The blogspot version of this blog is HERE. The Blogroll. My Home Page. Email John Ray here. Other mirror sites: Political Correctness Watch, Dissecting Leftism, Greenie Watch, Australian Politics, Socialized Medicine, Tongue Tied, Food & Health Skeptic Immigration Watch and Gun Watch. For a list of backups viewable in China, see here. (Click "Refresh" on your browser if background colour is missing). The archive for this mirror site is accessible here or here.
****************************************************************************************



28 February, 2009

An Option to Save $40,000: Squeeze College Into 3 Years

For many years, Australian and British bachelor's degrees have been 3-year degrees

Here's one way of cutting college costs: get a degree in three years, instead of four. This fall, Hartwick College, a small liberal arts college in Oneonta, N.Y., will offer students the option of doing just that, at a savings of more than $40,000. In the college's three-year degree program, students will complete the standard 120 credits, taking 18 credits in the fall, 4 in a January term and 18 in the spring. Students will be able to keep their summers free for internships or jobs. Whether for a three-year degree or a four-year one, Hartwick's tuition next year will be $32,550, 3.9 percent higher than the current year. Room and board will be about $9,000. "We anticipate a great deal of interest in an option that lets students get a top-quality education and save a whole year of tuition," said Margaret L. Drugovich, president of Hartwick.

Although most American students now take longer than four years to complete their degrees, the idea of three-year degrees has been gaining favor in some circles, with several colleges talking about or experimenting with such programs, often involving online courses or summer school.

Earlier this month, at the American Council on Education's annual meeting, Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, a Republican who served as education secretary and president of the University of Tennessee, urged colleges to consider three-year degrees, calling them the higher education equivalent of a fuel-efficient car.

Molly Corbett Broad, president of the council, said she believed the three-year degree option could help private colleges attract students as more families struggle with tuition costs. "Three-year degrees are a very important option, and I think we'll be seeing more of them," she said. "They won't serve a large proportion of students since a three-year degree requires that you finish high school college-ready, enroll full-time and be focused."

Some schools that considered the three-year approach have encountered strong resistance from faculty - or little interest from students. At Upper Iowa University, for example, a three-year option created about five years ago remains on the books, although only five students signed up for it and not one actually finished a degree in three years.

Three-year undergraduate degrees are the norm in Europe, but for the most part, students there have an extra year of schooling before going to a university, apply to a particular department and do not take general-education courses.

Although a growing number of American students arrive in college with several Advanced Placement credits, the College Board discusses that program not as a route to early graduation, but rather as a tool to promote on-time graduation.

Hartwick's three-year program will be open only to students with at least a 3.0 high school grade-point average and will be offered in 22 of the college's 31 programs. "This is not an easy thing for a college to do, and there are some programs, like music education, where we just didn't think students could get through in three years," Dr. Drugovich said. "In each program, students signed up for a three-year degree will have a special adviser to help them move through their courses."

SOURCE




Australia: Schools dump stupid Leftist grading scheme

A PIVOTAL part of the controversial outcomes-based education system will be killed off at WA schools. From 2010, teachers will no longer use a "levels" system to calculate grades for school reports for Years 1 to 10. But Education Department Director General Sharyn O'Neill said schools could "choose to dispense with levels with immediate effect". "Certainly the use of levels to assess and report to parents has been a major platform of OBE and we're removing that today," she said today at a media conference at Applecross Primary School.

Ms O'Neill said simplifying assessment by removing the use of levels would free teachers to focus on teaching and make it easier for parents to track their child's achievement at school. "Teachers will continue to report to parents using A to E grades, but without the current requirement of having to convert levels to grades," she said. Levels were dropped for years 11 and 12 in early 2007, after extreme pressure on the previous Labor Government from the anti-OBE group People Lobbying Against Teaching Outcomes. Many teachers felt that the eight levels of achievement were too complex, inconsistent, and created unnecessary and time-consuming paperwork.

Ms O'Neill said parents had told her they had been "confused" by levels. She said that to determine grades under the new system, teachers would use their ``professional judgement''. But Ms O'Neill, who conceded that WA had previously gone further with OBE than other states, also said teachers would be given online resources showing what standard earned a particular grade. "I want to make sure that an A in Albany is the same as an A in Applecross, as in any other place,'' she said. The Education Department would also give principals a grade distribution guide.

Ms O'Neill said student grades would be based on information including class work, tests and a student's performance in national literacy and numeracy tests. From what she could see, the new system would be compatible with the proposed national curriculum.

The move is seen as honouring a pre-election commitment by the Liberals, who when in Opposition promised an independent audit of WA's curriculum framework by an expert advisory group if they won government and to abolish levels from kindergarten to Year 10. Education Minister Liz Constable said she applauded the decision because unlike the new system, the use of levels did not meet the criteria of being fair to students, easily understood by parents and not creating extra and unnecessary work for teachers.

Rob Fry, president of peak parent group the WA Council of State School Organisations, said the move was a positive step in the right direction. "This way the teachers can focus on doing the grades, making the best judgement from their professional point of view and everyone will know exactly how the child is progressing,'' Mr Fry said.

Applecross Primary School principal Barry France said his teachers would appreciate the decision because it would save them doing a "significant'' amount of work that was part of an "unnecessary bureaucratic step'' - freeing them to focus on teaching and learning.

SOURCE





27 February, 2009

May the Fleas of 1000 Camels Infest Your Speech Code

by Mike S. Adams

I once had a dog named Jake that I liked very much. He was a well-behaved dog. When I asked him to sit, he would sit. When I asked him to shake, he would shake. When I asked him to stay, he would stay. Because he was so eager for praise and approval, it was easy to control his behavior. That old dog was a lot like the liberals who read my columns. Because I am very good at predicting the behavior of liberals, I did a very risky thing yesterday by taking credit for an email I did not actually send. It was all part of a little experiment on tolerance and diversity, which has yielded results much like I had predicted.

Those who read yesterday's column read my spoof apology for an email I claimed I had sent to the Department of Sociology and Criminology at UNC-Wilmington. The email, sent under the subject line "Bin Laden Found!", had a picture attached which showed the terrorist behind a cash register wearing a "7-11" vest. The responses to my apology were predictable. Here are a few of the highlights:

"You are not a conservative, you are a rude and insensitive bigot."

"You should resign from your position as a professor immediately. Don't wait for a conviction for hate speech."

"You are a complete embarrassment to academia."

"I hope Al Quada [sic] bombs your office."

"You are an arrogant bigot."

"I bet you're not sorry you fraud. You just don't want to lose your job."

"What a childish bigot you are. You'll get what you deserve. Finally."

"You are a predicably [sic] racist Republican. Please pardon any redundancy."

Of course, these are not all of the angry emails I got. But they do summarize the general sentiments of my numerous liberal readers - people who come back to my columns constantly because they are addicted to being angry. And now that I'm about to deliver the punch line of my little joke their anger is about to reach unprecedented heights.

For those who haven't yet figured it out, I was not the person who sent the racially insensitive email to the entire department. It was actually sent by a self-proclaimed liberal and atheist who, get this, teaches a university course in race relations. And, after sending the email to the entire department, no one (myself included) responded with a denunciation. The reasons for the silence are twofold:

1. The lone conservative on the mailing list recognizes that the First Amendment protects speech that is controversial and inflammatory. If the First Amendment was meant to protect speech that is main stream and uncontroversial it would hardly be necessary.

2. The over two dozen liberals on the email list believe in the selective application of the concept of hate speech. Specifically, they only apply it to speakers they hate such as conservatives and Christians and, of course, conservative Christians. They really have no concern for the groups they claim to be protecting from offense. In other words, hate speech is an objectively meaningless concept created by ideological bigots who are incapable of defending their ideas without government intervention. That is why the same people who support the discriminatory application of speech codes also support the "fairness" doctrine.

The whole problem of speech codes could be solved if we could just find a way to make liberals happy. But that would be harder than finding Osama Bin Laden in a convenience store in New Jersey. So I think we should sue the enforcers of these codes when it is necessary to do so. And we should ridicule them even when it isn't.

SOURCE




Race Cowards? In Academia, Certainly

Attorney General Eric Holder said the U.S. is "a nation of cowards" when it comes to race relations. In one sense, he is absolutely right. Many whites, from university administrators and professors, to schoolteachers, to employers and public officials, accept behavior from black people that they wouldn't begin to accept from whites. For example, some of the nation's most elite universities, such as Vanderbilt, Stanford and the University of California, have yielded to black student demands for separate graduation ceremonies and separate "celebratory events." Universities such as Stanford, Cornell, MIT and Cal Berkeley have, or have had, segregated dorms.

If white students demanded whites-only graduation ceremonies or whites-only dorms, administrators would have labeled their demands as intolerable racism. When black students demand the same thing, these administrators cowardly capitulate.

Calling these university administrators cowards is the most flattering characterization of their behavior. They might actually be stupid enough to believe nonsense taught by some of their sociology and psychology professors that blacks can't be racists because they don't have power. What about Holder's statement that America is "voluntarily segregated"? I say so what. According to the census, in 2007 4.6% of married blacks had a white spouse; less than 1% of married whites were married to a black. While blacks are 13% of the population, they are 80% of professional basketball players and 65% of pro football players. Mere casual observance of audiences at ice hockey games or opera performances would reveal gross voluntary segregation.

What would Holder propose the U.S. Justice Department do about these and other instances of voluntary segregation? The attorney general's flawed thinking is widespread whereby people think that an activity that is not racially integrated is therefore segregated. Blacks are about 60% of the Washington, D.C., population. At Reagan National Airport, which serves D.C., nowhere near 60% of the airport's water fountain users are black; I'd guess blacks are never more than 5% of users.

The population statistics of states such as South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Montana and Vermont show that not even 1% of their populations are black. Does that mean Reagan National Airport water fountains and South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, Montana and Vermont are racially segregated? If Holder does anything about "voluntary segregation" at the state level, I hope it's not court-ordered busing; I'm not wild about their winters.

Just because some activity is not racially integrated does not mean that it is racially segregated. The bottom line is that the civil rights struggle is over and it is won. At one time black Americans didn't share the constitutional guarantees shared by whites; today we do. That does not mean that there are not major problems that confront a large segment of the black community, but they are not civil rights problems nor can they be solved through a "conversation on race."

Black illegitimacy stands at 70%, nearly 50% of black students drop out of high school and only 30% of black youngsters reside in two-parent families. Even though they're just 13% of the population, blacks in 2005 committed over 52% of the nation's homicides and were 46% of the homicide victims. Ninety-four percent of black homicide victims had a black person as their murderer.

Much of that pathology is precipitated by family breakdown and is entirely new among blacks. In 1940, black illegitimacy was 19%; in 1950, only 18% of black households were female-headed compared with today's 70%. Both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks. If black people continue to accept the corrupt blame game agenda of liberal whites, black politicians and assorted hustlers, as opposed to accepting personal responsibility, the future for many black Americans will remain bleak.

SOURCE





26 February, 2009

Obama: High School Education Not Enough

This has sure got me confused. It sounds good but does it make sense? He rightly deplores the large numbers who drop out of High School and college but seems to think that the cure for that is for everyone to take post-high school education! I would have thought that the dropout rate shows that many people are not capable of higher education. How are they going to handle further education when they cannot even handle high schoool education? And if lots of people fail to complete college studies, does that not show that FEWER people should be enrolling in such studies?

President Obama called on all Americans to commit to at least one year of higher education or career training Tuesday, as he stressed the importance of better schooling in reviving the nation's economy during his first address to Congress. The president, arguing that a high school education is no longer adequate in the global economy, said the federal government just made a "historic investment" in education with its $787 billion stimulus plan. He said that while lawmakers and educators are responsible for making the system work, individuals are responsible for participating in it.

"So tonight I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training," Obama said. "This can be a community college or a four-year school, vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma." Obama lamented that just over half of Americans achieve an education beyond high school and warned of the consequences such trends could have on the country's standing in the world.

"We have one of the highest high-school dropout rates of any industrialized nation, and half of the students who begin college never finish," Obama said. "This is a prescription for economic decline, because we know the countries that out-teach us today will out-compete us tomorrow." He said his new goal is for America to have the highest proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020.

"Dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It's not just quitting on yourself -- it's quitting on your country. And this country needs and values the talents of every American," Obama said.

SOURCE




Amazing British discovery: "Back to basics discipline in school would curb bad behaviour"

Schools should adopt back-to-basics discipline methods to curb bad behaviour and improve results among pupils, according to the Government's education watchdog. Traditional rules such as banning children with shaven heads and those wearing designer trainers or gang colours have proved effective in maintaining order at the best comprehensives, according to a report by Ofsted. Formal assemblies, regular patrols of corridors, frequent school trips, strong values and appointing good teachers are also successful methods of raising standards, the study says.

The report examined how state schools in the most deprived areas improved standards, describing how one head teacher tackled troublemakers by suspending 300 pupils in a week. Parents of all children barred from school were also ordered to meetings - often at anti-social hours such as 6am or 11pm - to be given a dressing-down. Ofsted said the approach had proved successful and that poor-performing schools in England should mimic the methods to turn themselves around.

According to the watchdog, four in 10 secondary schools in England are still not good enough. Christine Gilbert, chief inspector of schools, said: "Although there has been some improvement in the last year, two secondary schools out of five are still judged to be no better than satisfactory. I commend this report to those who lead and govern these schools."

Michael Gove, the Tory shadow children's secretary, said: "These schools demonstrate that disadvantage should not mean low standards. Schools that have excellent head teachers with strong discipline policies and high expectations can help children thrive regardless of their economic background. We should celebrate this achievement and give parents the power to ensure that these approaches are adopted more widely across the state sector."

The Conservatives claim attempts by many heads to control pupils have been undermined in recent years with some parents over-turning heads' decisions to expel.

Figures published in December showed police were called out to deal with 40 violent incidents in schools every day, while a separate report suggested gang membership among pupils had become "more overt" in recent years.

In its report, Ofsted investigated 12 successful inner-city state secondary schools with high numbers of pupils from "poor or disturbed home backgrounds" and examined how they had approached school discipline. Inspectors said they ensured "the street stops at the gate" by imposing tight rules on behaviour and focusing on the basics. Many of the schools had police officers permanently stationed within the grounds, inspectors said.

Middleton Technology School, Rochdale, which is surrounded by neighbourhoods "beset with alcohol and drugs in one direction and gangs in the other", imposes strict uniform rules, said Ofsted. It bans students with "shaven heads or emblematic patterns in their hair, trainers with brand marks and conspicuous designs and other manifestations of group or gang culture".

Inspectors said Robert Clack School in Dagenham dealt with troublemakers "swiftly and severely". Some 300 were suspended in just a week and Paul Grant, the head teacher, once personally drove the school minibus around nearby streets looking for truants. The head also introduced formal assemblies "to explain to students how he expected them to behave".

At Greenwood Dale School, Nottingham, staff are "smartly dressed as professionals, and students reflect as well as respect this", said the report.

Margaret Morrissey, from the campaign group Parents Outloud, said: "Most parents will be pretty shocked if this sort of thing is not already happening in other schools. If schools don't have good discipline and expectations of youngsters then something is going very wrong. Teachers in many schools are clearly not being allowed to get on and do their jobs - they are spending too long being tied down by Government edicts."

Ofsted said all the schools in its study also focused on a system of praise and rewards for outstanding work. Other schools improved behaviour and exam results by focusing on the basics of literacy and numeracy in the classroom and refusing to "jump on bandwagons" by introducing every Government initiative. It said the schools had "generally not been rushing into" the Government's new diplomas, which are being introduced as an alternative to GCSEs and A-levels, although "this is likely to change".

Ofsted said the regular exodus of good teachers was "the scourge of many urban schools" and was one of the most "disruptive influences" on children's education. But these schools, including Bartley Green School in Birmingham, Harton Technology College in South Tyneside and Lampton School in Hounslow, London, reversed the trend. Some embarked on "worldwide recruitment" drives to find the best teachers.

Jim Knight, Schools Minister, said: "We should never shy away from celebrating success, especially when that success has been achieved in challenging circumstances. "We should continue to learn from our variety of successful schools in this country - this moment is theirs to enjoy."

SOURCE





25 February, 2009

Dumbing Down America

Enemies of testing are major culprits. Tests offend against their nonsensical "all men are equal" gospel

One of the most contentious social and political debates of our time pits the opposing goals of equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. Some would claim the point was settled before the Founding of the American republic in that the Declaration of Independence recognized as an unalienable right the "pursuit" of happiness rather than happiness itself. Others argue that various social and political disadvantages through history create the need for more balanced outcomes as recompense for past wrongs.

This discussion is no more heated than in the world of education. The question of opportunity versus outcome is vexing and whether the discussion revolves around K-12 education or higher education, opportunity and outcome continually collide. We increasingly see this conflict played out in the way colleges and universities decide whom to admit and the unfortunate trend is that too many schools are redefining merit as it has traditionally been recognized.

The main engine behind this effort to change the nature of academic merit is a group called Fair Test, a Boston-based organization that characterizes itself as working to "end the misuses and flaws of standardized testing." The reality, however, is far different. The efforts and track record of this organization demonstrate that simply administering a standardized test constitutes a misuse, while the primary flaw of such tests is that they exist at all.

Standardized tests have been accused of potential bias since the 1970s when activists insisted that an Scholastic Aptitude Test question involving the word "regatta" was biased against women, minorities and anyone else who hadn't sported a silk ascot at the yacht club. In fact, the SAT and the ACT, another widely used college admissions test, have long since addressed legitimate claims of bias in testing. Both are scrupulously developed, reviewed and updated by dedicated educators to ensure they reflect a student's academic merit. They also are administered in a consistent manner, which is more than you can say about a lot of things in life. Anyone who must adhere to a set of standards in any endeavor knows they sometimes seem arbitrary. But arbitrary as college admission standards may be, they are nothing compared to the tyrannical anarchy of ill-defined or holistic admissions, which Fair Test promotes.

Human nature demands that we be given a target something for which we can strive. This is why humanity sets and seeks specific goals. But the holistic college admissions structure promoted by Fair Test and others destroys empirical standards and leaves such decisions to the whims of shifting admissions policies and those who formulate them. It's reminiscent of the uncertain standards I sometimes faced as a young black man coming of age in the post-segregation world of Cincinnati.

And who is formulating such policies? It varies from institution to institution but a look at the funding of Fair Test is troubling. Writer and college educator Mary Grabar revealed in her recent article that Fair Test is funded by men like liberal billionaire George Soros and the Woods Fund, who counts among its board members Bill Ayers, the former domestic terrorist who admitted complicity in a series of bombings from New York to Washington, D.C. during the 1970s.

All this, of course, would be forgivable if the goal was sincere, however misguided. But it's largely an extension of an education strategy that has been in place for nearly a half-century. In the 1960s, liberals began a concerted effort to seize control of higher-education, via dominating professorships and tenure. It worked. Now, the social engineers aren't content with dominating the faculty rooms they want to control who gets admitted to colleges and universities.

Ideology aside, the efforts of Fair Test and others who want to eliminate standardized testing stand to put all of American higher education at risk. Jonathan Epstein, a senior researcher with the private sector educational consultancy Maguire Associates, notes that colleges with test optional admission policies could disorient students and their families in terms of determining which college to attend. The result, says Epstein, is that "a disoriented customer market is not in the best interests of any institution or higher education in general."

Standards of academic excellence are critical to the future of students and our economy. If we forsake such standards based on the ill-conceived ideology of Fair Test and like-minded individuals, we risk not only our children's future but that of our nation.

SOURCE




The Groves of Hackademe

by Burt Prelutsky

Down through the years, there have been a great many movies in which school teachers have been portrayed as decent and hard-working, even heroic. Just a handful that come to mind are "Goodbye, Mr. Chips," "Holland's Opus," "This Land is Mine," "Up the Down Staircase," "Good Morning, Miss Dove," "Cheers for Miss Bishop," "The School of Rock," "Dangerous Minds," "Blackboard Jungle," "Stand and Deliver" and "Dead Poet's Society."

But when it comes to college and university professors, they tend to be portrayed either as comical buffoons ("The Nutty Professor," "Monkey Business," "Son of Flubber," "The Absent Minded Professor," "It Happens Every Spring," "Horse Feathers") or as petty, demented and, often as not, alcoholics ("Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf," "People Will Talk," "The Squid and the Whale"). In fact, the last time I recall a movie about a professor that any normal person would wish to spend time with was the 1948 release, "Apartment for Peggy," and even in that one, Edmund Gwenn spent most of his time planning to commit suicide.

Feeling, as I do, that most professors, aside from those teaching science or math, are over-paid, under-worked, left-wing narcissists infatuated with the sound of their own voices, it makes perfect sense that it would be nearly impossible to make a movie about them that wasn't a slapstick comedy.

One of the things that makes them particularly offensive is their hypocrisy. Although everyone of them would insist that tenure is essential -- not because it guarantees them a secure livelihood just so long as they don't burn down a dormitory or give a star athlete a failing grade -- but because it ensures them the right to voice unpopular, even unpatriotic, opinions. The truth, however, is that, more often than not, they're the bullies censoring free speech and punishing with low marks those students with the gumption to speak their own minds.

Just the other day, I read about a student here in L.A. whose professor called him a "fascist bastard" and refused to allow him to conclude his remarks in opposition to same-sex marriages. Although I am aware that this betrayal of the First Amendment occurs regularly in classrooms and lecture halls all across America, the reason I'm aware of this particular case is because the student, Jonathan Lopez, is suing. When Lopez, a devout Christian, asked his professor what grade he was getting for his speech, he was told to go ask God! So, on college campuses, it's okay to ridicule a student's religious convictions, but not to voice an objection to homosexual marriages.

I find it fascinating that academics see no need to be honest, tolerant or even logical. My friend, Larry Purdy, a Minnesota-based lawyer who worked on the University of Michigan cases regarding racial preferences, has written a book, "Getting Under the Skin of `Diversity': Searching for the Color-Blind Ideal," that makes mincemeat of the Supreme Court's fatuous decisions, while reminding many of us why we celebrated Sandra Day O'Connor's departure from the bench.

In 1998, Derek Bok, former president of Harvard, and William Bowen, former president of Princeton, collaborated on a book, "The Shape of the River," which greatly influenced O'Connor and a majority of her associates.

