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



29 February, 2012

Dean Faces Bad News for Banning Good News

Dear Dean (Name Withheld):

I am writing today with some very bad news for you. It would appear that, by the end of the year, you may be removed from your position as Dean of Students at (University Name Withheld). But, first, let me share the Good News – that is, if you will promise not to prosecute me for it.

I used to be an atheist. When people tried to share the Gospel with me, I would hurl profanity at them. I would even use a word that begins with “f” and ends with “u-c-k.” (I’m not talking about “fire-truck,” by the way). The Gospel offended me, so I told people to take a hike whenever they tried to share it with me. Now that I have converted, I no longer suffer from that kind of extreme emotional insecurity. And that is Good News. Now it’s time for the bad news.

Recently, a student at your university tried to share the Gospel with another student at your university. That makes sense. You do work at a Christian University. But then three things happened that made little sense. I will present them in chronological order – and in order from the least to most ridiculous event:

1. The student who was hearing the Gospel told the one sharing the Gospel that it was “offensive.” Of course, the Gospel has always been offensive. They would not have nailed Jesus to a cross if it were not. Then, the student demanded that the sharer of the Good News end the conversation. Fair enough. Maybe he was just having a bad day.

2. The next day, the still-offended student filed a speech code complaint over the Gospel sharing incident. The conduct he was engaged in, by the way, is considered sin by the Bible and “diversity” by the student handbook. At many “Christian” universities, the pages of the student handbook that deal with diversity carry more weight than the pages of the Bible that deal with sin. So the real sin is often using the word sin. And that is tantamount to banning the Gospel, which is the only means of dealing with sin – in part, because it confronts sin directly. So you have a choice between the speech code and the Gospel – unless, of course, you were born with the speech code gene.

3. Finally, and most ridiculously, you actually took the complaint seriously and forced the student to stop sharing the Gospel unless someone specifically asked to hear it. The incident was isolated. There was no accusation of harassment. The offending student had no intention of speaking to the offended student again. But you had to permanently ban him from initiating conversations about salvation at a so-call Christian university. The more universities speak of tolerance, the more they reek of intolerance. The paradox is that you’ve demonstrated that principle with your indifference to principle.

But this is the last time you are ever going to silence a student who wishes to share the Gospel. By my count – I have been talking with and mentoring the “offending” student daily - you had approximately five meetings in which you threatened disciplinary action. At each one of these meetings you spoke. Each time you spoke, you offended the Gospel-sharing student. And, worse, now that other Christians are hearing of the incident, they are also offended and intimidated into silence. Put simply, they are now afraid to share the Gospel at your “Christian” university. One could say you are bullying them with the speech code. And you can’t defend yourself by saying this was an “isolated” incident. You prosecuted the Gospel-sharer based on an isolated incident. Remember?

So I have done what I must do. I have begun by organizing a series of five counter-claims against you – one for each time you spoke to the Gospel-sharing student. These five claims will come from five different students whose speech has been chilled by your conduct. They will all be delivered at once in the form of hate speech charges. In other words, you have used the speech code as a sword against others and now the sword is about to be taken from you. And it will be pointed directly toward your heart. Unless you relinquish it voluntarily you will die by it.

Let me be very specific – even at risk of repeating myself: If you don’t get rid of the campus speech code within the next ten weeks we are coming after your job. That is only bad news if you do not repent of your sinfully censorious ways and allow students to share the Good News. As always, your fate depends upon your courage and willingness to do the right thing. It is my fervent prayer that you will learn from the example of your student-accusers. They are showing what it means to be bold in the face of emotional weakness masquerading as intellectual diversity.

You’ll be hearing from us soon,

Mike S. Adams

SOURCE





Nasty British teachers refuse to help five-year-old girl rub eczema cream into her back over "child protection fears"

What they say makes no sense. They just don't want to help the little girl

A school has refused to rub eczema cream on to a five-year-old's back because staff say they're not allowed to touch her over child protection fears.

Leah Johnston, a pupil at at Woolston Infant School, near Southamton, Hampshire, has such a severe form of the condition that she has to apply the medication to her entire body four times a day. If it goes untreated, specialists say the schoolgirl's sores can become badly infected, meaning she has to apply the cream during the school day at least once.

Naturally, she can't cover her own back but the school's head teacher, Julie Swanston, says staff can only supervise her because their child protection policy makes it ‘inappropriate' for them to help apply the cream.

Leah's mother, Kerry Webb, has described the decision as ‘crazy' and wants the school to show some common sense. The 24-year-old, from Woolston, said: 'Leah is really good at remembering to rub the cream in. She is able to do it herself over her arms and legs and chest but she physically cannot reach her back. 'She is just five years old. All I am asking for is a bit of common sense for them to just help with her back.

'I can't understand them saying they can't touch her, it's crazy. What happens if a child falls over or needs some other sort of treatment. Would they not touch them too?

'Leah also suffers from asthma and needs to use inhalers at school every day - a process that is overseen by staff.

'It has been suggested that a simple solution would be to have a second member of staff supervising as one applies the cream. 'This is a policy used at other schools when child protection is an issue.'

The National Eczema Society has also called for the school to take a ‘sensible approach' to Leah's situation. Chief executive Margaret Cox said: 'Unfortunately we do hear of such cases where schools have a ‘non-touch' policy. 'This is a serious problem for eczema sufferers who really do need this medication applied. I would call for a sensible approach here so that in such cases the rules could be relaxed to allow for the medication to be given.'

Head bitch teacher Julie Swanston said: 'There have never in the past been any issues or concerns from any parents, pupils or teachers in how we help to administer medication to children.

'In this particular case we have supervised the child putting on her medication and have been in regular communication with the child's parents and doctor.

'In normal circumstances when administering things like creams we would either ask the parents to administer them or, like in this instance, we would help the child to administer it themselves under our supervision, as long as we get prior agreement from the child's parents. 'I'm very sorry to hear there is some concern, and we will continue to ask the parents to come in and talk to us to see how we can address those concerns.'

SOURCE





Wicked web of British university funding

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive

The tangled web that has become university funding in the UK is already throwing up early evidence of what a fraud the whole thing will prove to be.

In last week’s Times Higher Education, an article purports that students would be foolish to repay their loans early, even after the government’s scrapping of early-repayment penalties. It quotes Tim Leunig of CentreForum and a lecturer at the London School of Economics as saying graduates should think twice about paying off their debts early because most will never repay the full amount within 30 years, after which time arrears are written off.

He’s quoted as saying “Every penny of their early repayment is a gift to the government.” A gift to the government!!! That heavenly body showering us all with free goodies? What he really means is that failing to repay is a good kick in the ass to every hardworking taxpayer now stumping up the cash.

Putting yet another boot into the taxpayer is Liam Burns, president of the National Union of Students who’s quoted as saying “Ministers must come clean on student finance that those on low and middle income are not duped into chipping away at their outstanding debt.” Duped!!! Doesn’t he mean reneging on a promise?

So the government whips up a scheme for which it has no plans to fully collect unpaid debt, a teacher of our young advises against doing so and a student leader fans the flame of irresponsibility.

How morally bankrupt our body politic has become.

SOURCE



28 February, 2012

Occupy Activists‘ ’Mic Check’ Prompts Physical Altercation at Pro-Israel College Event

The efforts of pro-Palestinian “Occupy” protesters to stifle the free speech of pro-Israel speakers nationwide continued at the University of New Mexico on Thursday night when a small group tried to shout down a speech by author Nonie Darwish. This time, their pre-planned disruption led to a physical altercation.

Darwish, founder of Arabs for Israel and director of Former Muslims United, was speaking at an event titled, “Why the Arab Spring is Failing” organized by the University of New Mexico Israel Alliance and the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Activists from “(un)Occupy Albuquerque” – a group allied with the Occupy Wall Street movement – started a “people’s mic” seen frequently during the Occupy Wall Street protests.

As seen on a video posted to YouTube, the pro-Palestinian activists yelled: “Mic check! Nonie Darwish speaks for Israeli apartheid! And genocide at the hands of the IDF!”

Shortly after the “mic check” begins, the audience is heard shouting at those disrupting the speech, and chanting “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” Then, a scuffle begins. Though the camera angle is tight – which complicates providing an objective description — it appears an older audience member tried to grab the paper (presumably the script of anti-Israel slogans) out of one of the Occupy protester’s hands, which lead to pushing and shoving.

This as other audience members further away shouted profanities, urging them to “Get out!”

It’s unclear from the tape if an older male audience member lunged at the protesters or tripped on a chair and fell forward on then. Watch the two videos here posted by the protesters:

The activists and their supporters claimed three of them were “were assaulted on UNM campus for simply trying to make their voices heard and it is a shock that a non-violent action was met with such aggression.”

If you were wondering what “(un)Occupy” is, it’s part of the “Occupy” movement, but protests the movement’s use of the word “occupy,” because, according to its website: "The word “occupy” in general is offensive to most Native Americans and indigenous people and people of color in general – again in general. Occupations have displaced us for generations by Europeans."

After the protesters left and she was able to resume her speech, Darwish told the audience, “They could have waited to prove me wrong but they can’t unfortunately and I feel sad for them because our children are being poisoned mentally.”

Nonie Darwish tells The Blaze what she saw happen:

A few people from the audience went to escort them out of the hall, but they refused to leave in defiance. As I was watching from the stage where I had an elevated view, I saw an older gentlemen was trying to escort a female student as she refused to move and was reading her chants from a paper, as he tried to take the paper I saw her elbow move towards the older man and he pushed her away and no one fell or was hurt.

The occupiers did everything to intimidate my sponsors to dis-invite me, then protested outside the hall and when that did not work, they screamed and yelled to silence me in the middle of my lecture. Pro-Israel and critics of Islam and Sharia practically no longer exist on US college campuses who only allow anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and anti-American activities throughout the school year…

If the ‘occupiers’ were truly serious about challenging my opinion, they could have waited for the Q and A after my presentation and proved me wrong. Welcome to the West Bank and Gaza culture on our University campuses.

In the description accompanying a YouTube video, one of those who came to hear Darwish speak wrote:

The Nonie Darwish talk had a big turnout and most of the attendees were glad they were there, in spite of SJP and the Occupy people getting together to disrupt the talk and prevent the speaker from speaking in the name of free speech and tolerance. Several people in the audience went to chase them out of the lecture hall, in defense of their own free speech rights. The protesters took choice videos, lied about many things and plastered it all around so it would become news. Strange that these protesters were willing to serve as an object lesson and proof of what Nonie Darwish was telling the audience: Criticism of Islam is not tolerated, and following Sharia, others have no rights or freedoms.

SOURCE





British teachers deserting a chaotic system

Soaring numbers of teachers are taking early retirement amid threats to their pensions, figures revealed yesterday. Almost 9,000 teachers left before the statutory retirement age last year – the highest figure since 1997.

Teachers’ leaders blamed the demands of dealing with unruly pupils as well as pressure from targets and Ofsted inspections. They also cited pay freezes and changes requiring teachers to pay more into pension funds.

The figures – from the Department for Education – also show more than 230,000 qualified teachers aged under 60 are no longer working in schools. A further 80,700 trained as teachers but never entered the classroom. Vast numbers of teachers are ‘out of service’ even though school rolls will rise after a surge in births.

The teachers’ pension age is 65 but those joining prior to 2007 can get their pension at 60.

Some 8,880 state school teachers took early retirement in 2010/11 – 1,570 more than the year before. There were only 2,370 early retirements in 1998/99. Most retiring teachers were aged 55 to 59 but a small number were in their early fifties. The average pension for those retiring early was £15,000 a year – excluding lump sums.

Christine Blower, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said: ‘Excessive workload, a restrictive curriculum and the intense worry and fear regarding Ofsted inspections would certainly lead to many teachers wanting to take early retirement.'

She added: 'The teaching profession comes under almost daily attack and criticism from Government and Ofsted.

‘In too many schools, planning and assessment requirements have become formulaic burdens which have become the bane of teachers’ lives – add to that pay freezes and threats to pensions.’

Teaching unions are battling the Government over pensions, which are becoming less generous due to the squeeze on public finances. The clash has already led to strikes.

Chris McGovern, a former head teacher and chairman of the Campaign for Real Education, said: ‘It is a tough job and it’s not surprising teachers are being ground down by teaching disaffected children and relying on a curriculum that is not relevant.’

A Department for Education spokesman said: ‘It’s no surprise that teachers who joined the profession in the 1970s might choose to draw their pensions early – as is their right.’ He said reforms, including giving teachers more freedom to do their jobs, should help attract and retain staff.

SOURCE






Parents can forget about teaching, kids call the shots

This is true. Twin studies show that IQ is overwhelmingly genetic, with NO influence from the family environment

PARENTS fretting about brain-training their babies have been told to relax - children are like "dandelions" that will flourish almost regardless of what you do.

Brain experts say mums and dads worry unnecessarily about their children's development, because the impact of parenting is limited.

New book Welcome To Your Child's Brain, written by neuroscientists, concludes most children can reach their potential with "good enough" parenting because they are born hard-wired for learning.

"Many modern parents believe that children's personality and adult behaviour are shaped mainly by parenting, but research paints a very different picture," according to the book, due for release in May.

"For many brain functions, from temperament to language to intelligence, the vast majority of children are dandelions ... they flourish in any reasonable circumstances."

But while force-feeding babies and toddlers with learning is not the answer, spending quality time with them is important, say authors Sandra Assmodt and Professor Sam Wang.

"Parents are well suited to teach them, just by interacting with their children in everyday life," they said.

Clinical psychologist Dr Simon Crisp said parents should take cues from their children "because they will learn at a pace that suits them".

"The important thing is to develop a culture at home that values learning," he said. "Make learning fun and enjoyable. Happy and relaxed parents will bring up a happy and relaxed child."

SOURCE



27 February, 2012

SCOTUS to take new look at affirmative action

The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to consider whether the University of Texas at Austin has the right to consider race and ethnicity in admissions decisions. Those bringing the case hope the Supreme Court will restrict or even eliminate the right of colleges to consider race in admissions - a prerogative last affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2003 in a case involving the University of Michigan's law school.

In a sign that is likely to worry supporters of affirmative action (and to cheer critics of the practice), Justice Elena Kagan announced that she took no part in consideration of the appeal seeking a Supreme Court review — a likely sign that she will not take any part in the actual review. Kagan did not announce why, but conservative legal bloggers have been calling on her to recuse herself because of her work as U.S. solicitor general filing a brief in support of the University of Texas. If she continues to recuse herself, a justice thought to be supportive of affirmative action will not be voting.

The case before the Supreme Court now is over whether the University of Texas is exceeding the right granted by the 2003 decision. The plaintiffs argue that because Texas uses a statewide "10%" plan - in which students in the top 10% of their high school classes are automatically admitted to the public college of their choice - the state's flagship university can achieve a diverse student body without race-based policies. (Many Texas high schools have enrollments that are overwhelmingly made up of members of particular racial or ethnic groups, so the plan provides a steady stream of black and Latino students to UT Austin.)

The university and other defenders of affirmative action argue that just because a university can achieve some diversity without the consideration of race and admissions does not mean that it may not also consider race and ethnicity to achieve a higher level of diversity.

The 2003 ruling affirming the right of colleges to consider race in admissions, like most decisions upholding affirmative action plans, suggests that the consideration of race should take place only when other approaches would not work.

In theory, the Supreme Court could rule only on the question of whether universities with admissions plans like that of Texas (a relatively small number) are permitted to also consider race in admissions. But a reopening of the question of the use of race in admissions decisions could involve broader questions about whether any consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions is appropriate. Any such broader consideration makes many college officials very nervous. The Michigan decision was narrowly decided — 5 to 4. The author of the 2003 decision - Justice Sandra Day O'Connor - has since left the court. And the court's decisions since 2003 have shown skepticism about the consideration of race in education and public policy.

The lawsuit over the Texas policies was rejected by a federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

But the consideration of the case by the appeals panel demonstrates how divided courts are on these issues. The decision by the court was 3 to 0, but one judge filed a concurring opinion stating that the appeals panel had to rule as it did, given the 2003 Supreme Court case on Michigan, but that the Supreme Court ruling had been incorrect. Then in June, the full appeals court considered whether to take up the case, and rejected that idea by a vote of 9 to 7.

Several groups that have been critical of the consideration of race in admissions decisions have filed briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the Texas case. The major higher education associations have not yet weighed in on the case at the Supreme Court. But a coalition of groups, led by the American Council on Education, filed a brief with the Fifth Circuit backing the University of Texas position.

SOURCE




It’s secondary education that needs to get real, Mr. Ebdon

If one phrase were needed to sum up all that is wrong with the choice of Les Ebdon as ‘Fair Access’ Czar of British universities, it must be this: “I don’t think universities can just say: ‘Oh well it is because they are doing the wrong GCSEs’… Universities have to deal with the world as it is rather than the world as we would want.”

What he means is that universities should not be allowed to maintain high standards and insist on schools meeting them. Instead, universities should supplicate themselves to whatever mania is sweeping the teacher training colleges at the time.
Ironically, Ebdon’s policies mark the latest in the public education sector’s long march away from anything resembling ‘the real world’.

As I wrote in June, this sort of thinking is the result of the ‘progressive’ education establishment’s attempt to combine its love for fashionable theories with the terrible results when those theories are field tested.

Instead of adopting more effective teaching methods, to which much of the teaching profession has developed a certain ideological antipathy, state educators realised that they had another option: move the goalposts that marked success.

This started with the concept of ‘value added’ results. In essence, where schools had to deal with ‘disadvantaged’ groups such as ethnic minorities, immigrants or the poor, educators demanded that grades and league table positions reflect how well they thought they had done, given the poor materials to hand. Instead of seeing these children as challenges, they sought excuses.

But all these illusory achievements count for little when universal standards are applied, as in university applications. Because no matter how hard state educators insist that one child’s Cs are equivalent to another’s As because the first child is black or poor, in the ‘real world’ so beloved of Professor Ebdon a C is still a C and an A is still an A. Grade inflation notwithstanding, of course.

Once again, instead of renouncing failing methods ‘progressive’ educators are instead trying to lower the bar. It is our world class universities that must adapt ‘to the real world’, not our many unsatisfactory secondary schools.

Yet even if you crowbar these children into universities, they still aren’t properly equipped for the experience. Some universities already have to dedicate time in first year to equipping students with the sort of basic skills they should have developed during their A Levels.

These students will be accruing tens of thousands of pounds of debt to acquire second- or third-rate qualifications, all the while denying a place to a more capable student and weakening the strength and international competitiveness of British higher education.

Yet how far can this fantasy be sustained? What happens when these students hit the employment market and find that the illusory value-added grades they’ve been given by lazy educators aren’t actually worth the same as qualifications acquired through impartial assessment and intellectual rigour?

Will the next generation of Ebdons insist on ‘value-added’ degrees, and that employers must deal with the world ‘as it really is, not as they would wish it to be’? Will employers be forbidden from ‘discriminating’ against such qualifications?
It sounds totally outlandish. But following the logic of Ebdon’s appointment, it no longer sounds impossible.

SOURCE






Disruptive children in British schools are to be moved to “sin bin” schools

Not quite the "Borstals" of yore but a step in the right directions

Disruptive children are to be educated in “sin bin” schools that will concentrate on basic skills with longer teaching days

A government review after last summer’s riots is to recommend wide-ranging powers for institutions teaching those expelled from mainstream schools.

Ministers will this week announce that the schools, to be known as pupil referral units, will be able to become academies with the power to set their own timetables, curriculum and staff wages. They are designed to tackle what ministers have branded the “educational underclass”.

Head teachers have already been given powers to make it easier to expel unruly children. It is hoped that the disruptive pupils can be moved more quickly to the special units.

The proposals form the central recommendations of a review of school discipline and truancy conducted by Charlie Taylor, a headmaster and the Government’s behaviour adviser.

The review is understood to back higher fines for the parents of truants. Ministers are believed to be in favour of docking benefits if the fines are not paid. However, the publication of the review may be delayed as the Liberal Democrats are understood to be opposed to more draconian sanctions.

Mr Taylor said: “We have a flawed system that fails to provide for some of the most vulnerable children in the country. “If we fail to give them a first-class education then, as the events of this summer showed, we will pay a heavy price. “Mainstream academies flourish and improve faster than the national average. Heads of the best pupil referral units tell me that they want the same freedoms.”

A senior government source said the new generation of schools would focus on teaching basic skills such as reading and writing. Teenagers may also be taught vocational skills. The source said: “They will be freed from the constraints of local authorities to teach their own curriculum and pay staff appropriately.”

Children who are excluded from schools already attract far higher levels of government funding. However, the results from pupil referral units are typically appalling. Figures published last year showed that in 2009-10, only 1.4 per cent of pupils in the institutions achieved five good GCSEs, compared with a national average of more than 53 per cent.

It is hoped that many pupils will be able to return to mainstream schools after short, but intensive periods. The system is the latest reform introduced by Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, to improve school discipline.

SOURCE



26 February, 2012

Math Matters

Walter E. Williams

If one manages to graduate from high school without the rudiments of algebra, geometry and trigonometry, there are certain relatively high-paying careers probably off-limits for life -- such as careers in architecture, chemistry, computer programming, engineering, medicine and certain technical fields. For example, one might meet all of the physical requirements to be a fighter pilot, but he's grounded if he doesn't have enough math to understand physics, aerodynamics and navigation. Mathematical ability helps provide the disciplined structure that helps people to think, speak and write more clearly. In general, mathematics is an excellent foundation and prerequisite for study in all areas of science and engineering. So where do U.S. youngsters stand in math?

Drs. Eric Hanushek and Paul Peterson, senior fellows at the Hoover Institution, looked at the performance of our youngsters compared with their counterparts in other nations, in their Newsweek article, "Why Can't American Students Compete?" (Aug. 28, 2011), reprinted under the title "Math Matters" in the Hoover Digest (2012). In the latest international tests administered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, only 32 percent of U.S. students ranked proficient in math -- coming in between Portugal and Italy but far behind South Korea, Finland, Canada and the Netherlands. U.S. students couldn't hold a finger to the 75 percent of Shanghai students who tested proficient.

What about our brightest? It turns out that only 7 percent of U.S. students perform at the advanced level in math. Forty-five percent of the students in Shanghai are advanced in math, compared with 20 percent in South Korea and Switzerland and 15 percent of students in Japan, Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Canada.

Hanushek and Peterson find one bright spot among our young people. That's Asian-American students, 52 percent of whom perform at the proficient level or higher. Among white students, only 42 percent perform math at a proficient level. The math performance of black and Hispanic students is a disaster, with only 11 and 15 percent, respectively, performing math at the proficient level or higher.

The National Center for Education Statistics revealed some of the results of American innumeracy. Among advanced degrees in engineering awarded at U.S. universities during the 2007-08 academic year, 28 percent went to whites; 2 percent went to blacks; 2 percent went to Hispanics; and 61 percent went to foreigners. Of the advanced degrees in mathematics, 40 percent went to whites; 2 percent went to blacks; 5 percent went to Hispanics; and 50 percent went to foreigners. For advanced degrees in education, 65 percent went to whites; 17 percent went to blacks; 5 percent went to Hispanics; and 8 percent went to foreigners. The pattern is apparent. The more rigorous a subject area the higher the percentage of foreigners -- and the lower the percentage of Americans -- earning advanced degrees. In subject areas such as education, which have little or no rigor, Americans are likelier -- and foreigners are less likely -- to earn advanced degrees.

In a New York Times article -- "Do We Need Foreign Technology Workers?" (April 8, 2009) -- Dr. Vivek Wadhwa of the Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University said "that 47 percent of all U.S. science and engineering workers with doctorates are immigrants as were 67 percent of the additions to the U.S. science and engineering work force between 1995 to 2006. And roughly 60 percent of engineering Ph.D. students and 40 percent of master's students are foreign nationals."

American mathematic proficiency levels leave a lot to be desired if we're to maintain competitiveness. For blacks and Hispanics, it's a tragedy with little prospect for change, but the solution is not rocket science. During my tenure as a member of Temple University's faculty in the 1970s, I tutored black students in math. When they complained that math was too difficult, I told them that if they spent as much time practicing math as they did practicing jump shots, they'd be just as good at math as they were at basketball. The same message of hard work and discipline applies to all students, but someone must demand it.

SOURCE





The man who wants to dumb down Britain

The new access tsar runs one of the county's WORST universities - offering courses in breast-feeding, counselling, beauty spa management and carnival arts



Professor Les Ebdon likes to begin his PowerPoint presentations by quoting the Roman philosopher Cicero: ‘Wisdom often exists under a shabby coat.’

With his penchant for shapeless suits and loud ties (betraying a dress sense that’s stuck firmly in the world of 1970s academia), such a mantra is perfect for the vice chancellor of the recently created University of Bedfordshire. But his point is a serious one, for Professor Ebdon is evangelical about the need to get more poor students into higher education.

Few would challenge the concept of ‘opportunity for all’, but Ebdon’s ideas on achieving this are radical in the extreme.

He is vehemently against the ‘Oxbridge Obsession’, never mind the acknowledged excellence of other top-level universities.

Most controversially, he is in favour of social engineering, threatening ‘nuclear’ retribution against universities that don’t increase their intake of students from less well-off backgrounds.

He has also spoken of his disapproval of the grand ‘baronial halls’ of leading universities, saying they could deter applicants from a disadvantaged background.

But why bother about the views of a man who presides over the University of Bedfordshire — ranked joint 102nd out of 119 in the Good University Guide? The answer is that he is about to become Head of the Office for Fair Access, the body designed to help more poor students into higher education.

It’s a profoundly contentious appointment. Professor Ebdon has been steam-rollered through by the Lib Dems, against bitter Conservative opposition. Indeed, Vince Cable, the coalition Business Secretary, ignored both the ‘concerns’ of David Cameron and a parliamentary Business Select Committee questioning his suitability for the post.

It was under Tony Blair that Labour first introduced its so-called ‘flagship’ education policy of aiming to send half of all school-leavers to university — leading to widespread fears about the lowering of university standards and devalued degrees.

Now critics of Ebdon, who is on record defending what detractors term ‘Mickey Mouse’ degrees, are deeply worried that he will simply continue to dumb down our higher education institutions.

Education Secretary Michael Gove is said privately to have described the Ebdon appointment as a ‘disaster’. Gove has called the trend for universities to skew admissions rules in favour of candidates from under-performing comprehensives as ‘bizarre’, as they give poor schools an excuse not to improve.

Other Tories fear Ebdon will lead a ‘race to the bottom’ of educational standards, forcing universities to slash their entry requirements in pursuit of crude social engineering quotas — or risk having their student fees capped by the new tsar.

A leading critic of university fees, Ebdon’s salary at the University of Bedfordshire is around £246,000. In his new government job, which polices tuition fees and admissions targets, he will be paid £45,000 for just two days a week.

But he will have huge powers over elite universities — able to slash their tuition fees from £9,000 to £6,000 a year if they fail to meet targets to take on more students from poor families. He says, rather melodramatically, that he will be an ‘iron fist in a velvet glove’.

But apart from social engineering – what, precisely, does Professor Ebdon, 65, believe in? He is fervently pro ‘modern’ universities — many are ex-polytechnics — railing against the traditional system which has seen Britain’s top universities become world leaders and magnets for research funding.

The Cambridge-Oxford-London ‘Golden Triangle’ group of universities is in his firing line. Why should these establishments receive more money for research than lesser institutions, he asks? Isn’t that elitism? Just because they are better, should they get more money?

He highlights the great potential of newer institutions’ research facilities by mentioning the Fitflop footwear range which was developed at London Southbank University.

As the former chairman of the Million+ think-tank, which represents newer universities including Kingston University London and the University of Wolverhampton, he speaks of such colleges as ‘modern universities’ — as opposed to ‘traditional institutions’, which, in politically correct circles, are considered inaccessible and elitist.

Asked about his own university’s lowly position in the national rankings, his answer was revealing. ‘It’s a snobs’ table,’ he said. ‘Institutions like Cambridge and Oxford are always at the front, while newer places bring up the rear.’

At the University of Bedfordshire (formerly the less illustrious-sounding Luton College of Higher Education), he stresses the importance of ‘widening participation’, ‘social mobility’ and ‘fair access’.

Yet he ignores the latest research that shows the under-representation of working-class pupils in leading universities is due to the poor quality of teaching in many state schools, rather than entry hurdles.

The courses on offer at his institution do not include traditional degree courses such as maths, physics, chemistry, history or modern languages.

Instead, there is a less-than-scholastic two-year course in carnival arts — teaching undergraduates how to design costumes and allowing them ‘to take part in Europe’s largest one-day carnival: the Luton International Carnival’.

Then there is the degree in advertising, and in beauty spa management. Work experience ‘is gained from working in the college’s own salon’. Students will also become ‘expert in hairstyles, wig dressing and making, fashion styling and make-up.’

A fashion and surface pattern design course promises to ‘develop and constantly build upon your creative and problem solving skills’.

Next up is the event management course, during which students will go on ‘sporting field trips to venues like Luton Town Football Club, Twickenham, Wimbledon, Eastlands Stadium, Manchester and the Woburn Golf Club’.

Not surprisingly, there is also a football studies course in which students are given a ‘broad overview of football within a business, coaching and educational environment’. The course is ‘underpinned by academic theory related to football, sport and leisure, and will involve students in the application of concepts in industry-related scenarios and realistic simulations.’ It doesn’t stop there. Students on the sports therapy course will ‘gain qualifications and professional practice in body massage and sports massage’.

In addition, there are courses in beauty therapy and breast-feeding counselling, on which students will ‘work with parents in a person-centred manner that respects individuals’ beliefs and needs’ and will ‘be made aware of the significance of issues of diversity in your practice’.

There are also courses in animal management, advertising design and computer game design and a post-graduate course in sport tourism management (which teaches ‘academic theory in tourism, leisure and events’). Dumbed down indeed!

The University of Bedfordshire also awarded the late TV presenter Sir Jimmy Savile an Honorary Doctor of Arts in 2009. Well-loved he may have been, but he is hardly an exemplar of academic excellence.

In the last year for which statistics are given, almost 13 per cent of Ebdon’s students dropped out of their studies. The national drop-out average was just below 8 per cent, although the university says its drop-out rate is close to the benchmark set by the Government.

In 2004, the then Luton University famously proposed relaxing the consequences for students failing second-year exams, leading one newspaper to ask: ‘Is this the worst university in Britain?’

In 2009, Ebdon backed plans to give students from poor families a head start by offering them places at university on lower exam grades.

He launched a scathing attack on medical schools, mostly found in the top universities, as ‘full of very earnest young people from middle-class backgrounds’ who, he said, might be unwilling to practise in working-class areas.

On being appointed to his new position as access tsar, Ebdon said: ‘I feel privileged to be appointed to this post at such a key time. I am passionate about access to higher education and strongly believe that no one should be put off from going to university because of their family background or income.’

His political ideas on the future of education in Britain are firmly grounded in his own background. He said in March last year: ‘I myself came from a background where nobody had previously been to university, and I remember every time I had a setback, the common response from people in my peer group back home to me was: “University is not for the likes of us.” ’

He said last September: ‘To date, ministers have been too focused on the progression of relatively small numbers of students to a relatively small number of universities.

‘These are very limited aspirations and will do little to ensure the progress of people from groups traditionally under-represented in higher education — those from poorer backgrounds, those who are the first-in-family to go to university, black and ethnic minority students and mature and part-time students.’

The Russell Group, which represents Britain’s top 20 universities, including Oxford and Cambridge, wants to see a return to fewer, higher quality students. Instead, Ebdon is lobbying for the removal of a cap on student numbers.

He acknowledges this will be costly, but says: ‘The easiest thing in the world would be for my board of governors to say to me, “Stop doing all this widening participation work. Go and get some of these easier students to teach with three As at A-level, and save us all a bit of money.”

‘I think it is important, if the Government’s belief is behind their rhetoric, that they recognise these increased costs and that it is important for government money to be there to support them.’

Quite how this can be sustained at a time of austerity and public spending cuts is another matter. Indeed, in their report, the MPs on the Business Select Committee accused Professor Ebdon of woolly-thinking.

Ebdon faced intense questioning from members of the committee about his suitability for the access role. He responded by chastising highly selective universities with ‘patchy’ records on access, saying that he would be prepared to use the ‘nuclear option’ of stopping institutions from charging higher fees if they did not measure up.

The MPs later voiced their concerns, saying: ‘We struggled to get a clear picture of Professor Ebdon’s strategy for the future.’ They concluded: ‘We recommend that the Department conducts a new recruitment exercise.’

Just why Vince Cable has chosen to ride rough-shod over their views, and why the Prime Minister has allowed him to do so, is deeply worrying. But the tragedy is that the effects of the appointment of this unashamed social engineer risk damaging academic standards in Britain for several generations.

SOURCE






More red tape, more autonomy, less choice in Australian education?

Kevin Donnelly

If we project the Gonski school funding recommendations into the future, it is possible to make some hypothetical predictions.

It is possible they would improve state schools by making them more autonomous and giving parents more input into their running, but they would also further bureaucratise school funding and reduce the range of choices for mothers and fathers.

The contradiction in the Gonski report is this: it argues giving schools increased flexibility and freedom will improve results and raise standards, but at the same time recommends increased bureaucracy and red tape and an accountability regime that will restrict innovation and diversity.

A defining characteristic of the Kevin Rudd/Julia Gillard education revolution is its top-down approach. While the Commonwealth government neither manages schools nor employs staff, its national curriculum, testing, teacher registration and certification, and partnership agreements - all linked to funding - have centralised control of education and led to more micromanagement.

Schools would suffer additional compliance costs and red tape under the Gonski recommendation for additional government-sponsored agencies such as the National School Resources Body and School Planning Authorities in the various states.

Then there is the impact inside the classroom. Linking funding to measures such as National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) results would exacerbate the negative influence of standardised testing.

The curriculum will narrow, teachers will feel pressure to be bean counters and schools will be forced to contrive ways to ensure that test results improve. As in the US, especially New York, where there is a history of standardised tests and public accountability, there will also be pressure on governments and education authorities in Australia to water down tests and artificially lift results to convince a sceptical public that standards are being raised.

Over the past 20 years or so, school choice in Australia has become a reality. Many parents have voted with their feet, choosing non-government schools. While enrolments in Catholic and independent schools have grown by approximately 20 per cent, government school enrolments have flatlined at a little more than 1 per cent.

Across Australia, some 34 per cent of students attend non-government schools; more than 50 per cent in some capital cities. Critics argue non-government schools have been so successful because of the Howard government's supposedly inequitable socio-economic status (SES) funding model. They also argue the success of Catholic and independent schools residualises government schools and exacerbates disadvantage as they are left with high concentrations of at-risk and poorly performing students.

But there are two problems with Gonski's team accepting these arguments, which will only make the situation in state schools worse. Firstly, parents are choosing non-government schools because of their values, not just their resources. Secondly, labelling state schools as underperformers will lead to fewer enrolments. Parents are naturally averse to sending their children to a school characterised as serving at-risk students, especially when non-government schools are seen to achieve better results.

