $113 million in cuts by 2026, or risk a dreaded state takeover. “Without a balanced budget and a plan to consolidate our resources, we risk a state takeover,” warned Superintendent Matt Wayne, adding that such a takeover would “further deplete resources directed to our schools, erode our collective decision-making power, and likely compound educational disparities for our most vulnerable students.”

The schools on the chopping block serve about 2,000 kids, while another two will merge with other locations, according to local reports. And it’s not just the school closures – San Francisco’s school district has already been slashing jobs and cutting back on school supplies. Things could get worse when the final list of schools is voted on next month by the school board, Bloomberg reports.

This is the latest blow to a city grappling with skyrocketing homelessness and a fentanyl crisis. San Francisco’s public school enrollment has plunged by over 4,000 students in the last seven years – costing the district $80 million. By 2032, they’re expecting to lose another 4,600 students thanks to falling birth rates and demographic shifts.

Feeding the ‘Doom Loop’

The planned school closures are more than just a budgetary issue – they are a reflection of the larger economic “doom loop” San Francisco finds itself trapped in. As described by the San Francisco Chronicle, the city’s economic ecosystem is spiraling as the decline of core public services like schools accelerates a broader exodus of residents and businesses.

Thanks to crime, filth, and the pandemic – downtown SF has seen a sharp reduction in foot traffic as remote work has left office buildings and businesses empty. This shift has eroded the city’s tax base, leading to budget shortfalls across vital services. Now, with the closure of schools, families may be even more likely to leave the city, taking their children and spending power with them.

The doom loop is driven by a vicious cycle: diminished public services push people and businesses away, shrinking the tax revenue the city relies on to fund those very services. The closure of schools, much like the rise in homelessness and the overdose epidemic, threatens to further compound the fact that San Francisco is a city in decline, locked in a downward spiral.

As San Francisco’s public institutions falter, the question looms – how much longer can the city sustain these losses before it hits a tipping point?

In 2023-2024. However, one should note that these developments did not launch the momentum to rule in favor of religious charter schools, but they built on earlier debates and statements from prior cases including Justice Stephen Breyer’s question in the Espinosa vs. Montana Department of Revenue (2020) case, asking about religious charter schools. Bill Clinton’s speech in 1995 in Vienna, Virginia stating that past U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding faith were misinterpreted has also played an important role in the debate on religious charter schools.

The Carson v. Makin (2022) case, based in Maine, played a major role in increasing the momentum for religious charter schools. In that case, the state of Maine had provided vouchers for a good number of parents who desired to send their children to non-religious private schools. In contrast, however, Maine’s government did not provide these vouchers for parents who wished to send their children to religious private schools. In a decision penned by Chief Justice Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 that the Maine voucher program was unconstitutional because it discriminated against faith-based schools.

As important as the Carson v. Makin (2022) case is, there remain three issues that the U.S. Supreme Court needs to address in any decision on the constitutionality of religious charter schools. First, are religious charter schools constitutional? Second, to what degree may state governments impose restrictions on religious private schools that may inhibit their religious freedoms or beliefs? For example, Adam Frey, the Attorney General of Maine, clarified the state of Maine’s policy following the Carson v. Makin (2022) decision. Frey declared that in order for any private school to participate in the voucher program, it had to agree to follow Maine’s Human Rights Act. The question that the U.S. Supreme Court needs to answer is to what extent states may initiate such actions. How far is it legally permissible for them to go? Where does one draw the line?

The third issue that the U.S. Supreme Court must address is that it needs to determine whether those who run charter schools are state or private actors. This is because the vast majority of people who run charter schools are private groups. However, these charters are defined by law as public schools and are supported by tax-payer dollars. If the Court rules that those who operate the charter schools are state actors, then because they must be non-sectarian, religious charter schools will be ruled unconstitutional. However, if the Court rules that charter schools are private actors, then religious charter schools will be ruled constitutional.

The problem is that determining whether those who run charter schools are state or private actors will not be easy. This is because the courts have often disagreed with each other in their conclusions. For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 (in Caviness v. Horizon Community Learning Center), determined that charter schools were private actors when it came to firing educators. That is, no state hearings were necessary. The case is likely particularly salient, because it cited a U.S. Supreme Court case, Rendell-Baker v. Kohn (1982). This case involved a private school that was very similar to a charter school. It was created to help kids really struggling in school and received about 90% of its funding from the government. The U.S. Supreme Court also found the school to be a private actor in the case of an employee being fired. The Court might view the Rendell-Baker v. Kohn (1982) case as the pivotal one in terms of helping establish precedent for its eventual decisions on religious charter schools, in part because it is a U.S. Supreme Court case. However, in a 2022 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case (Peltier v. Charter Day School), regarding school dress codes, the ruling was that those who ran charter schools were state actors.

Whether the Court will utilize the St. Isadore of Seville Catholic Virtual School case to address these issues or wait for a future case remains to be seen. Nevertheless, given that Carson v. Makin (2022) and Justice Breyer’s 2020 statement have brought this issue to the forefront, one can foresee a scenario in which one may not have to wait long.

During the panel discussion, I opined that the U.S. Supreme Court will likely eventually rule that religious charter schools are constitutional. I did not give a precise timeline regarding when such a ruling might take place. Nevertheless, the other two academics on the panel agreed with my prediction, one of whom was a well-seasoned Harvard law professor.

Almost as salient as the issue of whether religious charter schools are constitutional is the context the U.S. Supreme Court establishes in their decision. The U.S. Supreme Court will either provide a narrow context for its decision or a broader one. An example of a narrow context would be declaring that religious charter schools are constitutional, but the Court will leave it up to the states to determine the degree of implementation. An example of a broader context would be if the U.S. Supreme Court decides that if a state has charter schools, it must at least offer the possibility of having religious charter schools.

Whatever the Court decides, it will have a substantial long-term impact on schools and society. If the court decides that religious charter schools are constitutional, one result is that will like give families more options in terms of choosing schools for their children. According to David Tyack in his book, The One Best System, the American system of schooling is far too monolithic and the historical trend toward increased centralization is not consistent with the nation’s diversity. In the next several years the nation will discover whether the U.S. Supreme Court agrees.