The blogspot version of this blog is HERE. Dissecting Leftism is HERE. The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email John Ray here. Other sites viewable in China: Recipes, Political Correctness Watch, Dissecting Leftism, Greenie Watch and Gun Watch. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing). The archive for this mirror site is here.
****************************************************************************************



28 February, 2005

ARE THESE PATHETIC WHINERS THE SORT WHO SHOULD BE EDUCATING KIDS?

A 13-year-old student in Orange County, Fla., was suspended for 10 days and could be banned from school over an alleged assault with a rubber band, according to a Local 6 News report. Robert Gomez, a seventh-grader at Liberty Middle School, said he picked up a rubber band at school and slipped it on his wrist. Gomez said when his science teacher demanded the rubber band, the student said he tossed it on her desk.

After the incident, Gomez received a 10-day suspension for threatening his teacher with what administrators say was a weapon, Local 6 News reported. "They said if he would have aimed it a little more and he would have gotten it closer to her face he would have hit her in the eye," mother Jenette Rojas said. Rojas said she was shocked to learn that her son was being punished for a Level 4 offense -- the highest Level at the school. Other violations that also receive level 4 punishment include arson, assault and battery, bomb threats and explosives, according to the Code of Student Conduct.

The district said a Level 4 offense includes the use of any object or instrument used to make a threat or inflict harm, including a rubber band. Rojas plans to fight the ruling but her son still faces expulsion. "It's ridiculous, it's a rubber band," Rojas said.

The school's principal could not comment because the case is still under investigation. A district spokesman said there is still a series of meetings the district will have before Gomez is officially expelled.

Source



Bilingual education fails the kids but the Leftist elites still love it

(Of course! Keep the peasants in their place!)

When test scores came out recently showing that Latino immigrant kids are getting much better at reading and writing English, California Superintendent of Schools Jack O'Connell urged schools to find ways to move them out of special English and into mainstream classes. Good idea, since many can't get access to advanced placement courses for college so long as they're designated as "English learners" and kept too long in training-wheels-style English immersion classes.

I found it rich that O'Connell is urging schools to act. To a large degree, it's his fault they haven't. Under Proposition 227, immigrant children were only supposed to stay in special immersion for a year or so, then go to mainstream class. But O'Connell has refused to credit English immersion for soaring English literacy rates. His silence emboldens the anti-English ideologues who still strive to keep Latino kids in a separate world. Again this month, O'Connell refused to credit English immersion, telling the San Francisco Chronicle he won't guess why kids are learning English so well. Guess? Year after year, he's failed to crunch data that could compare kids still stuck in "bilingual" to those in English immersion. The state Board of Education finally ordered O'Connell to produce a study withthat in mind.

While we wait, I did my own study. I found that school districts like Los Angeles Unified - where moderate Democrats stamped out failing bilingual education amidst fierce lefty resistance - are producing big, lasting gains in English literacy. By contrast, districts controlled by left-wing Democrats with an attitude of "they won't be able to talk to grandma!" are producing smaller gains. In 2001, of 244,000 L.A. kids who weren't native English speakers, only 17 percent scored as "advanced or early advanced" on statewide English tests. Today, a stunning 49 percent get those high scores.

Back then, L.A. was paying 6,000 teachers a yearly bonus ($2,500 to $5,000) to teach in Spanish - the disastrous bilingual program. Now, only 679 teachers get the bonuses and teach "bilingual." See any pattern there, Mr. O'Connell?

By contrast, San Diego Unified was run by sad, fad-obsessed school honchos Alan Bersin and Tony Alvarado, who kowtowed to its anti-reform teachers union. It shows. In 2001, of 33,800 San Diego kids who weren't native English speakers, 24 percent got "advanced or early advanced" scores on the English tests. Today, 41 percent get those high scores - well behind L.A.

Virulently anti-Prop. 227 Berkeley Unified is almost frozen in place. In 2001, of the 1,000 Berkeley kids who weren't native English speakers, 42 percent scored "advanced or early advanced" on English tests. Today, 45 percent do. L.A. - far more urban and poverty-riddled - has blown past leafy Berkeley. O'Connell's silence emboldens these people. In Sacramento, legislators will soon hold education hearings aimed at dumbing-down Latino kids with a separate curriculum. The key guest speaker is an outrageous Pied Piper from the "bilingual" fiasco days, dead-wrong Canadian theorist Jim Cummins.

We should pray that pragmatic Democrats, the Republicans and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger stop the hard left. But unfortunately, many Democrats are scared and Republicans are a minority in the Legislature. One pragmatic Democrat - Reed Hastings - just lost his job on the state Board of Education for defying the lefties on immersion.

While pragmatists from both parties base their views on facts, the left nurses its longtime religious fervor against immersion. Just to remind you how bad their fervor is, let's look back to 1998: Then-San Francisco school board President Carlota del Portillo declared that English immersion "has no educational basis and would set our students back 30 years." Jerry Perenchio, chief of Spanish-language Univision, spent $1.5 million fighting Prop. 227. A Republican, he adopted the views of lefty aides at Univision. One Perenchio aide derided English immersion - the most common method used in the United States - as an ''untested teaching method." Then-Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, now running for mayor of Los Angeles, denounced Prop. 227 as another Proposition 187. Then-state Sen. Richard Polanco insisted, "[Prop. 227] will do more damage to the [children] in the long run."

The left should grow up. Each year, California must educate a massive new influx of non-English speaking kids from Third World Mexico and other Central American countries, in numbers seen nowhere else in the nation. Ronni Ephraim, the gifted chief instructional officer at L.A. Unified, says Latino parents "recognize that at school their child should acquire a strong base of English, and at home they can support them in maintaining their home language. Parents want their children to be competitive."

So why is the Legislature still pursuing a separate curriculum and lower standards for Latinos, and inviting in one of the worst Pied Pipers of the bilingual fiasco? "I don't understand Sacramento," Ephraim told me. "Why would anyone want to hold a kid back?" Well, that's a true conundrum. But abetted by O'Connell's silence, that's precisely what's afoot.

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************



27 February, 2005

UTAH REJECTS INEPT BUREAUCRACY

They can afford to

Utah's state Legislature is poised to repudiate the No Child Left Behind Act and spurn $116 million in federal aid tied to it because state policy-makers are fed up with federal control of education and dictates. "This is not a partisan issue; this is a states' rights issue," said Rep. Margaret Dayton, a 55-year-old Republican and mother of 12 who has led the rebellion to make Utah the first state to opt out of No Child Left Behind. "We share the same passion President Bush has for quality education, but there is not one opponent [to opting out] in the entire Legislature, which is 2-to-1 Republican," Mrs. Dayton said.

Mrs. Dayton's bill and another giving primacy to state education standards won unanimous House approval last week. The state Senate, whose education committee also unanimously passed the measures to pull out of No Child Left Behind, will act this week. No senator has voiced opposition, and Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., a Republican, is prepared to sign the measures, state officials said.

Bush administration officials have conducted round-the-clock negotiations in an attempt to prevent Utah from becoming the first state to ignore the school accountability law. The law establishes conditions for states and school districts with low-income families to receive about $13 billion a year in federal grants. Utah's share is about $116 million, which the state would lose if it spurns No Child Left Behind requirements.

Utah wants to use state definitions for "highly qualified teachers" and school quality rather than definitions prescribed by No Child Left Behind. The state has been demanding more flexibility in required student testing to measure reading and math achievement, saying handicapped students and children with learning disabilities in special education cannot keep pace with other students. State officials contend that the law is unfair because it labels schools "in need of improvement" if even one subgroup of students, such as those in special education, fail to make "adequate yearly progress" in reading or math two years in a row.

The state has more than 20,000 first- through third-graders who don't read at grade level, including a disproportionate number of special-education students and children whose primary language is not English. A major sticking point for the administration is Utah's insistence that students in special education and those whose primary language is not English be measured separately from the entire school population in order to gauge whether a school has met adequate yearly progress. The administration opposes the move because a primary goal of No Child Left Behind is to close a large learning achievement gap between white and minority students. Utah has a 20-point achievement gap between white and Hispanic students in both reading and math, according to the latest tests by the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Eight other state legislatures -- in Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Vermont and Virginia -- are considering challenges to No Child Left Behind. Utah's action "sets the stage for what other states will do down the line," said Scott Young, an education policy analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures in Denver. "Other states are watching to see if the defiance convinces the federal government to be more flexible with its requirements."

Source



UPDATE ON THE CONTROVERSY AT COLUMBIA

Various Jewish students at Columbia have protested at the one-sided Islamic rants against Israel in various courses at Columbia. Supporters of the Islamist "teachers" at Columbia are defending themselves by saying that the students concerned are trying to enforce orthodoxy -- the exact opposite of what they are in fact doing -- which is to protest against an Islamic orthodoxy! Good old Leftist doublespeak. Orwell lives! Excerpt:

"Columbia students and faculty gathered in Jerome Greene Hall last night to hear a discussion of the historical relevance of the current controversy surrounding the MEALAC department at Columbia during a panel discussion entitled “McCarthyism and the University: A Historical Discussion on Free Speech and the Academy from the Cold War to the Present.”....

Schrecker also criticized Campus Watch and the student group Columbians for Academic Freedom for their involvement in the current controversy, and said that they are “trying to impose orthodoxy at this University, often in the name of academic diversity.” She said she believes such “interference” is detrimental to higher education.

Mamdani addressed the presence of McCarthyism at Columbia today and in the media coverage of the MEALAC coverage. “This particular threat to the University is probably the most serious in recent history,” he said of the allegations of academic bias presented by students..... The panel was sponsored by the Columbia ACLU."

More here. A further update here

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************



26 February, 2005

Three comments on academic bias from students:



ACADEMIC FREEDOM

The issue of academic freedom has been brought to the forefront in recent weeks. Apparently academic freedom is being extended so far, in some cases, that a professor in Colorado named Ward Churchill can replace his ethnic studies curriculum with radical, anti-American, anti-capitalist establishment propaganda.

Churchill describes with accuracy his feelings regarding the Sept. 11 tragedy. While he says he mourns for the losses of the individuals in the towers and planes, his mourning is coupled with rants on how so many of the victims had it coming, comparing them to Nazis at one point. He spends extended amounts of time rationalizing the terror tactics of those who hate America, demonstrating that he more fully understands radical Islam and the ideas that feed hatred than ideals such as democracy and justified military action against evil, perhaps even giving preference to the former.