The report does nod in the direction of increased school autonomy and allowing schools to better respond to the needs and aspirations of their communities. So parents in future could expect co-operative state governments to free schools from a one-size-fits-all model of educational delivery and ensure that schools, both government and non-government, are more able to manage their own affairs.

Gonski argues for more community engagement with schools, for example, and a greater role for parents, businesses and philanthropic groups. This will add to the pressure on governments to give schools control over budgets, hiring and firing staff and their culture and curriculum focus. So parents could have more input into how the local state school runs.

Then again, the Gonski report could also have an unintended consequence. By recommending that government and non-government students with a disability receive equal funding and that such funding should be portable, it could produce a sort of pilot study for a voucher system for all students. Governments would then be forced to acknowledge that parents have a right to choose where their children go to school and to ensure money follows the child and parents are not financially penalised for their choice.

Of course, given the Gillard government's decision to put the report on the backburner, postponing any decisions until after another round of consultations and submissions, its future is uncertain at best.

Given that the opposition education spokesman, Christopher Pyne, has argued for the existing SES model and expressed doubts about the report, any future Coalition government is likely to shelve it or accept its proposals very selectively.

SOURCE. A lot of interesting commentary here on Finland, genetics and such things



25 February, 2012

What are my Kids Learning? Poll Shows Professors Fail Presidential History

Presidents Day celebrates America’s rich presidential history, yet the people we entrust to teach and write our history books—university professors—have a skewed view of our nation’s past leaders.

On Ronald Reagan’s 101st birthday, Young America’s Foundation released a scientific poll conducted by The Polling Company Inc. of 284 professors on their views on our past presidents—particularly on President Reagan. Those views on Reagan were not surprising. Professors have less of an appreciation for arguably the greatest modern President than do a majority of Americans. What was perhaps more alarming, however, was their disdain of our great founding presidents.

When asked to list their picks for the three greatest presidents of all-time, professors mentioned Franklin Roosevelt significantly more times than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison—and four times as often as President Reagan.

Little Love for Founding Fathers

Professors expressed clear distain for America’s Founding Fathers and founding documents. A meager 1% of professors thought the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, ranked in the top three presidents (compared to 54% for FDR), and only 30% picked Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence.

While there are 43 presidents to choose from, the fact that Bill Clinton got six times as many mentions as James Madison is disturbing. In the poll, 87% of professors said it was “important to pass on analysis and understanding of previous United States Presidents.” But what kind of analysis are they passing on?

In the poll, three times as many professors identified themselves as liberal than as conservative. For a long time, we’ve known about the widespread liberalism in academia, but many Americans don’t realize the impact this ideological bias has on their children’s education.

30% of professors admitted in the Foundation’s poll that their ideology plays a role in their curriculum. That number is alarming enough, but we know from closely studying the intolerant intellectual atmosphere on college campuses, it is far worse than those numbers admit.

As our poll numbers reflect, the ideological sentiments being passed on to students by many professors on the Left dismiss our Founders as largely irrelevant. Is this really what we want our kids to believe?

I don’t. I want my children to see the founders as the visionaries they were. They set the stage for the greatest growth in personal freedom the world has ever seen. But that’s not the story most kids are learning in history class.

Anti-Conservative History

In fact, students are hearing little if anything positive about conservative leaders from professors. In 2011, Gallup released a poll indicating that a plurality of Americans think President Reagan is the greatest president in US history. In our poll, not one professor said Reagan was the greatest president, and 60% said he wasn’t in their top ten. When asked to grade President Reagan, they gave him a C+.

Current popular American opinion of President Reagan arguably isn’t the only way to evaluate his place in history. However, professors are not only out of touch with the American public, they’re out of touch with historical facts.

The facts are that President Reagan ended the cold war and generated the greatest period of peacetime economic growth in US History. Under President Reagan, the misery index (inflation plus unemployment) fell nearly 10 points and youth unemployment dropped more than 5%. Revenues doubled, and the country pulled out of two economic recessions. Professors can’t say the same about FDR or any other president.

The Importance of Factual and Balanced Presidential History

America’s youth look up to the presidency, and many students’ policy beliefs will result from their understanding of a particular president. Our higher education is trying to pull America to the left, and we cannot let their slanted views of historical presidents preside as fact in the classroom.

Our government has strayed from America’s founding values of limited government and personal responsibility. Americans are suffering the economic consequences. Our children must learn about the successes of these fundamental principles so they shape their future around what worked.

Professors gave President Reagan a C+, but Americans should give professors an F. It’s great that professors think presidential history is “important” to share in the classroom, but America, for the sake of our children, let’s make sure these professors get the history right.

SOURCE




Struggling to spk: British Firms send new arrivals on courses to stop them using mobile shorthand in conversation

Bosses are having to send young recruits on courses to ‘de-text’ their speech because they can no longer hold a proper conversation. Training is being given to school leavers who use text-speak such as ‘IDK’ for ‘I don’t know’ and ‘LOL’ for ‘laughing out loud’.

Peter Searle, UK chief executive of the recruitment company Adecco, said growing numbers of firms have been forced into action to rectify the problem. He also warned that social networking websites have created a generation of employees who lack the basic skills needed to succeed in the workplace.

Heavy use of Twitter and Facebook is isolating staff because relationships are all through a machine, he said. ‘We have instances in offices where people would rather sit at their desk and send e-mails to each other next door than walk around and have a conversation. ‘They have no respect for their manager. They don’t ask them for advice because it isn’t their social background to do that.’ ‘All the things that we think of as normal, they aren’t prepared for.’

Employers are struggling to fill vacancies because some school-leavers are unable to work in a team, turn up on time or communicate with colleagues, said Mr Searle. This includes talking in text message language. ‘They only know to interact with short “text speak” to save themselves time, so they start using text speak in conversations,’ he said.

‘They come out of school and want to get a job, but the people who are interviewing them are saying their personal social skills and technical abilities are not suited to the way things work in industry.'

Research for Adecco found that 52 per cent of employers believe the British school system is failing to equip youngsters for the world of work.

Recommendations include an ‘employment experience’ programme to be developed to give pupils a taste of what to expect in their working life.

‘We have a generation of people who are fundamentally bored and who need something to motivate them,’ said Mr Searle.

The recession had highlighted the gap between what the education system provides and what businesses want, he added. ‘There are no large environments where you can just hang up your brain as you go inside and go through the day and get paid for it [Except the public service, of course]. Our education system is failing to equip the future workforce effectively.

‘As a nation, we place insufficient value on the basic tools of employability such as behaviour, attitude and communication – in the classroom, the workplace and in the home. 'As a result, we fear a whole generation of potential workers will be deemed unemployable and lost to UK businesses.’

Mr Searle’s warning reinforces evidence from exam boards that teenagers are using text short-hand in written papers, including ‘C’ for ‘see’ and ‘U’ for ‘you’.

GCSE courses starting in September will award marks for correct spelling, punctuation and grammar. A new curriculum is expected to place greater emphasis on developing speech.

SOURCE





Australia: The drift to private High Schools continues in Qld.

They try to pooh-pooh it below but State schools have to be pretty bad for so many parents to abandon them -- at a considerable monetary sacrifice. Private enrolments are now about 40% of the total, which is huge and getting bigger

STATE high schools are continuing to lose students to the independent and Catholic sectors, figures released today show.

The 2012 Day 8 state school figures - the student data used to allocate staff - show that while primary school enrolments are booming, more than 4000 Year 7 pupils from last year left the sector for private education.

State primary school enrolments rose from 310,104 on Day 8 last year to 317,072 this year - the biggest jump in the sector in recent years. Education Minister Cameron Dick said there was record growth in Prep in state schools, with 1800 extra pupils in 2012, taking the year level to more than 44,700 students across the state.

"This increase reflects the Queensland Government's successful implementation of Prep as the first year of schooling," Mr Dick said.

But the state sector lost about 10 per cent of its Year 7 students when they moved into Year 8 - a figure that was slightly less than in previous years.

About 39,880 Year 7 students were enrolled in a state school on Day 8 last year. The number of students enrolled in Year 8 at state schools this year is 35,712. Overall, state secondary enrolments dropped from 174,737 last year to 174,377 this year.

Queensland Secondary Principals' Association president Norm Fuller said this number was "insignificant" and praised his sector.

"I think state high schools offer more opportunities than the non-government sectors because state high schools offer a far broader range of curriculum," Mr Fuller said.

He said state high schools also served some regional, rural and remote areas where non-government schools didn't exist. Mr Dick said the 2012 Year 8 intake was slightly higher than last year, while a record 30,700 Year 12 students were enrolled on Day 8.

He said Queensland was the only state or territory to have increased government school enrolments every year since 2006.

"Nationally, Queensland continues to have the third-highest proportion of students in government schools, with only Northern Territory and Tasmania higher," he said.

"'We know that while state schools have shown increases in enrolments this year of more than 6600 students, we also expect non-state schools to grow when we see their enrolments later in the year."

Overall, state school student numbers rose 1.4 per cent on last year, up from 484,840 pupils on Day 8 last year to 491,449 this year.

Tiny enrolment drops were recorded in the Darling Downs, South West and Far North Queensland regions, with increases everywhere else.

SOURCE



24 February, 2012

Summer students get taste of Occupy movement at Maryland community college

Students in ninth through the 12th grade attending summer programs at a community college outside Washington, D.C., will get a taste of the Occupy operation in a new course that aims to get them interested in "the movement for justice."

"Occupy MoCo!," one of the newest courses at Montgomery College in Montgomery County, Md., is part of the Summer Youth program offered for 2012.

"We are at an exciting time in the history of the world. People all over the planet are taking democracy into their own hands and working together to create solutions for a better world," reads the course description for YOU392.

"Take advantage of this interactive opportunity to learn critical thinking skills that will help you in college and gain insight into becoming a global leader of the 21st century. Learn about the Occupy Wall Street movement and explore real-life human rights implications. Review social justice concepts and explore human rights issues related to current events. Young people hold the power to change their community, their schools, their future -- are you ready to join the movement for justice?"

Elizabeth Homan, the school's director of communications, said the class "does not take a stance on the Occupy movement. Rather, the movement provides a creative opportunity for students to discuss protests throughout history, as well as current events, definitions, and various processes that can be used to voice opinions in the community."

The class, however, is a standout among the academic courses offered for the season.

Other new classes being offered for the summer 2012 session include "3D Geometry -- Let's Build a City," "Be a Nurse or Just Work with One," "Battle-Bot Build-a-Thon," "Be a Real Life Investigative Reporter," "Chemical Wizardry," "Diggin' for Dinosaurs Rockin' Rocks and Crystal Creations," "Junkyard Warriors," "Game Building Software," "Passion for Fashion," and "Your Doll and You," among others.

Homan said the class is a noncredit program that is two weeks in length, and is designed for high school students who take AP/honors classes.

"The class is a hybrid of history and current events. Students will learn about protests throughout history, as well as the current events of today. They will participate in role-playing, read newspapers, and learn how people voice opinions in the community," Homan said in an email to FoxNews.com.

The Occupy MoCo! class costs $190 for 10 three-hour sessions. Homan said tuition covers the cost of the class, which is being taught by a part-time summer youth instructor. Homan said there will be no homework or field trips. "Everything will take place in the classroom," she said.

SOURCE





Ariz. Bill Would Fire Teachers for Bringing ‘Partisan’ Opinions Into the Classroom

Teachers in Arizona would automatically be fired for bringing “partisan doctrine” into their classrooms under a bill pending before the state legislature.

Arizona Senate bill 1202 is meant to ensure students get a balanced view of what they’re taught in school, Capitol Media Services reported. In addition to firing teachers who bring partisanship into the classroom, school districts that allow it to happen would face losing state funding.

The bill is being sponsored by state Sen. Lori Klein of Anthem, who said she has received complaints about “political indoctrination in the classroom,” according to CMS. Klein, a Republican, is also sponsoring a separate measure that if passed would see teachers suspended or fired for using profanity in the classroom.

SB 1202 passed out of the Arizona Senate Government Reform Committee last week and is now set to go before the full state Senate for a vote. It comes after the Tucson Unified School District suspended its controversial Mexican-American studies program after it was set to lose funding on the grounds the curriculum violated a newly-enacted state law specifically designed to target the program. State officials contended the program promoted reverse-racism, and the law prohibits classes designed for a particular ethnic group or which “promote resentment toward a race of class of people.”

Arizona GOP congressional candidate Gabriela Saucedo Mercer testified in favor of the bill, telling lawmakers: “I have seen, firsthand, the damage done to our young students by partisans who pretend to be educators.”

“I have seen young students who, through classroom indoctrination rather than instruction, were incited to threaten and harass anyone who disagrees with their position,” she said, according to CMS.

Mercer added that it’s one thing when university professors bring politics into their teaching, but quite another when it’s done in a classroom full of young students. “When you are targeting young, impressionable minds, starting from kindergarten, these children get lost,” she said.

What exactly defines a “partisan” opinion was a point of contention for legislators, CMS reported, but Klein said the bill is simply to ensure one point of view isn’t emphasized over another, regardless of ideology.

“It doesn’t matter,” she said. “Republicans or conservatives should not be promoting their point of view. Liberals, socialists, Marxists should not be espousing their views in the classroom.”

The committee stripped the legislation of any penalty for using partisan books — ones that a history teacher might assign about a U.S. president, for example — but one lawmaker remained concerned the bill could stifle the learning environment.

“The language here is so broad that you‘re going to stifle the education environment and kids’ ability to learn. Let‘s say they’re talking in science [class] and a teacher throws out ‘global warming.’ That could be considered a partisan issue,” Phoenix Democratic Sen. David Lujan said according to CMS, adding that it should be up to the students to decide whether they believe in the issue.

Glendale Republican Sen. Rick Murphy said much of it comes down to context. “As long as the teacher was tolerant of people having other views and not punitive towards them if they express those and try to persuade their classmates of that, and as long as its relevant, I don’t see a problem with that,” Murphy said. “If they‘re talking about what’s relevant to the class, I wouldn’t see a problem with that. But if they’re talking about it in math, I would have concerns.”

SOURCE





Shocking truth about graduate unemployment in Britain: Graduates have the same chance of being out of work as a school leaver with just junior High School attendance

A graduate aged 21 has the same chance of being unemployed as a 16-year-old school leaver with one GCSE, official figures revealed yesterday. Around one in four of both groups is currently without a job.

The shocking statistics highlight the problems facing graduates leaving university at a time of crisis in the jobs market.

Nearly six unemployed people are chasing every vacancy and economists warn that the jobless total, which has hit 2.67million, will climb even higher.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 25.9 per cent of 16-year-olds who left school with as little as one GCSE at grade C or above are currently unemployed.

The situation is almost identical for a 21-year-old graduate. Despite having A-levels and a degree, 24.8 per cent are unemployed.

The figures will fuel concerns among parents and their children about whether a degree is worthwhile at a time when students face the prospect of leaving university with debts of up to £50,000.

They also raise serious doubts about Labour’s famous pledge to have 50 per cent of school leavers going on to university.

Tanya de Grunwald, founder of the careers website Graduate Fog, said she regularly hears from graduates who are in work but have had to return to their old holiday jobs.

She said: ‘They are pulling pints [doing bar work] or doing data entry because they cannot find a graduate job that pays any better.’

SOURCE



23 February, 2012

Department of Education: Catholic Schools Beat Public Schools

When two schools meet in a basketball game, the winner is indisputable. One team outscores the other. The same is true in certain types of academic competition. When students take standardized national tests, students from some schools outscore students from others.

In the most recent round of National Assessment of Educational Progress tests, which are administered by the U.S. Department of Education, the winners were indeed indisputable. Catholic schools thrashed public schools.

It wasn't close. "In 2011," says the Department of Education in a report on the NAEP tests, "the average reading score for eighth-graders attending public schools was 19 points lower than the overall score for students attending private schools,and 20 points lower than for students attending Catholic schools specifically."

If the Catholic school in your community beat the public school in basketball by 20 points, partisans of both teams would deem it a rout. If the Catholic school beat the public school by similar margins year after year, people would wonder what was wrong with the public-school basketball program. Were the coaches incompetent? Did they not care about instilling excellence in their teams?

Well, in the Department of Education's national eighth-grade reading test, the Catholic schools not only routed the public schools by 20 points last year, they have made a habit of such routs.

In every round of NAEP reading tests over the past 20 years, Catholic-school eighth-graders have defeated public-school eighth-graders by double-digit margins. The closest the public schools ever got to the Catholic schools was 17 points -- and that was in 1992, long before today's elementary school students were even born.

The Catholic victory margins are not as great in mathematics, but the history of unbroken domination is the same.

"In 2011," says the Department of Education, "the average mathematics score for eighth-graders attending public schools was 13 points lower than the overall score for students attending private schools and 13 points lower than for students attending Catholic schools specifically."

In math, the closest the public schools ever got to beating the Catholics schools was when they lost by only 9 points -- but that was 22 years ago. Since then, the Catholic schools' victory margin in math has gradually grown.

So, what is the matter with public schools? Why can't they compete with Catholic schools in basic academic disciplines like reading and math?

One thing is certain: It isn't a lack of money. In the 1998-99 school year, according to the Department of Education, U.S. public elementary and secondary schools spent $9,923 per pupil (in inflation-adjusted 2009-2010 dollars). In the 2007-2008 school year, they spent $12,236 per pupil (in 2009-2010 dollars). In just eight years, America's public schools increased average per-pupil spending by $2,313 in inflation-adjusted dollars -- a real increase of 23 percent.

But in that same period, the average public-school eighth-grade reading score virtually flat-lined -- going from 261 (out of a possible 500) in 1998 to 264 in 2011.

The average public-school eighth-grade math score showed slightly more improvement for the additional $2,313 per student. It crawled from 272 (out of 500) in 2000 to 283 last year.

If significantly increasing the money transferred from taxpayers to public school administrators and teachers cannot significantly increase the math and reading scores of the students these administrators and teachers are supposed to serve, what will?

Ideally, organized on a community-by-community basis, all parents of all students would get a voucher equal to the cost of educating a child in the local public school, and the parents would be able to choose, in a free market, exactly where they wanted their child educated.

But, unfortunately, if we did this in today's America -- where the president believes he can order Catholics and Catholic institutions to act against their faith -- people in government would surely use a voucher program as a political weapon to sap the spirit from religious schools and turn them into dismal facsimiles of the failed public schools that the voucher-bearing parents and their children have fled.

The truth is the primary purpose of the average American public school -- like the Catholic school -- is not to teach children reading and math. It is to develop character -- to help assimilate students into the school's vision of our civilization.

And here, even more than in reading and math, our public schools have become the leading indicator of national decline.

In the public schools today, children are not taught to believe that the traditional family is the indispensible foundation of our society, or that every human being -- including those still unborn -- has an inalienable God-given right to life, or that the United States of America enjoys an exceptional place in the history of nations because our Founding Fathers instituted a government that was constitutionally limited in its functions, leaving it to a moral and self-reliant people to thrive and prosper in a free society.

The liberal elites who generally define and determine what is taught in our public schools do not believe these things and do not want the children who graduate from the government academies to believe them, either.

Today, public schools are competing with Catholic and other religious schools not just in developing the math and reading skills of their students, but for the very soul of America. May the private religious schools win this all-important contest, too.

SOURCE






Why Did a TV Group Have a MI Educator’s Controversial Testimony Removed From the Internet?

This week The Blaze featured a story out of Michigan regarding an education official’s controversial comment that educators — not parents — know how best to serve children.

The remark was made earlier this month during a meeting of the Michigan House Education Committee: Debbie Squires, associate director of the Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principals Association, said parents have an opportunity to weigh in on how their children’s schools are run when they elect school board officials.

“Educators go through education for a reason, they are the people who know best about how to serve children, that’s not necessarily true of an individual resident,” Squires said. “I’m not saying they don’t want the best for their children, but they may not know what actually is best from an education standpoint.”

Squires’ remarks caught fire and were featured on several national news sites, including The Blaze, in part because they were captured on video. But on Tuesday, the same day we posted our own story, the YouTube video of the meeting clip was removed by the user, the Michigan Association of Public School Academies, a pro-charter school organization.

The Blaze reached out to MAPSA to inquire about why they removed the video. Buddy Moorehouse, the organization’s director of communications, said it was over a copyright issue: Michigan Government Television, the nonprofit public affairs cable channel that filmed the committee hearing, claimed MAPSA was violating its licensing policy by only featuring a brief clip of it in their video.

“They contacted us and said their policy states you need to use the entire gavel-to-gavel coverage” when featuring their footage online, Moorehouse said. He added they opted to comply in the interest of maintaining a future working relationship with MGTV.

MGTV, which began in the mid-1990s as a government initiative, is now funded entirely by cable subscriber fees. Michelle Webb, MGTV’s acting executive director, confirmed that her organization requested MAPSA remove its video in what she said was “the format that they did it in.”

“They took just one segment out of it and they edited it, added graphics and so forth,” Webb said. She said MGTV permits its content to be used in full — “they could have put the entire committee [hearing] on there with no problem at all” — but said MAPSA’s use violated their copyright policy.

But even though MGTV succeeded in getting MAPSA to remove its video, there’s another factor at play here: what’s known as the “fair use” doctrine. Under fair use, a copyrighted work may be reproduced without its author’s permission under certain circumstances. There’s no perfect formula that guarantees something is fair use, but there are four factors under U.S. law to be used in making such a determination: the purpose of the use, including whether its for a commercial nature or for a nonprofit education purpose; the nature of the copyrighted work being used; the amount and substantiality of what’s being used in relation to the entire work; and the effect the use has on the potential value of the copyright work.

In general, news reporting, criticism and comment tend to be held up as fair use.

With that in mind, The Blaze decided to include the raw clip of Squires’ comments that made news, without the additional graphics that prompted MGTV’s complaint. The full hearing is not expected to be available online before Friday morning, but The Blaze will link to it when it is.



SOURCE





A ROUNDUP OF COMMENTARY ON AUSTRALIA'S LATEST PROPOSALS FOR EDUCATIONAL REFORM

Three articles below

School plan to test wealth of parents under Gonski review of education

A very similar proposal was a big loser for Mark Latham in 2004 so why this Gonski apparatchik thinks such a neo-Communist policy would be accepted by any Australian government is a mystery

PARENTS of private school students could face family wealth assessments to determine how much government support their children's schools need as part of recommendations to overhaul the nation's education funding system.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard was forced to reassure parents there was no "hit list" of wealthy private schools despite the two-year Gonski review proposing that parents with the "capacity" to contribute more money could be expected to pay up to 80 per cent of the cost of their children's education.

The review also called for a $5 billion funding overhaul to help arrest a rapid decline of Australian education standards.

But Ms Gillard refused to give a financial commitment to the reforms yesterday. The changes put a standard cost of education on the head of every student, with extra loading for disadvantages such as disability and low socioeconomic status.

The Gillard Government has insisted no school would lose a dollar if the reforms were implemented, promising to contribute a minimum of 20 to 25 per cent of funding for all schools.

The Government's response also ruled out an expansion of capital funding from the commonwealth saying, "the scope of proposed new funding contribution may be too large". [Qld.] State education minister Cameron Dick also said it was "premature" to make any commitment to funding.

The Gonski review was heavily critical of the nation's education systems, noting that funding arrangements were confusing.

It said that in the past decade, the performance standards of Australian students when compared with those in other countries have slipped dramatically, from equal second in reading to equal seventh and from equal fifth in maths to equal 13th.

Report architect David Gonski warned the slide would continue and said the funding overhaul was based on the fundamental principle that "differences in educational outcomes must not be a result of differences in wealth, income, power or possession".

As a basic estimate, the report suggests funding of about $10,500 a secondary school student and $8000 a primary school student.

The report recommends governments stump up a minimum of 20 to 25 per cent of that figure for wealthy private schools and expects schools themselves to contribute a minimum of 10 per cent.

However, if parents at a private school were found to have the "capacity" to pay more, they could be expected to fund up to 80 per cent of the cost of their child's education.

The report wants the Government to find a more specific way of measuring family wealth, instead of the present post-code based model.

One exception to the approach to private school funding is the recommendation that non-government schools that do not charge fees and have no capacity to do so, or provide the education of students with very high needs, will be fully funded by the Government.

The Opposition savaged the review, saying the Coalition would not implement a policy that "hits parents in their hip pocket".

Opposition education spokesman Christopher Pyne said the approach to private schools would mean higher school fees and feared there would be no indexation for non-government school funding. "We will make sure at the next election that parents and teachers and principals know the coalition will continue the current quantum of funding, plus real indexation," he said.

SOURCE

ALP rejects schools means testing

Schools Minister Peter Garrett has denied means testing parents of private school students will be introduced as part of the government's response to the Gonski report.

In the first public forum held since the report was released on Monday Mr Garrett was asked if the government was planning to introduce means testing. "There is nothing in this report that refers to means testing of parents at all," Mr Garrett said at this morning's forum.

The report says that parents' capacity to contribute financially should be taken into account when determining the level of government support to non-government schools.

The Government has not given any firm committments about the propsoed Gonski reforms - which seek to make school funding more equitable - as it starts a consultation with the community, states and stateholders over the coming months.

Earlier opposition Education spokesperson Christopher Pyne says that the report "hints" at government plans to introduce means testing for schools funding like it has for private health insurance. "Capacity to pay can only mean one thing and that is how much income is available in that household to pay for school fees," Mr Pyne said.

A key part of the government's response to the report was to hold public meetings so that parents and communities could "have their say about this important education issue".

The forum today - at the Department of Education in Canberra - was attended by teachers, parents and education interest groups and streamed online but, disappointingly for the government, the auditorium was only half full.

During the 45-minute forum - which functioned as a question and answer session - Mr Garrett and School Education Secretary Senator Jacinta Collins did the vast majority of the talking.

Forum participants asked a range of questions, such as when schools would see funding, what support would be available to boarders and the representation of Catholic parents in the ministerial reference group.

When asked about accountability for the reforms, Mr Garrett referred to other accountability measures such as the My Schools website.

He said that overall funding for the proposed reforms could not be discussed until the consultative process was complete. This a host of government working groups and consultation with states and stakeholders. "I know it sounds like talk – but it's actually work," Mr Garrett said.

Senator Collins said she could not "pre-empt an outcome" on the government's position on setting up a philanthropy fund to help schools form philanthropic partnerships - as recommended in the report.

Journalists were not permitted in the auditorium during the session but were able to watch the webcast in a room nearby.

"This is a very democratic process" Mr Garrett said, who added that he expected to host similar events across Australia.

Mr Garrett also said the the government hoped to introduced schools funding legislation to parliament before the end of the year.

SOURCE

A reaction to Australia's Gonski proposals from a Chinese perspective

The author below is an Australian with post-graduate qualifications from two Australian universities and who has been living, studying, working and teaching in China since 1978

For the past 7 years I have been teaching at a HK/Malaysian/local tertiary institution joint venture in Suzhou, China which was seen and resourced by the HK side

As part of the government curriculum students are required to study a compulsory higher mathematics course (which is far in advance of anything I've studied at high school in Maths I and Maths II). This course was rigorously taught and examined albeit not to a national standard exam. Of course there was also a compulsory politics and society course, which is mostly taken by the students as a chance to tune out and nap. The examinations are well projected and students provided with model answers. Clearly no one takes it seriously. By contrast the politically correct curriculum of Australian schools appears seen as the raison d'etre and teachers treat it accordingly.

And so it was that I listened with interest to the press conference announcing the long delayed Gonski Report on Education in Australia. First of all was the promise that 'no school would lose a dollar of funding per student'. That seems an entirely political statement you wouldn't expect from a politically neutral report.

In China there is no universal education system. There never was. Instead there was a separate fee-based system in which the state owned businesses and government departments paid for the fees of the children of their employees. If you did not work for the government you paid your own fees. The better the school the higher the fees. The higher the government department or state owned enterprise, the better the school their employee’s children attended.

The standards at these schools vary. In the major urban centres schools are set up in a hierarchical manner with major state, provincial, and metropolitan schools leading the pack. Then for those who can’t make it, the private schools take up the slack. Many of the private schools are run by the state schools and universities trading on their name and raking in extra cash.

In poor rural villages where students could not afford to pay fees, the local collective or village pays for the school. Poorly paid, educated and under resourced teachers struggle to make a difference with students who are often pulled out of school to attend to farm work. Today the government is beginning to see the importance of proper educational funding for the countryside to reduce the potential for dissatisfaction and to ensure the best students are identified and streamed into better schools. In the cities parents struggle, as they do in the west, to get their children into the best schools and pay the fees any way they can. Often the whole family will contribute hoping to get a member of the family into the government elite who profit from economic rent and are obliged to spread it around the family. In my development here in Suzhou there are a number of families one might identify as from the village, or at least to be parents and relatives of rich officials.

When I was at school in Beijing in the 70’s the education system had just been restored and while I was sharing a room with a student selected on his social class and political credentials, a new group of students arrived who had passed exams. The tension was informative. The gongnongbing students, or those selected from amongst working class, peasants and soldiers, were looked down on by the xinzhishifenzi, or new intellectuals. Like everything in China however the names do not always match the reality. My roommate, ostensibly selected from among the peasant class, was actually the son of a senior PLA general who lived in the same complex as Deng Xiaoping. He had been ‘adopted’ by a family of farmers, perhaps relatives, in order to qualify. It was clear many other students came from similar backgrounds.

An interesting note was struck by some of these New Intellectuals who praised the exam system saying it would result in a decrease in the number of women attending university as the old system had insisted on a 50:50 split of male and female. Within ten years of the exam system being implemented the government was pondering the problem of how to get more male students into university because women were performing better and out numbering men by a significant majority. At this rate it would be very hard to find enough men for government positions the government sources complained!

At our school, the Beijing Language Institute (now the Beijing University of Language & Culture), our teachers had responsibilities outside the classroom as well as in. Indeed the teachers specifically in charge of our Australian cohort were called our Responsible Persons (fuzeren). Should any of us miss a class, or perform poorly in class, we would be visited by the classroom teacher, in addition to our responsible teacher. The reason for our transgression would be investigated and the teachers would offer to help us. They made it clear that our satisfactory performance was their responsibility. Should we continue to miss classes or perform poorly the visits would continue but we would have to take more responsibility and write a confession, or self-criticism (ziwopiping), which demonstrated our contrition and an understanding that we had to attend classes regularly and abide by the teacher’s direction. In other words it was a form of social contract between the school and the student both sides bore responsibility. There were no authoritarian head masters, but major infractions such as attacking local students resulted in immediate repatriation.

Although teachers in China are legendary for their care for their students, and vice versa, there are examples of poor teachers who just put on a video and leave the students to watch it. The moral standards for teachers are high as well. In my school a married teacher, who was very high in the school party apparatus and also widely loved, was dismissed due to reports he was seen out together with another teacher! School leaders insisted teachers set a moral example. Interestingly many of the local teachers insisted that what teachers did in their private time was no business of the school! In Australia you have to sleep with one of the students to be sacked!

So the central question is how can Chinese teachers teach better on much less money and resources? Dedication? Tradition? Student discipline these days is not what it was. The 'Little Emperors' of China have no automatic respect for teachers. Indeed they have the arrogance of the nouveau riche in demanding their certificate since they paid their fees regardless of the effort put in! School officials spend a lot of their time defending their teachers against rich and or powerful bullies demanding to know why their child was failed (he didn't submit assignments or attend enough classes usually). The rich threaten to sue the school. The powerful say they will have it closed down. The traditional respect for education in China is much threatened.

A possible suggestion for the superior performance of Chinese schools (at least the elite schools in the major cities) is the competitive nature of the Chinese school system in which the best fight for a place in the elite schools. As we all know from the 50's on in Australia we sought to destroy a merit based education system in order to attain equality of educational outcomes. The same number of poor students should finish Y12 as rich students. In China, paradoxically, there is no obsession with a social class based education system as is still displayed in the Gonski Report. It is a merit-based system. As a result China has leaders of extraordinary ability and intelligence who are unfailingly guiding China back to its normal position as the pre-eminent power in the world. Meanwhile, since the Wyndham Report in NSW, Australia has unerringly declined from top of the OEDC countries to the bottom. Is there a lesson there?

Generally I can say that the Gonski Report could have been the same one submitted to Whitlam, or that submitted by Harold Wyndham to the NSW government in 1957 i.e. an extension of class war politics. Even now the comment by nearly all educationalists is the urgent need to address the lack of equality or fairness in the measured outcomes analyzed on a social class basis. There should be a cognizance that we have been addressing this problem by various means since 1950 without closing the gap. A more realistic approach would be to place extra resources where they are needed, both at the level of disadvantage and also at ensuring the top group of students received the most challenging education available globally.

The resulting emphasis on equality of outcomes resulted in a ridiculous system of pre-HSC exams designed to rate the school, so that when applied to the HSC results, each school had an equal share of A's, B's, C' etc. This was a nice bureaucratic solution, which had nothing go do with educational outcomes. Universities insisted on raw scores for admission purposes thus exposing the corrupt nature of the 'trick'.

Finally one must say that the Australian obsession with equality of outcomes in education is odd in a capitalist country in which income disparity is generally wide. It seems to be a denial of the capitalist nature of country by our educationalists. It seems a denial of human nature to expect equality of outcome in education when it is not manifest in any other form of human life.

One aspect common in Chinese schools, which is totally lacking in Australia as far as I know, is that each semester the students are surveyed on their satisfaction with each teacher for each subject. This survey covers such things as punctuality, helpfulness, good communicator, covered topic, allowed participation, as well as general topics about school facilities. The results of the survey weigh heavily on the teacher’s evaluation and at the end of the year the teacher’s bonus is based on this as well a peer evaluation. I was a member of the teacher’s union at the school and of course the union supported such surveys. I can’t see any Australian teachers union allowing such evaluations as they are opposed to any merit based system of teacher evaluation and appear to oppose any moves toward continuous education for teachers. They certainly motivated teachers to maintain professional standards as well as satisfying the student desire to enhance the learning environment.

If there is anything to learn from China it is that the thirty years of human disaster resulted from the same idealism and desire for equality. Stalinist socialism didn’t work there, it did work anywhere in the world. In China in the 1980’s it was systematically undone and an exam based system implemented. The search for the best and brightest does not stop at the school system. Twice every year the government will hold open exams in major centres for those who aspire to work in the government. Of course the system does have ‘Chinese characteristics’ a good score alone is not enough to gain admission to government employment, there is a personal interview, and of course ‘good references’ or background also will be considered.

No one suggests we imitate China. Their excellent performance is due to a highly selective system, national standards and rigorously supervised exams, dedicated and responsible teachers, highly motivated students, and an educational philosophy aimed at teaching to the highest world standards with only the slightest nod to political correctness. But we might learn from that.