The entire purpose of the book was to prove that racial preferences (aka affirmative action) were beneficial for the elite schools and for society at large. For openers, Purdy proves that Bok and Bowen were deceptive, to say the least, because they never released the data that allegedly made their case. Instead, we're all simply expected to take their word for it even though, as clearly spelled out in Brown vs. Board of Education, the government is prohibited from treating citizens differently because of their race. According to Bok and Bowen, the benefits of racial diversity on elite college campuses, no matter how it's achieved, simply outweighs all other considerations.

The fact is, they admit that they don't have any idea how many of the minority students they claim to have studied made it to the university on their own merits and not simply because a bunch of elitist pinheads decided that leapfrogging them over more deserving white and Asian students was the American way.

Something else that Bok and Bowen didn't bother mentioning was the large numbers of minority students who graduated from historically black colleges and universities and went on to achieve a reasonable amount of fame and fortune in spite of not attending Ivy League schools.

As much as I'd like to, I can't deny that Ivy League graduates tend to go on to greater success than most people. But that has far less to do with the quality of education than with the fact that the students so often come from families that are already wealthy and powerful because their ancestors owned railroads, banks and oil companies, and they therefore have dibs on Senate seats and the Oval Office.

SOURCE





24 February, 2009

UK: Latest weapon in War on Fat — dancing classes in school

Sounds harmless and provides a useful social skill

Ballroom dancing is set to become the latest craze in classrooms across Britain, as part of an effort to harness the success of the television show Strictly Come Dancing to combat childhood obesity. In the scheme to be launched tomorrow, schoolchildren in both primary and secondary schools will take part in Strictly Come Dancing-style sessions in school hours. The scheme, which will be piloted in 26 schools across the country, aims at improving youngsters’ health and self-esteem as they learn a range of dance styles. If it proves successful, it will be offered to all schools nationwide from this summer, and slotted into the national curriculum as part of the PE syllabus. Two teachers at each participating school will themselves be given lessons in ballroom dancing techniques so they can lead the sessions. The youngsters will then be put through their paces as they attempt the cha-cha-cha, waltz, jive, salsa and quick step – and other styles of ballroom and Latin dancing.

It will be launched by two of the professional dancers who have partnered celebrities on the BBC show, Darren Bennett and Lilia Kopylova. Darren partnered the actress Jill Halfpenny when she won the competition in 2004, and Lilia danced with the rugby player Matt Dawson – who lost to cricketer Mark Ramprakash in the finals of the 2006 television series. Darren, who first learnt to dance when he was just six years old, said: “Not everyone who learns ballroom dancing is going to take it up as a profession and win trophies, but that’s not the point. “It’s about having fun, getting fit and mixing socially with your peers.” The scheme is being launched by the Aldridge Foundation – an educational foundation which is planning sponsorship of two of the Government’s flagship academies – and City Limits Education.

The chairman of the Aldridge Foundation, Rod Aldridge, said the scheme was “about inspiring the nation’s young people to get off their feet to enjoy the physical exercise and confidence you can gain from ballroom dancing. “Ballroom dancing used to be seen as something old-fashioned and inaccessible – but by making it part of the national curriculum we can break down those barriers and give young people from all backgrounds the chance to benefit.” Mr Aldridge, who founded the Capita Group outsourcing business in 1984, and set up the foundation to concentrate on charitable activities after quitting as the group’s chairman in 2006, spoke of how learning to dance had changed his life.

“I was not particularly good at school. I didn’t do very well,” he said. “I was good at sport, though, and my father and mother introduced me to dance. My confidence and self-esteem were massively high as a result of being able to do it. “Dance wasn’t something a young lad should be doing in those days because it was considered a bit out of character. I did it through a dance school that my mother introduced me to. “Hopefully, those days have changed, now that Strictly Come Dancing has become so popular. I danced competitively until my early twenties and then – sadly – gave it up,” he said.

However, as a special surprise for his 60th birthday party, he invited Darren and Lilia – and trained with Lilia so he could stun guests by putting on a dance show. “It was from there that this started,” Mr Aldridge said.

The introduction of the scheme in primary and secondary schools follows an exhortation from the Health Secretary Alan Johnson for adults to consider taking dance classes as a means to improve their health and fitness and crack down on obesity. The scheme, called “Essentially Dance”, also mirrors a project pioneered in New York public schools, which was featured in the film Take The Lead starring Antonio Banderas. Academic experts who evaluated that project found that engaging young people in the discipline of ballroom dance gave students who struggled academically an outlet of expression that boosted their self-esteem, confidence and improved classroom behaviour.

The UK project will be evaluated by researchers at Roehampton University. Some of the schools involved in the pilot scheme have already been putting pupils through their paces in preparation for tomorrow’s launch.

SOURCE




Virtual universities a flop

American astronomer Clifford Stoll believes that "techies" like himself have a responsibility to challenge the hype surrounding computers. And if anyone is qualified to do so, it is Stoll: he is one of the pioneers of the internet. The former scientist at the University of California, Berkeley campus, has spent a good part of his career questioning the role of computers in the classroom. In his 2000 New York Times best-seller, High-Tech Heretic: Why Computers Don't Belong in the Classroom and other Reflections by a Computer Contrarian, Stoll predicted that virtual universities set up in the dotcom boom would flop.

Although Stoll often felt that he was a lone voice in challenging the viability of the new online university, he now feels vindicated. "I was right," he tells The Sunday Age from his home in San Francisco.

Despite many commentators such as US management guru Peter Drucker saying that "bricks and mortar" universities would disappear within 30 years, there's no sign they are vanishing. In fact, many universities have plans to update and expand their campuses. Monash University is spending $85 million on a new law building to allow the law faculty to move from its Clayton campus to Caulfield, and the University of Sydney has an $800 million program to renew and rebuild campuses.

But the virtual universities that were set up during the dotcom boom have almost all disappeared. Britain's virtual university, UKeU, which was set up in 2000 with £62 million ($A138 million) of government money, has folded.

Fathom, launched by Columbia University in association with 14 other universities, libraries and museums, is another casualty, as are New York University Online and AllLearn, a non-profit venture between Oxford, Yale and Stanford universities. None of the virtual universities could get enough enrolments, and some were plunged into debt.

Universitas 21 Global, which former Melbourne University vice-chancellor Alan Gilbert spearheaded, is still going and offers business courses and training for company employees. But its original predictions for enrolments and profit gains were wildly optimistic, and some universities have pulled out of the venture.

All along, Stoll has maintained that students want social interaction. "There's the interaction with other students. It isn't just memorable; it's really the purpose of living. The reason we go to college or even elementary school is to be closer to others, to develop friendships. I'm sure I'm like you. I went to college thinking, 'Hey, this is going to be a weird experience'," Stoll says.

More here





23 February, 2009

British government determined to destroy any good schools in their sector

It takes good pupils to make good schools. Feral children will make any school a sink school. To preserve good education for the able poor, what is needed is a totally different policy: Separating out disruptive pupils and sending them to schools designed to deal with their problems. That's not blue sky. Something similar is already being done under Labor party governments in some parts of Australia. If it keeps on its present course, the British government will simply ensure that only privately-educated kids will be equipped to take leadership positions in Britain -- which is the opposite of what they claim to want

Thousands of children must take part in random lotteries for school places in a Government attempt to break a middle-class stranglehold on the best schools. Schools in a quarter of council areas are allocating places by lottery or "fair banding" – in which the school uses test results to deliberately select a proportion of pupils of poor ability. The move could cause difficulties for affluent families who have dominated successful schools by buying houses within their catchment areas, often paying a premium of tens of thousands of pounds.

Last year, Brighton became the first area to allocate places at all oversubscribed schools through lotteries after Government reforms gave councils and schools the power to do so. The policy is designed to make all state schools truly comprehensive by ensuring they contain pupils of mixed abilities and social backgrounds, rather than being dominated by those who can afford to live nearby.

The Daily Telegraph has found that lotteries and fair banding are in widespread use across the country. At least one of the methods is being used by state secondary schools in a quarter of the 150 council areas with responsibility for education across England. This means that up to 150,000 pupils applying for places this year could effectively have their futures decided "by the roll of a dice". Critics said that the methods amounted to social engineering and threatened misery for many middle-class families. Children can be forced to travel several miles every day after being turned down by their local school.

Michael Gove, the shadow schools secretary, said the Tories would prevent local authorities from enforcing lotteries in future, calling them an "unsatisfactory" way of assigning places. "The real problem is the lack of good schools," he said. "Far too many parents are denied a chance to educate their children in high quality schools."

Robert McCartney, the head of the National Grammar Schools Association, said: "There is something mildly offensive about a child's future being decided by nothing more than the roll of a dice." Margaret Morrissey, of the campaign group Parents Outloud, said the increasing use of lotteries was evidence that the Government was going back on its pledge to offer parents more choice.

The Daily Telegraph surveyed all 150 councils in England with responsibility for education. Of the 135 that responded, 25 said that some secondary schools in their area were using lotteries to assign places this year, while 22 said some of their schools were using "fair banding" to deal with oversubscription. Some council areas had schools using both methods, meaning that in total 37 councils had schools using at least one of them.

Juliette McCaffrey, a Labour councillor who was removed from Brighton & Hove council committee because of her opposition to lotteries, said they had failed to bring about the cultural diversity that their proponents promised. "If you look at the free meals statistics it didn't change the social make-up of the schools. It didn't benefit the people with lower educational aspirations – all it did was force some middle-class families to send their children to schools miles away."

Approximately 600,000 children are applying for places this September, and will find out in a fortnight if they have a place at their chosen school. Mark Willimott, a senior assistant principal at Brooke Weston Academy in Corby, Northamptonshire, which adopted random allocation last year, said: "It's the only way of giving every child a fair chance. If you are just going to draw a straight line from the school you are going to get the problem of rich parents buying houses on the local estate and sending up house prices."

A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said that random allocation and fair banding were options open to schools to ensure fair admissions.

SOURCE




University policy goes full circle in Britain

The former polytechnics are to take back much of their previous role of providing adult education and vocational degrees rather than trying to ape leading academic institutions under reforms being drawn up by John Denham, the universities secretary. The change will mark a shift in policy for the government, which for years has tried to promote the research credentials of “new” universities alongside those of traditional institutions. It follows the eruption of “class war” between vice-chancellors this year over how to share 1.5 billion pounds of research funding. Universities created since 1992 claim they are entitled to a far higher share than in the past.

In an interview with The Sunday Times, Denham also signalled an easing of Labour attacks on Oxbridge “elitism” long pursued by ministers including Gordon Brown. Denham instead wants to encourage the emergence of an elite including Oxford, Cambridge and a handful of others. These would receive most research funding, although “pockets of excellence” in the post1992 group would also get a fair share. Denham will launch a strategy for higher education this summer and will give indications of its direction in a speech this week.

The concrete changes will include a fresh form of vocational degree. This will be offered mainly by new universities and will benefit teenagers who take specified vocational qualifications rather than A-levels. For example, those serving apprenticeships in hotels and restaurants could earn degrees in hotel management, while those with vocational qualifications in building could study part-time for a degree in construction while working on site. “I want to nurture the different parts of the system,” said Denham. “[For example] research-intensive universities and the ones who do most for part-time and adult education.” He added: “The truth is that a classics degree at a traditional university is not the same as a degree in mining and engineering at another.”

Denham has told friends that a country this size can probably support no more than five to 10 universities as an equivalent to America’s Ivy League. His remarks will come as a relief to leading universities. Labour has been putting them under relentless pressure to increase the proportion of students they admit from poorer backgrounds.

Denham, who attended a comprehensive in Lyme Regis, Dorset, and Southampton University, acknowledged that post1992 institutions must take the lead in bringing more working-class pupils into higher education. “Institutions that take most of the students who would not traditionally have gone to university are in a different position from those that are most research-intensive and selective,” he said. “We are not expecting those places to be the major places for widening participation.” He added: “We can’t expect universities to put right the whole welter of social disadvantage, low aspirations, lack of tradition of going to higher education.” The minister does, however, believe leading universities should put strenuous efforts into encouraging more applications from the 10,000 or so highly able teenagers from poorer families who never even apply “perhaps because nobody inspired them”.

Denham’s approach is likely to anger vice-chancellors of former polytechnics and dozens of other institutions that have been turned into universities in the past 16 years. Last week Malcolm Mc-Vicar, vice-chancellor of the University of Central Lancashire, warned that dividing institutions by role was “outdated” and could “lead to a row that will make the 2005 fees row look like a Sunday afternoon tea party”.

SOURCE





22 February, 2009

Black State University sued for racial bias

Student says aid denied because she is not black

A Tennessee State University student from Guam has sued the historically black Nashville school in federal court on grounds of racial discrimination. In a lawsuit filed Wednesday, Angela Cela accuses TSU and three faculty members of violating her civil rights. The complaint says TSU refused to give Cela, a Pacific Islander, a financial grant available to graduate students in speech pathology and audiology because she isn't black. "You can't do those things anymore," said Hal Hardin, one of Cela's lawyers and a former U.S. attorney for Middle Tennessee.

Cheryl Bates-Lee, a TSU spokeswoman, declined to comment.

The legal action comes less than three years after TSU emerged from a court order - cited in Cela's lawsuit - that required the university to work to become more attractive to students of all races. A federal judge lifted the order in September 2006, declaring that TSU and other public universities had met their obligations. TSU is getting $40 million from the settlement of the case. It is using the money to create a $30 million endowment and pursue programs to boost and diversify enrollment.

The court order grew out of a lawsuit filed in 1968 by Rita Sanders Geier, a TSU instructor who argued the state was maintaining a dual, race-based system of higher education. But George Barrett, Geier's attorney, said Cela's suit has nothing to do with the Geier case. That case is over," Barrett said. "The court found that we have a unitary system." Cela's suit seeks to create a class action. Hardin said he wouldn't know how many students had been discriminated against until he could see the university's data, but he was aware of "several."

Two generations after Geier took the state to court, TSU remains predominantly black. White students made up 21.9 percent of the student body last fall.

Susanne Bonds is white, 23 and two years into her physical therapy doctoral program at TSU. Bonds opted to attend TSU because she wanted to study in her hometown and could afford it. She said she has heard about financial aid delays from black and white students and experienced a mix-up with paperwork that caused her health insurance to lapse. But she isn't convinced her experiences had anything to do with race. "I have no idea why they are the way they are, slow to get things done," Bonds said. "But I don't feel like I've been treated differently because of the color of my skin."

Jonathan Ramsey, an African-American business management student, finds it hard to believe nonblack students are being mistreated as a group. "Honestly, if anything, I would say that TSU is looking to grow the university," said Ramsey, 24, of St. Louis. "So they aren't looking to turn people away or turn people off."

According to the suit, Cela sought a grant in March 2007 to help her enroll in graduate school at TSU the following August. But she didn't receive any information on her request before classes started. In February 2008, Harold Mitchell, head of the department of speech and audiology, told Cela she didn't qualify for the grant because she wasn't black, the complaint says. Cela told Mitchell that Pacific Islanders were represented even less than African-Americans in the field of speech pathology.

"Ms. Cela stated that she was advised by several of her professors that this entire situation could have been avoided had she announced that she was not white," the suit says. "Then and there Dr. Mitchell stated: 'Well, what do you expect? You are at an historically black university. You have to know the backdrop and understand our professors' point of view when they converse with white students.' Mitchell's department offered Cela a grant retroactively, but she had already found other funding.

SOURCE




Quality teachers in British government schools

Teacher who used crack cocaine and fell asleep during lessons allowed to keep his job

A teacher who admitted using crack cocaine and falling asleep during lessons has been allowed to keep his job at the Government's newest academy school. William Horseman, who now teaches at the Merchants Academy in Withywood, Bristol, was a user of crack cocaine during 2005 and 2006 when he was working at Ridings High School, in nearby Winterbourne. He admitted one count of unacceptable professional conduct at a hearing of the General Teaching Council on Thursday.

It was told that on six occasions he failed to turn up for work at Ridings and fell asleep during lessons and on a school trip to a zoo in 2006 and 2007. He was found to be a user of the class A drug after an incident in a Bristol flat in where he had his car stolen, and after calling the police, admitted to them he used the class A drug.

The maths teacher, who was not represented at the hearing in Birmingham, told the panel committee he 'had learnt his lesson' and wanted to move forward. Mr Horseman, who had worked at the Ridings school for 25 years, said he wanted to rebuild a reputation that he had spent a long time constructing. Asked why he had used the drug, Mr Horseman replied: 'I was unhappy at home, I wanted to get out. Nobody has ever caught me doing it, the only reason is I admitted it. 'I'm not proud, I'm ashamed and I've learnt a lesson from it.'

Mr Horseman told the panel he had only taken the class A drug for three to four months. When asked by a committee member how he could stop taking such an addictive drug, Mr Horseman said that after being found out, he 'had no wish or desire to carry on'. 'The situation frightened me,' he added. Aaron King, chairman of the GTC committee, said: 'The use of crack cocaine a class A drug by any member of the teaching profession is completely unacceptable.'

But Mr Horseman was allowed to carry on teaching at the 23million pound Merchants Academy. Mr King said the panel had taken into consideration his 'candour in accepting his past failings' and 'various stressful circumstances in his personal life at the time'. He added: 'We accept his assurance that such conduct will not be repeated. 'We have decided given the seriousness of the matters proved, a period of further monitoring of Mr Horseman's teaching progress is appropriate. We have therefore decided to impose a conditional order.' The conditions of the order specify that three times per year he will provide to the GTC a report from his employer confirming satisfactory conduct. It will remain in place for two years.

SOURCE





21 February, 2009

Harvard Narcissists With MBAs Killed Wall Street

For two centuries, Wall Street survived wars, depressions, bank panics and terrorist attacks. Now Wall Street as we know it is dead. Gone. When a healthy and thriving person dies suddenly, a medical examiner may talk to family and friends to see if the deceased had recently changed behavior in some way. Wall Street did change radically in recent years in one notable way. Twenty or 30 years ago, it was common for the best and the brightest to be doctors or engineers. By the 2000s, they wanted to be investment bankers. When Wall Street was run by people randomly selected from the population, it was able to survive everything. After the best and brightest took over, it died the first time real-estate prices dropped 20 percent.

Are the two facts related? In other words, did Harvard kill Wall Street? The suspect certainly had the opportunity. If you walked into any major Wall Street firm a year ago and randomly selected an employee, chances are that person would either be from an Ivy League school like Harvard University, or have an MBA, or both. The statistics are striking. Back in the 1970s, it was typical for about 5 percent of Harvard graduates to work in the financial sector, according to a recent study by Harvard economists Claudia Goldin and Larry Katz. By the 1990s, that number was 15 percent. It probably climbed since then. And the proportion of those with MBAs grew as well. Economists Thomas Philippon of New York University and Ariell Reshef of the University of Virginia found that, in 1980, workers in finance earned about the same wages, on average, as workers in other sectors. By 2005, financial-sector workers earned 50 percent more than similar workers in other industries.

Philippon and Reshef went on to explore what caused the surge in wages in the financial sector. They found one of the key reasons was the increasing reliance on highly educated workers with post-graduate degrees. Their results accord with anecdotal evidence concerning the hiring practice of Wall Street firms. A 2008 report in Fortune said that Goldman Sachs hired about 300 MBAs in 2007 and that, last year, Merrill Lynch and Citigroup were planning to hire 160 and 235 MBAs, respectively. Is it just a coincidence that so many superstar minds arrived on Wall Street just as it died?

Perhaps not. Wall Street is gone because its firms did a terrible job assessing the risks of the positions they took. The models these firms used to evaluate risks failed. But having a failed model brings a firm down only if the firm collectively buys into the model. To do that, the firm must be run by people who have a great deal of faith in their models, and a great deal of faith in themselves. That’s where Ivy Leaguers and MBAs come in.

What do you get from an MBA? One recent study found that MBAs acquire an enormous amount of self-confidence during their graduate education. They learn to believe that they are the best and the brightest. This narcissism has a real career impact. Psychologists at Ohio State University studied the behavior of 153 MBA students, who were put in groups of four and asked to orchestrate a large financial transaction on behalf of an imaginary company. The psychologists observed that the students who had the strongest narcissistic traits were most likely to emerge as leaders. According to Amy Brunell, the lead author, the results of the study had large implications for real-world settings, because “narcissistic leaders tend to have volatile and risky decision- making performance and can be ineffective and potentially destructive leaders.”

Guys like John Thain (Harvard Business School, 1979) exemplify this behavior when their sense of entitlement is so grand that they can spend a fortune renovating an office while their firm is going down in flames.

The consequences of Wall Street’s reckless brilliance in many ways parallel modern-day engineering disasters. If you travel through Italy, you can’t help but notice the many Roman bridges that still stretch across that nation’s waterways. How is it that the Romans could build bridges that would last thousands of years, while the ones we build today collapse after a few decades? The answer is simple. Back then, they did not have the fancy computers required to calculate exactly how strong a bridge must be. So an architect made a bridge very, very strong. Today, engineers can calculate exactly how much steel they need to incorporate into a bridge to bear the expected load. The result is, they are free to make them weaker. Another result is less wiggle room for design error. Hence, modern bridge’s predilection for collapsing.

The same is true of the financial sector. Back when Wall Street was run by individuals without fancy degrees, they had a proper skepticism toward fancy models and managed their risks with a great deal more humility and caution. Only when failed models became canon did catastrophe strike. Wall Street didn’t die in spite of being run by our best and brightest. It died because of that fact.

SOURCE




Some Muslim schools in Britain 'make children despise the West': Ban on cricket and Harry Potter

Some Islamic schools are promoting fundamentalist views and encouraging children to despise Western society, a report warns. An investigation by the Civitas social policy think-tank found websites of some of the UK's 166 Muslim schools are spreading extreme teachings, while a handful had links to sites promoting jihad, or holy war. Examples include web forums forbidding Muslims from reading Harry Potter books, playing chess or cricket and listening to Western music.

The Civitas report, entitled Music, Chess and Other Sins, claims Ofsted inspectors are incapable of scrutinising Muslim faith schools properly, and demands an inquiry by MPs. Many of the websites featured in the report were shut down or edited in the hours before it was published.

Islamic schools educate thousands of Muslim children. Most operate in the private sector although increasing numbers are seeking state funding.

