The system is thoroughly infiltrated with Marxists and sympathizers of Marxism. They are Gramscian Marxists.
So...What would you call those teachers who are not Marxist, who are unaware of the socialist/Marxist philosophy dominating the schools, and unwittingly promote the system?
Answer: Lenin would have called them “Useful Idiots”.
Marxism is fundamentally freedom's **most** serious threat. Schools are the Marxists’ **most** important weapon. ( No, I do not have a more original or less boring way to state this)
By the way, a liberal is never satisfied until there is complete socialism. And...a socialist will not be content until their is communism. Communism is the final destination of all liberals and socialists.
Don't get me wrong. I believe as much as you do in the abolition of PS 666. However, fair is fair. If a hospital in Outer Slobovia has no CAT Scan device and no thermal imaging technology, that will have negative results but those results are NOT the fault of the doctors who practice there as best they can. There will be instances in which such doctors will do a very fine job against great difficulty and intimidating odds. There are young women who, despite grinding poverty, carry their pregnancies to term because they will not kill their flesh and blood. Those doctors and those women are heroes for their fight against the odds. So are good public school teachers. We owe it to them to abolish PS 666 and provide the good ones with the opportunity to teach in quality non-gummint schools where their efforts are appreciated in the delivery of actual learning and separate them professionally from those who actually believe in Horace Mann, John Dewey and Antonio Gramsci.
Anyone tempted to think that public schools and their unions are not a toxic problem ought to go to the hotel where this year's convention of the National Education Association is held or this year's convention of the American Federation of Teachers and stroll through the area where various moonbats are hawking their "curricula" to the delegates. When I happened, thirty years ago or so to do this, I found "curricula" including every form of exotic flora and fauna as to the "oppression" of lavenders and of Latin American communist activists "oppressed" out of control of Chile when Allende got his at the presidential machine gun and of the evils of military leaders and what not. It is also useful to peruse the resolutions passed by these conventions and by their delegates.
Your apparent insight that nothing can "reform" gummint skewels since someone's views must prevail, since we are not interested in imposing our views on other people's children any more than we want them poisoning our kids' education, since no sane person wants to waste endless hours wrangling in vain against lavishly paid, thick-headed, impenetrable school commissars when the time can be far more profitably spent living and teaching our own kids, is very well founded. And, of course, who wants to waste ever-escalating amounts of tax money to promote the ideas that Americans despise, that Catholics despise, that Christians despise, that many Jews despise, that Mormons despise, that sensible pagans and atheists and agnostics despise, that you and I despise?
That you understand the term Gramscian and that I understand it and that not one PS 666 denizen in a thousand understands it is reason enough to abolish PS 666. That gummint skeweling has long been dominated by the secular humanists, by the Deweyite "progressive" "education" establishment, by an ideology hostile to our nation and our faith is reason enough to abolish PS 666. And, in both cases, more than reason enough to erect a will of separation between education and gummint extorted tax money.
One final tiny disagreement. Unlike most nations, ours has had socialists who actually favored basic civil liberties like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly for those of us who disagree with them. That sort of socialist (the late Sidney Hook, the late George Meany, the late William Green) did not look forward to communism but rather fought communism knowledgeably, vigorously and effectively. Their conservative critics wisely pointed out that freedom of the press was only theoretical if the gummint owned all the presses. The AFL-CIO was more of a bulwark against communism than Barry Goldwater ever dreamed of being. That was then. This is now after the repeal of those clauses of the AFL-CIO constitution and by-laws which prohibited communist involvement at any leadership level even shop steward.