Received via email



22 February, 2012

Liberal University Admissions Policies Cheat Students

In recent months, there have been a growing number of reports of cheating on standardized tests. Last fall, 20 people were arrested in connection with an SAT cheating scandal at a Long Island high school, leading the local prosecutor to bring charges against the students. Just last month, an official with Claremont McKenna College in California resigned after admitting to inflating the SAT scores of incoming freshmen to boost the college's standing in the US News and World Report rankings.

We teach our children that cheating is never acceptable, but the sad reality, and the dirty little secret, is that some colleges and universities have been essentially cheating on test scores by manipulating their admission policies.

Whether it involves top athletes or wealthy international applicants, it happens more than we want to admit. The Claremont McKenna scandal also raises concerns about the influence and validity of college rankings, issues that present problems for US News and World Report and other college ranking publications like Princeton Review and Kiplinger.

The most disturbing form of legitimized cheating on college rankings is known as a test optional admissions policy. An increasing number of colleges give applicants the option of submitting or withholding their SAT scores as a part of their admissions package. Unfortunately, this practice leads to inflated average SAT scores among incoming freshmen because only the highest scorers are likely to submit their rest results, and higher SAT scores mean a higher ranking for the school.

Some experts argue that this trend ultimately harms students. In 2008, Jonathan Epstein, a researcher with the education consultancy Maguire Associates, studied the impact of test-optional policies in college admissions. Epstein discovered that test-optional policies at colleges and universities lead to artificially inflated average SAT scores. He also found that the policies further confused prospective students and families and was "not in the best interest of any institution or higher education in general."

Standardized tests have been used since the 1920's to measure the educational development of our children and to predict post secondary performance.

Colleges and universities have continued to rely on standardized tests to make admission decisions as they attempt to differentiate among students who will likely succeed and those who will be at risk or under perform.

Opponents of the SAT exam have long argued argue that the test determines who gets into college and who does not, and should be abolished in favor of “test optional policies.” These arguments are largely promoted by left wing academics and liberal activist groups who wish to further the manipulation of higher education through an equality of outcome in higher education rather than the traditional merit-based college application process.

They also use this reasoning as a tool to subvert laws preventing affirmative action and other forms of discrimination in college admissions.

So in an attempt to be the best, colleges are taking shortcuts with test optional admission policies and gaming the system in an effort to increase their rankings, get the best athletes and athletic facilities, raise more money from alumni and donors, and otherwise enjoy the accolades that come with the prestige of a higher ranking. But the ones who suffer are our children, who will not get an accurate assessment of whether a particular school is the best fit for them, especially among colleges with test optional policies that artificially inflate the school's average SAT scores.

Cheating is always wrong. It is wrong when students cheat on SAT exams in order to increase their chance of getting into a good college and it is equally wrong for colleges to cheat in order increase their rankings and stature.

As a mother of two young children, I encourage and expect my children to maintain integrity and honesty, and hopefully, become productive members of society. If colleges and universities expect to be the training ground for our children and future leaders, they also need to adhere to the highest standards of integrity and honesty. Eliminating test optional policies and replacing them with an honest and proven admissions standard would be a good place to start.

SOURCE






British school bans slang! Pupils ordered to use the Queen's English in the classroom 'to help children get jobs'

Parents may breathe a sigh of relief - but the local MP hasn't. A teaching academy has ordered youngsters to leave slang at the school gates and learn to speak the Queen's English.

Sheffield's Springs Academy hopes to give them a better chance of getting a job, so slang or ‘text talk' have been banned while they are in the buildings.

The United Learning Trust which runs the school, which has 1,100 students aged for 11 to 18 and is an working class area of the city, believes slang creates a wrong impression to employers at interviews.

Kathy August, deputy chief executive of the Trust, said: 'We want to make sure that our youngsters are not just leaving school with the necessary A to Cs in GCSEs but that they also have a whole range of employability skills.

'We know through the close relationships we have with business partners and commercial partners that when they are doing interviews with youngsters, not only are they looking at the qualifications, they are also looking at how they conduct themselves.

'What we want to make sure of is that they are confident in using standard English. Slang doesn't really give the right impression of the person. 'Youngsters going to interviews for their first job need to make a good impression so that employers have confidence in them. 'It's not difficult to get youngster out of the habit of using slang.

'When youngsters are talking together they use text speak and that's absolutely fine, that's what you do in a social context, but when you are getting prepared for life and going for interviews you need to be confident in using standard English.

Penistone & Stocksbridge MP Angela Smith has said the school was wrong to ban slang. 'I'm a parent and when youngsters are at home we all have to make sure that we are all working together because this is for the benefit of those young people and their future.

'Using slang is a habit but youngsters are very adaptable and once they know that is what is expected and they know the reason is to help their employability skills they will pick it up very quickly. It is not a big problem at all. 'It's something new and people are saying why are we doing it but once we have exclaimed it hasn't been a problem.'

Penistone & Stocksbridge MP Angela Smith has said the school was wrong to ban slang MP Angela Smith, a former GCSE English teacher at a South Yorkshire secondary, slammed the ruling: 'The school, is wrong to ban slang. How will the school police this? 'Who will say what the difference is between slang and dialect? It could completely undermine the confidence of the children at the school.

'If someone tells them how to speak they could dig in her heels and do it all the more. I really think they have set themselves a task that is impossible to achieve. 'Who is going to adjudicate? Who is going to say slang, dialect or accent? And which one is right and which one is wrong?

'Most people know when to put on their telephone voice because that is what we are talking about. When people go on the phone or talk to anyone in authority they put on a different voice.'

Mrs August responded: 'We are not trying to stamp out dialect or accents, it is simply the use of slang words. 'For example if someone goes for an interview it is more preferable to say "Good morning" rather than "Hiya" and when the person leaves an employer would much rather here the words "Goodbye" rather than "Cheers" or "Seeya". '"Thank you" is a better word to use than "Ta". And it's not a case of policing or enforcing this policy at Springs Academy, we are simply encouraging it among the students.'

SOURCE






Australia: Chaos in Qld. schools, warn teachers as uniform but unrealistic national curriculum is rolled out

CHILDREN and teachers are stressed, a statewide computer system keeps crashing and "total confusion" reigns over what has to be taught in state schools under the rollout of the Australian curriculum, teachers warn.

Early Childhood Teachers' Association president Kim Walters said some of the new curriculum content was too hard for the state's youngest children and teachers couldn't download required resources because the network kept crashing or there were access and speed problems.

Queensland Teachers' Union president Kevin Bates agreed there were problems with the network, saying Education Queensland did not have "sufficient bandwidth" to handle the number of users for its online Curriculum into the Classroom (C2C) package.

LNP education spokesman Bruce Flegg said the State Government had failed students by "rushing in the curriculum" before New South Wales and Victoria.

Curriculum concerns at new three Rs

Queensland students this year are among the first in the country to take on the Australian curriculum in all Prep to Year 10 classes in English, mathematics and science.

Ms Walters said curriculum content was another problem, with Preps in particular not ready for some of it. "One of our lessons in the first week ... was recognising the number name F-O-U-R, for four. Some of them can't even recognise their name," she said.

"Just having your 26 children sitting on a mat all doing the same thing at once ... is physically impossible in the first week of school with children who aren't ready to do school yet. I think some of the children are very stressed. "Definitely there are a lot of stressed teachers as they try to do their very best."

She also said teachers were being sent mixed messages about whether they had to teach C2C lesson plans, but EQ had moved to fix this.

Mr Bates said there were "some very stressed teachers" who were trying to do their best with the new curriculum, but there was always going to be teething issues in this "transition year". "Is it too hard? In some cases it might be more than we previously expected, but that is certainly one of the challenges I think teachers are up to," he said.

Mr Bates said there were clear messages about what was expected of teachers in the classroom, but because teachers were so busy with the curriculum the message wasn't always getting through.

EQ had told the Courier-Mail in the past C2C is not mandatory, but teachers continue to report receiving mixed messages about the status of C2C on the ground."

EQ director-general Julie Grantham said the implementation of the national curriculum was challenging and rewarding with the department valuing teacher feedback, "especially around C2C".

Assistant director-general of Information and Technologies Dave O'Hagan said the department was monitoring the computer systems and had upgraded the bandwidth, but there were still challenges in regional areas because of limited broadband availability. He said there were also "some stability issues" which caused the network to crash last week.

SOURCE



21 February, 2012

Neutrality in Schools: Ending the Pretense

For most anyone paying attention to the public education system in the last four decades, one has seen a more or less continuous erosion of the concept of neutrality in social views. From a practical standpoint, this represents little change. Since the government took over the education of children, and even before, some viewpoints have been favored over others. What distinguished the time of the 1960’s was that there was a brief period when neutrality was publicly agreed upon as an ideal worthy of pursuit.

It was not generally approached using that term. Rather than neutrality, there were phrases bandied about such as “color-blind,” “equal opportunity,” and “equal protection under law.” I was in the middle grades during that time, and my understanding was limited. It certainly sounded like an ideal that matched up with my concepts of what America “should” strive for.

For all of the high sounding catch-words, the implementation broke down almost immediately. “Equal opportunity” degraded rapidly into a game of semantics involving how best to assure different minority groups preferences. Though giving lip service to respect for all cultures, what had been thought of as “traditional” in America rapidly was singled out for scorn, derision, and a new breed of institutionalized discrimination. As the practice broke down further, it became inevitable that even the thought of government not supporting some non-traditional group was considered intolerable.

The latest example of this shift was observed recently in the Minnesota Board of Education. The policy regarding student and teacher conduct has been changed from one of neutrality, with educators steering clear of opinions about controversial groups and issues, to one labeled “Respectful Learning Environment.” At least one reason for the change is legal troubles resulting in several lawsuits alleging that neutrality has created an environment where gay students are subject to bullying.

The shift prompts me to consider two very important questions: First, what was it about the policy of remaining neutral as teachers that would encourage bullying to any specific group? Surely the school had the same authority under the past policy to administer discipline against any students that acted in a bullying fashion? If the message that the school is trying to send is that all students are worthy of respect, at least with regard to their physical and emotional well-being, then what could possibly serve better than a values-neutral protection of every last student?

The second question, to me, is even more relevant to the issue of bullying: If it has already been observed that there is animosity to particular groups at the school, how does the school intended to reduce that by showing favoritism to the group involved? Isn’t that a near-certain recipe for setting current resentments in concrete, and then setting up an entirely new layer? Haven’t the people in charge learned anything from how affirmative action has placed many achievements by women and African-Americans vulnerable to suspicion?

True neutrality in any system is nearly impossible. I think most people who spend any time considering the difficulties will agree on that. However, it’s only by aiming for the impossible, the ideal, that we have any hope of achieving a moderately equitable reality. By aiming directly at the imperfect, we take the first step toward achieving the intolerable.

Posted by Gary Baker





Obama's Higher Education Reforms Doomed to Fail

Usually low-tier, last week President Obama signaled in both the State of the Union and a University of Michigan speech that higher education will loom large in Campaign 2012.

With Americans outraged over skyrocketing prices and student debt, it makes sense. Unfortunately, Obama's proposed solutions aren't similarly sensible.

In his speeches, the president talked tough about reining in colleges that raise prices at breakneck speeds, casting much needed attention to a decades-old problem.

But decrying symptoms doesn't cure a disease. That requires attacking root causes, which is where Obama fails: Rather than assault ever-expanding student aid, which practically begs colleges to inflate prices, the president wants to increase aid while imposing weak price controls on schools and states.

Obama isn't totally off, of course, in reasoning that colleges largely set their own tuition, so one way to control prices is to pressure schools. And he's right that states tend to slow funding for public colleges during bad economic times.

But how is it colleges can raise their prices at incredible rates and still get people to pay?

Because students use lots of money belonging to other people, and Washington ensures that the funding meets ever-ballooning bills.

Indeed, in 2010 the federal government disbursed roughly $140 billion in financial aid to students, a staggering amount that has exploded from roughly $30 billion, adjusted for inflation, in 1985.

And those tightfisted states?

According to data from the State Higher Education Executive Officers, inflation-adjusted state and local allocations to public institutions actually rose from $69.2 billion in 2000 to $74.9 billion in 2010.

Gov't Spending Up

In that same time, however, inflation-adjusted tuition and fees at public four-year colleges increased from $4,586 to $7,889.

Schools hiked their prices despite state and local appropriations rising.

Corroborating that cheap states aren't the primary drivers of college costs are private institutions. They haven't lost big state and local subsidies because they've never gotten them, yet they increased real prices from $21,013 in 2000 to $28,254 in 2010.

Still, on a per-student basis state and local funding has been decreasing, because enrollment has significantly grown.

Such losses might be regrettable were students graduating and moving on to high-paying jobs. But they aren't.

According to the federal Digest of Education Statistics, the latest six-year graduation rate for public four-year programs is a dismal 55 percent. In addition, about one-third of bachelor's holders are in jobs that don't require degrees. Finally, real earnings for people whose top attainment is a bachelor's have dropped over the decade.

Simply put, there are too many people in college. Unfortunately, to deal with these realities the president is proposing to increase aid, to which he'd couple a few soft price controls.

Too Many Students?

He proposes, for instance, increasing spending on Perkins Loans, Work Study, and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants to $10 billion, but giving less money through those programs to colleges that, according to the White House, "show poor value, or... don't act responsibly in setting tuition."

The president would also create a $1 billion "Race to the Top" that would "incentivize" states to, among other things, "maintain adequate levels of funding for higher education."

The White House doesn't define "adequate," but the implication is clear: Spend more taxpayer money, get more taxpayer money.

Ultimately the plan is a stinker, with the disaster-exacerbating aid increase the most likely part to pass. Few in Washington can resist doling out "free" money.

And the price controls?

Such controls are almost always bad, distorting supply and demand. But given the government-fueled Ivory Tower excess, perhaps weak controls would be helpful, at least in the short term.

But the ones proposed would have little power. Even plussed-up to $10 billion, the programs the president would employ for leverage would be dwarfed by Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, and tax incentives, which tally in the hundreds of billions. Most colleges could more than make up for slight Perkins or Work Study losses with other aid.

And Race to the Top? If it's at all like its K-12 cousin, it'll be a dud. Lots of states made huge fusses to get the money, but since it's been awarded the winners have shown little urgency to implement their promised reforms.

It's good that the president is focusing on higher education. But his remedies would do nothing to cure the disease.

SOURCE






Why lack of male teachers could be the reason boys fail in British classrooms

Schools need more male teachers because boys make less effort in women’s classes, a new study claimed today. The shortage of men in school staffrooms could be one reason for the under-achievement of boys, researchers found.

Female teachers tend to give boys lower marks than they deserve - and boys are less likely to work hard in their classes.

Men appear to be better at motivating boys but are vastly outnumbered in the nation’s schools, taking just a quarter of teaching jobs, and 15 per cent in primaries.

‘Boys often disengage in the educational process, and this is likely to be due in part to their perceptions of their teachers,’ said the study’s authors. ‘There is an under-representation of male teachers in both primary and secondary education in England.’

Girls also made more effort when they were graded by male teachers, according to research by the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics.

But teachers were found to be more lenient with students of their own sex. Girls actually received higher grades from female teachers than male. Male teachers, in turn, gave boys higher marks.

For the study, 1,200 pupils aged 12 and 13 in 29 schools across England were given £4 and asked to place bets on their performance in an exam. One group of pupils was marked by their class teacher - some male and some female - and another by an anonymous external examiner.

‘The results of the experiment show that male pupils tended to lower their investment when a female teacher marked their exams,’ said the study.

‘Further analysis confirmed that female teachers in the experiment did tend to award lower marks to male pupils than external examiners. ‘So male pupils’ perceptions seem to be roughly in line with female teachers’ marking practices.’

Girls placed substantially bigger bets when they knew they were being marked by a male teacher instead of an anonymous examiner. But male teachers did not mark them more leniently, and in fact tended to discriminate in favour of boys.

Campaigns staged over recent years to increase recruitment of male teachers have failed to change significantly the make-up of staffrooms. A quarter of primary schools do not have a single male teacher, according to figures released last year. Staffrooms in 4,278 of the 16,971 primaries in England are solely populated by women. And there are just 25,500 men teaching young children, compared with 139,500 women.

Conservative MP Philip Hollobone has raised the issue in the House of Commons. ‘This is especially a problem because there are more and more families where children are growing up without a father,’ he said. ‘The teachers in primary school are overwhelmingly women, and they do a great job. ‘But it would be even better if there were more male teachers to act as role models, particularly to young boys.’

SOURCE







Report on Australian education

A rather silly report that sets out impossible ideals. One might have hoped for something more realistic but what we got was an ivory tower fantasy.

It ignores a couple of elephants in the room: The fact that the large black population pulls down standards in the USA and UK and that China will always be ahead of Australia because of their higher average IQs -- particularly when it comes to mathematical ability

No wonder even an ALP government is kicking it into the long grass. Below is the klutz behind the report



A DETAILED report today will condemn education funding as illogical and inconsistent but the Government will only offer lots of consultation in its immediate response.

The report by David Gonski will sound the alarm on Australian school performances and urge that education become more competitive internationally.

"Australian schools need to lift the performance of students at all levels of achievement, particularly the lower performers," the report, started 18 months ago, will say.

"Australia must also improve its international standing by arresting the decline that has been witnessed over the past decade."

Mr Gonski is expected to condemn the current funding system by pointing to an absence of a "logical, consistent and publicly transparent approach to funding schools".

"Every child should have access to the best possible education, regardless of where they live, the income of their family or the school they attend," the report will say.

The Gonski review comes with a forecast that jobs for skilled workers will grow at 2.5 times the demand for unskilled labour, underlining the need for students to complete a high level of schooling if they want to be employed.

Official figures will show that while we are ahead of standards in Britain and the United States, our international rating in key education areas has been dropping when compared to our closer neighbours, particularly China.

Over the decade Australia has gone from equal 2nd to equal 7th in reading; the average 15-year-old Australian maths student is two years behind his Shanghai counterpart.

Four of the finest top school systems in the world are nearby – in Hong Kong, Korea, Shanghai and Singapore. The report will say we have to match them.

Meanwhile, there are inequalities within the Australian education system, with the literacy gap between disadvantaged pupils and those from higher income homes growing to the equivalent of three years of schooling.

Some 89 per cent of Year 3 students from disadvantaged backgrounds are below average in reading, compared to 13 per cent of advantaged pupils.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Schools Minister Peter Garrett have vowed there will be no hit-list of wealthy private schools, a policy which helped destroy Mark Latham's attempt to win government for Labor in 2004.

The Government also has pledged no school will lose a dollar in funding per student and that indexation will be included in any new funding scheme.

The Prime Minister and Mr Garrett plan a wide ranging national consultation on the report's findings, a move which could push out any new funding commitments past the May Budget.

The Government will be limited in the fresh funding round, to start next year, by its determination to get a Budget surplus in 2012-13.

Ms Gillard and her minister will "kick start a a grass roots, nation-wide discussion" with visits to schools and discussions with teachers and parents.

"We will discuss the proposals outlined in the report with the community and talk about what we think our education system needs to drive better and better outcomes for every child in every school," said Ms Gillard in a statement.

Mr Garrett said the inquiry, the first into the fundamentals of the education system for 40 years, was vital because "our future prospects as a country literally depend on having a highly-skilled, well-educated workforce".

SOURCE




Australian Catholic schools fear heavy hit from funding review

That's a lot of voters to alienate

CATHOLIC schools face fee increases of up to 131 per cent, forcing a potential exodus from primary and secondary facilities and campus closures, according to confidential modelling ahead of the Gonski review.

The church is preparing for the Gillard government to radically overhaul funding, amid concerns of a collapse in real-terms of payments to the sector.

The Australian has obtained a confidential briefing note, which contains three modelling scenarios, all of which point to big fee increases in Catholic primary and secondary fees by 2016 and a potential flight of pupils to the government sector.

The Catholic Education Commission of Victoria modelling warns that primary school fees could rise between 92 per cent and 131 per cent by 2016, inevitably forcing out lower socio-economic status students from the system.

The modelling was conducted before School Education Minister Peter Garrett attempted to assuage fears at the weekend of a backlash against the private sector under the Gonski review. His comments yesterday have failed to convince the Catholic sector.

The CECV investigated funding scenarios on the assumption of substantial reform flowing from the Gonski review, with specific analysis of funding maintenance provisions and the removal of any indexation mechanism that went beyond inflation.

The CECV working party reported on February 9, questioning the Gillard government's assertion that no school would lose a dollar. "This assurance does not indicate whether an indexation mechanism will be applied under the new funding model," the CECV says.

The commission, which oversees one of the nation's biggest school systems, warns that any downgrading of funding would have a big impact on fees.

The commission's Gonski working party warns that by 2016 primary school fees could rise by an average of $1197 per student or 92 per cent on the estimated fee for 2013. Secondary school fees could rise by an average of $1903 or 39 per cent.

The dynamic would worsen if the government were to tie funding indexation merely to inflation and remove other provisions.

If this were to occur, funding would effectively stagnate from next year until 2018, with the federal cash injection diving by $828 million.

By 2016, primary school fees would rise an average of $1706 per student or 131 per cent on the estimated 2013 fee, while secondary fees would rise by $2019 a student or 42 per cent based on the 2013 numbers.

"If any of these three scenarios were adopted there will be significant and widespread consequences for Catholic education in Victoria," the commission's Gonski working party warns. "The magnitude of these fee increases would be very likely to lead to an exodus from Catholic schools to the government sector," the working party said.

SOURCE



20 February, 2012

Obama Community College Job Training Plan Is Unproven

President Obama's latest budget would give $8 billion to community colleges to train workers in growing sectors of the economy. Yet it is unclear if such programs work, and the latest plan stresses the slow-growth green energy industry.

The Community College to Career Fund would award grants to the institutions to train students for careers in sectors such as clean energy, advanced technology, health care and transportation. The 2009 stimulus contained $2 billion for such grants, with the first $500 million awarded last September.

Community colleges often award vocational "certificates," which indicate the completion of a discrete program of study. Limited research on these technical degrees suggest that longer study has a bigger payoff.

"For certificates of less than a year, I could not find evidence of consistent, strong labor market returns," said Brian Bosworth, president of FutureWorks, a consulting firm. "Certificates of oneyear or more, yes, there is strong evidence of labor market returns. They are a good platform for people wanting to start a career and have long-term success."

But it's far less clear that federal grant programs to community colleges achieve such results.

"I do not believe that we have a strong enough database to say that (the president's proposal) will work or how much it will pay off," said Mark Schneider, vice president at the American Institutes for Research.

Schneider, who was commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics during the Bush administration, notes that the federal government does not yet have the data to examine the vocational programs nationally. But he adds that the Education Department should have "gainful employment" information regarding career-oriented programs in March.

The Education Department last year ordered colleges to show that they are preparing their students for "gainful employment" or risk losing federal student aid.

Other federal vocational training programs have had mixed results.

The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, passed in 1984, provided funds for high-school vocational training.

A report found some improvement in earnings for students taking part, but not any impact on their academic performance. Ultimately the report stated that the "path and pace of improvement are hampered by a lack of clarity over the program's fundamental purpose and goal."

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 was supposed to provide low-income populations with greater access to community colleges and vocational training. But due to poor accountability, WIA actually limited access to training, according to an article in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.

Clean Energy Murky

Another problem may be the economic sectors that the new Obama program may target.

"It's perfectly OK for the government to make sure that community colleges are doing this in high-demand areas," said Bosworth, "Now can the federal government decide what is high demand for the whole country? Probably not, but I don't think they'll try."

Education Secretary Arne Duncan said that the purpose of the fund was to "align job-training programs to better meet the needs of employers."

Some touted sectors, such as health care, are growing rapidly.

Clean energy, however, is more murky. It's been a high political priority for Obama going back to his presidential campaign. But despite billions of dollars in taxpayer funds for "green jobs," it hasn't been a high-growth industry.

"The size of the clean energy industry relative to other industries has been declining and not increasing over during the last decade," said Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute.

He cites a 2011 study by the liberal Brookings Institution that found from 2003 to 2010 clean energy jobs grew at an average annual rate of 3.2% vs. 4.2% employment gains for the overall economy.

SOURCE






British Private schools fear 'social engineering' in university admissions

Like Leftists everywhere, the British Liberals hate the idea of merit. All men are equal, donchaknow

Professor Les Ebdon's selection as the new head of the university regulator has raised fears of "social engineering" among independent schools and elite universities.

When Professor Les Ebdon was once asked about his university’s lowly position in the national rankings, his response was swift and revealing. “It’s a snobs’ table,” he said, which guarantees that “institutions like Cambridge and Oxford are always at the front, while newer places bring up the rear”.

The man at the centre of a Coalition storm, who looks set to be the next head of the Government’s higher education admissions regulator, is well versed in the language of “them and us”.

Over the years, the vice-chancellor of Bedfordshire University has bemoaned the “Oxbridge obsession”, referred to the “well-off and well-heeled” Russell Group of leading universities as “these people”, and claimed that for parents who pay independent school fees, the new £9,000 a year tuition fees “might not seem an awful lot of money”.

Perhaps not unsurprisingly for a man brought up on a north London council estate who won a place at Imperial College, London, Prof Ebdon has a self-proclaimed mission to increase the number of working-class students going to university and widen the social mix of students at the best institutions.

“Education transformed my life,” he says. “I’m absolutely certain that my background has been a factor in my commitment to widening participation.”

Under his leadership, Bedfordshire’s fortunes have been transformed. It is now a thriving institution that successfully recruits from some of the poorest postcodes, giving the dream of a university education to thousands of students with low exam results or even no A-levels at all.

Even his critics would applaud Professor Ebdon’s efforts. What they fear, however, is giving him the power to remake other universities in Bedfordshire’s image.

The appointment — expected this week despite Tory opposition from the Prime Minister down — will be welcomed by those who want greater opportunities for the socially disadvantaged.

Yet opponents fear it will lead to the “social engineering” of university admissions, with privately-educated pupils routinely rejected because of the school they attended and less-qualified state school pupils given places on the basis of their “potential”.

With Prof Ebdon in post, the country risks “levelling down standards at university for the sake of a misguided strategy,” according to Nadhim Zahawi, one of the Tory MPs on the Commons Business, Innovations and Skills Committee which voted against his appointment. “In the UK, we are second probably only to America in university quality. What I would hate to see is a head of Offa who would level down standards at university instead of levelling upwards.”

The furore over Prof Ebdon is the latest in a series of rows about the UK’s dire social mobility record that has put university admissions centre stage, dating back to 2000 when Gordon Brown, then chancellor, condemned as an “absolute scandal” Oxford University’s rejection of state school pupil Laura Spence. The high-profile case put the middle-class dominance of higher education under the microscope.

Since then, universities have come under increasing pressure to admit more students from poor backgrounds.

Labour’s weapon was Offa, established in 2004 to mollify left-wing backbenchers threatening to sink Labour’s plans to introduce variable fees of up to £3,000 a year. It was given real power — the potential to ban a university from charging full fees if it failed to attract applications from working class candidates.

Although the power has yet to be exercised, the threat has been enough to put the “widening access and participation” agenda at the heart of university admissions.

As a matter of course, students now provide information on their university application form about the education levels of their parents to allow admission tutors to take into account those who are the first in their family to go to university.

Children in care are also flagged on the Universities and Colleges Admission Service (Ucas) form, as are pupils who have attended summer school, mostly attended by pupils selected by their state schools.

Increasing numbers of institutions take into account “contextual data” relating to the kind of school a candidate attended. Students from low performing secondaries are sometimes given lower A-level entry requirements. This positive discrimination is also extended by some universities to students who live in deprived areas with low proportions of young people going on to higher education.

As thousands of sixth formers across the country wait nervously for university offers of places, figures suggest that almost two-thirds of universities will employ data covering students’ social class, parental education or school performance to give the most disadvantaged candidates a better chance of getting on to degree courses this year.

At Birmingham University, a student’s background may be “factored in to move an applicant up the ranking order”, for instance; while at Leeds, the poorest teenagers may receive lower offers — such as an A and two Bs instead of three As for the most demanding courses.

Applicants to Oxford who are flagged because of their school and postcode, and have the necessary three A grade prediction, will be shortlisted for interview. Or, as the university says ominously, the department who failed to select them will be asked to explain why.

What independent schools fear is that this pressure on admission staff and academics will result in background factors being used in a formulaic fashion to meet unofficial quotas, where candidates with the “right” profile are automatically selected before other, equally well-qualified candidates. Some universities are already moving beyond simply using information on a candidates’ background in a tie-break situation.

Last year, one of the largest exam boards advocated a national system for ranking pupils’ achievements according to the school in which they were taught.

Teenagers at weak secondaries would get bonus points while those at elite schools would be penalised. Applicants with the same grade would then be “ranked according to the favourability of the context in which they were educated”.

While the Headmasters and Headmistresses Conference of private schools might publicly claim there is no evidence of across-the-board discrimination, privately, some heads feel that it may play a part in cases where well-qualified students are rejected by every university they apply for.

One such student, Prina Shah, 18, from City of London School for Girls, was turned down to study medicine last year by every university she chose despite being awarded an exemplary four A*s at A-level.

According to Mark Steed, the principal of Berkhamsted School, in Hertfordshire, discrimination does “apparently exist” against independent school pupils. “Take the case of one Berkhamsted pupil last year,” he says. “She had a perfect academic record: 10 A*s at GCSE and was predicted A*A*A* at A-level. She was rejected by four out of five universities.

“Now I can understand how someone with such an academic record could fail to gain a place at Oxford — the Oxbridge colleges still believe in additional testing and interviews.

"However I am at a loss as to how she could fail to gain an offer to study English from Leeds University on the basis of her UCAS form alone. How many A*A*A* applicants does the English Faculty at Leeds get each year? What can justify their standard offer of AAB, if they can reject A*A*A* candidates without an interview?”

For Anthony Seldon, the master of Wellington College, in Berkshire, the move to impose “artificial systems” on university admissions is worrying. “It’s like the nationalised industries of the 1970s,” he says. “By distorting the system you institutionalise patterns of failure. “The great fear is that you produce unintended consequences, such as a lack of competitiveness in state schools by making it easier for their pupils to get a leg up.

"It will drive the independent sector to crank up its exam achievement to an even greater level, which will not be a good outcome for the wider aspects of learning.”

A regulator director on a mission and with the power to impose, in Prof Ebdon’s words, “nuclear” financial penalties on universities could wreak real damage, according to Alan Smithers, professor of education at Buckinghamshire University.

He fears that the admission of less-qualified students by the back door will threaten the quality of UK higher education: “His appointment is potentially disastrous for the leading universities. Discrimination of that kind will undoubtedly weaken our universities and make it harder for them to guarantee academic excellence and compete in the world league. It introduces institutional unfairness.”

High ranking institutions argue that the focus on admissions is ignoring the underlying cause of why so few disadvantaged pupils go to university — state school failure.

A lack of candidates from poor backgrounds with the right grades in the right A-levels is the main reason student intakes are skewed towards the privately educated middle-classes, they say. “It is really important to understand the root causes of the under-representation of students from poorer backgrounds - underachievement at school and poor advice on the best choice of A-levels and degree course,” says Wendy Piatt, the Group director general.

Figures released in 2010 show that only about 1 per cent of the 81,000 pupils on Free School Meals (FSM) who get to university win a place at the top 20 institutions. And only 45 teenagers on FSM made it to Oxford or Cambridge, half the number of undergraduates supplied by Westminster, the £30,000-a-year public school in London, where an average of 82 sixth formers go on to Oxbridge each year.

But underlying this stark picture are even starker statistics that show that only 189 FSM pupils across the whole country achieved three A grades at A-level, the standard offer for many courses at Russell Group institutions.

The figures reveal the extent to which the Government faces an uphill struggle to change the fate of the poorest pupils through its academy and free school “revolution”.

In the meantime, Professor Ebdon, whose own grammar [selective] school education gave him the opportunity to attend one of the best universities in the world, believes universities should take responsibility and be “more flexible about entry” — or face the “nuclear” consequences.

SOURCE





Australian PM's guarantee on private school funding

FAMILIES fearing big rises in tuition fees have won a crucial guarantee that taxpayer funding to private schools will be protected.

But the Government will dump the current controversial arrangements that deliver big funding increases to private schools every time public school funding rises, regardless of their needs.

For the first time, the Gillard Government will back a pledge that "no school will lose a dollar" under a proposed new funding system, with a promise to offer new indexation arrangements covering grants to private schools.

The big changes proposed by the Gonski report on school funding, led by businessman David Gonski, will be unveiled tomorrow and are expected to endorse the ALP's longstanding push for a needs-based funding model. It will endorse parental rights to choose public or private schools, as vital.

Over time, the needs-based funding model is likely to deliver more money to some low-fee Catholic and independent schools and a big injection of funds to public schools. But the rapid growth in taxpayer funding for rich private schools is likely to slow under the new system.

"What we're saying is indexation will be built into any future model that will assist parents worried about future increases in school costs," Education Minister Peter Garrett said yesterday.

The existing system has been blamed for entrenching disadvantage in the system, ensuring that attempts to inject more funding to students with special needs or living in remote or Aboriginal communities, flowed on to wealthy private schools as well.

Instead, the new measure that determines funding to independent and Catholic schools will be based on an analysis of the cost of educating a child in both the public and private systems.

Australian Education Union president Angelo Gavrielatos backed the changes, warning public schools needed a "massive injection in funding".

"Disadvantaged students are up to two years behind other children. Indigenous students are up to three years behind. We don't have a level playing field," he said.

SOURCE



19 February, 2012

If only ....







Did an Ivy League Professor Suggest Including Anti-Israel Messaging in College Courses?

"Kaplan" is usually an Ashkenazi surname (It means "Chaplain" in German) so it looks like we have another Israel-hating Jew here. Maybe she hopes that the Muslims will come for her last. That sort of thinking did not work out too well for Trotsky

There is an audio clip making the rounds on pro-Israel blogs, purporting to reveal a University of Pennsylvania professor apparently suggesting that fellow teachers insert a boycott Israel message into their courses, even in courses not connected to Middle East politics.

The audio clip was taped at the National Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Conference earlier this month at the University of Pennsylvania about which The Blaze reported. Israel National News reports:

"In a breakout session of the “Academic Boycott of Israel” initiative, Amy Kaplan, professor of English at the University of Pennsylvania spoke about how teachers can most effectively demonize Israel in every classroom as well as the “positive aspects” of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

A member of the audience asked Kaplan how teachers could incorporate ways of de-legitimizing Israel “especially, I guess, when the course is not dealing directly with material that has to do with Palestine?”

She answered:

“Well I don’t know how you can, how you can address the issue if you’re not dealing with a course that has no content or relationship to it…but I know that, I mean, you can make courses that have content.”

“…you can teach a course on which you included prison as a really, really big thing, not only in the political life of Palestinians, but also in their literature and in their poetry. So that will be kind of an ideal way – you take a thematic course, and you bring in themes from this issue.”

