top of page


Updated: Nov 29, 2021

I am sharing this from FB. I am not the original author.

"I was asked by a member of the CDASD school board to review the actual framework document located here:

Then, she wants me to see if I still felt strongly that it supports Critical Race Theory. (I guess she thought I had not already read it) This member said she does not support CRT, so I hope she rethinks the framework after readiing this editorial I wrote for her:

"While this framework says seemingly inclusive things like, "we believe that each student can attain high levels of learning, regardless of individual differences, gender, ethnicity, language, ability, or socio-economic status," the framework also crosses the line when it elaborates on various matters.

In defining "equality" and "equity," the framework cites the source

Edutopia is racist against white people and is not shy about it's anti-white stance with articles like this one

In communicating why Educational Equity Matters, the framework cites factors such as race, ethnicity or national origin, language, and poverty as playing a role “in disproportionate representation in special education, as well as in specific special education categories, placement in more restrictive learning environments, and in exclusionary and punitive disciplinary actions.” A simple Google for scholarly articles by Annamma, Connor, & Ferri, will take you to an undeniable focus on critical race theory. Their “research” is outcome based, and NOT at all unbiased. (I dare you to type Annamma, Connor, & Ferri into a Google search-bar.)

After spending much time claiming all students have individual needs that must be addressed individually so that each reaches for their own personal best, the framework says this:

"Accordingly, when thinking about instructional planning and delivery, addressing the following questions promotes an inclusive classroom: 1. How might our design and delivery of instruction take into account the broadest possible spectrum of student abilities and encourage an integrated approach rather than multiple separate solutions?"

This is (for lack of a better word) dumbing down to the lowest common denominator to reach the capacity of the least learning capable individual.

Further, the framework states, "How can we best work toward the kind of inclusivity that eliminates acute focus on “special” features or separate physical spaces that may hold stigma or embarrassment for being “different?"”

Part of the proper social aspects of public education is preparing children for real life consequences for behavior that is socially inappropriate. I am not talking about skin color or other physical characteristics of a student in this statement, it is a bonus topic mentioned in this framework, I am addressing here. A biological boy pretending to be a girl, or a child raised around cursing that brings foul language to school should NOT be normalized within the school setting (there are plenty of other examples as well). NOBODY should be bullied, but children raised in a moral household should not be required to pretend gender dysphoria and foul language are acceptable and normal. What happened fairly recently at NEXA with a student being counseled about crossing over, while maintaining deception toward the child's family members until the child was ready to come out is NOT a part of the purview of the public education system. On the topic of foul language, words considered by most of the families across the nation and even defined historically as profane, should not be tolerated and/or normalized. A male child dressed in girl's clothing or a child using profanity ought to expect to NOT be accepted as normal. It is not the job of the public schools to spread the cancer that EVERYTHING is A-okay! This undermines the entire families of the other students. Normalizing things like this are forms of child abuse. The rights of one do not trump the rights of others. Where it causes conflict, the resolution is in the facts, not the feelings of those involved. The school should oppose the corruption of the entire body of students and err on the side of righteousness/morality. Nobody in the public education system should promote the denial of science in their representation of any person pretending to be what they were not born to be as normal. ALL lives matter, but boys are boys, girls are girls. Dark skin vs light skin does not matter and all skin shades can become whatever they aspire to be if they are willing to work for the credentials necessary for that aspiration. The credentials should never be lowered or modified to make them "inclusive."

