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



30 June, 2011

Toddlers as young as two ready for sex education, says new guide

PARENTS are being urged to start talking about sex with their children from the age of two. A new sex education guide by the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society says discussing sex is not going to make kids go out and "do it". [Really? The expansion of sex education in British schools has coincided with an upsurge in teen pregnancies there]

"Talk soon. Talk often" author Jenny Walsh, of La Trobe University, writes that talking about sex with young people actually had the opposite effect. "We can be so worried about getting it right, perfectly right, that we end up saying nothing at all," Ms Walsh wrote.

The booklet says many parents are still nervous talking about sexuality, including topics such as bodies, babies, love and sexual feelings. It recommends talking to children as young as two about sex and continuing until they are 17. From birth to two years old it is important to start using the right names for body parts, the guide says.

It also covers everything from what you should do if you find your child "playing doctors" to how to approach masturbation.

Family Planning Victoria welcomed the new sex education guide. "We would say that old idea of sitting down and having a talk is absolutely not the way to do it," FPV deputy CEO Elsie L'Huillier said. "There should be a whole process where the issue of sexuality comes up as a natural conversation. It's not a highly stressful 'Let's sit down and talk'."

She said some parents still felt embarrassed to discuss sexuality issues with their children, but it was changing. "There's a reluctance or taboo in some families about being frank about sexuality. It's a big jump for them," she said.

Marie Stopes International Australia CEO Maria Deveson Crabbe said there was no right age to start sex education - it depended on individual families. "I think it is important to recognise that these topics have been stigmatised, but there is no point in burying our heads in the sand." She said sex education was important because poor knowledge of sexual health and decision-making can have long-term impacts.

SOURCE




Bureaucracy assists British teachers' strike

With thousands of teachers on strike for the day, Anne Atkins volunteered to help keep local classrooms open - only to be rejected at every turn

When I heard Education Secretary Michael Gove’s old-fashioned call for parents to volunteer if their child’s school is threatened with closure by the teachers’ strike, I thought, well, why not? Mums’ Army, Big Society, ra-de-rah, and all that.

Up to 10,000 schools in England and Wales expect to be affected by today’s union walk-out in protest over changes to public-sector pension schemes. Even public schools such as Eton and Cheltenham Ladies’ College are braced for walk-outs, while masters at St Paul’s will down tools for the first time in the school’s 500-year history.

Parents, of course, will be hardest hit. For those who aren’t free to take Gove up on his suggestion to take a lesson or two themselves today, mothers and fathers will have had to take time off work to look after their own children, or make other childcare arrangements.

I’m lucky. I’m available to volunteer. I wouldn’t be the slightest bit inconvenienced if my eight-year-old daughter couldn’t go to school: I work from home, our house is always full of people, and she is perfectly able to educate herself for more than a day. Nor do I side with one party or the other: I come from a family of teachers, have the highest regard for them, and believe they can’t ever be paid enough if they’re good.

But I do believe children are infinitely more important than politics; I like my daughter’s friends hugely and their mothers just as much; and I’ve learnt that we pull together in life – particularly women, and particularly mothers. I dare hope there are things I could contribute in the classroom and, if it will help, that’s reason enough.

I rang my daughter’s school. One of the perks of my husband’s employment as chaplain in a boys’ public school is a place for our daughter in the sister establishment. I was confidently told that we don’t close for hail, snow, wrong kind of leaves, bubonic plague or world war. Certainly not industrial action, which our staff won’t be engaging in. No, silly me, of course not.

But since I’m on the telephone, I said, what would your response be to parents volunteering? My daughter’s school, I discovered, has the strictest policy possible. Not only do you have to be thoroughly vetted by the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) in order to do anything – help the girls off with their coats, let alone accompany them to the lavatory – but the charitable trust that also employs my husband uses its own “enhanced” CRB check “which would show up the library fine you didn’t pay at the age of 14”. Crikey. I rack my brains: what else do they know about me?

An unchecked parent could just about watch the girls walk down the street under close supervision of a teacher. “Forgive my asking,” I said, properly curious now, “but is that for PR purposes? Or because you believe it really protects them?”

“It is so there is absolutely no comeback whatsoever,” says the voice on the line. “We do everything we possibly can to keep them safe.”

I should have found all this reassuring. No one is going to abuse my daughter while helping her blow her nose, at least no one who hasn’t the wit to jump through that hoop, anyway. Instead, I put the telephone down rather sadly. Was there any point in my volunteering for anything? The school already know me. My husband is the chaplain and I presented the prizes at Speech Day. Not, I hasten to add, that I would want any exceptions made on that account, or any other.

Never mind. There are plenty of state schools in the vicinity. One of them could surely do with an extra pair of hands if they’re going to be short-staffed. Half a dozen phone calls later, I had discovered not only that very few schools in my area are threatened with closure, but that none – not a single one – would ever contemplate help from anyone who doesn’t have CRB clearance. One said that it followed local authority guidelines to the letter, though when I asked the LA what those were, I was told they didn’t have any.

Henlow Middle School, about 10 miles from my Bedfordshire home, is trying very hard to stay open for the sake of its 500-plus pupils, who are aged between nine and 13. The school wants to do everything it can to continue as usual under difficult circumstances. But to cope with the teacher shortage – the strike coincides with a Year Five visit to Kentwell Hall – it would have to turn away most pupils in Years Seven and Eight. A little free help might make all the difference.

“Gosh,” said the receptionist when I offered to pitch in, “what a great idea. How kind.” She went off to ask. A few minutes later, she came back with the dreaded question: are you CRB-approved?

Afraid not, sorry. “In that case, we can’t.”