In some disturbing cases, however, free thought is squelched so readily that the Lawrence Summers, the president of Harvard University, cannot even mention the biological differences between women and men as a possible reason for women's under representation in the field of science without having several faculty members leave the room. Summers outlined a host of reasons why women do not often reach tenured professorships in science and math at a conference where such matters were a major topic. He offered inborn differences between the sexes among other factors in an informal and speculative discourse. Bear in mind, he was asked to consider all possibilities, and since his remarks, he has been repentant to the people he offended, something I could not do.

I liken the people who left the forum after Summers' remark, too offended to even ask him a question and discuss the issue further, with Churchill. These are modern fascists, secular-feminist-socialist operatives with a feeling of entitlement and self-righteousness so strong they can't even conceive of a person mentioning what Summers did, or being fired for teaching what Churchill has.

I do not know enough science to defend or refute Summers mentioning inborn differences. That is not the important point - Summers was doing what a learned person at a fine university should do: considering everything. He tossed into the ring a notion he did not say he believed to be completely veritable, but he paid for it, paid for trying to be a fair broker of intellectual discourse on the university scene.

That is a sad story. The neo-liberals who I'm discussing might, on a normal day, sound like the staunchest advocates of academic freedom, and they likely would come to the defense of people like Churchill. But I don't think that leaving a forum where issues are being discussed freely and provocatively is an example of tolerating another person's intellectual freedom.

It is clear that higher education is dominated by ideologues with their blinded vision of how and what young people should be taught. This is manifested in small things, like the limited credence granted to students who raise conservative or even moderate views in class, or who are at least pragmatic about the motives of "the learned" and detect plain-to-see bias. This fact also shows up in the curriculum of many courses, and especially the reading selections in courses at a public school like ours.

A good English course, especially at a private school, often revolves around a "Great Books" core of classic literature. My experiences to this point in two English courses have included a docket of new books where the majority of the content is driven by socialism and other radical interests but is treated as some form of enlightenment. Are academic elites really making a stand for open-mindedness and intellectual freedom when they only choose readings that reflect their views? I think not.

This is why academia is so troubled. A group of people who selectively enforce the rules of intellectual freedom, making it limitless for liberals and constricting it for others, dominate the university scene.

Think about this as you go about your schedule of classes, meet different professors and encounter different curriculums. Many professors are fair and have undetectable bias, but keep your eyes open for instances where academic freedom is restricted or abused. Even if you agree with a particular professor, consider the way that their argument is made and how they handle opposition. Usually teachers remind students to be politically fair and to keep an open mind. These days, however, it is often the teachers who need to be instructed.

Source



A PROTEST AGAINST POLITICS REPLACING EDUCATION

I was at my seminar last week wasting my share of $328 and some change by not participating in the conversation going on, but rather doodling, dare I toot my own horn, some pretty hot stick figures.... So, at my seminar someone mentioned that Laura Bush would be working during her second term to try to reduce the influence of gangs on "at-risk young men" and wanted to know up to five suggestions we would make to her. I awoke from my deep, deep doodling slumber and my ears perked up. "This could be interesting," I thought, but was immediately disappointed when we went on a long tirade about what I consider Laura Bush-bashing. I mean, this went on for several minutes. We ended class, an opportunity for great learning wasted, after only three people had each suggested only one idea for Laura Bush.

Call me a weenie, but for crying out loud, can we go 20 minutes in a class that is not directly related to our current government and refrain from bashing the current administration? Yes, he is a Republican; yes, he is from Texas; yes, like all the 42 presidents that came before, he is - gasp - male and white; yes, he has an interesting smirk; yes, wearing a cowboy hat with an expensive suit takes away from the business attire look; yes, a red tie should not go with every suit he wears; yes, he has introduced words in the English language that we have never before heard a president say. Do you really want to tell me that in all your years on earth you have never created a word of your own while conversing with one or more people?

But is all that I've mentioned what you came to college for? To find elaborate ways to say "I don't like?" When exactly is the part when we grow up to realize that we cannot get everything we want, deal with the situation as it is, (the fact that Bush will still be president for yet another term no matter what you say in a classroom), and, note: this part is important ... move on.

I am not at Smith to learn about the political background of my professors or my peers. I am here to learn subjects that cater to a specific major so that I may go out in to the world and take the next step. Be considerate; refrain from discussing issues like the shortcomings of our current administration when it has nothing to do with class.

There was so much that we could have done with my classmate's question. We could have asked why gangs are on the president's agenda in the first place. Are there such serious gang wars taking place all over the United States that it takes away our liberty to walk to the nearest Starbucks to get our cup of coffee in the morning? We could have asked why he has given this task to Laura Bush. Can America's problem with gangs, if it exists, be solved by the president's wife "educating parents and communities on the importance of promoting positive youth development," as the White House website says? How exactly will they be educating these parents and communities?

We could have asked what is and will be defined as a gang. Is the KKK, for example, considered a gang? If so, does "KKK" shown at baseball games represent gang pride as the quintessential gangs we think of show off their gang colors? My point is that with the time spent Laura Bush-bashing we could have really come up with great insights and interesting observations.

I was not the only one that made a $329 dollar mistake in class; it seems to me that we all did. We missed a classic opportunity to be Smithies that analyze an initiative that will surely affect our generation and spent it making a jest of an individual who probably does not give a rat's behind that we were talking about her in our classroom. Squash the bug of inequality and open the jar of freedom, people! Take back your class time.

Source



FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR LEFTISTS ONLY

Regardless of age, we have all heard the phrase, "First Amendment Rights," bandied about. Free speech has been the rallying cry of the liberal elite since the 60s, and every time violent protesters are beaten back by police or cordoned off from a rally, the ACLU comes a calling. However, the same team of trial lawyers, rebel billionaires and Deaniacs turn a blind eye toward the abuses of their academic brethren. America's colleges and universities are anything but free speech zones. Contrary to their mantra of universal tolerance, Stalinist professors and administrators see intellectual diversity as a disease. Unpopular viewpoints, like a belief in absolute truth or the Republican Party, are actively discouraged.

The reality of liberal bias on campus is so overwhelming that columnists and commentators are forced to choose between countless illustrations. Whether examining the anti-Christian bent at the University of North Carolina, where one student was labeled a sexist bigot for asserting his personal belief that homosexuality is immoral and Alpha Iota Omega Christian Fraternity was derecognized as a student organization for refusing to admit non-Christians, or the age-old liberalism of Berkeley, where researchers found that conservatism is a disease shared by Hitler and Ronald Reagan, the bias is clear. Liberal professors see conservative beliefs as vermin and our universities as their own, private roach motels. Ideally, conservative minds check in, but they don't check out.

Our professors have at least four years to scare us Democrat, and they seldom waste an opportunity. Studies show that liberals hire liberals; the faculty at elite institutions like Duke and Yale fall to the Left of Hillary Clinton. More frightening, however, is the condition of our average campus. Along with the elites, most state schools are stacked with Democrats and Socialists. Perhaps conservatives are just too stupid for academia, as Dr. Robert Brandon, chairman of Duke's philosophy department, once asserted. Myself, I tend to believe that hiring committees prefer "fellow travelers." And as for self-selection, I think most Right-wingers are smart enough to see the "CONSERVATIVES NEED NOT APPLY" sign hanging beneath the ivy.

Of course, campuses are larger than the classroom and the message of liberal professors might be drowned out by inappropriate speakers. That's why our faculty and administrators are careful to allocate the lion's share of funding to invite still more liberals. After all, if not for men like Ward Churchill, how would students come to understand the innate evil of America? A true conservative would never think to compare 9/11 victims to Nazis!

However, unfortunately for our Stalinist friends, control over class time and tuition only goes so far. Outspoken students might still convince their peers that John Kerry and Karl Marx don't have all the answers. Darn that First Amendment. It was so useful for flag burning.

Some universities try to institute campus speech codes, limiting dialogue to their understanding of political correctness. Most just lambaste conservative students. At UNC-Charlotte, the resident College Republican chapter recently hosted their third annual "affirmative action" bake sale. Treats were offered at lower prices to traditionally recognized minorities, protesting how "affirmative action universities" accept minorities with comparatively lower academic credentials. Kristen McManus, UNC-Charlotte's Associate Director for Academic Initiatives for Mentoring Students, was quick to label her students as racist. Titling the communiqu‚, "Racist Practice at UNCC," McManus e-mailed the press and warned them of the College Republicans' "egregious methodology." After this slur, will members of the UNC-Charlotte College Republicans remain comfortable coming to McManus for academic assistance? Would you feel safe around someone who called you a racist?

All considered, however, campus conservatives shouldn't feel too badly. The Stalinists will even cannibalize a Clintonite for speaking out of turn. When President Lawrence H. Summers of Harvard University speculated aloud that "innate differences" between the sexes might explain why fewer women succeed in careers of math and science, he was attacked by feminists and academics alike. The former treasury secretary has been threatened with a vote of no confidence by Harvard's faculty and thus far, no one is willing to let him forget his flub. I find it ironic that the presidents of Stanford, MIT and Princeton are in an uproar over their colleague's mere speculation, when none of them were offended by the Berkeley study that labeled conservatives as mentally ill.

Perhaps this sentiment is just a product of my diseased, conservative mind, but I get the feeling that academia isn't even fooling itself anymore. After all, if professors pretend that free speech rights exist on campus, someone might try to exercise them.

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************



25 February, 2005

NEED FOR BIG REFORM BEING ADMITTED

With dropout rates rising, governors nationwide are being asked to lead a high school overhaul that demands more skills of students and help from colleges. The call for action, outlined Tuesday by leaders of an upcoming national summit on high schools, would change everything from core course requirements to state graduation standards. It came as the Educational Testing Service reported Tuesday that high school completion rates dropped nationally from 1990 to 2000, with about one third of students failing to graduate. It is the latest in a string of sobering assessments of high school performance. "Students can make it to the top of the K-12 ladder, only to find that they still can't reach the bottom rung of success for the rest of their lives," said Ohio Gov. Bob Taft, co-chairman of Achieve, a group formed by governors to help states raise academic standards. "In order to close this gap," Taft said at a news conference Tuesday, "we must pursue a fundamental redesign of a sacred institution - the American high school."

Governors from virtually all 50 states and five U.S. territories are expected to be in Washington on Saturday and Sunday for a summit hosted by Achieve and the National Governors Association. It is the fifth governors' education summit, but the first one on high schools. "We have this moment in time, where there is a growing understanding that high school redesign and high school reform must be a national agenda item," said Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, chairman of the governors association and a leader of this weekend's meeting.

Summit leaders released their goals in advance of the event in hopes of building attention and momentum. Given the scope of the policy changes they want, and the fact that each state decides what to demand of students, organizers know they have a sales job to do. It will start with the governors themselves - state chiefs who can help coordinate the efforts and missions of their states' overlapping education agencies. The goal is to unite governors, business executives and school leaders around a plan in each state to:

_ Demand tougher courses, and align graduation requirements with what's expected in college and the workplace. As one example, each state would need to require four years of rigorous English and math classes.