Kaplan offered specific texts that could be used to drive home the point:

“…And, literature is a really great way to teach students about what’s going on, students who think they know they have an ideological line, a political line, and then they read, you know, they read Darwish, they read, you know, The Pessoptimist and it opens up a whole new world.”

Mahmoud Darwish was an influential Palestinian poet and PLO member who became a national symbol for many Palestinians. Kaplan was presumably referring to the book “The Secret Life of Saeed: The Pessoptimist,” by Emile Habiby whose Amazon description reads:

"Saeed is the comic hero, the luckless fool, whose tale tells of aggression and resistance, terror and heroism, reason and loyalty that typify the hardships and struggles of Arabs in Israel…The author‘s own anger and sorrow at Palestine’s tragedy and his acquaintance with the absurdities of Israeli politics (he was once a member of Israel’s parliament himself) are here transmuted into satire both biting and funny."

The pro-Israel blogger Elder of Ziyon who originally posted the audio of Prof. Kaplan on YouTube wrote:

"Here we have a professor at an Ivy League university explicitly calling on like-minded educators to shoehorn hate of Israel into every one of their classes. For these academics, college is not about teaching but it is merely a platform for them to spout their political views at their captive audience."

Kaplan, from UPenn’s English department, teaches classes including “Contact and Conflict: Literatures of Palestine and Israel,” “19th Century US Imperialism,” and “The Vietnam War in Literature and Film.” She is also a signatory to the pro-Palestinian “U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel” which calls for boycotting Israeli universities and academics, including those who support the Palestinian cause.

Kaplan’s right to free speech is protected under the First Amendment. However, is the English department presenting alternate points of view to balance out Kaplan’s one-sided presentation? How are impressionable 18 and 19-year-old students supposed to discern the complexities of the Israel-Palestinian conflict if only one side of the story is presented?

SOURCE




Popular TV shows and magazine covers are "literature" in English High Schools

When he was at school, Joseph Reynolds immersed himself in literary classics such as Great Expectations, Julius Caesar and Beowulf. Now, as the father of a teenage daughter, the 45-year-old expected her to study and enjoy similarly stimulating works.

Instead, however, she has the chance to examine Britain’s Got Talent, the X Factor and Heat magazine for her English GCSE.

Mr Reynolds said the syllabus at Kingsmead School, Wiveliscombe, Somerset, flew in the face of attempts to expose children to ‘the best that has been thought and written’.

The American marine engineer, who lives near Taunton, said: ‘I remember what I had in high school and my daughter’s not getting it. ‘I have been fighting to give her the same type of stuff I had: Great Expectations, Julius Caesar, Beowulf, and Sons and Lovers.’

He was so infuriated about his daughter’s English syllabus that he complained to her school and the Education Secretary Michael Gove.

At a hearing with governors, Mr Reynolds produced a copy of Heat and asked if they thought it was a text of ‘high quality’. He said they agreed it wasn’t but then wrote to him saying pupils were only studying the cover.

Another optional unit from the English GCSE – on school dinners – invites pupils to study ‘secondary school menu week one’. Assignments from previous years include a unit on extreme sports featuring the cover of Ride BMX magazine.

The school has defended its teaching and said classics were studied elsewhere on the course.

Exams watchdogs are now investigating how students can achieve a fifth of their marks for the unit on ‘talent television’. Nearly 40,000 are taking English or English language GCSE with Edexcel, which both feature the controversial option.

Pupils answer questions on source materials, including the home page of the BGT website and a Heat cover which features the headline ‘Yes! It’s Jedmania! The week Britain fell in love with Jedward!’

They assess how the texts ‘use presentation and language to communicate ideas and perspectives’ and write an essay setting out their ideas for a new TV talent show.

A spokesman for Edexcel said the ‘talent television’ theme was optional for schools and the range of sources studied was ‘entirely appropriate’.

GCSE courses are being revised for September in line with reforms introduced by Mr Gove.

SOURCE





Private schooling a big priority for Australian parents

39% of Australian teenagers are sent to private high schools. It makes Britain's 7% look pretty sad. Australian public schools are now largely for the children of the poor, who are more likely to have behaviour problems -- and discipline-phobic public schools now do little to address such problems (though they huff and puff a lot), leading to deaths in extreme cases. Who would not want a safer and more collegial environment for their kid? I sent my son to a private High School, with excellent results

Next time you're walking past a playground or picking up breakfast at a cafe or at the council pool at the weekend, listen in on the conversation of any group of parents with young children. You will probably find them discussing "which school to choose". In fact, "kids' schools" is up there with "housing prices" as the topic my peer group cannot stop talking about.

Education - including the relative merits of public versus private schools - has been well canvassed over several decades. The clear difference today, however, is that the "right school" discussion is being had by parents earlier, even when their children are still in nappies. And there is an anxious edge to the conversation. Concern about finding the right school has crept beyond the elite and spread throughout society. With the Gonski school funding review due to release its findings on Monday and the new My School website launched soon after, parents will have even more to think and fret about in coming months.

Last year I conducted a group discussion involving five men in their late 30s; all of them mates. The topics were open-ended. Tell us about your life, the things that keep you up at night, the things you talk about over beers and barbecues. In groups like this, the conversation often veers towards the economy, work, sport and politics. But these men spent most of their time talking about schools. And only two of them had children and they weren't even ready for kindergarten.

They started with a review of public and private schools in the area. These men were prepared to pay substantially more for a house if it was located near decent schools. They had visited the My School website, knew which zone they fell into and the NAPLAN scores of the schools in the area. One man questioned the quality of the public options. "I wasn't aware there were any good public schools around here," he said. He recalled the public school children in his neighbourhood as "complete tools" and "total knuckleheads". There was no way he was sending his offspring to a school with "ordinary units" like that. Another friend agreed. "As a parent you want to give them every chance."

One of the five men was English, married and had been living in Australia for some time. He was puzzled by the extent to which his friends were focused on where they were sending their children to. "I have had so many conversations about private education since coming to Australia,",he said. "Everyone is very private-focused." When the time came, he and his wife were planning to send their children to any local school closest to them. A few of his mates looked at him blankly. "Sure, you could do that," one of them said eventually. But his tone was cautionary, implying his friend was taking a risk with his child's future. The English bloke began to look worried.

These men accept that a private education does not guarantee great marks in the HSC, achievement at university or career success. "There is an argument that just because you go to a private school you don't necessarily get on in life," one of them remarked. Would it be better to send your child to a public school and spend the money you save on travel, tutoring and other meaningful activities? Despite all this conjecture, the conclusion was that good private education trumps public education every time.

What is driving parent perceptions about schools and the growing preference towards private over public? And why are we talking about it so often and so soon?

Research conducted by Dr Adrian Beavis for the Herald in 2004 sought to identify the factors that influenced parental choice about schools. It showed that one factor stood out when it came to the parental selection of a school. This was "the extent to which the school embraced traditional values to do with discipline, religious or moral values, the traditions of the school itself, and the requirement that a uniform be worn".

To me, this means we have to look beneath some of the upfront reasons parents give about why they choose private schools over public (namely, a better education) and search for other reasons.

Undoubtedly, peer pressure is at work here. If you can afford private education and all your friends are opting for the same, what does choosing the public path say about you as a parent?

Perhaps there is also a fear element. We are looking for peace of mind and are prepared to pay for it, even if we do not have any hard evidence it is going to work. We constantly hear from parents that they believe private education provides a "nicer" learning environment - less bullying, violence, sex and drugs and anti-social behaviour.

To be fair, I have met parents whose aversion to public education is based on experience. I interviewed a young mother of primary school-age twins with learning difficulties, who was prepared to take a second job to send them to a private school. She told me: "I hate the local school. My girls are getting behind and their confidence is getting lower and lower every year. There is bullying. The school is too big. You go and see the teachers about getting some support for your kids and they don't want to hear." This woman felt she would have more leverage as a fee payer at a private school than she would as a taxpayer in a public school.

But there are also many who believe parents have more influence on their children than schools do, and that paying tens of thousands of dollars for a child's school education puts too much strain on families and is not worth it.

SOURCE



18 February, 2012

Florida High School Graduation Rate Plunges

Historically, Florida educators have calculated the high school graduation rate based upon their own state criteria. This year, however, Florida will be required to calculate graduation rate based upon federal criteria.

No surprise, the new calculations result in significant differences.

The federal rate is tougher because it counts as graduates only students who earn a standard diploma within four years. It doesn't count students with disabilities who earn "special" diplomas. It also doesn't allow schools to wipe from their books students who transferred to adult education programs. Instead, those students count against a school because they are not graduates.

Under the formula Florida had been using, students who earn a "special" diploma counted as graduates. The state also deleted from the calculations anyone who transferred to an adult education program — typically students with weak academic records in danger of dropping out.

Using the new federal formula, Florida's high school graduation rate is much lower. One county, for example, saw a 14.5% decrease.

[Add.] Here is a tangentially-related story demonstrating the difference between earning a diploma after successfully completing four years in high school versus being given a diploma with "modified" education requirements. Congratulations to Molly, the basset hound.

Posted by Mike Pechar




WI Elementary School Confiscates, Bans 2nd Grader’s Christian-Themed Valentines

Exactly who would be harmed by them was not explained

Dexter Thielhelm, a second-grader at James Madison Elementary School in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, had a simple message for his classmates: “Jesus loves you.” The young boy had worked diligently with his mother and siblings to create candy and notes for his friends at school, as he filled empty water bottles with candy and a rolled-up a Bible verse (John 3:16) to share with his classmates. But earlier this week, to the surprise of the boy and his family, school officials confiscated the valentines before they could be handed out.

Apparently, it is district policy that Christian valentines not be distributed — a message that Melissa Wolf, Dexter’s mother, received when she met with principal Matthew Driscoll this week. The verse, ”For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life,” was apparently too religious in nature for the school to allow to be disseminated.

Wolf, 30, who has spoken out to media outlets, says that she’s not happy with the way in which the principal handled the situation. Driscoll, however, declined to comment to media on Wednesday.

“He wishes I would have asked him for permission to hand out this questionable material,” Wolf explained, describing her interaction with the principal. “I did not get an apology. I got an apology that he didn’t call me; I didn’t get an apology for taking this away from my children. He sat and listened to me kindly, and heard the things that made me upset.”

Here’s the really intriguing element to the story. Wolf has two other children at the same school. Both of whom are autistic and nonverbal. These children made similar valentines and they, too, were confiscated. But one of her other children who attends a different school — a local charter institution — handed his notes out without a hitch, the Wausau Daily Herald reports.

While Wolf is clearly frustrated by the situation, the district’s assistant superintendent, Mark Holzman, addressed the issues and attempted to explain the rationale behind the confiscation. The district doesn‘t have a specific policy that bans religious verses being handed out on Valentine’s Day, he said, but the young age of the children was one of the primary reasons he cited (i.e. the students aren’t old enough to understand the religious message).

The district also had concerns that the Christian content could lead others with negative messages to also distribute to fellow classmates. After all, once one person is allowed to hand out a message, any individual can then tout his or her values, Holzman argued.

“Otherwise we would be allowing anybody to give out personal messages or values,” Holzman explained. “If somebody wanted to put anti-Semitism in there … people would be outraged by that. If kids have a choice, it’s a different scenario. But in this case we’re talking about handing it out to everyone in the class, and they don’t have a choice.”

Wolf says that, though the school attempted to explain to Dexter why the valentines couldn’t be handed out, he was embarrassed and confused by the incident.

SOURCE




Entitlements for Teachers

On Friday, I received an email from a local public school teacher who is also a Republican. The objections that she expressed were to me in my role as chairman of the Republican Party in the county where we both live. Her gemini memberships in the teachers union and the Grand Old Party make for an interesting antithetic. So, I figured that I would respond to her concerns in the form of a cogitative Townhall article. Here is the set up:

In 2009, Douglas County, Colorado elected a conservative school board, reflecting its conservative predilection and 2-to-1 Republican over Democratic registration. The members of this board are parents, thoughtful citizens, and all accomplished professionals.

These seven citizens quickly made it apparent to everyone that their intentions were far more substantive than having local celebrity status. In two years' time, they have reduced spending by over $40 million, replaced the superintendent, crafted a merit pay plan, and implemented a voucher program (challenged in court by the ACLU).

Here is the email that I received, followed by my response:

I am very disheartened by what is going on in the DC school district, particularly the school board. I am a registered republican and a school teacher in the district and I feel they are hiding behind the republican party to get their agenda of pushing vouchers. And then they blame it on the union. I am proud to say that our schools are very good schools and have always had a good reputation and have performed well on state tests. However with this republican school board, they have pushed for vouchers for private education.

I can understand this concept if we were a failing school district. But what it is doing is dismantling the cohesiveness of the schools. By pushing their voucher agenda, they are portraying to the general public that the public schools are inadequate. Also, because of this, they are misrepresenting what many of my republican friends believe in, in public education. I am seriously considering changing my party affiliation from the republican party to the independent party as a result of all this nonsense going on with DC schools. It's very discouraging as a veteran teacher to see what is happening in our district and I know many of my republican friends feel the same way. Tax dollars should go for public education, not private education!

Dear Disheartened in Douglas,

Thank you for expressing your views. As a Republican, I am certain that you identify with most of the party platform. And as a public school teacher, it is understandable that your views on education would be influenced by the culture in which you work. What stands out to your fellow Republicans in reading your letter is that, in the entire 220 words, there is not a single mention of concern for what the customer desires.

In most other business transactions, you are a customer. Let's take restaurants, for instance. Would you be satisfied with notion that your personal dining budget is devoted to the public school cafeteria? That is not to say that cafeteria food is in any way undesirable. But the choice has been made for you and that is what you get. That is what everyone gets. Every day. Only the wealthy have enough money to spend beyond the taxes they already paid for dining to eat at a private restaurant.

In the case of public education, the primary customers are the parents. The secondary customers are the students. And who pays for your salary, your pension, the buildings and the buses? The voters, of course. When the voters selected the current school board members, they saw which candidates were endorsed by the union and which candidates were endorsed by the Republican Party. And the voters overwhelmingly selected these seven board members because they promised to create an education environment that would include competitive choices for parents.

Nearly every resident of Douglas County, including the parents of school aged children, works within the setting of free enterprise. And nearly every student who passes through the Douglas County School District will work within the free market, not funded by taxes. Would it not seem fitting that the professionals who are tasked with preparing students to thrive in capitalism should celebrate private enterprise?

The source of your internal struggle is captured in your final statement. As a Republican, you would normally have an aversion to entitlements. Yet as a teacher, your personal livelihood is dependent on the ever-reducing funds for public education. While the emotions are understandable, I would assert to you that there is only one group of people who are entitled to the education tax money provided by the residents; the students themselves. In a free society, education is the great equalizer for opportunity. We choose to tax everyone in order to educate the youth. We do not choose to tax everyone in order to ensure that the government is sufficiently funded to provide instructions to America's children.

Private construction companies compete for tax dollars to build roads and bridges. Corporate defense contractors compete for tax dollars to create weapon systems. Even faith based organizations compete for tax dollars to provide human services. Government funding does not necessitate government delivery. I see nothing other than liberal arrogance that would place such authority of the service provider above the service consumer.

In response to your threat of leaving the Republican Party, let me make this appeal. The union values you for your dues, 70% of which goes directly to the Democratic Party (see my article here). We value your gifts and talents as you make an enormous difference preparing young Americans to thrive as capitalists in a free society.

SOURCE




Insane British Leftist idea scrapped: Penalty for paying off student loan early is lifted

Students will not be penalised for repaying university loans early after David Cameron scrapped a Liberal Democrat plan to raise more money from the middle classes.

Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, had intended to introduce an early repayment penalty which would have cost graduates thousands of pounds if they cleared their debts within 30 years of leaving university.

The Prime Minister is understood to have dropped the scheme earlier this week amid warnings that it would be unfair on the hundreds of thousands of people expected to repay their loans early. The deal was agreed after Mr Cameron backed down and allowed Mr Cable to appoint the controversial Prof Les Ebdon as the Government’s new university admissions tsar.

A Downing Street source said: “The Lib Dems were very keen to appoint Ebdon and we felt very strongly about penalties for early repayment of loans. This is hopefully good news for tens of thousands of families, as well as many Conservative MPs who had raised concerns about the penalties.”

From this September, students will be charged up to £9,000 annually to study at university in England and Wales. They will be offered loans of more than £16,000 a year to cover tuition and living expenses.

Once a graduate earns more than £21,000 a year he or she will repay the equivalent of nine per cent of their earnings. The higher their salary, the more interest they will pay, up to a maximum of inflation plus three percentage points for those earning more than £41,000.

The system was designed as a form of “graduate tax” so that those benefiting most from a university education would repay most.

But to stop wealthier graduates, or those assisted by their parents, from opting out of the “progressive” system, it was planned that they would face a levy of five per cent of the value of early repayments.

Someone repaying a £40,000 loan early could have had to pay a penalty of £2,000. The Government has said previously: “It is important that those on the higher incomes are not able unfairly to buy themselves out of the progressive mechanism.”

Over the past decade, 225,000 people have made early repayments even though the interest on student loans is currently in line with inflation. When interest for top earners is higher, there will be an even greater incentive for early repayments. Large firms are expected to offer to repay loans for their best recruits.

Some parents had been concerned about their offspring facing a lifetime of debt from university – and there were reports that they would borrow money themselves to fund the fees, so Mr Cameron’s intervention is likely to be welcomed.

The Treasury is also thought to have backed the scrapping of penalties as it is expected to lead to government loans to students being repaid more quickly.

However, despite the climbdown over early repayment penalties there are still growing concerns over the imminent appointment of Prof Ebdon as the new director of fair access. One senior Conservative source said: “The scrapping of repayment penalties is very welcome but it’s still not a great political deal as Ebdon has the potential to do real damage to our country’s education system.”

Tory MPs are urging Mr Cameron to overrule Mr Cable and reopen the search for a new admissions watchdog.

Prof Ebdon, the University of Bedfordshire’s vice-chancellor, has defended degrees in “soft” subjects such as media studies and fashion design, and angered traditionalists with his blunt attitude towards widening the student intake at highly academic universities.

He has said he would be prepared to ban universities that miss their admissions targets from charging the maximum tuition fees.

Barnaby Lenon, chief executive of the Independent Schools Council and a former headmaster of Harrow School, warned that the reputation of leading universities must be preserved.

“The fact is that British universities are among the best in the world and I personally believe that one of the reasons for that is because entry to these universities has been by straightforward competition and selection,” he said.

Dr Cable will confirm Prof Ebdon as the new director of fair access next week.

SOURCE



17 February, 2012

Colorado student quits high school choir over Islamic song praising 'Allah'

A Colorado high school student says he quit the school choir after an Islamic song containing the lyric "there is no truth except Allah" made it into the repertoire.

James Harper, a senior at Grand Junction High School in Grand Junction, put his objection to singing "Zikr," a song written by Indian composer A.R. Rahman, in an email to Mesa County School District 51 officials. When the school stood by choir director Marcia Wieland's selection, Harper said, he quit.

"I don’t want to come across as a bigot or a racist, but I really don’t feel it is appropriate for students in a public high school to be singing an Islamic worship song,” Harper told KREX-TV. "This is worshipping another God, and even worshipping another prophet ... I think there would be a lot of outrage if we made a Muslim choir say Jesus Christ is the only truth."

But district spokesman Jeff Kirtland defended the decision to include the song.

"Choral music is often devoted to religious themes. ... This is not a case where the school is endorsing or promoting any particular religion or other non-educational agenda. The song was chosen because its rhythms and other qualities would provide an opportunity to exhibit the musical talent and skills of the group in competition, not because of its religious message or lyrics," Kirtland told FoxNews.com in an email while noting that the choir "is a voluntary, after-school activity."

"Students are not required to participate, and receive no academic credit for doing so," he said.

At an upcoming concert, the choir is scheduled to sing an Irish folk song and an Christian song titled "Prayer of the Children," in addition to the song by Rahman.

"The teacher consulted with students and asked each of them to review an online performance of the selection with their parents before making the decision to perform the piece," Kirtland said, and members who object to the religious content of musical selections aren't required to sing them.

Rahman, who has sold hundreds of millions of records and is well-known in his homeland, has said the song is not intended for a worship ceremony. He told FoxNews.com in a written statement that the song, composed for the move "Bose, the Forgotten Hero," is about "self-healing and spirituality."

"It is unfortunate that the student in Colorado misinterpreted the intention of the song," Rahman said. "I have long celebrated the commonalities of humanity and try to share and receive things in this way. While I respect his decision for opting out, this incident is an example of why we need further cultural education through music.”

The song is written in Urdu, but one verse translates to "There is no truth except Allah" and "Allah is the only eternal and immortal." Although the choir sang the original version, Wieland distributed translated lyrics.

Grand Junction High School Principal Jon Bilbo referred questions to Kirtland.

SOURCE






FL: Tampa parents rip school for letting controversial Muslim group speak to students

Parents in Tampa are the latest to protest school officials inviting a controversial Muslim civil liberties advocacy group to speak to students.

Dozens of people showed up at a Hillsborough County school board meeting Tuesday night to complain that a member of Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, spoke to history students at Steinbrenner High School last fall. They cited the group's past connection to a terror financing case involving the terrorist group Hamas. The group, which purports to promote diversity and tolerance of the religion, has met a similar reception in Texas and Georgia in recent years.

“We do not have a problem with Islamic groups speaking with students, but we do have an issue with a group that has ties to terrorism speaking,” Randall McDaniels, head of the Jacksonville Chapter of ACT for America, one of the groups actively seeking to stop CAIR members from speaking to students in public schools, told FoxNews.com

CAIR spokesman Corey Saylor dismissed the criticism as "fear-mongering.” Hassan Shibly, the Florida CAIR member who spoke to the students, said the parents are misguided.

“This hatred and animosity only shows the importance of reaching out to the community,” he said, “It’s insulting to the school and the students to think that one person can influence their beliefs. It’s misleading."

The group, the nation's largest Muslim civil liberties advocacy organization, also has come under criticism for, among other reasons, being named by the Justice Department as an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terror financing case involving the Holy Land Foundation.

Michael Rubin, a resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute who focuses on the Middle East and terrorism, said concerns about CAIR are not unfounded.

"They have been co-conspirators in a terrorism finance trial and seek to stymie debate rather than safeguard it," Rubin said. "Almost every day, jihadists on religious Internet forums belie CAIR’s claim that religion has nothing to do with terrorism. Ultimately, there is a battle for interpretation going on inside the world of Islam, and rather than seek to win that debate for the moderates and proponents of tolerance, CAIR acts as the jihadists’ offensive linesmen.”

Parents in the Houston-area town of Friendswood objected to a presentation CAIR made to junior high students in 2008, sparking a furor that led to the principal's resignation. In 2010, parents in Gwenett County, Ga., forced the school system to disinvite CAIR from holding classroom presentations.

SOURCE






Scottish children's tsar adds support to schoolboy's battle to wear a skirt to school

I don't think this is doing the kid any favours. He will just be mocked

Boys should be able to wear skirts to school because uniforms 'should not discriminate', a children's adviser has claimed. Tam Baillie, the Scottish parliament’s Commissioner for Children and Young People, has backed 13-year-old Luca Scarabello, who is fighting for a ban on ‘gender-specific uniforms’.

Mr Baillie said that Luca, a pupil at St Mungo’s High School in Falkirk, Stirlingshire, who lodged a petition with the Scottish Government in November, had ‘raised important rights issues’. The public petitions committee (PPC) is considering Luca's proposals.

In his response to the PPC, Mr Baillie claimed that forcing uniforms on children could cause ‘serious distress’ for those with gender variants. Mr Baillie said ‘We should be rejecting discriminatory practice and allowing our children and young people to express themselves. 'I would agree that gender specific uniforms or dress codes can cause serious distress in gender-variant pupils. 'School uniforms and dress codes should not be discriminate, directly or indirectly against any of these protected groups.

'Schools should be reviewing their uniform code policies to ensure they do not have the effect of unlawfully discriminating against pupils with a protected characteristic.'

The young peoples' commissioner believes that forcing children to stick to strict uniform policies could contravene the UN convention on the Rights of the Child and the Equality Act 2010. The latter law places a duty on public bodies to prevent discrimination on the grounds of gender-reassignment or sexual orientation.

However he accepted that having a uniform acts as a "leveller" between children of differing financial backgrounds and helped reduce stigma and bullying. He added 'This is clearly an issue which divides people and there are strong views on both sides.

'I believe we should be celebrating difference, rejecting discriminatory practice and allowing our children and young people to express themselves freely in a way that is both inclusive and respectful and helps them to develop a strong sense of who they are. 'I would suggest that a balance be struck between school dress codes on the one hand and the need for relaxation of requirements, where this is appropriate, on the other.'

Mr Baillie made the comments as he lent his backing to teenager Luca Scarabello who is campaigning for boys to be allowed to wear the traditionally female clothing in class.

The youngster from Camelon, Stirlingshire believes that if girls can wear trousers boys should be able to wear skirts.

The campaign is being backed by the Scottish Transgender Alliance and LGBT Scotland, which represents lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. In his petition, the schoolboy said ‘Gender specific uniforms ... cause problems for gender variant pupils and create a stigma. It is outdated nonsense.’

MSPs have been discussing the proposal to scrap 'gender specific' uniforms. However Mr Baillie thinks a blanket ban is not the way forward, with a more flexible approach being the preferred option, and he called for a debate on the teenager's proposals that traditional uniforms be replaced with more comfortable and cheaper alternatives.

But the proposals have been rubbished by family campaigners. Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said 'Schools should be free to make their own decisions about uniform policies in consultation with parents, without the constraints of political correctness. 'Gender is determined by objective biological facts and not by a person's feelings, no matter how strong they may be. 'Rather than encouraging children to become what they are not, we need to help them recognise and accept what they are.

'To that end, maintaining a distinction between what boys and girls are required to wear can be positive and helpful for pupils struggling with gender identity issues. 'This is yet another case of the language of children's rights being used in an attempt to add weight to what is nothing more than a personal minority view. 'To enforce it on everyone by force of law is undemocratic.'

It is not the first time the issue has hit the headlines. In January, a Cambridgeshire couple revealed they kept the gender of their son, Sasha, a secret for five years until he started school. Parents Beck Laxton and Kieran Cooper referred to him as ‘the infant’ and allowed him to cross-dress. They said they did not want to ‘stereotype’ him.

Source



16 February, 2012

Teacher tenure: Why should educators be different?

On Monday, Missouri Rep. Scott Dieckhaus (R-Dist. 109) proposed a bill (House Bill 1526) to reform the state's teacher tenure laws. As we have argued before, getting rid of teacher tenure is good for Missouri's public schools, and this bill is particularly strong for three key reasons:

1. Teachers could be fired for doing a bad job. Most of us live in a world where doing consistently bad work means you lose your job. Not so for teachers.

Under the current laws, a tenured teacher can be fired only for egregious conduct, such as willful or persistent violations of the school laws, excessive or unreasonable absences, and felony convictions. Even then, a severely truant teacher would get generous procedural protections from termination: a majority of the school board must vote to fire the teacher, and the teacher can appeal the board's decision through an administrative hearing.

If this bill passes, boards could not only fire convicted felons, but they could also dismiss teachers for unsatisfactory performance.

2. No more indefinite contracts for teachers. Most of us also have to live with the reality of at-will employment. Again, not so for teachers.

Under the current laws, a teacher who survives a five-year probationary period becomes "permanent personnel" with an indefinite contract to teach.

The proposed bill, on the other hand, gives school administrators more discretion to retain teachers they actually want teaching in their schools. Schools could contract directly with teachers for up to four years; and what's more, the board would retain the power to terminate a multi-year contract if the teacher scored poorly on evaluations.

3. Teachers will get paid for what they do, not how long they have done it. That is right, teachers do not live with the reality of performance-based pay either.

Under the current laws, school districts are prohibited from basing salaries on performance-related criteria. Instead, districts pay their teachers based on length of service and level of education. The proposed bill removes this prohibition and requires school boards to consider teacher evaluations when making decisions related to pay, retention, promotion, and dismissal.

Not surprisingly, the unions started speaking out against HB 1526 before it was even proposed. Missouri National Education Association President Chris Guinther told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch last week: "we've got to be given the protection that we need to give those kids the quality education that they need." Wouldn't our kids be getting a better education if school boards could dismiss failing teachers more easily, like this bill would allow? The problem with the union perspective is that it focuses on teachers, not on kids. Tenure is not about having due process, as Susan McClintic, president of the Columbia Missouri National Education Association, told the Columbia Missourian last week. On the contrary. Teachers do not have a right to their jobs; it is the students who have a right to a public education, and they should have good teachers to boot.

SOURCE






Public schools zealously protecting a monopoly they did nothing to earn

“No Child Left Behind.” That’s the stated policy of our nationalized, near-monopoly public school system.

The slogan is the usual grandiose utopian mumbo-jumbo we’ve come to expect from Washington, followed by a multitude of annoying and absurd outcomes in schools across the country.

At least, it’s nice to hear that all children matter. But in public schools do they? Really?

In my Virginia backyard, the ongoing battle over whether homeschooled students will be permitted to try out for public school sports teams is starkly instructive. For the last three legislative sessions, Delegate Rob Bell (R-Charlottesville) has introduced House Bill 947, which would allow homeschool children to try out for public school sports by disallowing public schools in the Commonwealth from contracting with the Virginia High School League, the private organization that bans homeschool kids from participating.

Interesting to see that public school administrators have signed contracts with a private entity, VHSL, which actively discriminates in the precise way public school groups so vehemently favor.

The Virginia High School League offered their own glass-half-empty statement in opposition to the legislation, explaining that, “If a non-student makes the team, a student attending the school will not.” The VHSL statement also quoted an ominous warning from former State Superintendent for Public Instruction William Bosher, that “Allowing students who are homeschooled to participate in high school athletics could change the entire structure of high school athletics.”

But would this earth-shattering “change” to “the entire structure” be good or bad?

The legislation has been dubbed “The Tebow Bill,” after Tim Tebow, the NFL’s rookie sensation, who led the Denver Broncos to the playoffs. Before that Tebow was a Heisman Trophy winning quarterback for the University of Florida and before that he was a homeschool kid allowed to play football for his local public high school. Of course, homeschoolers are sometimes a little unconventional. Tebow has consistently failed to get arrested on drug or gun charges and, even more controversially, he talks about his religious faith.

“We’re not ready for this type of incursion into our school system,” complained Delegate Bob Tata (R-Virginia Beach), the House Education Committee chairman, while explaining that the state’s school boards and superintendents oppose HB 947. The state’s teachers’ unions also oppose the bill, as does the Virginia Parent Teacher Association.

Yet, the invasion of their hallowed public-private playground by the private public may be imminent. The barbarians are already at the gate of the evenly-split state Senate, HB 947 having passed the House of Delegates this past week by a vote of 59-39.

Expect intensive lobbying by the politically powerful education establishment. In an email, the Virginia PTA urged its cadre to: “Let [legislators] know that public school is your choice and team sports are a privilege you earned and expect them to protect.”

Notice how fast public education went from a right for every child to a privilege for some, who plead with politicians to protect them from having to associate with “the other.” To do the unimaginable: give others an equal chance to “try out.”

Where have we heard this sort of debate before?

And if integrated sports teams are unthinkable, the PTA email poses a harrowing question, “What’s next? Drama, debate, electives?”

If we’re not careful, truly public education could break out. With free and diverse integration.

The PTA’s orthographically deviant slogan is “every child. one voice.”

Why not allow every one of those children his or her own voice? And an equal chance to win a spot on the team.

SOURCE





Study at Cambridge? Better to have fun in Bangor, says British teacher in controversial article

A state college teacher provoked fury last night after admitting he tried to deter an ‘aggravating’ bright pupil from applying to Cambridge.

Jonny Griffiths, 51, wrote an article for a teachers’ journal describing how he told the boy to ‘enjoy being 17’ and target Bangor University instead.

The remarks, by a senior maths teacher at a sixth-form college in Norfolk, drew widespread condemnation last night, with Tory MPs accusing him of perpetuating a ‘culture of low expectations’.

Elizabeth Truss, MP for South West Norfolk, said: ‘Teachers should be doing all they can to help keen students get ahead.

‘I am horrified to hear of an enthusiastic student being discouraged from aiming for the top.’ Mr Griffiths, who teaches at Paston College, in North Walsham, last night claimed he intended to give the boy a ‘jolt’ and ‘a better chance of realising his potential’.

But he went on to criticise the practice of ‘parading’ bright students who win places at Cambridge.

‘Sometimes a weaker student will work really hard to win a place at a “less good” university, while a bright student will hardly break sweat to get a place at Cambridge,’ he said.

‘It is the bright student who is paraded before the local papers. I’m not sure that’s right.’ In his article, Mr Griffiths told how a boy named Michael came to his office at 4pm to discuss his A-level grades. The pupil had been clocking up A grades in maths papers but had recently made ‘silly mistakes’.

Mr Griffiths wrote that ‘driven’ and ‘obsessed’ pupils could be just as ‘draining’ and ‘aggravating’ as their demotivated classmates.

The boy then revealed he had his ‘heart set on’ getting an A in maths but was concerned his performance was slipping.

Mr Griffiths admitted to telling him: ‘Apart from you, Michael, who cares what you get in your A-level?’

The article continued: ‘His Bambi eyes look at me in a bewildered way, as if he has just seen me kick a puppy. “I mean I care, of course,” I add, swiftly. “But what is better: to go to Cambridge with three As and hate it or to go to Bangor with three Cs and love it?”’

He then told a ‘stunned’ Michael he was ‘gold dust’ to be fought over by university maths departments and employers and to ‘enjoy being 17’.

The student who attends Paston College said that students obsessed with bettering themselves are often as detrimental in a class as disruptive pupils

The pupil subsequently got an answer wrong in class but seemed unconcerned, Mr Griffiths noted.

Last night he told the Daily Mail he was using a specific approach to help a ‘very anxious’ boy. ‘People seem to think I would treat every bright student this way. It is not true at all,’ he said. ‘If Cambridge is where you want to go, then I will do everything I can to help you get there.’

He added that the incident he was referring to happened in 2004 and the boy went on to get As in maths and further maths before progressing to Warwick University.

Mr Griffiths said his remarks had been coloured by his own experience studying maths at Cambridge in the 1970s, which he found ‘as dry as dust’.

But critics said he risked trampling on the boy’s ambitions and misleading him over his choices. Mrs Truss warned: ‘This is a symptom of the disgraceful culture of low expectations that holds many back.’

Political commentator Iain Martin accused Mr Griffiths of ‘smug shamelessness’, adding: ‘Surely there is a way of calming the young man down without upending his ideas about attainment and aspiration?’

SOURCE



15 February, 2012

Some straight talk from Mike Adams

Who teaches criminology at a university he often satirizes

Dear (Name Deleted): I want to take the time to thank you for turning in your paper assignment on time and for conforming to the minimum word requirement. Unfortunately, I have some bad news: You turned in the paper assignment for your political science class. I am not your political science professor and my name is not Dr. Johnson. The mistake was understandable as you are only a senior. I am certain that such errors will be less commonplace by the time you get your doctorate. In the meantime, the good news is that I went ahead and graded your paper. The bad news is that you got a zero. It really had nothing to do with the requirements of the class you are taking under me. I hope you understand.