MTSS (multi-tiered system of support), has the stated goal of engaging all students across the full range of learning needs. That is great! The problem arises with the redefining of words, and this is an intentional redefining to justify the indoctrination of our children that comes into play with the sources related to this framework. CDASD fell for it, now they need to recognize it and get out before more damage is done! To give “all” students equal access to rigorous learning, it is imperative that those with educational abilities that meet or exceed the average, are presented with rigorous learning for them as well. "MTSS is a lever to ensure equity in meeting students’ social, emotional, and academic needs." I do not believe the people employed in public education are qualified to address the social or emotional needs of each student. This is the point at which personal beliefs become unavoidable. That teacher or school counselor who believes gender dysphoria is normal, and NOT a psychological disorder, is free to indoctrinate our children in this framework. The teacher or counselor that actually believes our National level of racism is really systemic, and buys into the false notion that white people are privileged, is free to teach their reverse form of racism and demoralize those they believe to be advantaged based on light skin color. Obama is rich and became POTUS. Candace Owens is extremely intelligent, and expected to thrive in the political realm for many years to come. Our current Vice President is in no way light skinned. They are NOT underprivileged. My family has significant amounts of dark Cherokee, yet some members are snow white and others appear to be partially or fully of African or other typically dark skinned descent. Our family, as a whole, has been poor for generations. Token individuals decided to not remain poor and did the work necessary to become lawyers, doctors, authors etc. according to their personal choices. A child coming from the advantages of a wealthy family often uses that wealth to buy a failed future of drug abuse and failed relationships. Being wealthy does not equate to more intelligence, just as growing up in poverty does not equate to intellectual disability. If you want to have equality AND real equity, you must stop categorizing children by the conditions they live under. If a specific child does not get enough food at home, their education will likely suffer, but not all children from poor families are deprived of nutritious food. Children who are in stable or high income families often have children that are well fed on nutritionally deficient foods. A diet, overwhelmed by fast-food and/or gourmet indulgences, can cause deficiencies that hinder educational excellence just as food insecurity can. Children from every background and color can be living in an environment that fosters educational excellence or in one that hinders it. Equity is not really attainable and categorizing children based on assumptions about their living conditions is detrimental AND frequently demoralizing.

Getting back to the framework, providing a "culturally-responsive environment" is dangerous territory. To believe that an individual is educationally over or underprivileged simply because of skin color is racist. To believe that being poor automatically makes a child food-insecure is just as wrong as assuming a child that is well off financially has all the advantages to foster educational excellence. When children are categorized based on ANYTHING, besides the abilities the individual children actually display, ensuring appropriate policies and values are advocated across the district and school administration should NOT be supported.

This following statement from the framework has too many flaws to identify individually (I already tend toward lengthy), and yet it is a core principle of this framework being propagated:

"… In further commitment to students, Coeur d’ Alene Public Schools understands that school is a place to nurture and grow cognitive, emotional, relational and physical beings, regardless of history, race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation or socio-economic status. These beliefs are realized through a focus on social and emotional learning (SEL) and educational equity, as the two exist in a mutually beneficial relationship, one supporting the other in the pursuit of empowering students, families and staff to reach their highest potential."

There is very little involvement, beyond maintaining a physically and emotionally safe environment for learning, that a public school should have within the areas outside of unbiased education of actual facts and strategies that foster the skills necessary for learning. If a parent believes their child needs help socially, emotionally, morally or otherwise, it is the job of the parents to seek out such assistance from whatever available resources that exist. If there is a deficiency in available resources, it is another issue altogether. In an ethical world, teachers and other school personnel do not automatically get to fill those gaps without enlistment and willingness by the parents. School personnel are highly unqualified to make these kinds of judgments the parents should be making (as evidenced by the child from NEXA, probably not an isolated case either, with either a case of gender dysphoria that the family had a right to know about, or a child's natural curiosity that would have worked itself out just as naturally in time if left alone).

The following quote promotes categorization of peers by the children, and therefore promotes racism: "Social awareness supports students in recognizing the many factors influencing equity in the social context including power dynamics, cultural demands, race, and privilege." Cultural demands, race, and PRIVILEGE is RACIST against someone, if not everyone. To eliminate racism (as an issue), it is necessary to stop making an issue of it. THIS IS critical race theory, and it is right here in print for all to see if they do not skim past it. The framework goes on to say, "Responsible Decision-Making engages students in co-creating solutions that are inclusive, equitable and

supportive. Students understand systemic or structural explanations for different outcomes and ASSESS PERSONAL BELIEFS AND BIASES. Students are encouraged to make caring and constructive choices about personal behavior and social interactions across diverse settings." This is teaching children to BE racist! Left alone, children are only rarely racist, and those that are, were usually taught by someone. Calling ANY category if people "PRIVELEGED" promotes categorization and/or discrimination based on some sort of -ISM.

The obvious ties to "CASEL"(Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning) means character education, and psychological profiling as well. This should NOT be a part of public education. Children should not be asked for this much introspection while in their schools. Stick to academics and leave the SEL to more qualified adults! Education is what we send our children to school for. This framework references "Equity Connections to SEL Competencies, 2020," which is directly from:

I pray that you check out all of the subtle CRT inclusions to this framework. I hope you will get back to me after you do. The subtle is not subtle at all when you look at the intent of the radical sources."

26 views0 comments
bottom of page