The study, overseen by Dr Denis MacEoin, a university lecturer in Islamic studies, looked at material found on Islamic schools' websites, either content or via links. Examples include the website of the Madani Girls' School in East London which stated: `Our children are exposed to a culture that is in opposition with almost everything Islam stands for. `If we oppose the lifestyle of the West then it does not seem sensible that the teachers and the system which represents that lifestyle should educate our children.' The report claims this `bruising comment' gives children a `negative picture of Western life'. The website comments have since been edited and parts deleted.

Dr MacEoin stressed that the problems were not found in all Muslim schools, but said some were instilling a disturbing `ghetto mentality'. The Association of Muslim Schools condemned the study as `misleading, intolerant and divisive', claiming it was `based on prejudices rather than evidence'. A spokesman said: `Muslim schools provide an outstanding standard of education. Ex-pupils have developed into exemplary citizens and participate in all aspects of civic society.' The Department for Children, Schools and Families said it was investigating the claims and would treat seriously any failure by state-funded schools to `promote community cohesion'.

SOURCE





20 February, 2009

12-year-old steals day with pro-life speech

Teachers threaten disqualification, but girl chooses to speak against abortion. And a little girl's logic infuriates a pro-abortion "judge". Leftists HAVE to be right. They cannot bear it when they are shown to be wrong

Despite facing threats of disqualification, a 12-year-old girl took first place in a speech contest when she eloquently argued for the rights of unborn children – after an offended judge quit. "What if I told you that right now, someone was choosing if you were going to live or die?" the seventh-grader begins in a video recording of her speech on YouTube. "What if I told you that this choice wasn't based on what you could or couldn't do, what you'd done in the past or what you would do in the future? And what if I told you, you could do nothing about it?"

The girl, a student at a Toronto school identified only as "Lia," continued: "Fellow students and teachers, thousands of children are right now in that very situation. Someone is choosing without even knowing them whether they are going to live or die. "That someone is their mother. And that choice is abortion."

But what made the 12-year-old choose to speak about abortion? "It was really a family thing," her mother explained on the blog Moral Outcry. "I saw Lou [Engle] speak at a conference several years ago. I came back to my family with the Life Bands, and we all wore them, made our covenant, and prayed the prayer for abortion to end. … We were invited to participate in a 'Life Tape Siege.' Once my kids heard of this invitation, they all agreed: 'We have to do that!' Since then, Lia's passion for seeing abortion end has continued."

Despite Lia's enthusiasm for her topic, her teacher "strongly encouraged" her to select a different one for her class presentation or she would be considered ineligible for an upcoming speech contest. "[S]everal teachers discouraged her from picking the topic of abortion; she was told it was 'too big,' 'too mature' and 'too controversial,'" her mother wrote. "She was also told that if she went ahead with that topic, she would not be allowed to continue on in the speech competition."

Lia's mother continued, "Initially, I tried helping her find other topics to speak on, but, in the end, she was adamant. She just felt she wanted to continue with the topic of abortion. So she forfeited her chance to compete in order to speak on something she was passionate about."

Lia's teacher was so impressed by the speech that she allowed her student to advance as the winner. Lia presented her speech to judges in front of her entire school on Feb. 10. The school principal and teachers called Lia's presentation the "obvious winner" – but the judges suddenly disqualified her the following day "because of the topic and her position on abortion," her mother said.

Lia's father later revealed that the judges had a "big disagreement." One was offended by the speech and voluntarily stepped down while the others reversed their earlier decision – declaring her the winner.

Now Lia plans to take her message of life to a regional speech competition, and more than 130,000 visitors have viewed her presentation online. "Why do we think that just because a fetus can't talk or do what we do, it isn't a human being yet?" She asks in the video. "Some babies are born after only five months. Is this baby not human? "We would never say that. Yet abortions are performed on 5-month-old fetuses all the time. Or do we only call them humans if they're wanted?" She continues, "No, fetuses are definitely humans – knit together in their mother's womb by their wonderful Creator who knows them all by name."

SOURCE




Australia: Private sector rescues problem students

Violent, out-of-control students as young as four are fuelling the growth of a private school sector catering for pupils the public system doesn't want. With more than 55,000 suspensions handed out to state school students last financial year - a jump of more than 20 per cent in two years - Independent Schools Queensland acting executive director David Robertson said the "disengaged and at-risk" school sector was now a growth industry. He said four private schools already catered for problem students in Queensland's southeast, with a fifth to open at Deception Bay later this year. Two more are proposed at Logan and Springfield.

The Toogoolawa School, built for secondary school students by Queensland-based millionaire property developer John Fitzgerald at Ormeau, south of Brisbane, in 1998, has opened a primary school for the increasing numbers of younger students being excluded from the mainstream system.

Principal Gerry Moloney said his students' violence and anger often stemmed from bad home and family situations, and once they were given respect, proper time and appropriate individualised academic goals, their behaviour and attitudes turned around. He said the school recently enrolled a Prep-year student, facing expulsion, who was referred to him by a mother who didn't know what else to do. Toogoolawa students have often been through heart-breaking circumstances, with some housed in more than 40 foster homes, he said. Mr Moloney said they were able to turn more than 90 per cent of their students' behaviour around within six to 12 months.

An Education Queensland spokeswoman said the "growth in the numbers of school disciplinary suspensions" was evidence it was enforcing higher behaviour standards. This was "to ensure the best quality outcomes for all state school students without the need to resort to more serious disciplinary actions of an exclusion or cancellation of enrolment", she said. But exclusions - the start of the expulsion process - also have risen over the past three financial years. The EQ spokeswoman said expulsion figures were unavailable because they were collected on a school and district basis. In the past financial year 55,302 suspensions were handed out - with multiple suspensions recorded by some students - and 866 exclusion processes were initiated. In 2005 to 2006, 43,929 suspensions were ordered and 777 exclusion processes initiated.

SOURCE





19 February, 2009

Academic freedom

Stanley Fish is a literature professor who has also taken up law. Despite those handicaps, he writes well. He can be slippery at times but has a capacity -- unusual among Leftists -- to state both sides of an argument reasonably competently, including conservative arguments.

He has a long article in the NYT about academic freedom in which he surveys both popular arguments and a lot of case law. The poles of the argument that he considers are that academics are on the one hand just workers employed to do a particular job in a particular way and on the other that academics are superior beings who need acknowledge no contraint on what they do when they teach. In good Anglo-Saxon style, his own conclusion is a compromise between those positions. I suppose I broadly agree with that. I certainly reject the view that academics are especially wise, superior or insightful. As an academic myself, I see many if not most academics as intellectual mediocrities: foolish, gullible, narrow-minded, arrogant and in thrall to intellectual fashions. How you counter that, however, I have no idea. Only Leftists have all the answers. Fish's conclusions below:

What exactly would the public’s interest in academic speech be? One answer is provided by law professor J.Peter Byrne who argues in a critique of Urofsky (Journal of College and University Law, 2004) that a constitutional right of academic freedom exists “not for the benefit of the professors themselves but for the good of society.” Why? Because it is only in universities that a certain kind of speech — “serious and communal, seeking to improve the understanding” —flourishes. The special protection afforded to professors leaves them free “to articulate and critique more knowledgeable and complex assertions … in ways not possible on street corners or on television.” Now I have my elitist moments, but this is a bit much. Only professors, we’re being told, do real thinking; other people accept whatever they hear on TV and retail popular (but uninformed) wisdom on street corners. Thus while there is no reason to extend special protections in the work-place to non-academic speech — which is worthless — there is a good reason to extend them to the incomparably finer utterances of the professorial class.

Once again we see that the argument for academic freedom as a right rather than as a desirable feature of professional life rests on the assertion of academic exceptionalism. What I have been trying to say is that while academic work is different — it’s not business, it’s not medicine, it’s not politics — and while the difference should be valued, academic work should not be put into a category so special that any constraints on it,whether issuing from university administrators or from the state as an employer, are regarded as sins against morality, truth and the American Way.

It should be possible to acknowledge the distinctiveness of academic work and to put in place conditions responsive to that distinctiveness without making academic work into a holy mission taken up by a superior race of beings. One can argue, for example, that since it is the job of the academy to transmit and advance knowledge, there should be no pre-emptive anointing or demonizing of any particular viewpoint or line of inquiry; not because such pre-emptings would be an assault on truth, but because they would impede the doing of the job. Free inquiry means free in relation to the goals of the enterprise, not free in the sense of being answerable to nothing.

Those who would defend academic freedom would do well to remove the halo it often wears. Stay away from big abstractions and remain tethered to work on the ground. If you say, “This is the job and if we are to do it properly, these conditions must be in place,” you’ll get a better hearing than you would if you say, “We’re professors and you’re not, so leave us alone to do what we like.”

More here




Leading Australian universities trash the plan for a vast expansion of higher education

The envious bitch who wrote the plan seems to have had no capacity for any thought beyond kneejerk Leftist responses and no idea of all that her proposals would lead to

The Group of Eight has savaged the Bradley review, describing it as a "road map to mediocrity", foolish and deeply flawed, in a confrontation likely to fuel political tensions ahead of the federal Government's promised education overhaul. The Government is formulating a response to the Bradley review in a fiscal climate dramatically altered from that in which the review was commissioned, and Education Minister Julia Gillard met the Go8 yesterday as part of her consultations with the sector. The group's response to the Bradley review has hardened this past month.

On Monday evening, University of NSW vice-chancellor Fred Hilmer warned the Government not to accept the review as a whole, saying it was not properly thought through and costed, and could not deliver dramatic increases in quality and output. He told the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney that he and "many of my colleagues" were troubled by the review's lack of a clear vision. He said the review did "not clearly acknowledge the fundamentally important principles of excellence, differentiation of mission and the importance of auniversity education for its own sake". "There is little recognition in the Bradley report of the special and key role played by research intensive, internationally well-ranked institutions."

The Go8 bristled at comments by Denise Bradley, former vice-chancellor of the University of South Australia, which it believes reflect a "hidden agenda" to "de-concentrate" research. Go8 vice-chancellors were fearful before the release of the Bradley review, in late December, that the hostility its chairwoman was believed to harbour against the research elite might influence her recommendations. The group decided to air its concerns, published today in the HES, after Professor Bradley revealed to a recent Australian Technology Network conference that her review had stressed the teaching and research nexus to counter an "extreme position" on research concentration.

Professor Bradley told the ATN conference: "I am aware of the arguments about the strategic importance of greater concentration of internationally competitive research performance, but I think that there are good national reasons for us to adopt a model which continues to encourage some spread across institutions." She argued against "too much concentration of research capacity in too small a number of what will inevitably be capital city institutions".

The Go8, which argued forcefully for research concentration to meet global challenges in a paper released before the Bradley report, slams the findings of her panel today. "What is presented as a tightening of criteria for university status, based on the mythical 'teaching-research nexus', could well loosen expectations of research quality and further dissipate the nation's research investment," argues the group's executive director Michael Gallagher. "The Bradley report reflects a parochial and complacent view in the context of aggressive concentration of research investment in many other countries."

But universities outside theGo8 sprang to Bradley's defence. In a direct response to Professor Hilmer's criticism, ATN director Vicki Thomson said: "We think that it is unfortunate that the Bradley review is being picked apart and that might diminish the opportunity for significant reform." The ATN and the Innovative Research Universities met MsGillard in Melbourne on Monday as part of the consultation process.

Representing the ATN, University of Technology, Sydney, vice-chancellor Ross Milbourne said the Bradley review was the best he had seen on the sector. He said its vision was to create a world-class university system. "We need a great university system, not one or two great universities," Professor Milbourne said.

Ms Gillard has finished her round of consultations and the HES understands that bureaucrats have been given two weeks to consolidate the sector's views for her consideration.

In his article for the HES, Mr Gallagher does not limit his criticisms to the research agenda. He asserts the Bradley report's "vision for the long-term tertiary education system is confused; it fails to offer incentives for diversification, either through competition or governmental strategies; and its financing model will not sustain quality higher education and university research".

The Go8's tough stand against Professor Bradley has been echoed by University of Melbourne professorial fellow Vin Massaro, who points out that the review's targets for enrolment growth would involve producing an extra 544,000 graduates by 2020, housed in an additional 20universities. "Assuming that the Government (was) prepared to fund these places, no mention has been made of the likelihood of finding the academic workforce to teach them, nor of the cost of building the necessary teaching infrastructure, nor of the plausibility that demand would rise so quickly," Professor Massaro says in an analysis for HES online. He estimates that the capital costs required to meet the challenges of this enrolment explosion would be in the range of $25billion-$30 billion.

SOURCE





18 February, 2009

Now tanning courses are 'equal' to a High School mathematics qualification in Britain

Courses in tanning are worth the same in school league tables as A-level maths papers, it emerged yesterday. Ministers have relaxed the rules to allow schools and colleges to count a host of practical qualifications towards their league rankings, alongside GCSEs and A-levels. It has led to courses in cake decoration, pottery and flower-arranging also being given an equivalent value to traditional qualifications.

But exam watchdog Ofqual has expressed concern over whether self-tanning courses should be equivalent to A-level units. 'We begin to wonder whether it really stands up against A-level maths,' said Isabel Nisbet, Ofqual's acting chief executive. [A remarkable example of understatement!]

A merit in an ITEC diploma in 'tanning treatments' is worth 45 points in school league tables - the same as an A grade in one of the six units that make up an A-level. The 72-hour course teaches students aged 16 and over to operate sunbeds and apply fake tan without streaks and stripes. It has been awarded a 'level three' status in the qualifications database - the designated A-level standard. Other courses given level three status and league table points include a City and Guilds' certificate in self-tanning'. This 30-hour course accrues between 16.5 and 27 points depending on the grade, but is unlikely to be used in tables as it is only for those aged 19 and over.

Ofqual is responsible for accrediting qualifications for the national database. Whitehall then decides whether to assign them a league table points score. But Miss Nisbet, speaking at a recent seminar in London, seemed to raise doubts about accrediting self-tanning courses as level three. Her aides said she chose it as an example of the tough judgments the watchdog must make.

Ministers hoped the wider range of qualifications in league tables would encourage schools to enrol pupils in courses more suited to their ability, 'motivating' them to stay in education or training. But critics say children are being sold short by neglecting traditional qualifications and accuse schools of using the points system to inflate their league table rankings. They also claim A-levels are being undermined and league tables made more confusing.

Tory schools spokesman Nick Gibb said: 'Ofqual are right to raise concerns about these equivalences. 'We have got to stop pretending that things are better than they are, which can have the effect of luring unsuspecting pupils into qualifications that are not really right for them, and may help boost a school's league table position. 'We have got to remove anything that encourages or incentivises schools to manipulate the system.'

Ofqual said the tanning courses were 'primarily taken by those working in the industry'. A spokesman said: 'Points for all approved vocational qualifications are calculated depending on the guided learning hours, the level of the qualification and the level of skill and achievement attained. 'The courses have been carefully considered against these criteria.'

SOURCE




British stupidity of getting more people into university about to be repeated in Australia

So lots of kids attempt courses they cannot handle and people with degrees end up as waiters. Brilliant! Inflation of credential requirements is already a problem so they want to make it worse! Heaps of jobs that were once done with only high school education now require degrees -- meaning that kids spend 3 or 4 years wasting time and not earning or contributing. And if Fred Hilmer -- a cautious bureaucratic type not given to rocking the boat -- thinks it's foolish, then you can be sure it is REALLY foolish

The Bradley review of higher education lacks vision and sets unrealistic and unaffordable goals, the University of NSW vice-chancellor, Fred Hilmer, said in a speech last night. On the eve of a meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, Professor Hilmer said the review failed to provide a vital blueprint for the sector's future. He highlighted the proposed increase in undergraduates as being a huge and uncosted financial burden, saying another six or seven new universities the size of UNSW would be required.

Ms Gillard will meet Professor Hilmer and other members of the elite Group of Eight universities in Sydney. Ms Gillard began the series of six discussions two weeks ago so universities and other stakeholders could respond before the Government's official response to the review.

The former vice-chancellor of the University of South Australia, Denise Bradley, released her review of higher education in December, urging the nation to increase participation in higher levels of education and give fairer access to people from lower socio-economic groups and rural areas.

Professor Hilmer said the Secretary of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Lisa Paul, should be appointed to map out the long-term overhaul of the system with full and realistic costings. He said extra funding would ensure the viability of a strained higher education system in the short term by allowing immediate action on problems such as student/staff ratios and research funding shortfalls.

But the blueprint for a highly effective, affordable plan for higher education was missing, Professor Hilmer told the Centre for Independent Studies forum at St Leonards. "The problem is not the themes themselves but the lack of a vision and a clear and affordable path. The proposed path seems to be to recommend processes without a sense of where they might take us, and at what cost," he said.

The Bradley target that 40 per cent of 25-34 year-olds will have attained a qualification at bachelor level would require about "a 70 per cent increase in commencing students annually, 3.2 million additional enrolments over a decade, $15 billion in capital works, the equivalent of about six or seven new universities the size of UNSW, and an additional 17,700 academic staff", Professor Hilmer said.

SOURCE





17 February, 2009

UK: Teachers "need lessons in breaking up fights"

Staff are too scared to intervene in violent incidents, survey shows

Teachers are demanding lessons in restraint techniques to help them stop fights between pupils. Many staff are worried they will face assault charges if they intervene physically to break them up, says a report to be published next week. As a result, children are being excluded from school as fights escalate and the incident becomes more serious. Two-thirds of teachers say they feel strongly that they should have lessons in restraint techniques to help cope with the problem. They would also like to be taught how they should physically escort excluded pupils from the school premises.

The findings follow the first detailed age breakdown of pupils suspended or excluded from school, which showed that although overall exclusion numbers have fallen, more than 4,000 children under the age of five were excluded from school in the past year, mostly for assault. Mick Brookes, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said the huge number of exclusions in the early years reflected teachers' fears that they could lose their jobs if they intervened to stop violent pupils. As a result, they were using suspension powers instead.

Select Education, the largest provider of supply teachers in the country, conducted the survey of more than 100 teachers. Its managing director, Peter Flannery, said: "The growing culture of litigation means that today's teachers are fearful of restraining pupils who are at risk of hurting themselves in case it results in them losing their jobs."

He added: "Physical contact should very much be the last resort. Instead, teachers need to be undertaking training to equip themselves with positive handling strategies that look at de-escalating techniques, such as positive techniques for challenging behaviour with the aim of avoiding physical intervention." All 10,000 teachers and support staff on Select Education's books can receive training in how to defuse challenging situations. However, Scott Kelly, who trains teachers in these techniques, acknowledged that supply staff can often miss out on training - if, indeed, schools organised it - simply because they are not there.

He added that even in cases where an allegation of assault was "unwarranted" against a teacher, a pupil may believe "what is happening is inappropriate contact whereas what the teacher was trying was to make the situation safe".

The aim of the training was to try to avoid physical contact wherever possible. However, new guidance from the Government says teachers can use reasonable restraint to avoid violence.

The survey also shows that nearly three out of four teachers believe many exclusions are caused by a lack of parental discipline at home.

Patrick Mahoney, a teacher with Select Education, said: "While I certainly agree that discipline in the home is a problem, it's important to note the root causes - for example, the growing number of single-parent families who are overwhelmed with responsibilities and unable, on their own, to instil the level of discipline needed." Three out of four teachers also believe parents could reduce the chances of their children being excluded by taking more interest in their education.

SOURCE




War of Words on Investments in Israel

A pro-Palestinian student group and Hampshire College disagreed Thursday as to whether the Massachusetts institution's withdrawal of investments from an index fund represented a rebuke of Israel, and a major first for the divestment movement. Any hope that this might stay a quiet campus disagreement - probably a slim hope given the topics involved - has evaporated with dueling press releases, media coverage from the Middle East and the entry of Alan M. Dershowitz into the dispute.

Dershowitz, a Harvard University law professor and well known supporter of Israel, threatened to unleash a campaign against the college, and issue a call for donors to withhold contributions, unless Hampshire resolves any ambiguities and clearly states that it rejects student efforts to divest from the Jewish state. "What they have to do is make it impossible for the students to plausibly be able to declare victory," said Dershowitz, whose son went to Hampshire.

"They want me on their side, they want the anti-Israel students on their side, they want everybody on their side. But unfortunately the divestment campaign is a zero-sum game. Both sides can't win, and Hampshire let the anti-Israel students win and they will pay a heavy price for that. Unless they withdraw it, they withdraw it and they make it clear they have rejected these efforts to divest from Israel."

The students dominated the headlines on Thursday when, in a press release, the Students for Justice in Palestine chapter hailed Hampshire as "the first of any college or university in the U.S. to divest from companies on the grounds of their involvement in the Israeli occupation of Palestine." The student group celebrated having successfully pressured the college to divest from six companies with connections to Israel's military operations in the West Bank and Gaza.

Hampshire officials acknowledge they initiated a review of the specific State Street fund in question in response to a petition from Students for Justice in Palestine. However, Hampshire maintains that it transferred assets to another fund after finding much broader violations of its policy on socially responsible investing, including unfair labor policies, environmental abuse, military weapons manufacturing and unsafe workplace settings. In all, Hampshire says it found more than 200 companies in the fund that fell short of its standards. "[T]he decision expressly did not pertain to a political movement or single out businesses active in a specific region or country," the college's statement says.

As an analogy, Ralph Hexter, Hampshire's president, said, "There might be a court case that the higher court sustains the ruling but the principles are entirely different. Not that we thought that way. This is not a policy decision; I can't say that enough. The investment committee expressly rejected the idea that we were acting in any way [in regards to] a certain country or region or political position, but rather because it came to our attention - it happened to be through this [Students for Justice in Palestine] petition - that this fund contained many, many companies that were problematic, in a whole host of regions."

Hexter acknowledged the court analogy was likely imperfect, and one imperfection is that when a higher court upholds a lower court's ruling, but for different reasons, judges usually go out of their way to make the distinctions clear. That's not quite what happened at Hampshire, at least initially. In the group's press release, Students for Justice in Palestine quote Hexter as saying, during the February 7 board of trustees meeting when this was decided, "that it was the good work of SJP that brought this issue to the attention of the committee." Hexter said the quote was accurate.

"What I referred to was their good work at doing undergraduate-level research and bringing it to the appropriate subcommittee of the board. It didn't rely on their work, but it's the kind of praise that I think you give to students for using the processes of the college," Hexter said. While he expressed disappointment in the students disseminating "such a partial and biased version" of what happened, he also pointed out, "Remember, they are students."