Please note that I am aware that you suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder. I know this because you have told me in writing, over the phone, and in person. There is no need for you to repeat yourself. I generally pay attention when people speak to me. But I am giving you the zero - not in spite of your ADD, but because of your ADD. I really think that attaching a consequence to your conduct will help you grow out of it.

*

Dear (Name Deleted): Thank you for your concerns over the content of our last murder lecture. These lectures can be tough and sometimes offensive – although I am rarely able to predict just what will offend students these days. In your case, you have been very specific with the basis of your personal offense. Regrettably, however, I will be unable to act upon your request. Let me explain.

When you asked me to refrain from using the term “pit bull” (when I discuss the People v. Berry dog mauling case) you were simply asking too much. I understand your concerns that “pit bulls will be unfairly stereotyped as dangerous” if (after they kill someone) we refer to their specific breed. But what you fail to understand is that the dog’s breed was a relevant fact in the murder trial. Berry chose the dog on the basis of its reputation in the hopes that it would keep people away from the illicit drug business he was operating out of his back yard. He had a pit bull but no fence. That is how the little child ended up being mauled to death.

Generally speaking, I have more concern for the lives of small children than for the reputations of dogs who cannot ever know the status of their reputations. I think if you reflect upon this you will understand that people may speak badly of pit bulls without them actually knowing it.

On a positive note, I have taken your concerns to heart. The next time a Yorkie or a Poodle mauls a small child to death I will make sure to emphasize their specific breed. That way, people will understand that pit bulls are really deeply misunderstood creatures.

*

Dear (Name deleted): I hope you don’t mind this unsolicited email concerning your status in my criminology class. As you know, I have a policy against coming into class late. You are always in your seat before class begins. But, recently, you have been getting up and walking out during the middle of my lectures. In fact, you do it every class period at about the same time. As you walk out of class, you generally reach into your right hand pocket. I suspect that is because you’re reaching for your cell phone in order to call your girlfriend.

Ever since I banned cell phones, guys have been getting up and leaving class to “go potty” with some regularity (no pun intended). But we all know that my cell phone policy did not really cause grown men to go potty more often. Instead, it began to interfere with their girlfriends’ rule that they must either call or text them at least once every half-hour. Since I am aware of what’s going on, I am going to implement a rule you will not like: I am hereby declaring that upon re-entry into my class, you are officially considered late. This means you will lose a point from your final average every time you step out and then step back in during my lecture.

This may seem harsh, but it will be of tremendous benefit to you. It means you will now be forced to act like a man, take charge of your relationship, and stop letting your girlfriend monitor you like a suspected terrorist. Furthermore, it may actually save your relationship. When a woman monitors you she is most likely cheating on you. She is making sure you are not nearby so she will not get caught in the process. If she isn’t cheating on you, she is very close to dumping you for someone she cannot control. Women love a challenge more than having a lapdog. Please think about what I have told you.

*

Dear (Name deleted): This is just a quick note to remind you of my policy concerning cell phones in the classroom. At no time am I to see or hear one of these annoying devices during one of my lectures.

I know that when your cell phone went off during our last class that it was a complete accident. I appreciate how quickly you reached into your pocket to turn it off as I was answering a student question on the topic of aggravated rape. This brings us to another issue. Please hear me out.

I know that I have not established any rules concerning the content of cell phone interruptions in my class. But I am considering a new policy in light of the nature of the incident with your cell phone.

Please, don’t get me wrong. I certainly support your right to listen to rap music celebrating the joys slapping a “booty.” I mean, DAT is your right if you’re really into booty slapping. However, (especially given that we sometimes forget to turn off our cell phones) it is perhaps unwise to program the ringer in such a way as to celebrate booty slapping every time someone calls. Know what I’m saying?

Anyway, I just thought I would share my insights with you. I wasn’t really offended. But the sensitive topic of rape should be discussed free from unanticipated celebrations of booty slapping. After all, the women might not share your love of booty slapping. And they might turn on you faster than a Yorkshire terrier.

SOURCE








Teachers must not be neutral about homosexuality?

One would have thought that neutrality was the only proper stance on a politically sensitive matter

The school board in Minnesota's largest school district approved Monday night a replacement for a policy that required teachers to stay neutral when sexual orientation comes up in class, a stance that some critics blamed for fostering bullying.

The Anoka-Hennepin School Board adopted the "Respectful Learning Environment" policy on a voice vote. Only board member Kathy Tingelstad voted no.

After hearing more than an hour of often impassioned testimony from more than 20 people on both sides, board member Scott Wenzel said the change eliminates an old policy that singled out one minority group for different treatment.

"This policy is truly a compromise, Wenzel said. "And I truly hope that it will move this district and community forward from this point on."

The district, which is the target of two lawsuits over the old policy, has found itself in the national spotlight over the issue, and Tingelstad and several parents who testified said they didn't appreciate it.

"I just think we could have done a lot better job," Tingelstad told reporters after the vote. "I think we were being pushed by outside influences that were outside of our school district. I know we're setting some national standards her tonight but I'm disappointed," she said, adding that the board could have better addressed the concerns of those who testified against the change.

The new policy commits the north suburban Twin Cities district to providing "a safe and respectful learning environment for all students." It says that when contentious political, religious, social matters or economic issues come up — it does not specifically cite sexuality issues — teachers shouldn't try to persuade students to adopt particular viewpoint. It calls for teachers to foster respectful exchanges of views. It also says in such discussions, staff should affirm the dignity and self-worth of all students, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

The proposal was unveiled at a Jan. 23 school board meeting after an earlier revision attempt left all sides unsatisfied. The new policy takes effect immediately and might move the lawsuits closer to settlement.

The district's teachers union endorsed the policy change. Julie Blaha, president of the Anoka-Hennepin local of Education Minnesota, told the board the new policy could just become buried among all the district's other policies, or it could become "the first few paragraphs of a new chapter ... in which everybody feels safe and welcome at school. A chapter where it is clear that every student, staff member and family is valued for who they are. And a chapter full of rigorous conversations between professionals about how to improve our school climate."

Critics said the old neutrality policy kept teachers from preventing bullying of students who are gay or perceived as gay. It had the support of parents who believe homosexual conduct is immoral and told the board they don't want their children taught otherwise.

Barb Anderson, of Champlin, was one of several parents who asked the board not to give in to demands for changing it.

"If you pass a policy with weak language of appeasement, the gay agenda will be given an even greater foothold in our school district," Anderson said. "We are at a crossroads. You either cave in the demands of the homosexual activists, an action that will make our schools unsafe for all kids, or you stand firm and protect the children."

The old policy had been under fire since six students in the district committed suicide in less than two years. A parent of one of the students who committed suicide says her son was bullied for being gay. Gay advocacy groups say some of the others students who killed themselves were also bullied.

The district has said its internal investigation found no evidence that bullying contributed to the deaths. But the district changed its anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies in October 2010 to clearly state that harassment or bullying of gay students wouldn't be tolerated.

The district has about 38,500 students and 2,800 teachers.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven Rau has scheduled the next round of settlement talks for March 1 and 2 in two lawsuits filed by students, former students and parents against the neutrality policy. Both sides have been keeping those discussions confidential, but the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which are representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement applauding the policy change.

"Today is the first day in nearly 18 years that Minnesota's Anoka-Hennepin School District no longer has a harmful policy that singles out lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students. Although we would have preferred for the District to have repealed this stigmatizing policy without replacing it, we are pleased that the new policy expressly requires district staff to affirm the dignity and self-worth of all students, including LGBT students," the statement said. "The repeal of this policy is an important first step, but the District must do much more to create a safe, welcoming, and respectful learning environment for all students, including LGBT and gender non-conforming students, and those perceived as such."

SOURCE





One in 20 British 11-year-olds leaves primary school with maths ability of a seven-year-old

Huge numbers of pupils are leaving primary school with the maths ability expected of children four years their junior, shocking new figures have revealed.

Results of this year's SATs tests show that tens of thousands of pupils - one in 20 - are starting secondary school with the numeracy skills of a seven-year-old.

Boys were found to be performing worse than girls with around 15,600 falling well behind.

And figures for GCSE level maths, released two weeks ago, are equally shocking with one in three pupils failing to get at least a C.

The government has been quick to blame the previous Labour administration for misspending billions of pounds on education. A government source said: 'Employers and universities complain about the quality of our children's maths. 'We have to put right Labour's failure.'

Last week we revealed how universities are now being forced to dumb down degree courses requiring the use of maths, including sciences, economics, psychology and social sciences, because both the pupils and lecturers cannot cope.

The reputation of the country’s universities and graduates is now under threat, according to a report published by the education lobby group RSA.

‘English universities are sidelining quantitative and mathematical content because students and staff lack the requisite confidence and ability,’ the report says, adding that English universities are ‘not keeping pace’ with international standards.

A survey released in January suggests that parents are partly to blame because they are often too busy to help with homework.

The study by online tutor mytutor found many young children were leaving primary school unable to spell, add up or do their times tables. It claimed more than a quarter of children were unable to add two small sums of money without using a calculator as they can't do division and basic algebra.

Twenty-seven per cent of children surveyed could not add £2.36 and £1.49 to get £3.85. In addition, more than a third, 36 per cent, could not divide 415 by five and a quarter did not know the answer to seven multiplied by six.

The survey of 1,000 children aged between 10 and 12 found that one in four did not know their times tables and a quarter could not use decimal points.

Almost half of parents surveyed, 48 per cent, said they thought their child was worse at maths than they were at the same age. Almost four in 10 parents - 39 per cent - said they spent less time learning with their children than their parents did with them a generation ago. Only 30 per cent claimed to spend more time helping their child with their learning than their parents did.

And nearly six out of 10 parents - 59 per cent - spent less than an hour a week learning with their children - amounting to just eight-and-a-half minutes a day. One in five parents spent less than 30 minutes a week learning with their offspring.

Government education adviser Professor Steve Sparks argues that all students who continue with further education after 16 should also take a new maths qualification alongside their other subjects.

He claims that teaching post-16 students basic maths and statistics is vital for them to be able to compete in the modern world.

Last year a report by former Countdown presenter Carol Vorderman recommended that school pupils in England should study maths up to the age of 18. It found just 15 per cent of pupils study maths beyond GCSE level, below almost all other industrialised countries where nearly all study the subject to the age of 18.

Ms Vorderman said 24 per cent of economically active adults were 'functionally innumerate', with many universities and employers complaining that school-leavers did not have necessary skills.

SOURCE



14 February, 2012

Why do rich kids do better than ever at school?

This will be an enraging finding to equality-mongers but for me the interest is in the explanation. The author below has few explanations so I may not do much better but let me try.

I think it goes back to the deteriorating quality of public schools. I think I learnt more in grade school 50 years ago than most kids now learn in High school. Does the fact that even some Harvard freshers (about 20%) have to be diverted into remedial math and English classes before they can go further tell you anything?

So it is only the rich who can afford to go private or live in high class areas who now have a chance of giving their kid a good education. A most lamentable change.

The Widening Academic Achievement Gap between the Rich and the Poor: New Evidence and Possible Explanations

Sean F. Reardon,

Abstract

In this chapter I examine whether and how the relationship between family socioeconomic characteristics and academic achievement has changed during the last fifty years. In particular, I investigate the extent to which the rising income inequality of the last four decades has been paralleled by a similar increase in the income achievement gradient. As the income gap between high- and low-income families has widened, has the achievement gap between children in high- and low-income families also widened?

The answer, in brief, is yes. The achievement gap between children from high- and low-income families is roughly 30 to 40 percent larger among children born in 2001 than among those born twenty-five years earlier. In fact, it appears that the income achievement gap has been growing for at least fifty years, though the data are less certain for cohorts of children born before 1970. In this chapter, I describe and discuss these trends in some detail. In addition to the key finding that the income achievement gap appears to have widened substantially, there are a number of other important findings.

First, the income achievement gap (defined here as the income difference between a child from a family at the 90th percentile of the family income distribution and a child from a family at the 10th percentile) is now nearly twice as large as the black-white achievement gap. Fifty years ago, in contrast, the black-white gap was one and a half to two times as large as the income gap. Second, as Greg Duncan and Katherine Magnuson note in chapter 3 of this volume, the income achievement gap is large when children enter kindergarten and does not appear to grow (or narrow) appreciably as children progress through school. Third, although rising income inequality may play a role in the growing income achievement gap, it does not appear to be the dominant factor. The gap appears to have grown at least partly because of an increase in the association between family income and children's academic achievement for families above the median income level: a given difference in family incomes now corresponds to a 30 to 60 percent larger difference in achievement than it did for children born in the 1970s. Moreover, evidence from other studies suggests that this may be in part a result of increasing parental investment in children's cognitive development. Finally, the growing income achievement gap does not appear to be a result of a growing achievement gap between children with highly and less-educated parents. Indeed, the relationship between parental education and children's achievement has remained relatively stable during the last fifty years, whereas the relationship between income and achievement has grown sharply. Family income is now nearly as strong as parental education in predicting children's achievement.

SOURCE

Escaping the FedEd monster

Trent Kays, writing in the Minnesota Daily, got almost everything wrong about education, beginning with his article's headline, "Ron Paul's War on Education." The correct headline should have been "Ron Paul's War for Education."

Paul advocates abolishing the federal Department of Education; however, Kays says "that is not the right way to solve education problems."

But once the concept of "education" is properly defined, abolishing FedEd is the only way to solve education problems.

Government, by definition, doesn't "educate." Government is force. Government consciously and purposefully "indoctrinates."

Had Mr. Kays studied history alongside journalism he might have learned how this came about. He might have started with the Mackinac Center's "School Choice in Michigan: A Primer for Freedom in Education" by Matthew J. Brouillette, specifically the chapter entitled "The 1830s and 40s: Horace Mann, the End of Free-Market Education, and the Rise of Government Schools.

The Classics Illustrated version is that Horace Mann (the "father of American public school education") brought the Prussian system of state-controlled (and mind-controlling) education to America.

As award-winning educator John Taylor Gatto put it, the traditional American school purpose - "piety, good manners, basic intellectual tools, self-reliance, etc." - gave way to Prussian state socialism and its centralized schooling system designed to deliver obedient soldiers to the military, obedient workers to mines, factories, and farms, compliant civil servants to the government, subservient clerks to industry, and submissive citizens to the nation-state.

The results are all around us today.

Contrast this with another early German educational theorist, Wilhelm von Humboldt. Although he believed in "free and universal education for all citizens" (i.e., coercively taxpayer funded) Gatto notes his "brilliant arguments for a high-level no-holds-barred, free-swinging, universal, intellectual course of study for all, full of variety, free debate, rich experience, and personalized curricula."

So while Ron Paul advocates turning public schooling over to the states, thereby creating 50 little authoritarian indoctrination monsters instead of one big one, libertarians believe in free market education.

How will the free market answer Kays' objections of who will ensure that a standard of education is maintained, or ensure that poor children get an education, or who will give deserving students money for college?

One short article can't make up for years of government indoctrination. For that, Kays needs self-education. He could begin here and then keep on going:

SOURCE






Australia: Red tape blocks school science lessons

IT'S the age-old question - which came first, the chicken or the egg? Queensland's 650,000 school students are now unlikely to be given the chance to find out after a recent crackdown was ordered on egg hatching in classrooms. In a decision criticised for tying schools up in more red tape, teachers must now submit a 15-page application form before their students can watch chickens hatch from eggs in an incubator.

Teachers are now saying the paperwork is too time-consuming and they won't bother with the once-popular classroom activity. The application form is the same one used to gain approval to dissect rats and toads in school laboratories.

The ruling that books and chooks don't mix has led to the cancellation of dozens of hatching kit orders after some Catholic schools booked incubators in time for Easter before realising they now needed formal approval from the Queensland Schools Animal Ethics Committee.

Exasperated owners of hatching kit businesses fear at least 1000 unwanted embryo eggs that had been pre-ordered must now be destroyed.

Ann Richardson of Henny Penny Hatching said schools had been threatened with fines of more than $30,000 if they hatched eggs in the classroom without formal approvals, which could take six months. "Teachers are just finding it too hard," she said. "There was no negotiation. We don't know what to do."

One teacher wrote to Ms Richardson in dismay at the decision, saying bean plants would prove a poor substitute for her life-cycle classes.

Opposition education spokesman Bruce Flegg said the paperwork burden had made it "virtually impossible" for teachers to continue the activity. "It is really a case of bureaucracy and red tape being imposed on the education of our children to their detriment," he said. "Any animal, whether at home or school, should be treated humanely, but our children have a right to learn about the natural world."

Teachers were previously able to conduct chicken hatching in schools without formal permission.

But Animal Ethics Committee project officer Brad McConachie said that has changed after advice from the State Government that poultry programs in schools needed formal approval by the committee under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 code of practice.

An Education Queensland spokeswoman said chicken hatching was complex and the welfare of the animals needed to be taken seriously.

SOURCE



13 February, 2012

Will University of California, Santa Cruz, Address anti-Jewish Bigotry on Campus?

Mark Yudof, president of the University of California, claims that two federal complaints against his university, alleging a hostile environment for Jewish students, are without merit. While expressing general support for the recent extension of the provisions of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include Jewish students, Yudof does not believe that the situation on UC campuses rises to the standards of the federal statute. He recently told the Forward: “I think it is about people engaged in abhorrent speech on our campuses. But I am skeptical at the end of the day that with those two instances we will be found to be in violation of Title VI.”

As a lecturer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and the author of a Title VI complaint filed on behalf of Jewish students at my university, which has been under investigation by the U.S. Department of Education since March 2011, I strongly disagree with Yudof’s assessment.

Although he implies that the primary target of my complaint is “abhorrent speech” on campus, this is simply not so. Rather, my complaint focuses on university faculty and administrators who have regularly and egregiously abused their positions as employees of a public university and violated the tenets of their profession to promote their own virulently anti-Israel political agenda, which in turn has had deleterious effects on many Jewish students.
Consider the following examples included in my complaint:

1) A conference titled “Alternative Histories Within and Beyond Zionism” took place at UCSC, sponsored by eight departments. Four professors and one graduate student, none of them scholars of Israel or the Middle East, though all of them self-proclaimed anti-Zionists and anti-Israel activists, delivered papers demonizing the Jewish state, denigrating its founding ideology and promoting efforts to harm Israel, such as divestment campaigns.

The five talks were replete with lies, distortions and gross misrepresentations of the facts, including claims that Zionism is racism; Israel is an apartheid state; Israel commits heinous crimes against humanity, including genocide and ethnic cleansing; Israel’s behavior is comparable to Nazi Germany, and Jews exaggerate the Holocaust as a tool of Zionist propaganda. All five speakers agreed that Israel should be dismantled as a Jewish state.

2) A UCSC community studies class designed to train social activists was taught by a professor who described herself in her online syllabus as an active participant in the “campaign against the Apartheid Wall being built in Palestine” and used her class website to encourage students to protest Israel’s “destructive actions“ outside the Israeli consulate in San Francisco. The professor’s course readings, chosen to incite hatred of the Jewish state, contained unreferenced statements such as the following:

*“Israeli massacres are often accompanied by sexual assault, particularly of pregnant women as a symbolic way of uprooting the children from the mother, or the Palestinian from the land.”

* “We define Zionism as a settler-colonial political movement that seeks to ethnically cleanse historical Palestine of the indigenous population and populate it as a Jewish-only state.”

These examples and many others found in the complaint contain language that clearly meets the working definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the U.S. Department of State, including rhetoric that denies the Jewish people their right to self-determination (such as by claiming that Zionism is racism); that applies a double standard to Israel’s behavior not applied to any (for example, blood libel); that compares Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, and that accuses the Jewish people and the State of Israel of exaggerating the Holocaust.

As a result of their experiences with such university-sponsored, anti-Semitic expression, Jewish students at my university have expressed feeling emotionally and intellectually harassed and intimidated by their professors, isolated from their fellow students and unfairly treated by administrators. Some have even reported leaving the university, dropping classes, changing fields of study and hiding symbols of their Jewishness.

Ultimately it is up to the federal government — not Yudof — to determine whether there has been a violation of federal law at UCSC, and it is important to point out that the DOE would never have initiated an investigation of my complaint had it been deemed frivolous or lacking in merit.

If Yudof truly valued the protections that Jewish students have recently been afforded under Title VI, he would not pass premature judgment on my complaint. Rather, he would simply welcome the federal investigation of a UC campus and the opportunity it could provide for understanding and addressing the serious problem of anti-Jewish bigotry.

SOURCE







Teachers Unions Staring Into Financial Abyss, Channeling Saul Alinsky

Fresh on the heels of an exclusive report detailing a 7-day Caribbean cruise that National Education Association staffers are currently enjoying, Education Action Group has learned that dozens of teachers unions around the country are running out of money.

According to reports published by the National Staff Organization – a group made up of NEA and state affiliate union staffers:

“Fifteen states are considered to be financially distressed because of membership loss and their very survival is in jeopardy. And because of financial hardship, 41 state executives are on NEA’s payroll instead of being paid by their state. Two states—Indiana and South Carolina—remain under an NEA trusteeship.”
NSO President Chuck Agerstrand called it a lesson in “trickle-down economics.”

Or maybe it’s just “trickle-down karma.” It’s ironic that the very same financial problems unions have created for government schools – through collectively bargained contracts that give annual, automatic pay raises and world class benefits – are now appearing in their own organizations.

The teacher unions’ laser-like focus on left wing politics means that state legislatures – many of which are currently controlled by Tea Party Republicans – have no incentive to help rescue them.

The unions’ chickens have come home to roost, as the saying goes.

What’s the solution? Creating a “culture of organizing,” according to the NSO, which wants to boost the number of dues payers and thus soothe the financial problems. So prior to the 7-day Caribbean cruise, staffers participated in a three-day retreat to learn how to better organize.

The staffers studied organizing theory charts and read quotes from Saul Alinsky. The National Education Association is now teaching an organizing method the Service Employees International Union has been using as well: “Constant Organizing Goals.”

In a 2010 PowerPoint document, SEIU described the COG method this way:

“[It] requires unions to build public relationships involving a quid pro quo interchange driven by self-interest and guaranteed by mutual accountability.”
This underscores the notion that the union’s strategy is to meet its needs first and not seek what is in the best interest of students or taxpayers.

The NEA’s bargaining strategy method has these four steps:

1. Educate

2. Agitate

3. Escalate

4. Evaluate

The further into the process, the theory goes, the more power is built. But the power, of course, is for high salaries, better benefits, and fewer responsibilities. That’s great for the adults, but doesn’t do much for the students.

But after all – it’s not about the students. Somebody has to bail water out of the sinking union boat and it’s not going to be students. Teachers, grab a bucket.

SOURCE






Australia: SCHOOL CRACKDOWN: Dud teachers face axing in deal worth millions

Good if it actually happens. Government schools cannot afford to be too fussy, though. It's mainly the least talented of graduates who go into teaching these days. Trying to teach in an undisciplined school is only for the desperate -- aside from a few idealists

POORLY performing teachers will be sacked in a landmark education reform to be rolled out nationally.

In return for signing up to the Federal Government's teacher hiring policy, aimed at improving standards, state governments will be offered cash handouts worth millions.

The national reforms will need to be agreed to by each state and will be first rolled out in Queensland and New South Wales. The Queensland Government will be offered $7.5 million, and the NSW Government will be offered a handout of more than $12 million.

In a move that will break the longstanding deadlock about whether principals can hire and fire, school management will be given free rein to take over the recruitment and management of teachers and support staff.

School boards and councils will also take over the budget control and strategic planning, giving parents a greater role in oversight of their school operations. They will also be given the right to set salaries for teachers and contracts for school maintenance, such as cleaning.

"To get the best results we need principals to have the powers to get and keep the best teachers," Prime Minister Julia Gillard told The Daily Telegraph yesterday.

NSW government schools have the most centralised decision-making processes in Australia. All staff hiring is also centralised out of the state Department of Education, which has the say on hiring and firing of teachers.

The PM will announce the reforms ahead of the release of the Gonski review of school funding, due next week. It will be the first review of how schools receive funding since 1973 and is expected to call for major injections of funds into an education budget that tops $36 billion annually.

As federal education minister, Ms Gillard introduced the My School website and the Naplan tests, which brought in national standards for Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 in reading, writing and numeracy.

The Federal Government will withhold the additional funding if the State Governments do not sign up to the harder reforms, specifically around the hiring and firing of teachers by principals.

The onus is now on NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell to submit an implementation plan to the Federal Government to prove how he would lift education performance.

Inability to hire and fire staff has been one of the principals' greatest gripes. Principals will now become more accountable for their school's performance. A trial of the reforms will involve 325 schools in NSW over the next two years.

SOURCE



12 February, 2012

‘He’s Our Man, Yes We Can!’: Pro-Obama Song Taught to Kindergarteners at TX School

Kindergarteners Learn Yes We Can Obama Song at Tipps Elemntary School in TexasKindergarteners at a Texas elementary school were sent home with lyrics to a pro-President Barack Obama song that included such lines as “Barack Obama is the man” and “He’s our man, yes we can!”

The song, part of a Black History Month program, was forwarded from a parent at Tipps Elementary School in Houston to Joe “Pags” Pagliarulo, a nationally syndicated radio host and frequent fill-in for Glenn Beck. Included with the lyrics was an apparent memo to kindergarten teachers that said kindergarteners would be “required” to learn the chant for the program [all spelling errors below are original]:

Team:

Attached is a chant about President Barack Obama. All Kindergarteners will be required to learn the chant for the Black History program. Please write how many you will need. Keep one copy to practice with students at school.

Thanks,
Mary Stovall
Bridgette Babineaux

The Barack Obama Song

Who is our 44th President?
Obama is our 44th President
Who is a DC resident?
Obama is a DC resident
Resident, President

Who’s favorite team is the Chicago White Sox?
Obama’s favorite team is the Chicago White sox
Who really thinks outside the box?
Obama really thinks outside the box
Outside the box, Chicago White Sos
Resident, President

Who really likes to play basketball?
Obama really likes to play basketball
Who’s gonna answer our every call?
Every Call, Basketball
Outside the box, Chicago White Sox
Resident, President

Who’s famous slogan is Yes we can?
Obams’s famous slogan is Yes we can
Who do we know is the man?
Barack Obama is the man
He’s our man, Yes we can!
Every Call, Basketvall
Outside the box, Chicago White Sox
Resident, President
Who won a grammy for “Dreams of my Father”?
Obama won a grammy for “Dreams of my Father”?
Now can you guess who’s a famous author
Barack Obama is a famous author

Famous Author, Dreams of my Father
He’s our man, Yes we can!
Every Call, Basketball
Outside the box. Chicago White Sox
Resident President

Who wants to go to college at Yale?
Malia & Sasha will go to college at Yale
Who’ll make sure they won’t fail?
Barack & Michelle know they won’t fail

They won’t fail, they’re going to Yale
Famous Author, Dream of my Father
He’s our man, Yes we can!
Every Call, Basketball
Outside the box, Chicago White Sox
Resident, President

After receiving the lyrics, Pagliarulo sent the following email to Pam Redd, principal of Tipps Elementary School:

Dear Principal Redd,

Hi there.. my name is Joe Pagliarulo.. I go by Joe Pags on the radio. I had a listener contact me today.. with the attached document. I’m confused. How exactly is holding this president up on high — indoctrinating little children to believe what YOU want them to believe about this president a good lesson for Black History Month..

What’s said in the document is nothing less that proselytizing YOUR feelings for the president. You can love him. You can vote for him. You can be proud that he’s the first Black president — which would be appropriate for this month’s program.

But, you DO NOT get to tell the taxpayers who pay your salary that their kids have to genuflect to the altar you’ve clearly built to this president. I’d LOVE to have you on my show. I’d LOVE for you to explain to those who pay your salary why YOUR political beliefs are the ones THEIR kids have to get in lock-step with.

Really looking forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Pags

The Tipps Elementary principal’s office would not comment on the matter, directing all inquiries to the communications department at the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District.

Kelly Durham, the district’s assistant superintendent for communications, defended the song during a telephone interview with The Blaze and called it “an instructional activity to honor Black History Month.” The kindergartners will be perform it during an evening school program, she said.

Durham said each grade level was assigned a different historical figure to profile, and the kindergarteners got Obama — an appropriate figure because “he’s the president of the United States.” Durham said she knew one other grade level had been assigned Rosa Parks, but did not know who the remaining grades received.

She disputed the characterization that it was a “requirement” for kindergarteners to learn the song, saying all students were given permission slips for their parents to sign before they were allowed to take part.

“As a parent, you would have the right to say I don’t want my child participating in this,” Durham said.

She said she didn’t know whether the permission slips detailed what the activity would involve, and said she hadn’t heard whether any parents disagreed with the song. Of the school’s 194 kindergarteners, only 25 will be participating in the program — a number Durham said is typical for an evening school activity, and not necessarily reflective of parents’ feelings on the subject matter.

“They [parents] understand that President Obama is the president and he’s the first African American president and February is Black History Month,” she said.

Durham said she did not know who wrote the chant or whether it was approved by a school administrator before it was distributed to students. She told The Blaze the version used by teachers was “different” from the one sent to Pagliarulo, but said she did not know how.

Addressing the song on his show, Pagliarulo called it a clear case of “proselytizing” and indoctrination.

“Am I suggesting mentioning the first black president of the United States should not have been included in the program? No,” Pagliarulo told The Blaze. “What I‘m saying is having your kids and mine bow down to his majesty and propping him up as ’the man‘ and ’yes we can‘ and ’thinking out of the box‘ and ’answering every call‘ and pretending that’s somehow a lesson in black history is historically wrong and not the job.”

SOURCE






Michigan School Plays Fawning Video Tribute to Obama

Well, at least the kids weren’t singing – everybody now – “Mmm mmm mmm…Barack Hussein Obama.” But the latest example of Big Education fawning over Barack Obama isn’t much better.

On Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, Cass Elementary School in Livonia, Michigan aired a video of still images of Obama, with a speech by King and – strangely – a Bob Marley song playing in the background.

The students looked about as interested as if they were watching paint dry.

It’s unclear how long the song actually was, as the citizen journalist video is 1:20 long and the song was clearly longer.

But why do these examples keep popping up? Why is he routinely portrayed in a mythical context? While it’s important to honor our president, these examples border on propaganda fit for a dictator.

It’s obvious the teachers unions love Obama. Many of their members do, too. After all, both national unions – the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers – have both already endorsed him for re-election. They didn’t even bother to wait to see who his eventual opponent will be.

But the indoctrination campaign for our dear leader is on, and thankfully parents or teachers or whoever they are – keep recording the incidents and posting them for all to see. Perhaps eventually, the propagandists will be shamed into stopping.

SOURCE





Low-cost degrees in the Netherlands attracting British students

You don't have to speak double Dutch - and the fees are significantly cheaper. That's why more and more British students are flocking to universities in the Netherlands, it was reported today.

Traditionally, the UK's seats of learning have attracted a whopping share of European total of students who travel abroad to study. More than a quarter came to Britain in 2009, the latest year for which figures are available.

But as fees have risen to £9,000 a year, universities in the Netherlands have reported a significant increase in interest from the UK. At Maastricht University, figures released this month show 255 Britons have applied for places in September, two-and-a-half times the comparable figure a year ago. Four years ago there were just 18 British students in Maastricht. The figure is now 163 and that could double later this year.

At home, recent figures show a 8,500 drop in the number of 18-year-olds applying for university places in England this year.

The cost of courses in the Netherlands, the fact courses are taught in English and it is easy travel to the country via the Eurostar service are believed to be behind the rise. Undergraduate tuition fees in the Netherlands are currently €1,713 (£1,440) for an academic year, less than one sixth of the £9,000 maximum being levied in England from September. Not only that, for students of any EU nationality who can prove they are working 32 hours a month, the Dutch government hands out grants of €265.

Colin Behr, a second-year European studies scholar from Devon, told The Guardian: 'Going to another country to study is very daunting. But it's a great opportunity. The reason I'm here is the quality and the value for money. It definitely feels more serious than the UK.'

British students now occupy fourth place in the list of nationalities studying at Maastricht and their numbers are rising relatively fast.

Jeanine Gregersen-Hermans, the university's marketing director, said: 'The situation in Britain has changed, so we expect a lot more applications this year. People have been forced to look outside [the UK] and now it has snowballed.'

Yet the number of students coming to Britain still dwarfs the number leaving to study abroad. Of 600,000 EU students taking degrees in non-native union countries, 175,000 were in the UK.

In contrast, only 11,800 Britons were studying elsewhere in the EU, compared with 80,000 Germans, 47,000 French and 41,000 Italians.

SOURCE





Australia: "Overcrowding" in Sydney State schools?

Class-size is a snark. All the evidence shows that it is teacher quality that matters, not class size.

A point not mentioned below is that the turning to State schools mostly seems to be happening in affluent suburbs, where the quality of the pupils keeps standards up

STUDENTS in government primary schools are struggling in classes of more than 30 children as wealthy families turn their backs on expensive private colleges to save thousands of dollars in fees.

Booming public school enrolments have stretched teachers in many popular and high performing primary schools to breaking point as class sizes have jumped to as high as 32 after Year 2.

Children in their first three years of school -- who are not required to sit national literacy and numeracy tests -- have government-mandated small classes with as few as 19 students.

But in senior primary school years children are often forced into large classes, exceeding the upper ceiling of 30 laid down by the NSW Department of Education and Communities.

Data showed enrolments in the best government primary schools has been rising rapidly in recent years, particularly since parents have been able to monitor school performance in the National Assessment Program Literacy and Numeracy (Naplan) tests.

Public school enrolments have increased by 8400 across the state since 2009, with northern Sydney a major hot spot.

Government schools in the city's north, up against heavily marketed independents, have recorded the greatest increase in students -- 5100 over the past three years.

At Caddies Creek in western Sydney enrolments have jumped from 220 when the school opened in 2003 to 925. Mona Vale Public on the northern beaches has increased from 799 three years ago to 900. Others have risen by more than 60 per cent in six years.

Relieving principal at Mona Vale Public Greg Jones said families who would have opted for a private education were saving $20,000 a year by choosing the local government school.

"It reflects the community having increasing confidence in public education . . . we are not losing them (new students) so there is very little leakage," he said.

But a rigid staffing formula administered by the Education Department, under which schools can lose a teacher if student numbers decline by just a few, has made it almost impossible to keep all primary classes at under 30.

The Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations said large class sizes in the upper years of primary school was an issue, particularly as students in Year 3 and Year 5 were required to sit the Naplan tests.

Allison King, from Wahroonga, has three children. Her eldest, six-year-old Malachi, is in Year 2 at Waitara Public School. She believes small class sizes are important: "They're still quite little in Year 3 and with all the literacy and numeracy tests they are doing they need so much attention. I wouldn't like Malachi to be in a big class."