If I’d been through the standard check, would they have accepted?

“Definitely, yes.” Without it, not even a parent they’d known for years would be let into the school to help supervise Year Six’s activities week.

Hang on. I’m struggling to find a subtle way of putting this. What could be more likely to indicate a raging paedophile than a complete stranger with no connection to the school and no obvious motive, offering to spend the day unpaid, hanging around children? And yet if I’d had that little bit of paper, they would automatically assume I’m safe – and more so than someone they know, with children at the school.

Despite the Coalition’s pledge to “return to common-sense government”, almost one million CRB checks were made on volunteers in 2010 – a sixfold increase since the bureau was launched in 2002. One Leicestershire school last year banned parents from its sports day as it could not guarantee they had been vetted by police. Several high-profile children’s authors, including Michael Morpurgo, Anne Fine and Philip Pullman, gave up visiting schools in protest at being forced to undergo CRB checks.

My family has come up against CRB anomalies of our own. For several years, our son had been junior leader on a Scripture Union Beach Mission. One year I asked why he wasn’t helping as usual. “No CRB,” he said. “But you never had one before,” I said. “I wasn’t 18 before.”

A few years ago, our other son was going off to help on a children’s Christian holiday camp, again something he’d done for years. He wouldn’t be looking after children, but washing up with other adults. He’d bought his train ticket, packed and was ready to leave, but the CRB check he’d applied for months earlier still hadn’t arrived, so he couldn’t go.

I rang the head office, spoke to someone senior, said our family had been helping the same camp for years, they knew us all extremely well and his sisters and brother were already there. It all cut little ice until I played the disability card – our son has Asperger syndrome, not that you’d know it – and common sense prevailed: the authority agreed to turn a blind eye.

I’ve had my own brush with the CRB. I recently offered to help at our daughter’s Saturday morning theatre club. They were embarking on A Midsummer Night’s Dream and finding it daunting. I trained, then worked, as an actor. For years, I ran the educational side of the Original Shakespeare Company, taking workshops to schools. I’ve enthused classes of children as young as five acting Shakespeare. I studied English at Oxford. All this, buckshee. The response? “A CRB check will have to be done by the sports centre.” I never heard any more from the club.

There has been one happy exception in all this nonsense. When my husband became Chaplain, I offered to teach the boys to read lessons in Chapel – something garbled almost inaudibly. For two terms I gave my time, several hours a week, running workshops, having them to our house for curries, teaching them how to project and prepare and interpret and communicate.

Supervised? My husband attended when he was free, but sometimes he wasn’t. And the response from the boys was terrific. Their readings changed beyond recognition. They gained confidence, discovered Biblical treasures, pleaded for more.

Naturally, neither I nor any of my family has ever committed any crime. But we’d be forgiven if one day the Criminal Records Bureau pushes us over the edge.

SOURCE





One Australian State rebels on proposed national curriculum

THE Baillieu government is staging a rebellion against the national curriculum, with state Education Minister Martin Dixon vowing Victoria will not relinquish control over "critical areas" such as languages.

A defiant Mr Dixon said the "current draft" of the national curriculum for languages would "drive down the standards of languages education in Victoria" if it was implemented.

The national curriculum for languages is being developed on the assumption that only 300 to 400 hours would be spent studying a second language between prep and year 6 - about half the hours recommended by the Victorian Education Department.

The states last year agreed they would "substantially" implement the national curriculum in maths, English, history and science by 2013. A national curriculum is also being developed for the arts, geography and languages. They will be rolled out after the first four subjects are implemented.

But Mr Dixon said last night the Coalition would not relinquish jurisdictional authority over critical areas of the national curriculum such as languages education. "The Commonwealth government must wake up and stop pushing Victoria towards the lowest common denominator in education," Mr Dixon said. "We will continue to demand Victoria's high standards form a minimum baseline for national reform."

The rebellion comes as the federal government announced Victoria would receive less than a quarter of the "reward funding" that will go to New South Wales and Queensland under a national agreement to lift literacy and numeracy, because it set itself more ambitious targets than other states.

"Already we have seen national reform in literacy and numeracy reward low aspirations and punish those who aim high as Victoria has done - with more than $21 million cut from Victoria's reward payments by Julia Gillard this week," Mr Dixon said.

In a submission to the national curriculum authority, Victoria said there was "widespread concern" among language teachers that the hours allocated for learning languages in the draft paper were less than the state guidelines. The Victorian Education Department recommends some 150 minutes a week in primary school, which works out to 700 hours before year 7.

The state curriculum authority also questioned why Hindi - one of the world's most widely spoken languages - was not one of the 11 languages included in the national curriculum. It said it was not clear how the 11 languages were selected and considered there was also a strong argument for the Australian sign language, Auslan, to be included.

The Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, which made the submission on behalf of government, independent and Catholic schools, also criticised the curriculum for using too much jargon. It said specialist terms, such as "ideational functions", "rhetorical organisation" and "heritage learners", would be unfamiliar to many.

The criticism comes after the NSW Board of Studies castigated the national curriculum authority for "ignoring" classical languages and failing to address an "alarming" decline in languages education brought about by a focus on literacy and numeracy.

The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority said the "indicative hours" were only intended as a guide for the curriculum writers. "No decision has been made about how many hours will be spent in the classroom."

SOURCE



29 June, 2011

Fraud Up and Down the U.S. education System

From beginning to end, the incentives are AGAINST accurate assessment of educational progress

In Frank Baum’s The Wizard of Oz the Wizard tells his constituents that he wants an educated populace, “so by the power vested in me I will grant everyone diplomas.” Welcome to the education system of 2011. Much of what we now observe comes right out of the Baum novel.