"We reject in our actions any singling out of a country, we thought that's entirely inappropriate and it never occurred to us that this would be taken as divestment from Israel because that wasn't the question before us," said Hexter. "We're in an awkward position that people are claiming falsely what this is and all I can do is deny it.... I can tell you personally as president that I am definitely opposed to divestment from Israel."

In 1977, Hampshire was the first college to call for divestment in South Africa.

Matan Cohen, a spokesman for Students for Justice in Palestine Hampshire College, and a sophomore, said of Hampshire's written clarification, "I will use the word curious but I would not say I'm surprised.... We all know how much pressure will be put on Hampshire to take this decision back."

"We've identified, actually in fact and it's true, other companies that do horrible things," said Cohen. "They had to divest from all 200 to divest from these six.... How can you say it's not about this area if you say first of all that it was SJP's good work that brought your attention [to the fund]?" asked Cohen, a student from Israel.

"I think that Hampshire divested because we have pushed them. The majority of students on the campus support it, and we pushed them to make this decision and to divest from this occupation. It's a shame to me that they're not willing to fully own it."

Dershowitz said of Hampshire, "They found an easy way out. `Yeah, we'll divest from the six companies but we're also going to divest from 200 others'.... Not a single Fortune 500 company would pass muster under Hampshire policies."

"I think it's a very simple story ... a cowardly college administration that doesn't want to say no to anybody, wants to talk out of both sides of its mouth to me and out of another side of its mouth to anti-Israel students," he said. "They were looking for an excuse to be able to divest from those six companies but to do it in a broader way, but they were under-inclusive. They didn't look at the rest of the portfolio."

Hexter said Hampshire examined only one fund because officials had reason to believe it was problematic. Also at the February 7 board meeting, the board of trustees voted to revise its 1994 policy on socially responsible investing - after that's completed, Hexter said, the review will continue. "We would then expect to have a continual methodology of making sure that all of our investments are always in compliance with our policies. It's not good management to have this out of whack."

Students for Justice in Palestine waited until Thursday to publicly declare victory in part so it could collect endorsements from prominent figures. As one example, David Theo Goldberg, director of the University of California Humanities Research Institute, is quoted in the group's online press kit as saying, "I fully endorse the reasonable and courageous decision of Hampshire College's Board of Trustees to divest all investments that support the Israeli occupation and oppression of the Palestinian people." In an interview Thursday, Goldberg said, "It's commendable that even at the wider level, they would have taken a stance against companies doing business with repressive forces in questionable, unjust, unethical ways. I think that the companies doing business with the repressive forces in Israel and Palestine should be included." But, he said, "I'm for divesting in the other 194 if they engage in unjust activities in other parts of the world.

"That's not lacking cleverness given the political climate, to go for the broader general principle as a way of getting at the particular. Whether it's a way of getting at the particular or not that's driving it is an open question, obviously subject to debate by those more privy to the decision than I."

SOURCE





16 February, 2009

CO: School district does away with grade levels

If it ends social promotion it might be a good thing but it sounds like just another starry-eyed idea that only works with an exceptionally high level of teacher committment -- something unlikely in a large and unionized public school district

School districts across the US are trying to improve student performance and low test scores. But few have taken as radical an approach as Adams 50. For starters, when the elementary and middle-school students come back next fall, there won't be any grade levels - or traditional grades, for that matter. And those are only the most visible changes in a district that, striving to reverse dismal test scores and a soaring dropout rate, is opting for a wholesale reinvention of itself, rather than the incremental reforms usually favored by administrators.

The 10,000-student district in the metropolitan Denver area is at the forefront of a new "standards-based" educational approach that has achieved success in individual schools and in some small districts in Alaska, but has yet to be put to the test on such a large scale in an urban district. "There was a sense of urgency to attend to what wasn't happening for kids here," says Roberta Selleck, district superintendent, explaining why she decided to go with a drastic approach. "When you see the stats for the whole school district over time, we realized we are disconnecting [from] our kids."

The change that's getting by far the most attention is the decision to do away with traditional grade levels - for kids younger than eighth grade, this first year, though the district plans to phase in the reform through high school a year at a time. Ultimately, there will be 10 multiage levels, rather than 12 grades, and students might be in different levels depending on the subject. They'll move up only as they demonstrate mastery of the material.

But Dr. Selleck and others are quick to emphasize that that's only one piece of a radically different, more student-centered, approach to learning - and that it's not the same as tracking, the currently out-of-favor system of grouping students by ability.

The district is training teachers to involve students in the lesson plan in a far greater way than before - the students articulate their goals and develop things such as a code of conduct as a classroom. And when children fall short of understanding the material, they keep working at it. The only "acceptable" score to move on to the next lesson is the equivalent of a "B" in normal grading - hopefully showing proficiency and giving kids a better foundation as they move on to more advanced concepts. Advocates sometimes describe it as flipping the traditional system around so that time, rather than mastery of material, is the variable.

While the idea of "standards-based education," as it's often known, has been around for a while, the only public district where it's been tried for any length of time is in Alaska, where the Chugach district - whose 250 students are scattered over 22,000 square miles - went from the lowest performing district in the state to Alaska's highest-performing quartile in five years in the 1990s, a shift the former superintendent, Richard DeLorenzo, attributes to the new philosophy. "We saw how radical a reinvention needs to happen," says Mr. DeLorenzo, who is serving as a consultant to Adams 50 and is now the founder of the Re-Inventing Schools Coalition, which is seeking to spread the model.

In Adams 50, the challenges aren't quite so severe as they were in Chugach, which had only had one college graduate come out of its schools in the 20 years before DeLorenzo implemented the reforms. But the district, which has a 58 percent graduation rate, has been on an academic watch list for several years now, and has seen a drastically shifting student population in which percentages of minorities, non-English speakers, and low-income kids have shot up.

Selleck decided the district needed a massive transformation, and got the OK from the state. This year, the district is beginning to phase in the changes before all the schools switch to the new, gradeless system next year. One elementary school is serving as a pilot program, and many of the 300 or so teachers who have undergone training from DeLorenzo are implementing a modified approach in their classrooms - albeit still in traditional grade levels.

SOURCE




Shock! Horror! Even some British government schools think that all students are not equal

High-performing comprehensives are "screening" 16-year-olds by telling them they cannot study A-levels unless they score as many as six Bs at GCSE. Some schools believe a C grade, the government measure of a "good" GCSE, is so devalued that it gives little evidence of ability.

Policies pursued by some comprehensives are now more restrictive than grammars that are open about selection. At Fortismere school in Muswell Hill, north London, pupils must score five Bs, including English and maths, to study academic subjects at A-level. Other pupils must opt for "applied" A-levels, which are more vocational. At Fulford school, York, pupils need five Bs for academic A-levels. Steve Smith, the head, said: "You can get students through to a C but a large part of that is staff giving support. For A-levels you have to have independent learning."

Professor Alan Smithers of Buckingham University said: "Sixth-form selection is an unacknowledged feature of our system."

SOURCE




Many Australian High School students can't read and write

Ever-declining standards. I think our leftist "educators" will only be happy when NO-ONE can read and write

Reading skills at some Queensland high schools have slumped to alarming levels with about one in every three students considered to be reading below their age level, according to teachers and private tutors. And in a parallel problem some students are being taught one subject by as many as 12 different teachers because of staff shortages in state high schools.

An internal screening test on Year 8 students at one school has found that most of the struggling students - one-third of that year level - were reading at the standard of a Year 4 student. The worst readers among those Year 8s - about one-sixth of the entire group needing learning support - were reading at a level of Year 3 student or below, the tests revealed.

Frustrated school learning support staff say they have begun to refer students to reading lessons outside schools, as the curriculum is failing to address the problem. Their claims are backed by private tutors interviewed by The Sunday Mail, who say they regularly encounter teenagers reading three to four years below their age. It is understood the internal testing that highlights the problem was done in schools at Logan and the northern Gold Coast. But many educators say similar reading level issues can be found state-wide. Gold Coast-based private tutor Dr Bruce Cruicks is teaching 15 state high school students with reading problems: "Some of these kids came to me with no reading level at all. They could have been in Grade 3 or 4."

A Brisbane-based tutor, who asked not to be identified to shield his students, said many were initially up to four years behind in their reading. A state school teacher who was involved in recent testing of literacy levels, and also asked not to be named, said: " Some kids are really stuck at such a basic level, and the gap between them and other students just keeps widening. Yet we get told (by governments) that (the reading level) is getting better."

Education Queensland does not gather each school's internal testing data on reading levels, and the only official guide can be found in State Budget figures. Those statistics back up the concerns of education leaders, with national benchmark figures showing that reading for Year 7 students has dropped by more than 11 percentage points in three years, down from around 93 per cent in the 2004-05 period.

Queensland Teachers Union president Steve Ryan said he believed the State and Federal governments should focus on providing more resources, rather than worrying about preparing students for national benchmark testing. An Education Queensland spokesman said the Government was investing $18 million implementing a literacy framework.

On a second front underlining more problems in education, sources say some students are being taught one subject by as many as 12 different teachers as state high schools attempt to deal with staff shortages. And when substitute teachers can't be slotted in, classes are often combined. At one school, three senior classes were combined and seated in a sports hall recently with the students told to do crosswords because of a lack of teachers, the sources told The Sunday Mail.

Figures released by the State Government show an extra 5400 students enrolled in state schools this year - leaving a shortfall of 150 teachers. Education Minister Rod Welford has acknowledged a lack of maths and science teachers, employing more than 530 graduate teachers this year in the face of a 17 per cent jump in primary and secondary teacher resignations since 2003. But The Sunday Mail understands up to eight teachers at one school, employed to teach maths, are only qualified in physical education. "They are just bringing in primary school and excess PE teachers," a source revealed.

But Mr Welford denies the system will be unable to cope with an increased influx of students this year. "Our government plans for the future, continually monitoring regions with high population growth to ensure there are local state school options for all Queenslanders," he said. "That's why we opened three new schools on the northern Gold Coast this year, to cater for population increases in one the state's fastest-growing regions. "We've also opened a new school this year north of Brisbane, another fast-growing area."

Mr Welford said there has been unprecedented growth in prep enrolments, with an increase of almost 1900 on last year. He said upper secondary schools also had more than 750 extra students enrolling in Year 11 and more than 1000 in Year 12. "All these new students create a need for more teachers so that we can continue to meet our class size targets, which are among the lowest in the country."

Mr Welford says the 150 new teaching spots would be permanent appointments in mainly manual arts, maths and science. "These are roles which have been traditionally difficult to fill because their skills were so much in demand outside of teaching," he said. "With demand slowing in other sectors we are hoping to see more of these skilled workers moving back into teaching where the jobs are available, secure and stable."

SOURCE





15 February, 2009

Choosing a prosperous future

The children are our future, goes the hackneyed phrase. It is gag-inducing when issued from the mouths of politicians and celebrities, but its truth can't be denied. Which makes it all the more important that we make strides to improve what is at present a severely inadequate effort to prepare today's students for tomorrow's world. A big step forward would be the advance of educational freedom on two fronts: liberating schools, teachers, and administrators from paralyzing red tape; and liberating parents from constraints on school choice.

Nancy Pelosi received well-deserved criticism for her grotesque attempt to defend the inclusion of birth control promotion in the economic stimulus bill. But Pelosi's tortured observations do point to a truth: It is not enough to bring children into the world. Economic resources are required to care for dependent young people, and the responsibility to provide the intellectual and moral education necessary for engagement of the world is serious.

Focusing on education is not a distraction from the pressing business of economic recovery; it is vital to ensuring it. When asked recently to explain the causes of the stagnation of the American economy, the first response of Paypal co-founder and CEO of Clarion Capital Peter Thiel was telling: "You have an educational system that is very broken."

Public schools absorb a lot of criticism for failing to ensure basic competency in their students, and for spending loads of money not doing it. Yet most administrators and teachers are dedicated to their jobs and sincerely concerned about the welfare of their students. One of the factors hampering success is excessive regulation, a product of a litigious culture and overweening government involvement in education.

To cite but one troubled area, countless hours and dollars are now spent ensuring the "safety" of students by adhering to strict standards concerning everything from classroom supplies to cafeteria furniture. Parents rightly expect due caution to be exercised by those entrusted with the lives of their children every day, but safety regulations enforced on schools exceed what most of us demand in our own homes. All of this distracts from the core mission of the school.

Evidence continues to suggest that private schools educate more efficiently than public ones. Yet the largest private system in the country, Catholic schools, continue to struggle: A New York Times article last month-prompted by the announcement of another raft of school closures in the city-noted that the number of students in Catholic schools is half what it was in the 1960s.

Declining private school enrollment should not be taken as an indication that parents are satisfied with conventional public schools. That demand for alternatives persists is proved by a recent report from the National Center for Education Statistics, showing a 36 percent rise in the number of homeschooled children from 2003 to 2007 (now standing at 1.5 million, almost 3 percent of the school population). Interest in choice within the public arena-for example, charter schools and open enrollment-remains high as well.

Declining private enrollment is more likely due to the fact that families, especially in a downturn, increasingly cannot afford to support two school systems, one through their taxes and another through their tuition. States should promote public school alternatives, fostering competition and greater efficiency. Charter schools could be utilized more liberally. Tax breaks offer incentives for parents to choose private schools and relieve the overall public funding burden. Federal authorities have offered some help this year by permitting income tax deductions for local property taxes. States could follow suit by allowing similar deductions for the purpose of tuition payments or homeschooling expenses.

As states look for ways to balance their budgets, some might bristle at the cost of extending tax breaks or vouchers. Yet it's not clear that the end result would be negative for the state budgets. Tax deductions might be offset by gains reaped by shifting school populations to private alternatives. Competition at the local level might spur public schools to higher efficiency. Significantly, pressure to remove expensive regulation would increase.

More important than this year's budget or next year's deficit is the economic viability of the next century. Without a sound educational system, the prospects dim considerably. It should be clear by now that prosperity depends on both technical expertise and moral integrity. Neither can be achieved without bringing freedom to our schools. In existing schools, staff must be permitted to teach and discipline in a way that cultivates virtue and suppresses vice. Where schools have failed, parents must be encouraged to select more effective options for their children. School reform and school choice are not peripheral to economic recovery and future prosperity. They are essential.

SOURCE




Top British civil servant attacks Leftist education policies

Professor Adrian Smith, one of the Government's top education officials, has launched a devastating attack on Labour schools' policy, suggesting reforms focused on "the masses" at the expense of bright students. In an extraordinary outburst, Prof Smith, the second highest-ranked official at the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, said plans for new diploma qualifications to replace A-levels were "slightly schizophrenic". He also said:

*School science lessons had been undermined by "insidious" health and safety legislation

*The Government may have exaggerated the success of a drive to get more teenagers to study science seriously

*Universities "won't touch" a new elite A* grade at A-level for fear of recruiting too many sixth-formers from independent schools

*So-called "golden hellos" to attract teachers would be better spent on higher salaries for staff

Prof Smith also said a refusal to complete a review of student tuition fees could lead to universities going bankrupt.

The comments will come as an embarrassing blow to Gordon Brown who has pledged to prioritise education and training in an attempt to kickstart the economy. It also suggests discord at the heart of the Government as Prof Smith breached official protocol which says civil servants should avoid public statements on policy.

The Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills was formed in 2007 when Mr Brown split the old Department for Education and Skills in two. It now shares education responsibilities with the Department for Children, Schools and Families.

Prof Smith, director general of science and innovation, joined the department five months ago following a decade in charge of Queen Mary, University of London. He was giving a speech in central London on the future of science, technology, engineering and mathematics when he made the outspoken attack. The official, who led a Government review of maths education in 2003, highlighted issues which required the Government to "pause" and consider "whether we are thinking them through carefully enough".

It included plans for diplomas, which combine practical training with classroom study, he said. They are initially offered in vocational subjects, such as media and construction, but will be expanded in coming years to cover the traditional academic disciplines of humanities, languages and science. Ministers believe they could replace GCSEs and A-levels altogether. But Prof Smith branded the science diploma as "slightly schizophrenic", claiming it fell between the twin aims of pushing the brightest and aiding weaker students.

In comments quoted in the Times Educational Supplement, he said the Government should focus on "getting GCSEs and A-levels right first". "In core subjects like maths and physics we already have a shortage of qualified teacher cover," he said. "Are we wise in adding different bits of curricular offerings, each of which will require additional teacher input? "Are we thinking in a joined-up way when we plan curriculum developments and new programmes, whether we have the teacher power, planning and recruitment? Might we not be better getting GCSEs and A-levels right first?"

He said an overall increase in the number of teenagers taking A-levels in science looked encouraging. But the official said it could be explained by rises in subjects such as sports science and psychology, claiming those studying "hardcore" science at universities remained static. In a similar vein, he said there were "serious questions" about whether education inspired the most talented pupils. "We have a tension in the education system," he said. "We are educating everybody - the masses - for citizenship, for (mathematical) competences and functionality. "Higher education and the innovation and high tech industries of the future involve those at the end of the spectrum who are capable of achieving and aspiring to more professional levels of mathematics. "There are still serious questions in the system about whether we have really cracked that balance."

On science in schools, he said teachers had toned down experiments for fear of breaching health and safety laws. "If you ask a lot of scientists, chemists and engineers what turned them on in the first place, I am afraid it was things like making bombs," he said. "I think both in terms of funding, in terms of qualified teachers, and the insidious effects of health and safety legislation, we may have done something rather damaging to that fundamental curiosity. We need more explosions in schools."

The comments have been seized upon by Opposition MPs. David Laws, the Liberal Democrat schools spokesman, said: "This is a damning criticism of the Government's education policy. Ministers cannot simply ignore these comments from someone working at such a senior level in their own department. "These comments totally undermine what little faith there was in the new diplomas and there must now be an even greater concern that our education system is failing to stretch the most able children. The fact that such a senior civil servant believes that ministers are exaggerating improvements will shatter confidence in the Government's entire education strategy."

Adam Afriyie, the Conservative shadow science minister, said: "It is extraordinary that such a senior civil servant should launch such a blistering attack on the Government's failure on science. "It is a desperate act of a failing Government if ministers are deliberately exaggerating improvements to hide their failure. We need a robust qualifications system in our schools and a stronger presence for science in government."

Alan Smithers, professor of education at Buckingham University, said: "It is great that someone in his position has finally spoken out."

A DCSF spokesperson said: "The idea in this day and age that education policy should not focus on "the masses" and instead only on an elite minority is out of date and wrong-headed. "We were surprised to read and totally disagree with the comments about diplomas, golden hellos for science teachers and on our reforms to the new A-level, all of which have been widely welcomed."

SOURCE





14 February, 2009

The college scam

Taking on heavy debt pursuing a degree is leaving many young people miserable and poor

A college diploma is supposed to be the ticket to the good life. Colleges and politicians tell students, "Your life will be much better if you go to college. On average, during your lifetime you will earn a million dollars more if you get a bachelor's degree." Barack Obama, stumping on the campaign trail, said, "We expect all our children not only to graduate high school, but to graduate college." Rachele Percel heard the promises. She borrowed big to pay about $24,000 a year to attend Rivier College in New Hampshire. She got a degree in human development. "I was told just to take out the loans and get the degree because when you graduate you're going to be able to get that good job and pay them off no problem," she told me for "20/20."

But for three years she failed to find a decent job. Now she holds a low-level desk job doing work she says she could have done straight out of high school. And she's still $85,000 in debt. Last month she had to move out of her apartment because she couldn't pay the rent. The promise about college? "I definitely feel like it was a scam," says Rachele.

Her college wrote us that many of its graduates have launched successful careers. But Rachele's problem isn't uncommon. A recent survey asked thousands of students: Would you go to your college again? About 40 percent said no. "The bachelor's degree? It's America's most overrated product," says education consultant and career counselor Dr. Marty Nemko.

Nemko is one of many who are critical of that often-cited million-dollar lifetime-earning bonus. "There could be no more misleading statistic," he says. It includes billionaire superearners who skew the average. More importantly, the statistic misleads because many successful college kids would have been successful whether they went to college or not. "You could take the pool of college-bound students and lock them in a closet for four years - and they're going to earn more money," Nemko says. Those are the kids who already tend to be more intelligent, harder-working and more persistent.

But universities still throw around that million-dollar number. Arizona State recently used it to justify a tuition hike. Charles Murray's recent book, "Real Education," argues that many students just aren't able to handle college work. Graduation statistics seem to bear him out. "If you're in the bottom 40 percent of your high school class," Nemko says, "you have a very small chance of graduating, even if you are given eight and a half years."

Colleges still actively recruit those kids, and eight years later, many of those students find themselves with no degree and lots of debt. They think of themselves as failures. "And the immoral thing about it is that the colleges do not disclose that!"

For many kids, career counselors told us, it's often smarter to acquire specific marketable skills at a community college or technical school, or to work as an apprentice for some business. That makes you more employable. Vocational education pays off for many. Electricians today make on average $48,000 a year. Plumbers make $47,000. That's more than the average American earns. But some people look down on vocational school. A degree from a four-year college is considered first class. A vocational-school degree is not.

"More people need to realize that you don't have to get a four-year degree to be successful," says Steven Eilers, who went through an automotive program and then continued his education by getting a paying job as an apprentice in a car-repair center. He's making good money, and he has zero student-loan debt.

Eilers' story is no fluke. In the past year, while hundreds of thousands of white-collar jobs vanished, the auto-repair industry added jobs. Self-serving college presidents and politicians should drop the scam. Higher enrollments and government loan programs may be good for them, but they are making lots of our kids miserable and poor. For many, the good life can be lived without college.

SOURCE




Australia: Another government school "loses" a child

A girl with a disability is the second student in a fortnight found wandering the streets while her teachers were unaware she had left school.

Jasmine Colman's mother Vickie Liddle is furious that her five-year-old daughter, who suffers from Aspergers-related autism and stress-related epilepsy, was able to walk out of the Harris Fields State School at Woodridge, south of Brisbane, at lunchtime on Tuesday and cross a busy main road. Ms Liddle said a kindergarten teacher who knew Jasmine saw the youngster talking to a stranger on the footpath and took her back to school. "She could have been kidnapped, she could have had a seizure on the road - anything could have happened," Ms Liddle said. "The fact that she wasn't seen and no one noticed, and especially the fact that she has a disability, that was phenomenal. "They didn't even know she was gone." She said her "blood was boiling" over the incident and the fact the principal failed to apologise or talk to her about it.