_ Redesign high school to provide all students with more choices and support. States would give priority to low-performing schools and provide more college-level courses.

_ Give all students excellent teachers and principals, particularly by offering incentives to draw top instructors toward the neediest schools.

_ Set clear, measurable goals for high schools and colleges, and vastly improve data collection and coordination between secondary schools and higher education.

_ Streamline education leadership. In most states, K-12 schools and postsecondary schools have separate governing boards and budgets, often contributing to competition over money.

Governors have become increasingly vocal about education reform, challenged to respond to unprecedented federal demands and complaints from employers. Arthur Ryan, chairman and CEO of Prudential Financial, said business leaders aren't happy with the pace of change. "Improving one high school at a time or one state at a time simply isn't fast enough," said Ryan, co-chairman of Achieve.

The high school graduation rate, meanwhile, remains the subject of debate. The new report by the nonprofit Educational Testing Service shows that the high school completion rate was 70 percent in 2000, down from 72 percent in 1990. It dropped in all but seven states. "This is a story of losing ground," said Paul Barton, the ETS researcher who wrote the report. "At the same time that the dropout rate is increasing and out-of-school education and training opportunities are dwindling, the economic status of young dropouts has been in a free fall since the late 1970s."

Source



ENGLISH EDUCATION DISASTROUS TOO

Tony Blair's principal claim to success in improving school standards was undermined yesterday by a devastating report from Ofsted. Almost half of boys and a third of girls continue to leave primary school unable to write properly, nearly seven years after the Government introduced the national literacy strategy. Ofsted blamed poor teaching and said that one in three English lessons were no better than satisfactory. A third of mathematics classes were just as weak, despite the introduction of the numeracy strategy in 1999.

The findings came as Ruth Kelly, the Education Secretary, faces a bitter split with the teaching profession today by ditching a radical reform of secondary school qualifications recommended by a government inquiry. Ms Kelly will reject plans to replace GCSEs and A levels with a new diploma drawn up by Sir Mike Tomlinson as a means of boosting achievement and staying-on rates. Charles Clarke, her predecessor as Education Secretary, appointed Sir Mike in 2002 to develop a blueprint for transforming secondary education.

Ms Kelly will insist, however, on retaining the "gold standard" of A levels and GCSEs, while promising to boost the standing of vocational qualifications.

Sir Mike, the former head of Ofsted, said that he would be very upset if the Government left the present structure essentially unchanged. A levels were now "strangling both teacher and student scholarship".

Ofsted's review of the literacy and numeracy strategies in primary schools made clear that huge numbers of children continue to enter secondary education ill-equipped to cope with the demands of the curriculum. Ministers have made much of the improvements in literacy and numeracy since 1997. The proportion of 11-year-olds achieving level four, the expected standard, in national curriculum English tests rose to 78 per cent last year from 75 per cent in 2003, the first rise since 2000.

Maths results improved by one percentage point to 74 per cent.

However, the English result masked a 20 percentage point gap in achievement in reading and writing. The expected standard in reading was met by 83 per cent of pupils last year, but only 63 per cent managed it in writing. Just 56 per cent of boys passed the writing test, compared with 71 per cent of girls. As a result, one in three pupils enters secondary school without the writing ability considered necessary to cope with the curriculum. Only 14 per cent of children who fail to reach the expected standards at 11 go on to pass five good GCSEs at 16.

Ofsted concluded that a lack of subject knowledge among a significant minority of teachers was a key failing in primary schools and said that the problems were serious enough to prevent further improvements in standards. "Teaching of this quality, while having no significant weaknesses, is not effective enough to improve the quality of pupils' learning and what they know, understand and can do," it said.

David Bell, the Chief Inspector of Schools in England, said: "There are still schools where children are not receiving the daily diet of good teaching that they need in order to raise achievement further."

Tim Collins, the Shadow Education Secretary, said: "The fact that at least one in three primary pupils go on to their senior school without being able to write properly is one of the single biggest failings of eight years of Labour government. Ruth Kelly and her predecessors have managed to get so hung up on their departmental target culture that they have lost sight of the underlying problem of classroom literacy and numeracy."

The Government sought to boost achievement in schools by merging the two strategies last year into a broader "primary national strategy". Ofsted found that this was having little impact because few schools had embraced the change.

Source



Time is up for radical professors like Ward Churchill (By Joe Scarbough)

Radical college professors are finally being put on notice by middle America that anti-American views will no longer go unchallenged if a liberal arts professor mutters the words "academic freedom." But the question is whether our elected officials will have the guts to do anything about it.

For years, Americans have been led to believe that campus radicalism was confirmed to Ivy League institutions and left wing enclaves like Cal Berkeley. But the firestorm that has erupted over professor Ward Churchill's anti-American 9/11 screed has proven what college students have known for years: That colleges in middle America have long been led by left-wing leaders who are radical by any measure when it comes to politics, culture, and faith.

I loved my years at the University of Alabama, but my college professors were almost to politically left of center. And that was in the reddest of all states. Don't get me wrong. I learned a great deal by having professors who attacked Ronald Reagan as a dangerous war-monger, who questioned my religious faith, and who openly mocked my family's middle American values. There were a few notable exceptions, but only one or two.

So the question you need to ask yourself is this: Why are my elected officials using my taxes to promote values that are radically opposed to my own views? And if there is academic freedom and diversity of thought, why don't those two principals apply to conservative professors?

A recent study showed that an overwhelming number of college professors are big government liberals, while conservative professors rarely get a chance to teach college courses. This ideological monopoly ensures that another generation of college students will be brainwashed to believe that the values parents spent 18 years instilling in them are quaint, obsolete notions.

Enough is enough. It is time to call your state representative and demand action. It is time to call your governor and demand a full investigation into the political bias that is infecting the state colleges that you keep open with your tax dollars. It is time to put campus radicals back on their heels and tell them that simply chanting the words "academic freedom" will no longer cow us into accepting the status quo. It is time to take your college classrooms back. And if our elected officials won't do it, we will run them out of office and find someone who will.

This is not about free speech. It is about how your tax dollars being spent to promote agendas that the overwhelming majority of Americans would find deeply offensive.

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************



24 February, 2005

THIS ARROGANT NUT THINKS HE IS ENTITLED TO BRING HIS POLITICS INTO THE CLASSROOM

Ian Harvey's Florida teaching certificate, No. 653427, has been suspended for a year. The former Lely High English and media teacher has maintained he's a scapegoat, a lone voice for peace in a wilderness of warmongers. But the Florida Education Practices Commission met earlier this month, and in the settlement, Harvey signed off on the suspension. Commissioner of Education Jim Horne cited Harvey in violating nine teaching standards, including failing to take reasonable precautions to distinguish between his personal views and those of the school system in his classroom.

"The misogynistic, homophobic, racist warmongerers in the classroom there in Collier County-and there are plenty-have nothing to worry about because the School Board shares their views," Harvey wrote Friday in an e-mail to the Daily News.

After Sept. 11, 2001, things were never the same for Harvey. He taught in Collier County schools for 10 years with good evaluations. Then after 9/11, Harvey entered the media spotlight after participating in an anti-war rally with a couple of his students.

In February 2002, the Collier School District investigator found Harvey's teaching practices violated district and state teaching standards. And later that month, he was suspended without pay for three days and reassigned to an Immokalee adult education position. In the next year, the teacher made a couple of court appearances. In July 2003, he agreed to a plea agreement, pleading no contest and paying court costs of $160, after being charged with resisting arrest during a March anti-war demonstration in Fort Myers. Then in August 2003, police arrested the teacher on driving under the influence and drug charges. He later pleaded no contest - his driver license suspended for six months and agreed to participate in the diversion program, similar to probation, involving counseling.

School District officials fired Harvey in December 2003. Now, two years after district officials sent their findings to Tallahassee, Commissioner of Education Horne has settled the teaching allegations against Harvey by suspending his Florida teaching certificate for one year. District internal investigator Peter DeBaun found Harvey engaged in the following inappropriate conduct between August and December 2001.

- Used his mass media class as a forum to express his hostility toward the U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, American business practices, social policy, mainstream media, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization

- Criticized and belittled students for disagreeing with his personal political views in class and caused them to feel their grade would be lowered if they continued

- Gave extra credit to students who sent e-mail supporting him after his appearance on the Fox television show "The O'Reilly Factor," but failed to give any credit to students who sent e-mails supporting the show's host

- Used curse words in class

- Encouraged students to attend anti-war rallies and failed to warn them that he had been threatened with physical violence

"They were going to suspend it (my teaching certificate) for one year for teaching peace before my August 2003 arrest, and since they are still going to suspend it for the same amount of time even after I broke the law, it's even clearer that my greatest 'crime' to the folks in charge of running the indoctrination, not education, system there in that balmy, polluted 'paradise,' is having pro-peace, pro-worker, pro-environment views, period," Harvey wrote.

Source



A LEFTIST EDUCATOR WHO ACTUALLY WANTS TO HELP KIDS!

For most of them making life smoother for teachers is what it is all about

"IMAGINE THIS: A progressive Democrat is elected president. In his early days in office he articulates his belief that America owes all of its citizens a quality education, and that long after Brown v. Board of Education this promise is still denied to far too many poor children, particularly children of color. He declares this ''achievement gap'' to be a national disgrace, saying that it is unacceptable that the average African-American and Latino child is doing in 12th grade what the average white child is doing in 8th grade.

The new president, with the active support of Senator Ted Kennedy, passes a law that puts the power of the federal government behind his vision for our schools, dramatically expanding its reach into public education. The law requires that all states adopt standards for what children need to know and assessments to determine whether all children, in all demographic groups, are meeting these standards, with real consequences for schools that fail to make adequate progress toward closing the achievement gap. Under the new law, states are required to allow parents with children in failing schools to transfer their child to a higher performing traditional public school or public charter school.

For progressives this should be seen as a dream scenario, a declaration that closing the achievement gap is the great civil rights enterprise of our time. Of course, you could be sure that conservatives would rage against this radical intrusion by the federal government into territory long reserved for state and local authorities. But you could also be sure that liberal activists and their allies in public education would staunchly defend the legislation's ambitious, egalitarian goals.

In fact, just such a momentous law has been passed and is now being implemented. But as painful as it is for me, a progressive Democrat, to acknowledge, it was a conservative Republican president who passed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), and it is traditionally Democratic education groups and activists who decry the law as intrusive federal meddling. And true to the confusing and peculiar politics of education reform, instead of embracing the laudable goals of NCLB-and joining in a bipartisan effort to repair its flaws-the institutional players in education and their allies have put their energy into fighting it.