When Charles Eliot was president of Harvard, he was asked why there is so much intelligence at this college, He replied, “because the freshman bring so much in and the seniors take so little out.” My guess is if a university president were completely honest today, he might say the freshman bring almost nothing in and leave by taking nothing out.

The question is: if the society spends billions on primary, secondary and higher education, why is it that so little is accomplished? There are, of course, many answers to this question, but I would argue the overarching reason is fraud, fraud at every level in order to satisfy political demands.

At the elementary school level it is simply embarrassing to have a large number of students leave who are illiterate or semi-literate. As a consequence, students pretend to read and teachers pretend to assert their competence. Test scores are altered to satisfy political concerns. In a society suffering from the Lake Woebegone effect in which everyone is above average, you can’t tell Mom that Johnny and Mary cannot read at grade level. Rather than declare inadequacy, you change the grade. The disparity between NAEP scores – the gold standard of evaluation – and state sponsored tests is startling with NAEP scores 20 to 30 percent lower on average. Obviously some manipulation is at work.

When scores are low, mayors and governors are held accountable. Since most are vulnerable to the political heat, the incentive to cheat is overwhelming. In fact, across the country there is a euphemism for this cheating: scrubbing. This practice suggests that teachers should “search” for clues in the test that would allow for an alteration in scores.

At the high school level, graduation rates are invariably employed as a standard of evaluation. Yet here too most scores are bogus. If a student is pushed through the system through social promotion, his cognitive skill may be near zero, but he is added to the percentage of graduates nonetheless. Rigor rarely exists as a demand or a practice, a condition that explains in large part why American students compare unfavorably to foreign students on international tests in language skills, math and science.

Once holding a diploma in their hands, however questionable their skill level, these high school graduates are now deemed college ready. Since America has a college for everyone and the society is committed to mass education, students who can read at only a marginal level or who cannot solve quadratic equations are seated in institutions of higher learning.

Surely something has to give. Invariably remediation must take place, but that is insufficient to deal with widespread incompetence. Obviously course content and requirements are modified. A physics instructor at the City University in New York told me recently it is impossible to teach real physics when your students are incapable of engaging eight grade math.

Of course there are exceptions to the lugubrious picture I’ve painted. Yet in far too many cases fraud from one level to another is passed on like a virus that cannot be controlled or cured. In fact, most teachers and professors who know the truth become complicit in this institutionalized fraud in order to retain their jobs. They simply cannot say college isn’t for everyone and most students are not prepared to engage in college work or that rigorous exit requirements at any level do not exist. Hence, there is the clarion call for more money; there is the deceptive claims about the success of our educational systems and there is the belief this investment is worthwhile.

Unfortunately there is rarely a soul who will say fraud keeps this system going and like it or not the emperor hasn’t any clothes.

SOURCE






MD: Parents see political slant in 3rd-grade text

Some Frederick County parents are upset over a third-grade textbook that they say promotes such ideas as government-sponsored child care and universal health care.

The county’s Board of Education met Wednesday to discuss “Social Studies Alive! Our Community and Beyond,” a book the county has used since 2004 but has come under fire in recent months.

The book examines culture, government and public service in the U.S. and other countries, but some parents have pointed to passages in the text they believe subtly promote foreign political systems while disparaging the U.S. “The entire slant of the book is you’re getting used to the idea of government running your life,” said Cindy Rose, a parent who requested that the book be removed from the county’s curriculum. “Government is setting the rules. We’re all going to live by it, and we’re all a collective society,” she said.

Board members chose Wednesday not to eliminate the book from the county curriculum, instead allowing it to come up for review next school year as part of a mandatory eight-year review cycle for all books.

Mrs. Rose was the lone parent to testify during the public comment portion of Wednesday’s meeting, after which board members discussed the text for more than an hour.

Mrs. Rose has taken issue with several chapters in the book, including one that explains how many Americans struggle to pay for health care while countries such as Canada and Sweden provide care free of charge or for a small fee. The book states that those countries’ “communities pay the rest of the bill,” and asks the reader whether he or she believes health care should be a public service.

Critics have argued the text endorses expanded government but fails to fully explain that its public services are paid for by taxpayers. “Do you get much pushback from an 8- or 9-year-old?” said board member James C. Reeder Jr. “It seems to me either were leading them in a certain direction or were trying to get them to evoke a certain response.”

School officials have defended the book, saying it provides important lessons in multiculturalism and is not a primary text but just one of various books the county uses to teach social studies in third-grade classrooms.

Jim Gray, the county’s social studies curriculum specialist, said the book serves a valuable purpose but that teachers are not forced to use it and have the option of replacing it with other materials. The book “provides an opportunity for every culture in our community to see itself,” he said. “I think that’s a very important thing.”

While some school board members raised questions about the book, board member Angie Fish said she believes it highlights the differences between cultures.

More HERE





Striking teachers' unions betray staff, pupils - and British education

By Katharine Birbalsingh

One day during my teacher training, we were all herded into a large hall where union representatives sat smiling behind their stalls. We dutifully queued up and signed on the dotted line, not least because the option of not belonging was, in essence, hidden.

Everyone agreed to allow £150 to leave their bank accounts every year because that's what teachers do: we belong to unions. Except for me, that is. I had to use the loo, was bored of queuing and left with the intention of signing up later. But by September I was busy working and couldn't see the point of paying money to a union for nothing.

In those first couple of years, every teacher who heard of my lack of protection from the big, bad bosses (whom I have never met) rushed to warn me I was putting my life in danger. Even if I didn't worry about being fired for incompetence, what if a child were to accuse me of something? Who would defend me? Eventually, I capitulated and signed up.