A statement from Education Queensland said Jasmine became separated at the end of lunchtime when Prep students and teachers were moving back to the classroom. "The Prep student left the group. Teachers were supervising students at this time," the statement said.

"When the mother arrived at the school, she was immediately met by the deputy principal and special education teacher who apologised to her." The principal had rung the mother to apologise yesterday.

At Morayfield State School last week, a five-year-old boy was found wandering the streets while his teacher was unaware he was missing.

SOURCE





13 February, 2009

De-Programming Students

by Thomas Sowell

Letters from parents often complain of a sense of futility in trying to argue with their own children, who have been fed a steady diet of the politically correct vision of the world, from elementary school to the university. Some ask for suggestions of particular books that might make a dent in the know-it-all attitude of some young people who have heard only one side of the story in classrooms all their lives.

That is one way of going about trying to de-program young people. There are, for example, some good books showing what is wrong with the "global warming" crusades or showing why male-female differences in income or occupations are not automatically discrimination.

Various authors have written a lot of good books that demolish what is currently believed-- and taught to students-- on a wide range of issues. Some of those books are listed as suggested readings on my website (www.tsowell.com).

Yet trying to undo the propaganda that passes for education at too many schools and colleges, one issue at a time, may not always be the best strategy. There are too many issues on which the politically correct party line is considered to be the only way to look at things. Given the wide range of issues on which students are indoctrinated, instead of being educated, trying to undo all of that would require a whole shelf full of books-- and somehow getting the students to read them all.

Another approach might be to respond to the dogmatic certainty of some young person, perhaps your own offspring, by asking: "Have you ever read a single book on the other side of that issue?" Chances are, after years of being "educated," even at some of the highest-priced schools and colleges, they have not. When the inevitable answer to your question is "No," you can simply point out how illogical it is to be so certain about anything when you have heard only one side of the story-- no matter how often you have heard that one side repeated. Would it make sense for a jury to reach a verdict after having heard only the prosecution's case, or only the defense attorney's case, but not both?

There is no need to argue the specifics of the particular issue that has come up. You can tell your overconfident young student that you will be happy to discuss that particular issue after he or she has taken the elementary step of reading something by somebody on the other side. Elementary as it may seem that we should hear both sides of an issue before making up our minds, that is seldom what happens on politically correct issues today in our schools and colleges. The biggest argument of the left is that there is no argument-- whether the issue is global warming, "open space" laws or whatever.

Some students may even imagine that they have already heard the other side because their teachers may have given them their version of other people's arguments or motives. But a jury would never be impressed by having the prosecution tell them what the defendant's defense is. They would want to hear the defense attorney present that case.

Yet most students who have read and heard repeatedly about the catastrophes awaiting us unless we try to stop "global warming" have never read a book, an article or even a single word by any of the hundreds of climate scientists, in countries around the world, who have expressed opposition to that view. These students may have been shown Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" in school, but are very unlikely to have been shown the British Channel 4 television special, "The Great Global Warming Swindle."

Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that students are being indoctrinated with the correct conclusions on current issues, that would still be irrelevant educationally. Hearing only one side does nothing to equip students with the experience to know how to sort out opposing sides of other issues they will have to confront in the future, after they have left school and need to reach their own conclusions on the issues arising later. Yet they are the jury that will ultimately decide the fate of this nation.

SOURCE




British single mothers have created a useless generation who are costing taxpayer a fortune, claims deputy head

A deputy head who sat on a Government taskforce aimed at improving behaviour in schools yesterday condemned a generation of modern parents as 'uber-chavs'. Ralph Surman said the parents of today's pupils were themselves the children of the 'first big generation of single mothers' from the 1980s. He claimed they - and in turn their children - have been left with no social skills or work ethic and may be impossible to educate.

Mr Surman spoke out in response to figures unearthed by the Conservative Party, which show that the number of 16 to 24-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training - known as NEETs - is rising across Britain. 'We must talk about a class of uber-chavs,' he said. 'They are not doing anything productive and are costing taxpayers a fortune. 'It is very difficult, almost impossible, to take these people now and provide basic social and work ethic skills.

'The offspring of the first big generation of single mothers were children in the 1980s. 'Now they are adults with their own children and the problems are leading to higher crime rates and low participation in the labour force.' Mr Surman, 43, a national executive member of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, has taught at Cantrell Primary School in Bulwell, Nottingham, for 20 years. Bulwell has been identified as an area of socio- economic deprivation and the proportion of children entitled to free school meals is higher than average at the school, which is rated good by Ofsted.

Mr Surman was a member of the Practitioners' Group on School Behaviour and Discipline, a group of experienced heads and teachers set up four years ago, which helped enshrine in law a teacher's right to discipline a child. As a result of its conclusions, the Government introduced legal powers giving teachers the right to discipline children beyond the gates.

Mr Surman, a father of three, was unavailable yesterday to comment further on his claims, made in a local newspaper. It is not clear if he was referring to the parents of children at his school, in Nottingham as a whole or to modern parents generally. But his attack was criticised by David Mellen, portfolio holder for children's services on the Labour-run Nottingham City Council. He said the number of young NEETs in Nottingham had bucked the trend and fallen. The councillor, who is also a teacher, said: 'We are talking about young people here and (uber-chavs) is an irresponsible term to use. 'The comments are illinformed in light of the reduction in crime in the city and the reduction in young people who are NEET.'

But Norman Wells, from the Family Education Trust, said that, while many single mothers do an 'excellent job' raising their children, 'we cannot close our eyes to the evidence which shows that, on average, children fare better in terms of health, education and future career prospects when they are brought up by a mother and father who are committed to each other for life in marriage'.

Official figures obtained by the Tories last month showed that the number of people aged 16 to 24 not in employment, education or training had leapt by 94,000 to 850,000 between 2003 and 2007. 'Chav' was a new entrant in the Collins English Dictionary in 2005. A chav was defined as 'a young working class person who dresses in casual sports clothing'. Uber means greatest or most extreme.

The Association of Teachers and Lecturers said Mr Surman's comments did not reflect the view of the union.

SOURCE





12 February, 2009

British fee-paying schools beat the recession: Record applications as parents give up luxuries

This tells you how bad British government schools are

Record numbers of parents are registering their children for private schools despite the recession, a survey shows today. Parents are curbing spending on designer clothes, new cars and eating out to enable them to afford the fees, head teachers said. A survey of 90 schools in the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference, representing 250 leading day and boarding schools, found that advance registrations and entrance exam attempts for places for 11-year-olds were up 1.7 per cent on last year. For 13-year-olds, they were up 7.5 per cent and for sixth-form places, they rose 8.2 per cent. Meanwhile only 0.2 per cent of pupils have had to be withdrawn from their schools so far this academic year 'for purely financial reasons', which extrapolated across HMC's 190,000 pupils gives just 380.

The survey found that nine out of ten heads believe their schools are in a strong position to withstand the recession. Richard Cairns, of Brighton College, said he would 'eat my hat' if numbers at his school were lower in September than now. 'What we are seeing are families re-evaluating what really matters,' he said. 'Designer clothes, the latest car and meals at expensive restaurants matter not a jot when set against a child's education. 'We saw record numbers attending our open morning on Saturday and we have never had so many applications.'

He added that figures showing increasing demand at schools in the survey may reflect a 'flight to quality' as parents shun lesser-known schools perceived to be financially precarious. 'With all the talk of school closures, parents are avoiding the smaller schools,' he said. 'Many of these were struggling before the recession, a consequence in large part of the mounting cost of Government red tape. 'The recession may well be the final blow that puts them out of their misery. 'One consequence of this will be a severe dislocation in the private school sector as parents send their children in greater numbers to those schools at the top end of the market but shun the smaller, less secure options.'

Michael Punt, head master of Chigwell School in Essex, said applications for both seven and 11-year-olds were up between 5 and 10 per cent. 'Parents are saying to us they are still very keen,' he added. 'We realise life is going to be hard, and get harder. 'A lot of our parents work in the financial sector or have their own businesses. 'They are making sacrifices anyway and are prepared to continue to make sacrifices. Education is one of the last things to go. 'We have had a lot of very good applications from primary school children, if anything slightly more than last year; it is not just those at local prep schools.'

Bernard Trafford, HMC chairman, said: 'Parents remain convinced of the value of a good independent education, with its high academic standards and a full all-round experience, and they will continue to invest in it for their children. 'We all recognise that conditions will probably get worse for some parents and the situation in January is, of course, only a provisional indication of what will happen later.'

A survey of councils before Christmas found that one in ten had been contacted by fee-paying parents asking for places at state schools and one in five said they expected increased demand in the near future. Most areas with large numbers of state grammar [selective] schools have seen an upturn in the number of pupils sitting the 11-plus. Town halls are braced for an influx of 11,000 children to state primary and secondary schools over the next 18 months.

SOURCE




Anger as some British selective schools become more selective

Admissions to the remaining government-funded selective schools are much sought after but the rules for accessing them are in flux.

Two leading girls' grammar schools are cutting back on places reserved for local children. Wallington High School and Nonsuch High School, both in Sutton, southwest London, and among the top in the country, will no longer offer 80 per cent of places to children living in the catchment area. This has infuriated parents, some of whom moved closer to the schools to gain entry. But the schools have defended the plans, saying they will ensure access to all bright children.

The move highlights the confusion surrounding the Government's revised schools admissions code. Schools must ensure admissions arrangements abide by the code in time for school entry in September 2010. But different schools are interpreting the rules differently.

Last week two grammar schools in Dorset were accused of discriminating against the middle classes after The Times revealed they give state school pupils priority in admissions over private sector pupils. In a separate move, the Schools Adjudicator ordered grammar schools in Warwickshire to stop recruiting children from outside their area. The Sutton case contradicts this ruling because the schools are deliberately increasing recruitment from outside their areas.

Under proposals for entry into Nonsuch in 2010, all places would be allocated on the basis of test scores to pupils, wherever they live. At Wallington the number of places for local children would be halved to about 60. Barbara Greatorex, headmistress of Wallington Girls, said her aim was to attract bright girls, including children of families that can't afford to buy a home near the school. “We wanted to be as fair as possible. My philosophy is that I'm open for clever girls, regardless of their background,” she said.

SOURCE




Thousands of South Australian teachers are opting out

If you had to stand up day after day in front of an undisciplined rabble, you might too

MORE than twice as many teachers pulled out of the education system this year compared to last year, latest figures show. Data provided exclusively to The Advertiser by the Teachers Registration Board shows 3530 teachers let their registration lapse at the start of this school year, compared to 1328 last year. While 1235 new people joined the register this year - including more than 800 graduate teachers - there was still an overall drop of 1950 teachers. Last year, 1214 new teachers entered the system.

Public preschool, school and TAFE teachers on Monday were awarded a 3.75 per cent interim pay rise by the Industrial Relations Commission. The Teachers Registration Board, which covers all school sectors, predicted there would be a "significant decrease" in the number of teachers renewing their registrations because of the "age profile" of the workforce.

SA College of Educators president Wendy Teasdale-Smith said a recent 50 per cent rise in registration fees - from $180 to $270 - and a "significant increase in bureaucracy" also could be factors. "When it was easier (to stay registered), people kept their registration going just in case they wanted to teach, but if it gets too expensive and too hard, then they may think, `I can't be bothered'," she said.

Education Minister Jane Lomax-Smith said workforce projections showed there were "sufficient overall numbers of teachers to fill jobs" in public schools for at least the next five years and there were recruitment schemes in place. Arbitration over the dispute between teachers and the State Government will still be heard in the Commission from May, and this increase will be part of the final wage rise. The Australian Education Union (SA) lodged a claim for a 7 per cent interim pay rise last October.

SOURCE





11 February, 2009

Religious segregation in British school

Head 'forced out' over ban on Muslim assemblies. If it is a cardinal sin to segregate blacks and whites, why is it OK to segregate Muslims and non-Muslims? Rubbery Leftist principles again, it would seem

A head teacher who was accused of racism after she tried to scrap separate assemblies for Muslim children at her school has resigned. Julia Robinson's departure follows an 18-month dispute over her attempt to hold a single weekly assembly for all pupils at Meersbrook Bank primary school, in Sheffield, regardless of their faith. Although the plan was backed by staff and many parents, some Muslim parents objected and accused Mrs Robinson of being racist.

Sheffield council refused to discuss why Mrs Robinson had resigned but a teacher at the school said that she had been under a lot of pressure, while a parent claimed that she had her hands tied and was forced out. The school's chairman of governors has also quit.

More than 20 per cent of the school's 240 pupils are Muslims. Parents from the local mosque said that the Islamic services started ten years ago after they withdraw their children from the daily service. One said that the split came after a teacher tried to force a Muslim pupil to sing a Christian hymn.

The school and the parents agreed that Muslim pupils would attend four of the five weekly assemblies, which were inclusive in nature, but that on Tuesday, when a more formal act of Christian worship was held, Muslim pupils would take part in an Islamic service led by one of the parents.

When Mrs Robinson joined Meersbrook Bank in 2007 she set up a working group to review the separate practice. A teacher at the school said that Mrs Robinson took careful advice from the local education authority. “She wanted to hold assemblies for all the pupils, which would include all faiths. That is what happens in most schools but some parents wanted things to stay as they were. When she tried to stop them, feeling they did nothing to promote inclusiveness, she was accused of being racist.”

Mrs Robinson was “absent through ill health” for most of last year. She had been due to resume her duties this term, but some parents are understood to have objected to the local authority about her return. A teacher said: “She was under a lot of pressure. The plan was for her to come back but again some of the parents put a stop to that. Many of us here just feel this is all very wrong. Julia was doing the right thing and went through all the right routes. There's no other school we know that has separate assemblies like these. “The buzzword from the authority at the moment is all about community cohesion but there is little cohesion at this school. The staff are very upset at what has happened.”

A mother with three children at the school said that Mrs Robinson was “a marvellous head and loved by the children”. “What she was doing was quite right. The children sit together in class so why shouldn't they share a school assembly?” she said.

A Muslim parent said that the Islamic assemblies, which have been suspended for the past year, taught Muslim children to be good citizens and had “never received negative feedback” before Mrs Robinson's appointment. The parent, who is a police sergeant and a governor, said that the school was a place where children of different ethnic backgrounds “get on fantastically”.

The law in England and Wales states that children at state schools “shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship”, which should be “wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character”. The head teacher is responsible for collective worship provision, in consultation with the governors. David Fann, who chairs the primary schools committee of the National Association of Head Teachers, said that he had never known a school to hold separate assemblies for children of different faiths. “Segregating children is not good practice. The whole point is to gather people together to share their views and to learn from other people's viewpoints.”

Some Islamic activists have urged Muslim parents to withdraw their children from school assemblies and to demand the right to hold separate acts of worship. Mrs Robinson was not at her home yesterday and was said to be “staying with friends to avoid the fuss”.

SOURCE




Australia: Careless government school "loses" little boy

A Caboolture mum is furious with her five-year-old son's school after a stranger found him beside a busy road a kilometre away. Stacie Warwick's son Dylan Doelz left his Year 1 classroom at Morayfield State School shortly after school started . without anyone noticing.

Ms Warwick said she was an "absolute wreck'' when the school phoned her at 9.45am last Wednesday to tell her that another mum had found the youngster wandering the streets.

Dylan, who has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, is believed to have left the school soon after his mother dropped him off. She had stayed with him until 8.40am and spoken with his teacher.

She received a call from the school at 9.45am saying Dylan had been found at Morayfield Rd, near Domnick St, and had been returned to the school. He crossed at least three side streets before he was stopped by the other mum, who he didn't know. "He could have been hit by a car. It could have been a psycho who picked him up. There are so many possibilities of what could have happened,'' Ms Warwick said.

Ms Warwick said the woman who found Dylan told her she had to cajole him into her car. "The school definitely did not know he was gone until (the mother) called,'' Ms Warwick said. "It is just appalling. I should know he's safe there.''

After the incident, the school moved Dylan to another class at Ms Warwick's request and he has been moved to a desk near the class teacher. The school has also requested Ms Warwick hand him to the teacher every morning, which she maintains she does already, and offered to place him in "supported play'' at breaks. Here he would be fully supervised but separated from the general school population.

``I've asked that he not be in supported play because he'll feel like he's being punished,'' Ms Warwick said. ``He got quite a scare himself because a stranger pulled over and asked him to get in a car.''

An Education Queensland spokesman said principal Vicky Gahan had met with Ms Warwick over the incident, along with a senior department official. ``While concerned at the incident, the mother has indicated that she is supportive of the actions of the principal in implementing safe practices in the school,'' the spokesman said.

Education Queensland did not respond to the Herald's request to detail the school's procedures on this issue. Ms Warwick said the response from Education Queensland and the school did little to prevent the same thing happening to other pupils.

SOURCE





10 February, 2009

British school transforms pupils' behaviour by introducing 'Victorian-style' rules

Discipline works

A school claims to be transforming children's behaviour and results by introducing Victorian-style rules. Pupils at Neville Lovett Community School are encouraged to answer staff with a polite 'yes, Mrs Jones' rather than 'yeah' and stand respectfully behind their desks until the class teacher tells them to sit. They are also required to wait in the corridor in an orderly line before a lesson begins, say 'good morning Sir' as they file into the classroom, arrange their books and stationery neatly on the desk and stand when an adult enters the room.

Headmistress Julie Taylor, who insisted on the revival of old-fashioned good manners and politeness when she arrived in September 2007, says discipline and academic results are improving. Ofsted reported last term that attendance has improved and the number of pupils having to be sent home because of bad behaviour has fallen. Inspectors also said that pupils' progress in key subjects such as maths is improving and that 'attitudes and behaviour around the school and in lessons are good'. Last summer, a respectable 55 per cent of pupils at the school in Fareham, Hampshire achieved five A* to C grades at GCSE or vocational equivalent.

The new school rules are grouped under five headings - working together, following instructions, punctuality, good behaviour and completion of homework. Pupils receive stamps if they abide by the rules. As part of the new regime, pupils have also learnt how to shake hands properly, to take compliments and return them, to keep eye contact and to thank someone for a good turn.

While the school has resurrected some traditional school customs, it has left the harsher side of Victorian discipline to the history books - such as corporal punishment and making pupils wear dunces hats. Mrs Taylor said her emphasis on good manners reflected a fear that politeness was disappearing from society. 'We are teaching our pupils lessons for life because good manners will help them a long way,' she said. 'Good manners are something which was starting to disappear from our society but this school is helping to bring them back.' She added: 'Children line up quietly in the corridor before every lesson and say "good morning Sir or Miss" before they file in.

'Then they put all the things they need for the lesson neatly on the desk and stand and wait before the teacher tells them it's OK to sit down. 'It is all about respect and that is what I am trying to teach here. When any adult comes into the room they have to stand up and we expect them to answer in a clear and concise manner. 'When pupils answer a teacher they don't go "yeah, no or whatever", they answer properly with "yes, Mr Jones or no Mrs Smith". We don't put up with swearing either. 'Pupils have to show respect to teachers and to each other when they speak and it has really improved the learning environment at the school.'

Teachers put stamps in a booklet when they observe that children are following the school's five golden rules. The booklet is then taken home every day so parents can see how their child is behaving in lessons. Mrs Taylor said: 'Pupils know if they don't get enough stamps then they won't be allowed to the end-of-year prom or on school trips. 'When they go on outside excursions we have to be able to trust the pupils to behave in the correct manner.'

Attendance at the school has increased from 89 per cent to 93 per cent and Mrs Taylor believes the insistence on good manners will sson translate into further improvements to GCSE results.

SOURCE




Filed Under "Only in Academia"

Amidst a $2 billion budget shortfall in Georgia, why does Georgia State University employ professors who are self-declared experts in oral sex and male prostitution? That's the question one congressman is asking. Courtesy of the Atlantic Journal Constitution:

A powerful state lawmaker believes Georgia's university system must not be too bad off financially if it can afford to employ experts in such subjects as oral sex and male prostitution. Rep. Calvin Hill (R-Canton) said the university system has resisted accepting the budget cuts that nearly every other part of state government has absorbed as lawmakers fill a $2 billion hole in the budget. Meanwhile, he said, Georgia State University is touting its faculty as experts on issues that are outside what he believes to be the university's mission.

"I'm saying we all need to pull together and when we have things that are extraneous and outrages, which I don't think should be discussed with our tax dollars, maybe some of this will come to mind when we have to make budget cuts," said Hill, vice chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

Georgia State, like most colleges and universities, produces an annual guide to its faculty experts. These are professors, instructors, lecturers or administrators with expertise in their particular field. The guide is used by journalists, public policy organizations and governments to find information or experts. Georgia State's 2009 experts guide identifies senior sociology lecturer Mindy Stombler as an expert in oral sex and faculty member Kirk Elifson as an expert in male prostitution.

According to the University's website, Mindy Stombler's latest research explores "the power dynamic embedded in the practices of oral sex, particularly cunnilingus, and connecting conceptualizations of cunnilingus to public discourse." And for the University's defense, enter the gal who probably hates her job right now:

Stombler's work on oral sex has social value, said GSU spokeswoman Andrea Jones. Stombler could not be reached for comment. Stombler, Jones said, "has conducted research to better understand the cultural messages surrounding oral sex and their connection to an increase of such activities among teenagers. This research helps public health officials make policy to deal with this increase."

Isn't this Georgia episode sort of a microcosm of Obama's crap sandwich spending bill? Stupid and uncessary programs that satiate a leftist appetite (with your money), but do nothing meaningful to impact a student's education, or as with the porkulus bill, jolt a listless economy?

SOURCE





9 February, 2009

UVa Law's Pledge Of Allegiance To Diversity

Prejudice and discrimination is bad -- unless it is prejudice and discrimination against whites, of course

Karin Agness reports (on NRO's Phi Beta Cons) that the Student Bar Association at the University of Virginia law school is encouraging all students to sign the "2009 Diversity Pledge." She quotes the entire Pledge, which I encourage you to read, but I will limit my comments here to its first paragraph:

Every person has worth as an individual. Every person is entitled to dignity and respect, regardless of class, color, disability, gender, nationality, race, or sexual orientation. Thoughts and acts of prejudice have no place in the UVA Law community.