In a bid to juggle a limited number of teachers and classrooms, schools are forming composite classes or using "team teaching" -- with 45 or 50 students in a room with two teachers.

Education Department data showed some schools now had up to 19 composites.

The carer of two primary school children in southwestern Sydney, who did not wish to be identified, said she had been told by a teacher that the quality of learning dropped when classes became larger than 25 students.

"I once complained to a teacher because they didn't mark my child's homework when she was in Year 3 -- the teacher said they didn't have enough time to get around to marking every child's work," the carer said.

"This year the principal wants classes to stay at 27 but I think it will increase. This is because some children haven't even come back from holidays yet and are yet to be placed in classes."

Chairwoman of the Public Schools Principals Forum Cheryl McBride said most of her classes at Canley Vale Public in Sydney's west had 29 or 30 students.

"We would love to have smaller sizes . . . if you are a quality teacher you can be even more effective with smaller numbers," she said.

"Disadvantaged schools also find (larger class sizes) more challenging than affluent areas.

"But it is about competing priorities and I rate the need for more counsellors, help for special needs kids and teachers' salaries ahead of reducing class sizes."

Ms McBride agreed public schools were attracting families who might otherwise have sent their children to private schools.

An Education Department spokesman said $710 million had been spent reducing class sizes in primary schools. They now averaged 24 across all grades.

Sydney regional director Dr Phil Lambert said improved academic performance, exciting programs and "connectedness" between the school and parents of students were reasons why government schools had become more attractive. [Dream on!]

SOURCE



11 February, 2012

Mathematics 'too hard for students and dons': British universities drop subject from science courses

Competition from the Far East is a standard boogeyman in education debates but in this case it is real. There is huge mathematical talent in China and Chinese mathematicians are already to be found in universities just about everywhere

It's not an entirely new problem either. My mathematical talents are slim to the point of invisibility but in the large Sociology Dept. where I worked during my academic career it usually fell to me to teach statistical analysis! Nobody else was willing or able to do it. Yet statistical analysis is an integral part of sociological research

Universities are dropping maths from degree courses because students – and their lecturers – cannot cope with it, a report warns today. Decades of substandard maths education in schools has led to a ‘crisis’ in England’s number skills, threatening the future of the economy, it says.

Universities are being forced to dumb down degree courses requiring the use of maths, including sciences, economics, psychology and social sciences. Students are unable to tackle complex problems and their lecturers struggle to teach them anyway, it is claimed.

The reputation of the country’s universities and graduates is now under threat, according to the report, ‘Solving the Maths Problem’, published by the education lobby group RSA.

After looking at maths education in other countries, the authors found that lessons and qualifications in English schools were ‘not fit for purpose’.

They say that classes fail to stretch the brightest while leaving weaker pupils ill-equipped to use maths for work and family budgeting, and warn of a growing knock-on effect on universities.

‘English universities are sidelining quantitative and mathematical content because students and staff lack the requisite confidence and ability,’ the report says, adding that English universities are ‘not keeping pace’ with international standards.

Some universities are no longer advertising the level of maths needed to study particular subjects for fear of putting off applicants, the report warns.

It adds: ‘Recent research suggests that universities are marginalising mathematical content in the delivery of degree courses because English students are not capable of studying it.’

The report by the RSA – formally called the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce – suggests that all students should be required to study maths until the age of 18, with the introduction of sixth-form qualifications such as ‘Maths for Citizenship’. England is just one of a handful of developed nations that fail to educate pupils in maths until that age, it says.

Only 15 per cent of youngsters study the subject past 16, aside from GCSE candidates taking resits to boost their grades.

The report also backs the introduction of a ‘double award’ maths GCSE, with one section concentrating on maths for everyday life and the other covering formal maths such as algebra and geometry.

‘Mathematics knowledge and qualifications are increasingly important gateways to further and higher education, for crucial life-skills and in order to respond to economic change,’ it says. ‘But the way mathematics is taught and assessed in England has not always kept pace with these changes or with the needs of learners and has left one in four adults functionally innumerate.’

SOURCE






Difficult to fire bad teachers in California too

Only the utterance of a racial slur got rid of her

The La Canada Unified school board in California voted unanimously — 5-0 — to fire a high school math teacher accused of calling a student “Jew boy.” The same teacher was also said to have mocked a disabled student’s speech impediment in June of 2011.

Now, dismissal proceedings for Gabrielle Leko are slated to go into effect Feb. 27.

After initial complaints about the teacher were filed, a substitute was assigned to Leko’s classroom in the fall so that another adult was always present.

KTLA adds:

Then, in December, the board recommended the district reach a settlement with Leko that could lead to her leaving the district. The board also decided to give students the option to leave her class. Fifteen students in her pre-calculus class and two in her advanced-placement calculus class chose to leave. Board president Scott Tracy told the La Canada Valley Sun that a settlement could still happen before Feb. 27. “The board will continue to peruse all options, including a settlement that would result in the employee’s separation from the district at the end of the current academic year,” Tracy said.

On the website RateMyTeachers Leko garners an average overall score, but some of the low scored-reviews, issued by disillusioned students, shed light on just what has been going on in the shamed teacher’s classroom, as well as insight into her mindset. Some of the negative reviews are reprinted below, several dating as far back as 2004:

The thing that makes Mrs. Leko a bad teacher is the fact that she will not answer questions. If you ask her to do a problem on the board she’l refuse and respond with a torturingly vague answer “Think about it,“ or ”Its all in the vocabulary.” Sometimes she’ll just make you feel stupid and inadequate. I have always loved math up until now, but she has made me despise it. She does not teach either, simply tells us to look at examples and scribbles on the bored. Needs to learn how to explain things

Extremely unhelpful, and rude to an incredible point, insists on insulting and bringing to light in front of everyone the shortcomings of each person.

One of the worst teachers at LCHS. Very biased. Hates Armenians, Jews, girls,parents in general, etc.

Prejudiced and raciest teacher, should not be teaching. does not fallow any rules as a teacher puts students down, doesn’t help struggling students

By far the worst teacher I’ve experienced in however many years of math. She intimidates students, points out ALL of their flaws (ex. if she doesn’t like their name, she will make a point to embarrass the student in front of the class.)

She has a terrible reputation for incredibly valid reasons. Rude to her students, very unaccomadating to personal needs and/or learning styles (everything has to be done her way), and on top of all this, a terrible teacher strictly in the sense of her instruction. Worst teacher I have ever had to LCHS. I’m a straight-A student.

I don’t hate many people, and I hate Mrs. Leko. She is so spiteful and…well, mean. She’s just mean. It took me a while before my self-esteem healed.

It seems dismissal proceedings for Ms. Leko should have commenced years ago. Why she has been allowed to remain in her position for as long as she has remains a mystery.

(Editors note: There are some grammatical errors in the student’s reviews published above. To keep their comments true to their original form, they have not been edited for grammar or spelling).

SOURCE




Australia: Negligent education bureaucrats in NSW hit disabled children

AN investigation into the debacle that left hundreds of disabled students without school transport has blamed senior bureaucrats at the NSW Department of Education, but cleared Education Minister Adrian Piccoli.

Former director-general of education Ken Boston today handed his report into the bungle to Premier Barry O'Farrell, who said it demonstrated a "systemic breakdown" within the department.

On the first day of the school year, 740 disabled students were left without transport, after operators pulled out of some runs at the last minute because of complaints over a new payment system.

Mr Boston's report is scathing of the department's handling of the operators' complaints. He says the department repeatedly failed to tell Mr Piccoli that some students could be left without transport, even though it had known since October there was a risk that would happen.

"The prevailing culture seems to have been one of telling senior officers, and even the director-general and the minister, what it was thought they wanted to hear, not what they needed to know," the report says.

"I criticise the Deputy Director-General, Finance and Infrastructure and the Director of Finance Shared Services for failing to deliver this $80 million program of vital importance to the most vulnerable children in NSW, and their parents.

"They have damaged the reputation of the Department of Education and Communities in the opinion of the transport operators, the community and the NSW Government." Mr Boston recommended disciplinary action be taken against both senior education officials.

Mr O'Farrell, who received the report at 11am (AEDT), said he was angered by the report's findings. "What the report details is a systemic breakdown in the Department of Education and Communities in relation to this transport scheme for children with disabilities," he said in Sydney.

"As I read the report I got increasingly angry at what was clearly a lack of focus by the department on the needs of those children and their families. "I have asked the Director-General of Education and Communities to implement the recommendations and advise me what action will be taken against the two senior staff members about which Dr Boston made specific recommendations of disciplinary action."

The State Opposition has demanded the sacking of Mr Piccoli, saying he should have acted when he was told there were problems with the contract last year. However, Mr O'Farrell defended his minister, saying his department had failed to advise him about the potential debacle despite repeated requests for information.

"Mr Piccoli and his staff have at all times sought to handle this as is appropriate," he said.

Mr Piccoli said he was angry that he didn't get the sort of advice that he should have been getting from the department. "I asked all of the questions I should have asked," he said. "I should have been given better advice and more accurate advice so that this problem could have been averted. "The advice that was given to me was insufficient, wrong.

"The Boston report clearly says that the department have let me down and the Government down, but have most importantly let those parents down of those students who were affected on the first day of school."

SOURCE



10 February, 2012

Sex Smears and the Rule of Law at Yale

The university has tarnished a student's reputation, and its own

The case of former Yale quarterback Patrick Witt provides additional evidence, as if more were needed, that our leading colleges and universities have lost their way.

Controversy erupted on Jan. 26, when the New York Times tarnished the reputation of Yale's star football player. According to reporter Richard Pérez-Peña, Mr. Witt, a finalist for a prestigious Rhodes Scholarship, did not withdraw from the scholarship competition in November because, as he claimed at the time, he preferred to lead his team against Harvard in "The Game" instead of flying to Atlanta for his scheduled Rhodes interview. Rather, according to Mr. Pérez-Peña, the Rhodes committee, having "learned through unofficial channels that a fellow student had accused Witt of sexual assault," suspended his candidacy until such time as Yale provided a letter re-endorsing it.

Mr. Witt has denied the charge, and the Times story has been harshly criticized. The Times reported the existence of a confidential accusation of sexual assault despite not knowing the name of the accuser or the content of the complaint. It relied on a half-dozen anonymous sources, all of whom were violating institutional confidentiality policies. And it highlighted a couple of minor infractions by Mr. Witt earlier in his college years, slyly suggesting that he had a propensity for lawbreaking.

The complaint lodged against Mr. Witt was part of a new system for dealing with sexual-assault accusations at Yale. The school put the system in place at least partly in response to an investigation by the Department of Education stemming from allegations in early 2011 that Yale maintains a campus atmosphere hostile to women. Under the new system, the Times reported, Mr. Witt's accuser chose to file an informal complaint, which does not involve a full investigation or a finding of guilt or innocence.

But the Times and many others who have pounced on a murky tale about a star athlete seem oblivious to the larger story. That is the erosion of due process at Yale and throughout American higher education, and the alliance of government policy and academic dogma that fuels it.

On April 4, 2011, Assistant Secretary Russlyn Ali, who heads the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR), sent a 19-page "Dear Colleague" letter to colleges and universities across the country. The letter ostensibly was meant to clarify the schools' obligations under Title IX, the 1972 law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex at educational institutions receiving federal funding. Schools that fail to comply with OCR directives risk the loss of government dollars. For top research institutions that amounts to hundreds of millions per year.

Garbed in the rhetoric of equality, with dubious data about the incidence of sexual assault on campus and misstatements about the law concerning sexual-misconduct complaints, the OCR letter tells colleges and universities precisely what they must do to bring their campus grievance procedures in compliance with Department of Education requirements.

Such proceedings may involve allegations of rape, a crime for which a defendant in the criminal-justice system can be sentenced to a decade or more in prison. Despite the high stakes, the OCR insisted that universities may not use a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, characteristic of the criminal law, or even the intermediate standard of "clear and convincing evidence." They must instead adopt the lowest of standards, or in the OCR's words, "a preponderance of the evidence" (which translates as more likely than not to be guilty).

In addition, the OCR letter "strongly discourages" cross-examination of the accuser. The OCR recommends that schools offer an appeals process for the accused. But if they do so, it requires that the complainant too be allowed an appeal. This flies in the face of the notion, deeply rooted in liberal Western jurisprudence, that subjecting the accused to a second trial for the same offense violates fundamental fairness.

It is outrageous but not surprising that little protest has been heard from faculty around the country. Some have succumbed to the poorly documented contention that campuses are home to a plague of sexual assault. Some are spellbound by the extravagant claim championed more than two decades ago by University of Michigan law professor Catharine MacKinnon that America is a "male supremacist society" in which women are rarely capable of giving meaningful consent to sex.

Rather than call it an "informal process," it would be better to characterize the system to which Patrick Witt was subjected by Yale's "University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct" as undue process. Yale's promise of confidentiality to Mr. Witt turned out to be worthless. Yale also oversaw a grievance procedure concerning the serious accusation of sexual assault that nevertheless formally excluded a full investigation (which, according to Mr. Witt, he requested). So Yale left the charge against him hanging in the air in a university environment in which students, faculty and administrators casually equate accusations of wrongdoing with findings of guilt.

The Patrick Witt case, which is not atypical, reflects more than the decline of due process on campus. It also exhibits a failure of liberal education. At its best, university education has deteriorated into little more than random forays into the sciences, social sciences and humanities. But traditionally, and for good reason in a democracy, liberal education at its heart involved instruction in the principles of freedom.

If Yale and other institutions across the country were fulfilling their promise to educate students, then their faculties would teach that riding roughshod over due process shows ignorance of or contempt for the rule of law. Professors would be teaching that the presumption of innocence is rooted in a commitment to treating individuals as ends in themselves and not as a means to advancing some social goal or another, even if that goal is given the name of equality or justice. And students would be learning that our established and legitimate justice system does not presume guilt, because to do so is to fail to appreciate the limits of human knowledge and the propensity of those who wield power to abuse it.

The need to restore due process on campus—and in the directives of the federal government—is urgent.

SOURCE






More Orwellian Justice at Yale--This Time Against a Professor

Believe it or not, there is at least one person on the Yale campus who has received less due process than Patrick Witt, the former college quarterback and Rhodes scholarship applicant whose reputation has been effectively destroyed by Yale and the New York Times.

That information came last Tuesday in an e-mail from Yale president Richard Levin celebrating the "comprehensive, semi-annual report of complaints of sexual misconduct and related remedial actions" produced by Deputy Provost Stephanie Spangler. As already noted, the Spangler Report explained the Orwellian procedures under which Patrick Witt was investigated or, rather, not investigated. Most of the report described the undergraduate students who, like Witt, had been subjected to the "informal complaint" procedure, in which limited or no investigation occurs and in which the accuser retains all but total control of the process.

One of the Spangler cases, however, involved a complaint by a female professor against a male colleague. Here is the report's description of the procedure that Yale employed: "A faculty member sought resolution of an informal complaint alleging that a male faculty member had sexually harassed her. The complainant requested confidentiality. The Chair of the UWC [University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct] met with the complainant and her department chair and they identified measures to support and protect the complainant and monitor the respondent."

According to Spangler, then, after a complaint was lodged against a Yale professor, a meeting to discuss the matter occurred between university administrators, the accusing professor, and both professors' department chair. But the accused professor was never informed of the existence of the complaint, much less given a chance to defend himself. As a result, somewhere on the Yale campus today, a department chair and members of the administration have set up "measures" to "monitor" an unknowing member of the Yale faculty. Big Brother comes to New Haven.

In his Wall Street Journal article, Peter Berkowitz commented on a central irony of cases like Witt's--that academics, who by tradition have strongly defended due process, too often have remained silent to the erosion of civil liberties on today's campuses. As Berkowitz observed, "It is outrageous but not surprising that little protest has been heard from faculty around the country. Some have succumbed to the poorly documented contention that campuses are home to a plague of sexual assault. Some are spellbound by the extravagant claim championed more than two decades ago by University of Michigan law professor Catharine MacKinnon that America is a 'male supremacist society' in which women are rarely capable of giving meaningful consent to sex."

There's little indication that Yale faculty members are troubled at what happened to Witt--who, after all, lacks a profile that would be appealing to most in today's race/class/gender-dominated professoriate. But as the Spangler Report makes clear, the university's unusual conception of due process can just as easily be targeted against the professors themselves. Indeed, President Levin has all but promised as much: "The new procedures and services we have put in place are necessary, but they are not sufficient."

Perhaps a recognition that they could be the next Patrick Witt will cause some Yale professors to start worrying about the erosion of due process rights on the New Haven campus.

SOURCE






Let little kids be kids

Britain requires that a demanding "curriculum" be taught to pre-schoolers but there are good reasons to condemn an obsession with early learning, depriving children of fun and formative skills

This is a tale of two sisters. The elder sister, who is now nine, went to nursery at six months (before she could even sit up unaided) and announced, thoughtfully, aged two years and two months: “I want to go to the Mosque and pray to Allah” – which came as a surprise to me, and an even bigger surprise to the parish priest.

As she was my first child, and hence the rather put-upon repository of all-my-hopes-and-dreams, I spent anguished, sleepless nights worrying about her progress and fretting over milestones. So I felt relieved and vindicated to see that, thanks to her early education, she has marvellous social skills, confidence and a lively, interested mind.

The other sister, who is three and a half, is pottering about the kitchen singing snatches of Les Misérables, blowing raspberries and demanding a biscuit as I type.

Flinty exponents of the “nappy curriculum” might observe that her penmanship isn’t quite up to the Lindisfarne Gospels yet, that she jumbles her colours (albeit deliberately, to tease me) and her childcare provision falls into the recklessly relaxed, “pillar-to-post” category.

As she was my second child, she has a much easier time of it as I am far too busy filling and emptying the washing machine to calibrate her fine motor skills on a daily basis.

So I am mightily relieved and vindicated to see that, thanks to her unstructured play, she possesses marvellous social skills, confidence and a lively, interested mind. Gosh. Who would have guessed? Well, for a start, the expert authors of an impassioned letter to The Daily Telegraph, urging a rethink on the “schoolification” of children’s early years.

Academics and authors ranging from Oxford neuroscientist Baroness Greenfield, writer Philip Pullman and childcare guru Penelope Leach have warned that controversial educational reforms are robbing young children of the opportunity and, more alarmingly still, the ability to play.

The compulsory nappy curriculum that all nurseries, pre-schools and childminders are supposed to follow places too much emphasis on formal learning and the three Rs, they claim, and they are going so far as to set up a new group, Early Childhood Action, to push for an alternative, less stifling curriculum.

“Every early-years teacher in the state and the independent sector has told me how much they wish the Government wouldn’t treat childhood as a race,” says Sue Palmer, author of Toxic Childhood and a signatory to the letter.

“Schools have become sausage factories as it is, and putting little children into the grinder earlier and earlier doesn’t make it any better.”

It’s a disturbing image, but there’s a groundswell of opinion that the Government needs to be shocked into taking action. Although the Coalition is reducing the number of curricular targets, it hasn’t dispensed with them all.

“The first years of a child’s life are crucial in their development and the Audit Commission said just last week that the introduction of the 'nappy curriculum’ hasn’t made any difference to children’s academic attainment by the age of seven.”

Quite so. My elder daughter, Lily, passed through nursery before the Labour government’s Early Years Foundation Stage became mandatory, in 2008. I’m very glad she missed it; as far as I could tell, there was quite enough structure in place already, without requirements to achieve multiple academic targets (69 to be precise) by the age of five.

Without wishing to sound like an old hippy, isn’t childhood supposed to be about fun? I mean, if you can’t smear paint in your hair and babble a load of old nonsense when you’re two years old, when can you?

I’m no educational consultant, but even I see no advantage to insisting children learn to read before they’re five. On the contrary, it’s downright harmful to force-feed them phonics when they ought to be balancing on walls, throwing balls and making weapons out of Stickle Bricks.

Some, of course, take to books early, like eager little ducklings to water, but you can always tell the ones who have been hot-housed by pushy parents as they tend (like forced rhubarb) to be pale and anaemic and not nearly as rosy and characterful as those reared, as nature intended, in the fresh air.

I share Palmer’s exasperation and frustration that the unhappy nappy curriculum appears to have been of no empirical benefit whatsoever. One in 10 boys leaves primary school with a reading age of that of a seven-year-old, or worse. Figures released last December revealed that four in 10 pupils seen as high fliers at the age of seven are struggling to reach their potential by the time they sit their end-of-school tests aged 11 – which amounts to 50,000 bright children effectively being failed by the education system.

Oh, and we continue to slip down the league of every international education table. I find it particularly vexing to note that all work and no play makes Jack plunge from 17th to 25th in reading ability. How is that supposed to tally with toddler targets? In the Scandinavian countries, formal education doesn’t begin until seven, and they still outstrip us.

Ironically, alongside the disproportionate importance placed on early academic targets, today’s battery-reared children are losing their independence.

Early-years educationalists report that the youngest pupils are unable to put their coats on, change for PE or go to the lavatory without assistance (62 per cent of teachers say they have seen a rise in toileting “accidents”). The blame for this has been placed firmly at the feet of “busy” parents who haven’t taught the most basic life skill of all to their offspring. How can any mother be that preoccupied, I wonder. And whatever happened to the social stigma of tweenagers in nappies?

Possibly more salient is that changes in legislation mean that headteachers can no longer stipulate children must be toilet-trained before starting school, so there’s less incentive to concentrate the minds of Britain’s more laissez-faire parents.

I wonder if Education Secretary Michael Gove ever bumps into England’s chief medical officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, in the corridors of Whitehall? Obviously, not recently, or she might have given him an earful about her guidance, published last July, that under-fives should exercise for at least three hours a day.

According to NHS figures, nearly a quarter of children aged four and five are overweight or obese. By 2050, that number could rise to 63 per cent. Our national preoccupation – and the middle classes are more guilty of this than most – with exam results and grades has led to the skewed situation whereby achievements (at least, the only achievements that matter) are all in the mind.

“Emotional and behavioural difficulties are on the rise, communication skills are suffering and children aren’t being physically challenged and interacting with each other, because nurseries are expected to sit them down and crack on with formal work,” says Palmer.

“As long as you talk to your children, sing songs, read books and let them run about outside, then you are laying the foundations for learning later in life.”

Sometimes it’s as if the education system is being run by paranoid first-time parents, excruciatingly fixated on measuring performance and obtaining early results (by any means necessary) rather than on bringing up healthy, happy, enthusiastic youngsters. I used to be a Newbie too, so I know whereof I speak. But now I have two children, and, accordingly, a sense of perspective. And let’s just say that the most magical moments of my early childhood weren’t spent at a desk.

Which is why I think it’s high time politicians took their shoes and socks off, wiggled their toes in the sandpit and asked: “What on earth are we playing at?”

SOURCE



9 February, 2012

The Fight to Reform Education

Would any concerned parent willingly send their children to an average public school in this country if there was an option available?

The word “concerned” in the question should be a tipoff that the answer is no. Still, states, localities and the federal government continue to dump billions of our hard-earned tax dollars into a system that is rotten to its core.

Don’t think things are that bad? A student in Washington state named Austin took a video camera into his school’s cafeteria and asked students basic questions about U.S. history. The answers, although funny, are pathetic.

Progressives say it’s because teachers are forced to “teach to the test” – meaning standardized tests designed to measure knowledge of important topics such as English, science and math. Lee White, executive director of the National History Coalition, told the Huffington Post, "They've narrowed the curriculum to teach to the test. History has been de-emphasized. You can't expect kids to have great scores in history when they're not being taught history." That would hold some water, of course, if those students who failed at history were excelling at other topics. But they’re not.

President Obama has attempted to address the problem of our failing education system in each of his three State of the Union addresses, but his solution, as always, is only to spend more money. But if money was the problem, we’d be leading the world in education. We are not.

Progressives will tell you we’re spending a lower percentage of our GDP on education than other countries, which is true. But when it comes to per-pupil spending – the measure that matters most – we’re near the top.

Our education spending has skyrocketed. Our test scores have not.

A new study by Harvard researchers (yes, Harvard) found class size, the oft-cited straw man used by progressives to urge the hiring of more union teachers, essentially doesn’t matter. But real facts, real evidence rarely plays a role when it comes to progressives pushing their agenda, so this won’t matter either.

If meaningful reform is to come, and that’s a big “if,” it’s going to come from the state level.

One person actually trying to bring change to public education is Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

The Wall Street Journal says Gov. Jindal “wants to create America’s largest school voucher program, broadest parental choice system and toughest teacher accountability regime – all in one legislative session.”

School choice and a voucher program that allows students and parents to choose any school that best suits their needs have been proven winners in the fight to improve education quality. They’ve also been the top target of teachers’ unions because families often choose private schools where the teaching staff is not unionized.

Gov. Jindal believes that every child deserves an equal opportunity in education, but that the current system doesn't allow for it. Emboldened by what has happened in New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina, Gov. Jindal is now pushing for statewide education reform.

Educational choice is one of the few good things to come out of the storm, which laid waste to dozens of the nation’s worst public schools. Instead of rebuilding the old, failing system, the state transformed most of the schools in Orleans Parish into autonomous charter schools.

Student achievement has improved dramatically, and in a poll last summer by the New Orleans Times-Picayune, two-thirds of parents in the city said they prefer the new system over the old one, and 98 percent said choice should be part of any future reforms in the state. The biggest challenge has been how to squeeze more students into the most successful of the charters.

Gov. Jindal’s plan would allow students in failing schools statewide to take the roughly $8,500 the state spends on their education to any accredited school they wish. The threatened loss of money would apply market forces to bad schools that routinely fail without consequence. Needless to say, unions representing teachers don’t like the idea.

Teachers’ unions also aren’t crazy about the governor’s idea to reform tenure, the mechanism that makes it nearly impossible to fire bad teachers. His plan would grant it to teachers rated “highly effective,” but deny it to those who don’t make the grade – no matter how long they’ve taught.

Also along those lines, Jindal’s plan also would end the practice of “last in, first out” – the laying off of young teachers simply because they haven’t been on the job as long as others. This would allow schools to keep effective teachers and rid itself of bad ones – which research indicates does make a significant difference in students’ educational achievement. These reforms make sense to anyone without a vested interest in the status quo, meaning union bosses and progressives.

Michael Walker Jones, executive director of the Louisiana Association of Educators, said of the school choice plan, “If I'm a parent in poverty I have no clue because I'm trying to struggle and live day to day.” Jindal and choice advocates could not have written a more tone-deaf line for their opponents if they’d tried.

Progressives think everyone but them is simply too dumb and/or distracted to negotiate school choice. You “have no clue,” but they, helpfully, know what is best for you and your children – as evidenced by the state of public education in America today. It’s the philosophy behind every progressive policy idea – from education to “financial reform” to ObamaCare. It is rare and refreshing to hear one of them actually say it.

Jones, in working to stop needed reforms, gave reformers their greatest arrow in a quiver full of arrows tipped with facts, studies and statistics. As Jindal continues his push to improve education in his state, there will be more “gaffes” of this sort. Progressives aren’t used to being openly challenged on such a large scale. Gov. Jindal is. For the sake of Louisiana’s students, let’s hope he wins.

SOURCE





Student Loan Debt Woes Fuel Bankruptcy

A new survey found that 81% of bankruptcy attorneys say that potential clients with student-loan debt have increased either "significantly" or "somewhat" in the last three to four years.

"This could be the next debt bomb," said William Brewer., president of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, the group that conducted the survey.

Among the other findings: Nearly two out of five bankruptcy attorneys have seen student-loan client cases increase 25% to 50%. Twenty-three percent of bankruptcy attorneys have seen these cases jump 50% to 100%.

The sharp recession and historically sluggish economic and jobs recovery have taken their toll.

But the numbers are another sign that major troubles may lie ahead for higher education. Critics contend that we are in the middle of a "higher education bubble," meaning that increasingly the value of a college degree does not match the rising cost.

As more and more parents and students come to realize that, eventually the bubble will pop and many institutions of higher learning will suffer serious financial strain.

The cost of a college degree has grown at three times the rate of inflation since the late 1970s, according to numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Much of this has been fueled by government subsidies of tuition, which shield parents and students from the true price of tuition. The subsidies create greater demand for college degrees, which in turn cause tuition prices to rise.

Student-loan debt, now totalling $1 trillion, has surpassed credit-card debt. About 80% of that is federal student-loan debt, while only 20% is private debt.

According to the Education Department, student-loan defaults climbed to 8.8% in 2011, up from 7% in 2010. Enough default would eventually mean that student loan money could be sharply curtailed, harming the bottom line of colleges and universities.

Recent surveys by the Pew Research Center and the Chronicle of Higher Education yielded some unsettling results. In a survey of the general public, 48% of those who were not in college cited cost as the reason. Seventy-five percent disagreed with the statement that in general college costs were affordable for most people. In terms of providing value for students and their parents, 42% felt that colleges and universities were doing a fair job and 15% felt they were doing a poor job.

Another survey of college presidents found that 38% felt that higher education was heading in the wrong direction.

It also appears that parents are no longer saving for their kids' college tuition. 529 college-savings plans, in which the interest and distributions are tax free, showed a $354 million outflow in the third quarter of 2011. That means that while money is being withdrawn to cover college costs, little new money is going in to the accounts.

Finally, law schools may be the canaries in the coal mine. As of January, law school applications had fallen 15% to ABA-approved schools vs. a year earlier.

SOURCE





Literacy in English schools at 'Dickensian-era levels' warns minister as classics are ignored

Dickensian levels of illiteracy still plague parts of England despite decades of increases in state spending on education, a minister declared yesterday.

Schools Minister Nick Gibb said ‘shadows of Charles Dickens’s world’ persisted in the country’s poorest areas despite major social advances. Expectations of children moving through the school system were too ‘modest’, with teachers settling too often for a ‘good enough’ standard, he claimed.

The result was under-achievement by thousands of youngsters, with one in six still struggling to read fluently by the age of 11.

In a speech on the 200th anniversary of the author’s birth, Mr Gibb warned that, just as in Victorian times, literacy problems were ‘heavily orientated towards the poorest in our communities’. ‘We need – if you’ll forgive the Dickens pun – much greater expectations of children in reading,’ he added.

He also said pupils at primary school should be encouraged to read ‘complex’ books by authors such as Michael Morpurgo, Jacqueline Wilson and Roald Dahl, while secondary pupils should read at least one Dickens novel during their teens.

Classic works of literature were being ignored, he warned, with tens of thousands of pupils gaining GCSEs in English literature without studying any books written before the 20th century.

More than 90 per cent of answers on novels in English literature papers were on the same three works – Of Mice and Men, Lord of the Flies and To Kill a Mockingbird. Out of more than 300,000 who took the country’s most popular paper last year, just 1,236 read Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, 285 read Thomas Hardy’s Far from the Madding Crowd and 187 read Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights.

‘Unfortunately, even when young people do wish to read, the exam system does not encourage them,’ Mr Gibb said. Despite a wide curriculum, ‘the English Literature GCSE only actually requires students to study four or five texts, including one novel’. He also claimed children in England were ‘falling out of love’ with reading.

A study of 65 developed nations ranked the UK at 47th for the number of children who read for pure enjoyment, he said. Some 40 per cent of pupils did not read for pleasure, against just 10 per cent in Kazakhstan and Albania.

Mr Gibb said the current target set for 11-year-olds at the end of primary school – that they reach level four in reading – was too ‘modest’. Youngsters should aspire to the elite level five, he said.

A survey of 500 employers by the Confederation of British Industry last year found that 42 per cent were dissatisfied with school-leavers’ basic skills, while army recruiting officers have warned that hundreds of would-be soldiers have been turned away for failing basic literacy and numeracy tests.

Mr Gibb’s speech came as he launched a national reading competition designed to encourage seven to 12-year-olds – especially boys – to read more fiction.

SOURCE



8 February, 2012

Sex Abuse at California Elementary School


(Los Angeles, California) Last week, two male teachers at Miramonte Elementary School made the news for alleged lewd behavior toward children.

Martin Bernard Springer, 49, faces charges for alleged fondling of seven-year-old students. Mark Berndt, 61, allegedly took pictures as he spoon-fed semen to blind-folded students.

Reportedly, a "vigorous and fair investigation" is in process.

Meanwhile, due to the nature and extent of the lewd conduct charges, Los Angeles Schools Superintendent John Deasy has announced that the entire staff of the 1,500-student school will be replaced.

Officials indicated that a drastic response is necessary to lift the cloud of suspicion on the school. Heh.





Swedish Officials Threaten to Fine Jewish Parents $2,400 Per Week for Homeschooling Kids

Sweden has always had a Fascist streak. See here. They had no qualms about trading with Hitler even during the war. A lot of Nazi tanks were built from Swedish iron

Chabad is a very strict Jewish movement so they will fight hard for tolerance of their teachings. And considering the number of Muslims now in Sweden, sending strict Jewish kids to a Swedish school could be very dangerous for them

But despite their claims of tolerance, the Swedish bureaucracy is very Leftist so is in fact very intolerant. Their social workers took a kid off an Indian family recently because they fed the kid with their hands. But that is what a billion Indians do. The Indian custom is to eat with your hands. They say they would not enjoy their food as much if they could not feel it!

Leftist racism is alive and well in Sweden

In Sweden [as in Germany both under Hitler and today], homeschooling is severely frowned upon. In fact, unless there’s a viable reason, it is virtually impossible for parents to educate their children at home. Now, Chabad-Lubavitch (Jewish) emissaries to Sweden have been threatened by city officials with thousands of dollars in fines for homeschooling their kids, according to the Israeli news outlet Arutz Sheva 7. Instead, the local government in the city of Gothenburg is reportedly attempting to force the family to utilize the public school system.

School authorities came to the home of Rabbi Alexander Namdar and his wife Leah on Jan. 26 to serve the family with a notice, reports say. Four of the couple’s children are currently studying online at an international school. If the family does not comply and immediately begin to send them to government-run educational facilities, they will be fined the U.S. equivalent of $2,400 per week.

Homeschooling is virtually banned in the country, where it takes an “extraordinary” situation (illness, among others) to allow for the government to permit it. Religious reasons are not considered valid cause for homeschooling.

These regulations are bizarre to Americans, who have the freedom to educate their children at home, should they choose. In the case of the Namdar family, the case is especially odd, considering that the quality of the children’s education (a factor of consideration that likely contributes to the ban), as Arutz Sheva 7 notes, is stellar:

"The children’s education is not lacking by any means — and they are not the first in the family to have been educated at home. Six of the family’s 11 children also learned at home in their early years, and now live and study abroad at Jewish high schools, teaching seminaries and rabbinic colleges. All are pursuing careers in education."

Lubavitch.com has more about the children’s studies:

"At their individual computers from 8:00 each morning to 1:15, five days a week, the children must master a full schedule of Judaic studies including proficiency in Hebrew. The afternoon is dedicated to English, Swedish, mathematics, geography, science, music, art, and gymnastics. All the children speak English, Swedish, and Yiddish fluently. They can read Hebrew by age 4 or 5, like other Orthodox Jewish children.