In state education, there is social obligation to belong to a union. The most ardent union supporters belong to the National Union of Teachers (NUT): they are the driving force behind tomorrow's teachers' national strike. They tend to be loud in the staff room, forcing others to toe the line. They push the mantra of evil senior management exploiting staff, and bully younger teachers to buy into it.

The idea of holding colleagues to account or requiring high standards of teaching is not on their agenda. Good teachers keep their heads down, ignore the fact they are paid the same or considerably less than the worst teachers, and get on with the job.

Interestingly, it is not just bad teachers who are vocal in support of union power. The union grip on schools, psychologically and socially, is more pernicious than that. Some young teachers, good and bad, are radicalised by senior ones. The veterans seek out the more vulnerable and awkward young teachers, who may want to be part of a club or simply be looking for approval and to feel valued.

Most teachers believe fervently in their union. If you ask them why, they will say something about being protected from evil management. If you're a bad teacher, there is some sense in this, for unions are powerful and will stand in the way of a headteacher trying to get rid of you. Heads know firing a teacher is practically impossible in a school beholden to the local authority. It is estimated that in the past 40 years, only 18 teachers — out of the 500,000 in the UK at any one time — have lost their jobs because of incompetence.

In academies or free schools, which are independent of the local authority, unions do not have the same kind of power. Instead of taxpayers' money going to the local authority, where bureaucrats decide how to use it, the money is given directly to schools and heads decide how it should be spent.

Academies and free schools can set their own pay and conditions (thereby giving heads the option of rewarding good staff financially) and employ non-qualified teachers who haven't been forced to sign up to a union. Thus, if the centralised state education system is broken up — which will increasingly be the case if Education Secretary Michael Gove's free schools revolution succeeds — unions will no longer be able to call for national strikes with ease.

More importantly, they will no longer be able to protect bad teachers. A more open system will reduce union power. So it should come as no surprise unions are pumping huge amounts of their members' money into an anti-academy, anti-free school campaign.

They pay members' travel expenses to attend anti-academy rallies, spread propaganda about free schools selecting pupils (simply not true and not allowed) and spend thousands on flyers to go up in every staff room.

After all, if unions become redundant and lose members, who will pay the union bosses, who earn more than £100,000 a year?

Naturally, unions can't say this out loud. Instead, they pretend they are defending teachers and children. They argue that Mr Gove is destroying our education system and values.

They deny simple facts that prove our education system is failing: that nearly half of our children are unable to get at least five C grades at GCSE, including English and maths. Even worse, a staggering 84 per cent fail to achieve five C grades at GCSE in the academic subjects specified by Mr Gove's proposed English Baccalaureate: English, maths, science, a foreign language and either history or geography.

These are the core subjects we take for granted that our children are learning at school, yet the majority are leaving school without what is considered to be a pass by employers.

Before I am vilified, let me say the basic concept of a union is admirable. They are meant to protect workers against exploitation.

But if only this were what modern teaching unions are doing. Teachers sign up to them because we believe they will help us when in need and ensure our profession is highly regarded. But they keep poor teachers in their posts and give us all a bad name by lowering standards.

Degrading our profession, as teaching unions are doing, helps neither teachers nor children. Children are left to rot in chaos, the public believes teachers are inadequate and lazy, and the profession is considered unsavoury by many talented graduates.

But persuading teachers their union may not be acting in their interest could be difficult. The culture in schools is such that rejecting the role of the NUT representative or questioning the union mantra is considered to be letting the side down.

At the free school I am setting up, I would be happy for teachers to belong to any union they may choose, because I believe in freedom and encourage people to debate ideas. I only wish unions could do the same.

If they did, they would also be doing a marvellous job for our children: staff would be held to account, bad teachers would be weeded out, the public would respect us and teachers and children would fare better in the classroom.

The concept of a union defending the worker is one we should seek to reshape, instead of allowing political ideology to consume everything in its wake.

I am not alone in thinking this: according to a survey by the National Foundation for Educational Research, only 21 per cent of teachers think schools have enough freedom to sack incompetent colleagues.

That would tally with what I used to hear teachers say behind closed doors. They hate the fact children are let down by less competent staff. But as with everything in our broken education system, they have to shut up.

Wake up, teachers of Britain — you are being duped. Deep down, I know you know it, just as we all know standards have dropped, behaviour is out of control and our children are being failed, year after year.

Unions don't care about teachers. Neither do they care about children. If they did, they wouldn't be going on strike. When you look carefully at what they're doing, it's clear they care only about themselves.

SOURCE



28 June, 2011

GOP Lawmaker Challenges Duncan on watering down No Child Left Behind

The Republican chair of the House education committee said Thursday he won't rush into a revamp of No Child Left Behind and challenged the Obama administration's suggestion that states be allowed to waive parts of the law.

In a news conference, Rep. John Kline responded to Education Secretary Arne Duncan's assertion last week that he would waive some requirements of the law for states that adopt changes he has championed, such as linking teacher evaluations to student achievement and overhauling the lowest-performing schools. Mr. Duncan wants the changes made before the new school year.

Mr. Kline said, "We can't be driven in the House or the Senate by [Mr. Duncan] or by the president's deadline." Mr. Kline questioned Mr. Duncan's legal authority to tie waivers to policy changes not authorized by Congress and sent him a letter Thursday seeking more clarity on the issue. "He is not the nation's superintendent," Mr. Kline told reporters.

Mr. Kline said he plans to break the law into five or six smaller legislative bills and try to pass them by the end of the calendar year. The bills would focus on charter school expansion, more flexibility for schools in spending federal money, stricter requirements for teachers and rewriting rules that punish schools for missing federal student achievement standards.