"Prejudice" is a mental condition - a pre-conceived opinion impervious to facts that don't fit; an idea, value, attitude, belief - and thus it's not clear exactly what an "act of prejudice" would be. No matter, because the budding lawyers would also ban any prejudicial thoughts. Yes, but what is a prejudicial thought? Let us, generously I think, make some assumptions here (assumptions are necessary because the text isn't clear): first, that although what the UVa lawyers-in-waiting actually say is that

Every person has worth as an individual. Every person is entitled to dignity and respect, regardless of class, color, disability, gender, nationality, race, or sexual orientation...

what they really mean is that every person has equal worth, that every person is entitled to equal dignity and respect, regardless of race, sex, etc. In other words, they seem to be saying no students should be the victim of prejudicial thoughts or acts based on those thoughts because of their class, color, disability, gender, nationality, race, or sexual orientation (and, if I might make another assumption here, presumably not because of their religion, ethnicity, or national origin as well).

If my assumptions are correct, then this is an impressive pledge (although the attempt to banish even bad thoughts in Mr. Jefferson's University is overreaching a bit). But, alas, my assumptions can't possibly be correct, because if these future lawyers really meant that everyone should be treated without regard to race, etc., they would have to oppose UVa's heavy use of race preferences in admissions, and of course they do not. A 2002 study by the Center for Equal Opportunity found that the UVa law school gives a

massive preference to black applicants over their Hispanic, white, and Asian counterparts. The relative odds of admission of a black over a white applicant for UVA, controlling for other factors, were almost 650 to 1 in 1998 and 730 to 1 in 1999 (the highest in any CEO study).

The practice of rewarding some and penalizing others because of their race or ethnicity is not consistent with the pledge to treat everyone with equal respect regardless of their race or ethnicity.

ADDENDUM

The more I think about UVa's Diversity Pledge, the more I think of ... Miss Faulk. As I wrote here:

My eighth grade teacher, the formidable Miss Faulk, refused to require (or, as I recall, even allow) students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in her classroom. She had no problem with "under God," but Miss Faulk was a fiercely unreconstructed Confederate, and she had a great deal of trouble with "one nation, indivisible."

Modern liberals are, of course, much more sensitive than Miss Faulk. They want to extend the borders of "inclusion" so that no one will be or even feel different, isolated, excluded.

Well, maybe not no one. What about the feelings of any students who might be skeptical about this Pledge, who refused to sign because, although they had no problem with the abstract "diverse" thoughts it expressed, they held principled objections to the "diverse" actions that flowed inexorably from these thoughts? Would not such students feel "different," unwanted, excluded if the Pledge were posted or published and their names were conspicuously absent?

Given their devotion to "diversity," it's almost surprising that the UVa Student Bar Association settled for encouraging everyone merely to sign its Pledge. If "diversity" is so important to the law student "community," why settle for a mere paper Pledge? Why not ask (require?) that the day begin with the Pledge broadcast every morning throughout the law school? Students who did not want to be exposed to this daily devotional could be allowed to opt out, perhaps by being supplied with a set of ear plugs (paid for, of course, out of student activity fees).

SOURCE




Snow-phobic Britain: The health and safety rules that closed many schools

And with all that marvellous bureaucratic Leftist "planning" they could not even provide as much gritting salt as they needed

The stringent health and safety rules which forced thousands of schools to close following heavy snowfalls can be revealed for the first time. Diktats issued to head teachers specify in precise detail the width of paths that must be cleared and the amount of grit to be laid. They are even asked to consider the weight of the shovel provided to caretakers in order to prevent overexertion.

Travellers faced another day of difficult conditions yesterday , when plunging overnight temperatures created treacherous conditions on many roads as melted snow turned into sheet ice. Forecasters warned that more bad weather is on its way, with more snow expected to fall in the North and Scotland today and tomorrow , with rain and sleet across southern England.

More than 2.5 million children at over 8,000 schools across the country were forced to stay at home for parts of last week, keeping millions of parents off work and costing the economy billions of pounds in lost business. But a Sunday Telegraph investigation has found that it was often not the snow that paralysed schools, but health and safety guidelines which demand that heads eliminate almost all risk.

* In Kent, the county council told head teachers that they have no power to direct staff to turn up if a teacher decides that the weather conditions are dangerous. The head must also make allowances for nervous or new drivers and even take account of the kind of car they drive. "Take in to consideration disability, nervous or new drivers, four-wheel drive and other things that affect ease of journey," its guidance says.

* Gloucestershire County Council, where more than 90 schools were closed, said head teachers needed to take account of the effect of the snow on caretakers whose job it was to clear the snow. The advice says heads must even "consider the size of shovel provided" to ensure it does not place extra strain "on the stomach, back and abdominal muscles and helps prevent overexertion". Heads are also told that they are responsible for ensuring "frequent breaks are taken when snow clearing" and that those clearing snow "go inside and warm up".

* In Hertfordshire, the health and safety policy specifies that a "one metre wide path" must be cleared from the site entrance to the school. Heads were also asked to carry out "moving and handling" assessments to determine whether wheelbarrows are needed to move grit.

* The Isle of Wight told its staff that precisely "6mm of rock salt and grit sand mix" must be used on surfaces that are prone to get icy.

* In Leicester, teachers were sent a missive entitled "A gritty issue" which warned them that "the general use of salt is not an automatic defence to a claim if someone is injured by a slip or a fall".

* Walsall Council told its staff: "The safety of pupils on their journey to and from school and the nature of that journey will need to be considered. The safety of pupils once they reach home will also need to be considered."

Chris Hassall, the head teacher of Taylor Road primary school in Leicester, which remained open while other schools in the city were shut all week, said: "Heads are damned if they do and damned if they don't. "The local authority is warning you might get sued and parents are risk averse. Heads are thinking 'What's in it for me if I break ranks and open? Absolutely nothing.'"

Motoring organisations yesterday warned of dangerous road conditions as councils struggled to cope with shortages of grit. Police forces across the West Country advised motorists to only make journeys if they were essential as many roads were covered in black ice. Roads across Wiltshire were particularly badly affected, with several closures on Friday night and Saturday morning. Local authorities in some areas gave up trying to clear minor roads after running out of gritting salt and are concentrating only on main routes.

SOURCE

8 February, 2009

Chicago's Daley the Younger says charter schools keep the system honest.

Richard Daley is rarely sick, and he doesn't believe in snow days. Sitting in an office high above his frozen city this week, the �ber mayor is fighting a flu and talking about Chicago's image. The city has been under the klieg lights lately as the hometown of President Obama, and because of its bid for the 2016 Olympics. Then there's Rod Blagojevich, who, when I sat down with Mayor Daley, had just become the first governor in Illinois history to be impeached....

Mr. Daley has just made what many considered a big sacrifice for Mr. Obama and the new administration, sending them Chicago Schools CEO Arne Duncan to be education secretary. Mr. Duncan is considered by many as a reformer in the same echelon as New York Schools chief Joel Klein and Washington, D.C., Chancellor Michelle Rhee, and his time in Chicago was marked by a strong commitment to charter schools, as well an improbable ability to work with both teachers' unions and reformers. But he wouldn't have had the opportunity if it weren't for Mr. Daley, who took direct control of the schools, making himself politically accountable for fixing what was widely seen as a broken system.

He laid out a series of goals in the citywide Renaissance 2010 plan, including closing 70 failing schools and opening 100 new ones. The move wasn't popular with neighborhoods and administrators who were losing schools. But Mr. Daley asks: "How long can they fail? Thirty, 40, 50 years?. . . We have to be able to save this generation and other generations"

Mr. Daley believes the goals of public education should be global competitiveness. "When children in America go to school six hours a day, that's 30 hours a week they get 25 hours of instruction." That's only about three full working days, he says, far less than kids are getting in other rising countries, especially in Asia.

Mayor Daley also sees an important role for charter schools. "You can't have a monopoly and think a monopoly works. Slowly it dissolves. And I think that charter schools are good to compete with public schools." Nobody says there's something wrong with public universities facing competition from private ones. "I think the more competition we have, the better off we are in Chicago."

But the mayor won't support vouchers. "School choice is hard. You're going back to arguing," he says, trailing off without making clear whether he means the politics. But he does think it's notable that, while federal money and Pell grants can be used to finance an education at a private college, federal money can't be used to help students get a private education at the K-12 level.

Ron Huberman, Mr. Daley's former chief of staff and head of the Chicago Transit Authority, is anything but an education bureaucrat, and that's just what the mayor wants in the man he named to replace Mr. Duncan as chief of Chicago schools. Too often in the past, before the mayor took over, the city would bring in schools chiefs who seemed to be riding an education lazy-susan from school to school. "We'd give them big bonuses to come here and then when we'd fire them they'd go to other school systems." Mr. Huberman's selection may have caused consternation in the education bureaucracy but, "this is a manager, this is a CEO," says Mr. Daley. He means an accountable leader.

More here




Arrogant British schoolteachers

Last week, before the snow, I received a distinctly snotty letter from one of my youngest son's school mistresses, rebuking me for my failure to attend a parents' evening at his comprehensive. 'I was disappointed that you were unable to attend,' she wrote. She went on: 'Attendance at the annual Parents' Meeting is part of the Home-School agreement that you signed on your child's admission.' But it was the last sentence that really irritated me: 'If you have not already notified the school in writing of the reason why you were unable to attend, please return the reply slip below so that it can be recorded in the student file.'

Blimey! I hadn't been ticked off like that since I was a schoolboy myself, summoned to the headmaster's study to account for the appearance of a frog in the matron's room. I can understand how teachers get into the habit of addressing everyone like children. But at the age of 55, I rather resent being treated like a delinquent teenager for my failure to attend a meeting arranged for the school's convenience, not mine. I remembered, too, that her original summons had been just as bossy, telling me it was 'essential' that all parents should attend and that we should make sure to arrive before 5.30pm so that we would have time to meet all our son's teachers before the meeting ended at 8.30pm.

Well, I don't finish work until 9.30pm at the earliest. I wondered how this teacher would feel if I summoned her to my office on the other side of London at a time she couldn't manage - and then demanded a written explanation and apology. Besides, I've always found these evenings a complete waste of time for teachers and parents alike. Yes, I know that my boys are intelligent, and I know that they could work harder. Why should my wife and I have to queue for three hours to be told that, by one teacher after another?

Fizzing with indignation, therefore, I seized the reply slip - headed in bold type 'Non Attendance at Year 11 Parents Meeting' and beginning 'I/we were not able to attend the Year 11 Parents Meeting because. . .'. I wrote: 'In these desperate times for job security in the private sector, I simply cannot afford to take time off in the middle of my working day to accommodate your desire to get home early and your unwillingness to hold parents' evenings at the weekend. I am disappointed that you seem unable to appreciate what is happening in the world beyond the school gates.' I reckoned that if she could be snotty, then so could I.

My poor son was horrified. 'You just can't send that,' he said. 'You can't!' He told me it made me sound disgustingly pompous and arrogant. Oh, all right, what he actually said was that it made me sound like a 'd***head'. He wouldn't be able to show his face in school ever again if his teacher read it. In fact, he would have to kill me.

Still indignant, I stuck to my guns and gave the reply slip to my wife to post in the morning, since our boy was obviously not going to hand it in himself. She put it in her handbag. The following day, it had disappeared. Somebody had got up in the middle of the night and disposed of it. If truth be told, I was quite glad. In the cold light of dawn, I could see that what I'd written was indeed a little hoity-toity and unfair, and that the moral ground on which I stood was not quite as high as it had seemed the night before.

After all, journalists' working hours are unusual, and probably most parents would have been able to make it to the school by 5.30pm without too much disruption. I supposed, too, that with its very mixed catchment area, my son's school must have problems with feckless parents who don't really care about their children's education. Perhaps his teacher's hectoring language was understandable - and, yes, perhaps I could have made more effort to find someone to cover for me so that I could attend the wretched meeting. Then there was the fact that my son had said he particularly liked this teacher. I suspect that, with her strong disciplinarian streak, she is also very good at her job. The last thing I wanted was to stir up ill-feeling.

But that was last week, before Sunday night's snowfall. On Monday morning, when my son arrived at school, he found it closed for the day - and it was shut on Tuesday, too. (His elder brother's school, further out of town, was also shut on Wednesday.) For heaven's sake, why? Almost all the pupils at my youngest's school live within walking distance of its gates - and I suspect most of the teachers do, too. Is there really a law which makes schools financially answerable for falls in the playground, when everywhere for miles around is covered in ice? If so, it's a damned silly one, which should be repealed immediately.

As I trudged to work through the snow on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, while my sons' teachers snuggled up under their duvets, I found myself wishing that I had indeed posted my hoity-toity reply slip. The moral high ground was mine once again!

I haven't managed to lay my hands on that 'Home-School agreement'. But if it really obliges me to attend parents' evenings, shouldn't it also have a clause suggesting that teachers should turn up to work in term-time - even when it's a little parky? The closures weren't so bad for me because my young are just old enough to be left at home alone. But what about those hundreds of thousands of working parents of younger children, who had to take time off work themselves if they couldn't make alternative childcare arrangements?

There's a public sector mentality at work here - both in the casual assumption that we can all abandon our factories and offices to attend parents' meetings and in the failure of so many schools to make any effort to stay open in the snow.

Of course, there are many thousands of dedicated teachers in this land, who constantly put themselves out for their pupils and who often don't get the recognition they richly deserve. But I can't help remembering, too, that every day of the school year, an average of 15,000 teachers in Britain are off sick - whatever the weather. It's the same in the police force, where absenteeism is endemic, and in almost every other area of the public sector. I notice, for example, that my newsagent managed to deliver my papers yesterday, whereas the postman hasn't called all week. They have the same hill and the same ice to contend with. The difference is that one works in the private sector, while the other works in the public, where there's much less need to bother.

Indeed, I find this increasing divide between the two sectors of our economy even more worrying in its implications for social cohesion than the row over foreign workers. Only this week, we learned that a quarter of our council taxes now go to financing gold-plated, final-salary town hall pensions which are now all but unavailable in the private sector. Meanwhile, state-sector workers are paid on average 62 pounds a week more than their private-sector counterparts.

As the recession bites harder, I see trouble ahead - particularly since the public sector goes on expanding, while jobs in private industry are disappearing at a terrifying rate. Schools Secretary Ed Balls's latest wheeze, I notice, is to set up 20,000 public sector apprenticeships - including jobs for school-leavers as assistant teachers. I can tell you that if I get any snotty letters from a 16-year-old, with three GCSEs, admonishing me for failing to attend a parents' evening, I won't be answerable for my actions.

SOURCE





7 February, 2009

It's time to end busing in Boston

WE MUST end school busing as we have known it. Parents want high-quality schools in their neighborhoods. The mayor's School Assignment Task Force that I co-chaired several years ago held dozens of meetings where parents in every neighborhood said they would prefer to send their children to quality schools near their homes. Some lamented the lack of appropriate facilities in their communities, understanding that it would take time to reestablish a comprehensive network of facilities and programs. All indicated that sending their children across the city diminished their ability to engage with teachers and learning; they preferred more involvement with their children's education.

We can no longer afford to spend $72 million a year to bus children across Boston to schools that are not demonstrably better than schools near their homes. About $32 million will still be required to transport children with special needs. The other $40 million is a vestige of the 1970s court mandate that Boston redress decades of racial discrimination in its schools. Busing students from one neighborhood to another does nothing to change the racial, cultural, and caste demographics of classrooms, while devouring financial resources that could be better spent on teaching and learning. That $40 million would better prepare students for success in college and would support arts, music, technology, and physical education instruction.

The city's demographics have changed. In the 1970s, Boston was largely a "bicultural" city with a "white" majority and a significantly smaller "black" minority. Federal court cases indicated that financial and facility allocations clearly favored the white majority. The current student population is "majority minority." Boston today is a multicultural city as multifaceted Asian, African, Latino, and other immigrant communities contribute to the city's rich diversity. Two-way adversarial dialogue has been replaced by nuanced conversations about how to improve learning for more diverse families than lived in Boston three decades ago. Busing does not address the complexities of strengthening urban education for all our varied residents.

Little positive learning occurs on a bus, and reducing busing can increase the time students can learn in classrooms. Many buses run on routes and schedules that have not been modified in two decades, sending half-empty buses to schools locked into inflexible starting times. As we transition to less bus dependency, the application of Fed-X or UPS delivery strategies could reduce costs and significantly improve scheduling efficiency.

Choices already exist in Boston's schools. About a quarter of Boston's parents still opt out of traditional public schools by sending their children to charter, pilot, parochial, or METCO schools. Many parents voluntarily transport their children to these alternatives. Bus-dependency to achieve school choice is now perceived as less desirable than in the past.

Emotion has drained out of the busing argument. Eighty percent of Boston's residents did not live here during the 1970s. Boston's new melange of residents carries little direct memory of the emotionally charged arguments that drove politics then, and like most 21st-century Americans, Boston's residents look forward, rather than back to that time of civic strife and violence.

Busing undercuts efforts to make Boston more energy-sustainable. Hundreds of diesel buses running twice a day through neighborhoods dramatically increase our carbon footprint. Based on what we learned during the violence reduction successes of the early 1990s, public transportation on expanded routes can also provide safe and secure student transport.

Fewer than 20 percent of Boston's ninth-graders today will graduate from college. As president of the largest New England college educating the next generation of architects, interior designers, landscape architects, and urban planners, I support partnerships with Boston's schools to graduate diverse students. Our colleges are thwarted by the lack of preparedness in Boston's graduates. Colleges need to do more to help public schools, and public schools need more resources to prepare graduates for success. The $40 million a year we now spend on busing, phased in over time as high-quality schools are returned to every neighborhood, would go a long way toward achieving this goal. It is time for the Boston Public Schools to end busing as we have known it.

SOURCE




Eighties flops 'would now easily pass maths A-level': Cameron warns of falling British exam standards

Students who would have failed A-level maths 20 years ago are now being awarded Bs and Cs thanks to `dumbing down' under Labour, David Cameron has claimed. The warning from the Tory leader came as he appointed Carol Vorderman, former co-host of Countdown, as his adviser on how to improve numeracy. He said there was an `apartheid' opening up between independent schools and the best state schools, which offer rigorous tuition and examination, and failing state schools.

Mr Cameron unveiled plans to allow state schools to follow leading independents and ditch GCSEs and A-levels and offer alternatives such as the international GCSE. He said he wanted to see every school become an academy because `revolutionary change' was required to make Britain's schools the best in the world. Basic numeracy, he insisted, was not `nice to have, it's a must-have'.

Improving standards in maths, he said, was crucial to ensure Britain emerged stronger from the recession. But he said it was clear there was a maths 'problem' in Britain and the record on GCSE maths was 'not good enough'. He said: 'Almost half of 16-year-olds taking GCSE are getting less than a Grade C and that is a problem because maths is not only vital for life in terms of the jobs everyone does and the bills we pay and all of that, but maths is also vital for other subjects. 'If you want to do well in economics or do well in science, it is really important. 'Countries with more mathematicians do better and we are sliding down the maths league tables in the world.'

Experts at Durham University had found shown that pupils who would have received a U grade in maths A-level in 1988 received a B/C in 2006. 'Our exams are dumbing down, so we have got some real problems,' Mr Cameron said, adding that many maths teachers did not now even hold a degree in the subject. He also highlighted figures indicating that the poorest children are faring particularly badly at maths. Of pupils who received free school meals, around 60% - 44,368 - received a D or below at GCSE in the subject last year. By comparison, information from parliamentary questions showed that just 3,312 achieved an A or A .

'I think the answer will lie, rather like with reading, where we said you have got to get back to rigorous teaching methods, teaching synthetic phonics, absolutely the vowel sounds and the letters, so you can decode the words,' Mr Cameron said. 'I suspect the same is happening in maths, we are not persevering enough with some of the pure concepts and the pure building blocks of maths and we are dumbing it down and I think that is a terrible mistake.'

Mr Cameron said Miss Vorderman had agreed to examine teaching methods, how to address people's 'fear' of maths, and whether tests have got easier. The TV presented said that in the last ten years, 3.5m children had finished school without a basic maths qualification. 'Maths is critically important to the future of this country but Britain is falling behind the best performing countries,' she said. 'If children are to get the best jobs in the future and Britain is to emerge stronger from the recession we have little choice but to sort maths out now. There are many centres of excellence and many fabulous teachers but help is needed for the children being failed.'

Schools Minister Jim Knight insisted the gap between the poorest and the rest in GCSE achievement was "narrowing year on year". The Government was also introducing specialist maths teachers in every school. 'The latest major international study last year showed that we are leading Europe in maths and have risen 11 places in world league tables since 2003 to 7th place,' Mr Knight said. 'While Labour is rolling out catch-up support for seven year olds at risk of falling behind in maths, David Cameron's policy is to wait until children are 11 and force those who don't make the grade to resit their last year of primary school. 'This is a recipe for chaos and bigger class sizes which has been condemned by teachers and parents and I hope Carol Vorderman's review will reject it too.'

SOURCE





6 February, 2009

Education, real and unreal

A review of "Real Education," by Charles Murray

Speaking obvious but uncomfortable truths . . . in the history of philosophy, Socrates might come to mind. In contemporary psychiatry, I think of Thomas Szasz. But when it comes to social policy, the name that immediately springs to mind is Charles Murray. Murray's "Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980," published in 1984, revolutionized the way in which social scientists looked at welfare policy by pointing out that those in poverty, including minorities, actually had done better by many standard parameters in the 15 years before enactment of the major Great Society welfare policies than in the 15 years afterward. Many people credit this book for laying the groundwork for the major welfare reforms of the 1990s.

"The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in America," which Murray co-authored with Richard Herrnstein, explored facts about intelligence (facts that, contrary to heated denunciations at the time, were not controversial among experts who studied this area), and what their implications were for optimal social policy. Highly controversial at its publication in 1997, its claims are considered more mainstream a decade later.

Now Murray turns his ability to obvious if uncomfortable truths in education. This is not a book about problems with a government monopoly in primary education; it is not a rant against multiculturalism or political correctness in our nation's educational system; it is not even an assault on the current fad of "maintaining self-esteem" among young students (though this is discussed in passing). Instead it is a call for fundamentally rethinking what does and doesn't work in education, both public and private. It is a call for ending the endearing but false romanticism involved in believing that every child can excel in academics.

Murray begins with a discussion of intelligence, dissecting Howard Gardner's "multiple intelligences," the idea that there are seven, eight, or more "core intelligences," and that people who seem unintelligent according to ordinary measures may actually be as intelligent as others. Murray focuses primarily on logical-mathematical and linguistic intelligence. And he makes two claims that cannot be denied, while at the same time cannot be stated in polite company:

* Level of ability varies.