To veterans of the education wars at the state level, this peculiar political situation comes as no surprise. In state battles over reforming schools, liberal and conservative labels have lost their meaning. Instead, the battle lines are drawn between those who are willing to take on powerful institutional interests and contemplate systemic change and those who are not.

In Massachusetts we have seen this peculiar political situation play out in the contentious battles around implementing our own version of ''standards-based reform,'' the Education Reform Act of 1993 (which I coauthored). Passed in response to a crisis in public education, the theory behind Massachusetts' law is that if you give school districts a more equitable funding base, establish state standards for student achievement, monitor districts' progress through student testing, and empower school leaders by enacting significant management reforms-such as removing principals from collective bargaining-districts will figure out how to improve.

Many liberals and education associations bitterly fought the management reforms as well as the essential testing component of this strategy, MCAS, in both the state house and in federal and state courtrooms. Many continue the fight to this day, despite the fact that 10 years of standard-based reform has produced considerable progress. Massachusetts schools are now at the top in national comparisons, and despite dire predictions of mass failure 96 percent of seniors passed the high school MCAS requirement and now graduate with a high school diploma that actually means something.

Last week, in its decision in the Hancock case, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rejected the plaintiffs' request-supported by the teachers' unions and other institutional groups representing various educational interests-that the court order the state to send more money to underperforming districts. Other groups, such as the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education (which I manage), are proposing a more comprehensive strategy which includes raising our expectations for student performance through a statewide ''campaign for proficiency,'' additional management reforms, and targeted new expenditures for expanding state assistance to school districts, early childhood education, and extended time on learning through a longer school day. Still arguing that money is all that is needed, and lacking any systemic reform agenda of their own, the institutional interests will continue to oppose changes in the system that will empower school leaders to tackle the many dysfunctions of underperforming schools".

More here

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************



23 February, 2005

Homeschooling And Socialization

"One of my biggest pet peeves as a homeschooling mother is the "socialization" myth. Anti-homeschoolers would have everyone believe that our kids are locked in a cramped house all day, forbidden to speak to outsiders. The truth is, the lack of school restraints gives us more opportunity for genuine socialization. Our kids aren't grouped with only those the same age as them, at a desk in a classroom, being told by a teacher, "You're not here to socialize!" We're out in the "real world" learning real things with real people from all races, faiths and ages. And our children are not exposed to the negative socialization that often is found in the school system.

Now please don't be offended if you're reading this and your kids aren't homeschooled. I'm not knocking your choice, only defending mine against the many critics in the mainstream media. I can't tell you how many stories I've seen done by the media where they bring some "homeschooler" out of the woodwork who's being charged with child neglect and abuse. Only to find out that they were never really true "homeschoolers" in the first place. Their kids were just truant. There was no homeschooling going on, but they want to throw that label on them to hurt our movement.

I remember sitting around with a group of fellow soccer moms in a middle school for a photo session. One of the moms asked me, "Why doesn't Amanda go here?" Then she said, "Oh...that's right..you homeschool." Then she went on about how she could never do that, and I told her it wasn't as hard as it seems. She then said in a very disparaging voice, "Well, I send my kid to school for the other kids." And all the moms around her nodded their heads vigorously.

My blood was boiling and I calmly waited for a chance to defend myself, but they were talking so much about how important socialization at school was that I could never get a word in edgewise. I later found out that the mother who instigated the attack on me is married to the county Superintendant of Public Schools here. Figures.

There's a wonderful story that ran on HeraldSun.com that gives a very accurate picture of what homeschooling is like and how we truly socialize. From the article:

Trash everything you think you know about homeschooling. Forget the images of a small family sitting around a table, working out arithmetic problems. Toss out the thought of children whose only friends are their parents, brothers and sisters. Today's homeschoolers say they are nothing like that. The kids meet regularly with other students for classes and activities. They have extensive networks for support groups, sports and clubs. "Most people don't home-school in a vacuum," says Julie Woessner, who has taught her two daughters from their house in Hillsborough for seven years. "People have the notion that we're weirdos, sitting around a kitchen table. We're not."

AND:

"Sometimes I think I need to clear my social calendar," said Towey, who lives in Durham. "There are so many people home-schooling, you could spend every day in the car going to see them." Towey's three children, 10, 7 and 4, attend Bible study, art and history classes and sports. The kids take dance lessons and practice karate. The association itself offers monthly enrichment, a time of fellowship with activities and playtime for the students and parents.

Then there's this article from CNSNews.com that cites a study that says homeschoolers are actually better socialized than their peers:

The study by the Fraser Institute, an independent public policy organization based in Vancouver, Canada, focused on home-schooled students in North America. According to the study's findings, the typical home-schooled child is more mature, friendly, happy, thoughtful, competent, and better socialized than students in public or private schools. They are also less peer dependent and exhibit "significantly higher" self-esteem, according to the study."

Source



FREE SPEECH A LOW PRIORITY AT COLLEGE

"Write about free speech on American college campuses occasionally, and you quickly come to realize that a good many people honor the concept mostly in the breach. Every column defending free expression generates a number of emails with this basic message: Of course I support free speech, I just don't think someone should be allowed to say that.

The anti-speech sentiment is not always couched quite that explicitly, of course. Usually the caveat is about the need to realize just how hurtful a controversial statement is to this group or that, whose self-image or self-confidence or self-worth will be irreparably injured by hearing or seeing something that offends or angers them. Indeed, when I did a column about the University of New Hampshire's absurd disciplinary action against a male student who put up a satirical poster suggesting that the women in his dorm might avoid the dreaded freshman-year weight gain if they took the stairs rather than using the elevator, even his mild jape, directed at no person in particular, invoked the same response.

You don't know what it's like to have someone make snide comments about your weight, replied some readers. (Actually, I do, having recently been denounced as a fat, pizza-gobbling ''pantload'' by one of the coruscating philosopher kings of the local talk-radio scene. That, apparently, is what passes as wit on talk radio, and in the spirit of the new year, I'd certainly grant that it's half-witty.)

My feeling is that people need to grow a little thicker skin if they expect to survive in this world. And that if colleges operate the way the PC gendarmerie prefer, they aren't preparing students for the real world so much as sheltering them from it.

Unfortunately, however, too often the prevalent notion on campus is that people have a right not to be offended, and that that right, and the goal of preserving an amorphous civility, should trump the right to free expression. David French, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a nonprofit devoted to defending free speech on campus, says the foundation frequently encounters that sentiment among college administrators and faculty. ''One of the most common experiences we have at FIRE is for an administrator or a faculty member to pledge undying loyalty to the First Amendment even while they are censoring a student,'' said French. ''They claim to support free speech, and if you put them on truth serum I think they would still claim to, but they think if a person's feelings are hurt, speech has just gone too far.''"

More here

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************



22 February, 2005

Idiots at the chalkboard

Someone out there is worried. Due to the rapid growth in the popularity of homeschooling and the increasing obviousness of the concept's superiority, the legacy media has all but openly declared war on parents who wish to personally direct their children's education.

If an act of child abuse even tangentially involves children who don't attend a state-approved school, you can be sure that the media will not fail to mention that the children were "homeschooled" regardless of whether the parents were actually schooling them at home or torturing them instead. So much for accuracy in media. If those now-infamous Florida parents were homeschoolers, then Abu Ghraib was a military academy.

One argument often heard in defense of the public schools is that education is better left to those trained to teach, to the "professionals." Most teachers, after all, are required to have a college degree in education, and in many states they are forced to take tests purported to prove that they are not drooling idiots. Although one has to wonder what exactly is on those tests considering that after 59 percent of prospective teachers failed to pass the Massachusetts Teachers' Test in 1999, the test was assailed by FairTest, a teacher-run organization that opposes tests for teachers, in the following manner:

The MTT included many bizarre questions unlike those on any other state's teacher licensing exams. On one, candidates were asked to transcribe a portion of 'The Federalist Papers' as dictated from a low quality tape-recorder. Other items asked for dictionary definitions of words with questions such as "What is a preposition?" and "What is an adjective?"

Clearly, it is outrageous to expect public school teachers to know elementary grammar or be able to perform tasks that entry-level secretaries with two-year vo-tech degrees handle with ease. If the MTT is considered to feature bizarre and difficult questions, one can only imagine that tests in more teacher-friendly states such as Minnesota and New York must run something like this:

What is your favorite color?
a) red
b) green
c) blue
d) purply-pink

The immortal PJ O'Rourke once declared: "Anybody who doesn't know what's wrong with America's educational system never screwed an el-ed major." And while one has no doubt that he is correct, it turns out that there is more empirical evidence for the dismal state of teacher intelligence than Mr. O'Rourke's sexual history or the fear and loathing with which the teachers' unions regard competency testing.

In 2001, the National Center for Education Statistics reported the average SAT score for intended education majors to be 481 math and 483 verbal. Only those interested in vocational school, home economics and public affairs scored lower. But while the SAT is considered to be a generally reliable intelligence test, the 2001 SAT is not the same SAT that many of us took prior to attending university. Those 2001 scores on the 1996 SAT, which was replaced this year by the New SAT 2005, are equivalent to pre-1996 SAT scores of 451 math and 403 verbal. In case any education majors are reading this, 451 plus 403 equals a cumulative score of 854.

Examining an SAT-to-IQ conversion chart calculated from Mensa entrance criteria, a combined 854 indicates that the average IQ of those pursuing an education major is 91, nine points lower than the average IQ of 100. In other words, those who can't read teach whole language.

Now, not every would-be education major goes on to complete her degree - 77.4 percent of those who do are women - nor does every college graduate with an education major go on to teach in the public schools. But since teaching's best and brightest so frequently quit upon exposure to the labyrinthine public school system and since most teachers who fail their competency tests are still allowed to teach - in Illinois, 7.8 percent of the teachers who have taken these extraordinarily easy tests since 1988 have failed them - it is not logical to conclude that the average teacher's IQ is any higher than the average would-be education major.

Many a parent has wondered aloud what sort of idiots were teaching the anti-intellectual poison that currently passes for a modern public school curriculum, but I doubt that most ever considered that the pejorative might be more literal than metaphorical. Instead of wondering if they are sufficiently qualified to homeschool their children, parents would do well to instead ponder the wisdom of turning over their offspring to demonstrably sub-optimal morons for daily indoctrination in the name of education.