No Child Left Behind, one of President George W. Bush's key domestic achievements, requires that schools test students in math and reading and punishes schools when they fall short of score objectives set by the states. The law has been criticized for labeling too many schools as failures, narrowing school curricula and prodding states to water down standardized tests.

President Barack Obama and Mr. Duncan have pushed Congress to overhaul the law and, until recently, it was expected to be one of the few bipartisan accomplishments of 2011. But Republicans have begun to push back, especially tea-party Republicans who want to reduce the federal role in K-12 education.

A spokesman for Mr. Duncan said the waiver package the secretary is considering, which he wouldn't detail, complies with the existing law. "Congress may need more time to finish its work, but states working to implement reforms needed to prepare students for college and career need greater flexibility now—in real time, not Washington time," said the spokesman, Justin Hamilton.

Mr. Kline's education committee passed a measure earlier this week that encourages states to create more high-quality charter schools, which are public schools run by non-government entities. Next, he said, the committee will tackle funding flexibility.

SOURCE





Let us choose good schools

The basic principle of equal treatment by the law is not complicated. But while many current-day self-described civil rights activists agitate for "rights" of distinctly dubious provenance — universal health care, "affordable" housing, same-sex "marriage," etc. — they ignore an obvious unequal treatment by government affecting the most vulnerable in our society: the lack of educational options for millions of poor and minority children.

In standard school districts, children are enrolled in a school based on their home address. Getting out of that school requires their family to move to another district, make enough money to send them to a private school or alternative public school (if allowed), or have enough free time and ability to homeschool them. Poor families are severely limited, if not hopeless, on all three counts.

There is a severe disconnect in this regard between self-styled civil rights advocates and the people they profess to champion.

The Wall Street Journal reported on June 4 that the NAACP, which purports to care for the interests of black Americans, joined the United Federation of Teachers in a lawsuit against New York City to keep 22 of its worst schools from closing.

One of these, the Academy for Collaborative Education in Harlem, had only 3 percent of students performing at grade level for English last year, and 9 percent in math. Another, Columbus High School in the Bronx, has a graduation rate of 40 percent, a good deal worse than the abysmal citywide average of 63 percent.

When thousands of black parents held a rally to protest the lawsuit that would keep their kids trapped in these atrocious schools, the NAACP responded with indifference. Lawsuit critics "can march and have rallies all day long," said state NAACP President Hazel Dukes. "We will not respond."

* * * * *

Similarly, a lawsuit in California is thwarting parents who used the state's new Parent Trigger law to demand the failing McKinley Elementary in Compton be converted to a charter school. Their kids remain stuck in a school where they can't learn.

In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education unanimously rejected the practice of public schools segregating children based on race. The Topeka NAACP recruited the 13 winning plaintiffs in the case that concluded "separate but equal" was not equal.

Today, poor families of all races are routinely slotted into separate, or minority-majority and failing, public schools, where they dwell in learning environments so unequal that 3 percent of students can test at grade level in English while teacher unions still insist their members deserve the jobs at which they've clearly failed. Instead, unions blame the children, their parents and every other possible scapegoat.

These children are not hopeless cases. Those given the chance to attend charter or private schools under voucher or scholarship programs do better than their equally qualified counterparts who apply but aren't lucky enough to get chosen in the lotteries these programs use. And the fact that these programs must use lotteries — because so many parents want their children to have a chance at a better education — tells all you need to know about whether parents are to blame for burdening their children with low expectations.

* * * * *

Yes, public schools, administrators and teachers are not solely to blame for poor performance in urban and minority schools. They can work only with the students and cultures they are assigned. But the current structure of restriction and restraint — of government-mandated incompetence — is a disaster and must change. That means giving all parents and children the freedom to choose schools.

Public school funds should attach to each child, not a particular administrative structure. That would grant power to the powerless and force schools to compete for students by educating them successfully.

When public school quality varies so widely, equal access means not merely a chance to attend a local school, but that public funds follow the child to any accredited school a family may choose.

SOURCE






'I'll end culture of re-sits and toughen up GCSEs': British Govt. minister vows to bring back REAL exams

Pupils will be forced to sit their GCSEs as final exams instead of in bite-size chunks under radical plans to toughen up the tests. The Education Secretary has attacked the effect of modular GCSEs – where teenagers take several exams throughout the year, with the chance to retake them – saying they have dumbed down education.

Michael Gove said the system introduced under Labour had created a 'culture of re-sits' that has led to students retaking modules until they get better grades. And he said that while other countries had made their examination system more rigorous, England had gone backwards.

Mr Gove said pupils will now sit final exams at the end of their last GCSE year. They will be marked down for bad spelling, punctuation and grammar in all courses with a 'sustained section of writing' including geography and history.

Mr Gove also criticised exam boards for a series of blunders in GCSE and A-level papers sat by some 250,000 pupils in recent weeks. 'Exam boards have made big mistakes – this is heart-breaking for the students. So we need to change the way that GCSEs operate. Some GCSEs are broken into bite-size chunks. 'This means bits could be re-sat, so instead of concentrating on teaching and learning, more time was being spent on practice for exams.

'This meant that less time was being spent on developing a deep and rounded knowledge of the subject. 'I think the modular system was a mistake, and the culture of re-sits is wrong.'

And he added: 'Other countries have more rigorous exams and curricula more relevant to the 21st century. 'If you are looking at the way grades are awarded, the real question is whether our exams are keeping pace with other countries. 'Our children will be competing for jobs with children from across the world.'