* Half of all children are below average.

Murray notes (he has mentioned this in earlier works, but it is well worth repeating) that although most of his readers understand that there is wide variability in some of Gardner's other "intelligences" - such as the musical and the bodily-kinesthetic "intelligences" - his readership does not appreciate the wide variability that actually exists in mathematical and linguistic intelligence. While people we know vary widely in their ability to play sports or musical instruments, people we know usually do not vary widely in their mathematical and linguistic abilities. But this is not evidence that mathematical and linguistic abilities vary only slightly. It is evidence that the people we know are a highly filtered subset of society.

For example, the fact that a professor of English feels he didn't do well in math most likely means he "only" got a 600 on the math SAT, while most of his friends in the math department got over 700. But a 600 on the math SAT puts the English professor in the upper third of the country in math skills.

Murray explains in gory detail what it means to be "below average" in intelligence. Here are some examples.

"There were 90 employees in a company last year. This year the number of employees increased by 10%. How many employees are in the company this year?" A) 9, B) 81, C) 99, D)100

This is a basic math question from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), on a test given to nationally representative samples of children in the fourth, eighth, and twelfth grades. It has been used for 35 years by the federal government to track academic progress. Murray notes, "The test is . . . the gold standard for measuring academic achievement" in elementary and secondary education.

Sixty-two percent of eighth-graders got the above math question wrong. If you include those who didn't know the answer but guessed correctly, over 77% of eighth-graders didn't know how to figure out the answer. Twenty-seven percent of these eighth-graders didn't know "how many sides are there to a cube." Forty percent didn't know "what is 4 hundredths written in decimal notation."

Now, we can blame this on poor schools, doing poor teaching. But if academic ability varies (and it does), and half of all students are below average (and they are), approximately half of all students won't be able to answer questions of average difficulty. Those of us who read books about social policy may not have a clear understanding about what a question of "average difficulty" is, since we probably don't know anyone who is below average in mathematical and verbal intelligence, or at least know that person well enough to get a sense of the person's intellectual world. But as anyone who has watched Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" or recent responses from Miss America contestants can affirm, "average difficulty" questions are much easier than most readers of this article anticipate. Objections can be made, as follows.

* The measurement of academic ability is invalid. But Murray notes that "g," the general mental factor measured in IQ tests, accounts for 80-90% of predictable variance in scholastic performance - a conclusion based on more than 11,000 citations of studies on the relationship of IQ scores to educational achievement listed in "Psychological Abstracts."

* We can raise academic ability. But, summarizing a wealth of data accumulated over decades, Murray says, "The most we know how to do with outside interventions is to make children who are well below average a little less below average."

* The schools are so bad that even low-ability students can learn a lot more than they learn now. This view, which is characteristic of libertarians, has a kernel of truth. Some inner-city urban schools are so bad that they are physically dangerous. No learning can occur there. But that's not true of the majority of schools. And while it is true that most public schools are a poor value - they are economically inefficient; they charge far more than is justified for the educational value they provide - that is not the same as saying students can learn a lot more than they do. U.S. mail delivery is inefficient as well. Mail could be delivered faster and more cheaply. But the fact is that virtually all of the mail does get through. Students could be educated faster and more cheaply, but Murray cites extensive data to back up his claim that most below average students in most schools are learning all they can learn. As regards private or charter schools, Murray, a strong advocate for school choice, says that while these alternatives may nurture gifted students, "the evidence does not give reason to expect that private or charter schools produce substantially higher test scores in math and reading among low-ability students who would otherwise go to normal public schools."

He then goes on to discuss two other obvious truths:

* Too many people go to college.

* America's future depends on how we educate the academically gifted.

To gain the benefits of a classic "liberal education," one must be intellectually prepared to read and digest material significantly more challenging than what one is given in high school. So it is not surprising that Murray can cite evidence that no more than 20%, arguably no more than 10%, of students truly benefit from this type of four-year residential college experience. Yet 28% of adults 25 years of age or older have a B.A. Not surprisingly, many drop out of college; many find themselves facing adulthood with no training in vocational skills that really could have helped them make a better life for themselves; and too many people attempt to get a B.A. by means of economically inefficient investments in "easy" courses of no use to them, solely to signal to employers that they have the B.A. employers now use as evidence of persistence and at least a minimal level of intellectual achievement. Murray argues that society would be better off with less emphasis on a B.A. and more standardized certification (not, attention libertarians, licensure) for a wide variety of employment.

As for the intellectually gifted, Murray notes, as an empirical fact and not as a value judgment, that these are the elite who will be running our country in the future. He argues that they are by definition intelligent. We would be better off if we had mechanisms in place that could also make them wise. He argues for improved attention to many things: verbal expression, judgment formation, thinking about virtue and the good, and humility. His arguments are nuanced and not easily summarized, but they quickly give the lie to suggestions that Murray is a 21st-century Social Darwinist.

Murray has written a book about human happiness ("In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government," 1988). He noted there, as the literature supports, that people are happiest when they are challenged by what they do, but not so challenged that they cannot realistically succeed. "Real Education" forcefully argues that we are not merely wasting large amounts of money, we are not merely ignoring the reality of what social science has to teach us about education, we are not merely doing poorly at preparing our children for the future, but we are also making both low-ability and high-ability children unhappy (miserable, inconsolate) by pretending that the former can be force fed intelligence while ignoring the latter's insatiable need for guided knowledge.

People don't need to be intelligent to be happy. But they do need not to be puppets in the plays of social reformers, lab rats in the experiments of the well-intentioned but ignorant educational romantics who have harmed both halves of the bell curve our children inhabit.

SOURCE




It's the children at the bottom of the heap who have been hurt most by turning British education into jargon-laden twaddle

The subversion and disintegration of the education system in the interests of social engineering have now reached a stage well beyond parody. For the past four decades and more, the education establishment has been in the grip of the `all must have prizes' orthodoxy which holds that in the interests of `equality' everyone must be said to achieve equally. Since there can be no losers, there can be no winners - or to put it another way, everyone must be said to be a winner.

From this ludicrous and deeply ideological belief that equality actually means `identicality' has flowed such disasters as the un-teaching of reading. Structured reading schemes which actually teach children to decode the words on the page were discarded on the grounds that some children made faster progress than others - whose self-esteem would thus be destroyed. So they weren't taught to decode words, but taught to guess or memorise words instead. The result has been hundreds of thousands of children who are functionally illiterate - including some, as was reported recently, who actually leave school nevertheless with a clutch of GCSEs.

How could it possibly be, you may well ask, that GCSEs can be awarded to candidates who can't read or write properly? The answer is that, in order to accommodate and conceal the progressive disintegration of education standards under the `all must have prizes' philosophy, the standards of all public examinations - SATs, GCSEs, A-levels and even university degrees - have been progressively lowered so that more students can be said not only to have passed them but to have done so with good grades. Thus the government has been able to boast that standards are rising, whereas in fact they have been going through the floor. It has also been able to shoe-horn record numbers into university, on the grounds that restricting university access to those who are most academically able is `elitist'.

The government's ruthlessly pursued goal has been to bump up the number of young people in university who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. But since it has done nothing to improve the teaching they receive to enable them to function at the academic level once expected by the universities, it has dumbed down the entire examination and university system in order to massage reality into a politically and ideologically expedient fiction. The result of that has been record numbers of students who can't cope and drop out of their university courses, and the dumbing down of degree standards across the board.

One result of all that was that A-levels - the famous `gold standard' examination which once acted as the most efficient gatekeeper to university entrance and the maintenance of the highest academic standards in the world - were devalued so badly that universities were unable to tell which candidates were truly fitted to their courses, since all had scored A grades at A-level. So a new grade was introduced, the A*. But now - guess what?! Top universities are being advised to ignore the A* grade A-level on application forms - to avoid recruiting more pupils from middle-class backgrounds. A report by the Higher Education Minister David Lammy published this week says: `There are concerns that this could disproportionately impact on students from non-traditional backgrounds.'

But `students from non-traditional backgrounds' have been betrayed and abandoned by a political and intellectual elite which, in the interests of abolishing elitism, has systematically destroyed the core idea of a liberal education - the transmission of knowledge - and replaced it by jargon-laden twaddle, psychobabble and outright propaganda.

The very idea of a meritocracy has been replaced by `identicality', and so the ladder that once enabled children to rise out of social disadvantage has been kicked away. The wicked truth is that it is those children at the bottom of the social heap who have lost out the most from all this. Meanwhile, those from the middle-classes are punished more and more as the government progressively blocks up all the escape routes - such as the A* - through which merit and achievement have been ever more desperately and fruitlessly struggling to survive. There are now profound concerns that this whole de-education lunacy could `disproportionately impact' upon the very future and survival of this nation.

SOURCE





5 February, 2009

British universities told to ignore apparent merit

The new grade of A* was introduced as a way of detecting high ability. Now there is a fear that it might actually do so. British logic

Top universities are being advised to ignore the new A* grade A-level on application forms – to avoid recruiting more pupils from middle-class backgrounds. Ministers yesterday unveiled plans to conduct a three-year study into teachers' use of the new supergrade when making predictions of pupils' performance. Universities make conditional offers on the basis of predicted grades and other information and there are fears in the Labour party that pupils from 'non-traditional' backgrounds will lose out because they will not be forecast A*s in sufficient numbers.

The Government created the A* to help top universities choose the brightest candidates from the growing numbers winning As. It will be awarded to the first candidates in summer 2010. But a report published by Higher Education Minister David Lammy has said the study will evaluate the accuracy of teachers' predictions against pupils' achievements. Universities are likely to wait for the results of this study, meaning they will ignore the new top grade until at least 2013. Cambridge said it would go further and support a 'prohibition' on schools and colleges predicting the A* in its first few years because the grades will be 'very difficult' to forecast with accuracy.

Top universities are reportedly divided over the A*, with some believing it should never have been introduced amid fears that it will come to be seen as a passport to a university place. Universities are under pressure to widen the social mix of students and reduce the domination of pupils from private schools and good state schools. Some universities may use A*s in conditional offers but the practice is likely to be rare in the early years.

Monday's report acknowledged that universities have raised concerns over whether teachers will be able to predict A* grades with any consistency. It said: 'Such concerns go to the heart of issues of fairness and openness, where an able and talented student can be sifted out of an application process on the basis of inaccurately-predicted grades. 'There are concerns that this could disproportionately impact on students from non-traditional backgrounds.'

Sixth-formers now pass more than a quarter of A-levels at grade A – a sharp rise in the space of a generation. Independent school leaders said it was 'a shame' that leading universities may not consider predicted A* grades for several years. They said bright students will immediately start working towards the grade – awarded to those who achieve 90 per cent of marks – only to find their efforts may not count in the admissions process.

Geoff Parks, director of admissions at Cambridge, said: 'We would agree that in the early years it will be very difficult for anyone to predict A*s with any accuracy and would support a prohibition on schools being allowed to do so. 'This is subtly different, however, from prohibiting universities from asking for A*s in conditional offers.'

Geoff Lucas, secretary of the Headmasters' and Headmistresses' Conference, representing leading boys' and mixed fee-paying schools, said: 'I believe our schools are able to spot high-fliers and will be able to predict with considerable accuracy. If universities are not going to use predicted A* grades, I think that's a shame. Time will tell. 'The Government accepted the recommendation for the A* and once students know it is there they are going to aim high.'

SOURCE




Jew-Hate at UCLA

A "Gaza and Human Rights" symposium hosted by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)’s Center for Near Eastern Studies instructed attendees on how best to spread anti-Zionism, anti-Semitism, and anti-Americanism. Attendees advocated for many unrelated leftists, from Lenin to Che Guevara, while students were busy texting, Twittering, and checking Facebook.

Moderator Susan Slyomovics, the director of the Center for Near Eastern Studies, offered typical leftist academic condescension. "I have done extensive research on Israel and Palestine. After all, this is not Fox TV. This is UCLA." She must have meant the Fox News Channel, unless she was comparing her research abilities to Homer Simpson.

UCLA history professor Gabriel Piterberg followed. He described an "Israeli onslaught on Gaza Palestinians" and labeled IDF soldiers "war criminals." He alleged the "forced removal of the indigenous people in favor of the settler nation-state," with Palestinians supposedly being the former and Israelis the latter. He cited Karl Marx, referencing popular revolts in China and India and the Algerian struggle against France as examples of the proletariat overthrowing oppressors. Palestinians would rise up next, he predicted. He repeated the debunked charge that Israel has killed Gazans using white phosphorous.

Lisa Hajjar, University of California, Santa Barbara Law and Society Program Chair, was up next. Considering her biases, Hajjar’s eloquence made her the most dangerous speaker. She falsely claimed that "Israel violates the Fourth Geneva Convention." Moreover, like al-Qaeda, the Geneva Conventions don't apply to Palestinians. Neither are nations.

Israel was repeatedly labeled an "occupier" of "occupied territories," the Gaza Strip and West Bank, when the proper terminology is "disputed territories." The fact that Israel left Gaza in 2005 didn’t seem to register either. She conceded, to the audience’s consternation, that, "War is permissible. Not all war is illegal," and later, "Collateral damage alone is not necessarily a war violation." Yet, she went on to state, "Civilians have a right to immunity. Intentionality is key." She repeated the lie that Israel deliberately targets civilians, as well as the white phosphorous falsehood. As she put it, "Israel should only target what’s necessary."

"Denying food and water is inhumane. It’s a war crime" and Israelis, Hajjar added, "are war criminals." She concluded her nonsense about "proportionality" with the bizarre, irrelevant statement: "Dick Cheney is the enemy of all mankind."

Next came Richard Falk, University of California, Santa Barbara Professor of Global and International Studies and 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Falk is the newly created UN "Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories" and was recently denied entry into Israel for his biased and morally repugnant statements. He declared Gaza an "unequal war," as if Hamas’s ineptitude should be treated as the war equivalent of affirmative action. He claimed Hamas initiated the Egyptian-mediated June 2008 cease-fire to avoid cross-border violence. He called the ineffectual cease-fire "a diplomatic initiative that would have ended the conflict." He seemed to think that because Hamas’s attempts to violate the cease-fire failed to murder Israelis, Israel had no retaliation rights.

Falk described Hamas’s daily firing of into Israel as "wrong, imprudent, and immoral," but added that "the rockets did little damage, and were not a significant threat." He alleged "Israeli aggression against a defenseless society," moments after justifying rockets. Falk’s litany culminated with the outlandish statement: "America and Israel are most addicted to reliance on moral superiority. They practice genocidal geopolitics."

UCLA English professor Saree Makdisi, who spoke last, peddled numerous fallacies. He stated that "dropping ordinances is not okay," neglecting to mention that Israel also drops evacuation warnings in order to save civilian lives. He declared Gaza a "child prison" and said that, "the goal of Israel is to deliberately starve children." Makdisi later thundered, "If you want to stop rockets into Israel, Israel must end the occupation!"

Audience questions demonstrated a complete and utter disinterest in Gaza. "Democracy Now," the "Leninist Workers Revolutionary United Party," Dennis Kucinich, and even Kitty Dukakis were mentioned. Ludicrous ramblings included the statements, "Iran needs nukes to protect itself against America and Israel," and "Israel has violated norms of civilized behavior. Palestinian resistance is the non-violent alternative."

I then calmly asked my question. "When are any of you going to ask Palestinians to take personal responsibility for their own corruption and failures, and admit they’re entirely responsible for their own miserable lot in life by choosing suicide bombings and terror over protecting their own children?"

Lisa Hajjar replied that it's pointless to argue about "who started it." "Occupation was the issue. Oppressed people must fight oppressors." I interrupted her by asking, "What about suicide bombings?"

Forgetting the event was being filmed, Hajjar lost her cool and retorted, "If you think I favor suicide bombings, then that Zionist hat on your head is screwed on way too tight!" I replied that my hat was a Fedora, not a Chasidic hat. An "educated" woman would know the difference, although her lack of knowledge about hats was secondary to her bigoted statement. I told her "Your comment was out of line, bigoted and racist."

She acknowledged such comments hurt "her cause" from a public relations standpoint, employing the same tacit language used to describe suicide bombings as "not helpful." She backed down, apologizing twice, yet reiterating that everything else she had said was justified.

The final incredulous moment came when Makdisi, asked to condemn Iran for supplying Hamas with weapons, claimed, "Hamas is a political group. I have no idea where they get their weapons."

This symposium sent a pair of clear message: Hamas and the Palestinians are identical. The academics involved absolved them both while blaming Israel alone. They neither distinguished self-defense from murder, nor disavowed murder. No mention was made of Israel’s right to exist.

Luckily, the students on hand appeared to be more indoctrinated by Blackberry video games than the apologists for terrorism on the podium. Then again, those games also involve blowing stuff up.

SOURCE





4 February, 2009

Kids learn: Homeschooling

Really. They do. Even, maybe especially, when you're not trying to "teach" them. I just heard my seven-year-old tell my ten-year-old "we need to max out our chao's running stats." I'm not sure what that means -- it's a video game thing -- but I'm sure he knows what it means. They're both smart kids, and if they don't understand something, they either ask or they research it themselves. Right now, that video game happens to be their obsession, and they're burning up YouTube's stock of tutorial videos on how to beat it (while starting to talk about making some videos of their own about it -- they both got cameras for Christmas).

We've been homeschooling Liam (seven) for a year now. Daniel (ten) just decided to take the plunge (we've always encouraged the idea, but he had to make the decision on his own -- he really liked the "social" aspects of "public" school until the down sides became burdensome).

I started the homeschooling thing with the idea that I needed a very specific curriculum. I made Liam miserable for several months with daily worksheet assignments and such to build the "portfolio" and flesh out the logs required by our state's laws. I'm still doing battle with those record-keeping requirements, but over time we've shifted toward, and are now in the process of fully adopting, the "unschooling" approach.

I just procured a copy of Mary Griffith's The Unschooling Handbook, and it's already proving enormously useful in terms of helping me get over the panic aspect of not having a set-in-stone plan for each day.

I haven't given up "goals" and "lessons" entirely. I throw random math problems (mostly multiplication right now, but I'm looking forward to geometry -- Daniel just got a book full of skateboard ramp blueprints and is awaiting improved weather to build his first one) at them throughout the day. I purposely insert unusual words in our conversation so that we can discuss their meanings. When we decide to watch a movie, I try to find something with real historical content or a hook worth discussing in terms of some subject area. I'm also setting up some mechanisms for keeping track of what they're into online (the obsessions change -- sometimes daily, sometimes weekly) so that I can plug it into the paperwork, and expand on it offline. Within the next month or so, I expect that they'll both be blogging regularly as well.

Thing is, they're both already at or above "grade level" (as defined by the state standards) in all subjects. The curriculum approach wasn't helping them advance, and in some areas it was holding them back and boring them. The point isn't to get them ready for standardized tests, it's to get them ready for life.

They read like fiends -- when they find something they're interested in to read about. Their vocabularies are constantly expanding because when they don't understand a word it gets discussed (Tamara and I spent 20 minutes discussing the variants of "dedicated" and "dedication" with Liam the other night after he got independently interested in the difference between "dedicated server" and "this book is dedicated to ...").

Math's a little harder to work in at this point, but the "I'm trying to do this, how do I?" situations come, and when they do we show them the concepts instead of just giving them the answers. They can both add, subtract and multiply, we're starting to work on division, they've got a fair handle on fractions, and Daniel's doing some elementary algebra. Tamara and I are looking forward to having to refresh ourselves on geometry to keep up with them just for the next year or so ... and frankly I expect them to leap ahead of me and require outside help in the not too distant future (I've forgotten most of trig and never took calculus).

Science is easy. Not only do we work everyday situations into science lessons (bathtub displacement and volume! Why does a lightbulb glow -- which kind of lightbulb? We did incandescant vs. fluorescent yesterday), but they've got constant questions of their own that turn into "lessons" learned, and they inherited the space obsession from both sides. We watched the first half of Apollo 13 last night, pausing frequently for discussion; second half tonight; then it will be on to The Right Stuff and From the Earth to the Moon, hopefully with a segue into politics and The Moon is a Harsh Mistress resulting).

And, of course, social studies is a snap. They've already had more community involvement than most adults. They've attended state and national political conventions. They've marched in numerous protests. They've canvassed for ballot issues and for their parents as candidates. On the non-political side, we make a practice of helping them buttonhole hapless victims to discuss "what do you do" with them. That will probably turn into a series of "cultural journalism" video projects in the future.

The hardest part of this whole schooling thing is staying the hell out of their way so they don't run me down.

SOURCE




British schools `are killing off the library', claims author

Schools are killing off children's love of books by turning libraries into literature- free 'learning resource centres', an award-winning author has claimed. They are replacing books with computers and so becoming mere 'creches' instead of places of education and excitement, said Frank Cottrell Boyce. He makes the claims in an open letter to the MP Alan Milburn, who is leading a Government drive on social mobility.

Cottrell Boyce, who won the Carnegie Medal for children's writing for his book Millions, writes: 'When I visit many schools, I see a big, fat, glaring, expensive anti-reading and pleasure signal. 'It stands where the library used to stand and it's called the learning resource centre.'

He believes reading for pleasure is central to improving the life chances of pupils from all backgrounds, and therefore raising social mobility. He points out that almost all children these days have access to computers. But far fewer 'have access to books in any meaningful way at home'. The letter is published in an email newsletter from Teachit, a website for English teachers.

SOURCE




Grammar revival?

What a lot of scatterbrained nonsense we read in the comment from Australia below! There is no ambiguity about the Latin-derived rules which govern written English. Why can't kids in primary and secondary schools simply be taught those rules? That's what's going to be most useful to them. Leave the airy-fairy stuff for specialist university courses

Australia is distinctive among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries for its long tail of students who are unable to process - much less understand - the texts of which English brags. And problems of access are not confined to students in low socioeconomic enclaves. Even middle-class parents find it increasingly difficult to help their children produce successful assignments in a discipline so different from the one they studied. And, so, grammar is back; hauled out of retirement to help, no, to party.