Their extra-curricular activities include community work with regular visits to the elderly, helping out with the Sunday Hebrew school classes for other Jewish children taught by their parents, and other educational activities. The online school also ensures the children benefit from a healthy social experience."

“We’re two parents fighting city hall for the right to give our children a Jewish education,” Leah said. Her husband echoed this sentiment. “This is a stain on the reputation of a country that takes pride in equality as a fundamental value,” Rabbi Namdar added.

The family’s lawyer, Richard Backenroth, is fighting back and appealing both the demand that they attend public school and the associated fine. According to Backenroth, this case will be extremely important to determining the nation’s commitment to religious freedom.

Aside from the fact that the family believes it should have the right to send its children where it so chooses, there is concern that anti-Semitism could be on the rise in Sweden. Even if this isn’t the case, the Namdar children are the only Orthodox kids in the city. To send them to a public school, Backenroth warns, could mean exposing them to a great deal of bullying and harassment.

The family is prepared, though, to face what they say could become ”the last battle against Communism,” as they fight to educate their children in the way they so choose.

SOURCE





Atheists Trying to Get ‘Bible Man’ Banned From Alabama Public School Assemblies

Some atheists in America seem to be doing their best to make themselves obnoxious. That could be counterproductive if they really want to persuade people to their way of thinking. I doubt that they do, however. I think that they are Leftists who just want to feel important

Atheists are clashing with public school officials in Scottsboro, Alabama, where there’s a heated debate going on over “Bible Man” and his monthly assemblies with public school children.

See, Bible Man isn’t a superhero (okay, maybe he is); he’s a story-teller. As you can imagine, it’s these stories — tales that come from the Christian Bible — that have non-believers up-in-arms.

About 35-years-ago, Bible Man began his ministry in the Alabama county. Now, decades later, it is his son, Horace Turner Jr., who is continuing the mission. Each month, he meets with elementary school children during the school day and leads them in assemblies that include Biblical stories.

Recently, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, claiming to represent a parent in the district, sent a five-page letter of complaint to officials. In it, the atheist group called for the Bible Man program to be removed from schools.

As a result of the complaint, on Jan. 30, a multitude of community members came together at a Jackson County school board meeting to support the continued presence of Bible Man in the school district. WAAY-TV has more about the event:

"It was a packed house. More than one hundred people showed up to make their voices heard. “We wanted our county to have an option for our children He’s been part of our county so long and our children appreciate and love it and we just feel that our children value it,” said concerned citizen Beverly Gilmer. While the board met, the people sang, prayed, and shared life testimonies.

To atheists’ dismay, after meeting with their lawyer, board members announced that they wouldn’t be banning Bible Man as requested. Those at the public event applauded the decision.

“We know it’s going to be a fight,” said superintendent Kenneth Harding. “But our constituents are pretty adamant about what they want for their children. Hopefully we can meet the law and keep the man, too.”

The FFRF, though, won’t be dissuaded. The group is planning to follow-up on its complaint. Annie Laurie Gaylor, the organization’s co-president, says that the decision not to ban Bible Man is “totally unacceptable.”

“We cannot put the power of religious interpretation in the hands of the Bible Man, the Quran Man or anyone else,” she continued. “We cannot offer indoctrinal classes in public schools. It’s disingenuous to say this does not violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.”

But Alabama state Sen. Shadrack McGill (R) has a different view. If parents don’t like Bible Man, he says they should consider homeschooling their children.

“We were established to be a godly nation, a Christian nation,” McGill said. “We need God in government. We need God in the public school. The more we trend away from God, the more we suffer – morally and spiritually.”

To respond to the atheists’ criticism, the district is looking into a set policy that would allow Bible Man to stay in schools, while still complying with Constitutional values. For the time being, Turner will not be taking his program into the North Sand Mountain School, where the complaint originated from a student’s parent.

There is currently no confirmation as to whether the program will continue in other district schools while this new policy is being set.

SOURCE






Australian parents camp out for enrolment in good school

Shades of Britain! Ascot is of course a high socioeconomic area. It's mainly the smarter and better behaved kids that make the school better

PARENTS are sleeping on the footpath outside a popular state school in order to gain an enrolment spot for their children. Dedicated mums and one dad camped on the footpath in tents and chairs outside Brisbane's Ascot State School on Sunday night, in an effort to secure their child a coveted place.

While students who reside within the school's catchment area are guaranteed enrolment, others must vie for the remaining spots.

Education Queensland's Chris Rider said applications for students not living within the catchment zone were accepted annually from 9am on the first Monday in February.

Parents started arriving from 4pm on Sunday for yesterday's sign-up day. One woman whose child graduated from Year 7 last year, was lining up to secure a place for her second child. "We only want the best for our kids," mother-of-two Kerry Douglas said.

New Farm resident Georgie Robson said she had left her children with her husband while she camped at the school. "One of the girls did a drive by. We'd planned to get here about 10 but someone rang us and said 'get your skates on there are already four people here'," she said. "We dropped everything and left our husbands with our kids. I've got four kids under four and just went 'sorry got to go'."

The women said the publication by The Courier-Mail of the school's audit results, which showed the high calibre of Ascot State School, had reinforced the desire to enrol their children there. Ascot State School received top marks in the audit data for the highest performing school. Ascot, along with Eagle Junction and Wilston, are Queensland's most sought after state primary schools.

The mothers said they had been planning the camp-out for a year.

Holly Westaway said she had calculated property choices in order to improve her children's chances of getting into the school. "We moved from the Gold Coast and rented in the area just so we could get our children into the school," Mrs Westaway said. "Then we bought a street away."

Mr Rider said schools, such as Ascot State School, had developed enrolment management plans in consultation with the P and C, parents and the school community. "When developing an enrolment management plan, schools allow for in-catchment growth during the school year and ensure an even spread of students across all year levels," he said.

The audits, set up as part of the State Government's school improvement agenda, were carried out at all 1257 state schools and education centres in 2010, with 460 schools reaudited in 2011.

SOURCE



7 February, 2012

Deep dishonor in America's Leftist academe

The Humanities faculty at Durham's Duke University have demonstrated bigoted anti-white attitudes that are perfectly mainstream among such faculty at American universities. An amazing total of 88 of them signed the now notorious condemnation of the innocent Duke lacrosse players before the players had even appeared in court, let alone been convicted. Their hatred of American society immediately blasted away the centuries of wisdom which said "innocent until proven guilty". And the wisdom of that maxim was shown when the players were found NOT guilty.

So what is still going on at Duke can reasonably be extrapolated to at least the Humanities departments of America's universities and colleges. And that is not pretty.

One of the Lacrosse players who was NOT accused by the pathetic Crystal Gail Mangum was nonetheless caught up in the blast and suspended by the university at roughly the same time as the other players. He is now suing. As you can read here, Ryan McFadyen is arguably the person who behaved with greatest honor in the whole affair. He certainly behaved with greater honor than prosecutor Nifong or Durham police -- who tried to suborn him into giving false evidence. There is another glimpse of his character here.

And when McFadyen refused to be intimidated into giving false evidence, Nifong and the police must have realized that he had put them into a dangerous position. Fabricating evidence is a crime with severe penalties. So they immediately went all-out to blacken his name. And that blackening still shows up today in that he has become something of a hate figure to many.

So he is now suing over that defamation and the illegal and improper behaviour of all concerned in the matter.

The trial has however produced some document disclosures that reveal the full depth of the moral depravity of senior Duke U officials. The documents contain bombshell emails from Duke President Brodhead and others suggesting that Duke's primary concern was to protect its PR, even if that meant sacrificing innocent students.

In documents submitted February 3 by Plaintiffs' lawyers, President Brodhead is quoted in an email sent very early in the case to other Duke staff:

“Friends: a difficult question is, how can we support our lacrosse players at a devastatingly hard time without seeming to lend aid and comfort to their version of the story? We can’t do anything to side with them, or even, if they are exonerated, to imply that they behaved with honor. The central admin can't, nor can Athletics.”

And Joe Alleva, then of the Duke Athletic Dept., also testified during his deposition on January 20, 2012, that he made positive and truthful statements about Plaintiffs and their teammates’ character at the University’s press conference on March 28, 2006.

Mr. Alleva testified that he was “crucified” immediately afterwards for making those statements by President Brodhead himself and in front of the Crisis Management Team, all of whom knew how “off-message” Mr. Alleva’s truthful, positive statements about plaintiffs were.

Alleva was the one who later told Duke lacrosse coach Pressler that "it's not about the truth" any longer; that the case was about the interest groups and the integrity (reputation) of the university. (Hence the title of coach Pressler's book, "It's not about the truth").

Or as Robert K. Steel (then chairman of Duke's Board of Trustees) said in explaining why Duke would not be defending its falsely-accused students: "Sometimes people have to suffer for the good of the organization". More details here

You would think that all the exposure of their moral depravity might have created some caution among Duke faculty about race-related matters. It does not appear to have done so. Just a few days ago I ran a large excerpt (scroll down) from an article which summarized the Arcidiacono affair. I will simply refer readers to there for a treatment of that little explosion of rage and hate. See HERE for the full article. Having their warped view of America threatened is intolerable to Duke's Leftist Mafia.

No Leftist will admit it of course but I cannot see why Duke should be regarded as atypical. I don't think there is anything especially poisonous in the air at North Carolina. I think we have seen coming to the surface at Duke what is smouldering away beneath the surface at most of America's universities and colleges. They are true heirs of Stalin and the ghastly Soviet Union. They are a nest of vipers.





More poisonous Leftism in academe: If you are accused of racism you must not defend yourself

To do so is "Retaliation" and that is an offense itself, apparently. It's a private university mentioned below so no first Amendment protection. A defamation action could succeed, though.

by lawyer HANS BADER

Keeping quiet can seal your fate if you are a professor facing a campus kangaroo court after being wrongly accused of racial or sexual “harassment” based on your classroom speech. Civil-liberties advocates, like the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, rely heavily on adverse publicity to save wrongly accused professors from being disciplined and fired by campus disciplinary bodies. They put to good use Justice Brandeis’s insight that publicity deters wrongdoing and helps cure social evils. As Brandeis once noted, “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.”

But as the plight of Lawrence Connell at Widener University School of Law illustrates, if an accused professor speaks up, resulting in possible adverse publicity for his accusers, he increasingly risks being punished for “retaliation” against them, even when harassment charge is baseless. Connell was convicted of “retaliation” because he and his lawyer denounced meritless racial harassment charges against him over his classroom teaching. Retaliation charges have become a growing threat to academic freedom, fueled by court rulings that provide murky and conflicting guidance as to what speech can constitute illegal “retaliation.”

Professor Connell was charged with racial harassment and removed from Widener’s campus because he discussed hypothetical crimes in his criminal law class, including the imaginary killing of the law school dean, Linda Ammons, who happens to be black. (He was also accused of harassment because he “expressed his philosophical concerns about the fairness and utility of hate crime” laws.)

But Connell did not select the dean for use in these hypotheticals because of her race, nor was there any evidence that he had a racist motive for doing so. (Comments are not “racial harassment” unless they target a victim based on her race, and are severe and pervasive, according to Caver v. City of Trenton, a ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Widener.) Far from being a racist, Connell had spent 15 years successfully working to save the life of a black man who had been sentenced to die after he was convicted of murder by an all-white jury.

Leading law professors filed affidavits in support of Connell pointing out that discussing hypothetical crimes against law deans was standard practice for law professors who teach criminal law. George Washington University’s Orin Kerr noted that ”one of the common ways that law professors keep students mildly entertained in class is by posing hypotheticals involving their professors and the Dean. . . . students just love it. If you teach first-year criminal law,” “that means you spend a lot of time imagining your colleagues meeting horrible fates.” In Bauer v. Sampson, a court ruled that depicting a college official’s imaginary death was protected by the First Amendment.

After Professor Connell was exonerated by a committee of law professors, the charges against him were resubmitted, in Kafkaesque fashion, to a disciplinary panel including Dean Ammons herself, another Widener administrator, and a professor hand-picked by Ammons.

While even this new panel was forced to concede the obvious — that Connell had not committed racial harassment – it found him guilty of two acts of “retaliation”: the first was an e-mail protesting his innocence after he was suspended and banned from campus, and the second was his lawyer’s public statement that he was preparing to sue over the unfounded allegations. The e-mail called the accusations against him “preposterous” and said that they were made by “two unnamed students from my Criminal Law class of spring 2010″ who “falsely” quoted and took “out of context” his classroom “remarks.” The panel deemed the email to be illegal retaliation, even though the e-mail did not even name the accusers, because the e-mail supposedly had the “foreseeable effect of identifying the complainants.” (The e-mail led to students speculating about who the complainants were, and a complainant suspected that others “believed that she was one of the complaining students.”) Connell was then suspended for a year without pay. As a condition of reinstatement, he must undergo psychiatric treatment, and be deemed sufficiently “cured” before he is allowed to return to his classroom.

Much more here (See the original for links)




5,000 underperforming head teachers are blighting England's primary schools, warns inspector

More than 5,000 head teachers are failing to do their jobs properly, the chief inspector of schools declared today.

Sir Michael Wilshaw warned that poor leadership was blighting about a quarter of England’s 21,000 primary and secondary schools.

Weak heads were failing to get a grip on substandard teaching and simply ‘trotting out excuses’ such as poverty and deprivation for low exam grades, he said.

The explosive claim - certain to aggravate many heads and teachers - came as Sir Michael prepares to unveil a tough new inspection regime later this week. Schools will be given no notice of inspections and ‘coasting’ schools face intense monitoring.

The ‘satisfactory’ grading used by Ofsted for years will be scrapped because it ‘falsely denotes acceptable provision’. Instead these schools will be judged to ‘require improvement’.

Figures from Ofsted reveal that 23 per cent of heads missed out on a ‘good’ rating at their last inspection. A further one per cent were found to be failing.

At the same time, heads have benefited from pay rises with around 700 now on six-figure salaries.

‘Everything flows from leadership - that just has to be said,’ said Sir Michael, himself a former head, latterly at Mossbourne Academy in Hackney, London.

‘We are not going to improve the quality of teaching unless there is a) strong leadership and b) really strong performance management of staff.’

He added: ‘If we are going to improve standards in this country, we have got to create leadership that does not offer excuses for poor performance. ‘That is too often the case, I am absolutely clear about that.

‘A whole range of issues are trotted out - it is ethnicity or it is poverty or it is background or it is years of poor performance in a particular city or region. ‘We have heard them all before. We won’t move forward if we don’t have a no-excuses culture. ‘We haven’t got it at the moment, we must develop it.’

Sir Michael said parents were too willing to believe a school was good simply because their child liked it.

‘A lot of parents will say, “Well my child is happy here”. We need to say, “Well yes, they may be happy and relationships might be good but actually they should be achieving a lot more,” he said, in an interview with the Sunday Times.

Other reforms championed by Sir Michael - due to be set out in a consultation document on Thursday - include stripping inspection reports of jargon and ‘Ofsted-speak’. Instead comments will be ‘blunt and straightforward’.

Ofsted has already launched a Parent View website which allows parents to rate their children’s schools.

Sir Michael also plans to target 3,000 so-called ‘coasting’ schools - including 300,000 in affluent areas - that have been graded satisfactory in two consecutive inspections.

On their third inspection, they face being put in special measures unless their rating improves to ‘good’.

He also floated the idea of checking how many A*, A and B grades pupils at these schools are achieving instead of merely focusing on C-grades.

Sir Michael added that heads played a crucial role in fostering good teaching. Poor leadership was responsible for the ‘national disaster’ of thousands of teachers leaving the profession soon after qualifying, he warned. These new teachers were left floundering without the support they needed, especially when it came to enforcing good behaviour in class.

Sir Michael warned last week that thousands of teachers have been awarded £5,000-a-year performance-related pay rises that cannot be justified. Some heads and governors of ‘indiscriminately’ promoting teachers to a higher pay scale, he said.

In fact, up to 40 per cent of teaching was not good enough - a figure that was ‘very high’, he claimed.

SOURCE



6 February, 2012

Betting Smart on Higher Education

The state of Georgia recently revised its HOPE scholarship program. As originally set up, the program, funded by lottery proceeds, would provide full tuition to a Georgia state school to any resident student that maintained a B grade point average through high school. There were few caveats, one being that the scholarship would be lost if the student could not maintain at least a B average in college. The arrangement sounds more generous than it is. In-state tuition for Georgia colleges is a bargain when you consider the reputation that schools like UGA and Georgia Tech represent. The tuition is far less than the year’s room and board, which is not covered by the scholarship. Still, for many students it can and does make the difference.

In a sign of the times, however, Georgia has recently revised the plan. A two-tiered system is now in effect, with B average students and SAT composites 1200 and above keeping the full ride, and other B students receiving less. As time goes on, less will become progressively less. The lottery funds that once gave full coverage to the costs have now been outpaced by demand. In the four years following the introduction of HOPE, the number of qualifying students went up dramatically. There are on-going debates as to whether or not the GPA requirement led to widespread grade inflation, teachers being perhaps a bit too generous with borderline students in the hope (no pun intended) of giving them a chance at a better life. The incentive was certainly there.

The challenge of increasing scholarship costs is not unique to Georgia. Inevitably, all states will face difficult choices in how to allot their higher education dollars. By providing scholarships for the bulk of students who stood a chance of graduating, Georgia bypassed thorny debates as to who would benefit. With demand now outstripping supply, and expected to worsen, the issues can no longer avoided.

As the changes in Georgia’s HOPE scholarship became law, the rumblings began. The refrain was a familiar one: There will be fewer women and minorities in Georgia colleges. As currently written, that’s likely to be true. A host of factors is involved, but in general women and minorities do perform more poorly on the SAT in Georgia than white males. One objection is that while women tend to perform more poorly on the SAT, they make better grades in college. I have not researched that claim, but I somehow doubt it reflects the results in hard science and technical degrees that have much higher percentages of male enrollment. However, allowing that the statement could reasonably be true, what should be the course of action taken by the states? What is their responsibility with regards to the taxpayers and the public at large?

Over the last half century, the mission of colleges has changed radically, at least as expressed by many academics and politicians. Rather than a place of learning and improvement for the best and brightest, college has become an ideological counterweight, a means of balancing the social scales with regards to past wrongs both real and imagined. Far from taking stock of the already overburdened and underperforming sectors of higher education, many are demanding college for all. It is a cry without reason and with no chance of success. Between the worsening economy and the present rate of education cost increase, the system cannot sustain what it has.

The supply of education, like every other good and service, is limited. The question is how do we responsibly use what we can afford? With increasing frequency in the past decades, opportunity in higher education has been largely tied to increasing “diversity,” generally using race as a proxy. While many of us questioned the wisdom of adopting the policy in the first place, it is more important than ever to discuss and determine what our priorities will be in the future. For those who have argued in the past that there is no need to choose, the data tells a different story. To maintain a “diverse” number of African-Americans at elite universities, preferences amounting to a 300 point SAT advantage are given. While any attempt at correlating race and graduation rates is steadfastly resisted by academic institutions, the links between SAT performance and scholastic success are clear. The students that enter with lower scores tend to perform worse and graduate less. Though the number of students with B averages in Georgia skyrocketed after the HOPE scholarship was adopted, the SAT scores remained flat. In the most recently available data, less than fifty percent of HOPE scholars graduated college in six years. Seventy-five percent lost their eligibility at some point in college. The wasted funds in Georgia are huge. If you consider what is probably going on in the rest of the country, it’s mind boggling.

In cases where unqualified students are admitted to STEM programs by affirmative action, the long terms costs are even greater. The U.S. is already producing far less than the number of Engineers, Scientists, and other technical degrees that are essential to support a robust economy. Every engineer that drops in the first or second year is one less graduate that we desperately need not only to support new technologies, but to maintain what we have already achieved. From a fiscal standpoint, it’s also an irreplaceable loss to future revenue in taxes and job creation. Contrary to popular belief, doctors, lawyers, and engineers pay large sums in taxes. Convenience store clerks tend to either pay little or act as a net drain. The implications for the future are obvious.

I’ve been known to enjoy a bit of recreational gambling from time to time. I observe two simple rules. I never bet more than I can afford to lose, and I only gamble with my own money. As it stands today, our higher education system is gambling not just with our money, but with the money of the next several generations. Worse, they are playing a lot of long shots. I think it’s past time that we pay a lot less attention to the color and gender of people going in to college and a lot more to who has the best chance to make it out. Anything else is a sucker bet.

Posted by Gary Baker




High School Student Needed Rabbi’s Note to Wear Yarmulke in School

Would a Muslim need a note in order to wear Muslim garb? But it looks like it was a pretty odd yarmulke. Still, confirming the matter with the parents should have sufficed



A Maryland high school student and his parents are seeking an apology after the teen’s principal said he needed a note from his rabbi in order to wear his yarmulke in school, the Washington Post reported.

Caleb Tanenbaum said he was told last month to remove his head covering in the school’s cafeteria, but declined to do so on religious grounds.

Yarmulkes are traditionally worn by Jewish men when they pray, though some opt to wear them all day. Most are small, though Caleb’s was “a large, black hat that had been knitted by his mother and which covered his dreadlocks,” the newspaper described.

Caleb, a junior, said he told school officials to call his parents to confirm he was wearing the covering for religious purposes, which they did. Still, the principal asked for a letter from the family’s rabbi to confirm it.

Northwood High School Principal Henry Johnson Jr. told the Post the school doesn‘t usually question students’ religious wear, but with “all these different religions and cultures, we have to validate sometimes.”

“This wasn’t what we traditionally see as a yarmulke or a kippah,” Johnson said. “It looked like the head covering we see some Rastafarians wear.”

The family procured the note from their rabbi, but Caleb’s father is still upset. Steven Tanenbaum said he thought the principal overstepped, and that once he and his wife confirmed what their son said, “that should have been enough.”

“Instead of saying that’s fine, the principal wanted a letter from a rabbi,” Tanenbaum told the Wheaton Patch. “Our word was not good enough? We’re his parents!”

Rabbi Shlomo Buxbaum, who wrote the note, told the news site he’s never seen a student have to justify their religious wear before. He wrote in the letter, “I ask you, in the spirit of religious acceptance, to allow him to wear his Kippah in the school.”

Caleb, who was born in Jerusalem, said he’s been trying lately to re-embrace his Judaism. According to the Post, religious head coverings for Jews and Muslims are common at the school, which does not have any guidelines prohibiting students from wearing hats.

“He wanted me to prove my religion,” Caleb said.

SOURCE






Britain's professor of crap

David Cameron and Michael Gove were yesterday said to be against the idea of Lib Dem-backed Professor Les Ebdon becoming university access supremo. Looking at some of the Mickey Mouse courses offered by his college, it is not hard to see why.

Chum Ebdon is vice-chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire (formerly Luton College of Higher Education). Some of its degrees are less than scholastic in flavour.

Take its two-year course in carnival arts, offering undergraduates the chance to ‘learn how to design and make carnival costumes and decorations’. Is this higher education or an extension of Blue Peter? By carnival, the university means Notting Hill rather than the Carnevale di Venezia.

If steel drumming and feather-bikini stitching (and, presumably, riot control) are not to your taste, Prof Ebdon offers degrees in beauty spa management. Work experience ‘is gained from working in the college’s own salon’. It brings new resonance to the term ‘foundation’ course.

There is a course in ‘breastfeeding counselling’, a degree in football studies and a post-grad course in sport tourism management. That one promises ‘academic theory in tourism, leisure and events’. Ah, events, dear boy, events. But they probably mean it in the egg-and-spoon-race sense.

The University of Ebdon also offers a course in travel agency. It encourages people already working in the travel business to come along for a couple of years to ‘fine-tune those personal qualities that will make you an excellent candidate for travel management positions’. Is it really the duty of public money to get travel agents promoted?

Prof Ebdon, a leading critic of university fees, thinks so. Those of you whose taxes help fund the University of Bedfordshire and his salary (some £246,000 at last count) may disagree. His proposed berth at the Office for Fair Access pays £45,000 for just two days a week.

How can Lib Dems even think of allowing such a goon to dictate principles to our best universities?

SOURCE





Numeracy Campaign: British teenagers among worst for dropping maths

British schoolchildren are less likely to study maths to a high standard than in most other developed countries because of failings in the way the subject is delivered, a leading academic has warned.

Prof Stephen Sparks said that few pupils took maths beyond the age of 16 after being “put off” by test-driven lessons in primary and secondary school.

He said classes often focused on the dry “procedures” behind sums to make sure children pass exams instead of passing on a well-rounded understanding of the subject.

Only one in eight teenagers studies maths in the sixth-form, leaving Britain trailing behind many other developed nations. Between 50 and 100 per cent of teenagers in other countries, including the Czech Republic, Estonia, Fin-

land, Japan and Korea, study maths to a decent level, the figures show. Prof Sparks, chairman of the Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education (ACME), which represents academics and teachers, said the number of pupils failing to take A-level maths “puts us at a real anomaly internationally and likely affects our economic competitiveness”.

The comments came as The Daily Telegraph started a campaign, Make Britain Count, to highlight the scale of the mathematical crisis and provide parents with tools to boost their children’s numeracy.

The Nuffield Foundation compared the number of pupils studying advanced maths in 24 industrialised countries. Around 13 per cent of students took

A-levels in the subject in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In Scotland, numbers reached around a quarter. In almost every other nation, more than half of pupils took advanced maths courses, while in eight countries, including South Korea, Russia, Sweden and Taiwan, maths was compulsory until the age of 18.

Prof Sparks called for the majority of pupils to study maths up to the age of 18, and said that some teenagers should take tailored courses “between a GCSE and A-level”. “The reason some people are being put off maths is related to that issue of teaching to the test,” he said. “Schools are given a big incentive to make sure pupils pass tests, which doesn’t necessarily mean that they get the well-rounded understanding that a good education requires.”

SOURCE



5 February, 2012

Colleges assured tuition cap will fail

President Obama’s plan to withhold some financial aid from universities that “jack up” tuition rates each year is being panned across the higher education spectrum, and House Republicans appear poised to kill it before it ever gets off the ground.

The proposal, first mentioned in last week’s State of the Union address, would set a cap on tuition growth each year, and institutions that exceed that threshold would be denied federal dollars for work-study programs and additional money for loans and grants aimed at the neediest students.

Colleges that stay within the administration’s tuition parameters, which have yet to be firmly established, could get bigger payouts from the federal government.

University presidents, worried that their tuition rates will soon be set by the White House, were reassured Tuesday that the plan is likely going nowhere this year.

“Anything he proposes needs to be approved by the Congress. I don’t see that taking place,” Rep. Harold Rogers, Kentucky Republican and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, told college leaders gathered in Washington for the annual conference of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities.

Mr. Obama “threatened to reduce federal aid to colleges and universities unless they reduced or kept their tuitions in tow. That’s not the job of the president of the United States,” Mr. Rogers said. “What you charge for tuition is your business. That’s going to vary for a variety of reasons. I respect and the federal government ought to respect your sovereignty in that area. It’s your decision.”

Mr. Rogers‘ remarks were met with raucous applause from the crowd, comprised of the heads of private institutions including small religious schools and larger, better-known colleges such as Wake Forest, Rice and New York University.

Many university officials outlined their own plans to lower costs, developed and implemented long before Mr. Obama’s speech. William Peace University, a small North Carolina liberal arts school, plans to drop tuition by 7.5 percent in the fall, saving the average student about $2,000 per year. Hardin-Simmons University, a private Baptist school in Texas, guarantees students that their tuition rates won’t increase for their entire college careers.

“We want to play ball. We want to cooperate,” said Philip W. Eaton, president of Seattle Pacific University. “But at the same time, [the administration’s proposal] is a crosswind that we just don’t need right now.”

Mr. Eaton suggested that Mr. Obama is seeking to paint major colleges and universities as greedy and set himself up as a savior by forcing them to keep tuition rates low.

“It’s an exceedingly populist message. Politically, it plays very well,” he said. “It’s quite clear to me that he doesn’t understand our business.”

David Trickett, president and CEO of Colorado’s Iliff School of Theology, said the plan looks like a piece of the administration’s “agenda” to acquire greater control over American higher education.

Other college presidents called it an attempt to institute “price controls” and voiced concerns that, if the proposal is adopted, Mr. Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan may seek even greater authority over the sector.

Faced with a growing backlash, the White House is now casting its plan as a discussion starter, not a list of demands.

Zakiya Smith, senior adviser for education with the White House Domestic Policy Council, told the NAICU conference that the administration is open to adjustments.

SOURCE





Outrage as yob pupils 'allowed back into lessons on appeal' in Britain

Pupils expelled from school for dealing drugs, attacking other children and carrying weapons are being allowed back into lessons against teachers’ wishes, it emerged today.

Figures show more than 500 children permanently barred from school lodged an appeal against the decision last year.

In around one-in-four cases, independent appeals panels found in favour of the pupil. Some 400 expelled pupils have been reinstated over the last five years.

According to data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, one child in Lewisham, south London, was allowed back into class despite being permanently excluded for setting off fireworks in a crowd of students.

In Bournemouth, a child who was expelled after admitting smoking a cannabis joint on the school field was allowed back into lessons even though the head teacher said the reinstatement would send out a "very damaging message".

The Government has now taken action to ban appeals panels from reinstating pupils who have been permanently expelled as part of a fresh crackdown on indiscipline.

Ministers insist the move will give head teachers the final say over bad behaviour and shift the balance of power in schools away from unruly pupils.

Nick Seaton, a spokesman for the Campaign for Real Education, said: "It undermines the authority of the teachers and the school if pupils who have been expelled are allowed back in.

"Youngsters should know exactly where they stand, and if they are told there are certain zero-tolerance policies for some misdemeanors, then there should be no exceptions. Schools should have the final say."

Data obtained after an FOI request to local authorities in England showed how children routinely appealed against expulsions last year.

Cases included:

* A child in Blackburn who was allowed back into school despite fears staff were at risk following repeated verbal outbursts, with the appeals panel ruling that teachers needed to make more allowances for the pupil;

* A pupil who was expelled for being openly defiant and rude to teachers in Hampshire before being allowed back because he had only been suspended once before;

* A school in Lambeth that was told it was too harsh on one pupil after expelling him for attacking another child;

* A pupil who was expelled from a Barking and Dagenham school for carrying a craft knife – only to be allowed back when the school admitted it was at fault for not securing the knives in the design and technology classroom;

* A Nottinghamshire school that reinstated a child expelled for carrying drugs after the panel agreed there was no evidence the pupil had been trying to supply it to others.

Under the Government’s new Education Bill, appeals panels have been retained and they can order a school to reconsider an expulsion case. But panels cannot order schools to take pupils back.

A spokesman for the Department of Education, said: "We agree that no child should be allowed to continually disrupt a class, causing misery to other pupils and teachers.

“That's why the Education Bill will stop appeals panels sending excluded children back to the school from which they were excluded.

"Independent review panels will ensure there is a quick, fair and independent process for reviewing exclusions, and will place more emphasis on professional judgement and the impact of poor behaviour in the classroom".

SOURCE




Australia: Shortage of State school places in Victoria

Rapid population growth fuelled by out of control immigration must bear much of the blame

Exclusive figures from the Education Department reveal for the first time the increasing struggle many parents face to get their children into popular government schools.

The records show 224 primary and secondary schools now have enrolment restrictions. They are either capping the number of students or using map boundaries. Some use both.

Families missing the cut are forced to move closer to their first choice - boosting real estate prices around the most popular schools - or settle for other options.

Both the State Government and Opposition say there are enough schools to cater for demand overall.

But some parent groups, principals and community advocates argue there are not enough schools where families need them most, and that "unpopular" public schools need more resources.

Parents Victoria executive officer Gail McHardy said while increasing numbers of parents were opting for public education, they could not be blamed for picking some schools over others. "It's laughable that governments advocate parental choice when they're not comparing apples with apples," she said.

Victorian Association of State Secondary Principals president Frank Sal was surprised by the number of schools with restrictions, but said state and federal funding of public education was too low. "We must provide the support needed to all government schools that enables them to attract and retain teachers, as well as instil confidence in their local community," he said.

Education Minister Martin Dixon said the Government was closely monitoring the changing needs of communities.

There were many reasons schools got to the point of needing caps and boundaries, including reputation, areas of specialisation and population growth.

"Some parents choose a school on a drive-by, so if there's a brand-new building out the front, that's often an attraction," Mr Dixon said. "It's so important for parents not just to listen to their neighbours, but to go into the school ... and make an informed decision."

Pitsa Binnion, principal of McKinnon Secondary College, a successful zoned school in Melbourne's east, believes boundaries create some misconceptions.

"We have to de-mystify the boundary issue," she said. "Many parents ... need to understand that wonderful things are happening in government schools (across the board)."

Opposition teaching profession spokesman Steve Herbert said the Government had undermined schools' ability to provide for their communities by "slashing capital works funding".

SOURCE



4 February, 2012

Vanderbilt University: Christian Campus Groups Can’t Require Leaders to Have Specific Beliefs

Trouble-making queers again. They sure know how to generate hostility towards themselves, even if is not allowed to be overt. But social exclusion doesn't have to be overt

The drama over student rights and religious freedom continues to rage at Vanderbilt University, as the higher education facility doubled-down this week on enforcing strict rules that some say discriminate against campus religious groups.

At the center of debate is the university’s nondiscrimination policy, which bans student-led faith groups, among others, from requiring leaders to hold specific beliefs.

The policy, which in many ways contradicts theological requirements, has created angst among members of both the student body and the university’s faculty. These opponents see the ban as a crackdown on their freedom of religion and speech. School leaders, though, maintain that the policy is necessary to ensure that all students feel welcome at campus clubs and events.

The Blaze first reported about the situation back in September. Our original coverage provides the background needed to understand how the situation was started:

Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, is making headlines after a Christian fraternity, Beta Upsilon Chi, asked an openly gay member to resign. Upon leaving the group, the young man filed a discrimination complaint and now college administrators are trying to figure out whether the campus organization violated the school’s nondiscrimination policy.

Of course, this incident has grown into a much larger controversy in which university administrators are reviewing all student-led organizations. As a result, officials are concerned about specific clauses that five Christian campus groups have in their constitutions.

These clauses require members of the groups to share their religious beliefs, something that didn‘t concern campus administrators until the student’s complaint was made. Now, the school wants the constitutions amended and the controversial clauses dropped.

Currently, four campus groups violate this policy, as they require their leaders to maintain Christian messages. Club heads argue, though, that leaders responsible for planning Bible studies should actually believe in the material they are preaching. The campus groups in question are the Christian Legal Society, Beta Upsilon Chi, Graduate Student Fellowship and Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

At an event on Tuesday evening, the college defended its policies to an audience of over 200 students. Provost Richard McCarthy and Vice Chancellor for University Affairs and Athletics said that the university doesn’t plan to back down. If student groups fail to comply, they will lose their official status with the college.