Source



THE PARENTAL ROLE

Some "isms" are contemptible (e.g., totalitarianism). Others stir our hearts (e.g. patriotism). A lesser known, but crucial "ism" is "liberal parentalism." It's a phrase coined by Professor Stephen Gilles of Quinnipiac University School of Law in Hamden, Connecticut. The phrase embraces the tradition of parents' freedom to choose how their children will be educated.

When parents are not permitted (or are too apathetic) to make decisions regarding the training of their children, government takes the reins. The result can be inimical to the desires of most parents, such as the current situation in which God is utterly banned from public schools.

The concept of liberal parentalism holds that parents are best able to make decisions concerning how their kids will be raised-particularly how they will be educated. No government entity, no matter how intellectually endowed, has the motivation or concern in choosing a school for a child as has the child's own parents. That's the essence of liberal parentalism. Professor Gilles' concept was ratified by the U.S. Supreme Court's dramatic decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris in 2002, which decisively approved school choice in the broadest of terms. The Court said, in effect, that competitive efficiency and educational freedom are as inseparable as-to use a household comparison-flour in a cake.

No matter what you call it-"liberal parentalism" or educational freedom-the critical role of parents in education is rooted deeply in our history and religious tradition. "Listen, my son, to your father's instruction and do not forsake your mother's teaching," reads Proverbs 1:8 (NIV). And a later proverb advises, "Discipline your son, and he will give you peace; he will bring delight to your soul." (Proverbs 29:17 NIV)

Those opposed to educational freedom long to show that parental control is a new and maybe even un-American notion. Some think that freedom of choice has suddenly popped up in recent times. But during a long stretch of our nation's history, educational institutions were voluntary, cooperative endeavors, which involved parents, teachers, religious institutions, charitable organizations, and, sometimes, local government.

The American public school grew in the wake of the wave of immigration that swept across the nation in the nineteenth century. It was then thought by politicians that government control of education was the tool to assimilate the immigrants' children, as well as to dodge conflicts over any state subsidization of religious schools. So, the critics and the unknowing don't admit or don't realize, that the United States has a long and rightful history of valuing and guarding the freedom of educational choice. The country's 8,000 Catholic schools, for example, are a testament to that freedom, though parents who have chosen private schools have also been compelled to support the government school system through their taxes.

Although school choice now is legal, it still serves a relatively small number of students. Many states have charter schools and more than a million children are home-schooled. But those who can't stand the thought of such educational freedom are trying to stifle the trend toward parental choice. They seek, for instance, to trap existing charter school academies in a tangle of new regulations. Such rules would mandate everything from faculty to curriculum.

California has made it almost impossible for parents to home-school their children. That state, known for its bizarre customs, requires that students learn only from a credentialed tutor, a state-approved charter school, or a home-school study program supervised by the public school district.

Tragically, there will always be some parents who care little what happens to their children. They see school as a place to get their kids out of the way so they can indulge in illegitimate pursuits. The kids come to school with similar distorted attitudes.

But what most parents through the years have wanted for their children were educational options that matched sound cultural and moral or religious beliefs and traditions. They want constitutional protections, such as freedom of expression, association, and religion. Few Americans want the government involved in the intimate details of family life or educational regulations aimed at homogenizing the student body.

Parents have a moral duty to use freedom responsibly by making good decisions for their children. For its part, government has a duty to provide the space necessary for exercising that freedom. Allowing a diverse variety of educational institutions to flourish accommodates the deepest beliefs and desires of a diverse population. It is the "liberal" thing to do.

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************



21 February, 2005

NAACP BAD FOR BLACKS

It's Leftism that motivates them, not the best interests of blacks

A Houston school district plan that might turn three low-achieving but historically important schools in minority neighborhoods over to private contractors triggered a stinging rebuttal Friday from black and Hispanic community leaders who accused officials of neglecting the schools, then sidestepping responsibility for fixing them. Yolanda Smith, president of the Houston chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said her organization is outraged by the possibility of turning Yates, Kashmere and Sam Houston high schools over to for-profit educational companies. The NAACP, she said, will seek an injunction to stop the effort. "Houston taxpayers hold HISD accountable for closing the gaps in educational opportunity and student achievement and do not expect our public dollars to be spent on private entities," Smith said. " ... We did not create a public entity in HISD to then have the public entity outsource this responsibility."

Terry Abbott, spokesman for the Houston Independent School District, said indignation over the plan, which was outlined earlier this week by Superintendent Abe Saavedra during his annual State of the Schools address, is misplaced and based on media accounts that he contends are inaccurate. While contracting with for-profit entities to run the schools is a possibility, Abbott said, the district also welcomes reform proposals from district employees and community groups. Texas education officials have decreed that the schools, which have been deemed "low-performing" for two consecutive years, must be dramatically improved or closed.

Yates Principal George August has advised HISD that his school's administrators, teachers, parents and other community members will offer trustees a "bold, innovative redesign and restructuring of the entire instructional program at Yates to improve student achievement." August declined to elaborate on his group's proposal Friday. Also at the NAACP news conference were U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston, and representatives from the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Houston Area Urban League, Houston Federation of Teachers and other groups. Jackson Lee admonished HISD to seek more community input before making a decision to privatize the schools......

Earlier this week, Saavedra, the district's first Hispanic superintendent, told those attending his State of the Schools speech that "small steps toward improvement" would no longer suffice for the trio of academically unacceptable schools. "HISD," he said, "will seek applications this spring from reform providers to submit their plans to totally redesign these schools. These redesigned schools must be fundamentally different from what exists now," Saavedra added. "The reform groups that take over these schools will have to correct the deficiencies, raise academic standards, redesign management practices, improve capacity among staff members or replace staff and engage parents in improvement efforts."

More here



Takeover as a Reform Strategy

Detroit Public Schools is currently operating under a five-year reform plan implemented by the Michigan legislature in March 1999. Although the measure provides that the mayor of the city appoints six of the seven board members, it is commonly referred to as a "state takeover" because it temporarily removed Detroiters' ability to elect a school board. The Detroit district is hardly the first to be subject to a "takeover" by city or state government officials in an effort to produce systemic reform.

In the spring of 2002, the National Association of State Boards of Education published the study, "Do School District Takeovers Work? Assessing the Effectiveness of City and State Takeovers as a School Reform Strategy," by Kenneth K. Wong and Francis X. Shen. The report provides a useful overview of state and city takeovers of school districts between 1988 and 2000. According to the authors, takeovers "either by a state authority or by the mayor" are allowed in 24 states and the District of Columbia. Actual takeovers during the period occurred in 18 states and in Washington, DC, whose schools are now governed by a board of five elected members and four mayoral appointees--a reform structure created by the D.C. Council.

Eleven of 15 "comprehensive" district takeovers--interventions with "financial, managerial, and academic components"-- have occurred since 1995, "including the highly publicized takeovers in Chicago (1995), Cleveland (1997), and Baltimore (1997)." In 2002, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City initiated a takeover of the city's 900-school district.

Concerning the effectiveness of the takeovers, the authors find "research ... is lagging behind the pace of policy and practice, and overall `there is a scarcity of research on the effects of state takeovers.'"

Source



ACADEMICS ARE NOW THE ENEMIES OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM

Now that they are overwhelmingly Leftist....

Academic freedom - which endows members of the university with the right to hold, express and teach any views they deem fit, and to research and publish their findings without restraint - is widely recognised as essential to the pursuit of knowledge. As a 1998 report by UNESCO observed, academic freedom is 'not simply a fundamental value', but also 'a means by which higher education fulfilled its mission'. Even those politicians, bureaucrats and administrators who are, by temperament, hostile to academic freedom feel compelled to defend it......

Paradoxically, direct attacks on academic freedom often come from within the university. There is a mood of intolerance towards those who hold unconventional, unpopular opinions, especially in the area of politics. Some academics do not simply challenge views that they dislike; they often seek to ban them and to prevent individuals who advocate them from working or speaking on their campus.

Traditionally academics, particularly social scientists, were at the forefront of defending free speech. Today, some academics actually attempt to deny their colleagues the right to free speech. The campaign to ban Tom Paulin from speaking at Harvard for being anti-Semitic, and the censoring of Israeli academics by the editor of an academic journal in Manchester on the grounds that they are Israeli, are testimony to the illiberal tendencies that prevail in academia.

Academic freedom has become negotiable. Consequently, only the more grotesque attacks on this freedom tend to provoke a reaction on campus. One such example is the recent revelation of a memo issued to colleagues in arts and humanities at Durham University, which said lecturers would have to obtain approval from an 'ethics' committee if they wanted to give lectures and tutorials on subjects that might offend students - including abortion or euthanasia.

This illiberal policy is not simply the handiwork of few philistine zealots. It is the inexorable consequence of an academic culture that is increasingly prepared to censor itself and others. That Durham assigned an ethics committee the role of Chief Inquisitor and Censor is not surprising: for some time now, such committees have made pronouncements on which kind of research is ethical and which is not. Extending the role of these committees from policing research to censoring academics' views was a logical next step. Academics who treat ethics committees with derision, as a minor nuisance, should realise the extent to which their freedom is under threat.

The Durham memo may have stated its case rather bluntly. But its premise - that words that offend students should be banned - is now widely accepted and institutionalised in British higher education. Virtually every British university has adopted rules of conduct or codes of practice that convey the message: 'the student must not be offended.'

To take a random example: the University of Derby's 'Code of Practice For Use of Language'. In an Orwellian tone, the code announces that 'the use of language should reflect the university's mission and support relationships of mutual respect'. It demands that staff and students 'try to be sensitive to the feelings of others in the use of language'. In case academics fail to get the message and mistakenly think that being 'sensitive' is a question of individual preference rather than a mandatory form of behaviour, the code warns that the 'university recognises that individuals are responsible for their own use of language but expects line managers to help staff carry out the terms of this policy'. This is unlikely to create a climate where the free exchange of opinion can flourish.

That academics are expected to work within such a code, which explicitly demands that the pursuit of knowledge and expression of ideas should be restrained by the need to spare the feelings of others, is a symptom of our times. Such censorious speech codes have been institutionalised through the UK, without any serious opposition from staff or students. Once upon a time, instructions on the use of language were for schoolkids; today they are aimed at restraining the speech of the academic.

Of course words can offend. But one of the roles of a university is to challenge conventional truths - and that means academics questioning the sacred and mentioning the unmentionable. A proper university teaches its members how not to take hateful views personally, and how not to be offended by uncomfortable ideas. It also teaches its members how to deal with being offended. And it never turns to the Inquisitor or the Censor for the answer......

Today, lecturers need to ensure that their teaching is consistent with bureaucratically devised 'learning outcomes'. One young academic was recently asked in an interview for a sociology post how his work fitted in with his potential employer's mission statement. 'Fitting in' with rules and procedures - it seems that conforming to the imagination of the bureaucrats is the freedom offered to new academics.

