Exeter NH High School Bans School Dances Indefinitely - Is SAU 16 to Blame? - Granite Grok

Exeter NH High School Bans School Dances Indefinitely – Is SAU 16 to Blame?

Dirty-Dancing

SeacoastOnline is reporting that Exeter High School will no longer hold dances. Why? Students were engaged in sexually suggestive grinding on the dance floor. Alcohol or drug use were also cited as issues but the thrust of the problem appears to be dirty dancing.

This is unfortunate for the kids who just wanted to dress up a bit, go to a dance, and be social, in person, in an A-social, plugged-in, digital world. The school, in their infinite wisdom, has chosen to abandon the practice rather than define and enforce matters of etiquette.

But what if this is the proper etiquette thanks to years of what passes for a modern public school education at SAU 16?

If schools and school districts are like educational islands, and we know the Education Industrial complex prefers it that way, how did this come to pass and why isn’t anyone asking if the school district culture embraces or defends the sort of material or curriculum that might lead to sexually suggestive activity on their High School dance floor?

How ‘liberal’ or pervasive is early sex education in this school district?

Is there an emphasis on gender or sexual exploration, promiscuity, or other topics that many 21st century educators deem critical to public education? What kind of books are they asking them to read? Does the material include topics or situations that might inform the children of taxpayers that a culture of open sexuality is not just embraced but is a right?

I don’t know the answers, I only know that no one appears to be asking the questions. But they are worthwhile questions that the social Darwinist in the Public (or is that pubic) Education Industrial complex should have to answer because many school districts and teachers want (or at least appear to want) to have total educational control of the kids.

Modern education from local administrators to state and federal school broads seek to mold them morally and culturally in an image designed, approved, and deployed almost exclusively by the state. (A small percentage of the politically connected and wealthy are permitted to buy their way into better alternatives but the rest of you had best get with the program.)

And the desire for a monopoly is evident right here in New Hampshire, right now. The enforcement arm of the executive authority of the state of New Hampshire has taken a town to court on the matter of controlling where children are allowed to obtain an education (and by extension what, where, and how they shall learn).

They base this particular claim on a legal monopoly on the consumption of education tax-dollars. These belong exclusively to state educators, politicians,  and bureaucrats (both before or after being seized) and not the parents who earn and then pay them or the local officials they elect to decide how they are spent.

Local officials may not divert or allow this plunder to be diverted to educational establishments or purposes other than those approved by State Education Commissars who may alter or revoke any plan or approval at any time. Refusing to bend the knee at any point (or points) could get you an audience before the court (run by the same government) and all the press, bother, and expense that comes with it.

This is intimation and extortion. What other message does that send than that only state experts know what is best for “the” children.

The experts (Educrats) want what they want and oppose parental objection to any material in classrooms, explicit or otherwise.

The Democrat party and others, at least in New Hampshire, defend these experts by opposing any legislative effort at allowing alternate material (not banning or removing it just allowing opt outs or different course material) for the students or parents who may find some material inappropriate–as in, perhaps, not age appropriate, too violent, or too sexually suggestive.

And parents do not need to be warned about inappropriate or suggestive material in the curriculum. Efforts at such accommodation are too much of a burden and are roundly opposed.

Does Exeter or its Educrats fit this template? What’s in their curriculum?

Where do SAU 16’s leaders, educators, school board, and politicians stand on the matter of sexually suggestive education, and educational material? Because Exeter high school has banned school dances, a decision they admit (like government run public education) is not new or unique. Part of their defense for the ban is that other public schools have done the same thing.

I would not be at all surprised to discover that they are very much like the so-called ‘open-minded’ Educrats of their age. Purveyors of sexual exploration, defenders of and open and expressive sexual culture, beginning as early as possible, controlled by the education establishment, defended against all opposition by the power of big budgets, union organizing, left-wing rhetoric and propaganda.

I could be wrong, I really don’t know anything about SAU 16, but if this is the way they teach and the culture they have created, using the laws of progressivism, it’s not the students fault, it’s the education system that created them.

 

 

>