Despite administrators’ insistence, the community forum did provide students with an opportunity to share their opposition and reasoning with policy-makers at the helm.

“The Vanderbilt discrimination policy is directed against the Christian community,” said Leighton Watts, a member of Beta Upsilon Chi, a Christian fraternity (he wasn’t inside the meeting, but he was watching from a computer outside of the venue and commented to media).

“We want to be able to elect our leaders based on our beliefs,” said Joseph Williams, a former student body president at the university. He spoke out against the restrictions during a question and answer period.

McCarthy’s response to this was intriguing: Students can vote for any individual they’d like, but the clubs cannot have written rules banning students who don’t hold specific views from running for leadership roles. He essentially told students not to vote for people with whom they disagree.

Carol Swain, a law professor at Vanderbilt and an adviser to the Christian Legal Society, disagrees with the college’s stance and is working to assist groups who stand opposed to the rule. In an interview with FOX News, she said:

“There are people on campus who are very threatened by the idea of religious freedom and they would like to create an environment where no one hurts anyone else’s feelings – unless it’s Christians.

This political correctness is running amuck on campus and its constraining one group – and that group tends to be conservatives. They will be forced to either accept the university’s policy or leave campus by the end of the academic year. They are in limbo.”

The Blaze also spoke with Joshua Charles, who co-authored Glenn Beck’s “The Original Argument.” Charles, who was a Founding Father and President of the Beta Upsilon Chi chapter at the University of Kansas, had some strong feelings on the matter.

“It seems difficult to imagine a scenario in which any religious group could, without any infringement whatsoever, worship and practice freely if they cannot even make decisions on their own membership or leadership,” Charles said. “Groups are formed in order to advance causes, ideals, or something of the sort. But if the integrity of that group cannot be maintained, then neither can
the causes or ideals for which it was founded in the first place.”

In the end, Christian student groups are clearly stuck at this point, as administrators are refusing to budge. But it’s not just religious groups that could encounter a problem. What if a gay and lesbian rights group on campus wants to ensure that those in leadership roles hold true to certain values of equality? Or — what if an environmental group wants members to pledge their allegiance to protecting the earth?

“Freedom of association — the ability to mingle with those you wish to mingle with, to connect with those you wish to connect with, and to join in common cause with them, is a fundamental liberty,” Charles continued.

In the end, this is a policy that certainly holds the potential to create further angst and inter-student contention.

SOURCE






Prestigious California college admits inflating SAT scores for rankings

A senior administrator at California's Claremont McKenna College resigned after admitting that for years he falsified SAT scores to publications such as U.S. News & World Report to inflate the small, prestigious school's ranking among the nation's colleges and universities, according to the college's president.

President Pamela Gann told college staff members and students about the falsified scores in an email Monday, The New York Times reported.

Gann wrote that a "senior administrator" had taken sole responsibility for falsifying the scores, admitted doing so since 2005, and resigned his post.

Gann wrote that she was first warned of inaccurate reporting earlier this month and asked other administrators to investigate, leading to an administrator's admission of guilt and Monday's announcement.

Gann said the critical reading and math scores reported to U.S. News and others "were generally inflated by an average of 10-20 points each."

Robert Franek, the senior vice president of publishing for The Princeton Review, which provides preparation for the SAT and also ranks colleges, said he had never heard of a college intentionally reporting incorrect data.

"We want to put out very clear information so that students can make an informed decision about their school," Franek said. "I feel like so many schools have a very clear obligation to college-bound students to report this information honestly."

The Princeton Review bases its college rankings on student opinion rather than test data, Franek said, so he was uncertain whether a change as small as that reported would make a difference.

The current U.S. News rankings list Claremont McKenna as the ninth-best liberal arts college in the country, a fact noted on Gann's biography on the college's website.

The liberal arts school, part of the Claremont colleges cluster east of Los Angeles, has about 1,200 students and places a strong academic focus on political science and economics.

The school has not officially identified the administrator who admitted the wrongdoing.

"At this time, we have no reason to believe that other individuals were involved," Gann wrote in her message to staff.

Gann said a law firm has been hired to investigate further

SOURCE





Assistant head teacher 'bullied, undermined and victimised staff at British school where colleague collapsed and died'... but she's cleared to return to the classroom



A former assistant head teacher ‘bullied, intimidated, undermined and victimised’ her colleagues, including one young teacher who collapsed and died on school premises, a disciplinary panel has heard.

While employed as acting deputy head in South Yorkshire Moira Ogilvie, 40, allegedly ‘bullied’ staff, made them spy on each other and acted in an inappropriate manner towards children - including making obscene ‘finger gestures’ towards them.

The assistant head teacher of High Greave Junior School, Rotherham is also alleged to have discussed confidential information, and asked members of staff to report on their colleagues behind each other’s backs.

Appearing at a General Teaching Council conduct hearing in Birmingham, she was found guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, but can return to teaching under certain conditions.

The hearing heard how 29-year-old teacher Britt Pilton had been found dead at the school in February 2009.

Presenting officer Laura Ryan told the panel: ‘Bullying is recognised as being a problem amongst pupils, so it is vital it is not present in staff responsible for those pupils.

‘Members of staff reported that Moira Ogilvie had asked them to spy on each other. ‘That she had left them feeling victimised, intimidated, bullied and harassed, and that she had been seen making obscene finger gestures to pupils.’

One victim of the toxic leadership was 29-year-old teacher Britt Pilton. The bride-to-be, 29, faced 12 months of pressure at the school before she had a panic-attack and was found dead on the floor of a school toilet, an inquest in 2009 found.

In a letter, fellow teacher Natalie Garbutt said that on the day of Miss Pilton’s death, she had been ‘concerned that photocopying she had left in the photocopier had been removed by Moira Ogilvie to substantiate claims in relation to her professional conduct.’

Natalie Garbutt, a teacher at the school, gave a statement to the GTC committee in September. She told the panel about how Miss Pilton’s name had been removed from her pigeon hole in the staff room on the day following her funeral. Miss Garbutt said this had made staff feel uneasy because they ‘didn’t want all evidence of her to be taken away.’

She added that Miss Ogilvie had joked that the school, which had been facing the prospect of a drop in pupil numbers, would no longer have to worry.

Miss Garbutt said: ‘Moira made some comments that I think were meant to be light-hearted.’ She added: ‘She commented about there not being any staffing issues now because we had enough staff for the children.’

Miss Garbutt told the panel that Miss Ogilvie had asked her to ‘keep tabs’ on Miss Pilton after telling her that there were too many staff at the school. Miss Garbutt said: ‘The thing with Britt was her attendance was quite poor, she wasn’t always prepared for her lessons, things like that and I was asked to make notes on things that Britt did.’ She added that she thought Miss Ogilvie wanted to gather evidence to use against Miss Pilton.

She said: ‘Britt made a lot of mistakes, she had a lot of time off and if there was going to be any body that would have to leave then evidence was needed to be collected.’

Another member of staff, Rachel Green, claimed that Miss Ogilvie had remarked that Miss Pilton’s replacement was ‘a better teacher than Britt ever was’ in front of a child.

Giving a statement to the panel, former head teacher June Hitchcock said that the school had been ‘devastated’ by the loss of Miss Pilton. She said staff were ‘devastated, completely. It was a total shock. It affected them, I would suggest it still affects them deeply. ‘It was a huge loss professionally and personally for some of the staff who were very close to Britt Pilton.’

Still, despite being found guilty, Ms Ogilvie will be allowed to continue to teach under a conditional registration order: 'She will able to return to register and teach on the position but she cannot take line management responsibilities,' GTC press officer Sam Haidar told Mail Online. 'She needs to take an accredited mentoring or reflected management course.'

SOURCE



3 February, 2012

Germany: Intellectually Insolvent U. Of Osnabrück Shuts Down Debate – Calls Skepticism “Provocative”

What do the intellectually challenged do when they’re out-matched in debate and fully exhausted of arguments?

You do what the University of Osnabrück has done: you prevent the opponent from entering the debating arena. You call it off and closed-mindedly insist you’re right.

This is what is happening today with the University of Osnabrück and Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, who had been invited by the university to give a speech on February 8.

It’s a vivid look into the cowardice of today’s German academia and its intellectual depletion.

The problem is that Vahrenholt has just written a controversial climate skeptical book (Die kalte Sonne) together with geologist Dr Sebastian Lüning - a book that is politically incorrect because it doubts the climate catastrophe fairy tale. The book is already near or at the number 1 position in Amazon.de bestseller list for environment and ecology books, and is thus causing the warmists to scurry in panic. The sense of alarm and fear that have gripped the climate establishment is so strong that the University of Osnabrück decided it would be improper to have Vahrenholt as a speaker.

Vahrenholt got his dis-invitation 2 days ago. Openly questioning the dogma of catastrophic global warming is not welcome. The University prefers to stay in the Dark Ages. Here’s the public invitation:

In the series of presentations “University Speeches” of the University of Osnabrück, Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt – RWE Innogy, Essen will hold a speech titled “The Climate Catastrophe is not Taking Place”.

The IPCC is wrong. The climate debate has to be restarted. In contradiction to prognoses, there has been no global warming in over 10 years. Even with rising CO2 emissions the warming for this century will not exceed 2°C. The warming effect of CO2 is over-estimated. The latest findings show that ocean cycles and the sun, which recently entered a longer-term period of quite activity, has played a greater role in the course of climate than previously assumed.

Here is the incredible letter of cancellation:

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

When we invited Prof. Vahrenholt in May, 2011, it was done with regards to a very good speech he had given in Greifswald (Greifswald Speeches - a Foundation of the Alfried Krupp College Greifswald) on the topic of “Options for the Future Energy Supply of Germany”. This topic and the speaker also were accepted by the Osnabrück University Professorium.

When we invited him, we suggested this topic, which he did not object. When we asked him to provide us with the exact title of his speech 3 weeks before it was scheduled to take place, he surprised us with the provocative title ‘The Climate Catastrophe Is Not taking Place’. The reactions to this announcement range from positive to critical, and to negative.

Independent of these reactions, we have become convinced that such an assertion requires ‘a counter speech’ from a climate scientist and that the subsequent discussion be led by a competent moderator. Because it is not possible to organize this before February 8, we will search another date in 2012, in agreement with Prof Vahrenholt and the 2 yet-to-be-named individuals. We will inform you on a timely basis.

Yours sincerely,
Prof. Dr. Karlheinz Altendorf
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Asholt”

So unhindered, free dissent and questioning are unwelcome. Not believing that the world is on the road to catastrophe is “provocative”. Sorry, but this is the kind of insecure behaviour ones sees from dictatorial regimes. It’s intellectual insolvency.

Things really are that bad in Germany’s academia today – at least at the University of Osnabrück.

Two questions to professors Altendorf and Asholt: What are you afraid of? Does a movement steeped in fear and insecurity have any chance of victory? Your letter is as clear an admission one could get that the answer is “definitely no”.

Your decision is as about as remote as one can get from the true spirit of academia.

SOURCE





St. Valentine’s Day (Candy) Massacre: School Bans Candy, Pushes Origami Instead

(Yes, all the kids want folded paper)

In a move that will probably get support from the First Lady, but boos from kids and candy companies, a school in Massachusetts has banned candy exchanges on Valentines Day.

The Horace Mann School in Newton has told parents that kids cannot not bring Valentines Day candy to school. Instead, the school suggests that kids exchange things like nice cards, or gifts like “stickers, pencils, erasers, stamps, or crafts like origami.”

One mom was fully supporting the ban. She told MyFoxBoston that last Valentines Day was a difficult one for her:

"Last year was hell. The second grader and kindergartener came back with bags full of candy, cake, lolipops, and garbage. They had eaten half of it already at school. The other half they fought over or ate the rest. I tried to take it away from them – they screamed. I was like never again, this is not right."

SOURCE





Thousands of 'Mickey Mouse' courses will no longer count in British High School league tables

More than 3,000 discredited vocational courses will be downgraded because pupils are shunning tough subjects, Michael Gove declared yesterday.

Schools will be barred from using ‘dead-end’ qualifications – including courses in ‘personal effectiveness’, fish husbandry and nail technology services – to count towards their league table rankings.

Youngsters will instead be encouraged to gain at least a C in English and maths and study science and a language.

The Education Secretary warned against pandering to the view that school is ‘like the movies or a club’ where pupils expect to find lessons ‘exciting’ – and drop out if they are too difficult.

‘If we say that we will tolerate or accept non-attendance on the basis that school is too hard then we are condemning children to a future where, at every stage they face a challenge, we make excuses rather than encouraging them to do better, and that way lies perdition,’ Mr Gove told the Commons education select committee.

‘It’s unacceptable that people are bristling at the requirement that we have children doing English, mathematics and science to an acceptable level.’

Under a GCSE ‘equivalence’ system introduced by Labour, schools were allowed to count more than 3,000 vocational courses towards their league table position.

The courses were deemed equivalent to one or more GCSEs and given league table points in an attempt to motivate disaffected pupils. One approved course was a Level 2 Certificate of Personal Effectiveness, which taught children how to claim the dole.
Chopped from the tables

A report commissioned by the Coalition found that many of the qualifications were ‘effectively dead-end’ with no use in the job market. Its author, Professor Alison Wolf, of King’s College London, said schools had been entering pupils for the courses just to amass league table points.

Mr Gove announced yesterday that only 125 out of 3,175 vocational qualifications for 14 to 16-year-olds meet new criteria for inclusion in league tables.

Of these only 75 will count towards the main yardstick of secondary school performance – the percentage of pupils achieving five A* to C grades including English and maths. And they will count as only one GCSE.

Schools will still be able to enter pupils for the qualifications, but from 2014 they will no longer count toward their league table rankings. Many are expected to wither on the vine.

Former education secretary David Blunkett said: ‘By all means slim them down but do not send the message that this is a wholesale trashing of what was there and that vocational education has been downgraded.’

SOURCE



2 February, 2012

Duke University is at it again

Leftist uproar over a finding that black students at Duke disproportionately migrate away from more difficult (science and engineering) to easier (liberal arts) majors

When we last left Duke University and its home of Durham, North Carolina, the bogus story fueled by the leftwing politics that governs Duke and Durham that three lacrosse players from Duke had beaten and raped Crystal Mangum was being put to rest. True, there were lawsuits filed against both entities by former lacrosse players, but the fires that burned at Duke seemed to have been doused.

For a year while the false criminal case went on, Duke University truly was the Bonfire of the Vanities as students and representatives of the Ruling Party of Durham competed with each other to see who could make the most outrageous and untrue statements. Almost six years ago, I likened it to the Reichstag Fire, but since that time, I have concluded that in the make-believe world that is Duke and Durham (or Dukham, for short), the fires always are burning and there always is a new reason for the Right Kind of People of Dukham to be offended.

Six years ago, the lacrosse incident set Dukham ablaze (or, to be more accurate, the refusal of Dukham’s finest to do any independent thinking set Dukhanm ablaze). Today, it is the appearance of an unpublished paper that takes a hard look at some of the unforeseen consequences of Duke’s aggressive affirmative action policies.

Granted, the end of the criminal portion of the lacrosse case was disappointing to a large number of Dukham folks. The charges, after being investigated for the first time (disgraced DA Mike Nifong never did take the time to do an actual investigation even though he had three indictments), were dismissed by North Carolina’s Attorney General Roy Cooper, who said openly that the players were "innocent." Such a thing did not sit well with the leftist and racialist faculty members that had pontificated on the case, as well as the Usual Suspects of the local activist groups.

Much has happened since then. Mangum is in jail awaiting trial for allegedly murdering her boyfriend, Nifong remains disbarred and disgraced, and his sidekick Tracey Cline, who has served as Durham County’s DA since Nifong disappeared (Cline was to be second chair in the prosecution if it had gone to trial), has been suspended from her duties while she is investigated for alleged misconduct.

While the lawsuits creep along, an email from Duke’s dean of students, Sue Wasiolek, that surfaced during discovery, pointed out that right from the start, the lacrosse players "cooperated" with the police. Unfortunately, when Nifong used the local and national media to insist that the players were "putting up a wall of silence," no one from Duke University’s administration, including Wasiolek, tried to set the record straight. It is clear that the leadership at Duke knew the truth, but the fiction was so much more satisfactory to the locals, a significant portion of the university’s faculty and student body, and, of course, the New York Times, which fell headlong into the Nifong pit. The players were guilty and Dukham’s leaders were not going to let a little thing like the truth spoil a party put on by self-righteous activists.

As I said earlier, the bonfires might have simmered temporarily, but today, they are in full blaze as Duke University is enmeshed in another self-inflicted crisis. Once again we see many of the same people from the faculty and the administration beating their chests to atone for the university’s supposed racism and to point out to others that there are dastardly racists in their midst.

When word that an unpublished paper written by an economics professor, a sociology professor, and a graduate student might not paint the happiest picture of academic life at Duke, the Usual Suspects rose up to protest. The paper itself looked at what happens after students with lower SAT scores (including both those admitted via affirmative action and the "legacy" students) actually settle into academic life at the university.

While many of these students might start out majoring in natural sciences, economics, or engineering, they often change majors and migrate to the "softer" majors in liberal arts. The significant part of that migration, the paper noted, was that the "legacy admissions" and affirmative action students migrate in statistically-significant larger numbers than do the students that did not need any special dispensation to enter Duke.

The paper’s findings matched what other researchers already have noted regarding affirmative action and legacy students attending other highly-select universities such as Harvard, Yale, and Stanford. Many of these students arrive unprepared for the level of work they must do in the difficult majors in order to keep up with those students who can do the work, and this leads either to students dropping out or changing majors.

Not surprisingly, the faculty members in those areas of study such as Cultural Anthropology went ballistic over the paper, decrying it as "scholarly racism" (according to English and Law professor Karla Holloway, the same Karla Holloway who declared the lacrosse players to be rapists because "guilt is a social construct"). In fact, many of the same professors that rushed to judgment in the lacrosse case and created an atmosphere of hate and hysteria at Duke also are the out-front people here.

One of the worst offenders in the lacrosse crisis was professor Tim Tyson, who openly called for dismissal of all of the lacrosse players and repeated the lie that they were refusing to cooperate with the police. Tyson also led on-campus protests against them, rushing to judgment and then refusing to acknowledge after the players were exonerated that they actually were innocent. In other words, Tyson is one of those Duke faculty members who absolutely hates a large portion of the Duke student body along with most of the Adults who are on the faculty.

Tyson, as is his wont, openly attacked one of the authors, economics professor Peter Arcidiacono, in an article, alleging that Arcidiacono was a racist and worse. (Of course, Tyson’s article is filled with ad hominems and he refuses to address the real issues of the paper, preferring to wrap himself in the righteousness of his own worldview.)

Once again: Tyson does not challenge in any way the data that Arcidiacono, et al., presented, that black students at Duke disproportionately migrate away from more difficult (science and engineering) to easier (liberal arts) majors.

As in the lacrosse case, a large portion of Duke’s professors are permitted to launch baseless and public attacks on other students and faculty, all the while drawing large salaries and having to do little productive work while denouncing their employer and anyone else who pays for them to stomp about campus. In fact, it seems that their "work" is to claim that they are mistreated by Duke, which requires little out of them but spending a few hours a week on campus protesting that they should even be there at all.

More HERE





British selective school pupils wrongly expelled after Facebook smear campaign saying that they had sex in a store cupboard

Two grammar school pupils were expelled after a malicious gossip campaign broke out on Facebook claiming the pair had sex in a school store room and toilet. Trevor Evans and his girlfriend were 16 when they were first suspended from West Kirby Grammar School, in Wirral, where they were sixth-formers.

Within two days they were expelled, but an independent tribunal has found that the school failed to investigate the claims properly. It also ruled that not enough evidence had been found to permanently exclude the pair.

Trevor, now 17, strongly denies having had sex with his then girlfriend. He insists that he was consoling her in a toilet cubicle after she became upset.

His mother, Honora, heard about the allegations when she received a letter from headteacher Glenice Robinson in October last year. Since then she has been fighting to clear her son's name and insists the allegations were spread on Facebook.

She said: 'This was a vindictive campaign hatched by some girls at the school who posted malicious rumours about him on Facebook.'

Trevor, a keen musician, said: 'I just want to get back to school and resume my studies.'

Mrs Evans, who lives in the affluent village of Meols, said she had endured a traumatic three months in order to expose the school's failure to carry out a proper investigation. She said: 'The way the school dealt with this was a knee-jerk reaction and the right to education should be supported, not taken away.'

Headteacher Mrs Robinson said: 'It would not be appropriate to discuss specific details but the school always acts in the best interests of pupils.'

An announcement on whether the pair can return to school is yet to be made.

SOURCE




Australia: Queenslanders want school performance made public

ALMOST two-thirds of Queenslanders believe teaching and learning audit results of state schools should be publicly released.

A poll on couriermail.com.au found 62 per cent of 2120 respondents wanted to know how schools performed, while 38 per cent did not think the results should be released.

The Courier-Mail's publication of the audit results on Saturday caused a furore among teachers and principals, with the Queensland Teachers' Union directing members to suspend participation in the process.

Political leaders are divided over the issue with Premier Anna Bligh backing the release, saying parents had a right to know, while LNP leader Campbell Newman dodged questions on whether he would continue the audits if his party won government.

"There's this obsession that's being created about doing the measurement, the testing and the measurement and the reporting, rather than helping the kids," he said.

Opposition education spokesman Bruce Flegg said he supported parents having the right to information about their schools but wanted to know more about the cost and benefits before deciding about publication or whether they should still be run in Queensland.

Teachers are now pursuing a way of keeping future teaching and learning audit results from being published, despite the State Government saying it believes parents have a right to the statewide information.

The QTU opposed a Right to Information application by The Courier-Mail late last year for the results, endorsing last November to suspend participation if the outcomes were ever published. That suspension was put in place on Monday.

The union argues it had secured an agreement the statewide results would not be published and any publication of them was misleading.

Every state-run school and education centre was audited in 2010, with 460 re-audited last year against world-class benchmarks in eight teaching and learning practices.

Queensland Teachers' Union president Kevin Bates said they were now considering discussing the future of the audit as part of their impending Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA), including a possible guarantee of confidentiality as part of the EBA.

SOURCE



1 February, 2012

Wisconsin Activist Teacher's Paul Ryan Snub Explained

When I watched the video of the Wisconsin teacher snubbing Congressman Paul Ryan, I knew instantly he was little more than an activist teacher seizing his moment. Respect-be-damned, it was his moment to stick it to an ideological foe. He became an instant folk hero for leftists.

But the silliness was nothing new for Racine teacher Al Levie. He has a history of using students in his personal political agenda.

Case in point is an article Levie penned for the National Education Association magazine, NEA Today, titled, “Don’t Scold, Organize!” He concluded it by writing:

“By engaging students in real-life issues and encouraging them to act on a political level, we will transform schools into places where authentic learning takes place.

“At the same time, we will help our students become engines of positive change in our society.”

Levie wants his students to be fellow rabble rousers, and what better way than to stick to a political foe right in front of them?

The incident with Ryan, however, is only the most recent example he has set for his students.

In June, 2011, Levie was kicked out of a Wisconsin Senate Finance Committee hearing for standing in the front and reading a statement. He was literally carried out by police.

In 2009, Levie participated in (organized?) a protest outside Ryan’s office. The Racine Post explained it this way:

“Horlick teacher Al Levie, known for organizing high school students in political movements, was part of the crowd.”

Levie’s 2004 vote project was canceled when it was discovered the event – oops! – was just for one political party. The Journal Times reported:

“The get out the vote project planned by Horlick High School students has been canceled.

“Racine Unified School District Superintendent Thomas Hicks said what started out to be a class-related activity last week turned out to be a partisan event. The decision to cancel the event was made Monday morning after he learned the facts had changed and it was no longer a bipartisan endeavor.”

Levie’s response?

“We're not teaching kids good values when a learning experience can be canceled by partisan politics,” Levie said.

On a school day in 2009, the high school teacher bussed students to the state capitol for a protest against out-of-state tuition being charged to illegal immigrants. The Racine Post reported:

“Their demands: Remove unfair restrictions on tuition and drivers licenses that discriminate against undocumented workers in Wisconsin. Most of the students were members of Students United for Immigrant Rights, a group founded at Horlick High School in 2005.”

This appears to get to the nub of Levie’s personal view. Consider his quote from NEA Today. Levie believes that the purpose of schools is to turn students into change agents, and he sets the example with his childish antics aimed at Congressman Paul Ryan.

So while only 57% of Racine Unified high school students are proficient in social studies, I’m willing to bet 100% of them could find Congressman Ryan’s office to protest.

That sad reality will leave students with a one-sided perspective on American policy, and likely little insight into Ryan’s conservative thought.

But that’s “real world” teaching according to Al Levie.

SOURCE





School suspends cancer survivor teen over hair he plans to donate

A Michigan teen who survived a bout with leukemia has been suspended from school over the length of his long hair, which he is planning to donate.

The Detroit News reports that 17-year-old J.T. Gaskins has been growing out his hair since last summer in order to donate it to the Locks of Love charity. Gaskins said he was inspired to make the donation after learning that the sister of a family friend was diagnosed with cancer.

Gaskins was diagnosed with leukemia when he was just a year old and has been in remission since he was seven. "I fought cancer my entire life. I'm going to keep fighting this," Gaskins told the Detroit News. "I'm not going to not give back just because my school says no."

The Madison Academy in Burton says Gaskins' suspension has more to do with the unkempt style of his hair, rather than its length. The school's student handbook requires that boys' hair be, "clean, neat, free of unnatural or distracting colors, off the collar, off the ears and out of the eyes."

Gaskins says Locks of Love requires a 10 inch ponytail for a donation and that his hair is currently only 2 ½ inches long.

Locks of Love Communications Director Lauren Kukkamaa says that while they respect Gaskins' effort, they'd like to see him back in school.

"There are so many ways to support Locks of Love, and we are truly grateful for all of those efforts and this young man and his desire to give back," Kukkamaa said. "But certainly, we understand the school has its reasons for having certain policies in place."

Gaskins is also being encouraged by his mother Christa Plante, who says she supports her son's efforts "100 percent." Plante launched an online petition at Change.org for her son, which has received about 4,700 signatures so far.

"He's seen how it works and how it helped people, how it helped us," she said. "This is for him. He wants to do it now. This feels right," she said.

The petition asks the school to change their policy, allowing students to grow their hair for the Locks of Love charity. The new policy would require a student to sign a promissory note, research the respective cause they wish to support and to keep their hair "well-maintained" until the donation is made.

"I'm fighting for them to make it an option for kids to grow out their hair for Locks of Love, to make it a part of the school and raise awareness for all cancer charities out there that can help patients," Gaskins said. "It wouldn't be a change to where people find a loophole just to grow out their hair."

"I'm fine with all of their rules," Gaskins said. "I just think that with this, they could try to make a compromise."

SOURCE








Middle class Brits priced out of university by soaring tuition fees as applications fall by nearly 10%

Thousands of middle-class youngsters have been priced out of university by the trebling of tuition fees to £9,000-a-year, figures revealed yesterday.

Sixth-formers from families with pre-tax incomes between £40,000 and £80,000 have been hardest hit by fee hikes which threaten to leave graduates with debts of £50,000.

Several thousand youngsters from middle and higher-income homes have been put off applying by the prospect of paying up to £9,000-a-year in tuition charges on top of living costs. They fail to qualify for grants and other scholarships designed to lessen the impact of the new charging regime on the poorest.

Families earning less than £25,000 are eligible for maintenance grants to help meet living expenses, with universities also offering means-tested bursaries. Pupils with household incomes up to £42,600 qualify for partial grants.

The number of university applicants across England has fallen by nearly 10 per cent following news that most universities will impose higher charges this autumn. Older students have deserted higher education in greatest numbers, with lesser falls among 18-year-old school leavers.

But official figures yesterday showed a sharper fall among better-off sixth-formers than ‘disadvantaged’ candidates. According to the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, the proportion of youngsters applying from the wealthiest fifth of the country dropped 2.5 percentage points – a fall of 3,000. These families live in postcodes that are most likely to send children to university. Their likely average gross household income is around £80,000.

The proportion of applicants from middle-earning families dropped by about one percentage point. In contrast, the percentage of pupils applying from the poorest fifth of England dipped just 0.2 points – around 280 students. These families live in postcodes least likely to send children to university, with a likely average income of £11,800-a-year.

On average, one in 20 18-year-olds who would have been expected to apply to university this year has failed to do so, UCAS said.

The figures suggest that wealthier youngsters are deciding in greater numbers to look for jobs instead of study for three years or more and build up mortgage-style debts in the process. The trend will be seen as mounting evidence of pressure on the so-called ‘squeezed middle’ – the group bearing the brunt of economic policies aimed at easing Britain’s financial woes.

Mary Curnock Cook, UCAS chief executive, said: ‘Our analysis shows that decreases in demand are slightly larger in more advantaged groups than in disadvantaged groups. Widely expressed concerns about recent changes in higher education funding arrangements having a disproportionate effect on more disadvantaged groups are not borne out by this data.’

Ministers insisted the number of 18-year-olds applying to university had largely held up despite the controversial fees policy, one of the Coalition’s most bitterly-contested reforms. Sources pointed out the number of school-leavers from affluent backgrounds applying for university was still significantly higher than from lower-income groups.

But Shabana Mahmood, Labour’s higher education spokesman, said: ‘The decision of the Tory-led Government to treble tuition fees to £9,000 is hitting young people and their aspirations. It is clear the drastic increase in fees and the increased debt burden is putting people of all ages off going to university and investing in their future. Most students will be paying off their debts most of their working lives.’

The figures show how total applications for degree courses starting in the autumn were down 7.4 per cent – almost 44,000. Of these, 25,789 were aged 19 to 21. Many applied last year, causing a spike in recruitment.

The overall drop in applications was softened by a rise in the numbers from outside Europe.

Among UK students, applications were down 8.7 per cent – and 9.9 per cent among those living in England. In contrast, the number of applications from Scottish students – who will not pay tuition fees next year – dropped just 1.5 per cent.

Under the reforms, graduates only start repaying their loans when their income reaches £21,000. Outstanding repayments are written off after 30 years. Graduates on lower incomes are charged less interest than those who land top jobs.

Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, said: ‘We cannot afford a system that puts people off university if we are to compete in the modern world.’

SOURCE






Primarily covering events in Australia, the U.K. and the USA -- where the follies are sadly similar.


TERMINOLOGY: The English "A Level" exam is roughly equivalent to a U.S. High School diploma. Rather confusingly, you can get As, Bs or Cs in your "A Level" results. Entrance to the better universities normally requires several As in your "A Levels".


MORE TERMINOLOGY: Many of my posts mention the situation in Australia. Unlike the USA and Britain, there is virtually no local input into education in Australia. Education is mostly a State government responsibility, though the Feds have a lot of influence (via funding) at the university level. So it may be useful to know the usual abbreviations for the Australian States: QLD (Queensland), NSW (New South Wales), WA (Western Australia), VIC (Victoria), TAS (Tasmania), SA (South Australia).


There were two brothers from a famous family. One did very well at school while the other was a duffer. Which one went on the be acclaimed as the "Greatest Briton"? It was the duffer: Winston Churchill.


The current Left-inspired practice of going to great lengths to shield students from experience of failure and to tell students only good things about themselves is an appalling preparation for life. In adulthood, the vast majority of people are going to have to reconcile themselves to mundane jobs and no more than mediocrity in achievement. Illusions of themselves as "special" are going to be sorely disappointed


Perhaps it's some comfort that the idea of shielding kids from failure and having only "winners" is futile anyhow. When my son was about 3 years old he came bursting into the living room, threw himself down on the couch and burst into tears. When I asked what was wrong he said: "I can't always win!". The problem was that we had started him out on educational computer games where persistence only is needed to "win". But he had then started to play "real" computer games -- shootem-ups and the like. And you CAN lose in such games -- which he had just realized and become frustrated by. The upset lasted all of about 10 minutes, however and he has been happily playing computer games ever since. He also now has a degree in mathematics and is socially very pleasant. "Losing" certainly did not hurt him.


Even the famous Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci (and the world's most famous Sardine) was a deep opponent of "progressive" educational methods. He wrote: "The most paradoxical aspect is that this new type of school is advocated as being democratic, while in fact it is destined not merely to perpetuate social differences, but to crystallise them." He rightly saw that "progressive" methods were no help to the poor


I am an atheist of Protestant background who sent his son to Catholic schools. Why did I do that? Because I do not personally feel threatened by religion and I think Christianity is a generally good influence. I also felt that religion is a major part of life and that my son should therefore have a good introduction to it. He enjoyed his religion lessons but seems to have acquired minimal convictions from them.


Why have Leftist educators so relentlessly and so long opposed the teaching of phonics as the path to literacy when that opposition has been so enormously destructive of the education of so many? It is because of their addiction to simplistic explanations of everything (as in saying that Islamic hostility is caused by "poverty" -- even though Osama bin Laden is a billionaire!). And the relationship between letters and sounds in English is anything but simple compared to the beautifully simple but very unhelpful formula "look and learn".


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


The NEA and similar unions worldwide believe that children should be thoroughly indoctrinated with Green/Left, feminist/homosexual ideology but the "3 R's" are something that kids should just be allowed to "discover"


A a small quote from the past that helps explain the Leftist dominance of education: "When an opponent says: 'I will not come over to your side,' I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us already. You will pass on. Your descendents, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time, they will know nothing else but this new community.'." Quote from Adolf Hitler. In a speech on 6th November 1933


I am rather pleased to report that I am a lifelong conservative. Out of intellectual curiosity, I did in my youth join organizations from right across the political spectrum so I am certainly not closed-minded and am very familiar with the full spectrum of political thinking. Nonetheless, I did not have to undergo the lurch from Left to Right that so many people undergo. At age 13 I used my pocket-money to subscribe to the "Reader's Digest" -- the main conservative organ available in small town Australia of the 1950s. I have learnt much since but am pleased and amused to note that history has since confirmed most of what I thought at that early age.

I imagine that the the RD is still sending mailouts to my 1950s address!


Discipline: With their love of simple generalizations, this will be Greek to Leftists but I see an important role for discipline in education DESPITE the fact that my father never laid a hand on me once in my entire life nor have I ever laid a hand on my son in his entire life. The plain fact is that people are DIFFERENT, not equal and some kids will not behave themselves in response to persuasion alone. In such cases, realism requires that they be MADE to behave by whatever means that works -- not necessarily for their own benefit but certainly for the benefit of others whose opportunities they disrupt and destroy.


Many newspaper articles are reproduced in full on this blog despite copyright claims attached to them. I believe that such reproductions here are protected by the "fair use" provisions of copyright law. Fair use is a legal doctrine that recognises that the monopoly rights protected by copyright laws are not absolute. The doctrine holds that, when someone uses a creative work in way that does not hurt the market for the original work and advances a public purpose - such as education or scholarship - it might be considered "fair" and not infringing.


Comments above by John Ray