More here

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************



20 February, 2005

Good Bye, Lenin! A Movie with a Message for American Academe

Review:

In a great little movie about the fantasy of idelogical views of reality, Wolfgang Becker's 'Good Bye, Lenin!' is a classic that should be required viewing for students of recent history.

Alexander Kerner's mother, Christiane is a devout Marxist Leninist living in East Berlin before the collapse of communism. Her husband abandons her to go live in the West and she was commited to a mental hospital for eight weeks. When she was released, her whole life became enwraped in promoting the cause of socialism.

Then, just before the Berlin Wall fell, she had a heart attack and fell into a comma for eight months. After she regains consciousness, the doctor tells her son Alex that she could easily have another heart attack if she becomes excited.

But Alex realizes that the news of recent events, the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, the end of state socialism in East Germany, etc, would excite her to the extreme.

So there is only one solution; surround his mother with a Potemkin Village of continued socialism, of course! Alexes Quixotic attempt to keep his mothers illusions alive for her is a dramatic symbol of the Western Academ, especially of the US where the last hold outs for Marxism still control the Universities and colleges of the nation that won the Cold War in grande style.

This movie is a humorous portrayal of that ideological obsession with fantasy that allows one to continue to entertain prefered delusions over blatant reality that swirls all around. If you plan to go into any post-graduate program in humanities in the US, this movie is a must see!

Amazon reviews here



Patriotic symbols now politically incorrect at school

"A Mont Pleasant middle school student is taking her freedom-of-expression fight to federal court, claiming Schenectady school officials have no right to ban her from wearing a handmade red, white and blue necklace to class. The beads, which Raven Furbert got as a string-it-yourself Christmas gift, symbolize love of country and respect for soldiers serving in Iraq, according to the lawsuit her mother, Katie Grzywna, filed in U.S. District Court in Albany. Among those soldiers is her uncle, J. Barnes, who is a member of the Army National Guard's 42nd Rainbow Division, and three other relatives. Barnes shipped out to Kuwait in October, and went on active duty in Iraq the first week in January.

Raven, 12, made the necklace over the Christmas vacation and wore it on her first day back to school on Jan. 4. She said it was to commemorate Barnes' move into a danger zone and that it is her way of trying to protect him. She said she can't understand what the big deal is. "I just want to wear them for my uncle," she said. "I'll be really glad when this is all over."

Schenectady school officials immediately banned her from displaying her unique neckwear in a belief such "gang-related" jewelry violates policy, court papers alleged. Raven was threatened with suspension if she continued to wear the beads. "I still don't see anything wrong with this," her mother said of the case that has created a stir. It was featured last week on the Fox News Channel program "Hannity & Colmes." "(School officials) even said on that program that they do not have a gang problem in the Schenectady school district," she said.

And that isn't all, added the frustrated mother. Grzywna said it seems now that Raven is being targeted, and the child who used to sail through her school days without incident is now tagged frequently for in-school detention and other disciplinary measures. Grzywna said she tried to explain to school officials that the necklace was nothing more than a show of patriotism. But they wouldn't listen. On Jan. 14, word came home that the beads had been banned, she said. Officials then said beads could be worn but not displayed, she said. So Raven began wearing the jewelry under her clothing, her mom said.

This week, on both Monday and Tuesday, administrators again told Raven to remove the beads, Grzywna said. She complied. But then put them back on. Named in the federal action are Assistant Superintendent Eric Ely, Mont Pleasant Middle School Principal Gary Comley and Assistant Principals Nicki DiLeva and Matthew DeLorenzo. Sherry Greenleaf, who is employed full time as the school district's attorney, said she couldn't comment specifically because the school district hadn't yet seen any court papers. "But certainly we believe the policy is valid and properly enforced," she said.

Bob Keach, a lawyer who specializes in civil and constitutional rights violations cases, said several of Raven's friends also have been told not to wear the beads even though the Mont Pleasant dress code does not mention beaded jewelry as a banned item. Grzywna is seeking a permanent injunction preventing the school district from banning expressive clothing. She also wants monetary damages and declaratory judgment, which allows a judge to decide whose position is correct. "As of today's date, the wearing of the red, white and blue beaded necklace made by a 12-year-old to show support for soldiers dying to protect this country's freedom is still forbidden ... under penalty of suspension from school," Keach said in court papers. And the mascot for the Schenectady City School District is a patriot, he pointed out: "So school colors are red, white and blue." "Patriotism is a virtue to be fostered among the young," he said. "It is not 'gang-related.' We can't believe we've had to take it this far." "

More here



BIASED BRITS

No place should be more committed to freedom of speech than a university. And perhaps no issue deserves more balance, more variety of voices, and more critical thinking than the Middle East, given its importance in world affairs. Universities should be grounds for critical thinking and pluralism of opinion, not brainwashing. Still, when it comes to the Middle East, the difference between should and is can sometimes be as great as the one between night and day.

Before you think Columbia University and the recent controversy surrounding some of its Middle East studies scholars, or Hamilton College and Ward Churchill, think England and the great tradition of scholarship on the Orient that made U.K. universities so distinguished, their scholars so renowned, and their works so enduring. And before you surmise that scholars manipulate their students into uncritical and one-sided thinking, look at the students. Judging by how this generation promotes free speech and a diversity of opinions, one gets the impression that students don't need bad teachers to stifle their learning: They are doing well enough on their own.

Enter the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), a famous institution of learning in the heart of London, which is part of the University of London college system. Its faculty is dedicated to subjects ranging from the Far East to Africa and much in between, and it includes a wide range of scholars with diverse opinions and expertise on the Middle East. There is no room for complaint about a lack of views and opinions among those imparting wisdom to the next generation. SOAS invites scholars of all backgrounds. Some university forums - such as the University of London, SOAS-based Sir Joseph Hotung Programme for Law, Human Rights, and Peace Building in the Middle East - are so one-sided that their public activities border on pro-Palestinian propaganda. But the Middle East program can be faulted for little.

Scholars there play fair, but their students have a different idea of what higher education is about. Maybe what the next generation wants is not wisdom. It does not seek tools to form independent judgments. Rather, it seeks ready-made answers and a conventional wisdom that no alternative voice should be allowed to challenge.

Consider the following: SOAS's student union recently hosted Palestinian politician Hanan Ashrawi, PLO ambassador to London Afif Safieh, and a two-day extravaganza dedicated to boycotting Israel. Not to be accused of one-sidedness - past guests of various student associations include Columbia University professor Joseph Massad and Haifa University professor Ilan Pappe, both avowed supporters of Israel's end as a Jewish state - the Palestine Student Society also had an Israeli speaker recently: Azmi Bishara, the lone pan-Arabist anti-Zionist Israeli parliamentarian, whose solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute is a bi-national state, code for the end of the Jewish state. With such a range of opinions, who needs an additional speaker from the Israeli embassy or, indeed, an Israeli student society? That is what the Student Union thought and still thinks.

Until last year, an Israeli society was unthinkable at SOAS: It would have violated official Student Union policy, which states that "Peace requires the achievement of national liberation and independence, the elimination of colonialism and neo-colonialism and foreign occupation, apartheid, Zionism and racial discrimination in all forms..." Official policy also condemns "Any form of racism, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, Zionism and other forms of racism on campus," and on those grounds the university until recently prevented pro-Israel students from forming their own organization. But then, SOAS exerted enough pressure on the union to allow for an Israel society - alongside an existing Jewish society - to be established.

An intolerable act of censorship of students' independent judgment, or a rare moment of sanity among union's leaders? Don't hold your breath for the latter.

Pro-Israel students can now have their society, but that does not mean they can hold events. The Israel Student Society invited a speaker, Roy Gilead from Israel's embassy, to speak on campus on February 22. The Union voted to force the sponsors to disinvite him. Again, a swift intervention from the administration had the Union backtrack and the event can now go on. Still, Kavita Meelu, co-president of the Union, said in a statement, "we have advised the society that the student body... has explicitly expressed that they do not wish for this speaker to be allowed a platform, and therefore will not be actively supporting the society's event."

Veiled threat or grudging concession? Hard to say. Don't anticipate a Student Union welcoming committee when Gilead arrives.

What is obvious is that when it comes to students, at SOAS dissenting views have no place. It is only thanks to pressures exerted from above - and Professor Colin Bundy, head of SOAS, should be commended for coming down on the side of freedom of speech - that a lone Israeli embassy spokesman could get a one-time chance to offer an alternative view of the Arab-Israeli conflict, before the old tune is monotonously sung again by the usual suspects.

So what's the trouble? Perhaps what Gilead has to say terrifies the Student Union's thought-control police - with the notion that one or two students might actually start thinking with their own minds. And that, even more than a Zionist speaking on campus, would be truly terrible.

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************



19 February, 2005

GREAT STUFF!

Some pressures on the taxpayer-fed slackers at last

The Bush administration is pressing California to toughen its rules for identifying failing school districts — a change that could add 310 school systems to a watch list this year and eventually threaten the jobs of superintendents and school board members throughout the state. The U.S. Department of Education warned that it could cut off money to the state if California did not change the way it classified struggling districts under the No Child Left Behind Act. The federal law calls for states to place districts on a watch list if the number of students doing well on math and English standardized tests fails to increase enough two years in a row. Such districts can face sanctions if they continue to falter. California, however, lets districts avoid the list if students from low-income households reach a set score on a separate measure of achievement.

Federal education officials believe the state policy amounts to an escape valve. The policy violates No Child Left Behind by reducing the number of districts identified as needing improvement, the officials have told the state Department of Education. Only 14 of California's 1,000 school districts were placed on the state's watch list this year. But hundreds of districts could be considered failures within two years if California yielded to Washington's demands, according to state education officials.

The expanded list would feature some of California's highest-performing school districts, including Santa Monica-Malibu Unified and Cupertino Union near San Jose. Even though these districts are well regarded, they could still find themselves publicly labeled as troubled if certain groups of their students — those in special education, for example — were not making enough progress. At the extreme, these school systems and the others could be abolished or restructured, or their superintendents and school board members could be replaced by state-appointed trustees.

Leaders of several California school systems said it would be unfair to identify failing districts in the middle of the school year without any notice or time to respond. The district officials wondered where the money would come from to create new programs aimed at improving student test scores. "The entire notion of how No Child Left Behind has been enacted is very narrow, very myopic and very draconian," said Santa Monica-Malibu Unified Supt. John Deasy. "It sets up a very negative dynamic for schools that have successfully shown they can raise achievement over time."