Modular GSCEs were introduced in 2009 under reforms designed to make the exams less stressful. Pupils currently take modular GCSEs broken into units spread across two-year courses, rather than just sitting exams at the end.

The system mirrors A-levels which were made modular in 2000, with critics saying the change has made the qualifications easier to pass.

Mr Gove yesterday said he will now turn his attention to A-levels - having previously indicated he would like to scrap modules for them as well.

Education expert Professor Alan Smithers, of Buckingham University, said Mr Gove's announcement was a 'move in the right direction'. He added: 'It has been true that schools have been game-playing modules and re-takes mean that the exams aren't a good comparison of what young people can do.'

Mr Gove will also announce today that trainee teachers who fail basic spelling and maths tests will be barred from the profession. Trainees will be allowed only three attempts to pass basic literacy and numeracy tests which, at present, they can retake an unlimited number of times. 'They will not be allowed to start trainee courses until they have passed.

Among the questions asked in the trainee tests are:

* Teachers organised activities for three classes of 24 pupils and four classes of 28 pupils. What was the total number of pupils involved?

* There were no [blank] remarks at the parents' evening. Is the correct word: dissaproving disaproveing dissapproving disapproving?

The plans, which will take effect from 2012, come as figures show a staggering 10 per cent of trainees had to retake basic numeracy tests more than three times.

Additional plans include a move to stop government funding for applicants who have not gained at least a 2:2 in their degree.

SOURCE



27 June, 2011

Teachers attacked in the halls, mouse droppings on the desks: Welcome to the School from Hell

And it's in the good ol' U.S. of A.! A triumph of NYC liberalism

Mouse droppings coat the surfaces, desks and computers. Trash cans lie overturned in classrooms. The floors are littered with thousands of spat out sunflower-seed shells. MS 344, the Academy of Collaborative Education in Harlem, is New York's worst-performing middle school. It is also known as the school from hell.

And the pupils are the worst part. They assault teachers, destroy the facilities and steal from each other in the halls. They are out of control.

Since last year the Department of Education has twice tried, and failed, to shut the school down.

One teacher found a used condom in her purse. She told the New York Post: 'It was literally war. I was pushed, shoved, scratched, thrown against the wall, spit on and pick-pocketed. I just wanted peace.'

MS 344 has been branded by the state a 'persistently dangerous' schools. Last year just two of 88 eighth-graders passed the state's exams for maths or reading.

The United Federation of Teachers and the NAACP both went to a Manhattan court to block the closure last week, arguing the Department of Education did nothing to fix the failing school. A judge is expected to make a decision soon.

Letters from staff to ex-Chancellor Joel Klein begged for Principal Rashaunda Shaw's removal. Staff members complained Ms Shaw does not impose discipline or respect. Staff say the principal is always late, never leaves her office and hired a sister-in-law and her boyfriend's ex-wife.

Ms Shaw, 35, also hired former Staten Island Assistant Principal Odufuyi Jackson, a friend who was arrested in 2009 on felony charges that he conspired to steal more than $100,000 in Social Security. Last year he pleaded guilty to attempted fabrication of business records. He was demoted to teacher, but staff claim the principal also has him doubling as a dean.

A Department of Education spokeswoman said: 'A number of allegations are being investigated.

One teacher told the Post: 'It needs to be closed, closed, closed, because it's an unsafe place for children. It's heartbreaking that the small percentage who want to learn don't get the education they deserve.'

It was also reported that one teacher was transferred after a student threatened to rape his wife. Another teacher tried to stop a student from hitting him was accused of using 'corporal punishment.'

A UFT spokesman said the union has met with MS 344 staff in the past year over safety and health fears, as well as alleged harassment from Ms Shaw. The union could cite no results from its effort.

SOURCE






Coming Soon: The Federal Department of Standardized Minds

The story of federal intervention in education is one of abject failure. Coming in large supply only since President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society,” Washington’s educational undertakings first resulted in billions of misspent dollars, then billions of misspent dollars coupled with increasingly rigid “accountability” rules. The result of both phases has been squandered funds and academic stagnation. But rather than accepting the lesson that centralized control of education is doomed to failure, inside-the-Beltway educationists are doubling down, pushing for a single national curriculum.

The proximate impetus for the current national standards push is the failure of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The law—a bipartisan 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act—is intended to be all things to all federal politicians, a “no excuses” hammer against academic failure that also protects state and local school control. So the law demands that all states have standards and tests in mathematics, reading, and science; test all students on a regular basis in those subjects; and have all students make “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) toward 100 percent math and reading “proficiency” by 2014. However, it leaves it to states to write their own standards and tests and define “proficiency” for themselves.

The incentives for states are obvious: Set the lowest “proficiency” bars possible so they’re easy to vault and in so doing, stay out of trouble under the law, which institutes a cascade of punishments for schools or districts that fail to make AYP. It’s a structure that makes little logical sense but gives federal politicians the ability to simultaneously claim to be unforgiving on educational futility while also being staunch defenders of state and local control.

That these perverse incentives have been prevailing has been borne out in comparisons of state standards with those of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a federal testing regime that, in contrast to state testing under NCLB, is unlikely to be gamed because how a state or district performs on NAEP carries no rewards or punishments. Federal comparisons have shown that states had either set very low proficiency levels before NCLB or lowered them in response to the law. Indeed almost all states have set their proficiency marks equivalent to “basic” or below on NAEP tests.

