A while back, I blogged about the coming Minnesota "Nanny State," in which the state of Minnesota snatches our children from the cradle, usurping parental authority and privacy, taking away local control, and sending us the bill to boot.
Thanks to your complaints and some hard work from House Republicans, the Mary Poppins from Hell provisions have been excised from the House omnibus education bill (HF 872), but unfortunately she has her foot in the door in the Senate version. Now that both bodies have passed their versions, the dance of legislation moves to the House-Senate conference committee, where the two versions must be reconciled into one, which will be sent to the Governor's office for his signature and passage into law.
These omnibus bills are by nature complicated and difficult to track. The differences that must be reconciled clearly show the differences in philosphy between the Republican-controlled House and the DFL-controlled Senate (hat tip to EdWatch for this analysis):
1. Will the state adopt controversial Early Learning Indicators (curriculum standards) like the rejected Profile of Learning that define for all parents in Minnesota what their infants and toddlers -- birth through five -- should be taught, including indoctrination into the political agendas of gender identity, diversity training, vocations, environmentalism, and social activism?
The Senate version says YES. The House version says NO.
2. Will the state create big government oversight of public, private, and religious child care centers through a state rating system based on these controversial early learning curriculum standards?
The Senate version says YES. The House version says NO.
3. Will the controversial early learning curriculum be used as a basis for screening toddlers beginning at age three?
The Senate version says YES. The House version says NO.
4. Will toddlers be subjected to mental health screening?
The Senate version says YES. The House version says NO.
5. Will parents be protected from the coercion of threats of child abuse, child neglect, educational or medical neglect charges for refusing to medicate their children with powerful psychotropic drugs that have potentially lethal side effects like suicide?
The Senate version says NO. The House version says YES.
6. Will your tax dollars be spent on coordinated services, including expensive, controversial, subjective, and invasive mental health and home visiting programs, for "at-risk" infants and preschool children when "at-risk" is never defined?
The Senate version says YES. The House version says NO.
7. Will districts be required to teach comprehensive sex education that does not allow an abstinence-only approach, and that will teach kids how to use contraceptives -- without active, opt-in parental consent?
The Senate version says YES. The House version says NO.
8. Will the South St. Paul International Baccalaureate curriculum for global citizenship expand to all of its K-12 programs?
The Senate version says YES. The House version says NO.
9. Will references to state and American religious history and founding documents be protected from classroom censorship, and will students' freedom to voluntarily write and report on religious topics be protected?
The Senate version says NO. The House version says YES.
We urge the conferees to adopt the House position on these issues in the final omnibus bill. It all comes down to a small group of legislators sitting in the conference committee, and they need your advice now on setting the future course of education and child rearing in Minnesota. The first meeting of the conference committee is scheduled for today after both bodies adjourn their floor sessions.
(The area code for all numbers is 651.)
House conferees:
Rep. Barb Sykora, 296-4315
Rep. Denise Dittrich, 296-5513
Rep. Mark Buesgens, 296-5185
Rep. Sondra Erickson, 296-6746
Rep. Bud Heidgerken, 296-4317
Senate conferees:
Sen. LeRoy Stumpf, 296-8660
Sen. Steve Kelley, 297-8065
Sen. Dan Sparks, 296-9248
Sen. Gen Olson, 296-1282
Sen. Linda Scheid, 296-8869
EDUCATION