No Child Left Behind requires schools to give standardized English and math tests annually in the third through eighth grades, and to increase the numbers of students who score high enough to be labeled proficient. The law calls for states to set annual improvement goals and to identify schools and districts as in need of improvement if they fall short......

No Child Left Behind requires districts that are not on the list, but that have low-performing schools, to provide tutoring. L.A. Unified is spending about $25 million of its federal money to offer after-school tutoring to more than 16,000 students. But if the district were put on the watch list, students would have to go elsewhere for tutoring — to private companies, for example.

Members of the Los Angeles Board of Education will hold a hearing today to discuss that issue and other challenges posed by No Child Left Behind. Board members said they were concerned that a negative rating for the district would dampen enthusiasm at schools and further erode support for public education. "It's a stigma that doesn't drive thoughtful change. It's controlling and punitive rather than encouraging," said David Tokofsky, who chairs the board committee holding today's hearing.

More here



STATE'S RIGHTS ASSERTED IN UTAH

In the most specific challenge by any state to President Bush's signature education law, the Utah House of Representatives unanimously approved a bill yesterday requiring state officials to give higher priority to local educational goals than to those of the federal law, and to spend as little state money as possible to comply with it. The bill challenging the federal law, known as No Child Left Behind, will go to the Utah Senate, where it enjoys considerable support, said its sponsor, State Representative Margaret Dayton. Federal officials had sought to prevent the bill's passage, and Utah officials said a delegation from the Department of Education was expected in Salt Lake City today.

"Our goal is to maintain state sovereignty," Ms. Dayton said, moments before the 75-member House voted 72 to 0 in favor of her bill, with three lawmakers absent. The House has 57 Republicans and 18 Democrats. Ms. Dayton is a conservative Republican and a supporter of Mr. Bush, but she said in an interview that she was passionate about states' rights to control their own schools. That view appeared widespread among her bill's supporters. "We are strong supporters of President Bush," Representative Stephen Urquhart, the majority whip, said in a statement posted on his Web site. "But that doesn't mean that No Child Left Behind isn't seriously flawed."

The federal law requires standardized testing in Grades 3 through 8 and once in high school and imposes penalties on schools in which students fail to make steady progress. Congress passed the measure with bipartisan support in 2001. Support from Democrats has since withered, but vigorous challenges have come from Republican state legislators who view the measure as an unwanted mandate from Washington in an area traditionally left to states. Utah officials have frequently complained about the law's reporting requirements. In the debate yesterday, Ms. Dayton said federal officials were demanding new reports that would cost $400,000.

Last year, the Utah House approved a measure prohibiting the spending of state money to comply with the federal law. But the Bush administration persuaded the Senate to kill the bill after threatening the state with the loss of $106 million in federal education money. The action last year by the House inspired similar actions nationwide. Legislatures in some 30 states considered challenges to the federal law. This year, the legislatures in Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Vermont and Virginia are considering challenges. "No Child Left Behind is one of the most important issues of federal intrusion in state affairs that we've faced," said State Representative Kory M. Holdaway, a Republican, speaking for Ms. Dayton's bill in yesterday's debate. "This is a message bill. We want to send a message to the federal government that Utah has a great education system and we know best how to manage it."

The bill orders officials in the Office of Education and in the state's 40 local school districts to "provide first priority to meeting state goals" when they conflict with the federal law and to "minimize additional state resources that are diverted to implement federal programs beyond the federal monies that are provided to fund the programs." Patti Harrington, the state superintendent of public instruction, had endorsed the bill, which also had support from Utah groups including the teachers' union, the Utah School Boards Association and the conservative Eagle Forum. Gov. Jon M. Huntsman Jr., a Republican who took office last month, criticized No Child Left Behind during last year's campaign.

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************



18 February, 2005

MISALLOCATION OF RESOURCES

Political deals trump both the needs and the wishes of the people

While taxpayers in Florida’s Miami-Dade School District aren’t getting the new schools they want and need, taxpayers in Jersey County, Illinois, are getting new schools they don’t want and don’t need, despite rejecting --by a 71-29 percent vote--a 1999 school district referendum to build two new schools. School enrollment in Jersey County has been falling for the past eight years.

According to information provided by the Coalition for Public Awareness of Jersey County, Illinois, the repair estimate for bringing the district’s existing high school into compliance with state code was $531,000 in 2000. A year later, the district’s repair estimate had jumped more than 20-fold to $13.99 million, with the cost of building a new high school pegged at $12.8 million.

The higher repair estimate permitted the district to access a grant of $20.53 million from the state’s Capital Development Board to build two new schools with a local bond issue of $14.0 million, for which no referendum was required. Local taxpayers, who did not want new schools, now see new schools being built and are awaiting the increased tax bills that will be imposed on property owners to pay for them.

Many Illinois school districts on the state’s financial watch list have taken advantage of the same school construction grant program, according to Coalition for Public Awareness Chairman Jeff Ferguson.

Source



ANOTHER ARGUMENT FOR PRIVATIZING ALL EDUCATION

After 18 years of commuting back and forth to one public school, I transferred to another public school that is closer to home. Each school has a different school climate because their respective student populations are culturally distinct. The school I left was dominated by military dependents. The school closer to home is dominated by Hawaiian and local Hawaii culture.

At the school dominated by military dependents, most students could function in a classroom environment, and a minority of students—as their behavior demonstrates -- belong in a classroom without walls. At the school closer to home, the student populations are just the reverse: there are a few students who do very well in a classroom environment, while most students --- as their behavior demonstrates -- belong in classrooms without walls. Yet teachers are managed at each school as though the student population of each school is exactly the same -- as though all students belong in a classroom environment.

Students who belong in educational environments different than existing classrooms are not being serviced by public schools. And just as bad, students who do very well in classrooms are being inefficiently serviced by teachers who are forced to deal with students who belong in classrooms without walls. So the classroom becomes an environment that inefficiently services students who do well in school; and the classroom completely fails to service students who belong in wall-less classrooms because their needs as learners are not recognized by a standardized system of accountability. And, again, just as bad, the standardized system of accountability leaves no room for teacher spontaneity and student creativity -- since what is to be taught and what is to be learned are becoming more restricted by the standards.

The pathetic situation we find ourselves in -- a reform movement whose sole criterion for success is the score of a test -- is a reflection of the 22 year national debate about reform of public education. The national debate about public education has no vision. Policy makers and legislators are blinded by economic reductionism and empirical studies. The question that needs to be answered is why public classrooms do not represent the society that surrounds them? Our schools, to quote a man who but for one vote would have been a state superintendent of schools, are a wasteland compared to the technologically enriched environment that nurtures children at home. The national crisis outlined in A Nation at Risk ("unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament," April 1983) will remain the status quo until policy makers and legislators turn to teachers and students as resources for direction in national policy......

You would think -- if indeed we even think anymore -- that the recent presidential campaign would have noticed that public education has become public daycare.

The life experiences and collective will that have created and shaped "the standards" and the tests that "measure" their attainment, belong to an elite segment of American culture. The standards of the American elite -- those who can afford eighteen thousand to forty thousand dollars per year for private school tuition, per child, from kindergarten through post-doctorate -- are not the standards of the masses.

To hide the socio-economic differences between those who deserve what they have and those who have what they deserve, public school officials adopt the descriptive language of private institutions. In their efforts to rebuild and restructure "physical plants," we hear elite descriptors: schools within schools, academies, and chief executive officer. Having restructured the physical plant and their managers with descriptors, there is no need to actually alter the walls and interiors of the actual school that remains a technological, stuffy, sweaty, gum strewn wasteland.

All of the students who fall outside the unspoken socio-economic foundation of "the standards," and their numbers belong to the largest segment of the American population, are not being served, but instead are being contained by public school policy. Their containment seems to be in the best interest of the day-to-day activities of the financial, industrial, service, labor and private institutions who do not want to be bothered by the actual conditions and attitudes that exist inside classrooms.

More here

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************



17 February, 2005

Le Moyne College Dismisses Student for Personal Beliefs, Violates Own Policy on Free Expression

"Administrators at New York's Le Moyne College, which claims to protect academic freedom, have summarily dismissed an education student for writing a paper advocating strict discipline for students. The chair of Le Moyne's education department expelled master's student Scott McConnell because of a "mismatch" between his personal beliefs and the goals of the college's graduate education program.

"Le Moyne College says it respects academic freedom, yet it has dismissed a student purely for expressing personal beliefs that are different from those espoused by administrators," stated David French, president of FIRE. "This shows a profound lack of respect for the opinions of its students. Le Moyne must not promise freedom and then allow extensive and arbitrary censorship on an administrator's whim."

In November 2004, McConnell submitted as part of an assignment a paper expressing his personal views on classroom management, including various ideas for attaining a classroom environment that is "based upon strong discipline and hard work" and that allows "corporal punishment." The paper received an "A-," with his professor noting that his ideas were "interesting" and that she had shared the paper with the department chair, Cathy Leogrande. McConnell ultimately received an "A" as his final grade in the course.

Yet in January 2005, with no prior warning, Leogrande dismissed McConnell from Le Moyne. In the dismissal letter, Leogrande stated that she had reviewed McConnell's grades for courses he took during the summer and fall semesters and had "discussed" his work with his professors. Leogrande wrote, "I have grave concerns regarding the mismatch between your personal beliefs regarding teaching and learning and the Le Moyne College program goals. Based on this data, I do not believe that you should continue in the Le Moyne [Master of Science for Teachers] Program." At the time he was dismissed, McConnell had achieved a grade-point average of 3.78 for the fall semester and had received an "excellent" evaluation for his work in an actual classroom.

"Scott McConnell is being kicked out of school for an `A-' paper," noted FIRE's French. "It appears that at Le Moyne, ideological uniformity trumps any other ideal."

McConnell soon contacted FIRE for assistance. On February 3, FIRE wrote Le Moyne President Charles Beirne and reminded him that dismissing a student based solely on his expression would undermine the college's own standards, which state that students who interfere with others' expression are subject to "the maximum penalty of suspension or dismissal." FIRE noted that making an arbitrary administrative decision to censor expression "sends the message to the campus community that official censorship is acceptable and that those with controversial ideas should keep silent or risk being deemed a `mismatch' and summarily dismissed." Furthermore, FIRE pointed out that Le Moyne's acceptance letter to McConnell stated that his academic performance, not his personal beliefs, would be the determining factor as to whether he was allowed to continue with the master's program.

On February 8, Le Moyne responded to FIRE, stating that "the College does not believe it is appropriate to enter a public debate with your organization concerning the College's admission decision concerning any particular student."