This standards bottom-scraping, coupled with significant variation between states in their standards and proficiency measures, has energized the current national standards drive, which has been spearheaded by the National Governors Association (NGA), the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), and the right-leaning Thomas B. Fordham Institute. A major rationale for imposing national standards, as enunciated in the 2006 Fordham report To Dream the Impossible Dream: Four Approaches to National Standards and Tests for America’s Schools, is to “end the ‘Race to the Bottom’” set off by NCLB. If states have to use the same standards, advocates reason, they won’t be able to hide their poor performances behind differing proficiency definitions.

The result so far has been the creation of so-called “Common Core” standards, grade-by-grade benchmarks in mathematics and English Language Arts (ELA) created by the NGA and CCSSO, which were released in June 2010. States have already been coerced into adopting them by the Obama administration’s “Race to the Top” competition, a $4 billion, stimulus-funded beauty contest in which the federal government selected winners based on what it considered the prettiest state promises to initiate preferred reforms including adoption of the Common Core standards. In addition Washington has awarded $330 million to two consortia of states developing tests to accompany the standards.

This is likely just the beginning of federal shoving and bribing. President Obama proposed connecting national “college- and career-ready” standards to much bigger pots of federal education money in his 2010 “blueprint” for reauthorizing NCLB. If this were to become law states would almost certainly be required to adopt national standards lest they lose far more than just a shot at part of $4 billion, including perhaps their entire share of the formula-apportioned $14.5 billion delivered under the law’s first title.

Despite the potentially huge transformational impact the national standards movement could have—most notably, Washington taking de facto control of the curricula of every government school in the nation—the drive has received scant media attention. Why?

The answer lies in a previous effort to set uniform curriculum standards for the entire country, one from which standards advocates learned valuable political lessons.

In the 1990s President George H. W. Bush and President Bill Clinton each attempted to create and implement “voluntary” national standards and tests. Unlike the current initiative, the federal government openly commissioned and funded the creation of the would-be standards. The standards in some cases were highly detailed, and the effort was much ballyhooed by both presidents.

When the proposed national standards were eventually released they were quickly destroyed by vehement high-profile opposition from across the political spectrum. This was especially true for the U.S. history standards, the first released, which were widely seen as hopelessly politically correct. The high degree of detail in the standards and their transparent federal origins were their undoing.
Sneaking In

From that experience, it seems, current advocates learned that national standards must look innocent and come in quietly through the back door. They have maneuvered carefully to adopt that strategy, keeping their efforts low-key and repeating ad nauseum that the movement is “state-led” and “voluntary.” In addition they have so far avoided the extremely contentious subject of history and prescribed almost no specific reading selections in the ELA standards. They have also assiduously avoided offering any specific content so people will have little that’s concrete to object to.

Specific content, however, is almost certainly coming. For one thing the tests being funded by Washington will have to assess something, and because under a reauthorized NCLB, performance on them is likely to drive rewards and punishments for schools, districts, and states, they will ultimately dictate what the real standards are. Unfortunately, what those tests will contain will probably not be cemented until 2014, when they are supposed to be completed. By then, if the standardizers get their way with a reauthorized NCLB, all states will already be locked into national standards and testing.

In addition to having the tests on the horizon, some standards advocates are putting together more detailed curriculum guidelines that they would like to see accompany the standards and, quite possibly, be pushed via the federal treasury. In March the Albert Shanker Institute—an arm of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT)—released a manifesto calling for the creation of curriculum guides that signatories recommended be coupled with, among other things, “increasing federal investments in implementation support.” Unfortunately in education “federal investments” are often synonymous with federal extortion using taxpayer money.

It’s not as if national standards have driven achievement, although that’s what their champions would have us believe. As such proponents as AFT President Randi Weingarten are fond of pointing out, most countries that beat us on international exams have national standards. Therefore, they argue, national standards must produce better outcomes.
No Link to Performance

The thing is, there is actually no correlation between having national standards and performance on exams like the Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS). Why not? Because almost all countries that participate in the tests have national standards, meaning that both the top and bottom ranks are dominated by educationally centralized nations. So while the eight countries that outperformed the United States on the 2007 eighth-grade TIMSS mathematics exam had national standards, so did 33 of the 39 countries that placed beneath us, as well as 11 of the 12 lowest performers. Meanwhile, whenever Canada—which has no national-level education authority—participates in international exams, it finishes near the top.

So the one piece of evidence that supporters cite to show that national standards are necessary to academic success is bunkum. Their problem might be, as I explain in Behind the Curtain: Assessing the Case for National Curriculum Standards (2010), that there is very little research of greater rigor to draw on. Indeed what research there is has been conducted largely by one man—Cornell University economist John H. Bishop—and he has focused not just on national standards but national standards coupled with high stakes for students, such as grade-promotion and graduation decisions. Even that shows at best no meaningful positive effect on achievement, with any benefits disappearing when such variables as national culture are accounted for.

Of course even were national standards shown to have strong positive impacts on academic achievement, before the federal government could twist state arms to adopt them, it would be necessary to show that doing so is legal. At least it should be necessary.

The gateway question for the legality of federal action is whether or not the steps being contemplated are constitutional. In almost all things education—save striking down discriminatory provision of schooling by state or local governments and exercising control over education in the District of Columbia—the answer will always be, “No, it is not constitutional.” Education and schooling are nowhere to be found in the specific enumerated powers given to the federal government in Article I, Section 8, and as both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton made clear in the Federalist papers, the “general welfare,” “necessary and proper,” and taxation clauses do nothing to change what that means: Washington cannot govern education.
The Constitution Doesn’t Matter

Unfortunately, the Constitution ceased to be adhered to decades ago, as evidenced not just by federal education involvement but countless other things Washington does. Yet keeping federal hands out of curricula isn’t just required by the Constitution—it is also enshrined in federal law. Neither the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979 nor the No Child Left Behind Act gives the federal government authority, as NCLB puts it, “to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s specific instructional content, academic achievement standards and assessments, curriculum, or program of instruction.”