When people think "grammar", they mostly think traditional grammar. But this is a tool kit - or dance card, perhaps - for a simpler discipline. It's good on parts of speech, on subject-verb agreement and on rules, all of which are routinely broken by published authors. It has nothing whatsoever to say about newspaper headlines, Aboriginal English, the hilarious play of malapropisms in Kath and Kim or the incomprehensible genius of Vicky Pollard in her "Yeah, but, no but, yeah but". And almost anything interesting in contemporary discourse is ungrammatical in the traditional sense: it begins the wrong way, with conjunctions, splits infinitives. As far as literature is concerned, grammar has never connected well with textual matters such as focalisation, voicing, structure and plotting. A very limited repertoire.

There are other grammars available. One is functional grammar. It makes real connections with the preoccupations of English: with texts, contexts, meaning making. But it too has an image problem. First of all, it's hard: technically demanding, linguistically ambitious. Some might say the dance moves are too difficult for the informal partygoer.

Those calling for a return to grammar are not talking about a new grammar but the old version, tarted up perhaps, but largely unreconstructed. Traditional grammar is simply not up to the job and, for now, functional grammar is out of favour. Any grammar that is going to work has a big challenge on its hands. Can we develop a grammar adequate to an ambitious curriculum, akin to the television program So You Think You Can Dance?

Four parameters come to mind. First, there is the matter of stretch. Any grammatical tool kit for exploring the features of complex texts requires flexibility. The authors of the Initial Advice Paper on the national English curriculum are unequivocal on the need to engage with complex texts. They are requiring that teachers develop systematic understandings about "the structures, interpretation and the effects of certain features in multimodal texts". This means picture books, websites, graphic novels and films, as well as traditional literature such as the novel. It requires a grammar that encompasses study of a wide range of textual choices and their combined effects on meaning, a real stretch.

Second, there is the matter of discipline in the study of language. The notion of "deep knowledge" has become a familiar adage in discussions about school learning. But what does this mean for knowledge about language at text, sentence and word levels? This is the remit of the national curriculum: systematic and explicit teaching about language as a system. There is work to be done if kindergarten teachers are to share understandings about language with primary and secondary English teachers. This task takes us well beyond the comforting mediocrity of "grammar at the point of need", a rigorous routine of new moves for alldancers.

Third, there is the matter of improved performance: making knowledge accountable to those we teach, especially students without start-up cultural capital. Any study of grammar must enable students to read and write more effectively. The national curriculum advice is clear on the need to inter-relate learning about and learning to use language. There is much we don't yet know. Recent research undertaken by education academic at the University of Hull, Richard Andrews, and his colleagues in Britain reveals that assumed links between knowledge about grammar and improved writing remain unproven. The jury is still out about whether grammar helps students with literacy. Such research is crucial if we are to improve the literacy performances of students.

Fourth, there is the matter of potential: seeing the possibilities in our students' communicative practices. If we accept, as Michael Halliday, emeritus professor of linguistics at the University of Sydney, has suggested, that language is "a resource for making meanings", then our grammars must become attuned not just to problems but also to (often surprising) developments in students' uses of language. This orientation is alert to the promise in a first draft, to a deconstructive cartoon, the subversion in an impromptu class performance. Our young people are doing such clever things in their out-of-school literacy practices. Any grammar that is going to lead development in new routines has to follow as well as lead in these new dances. Are we up to it? Do we think we can dance?

SOURCE





3 February, 2009

Brightest British children 'failed by state school teachers who fear promoting elitism'

Bright children in state schools are being failed by teachers who refuse to give them extra help for fear of promoting "elitism", a Government-backed report has found. A significant number of schools have failed to enter their most talented pupils in an official programme designed to push the very best children, it concluded.

Labour's so-called Gifted and Talented scheme - launched in 1999 - was set up amid concerns that middle-class parents were abandoning the state sector for private schools. It was designed to answer critics' claims that bright children struggle in the comprehensive system because they are dragged down by classmates. Under the scheme, covering all pupils under 19, primary and secondary schools are asked to nominate the best pupils for extra support to make sure they fulfilled their potential. This was originally defined as the top five per cent of pupils but has since been changed to ten per cent. Those nominated are provided with after-school classes and weekend tuition in order to ensure they are sufficiently challenged.

But a study by ACL Consulting, commissioned by the Department for Children, Schools and Families, found fundamental opposition to the scheme among schools. The findings suggest that many pupils may have been held back from achieving their potential as a result of a reluctance on the part of teachers to give them the opportunities the Government intended for them.

The report come just days after figures published by the Conservatives showed one-in-seven pupils named among the brightest failed to get five good GCSEs at 16. "Many schools were initially unwilling to provide... details of their pupils who were within the 'top five per cent'," said the report. "Although this resistance was gradually eroded over time, there was doubtless still a substantial core of schools unwilling to play their role in the process."

The Conservatives said the findings showed that Labour policies to get the best out of the brightest children in state schools were failing "It's vital that the brightest children are properly stretched," said Nick Gibb, shadow schools minister: "Ministers told us that the gifted and talented programme would ensure that this happens but the evidence suggests it isn't working."

Nick Seaton, the chairman of the Campaign for Real Education, said: "The Government is clearly failing the brightest pupils. "When you have teachers who for ideological reasons are unwilling to put forward the brightest youngsters for special treatment, it's obvious that a scheme like this can't do anything but fail. "Research shows that many thousands of children who are shown to be very bright by their key stage two tests do not go on to achieve the top A-Levels they should do. The reason is that they are simply not stretched between 11 and 16. All this is bound to lead to a decline in our capability as a nation and will damage us economically."

ACL Consulting is a consultancy group which works for public sector organisations involved in education, training and economic development. Warwick University initially won the contract to run the Government's Gifted and Talented Scheme, set up to nurture the ability of England's most able children. The contract came to an end in 2007 and the scheme is now run by an education charity called CfBT.

In the latest report, consultants tracked the impact of the National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth, established by Warwick in 2002 to spearhead the scheme. It said 4.75m pounds was spent on the academy every year by the Government - the "same amount of money as a 1,100 pupil secondary school would receive annually". The unit received around 2m more in donations by the final year of its contact. But the study said it failed to establish itself "as the key point of reference" for schools promoting the needs of talented children. "It is interesting to speculate on the cause of this unwillingness," it said. "If it is because of a misunderstanding of the place of special support for gifted and talented young people - perhaps a confusion of 'elitism' with 'special needs' - then that is arguably not NAGTY's fault, however it would then indicate an important development need that many schools and their senior managers should look to address." The report added that the academy offered little for youngsters who had great potential, but were performing below what they were capable of.

Ministers no longer set a quota of five per cent of pupils to take part in the scheme. But they do recommend that as many as 10 per cent of "gifted" pupils - usually defined as the elite in terms of academic subjects - and 10 per cent of the most "talented" with potential in other areas, such as sport or the arts, are given extra help.

The report concluded that the NAGTY had done much to raise the national profile of education for gifted and talented pupils but said its legacy was "thin, and value for money therefore limited". Margaret Morrissey, of the campaign group Parents Out Loud, said: "Parents tell me that they are very concerned the brightest children do not get enough attention and subsequently go backwards in ability. "Many brighter children are also used by teachers to help the less able pupils, and in some are even being used to take the lessons themselves. "The only minority group the Government is interested in helping are the underachievers. They don't ever give the brightest kids the help they need. "The best pupils then get bored and switch off. And if an 11-year-old switches off, they don't come back. You've lost them and they will be mediocre for the rest of their school lives."

A DCSF spokesman said: "This is an evaluation of a historic institution which no longer exists - the Gifted and Talented programme has progressed significantly. The National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth was designed only for the top 5 percent of learners aged 11-19. Since September 2007, the new Young Gifted and Talented Learner Academy (YG&T) has been available for all learners identified as gifted and talented by their schools and colleges. "Schools are resoundingly on board. Our latest data shows that 95 percent of secondary schools and 78 percent of primary schools are identifying over 800,000 gifted and talented pupils. "This is not elitism. It is about ensuring that all learners receive the challenge and support they need to reach their potential."

SOURCE




Voucher scheme for Scottish schools howled down

A radical proposal to overhaul Scotland's education system and give disadvantaged youngsters priority access to top independent schools was unveiled yesterday. Reform Scotland, an independent think tank that believes parents should have more choice in their children's school, claims Scottish government statistics show almost half of second year pupils are not able to read and write to the expected standard. It wants to stimulate more competition between schools to improve standards.

It is proposing an "entitlement" scheme whereby parents would be given a credit equivalent to the cost of educating their child in their local authority area. They could use this at any school where a place was available. If a private school charged more than the entitlement, parents could not "top up" the difference. However, children who receive free school meals - a key indicator of disadvantage - would be given a supplement from central government, on top of their entitlement. This would give children in some local authority areas, such as Shetland, an entitlement to an education of at least 10,000 pounds.

Geoff Mawdsley, director of Reform Scotland and one of the authors of the Parent Power report, said the scheme should not necessitate any additional cost for mainstream pupils. However, he admitted that the think tank had not assessed how much extra cash would be needed from Holyrood to provide for the deprived children. He said the new system would "extend opportunity and promote social mobility" and warned that, without it, "countless numbers of children ... will be failed by an education system that does not meet their needs." The group wants to pilot its scheme with deprived youngsters and then extend it further. This willwould mean that, initially, the disadvantaged pupils willwould be given priority over mainstream pupils.

According to the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), such children have lower exam results and are more likely to drop out or truant. Reform Scotland claims that, despite the cash invested in state schools, they are "failing those who need them most." The OECD, in its 2007 Programme for International Student Assessment, found that countries where schools compete for pupils have better results.

The report drew criticism from teachers' leaders who accused the group of failing to understand the education system. Jim Docherty, acting general secretary of the Secondary School Teachers Association, said the plans were "drivel from beginning to end. This idea has been floating around for years", he said. "It betrays a total, utter, complete lack of understanding of how the public education system operates. It is nothing more than the Thatcherite `parents should have the right to choose' writ large." He said the vast majority of schools were at capacity so the proposals would not work - and the idea that some schools were better than others was "completely erroneous" anyway.

Ken Cunningham, general secretary of the School Leaders Scotland union said an entitlement scheme was "hugely complex" and would be very difficult to implement. He also said that there were numerous underlying issues which determined whether children succeeded or not, rather than simply the school they attended.

However, Liz Smith, Scottish Conservative schools spokeswoman and former private school teacher, said the proposals were "giving families much more freedom of choice on which school to send their children to". "They are talking about a radically different approach from what exists just now," she said. "It praises some of the aspects of the state sector but to get rid of the monolithic state they are trying to build in much more flexibility."

The report also suggests that local authorities could relinquish the power to run some schools, making them independent. And it wants to give local authorities complete control over pay and conditions for teachers, effectively ending plea-bargaining. Mr Docherty said such a scheme would result in 32 disputes every year, as opposed to one. Mr Cunningham also dismissed the idea, warning: "Anyone who tries to muck around with the pay and conditions within that frame in Scotland does not understand workforce planning."

A Scottish Government spokesman said the administration agreed with Reform Scotland that recent steady progress had to be accelerated, which was why it was working on the Curriculum for Excellence. He added: "While we remain unconvinced regarding some of the more radical elements of their proposals, Reform Scotland's report is thought-provoking and we welcome all contributions that promote real debate on the best way to ensure every school becomes a good school."

SOURCE





2 February, 2009

British charter schools under attack

They are called "academies" in Britain to make them sound grander than they really are

ONE of the inventors of the government's city academies has warned their success is being jeopardised by the "creeping return" of council control. The academies were designed under Tony Blair to close failing inner-city schools and replace them with institutions that are independent of meddling local politicians and run instead by outside sponsors. However, Sir Cyril Taylor, former chairman of the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, warned that, since Gordon Brown came to power, councils have been allowed to reassert their influence over the staffing, admissions and finances of academies. The government aims to open 400. "The whole point is to give them independence," said Taylor in advance of his new book to be published by Routledge on February 10. "Now the programme risks drifting from the core mission with too much control being exercised by local authorities - no doubt in my mind about that."

Ed Balls, the schools secretary, restated his commitment to academies last week. This has failed to allay concerns. Taylor said the initiative should remain focused on failing schools - sponsors should not be given the easier option of taking over well-performing schools, and troubled private schools should not be allowed to become academies as an escape route from bankruptcy. This weekend the schools minister, Jim Knight, said the government would consider such approaches in areas where there was demand for more school places.

Taylor was ousted from chairmanship of the trust in a board-room coup in 2007 after angering colleagues with abrasive comments about incompetent teachers. He returns to the theme in his new book, A Good School for Every Child. Taylor writes that there are more than 13,000 incompetent teachers, adding: "Procedures to move on ineffective teachers or staff in English schools are absurdly complicated, time-consuming and frustrating."

Taylor is seen as the co-founder of academies along with Lord Adonis, the Blairite former schools minister moved to the transport department last year by Brown. Taylor, 73, last week described Adonis's departure as "an absolute tragedy". He added: "The turnover of staff since has been absolutely appalling. A lot of the officials they have now, you don't even know if they believe in the initiative." Taylor argues that academies have proved their worth by improving grades 50% faster than the national average. This, he says, has happened despite them having twice as many pupils on free school meals.

Academies have long been controversial. Labour back-benchers and unions oppose their control by sponsors who include companies, a duke, charities, church groups, private schools and universities. Last month, official data showed improvements made by some academies had slipped back. Ofsted, the schools inspectorate, has declared an academy in Carlisle as failing after an emergency inspection sparked by pupil violence, a teachers' revolt and parental protests.

Alasdair Smith, secretary of the Anti Academies Alliance, said: "If what Taylor is saying was true, I'd be delighted. My worry is it isn't true enough. In some cases, they are being left with no alternative but to turn to councils as the businesses they wanted are getting cold feet." Michael Gove, the shadow schools secretary, said: "Sir Cyril is absolutely right to point out how academy freedom has been eroded."

The schools department said: "We are not changing the academy model. The local authority role has not changed and will not change."

SOURCE




Australia: Exodus to private schools continues in Queensland

Tracking the decay of discipline in government schools

PARENTS deserted Queensland's state schools last year, with independent primary schools growing at a much higher rate than government schools. Catholic primary schools also experienced massive growth compared to their state counterparts. The surprising figures were released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics this week in its "Schools, Preliminary Australia" 2008 report. It showed state primary schools, which had 308,698 students in 2007, attracted only 73 more students in 2008. Meanwhile, independent primary schools grew their ranks from 48,035 in 2007 to 50,577 in 2008.

Government high schools fared better, with growth rates only eight and five times higher in the independent and Catholic sectors respectively.

The figures also confirm the government is having trouble retaining staff, with full-time teaching staff growth rates dipping just below 0 per cent, while non-government schools grew 4 per cent.

Independent Schools Queensland executive director Dr John Roulston said choosing a school was "a very considered decision these days", with many parents settling on the independent sector for its academic excellence, sense of community and variety, including Christian, Muslim, Montessori, Steiner and grammar schools.

Queensland Catholic Education Commission executive director Mike Byrne said parents and students were continuing to choose Catholic schools for their Christian values, emphasis on pastoral care, academic excellence and strong family partnerships.

Non-government Queensland schools also had one of the highest rates of students staying on to Year 12 in the nation, according to a Productivity Commission report released yesterday.

Education Minister Rod Welford said enrolments continued to grow at state schools, which this year enrolled more than 480,000 children - about 65 per cent of Queensland's students. "School subject options ranging from academic to vocational education offered by state schools are equivalent to, or exceed those offered at many private schools," he said. "State school enrolments continue to increase."

SOURCE





1 February, 2009

"Muslim schools performed best overall" in Britain

I believe it. Why? One word: Discipline

Pupils in England's religious state schools scored significantly better examination results at seven, 11 and 16 than those in community schools, figures show. On average, 85 per cent of children at Anglican, Roman Catholic, Jewish and Muslim schools left primary school with a decent grasp of the basics - compared to 79 per cent elsewhere. Muslim schools performed best overall, although they constitute only a fraction of the country's 7,000 faith schools.

Critics claim that higher scores are achieved because faith schools use admissions policies to cream off middle-class pupils. Last year, the Catholic Church reported a surge in late baptisms as parents attempted to boost their children's chances of getting into the much sought-after schools. And a recent report by the Runnymede Trust - a multi-cultural think-tank - said they should be stripped of their power to select along religious lines to prevent distortion.

But faith leaders insist schools do well because of their religious ethos and a focus on traditional discipline and teaching methods. Oona Stannard, director of the Catholic Education Service, said: "Our success comes from fulfilling our mission, which is so much more than what Ofsted or the Government says a school must do. When I was a teacher, I remembered that I was not just seeing a child, but was seeing God in that child, and that creates expectations in teachers. "We are charged with developing the whole child."

Faith schools currently make up a third of all state-funded schools in England. Some 4,657 are Anglican, 2,053 are Roman Catholic and 82 belong to other Christian denominations. Another 36 schools are Jewish, eight Muslim, two Sikh and one is Hindu. Most use religion - often gauged by attendance at weekly worship or references from local faith leaders - as a tiebreaker when over-subscribed.

An analysis of GCSE results from 2007 reveals pupils in these schools make more progress at every stage of the education system. Some 51 per cent of pupils in Church of England schools and 52 per cent in Catholic schools gained five or more good GCSEs, including the subjects of English and maths. Scores increased to 63 per cent in Muslim schools but soared to 77 per cent in Jewish secondaries. By comparison, only 43 per cent of pupils made the grade in England's non-religious schools last year.

Faith schools also outperformed the rest based on the Government's favoured "value-added" measure, which compares performance at 16 to results when pupils started secondary school at 11. Scores are also weighted to take account of the number of pupils speaking English and second language and those on free meals - ensuring schools with large numbers of middle-class children do not gain unfair advantage. On this measure, Muslim pupils made the most progress, followed by those at Jewish schools, other Christian schools, Catholic schools and Anglican schools. Again they outstripped secular schools.

It suggests that claims faith schools are dominated by children from rich backgrounds may be exaggerated. Last month, a report by the schools adjudicator found that two-thirds of schools controlling their own entrance policies - most of which are faith schools - failed to follow the code on admissions. A large number were found to have asked for extra information from applicants, prompting critics to accuse them of seeking to discover parents' incomes and marital statuses in order to "cream off" middle-class pupils who tend to do better academically.

SOURCE




Late entry to school unwise

Comment from Australia

Every fad has its use-by date, and it seems the middle-class phenomenon of holding children back from starting school may be on the wane. As the latest batch of kindy kids poured through the gates this week, research has been challenging the popular view that delaying entry into school is a recipe for success. The theory was that starting school at an older age would give your child, especially if he is a boy, a leg-up on his peers. The author Steve Biddulph was one of its most effective advocates, claiming in his 1997 bestseller Raising Boys that boys feel "inadequate" if they go to school before the age of six. He sparked a decade-long arms race of age one-upmanship as parents tried to ensure their child was the most co-ordinated, most confident student in the class.

Forget that the cut-off date for school entry in NSW requires a child turn five before July 31. Parents started enrolling their six-year-olds in kindy, even if they had been ready to go to school for a year, with an 18-month-age span in classrooms increasingly common. But the results are in, and it turns out being older is not a panacea for a boy's ills after all. Researchers at the Michigan State University and the University of Illinois have found holding children back is a waste of time. All the parental angst was for nothing.

Any initial advantage older children had over younger classmates in the first few months "declines sharply in subsequent years" and soon disappears, found the study of more than 40,000 American students, to be published this year in the Journal Of Human Resources. "Rather than providing a boost to children's human capital development, delayed entry simply postpones learning and is likely not worth the long-term costs," wrote the authors, Todd Elder and Darren Lubotsky.

In the US, where the practice of holding children back is called "red-shirting", another study of 9000 children, published in the journal Pediatrics, found children who started school later had more behavioural problems than younger students, especially at adolescence.

One of the more ridiculous reasons given for holding a child back in kindergarten is that he will be able to drink legally 12 years later during HSC celebrations. In fact, this may turn out to be a ticking time bomb, as the Biddulph effect moves into high school. More students in year 12 will be 18, of legal drinking age, for longer than ever.

Trying to "cram adults into a schoolchild's routine" is going to be challenge for schools, says a Willoughby mother of three, Janelle. It is the 18-month age gap between children in the same class that can cause problems, all the way through school, she says. So unless parents have a good reason to hold back a child, they should be required to observe the cut-off date. "The school system has created this problem. If the date were set in concrete there would be no problem … I don't think it should be up to the parents. It puts pressure on parents on both sides of the fence to defend their position." She bucked the trend by sending her February-born son to school "early" and never wasted a moment worrying. The now 13-year-old has thrived in every way, but Janelle has endured sceptical questions from other parents. "They don't have any valid reason, apart from saying, 'I don't want him to be the youngest one.' Well, why not? There is nothing to be gained by holding them back, so why do it? Someone has to be the youngest in the class."

Peer pressure among parents is a powerful influence, says Professor Bob Perry, of the Murray School of Education at Charles Sturt University. He knows people who have held children back simply "because they couldn't stand the pressure from other parents". It is primarily a "white, middle-class" phenomenon because many parents can't afford an extra year of child care before school. Perry also has observed that any differences in aptitude at kindergarten due to age differences soon dissipate. "There are plenty of examples of 4½-year-olds who do very well and six-year-olds who don't. Age is not the central issue … It is how they fit into the system - their social and emotional maturity."

Being old for your class can even be a disadvantage. It can shatter a child's confidence when his younger classmates overtake him. "Knowing you're the king pin but that you're only that because you're older can't be all that good for self-esteem."

An age gap may in fact benefit younger students, with the Michigan study finding they score better test results when they have older classmates. Paradoxically, the study also found younger students more likely to be diagnosed with learning disabilities.

In the end, each parent should make the decision they feel is best for their child, and then they have to make it work, says Perry. But the pressure on parents to make that decision has been so intense for the past decade, the question can haunt them for years. One North Shore mother of two, Nicole, has agonised over her decision to send her now 14-year-old son to school before he turned five. His January birthday was a comfortable six months before the July 31 cut-off date, but every year she worried he would suffer from being younger than his peers. It wasn't until this week, as he entered year 9, a popular, confident adolescent, that she was convinced she had done the right thing.

"I always regretted not holding him back. But you're only unsure of yourself because of the situation other parents have created. We've done the right thing. We've sent our age appropriate child to school but [parents who delay school entry] have made a rod for our back." It took nine years but she has stopped worrying. "Seeing him now with his peers I am much more comfortable … He's happy, so I'm happy."

There is never any shortage of worries for parents, but maybe now we can all move on from the school starting age obsession.

SOURCE