"The fight for the academic freedom of Scott McConnell and for all Le Moyne students will not end just because administrators don't feel like addressing the issue," remarked Greg Lukianoff, FIRE's director of legal and public advocacy. "Le Moyne College administrators must learn that the freedom to dissent is everyone's business."

Source



U.K. Teachers to be protected from parental lawsuits over outings

Long overdue

"Teachers were offered an assurance yesterday that they will be protected from litigious parents if pupils are hurt on school trips. Ruth Kelly, the Education Secretary, promised to issue guidelines making it "absolutely clear" that teachers enjoy a presumption of innocence if accidents occur. Schools and local education authorities should indemnify staff provided they had taken reasonable care, followed employer guidelines and carried out straightforward safety checks.

The second-largest classroom union, the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT), has advised its members not to go on school trips because of the risk of being sued by "increasingly litigious" parents. Ms Kelly said that the majority of schools already provided field trips and other outdoor activities for pupils. But she acknowledged that there were real concerns and said that she wanted to work with unions, parents, teachers and school-trip providers to produce a manifesto for outdoor education. This would afford all children the opportunity to go on a residential trip with their school. Research for the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) last year showed that 86 per cent of primary schools and 90 per cent of secondary schools already make this offer to pupils. Seven million pupil visits take place each year, ranging from field trips to a week at an activity centre.

A DfES spokesman said that the guidelines, which will be issued in the summer, would emphasise the need for fair treatment for staff by employers and parents. "Staff who take reasonable care and follow the guidelines will, in the event of any unfortunate accident, be protected by the law," the spokesman said. "By carrying out straightforward, compulsory safety checks, teachers can protect both pupils and staff on a school visit and minimise the risk of litigation. The guidance will also make clear that employers must treat staff fairly when a pupil gets injured and that we expect parents to respond fairly, too."

Chris Keates, the general secretary of the NASUWT, called the new guidance an "extremely helpful and welcome development". She said: "When the detailed guidance is published, I am confident that the national executive will wish to respond positively."

The Commons Education and Skills Select Committee issued a report last week that urged teachers to stop worrying about the threat of legal action and to lead more school trips. David Hart, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said that schools would welcome the Government's initiative.

Source

***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************



16 February, 2005

Conservative teens say school is biased against them

Soft-spoken and casually dressed, Chris Bowler does not look the part of a political firebrand. But his new conservative club has ignited considerable controversy at Hudson High School. To advertise the club's first meeting in December, Bowler put up a poster that included the website of a national organization for high school conservative clubs. The page includes links to videos of beheadings by Iraqi insurgents, saying the links are meant to show what terrorists can do. The posters immediately drew administrators' ire. Within a few hours, the posters were removed and access to the Web page was blocked on school computers. An attempt to display the posters last month was also squelched. "The material was way beyond what I believe the school should be advertising," said principal John Stapelfeld. "It seemed to be supporting violence more than supporting the conservative message."

Bowler and his supporters believe the response stems from a political bias in the school against conservatism. To them, it's ironic that students should be censored in a school that has won praise for innovative civics and community service programs. "They pride themselves on giving everyone a chance to say what they feel, up until this," said Bowler, a senior at the school. "We just want people to hear both sides."

Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center in Arlington, Va., said schools in the United States can legally curb speech only if it will create a "substantial disruption" in the school. In this case, he said, the students appear to have the law on their side. "That's not an easy standard to meet," he said. Goodman said Massachusetts law provides even greater free speech protection for public school students than does the First Amendment.

Stapelfeld said his decision to limit student access to the site had nothing to do with the club's political views. He said he was initially "thrilled" about the idea of a conservative club to spark political discussions. But Stapelfeld said the brutal images implicitly condoned violence as a way of "solving problems" and did not reflect "mainstream conservatism." "There are limits [to free speech] and there are clearly limits in the schoolhouse," he said. He added that showing terrorist murders did not address the more central problem of growing anti-Americanism abroad. "Unfortunately, we really haven't dealt with the fact that we're not well received in the world anywhere," he said. "That's the issue."

Bowler said Stapelfeld's comment typifies what he sees as the school's pervasive liberal bias. He and other club members say teachers have urged them to attend war protests, have confronted conservative students, and have inserted their liberal political views into discussions of both current and historical events. Several club members said one social studies teacher hung in her classroom a poster of George W. Bush with a foolish expression and a comment he made in jest in 2000: "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

Club members said they hoped that by banding together they could feel more free to express conservative views. "I think the teachers have tried to intimidate us," said James Melillo, a senior. "But it's had the opposite effect."

Stapelfeld said he wants the faculty to discuss divisive political and social issues frankly, but he acknowledged he had spoken with some teachers about injecting their personal views.

Tim Bueler, the 17-year-old founder of the High School Conservative Clubs of America, which he said has about a dozen chapters nationwide, said he was angered but not surprised by the Hudson decision to take down the posters that gave a link to his website. "This kind of reaction is typical," he said. "Public schools play by a different set of rules when it comes to the First Amendment." Bueler generated widespread controversy when he started a similar club two years ago at his Rohnert Park, Calif., high school and posted fliers attacking "liberal traitors" and illegal immigrants.

Stapelfeld said he believes the conservative club will ultimately provide a worthwhile alternative to the majority political outlook. On that point, the conservative students agreed, saying their club is a necessary counterweight. "We already feel we are getting the liberal side in class," said junior club member Sarah Berube

Source



GOVERNMENT MAKES EDUCATION DEARER, NOT CHEAPER

"We must open the doors of college to all Americans," declared the president in his State of the Union message. "To do that, I propose . . . The largest increase in Pell grant scholarships in 20 years." Do you remember hearing George W. Bush say that last week? Actually, you don't. Those words are from President Clinton's State of the Union address in 1997. But if you tuned in to Bush's speech on Feb. 2, you heard him say something quite similar: "We will make it easier for Americans to afford a college education by increasing the size of Pell grants." The new budget he unveiled this week would gradually raise the maximum annual grant to $4,550, an increase of $500.

Presidents come and go, but laments about the high price of higher education are eternal -- and so are calls for ever more federal aid to mitigate it. For 60 years, the federal government has been shoveling money into programs meant to make college more affordable -- yet a college degree today is more unaffordable than ever. Rarely has Washington so comprehensively worsened a problem it was determined to solve.

Beginning with the GI Bill in 1944, federal tuition aid has metastasized into a dizzying array of subsidies, most of which are now encompassed in the Higher Education Act. In addition to Pell grants, there are Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity grants and Federal Work-Study jobs, as well as Perkins Loans, Family Education Loans, Direct Student Loans, and Stafford (or Guaranteed) Student Loans. In 2005, these will account for more than $73 billion in overall federal financial aid to college students. Then there are the billions of dollars' worth of tuition credits and deductions written into the tax code -- the Hope Tax Credit, the Lifetime Learning Tax Credit, the higher education expense deduction, the student loan interest deduction, and the tax-exempt Qualified Tuition Plans, known as "529s."

And the result of this energetic government campaign to hold down the cost of a college education? The cost of a college education is skyrocketing -- and has been for years. Tuition and fees were up 10.5 percent at state colleges and universities last year. The year before that, they were up 14 percent. Every year for nearly a quarter-century -- since before most of today's college students were born -- higher education costs have raced ahead of inflation. And far from slowing this runaway train, government aid serves only to stoke the engine.

How could it do otherwise? Every dollar that Washington generates in student aid is another dollar that colleges and universities have an incentive to harvest, either by raising their sticker price or reducing the financial aid they offer from their own funds. Higher Education Act funds "are seen by colleges and universities as money that is there for the taking," observes Peter Wood, an anthropology professor at Boston University. "Tuition is set high enough to capture those funds and whatever else we think can be extracted from parents. Perhaps there are college administrators who don't see federal student aid in quite this way, but I haven't met them." In 10 years of attending committee meetings on the university's annual tuition adjustment, says Wood, "the only real question was, 'How much can we get away with?'"

It's an old story. City University of New York began charging admission in 1976, ending a century-old tradition of free tuition. As New York's deputy commissioner of education later explained, that decision was eased considerably by the knowledge that students would qualify for government aid. The anecdotal evidence is backed up by scholarship. In a new monograph for the Cato Institute, political scientist Gary Wolfram surveys the literature on the effect of financial aid. "The empirical evidence is consistent," he finds, in showing that "federal loans, Pell grants, and other assistance programs result in higher tuition for students at our nation's colleges and universities."

The cat has been out of the bag for a long time. In a 1987 New York Times column titled "Our greedy colleges," Ronald Reagan's education secretary, William Bennett, rebuked colleges and universities for repeatedly jacking up tuition far beyond any reasonable adjustment for inflation. "Increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions," Bennett charged, "confident that federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase."

Isn't it time to stop pouring fuel on this fire? Instead of renewing the Higher Education Act, Congress should phase it out, thereby forcing colleges and universities to compete on price. That would leave financial aid to the private sector, which can target it far more effectively -- and where it should have been left all along.

Source



MORE CHOICE -- BUT NOT FOR THOSE PESKY PRIVATE SCHOOLS

Under a socialist Australian State government

The 133-year-old notion of free and secular public education could be ditched in a radical plan to rewrite Victoria's education laws. Also on the table are raising the school leaving age of 15, giving parents a greater choice of public schools and tough new standards for private schools - including banning corporal punishment. A new regulatory body to govern all schools is also proposed, charged with maintaining education quality. The State Government has thrown open for public debate the guiding principles of education in Victoria as it prepares to rewrite the Education Act of 1872.

Releasing a discussion paper, Education Minister Lynne Kosky said the time had come for a "wholesale remaking of the act". "I believe we now need an Education Act that underpins our aspirations and hopes for education in 2005 and beyond," she said.

The review was welcomed by teacher, principal, parent and private school groups as an opportunity to shape and debate education in Victoria - although they differed on key issues such as school accountability, voluntary levies and punishment. The State Opposition accused the Government of being able to find money for the review while children with disabilities were unable to get help and schools were falling apart.

The 1872 legislation commits to free and secular education. The Government has suggested the principles could be modified to reflect school realities. Controversy has raged about whether state education is actually free, with schools charging parents "voluntary" levies that are often viewed as compulsory. Ms Kosky said that even the original act included charges beyond core subject areas. "I just think we need to have a proper discussion about that," she said. "Is that notion of free - when clearly there are voluntary levies provided - is that notion correct any more? Or is there better wording acknowledging that that's what does take place?" Ms Kosky said she doubted that the voluntary nature of levies would change, "but we might as well be more honest, I think, than even the original act was".

The legislative ban on religious education in government schools is also up for review. This is because schools now offer optional religious education. "If you followed the act, probably every school