In light of all this the national standards crusade clearly has crippling empirical and legal shortcomings. Those practical matters aside, though, the ultimate problem is that moving to even greater centralization of education is lurching education policy further in exactly the wrong direction. We know from experience both inside and outside of education that individual freedom is the key to sustained, dynamic success, both because it spurs competition, innovation, and efficiency and because government power tends to be taken over by narrow special interests who use it for their own advancement instead of the “public good.”

This latter reality is borne out brilliantly in education, with teachers’ unions having accumulated massive political power—the National Education Association almost single-handedly forced creation of the U.S. Department of Education—and having consistently used that power to enact laws and contracts that give them strangleholds over taxpayer money and government school employees. Administrators’ and school boards’ associations are also big political players.

Meanwhile, though not easy to see because most states and nations have embraced the same government-monopoly schooling model, the superiority of freedom in education is well established. Research from the United States and around the world—where there is often significantly greater educational freedom than in the United States, though nothing close to ideal—reveals that the more freedom there is in education, the better the outcomes.

Of course, the most compelling evidence of the superiority of freedom comes from outside the government-intensive realm of education. It is the lightning-fast evolving and improving computer industry. It is the incredible scaling up of in-demand products ranging from Starbucks coffee to iPads. It is the American versus the Soviet economy. And it is the huge productivity improvements we see in almost every market-based industry but do not see in American elementary and secondary education.

What we clearly need in education, but have had less and less of as the decades have passed, is freedom. Unfortunately, the most powerful drive in education today—the national standards movement—is taking us in exactly the wrong direction.

SOURCE






Practising Christians 'will no longer get priority' at Church of England schools in admissions shake-up

A pretty clear admission that the C of E is no longer a Christian church

The Church of England is to attack the middle-class dominance of its popular schools under a shake-up of admissions rules. CofE board of education chairman, the Right Reverend John Pritchard, will today issue guidelines ordering schools to be biased in favour of the 'disadvantaged'.

His controversial measures will signal the end of the current points system under which places are offered to children whose families are most involved in the Church. Critics claim middle-class families take up religion to gain places, giving them a stranglehold over the best schools.

The Church will not have the power to enforce the guidelines as they are merely recommendations. But if they are followed, they could mean buying a house near a good church school will not be enough to secure a place. At present property values can soar by around £50,000 in London if close to a top school.

In addition, the guidelines will encourage schools to give priority to 'inclusiveness' if they serve communities not 'reflective of the wider area'.

This opens the door for schools to give places to ethnic minorities and immigrants who are not Christian.

Mr Pritchard, the Bishop of Oxford, will say the guidelines are 'a reminder of what Church schools are for in this sea of change' and will help demonstrate the Church is 'committed to distinctiveness and inclusivity'.

There are 4,831 Church of England schools, many of which perform well in league tables and are heavily oversubscribed. Most currently select children using points awarded for everything from how regularly parents worship to how long they have been in the Church.

The move follows the criticism of Dr Ian King, the Government admissions watchdog, who last year said faith schools were discriminating against immigrants with complex admissions procedures favouring middle-class children.

Mr Pritchard is also to launch an attack on the Coalition's education policy, saying: 'What's going on in education today is probably the biggest programme of reform since 1944. 'The changes are tumbling out at a bewildering pace and schools are scrambling to keep up.'

The new guidance says the Church would like to see schools that currently only admit children from Christian families 'provide some open places available to the local community'.

It stresses that children who are disadvantaged because they come from an ethnic minority background should be given preferential treatment, and supports Church schools that are more inclusive of pupils from other faiths, such as Islam.

The document says Church schools are underpinned by a belief in the value of all human beings being entitled to 'the highest possible standards of education and care'. And it says schools which not 'diverse' should consider changing rules which usually give priority to local families over those from further away.

The report, as well as affecting hundreds of thousands of families in England, could increase political tensions between the Coalition and the Church after the Archbishop of Canterbury's attack this month on it having policies 'for which people did not vote'.

David Cameron has sent his daughter, Nancy, to the popular St Mary Abbots primary school in Kensington, and recently had his youngest daughter, Florence, christened at the nearby church.

SOURCE



26 June, 2011

All charters are not equal

In the debate over how to improve the nation's educational system, there is typically no middle ground on the value of charter schools. You're either for them or against them. But in their fervor, both sides are missing a more fundamental question: Which charters work, and why?

Charters — publicly financed schools run by private entities with flexibility on curriculum, teacher pay and dismissals — can make valuable contributions, but not always.

Enough charters (more than 5,000) have been tried in enough places for enough years to start drawing some conclusions. One has to do with the way failing students are treated. In traditional public schools, that's considered the student's problem. At successful charters, teachers are expected to find ways to reach them and move them forward. That's one common denominator economist Margaret Raymond has found in her research of charters for Stanford University's Center for Research on Education Outcomes.

Effective charters also are usually organized around a single guiding principle. At High Tech High, which opened in San Diego in 2000 and is now part of a growing network, the principle is that students learn best by being engaged in projects. The culture at KIPP (the Knowledge is Power Program) schools, a 99-school network with remarkable results, is built around motivating students to work long, hard hours with college as the prize. KIPP extends the time students spend in class through longer days, twice-monthly Saturday classes and summer school. To engage parents, a KIPP teacher visits each student's home and works on a "learning pledge," which is signed by the teacher, the student and the parents.

Still, KIPP and other high-performing charters are not the norm. Raymond's 2009 study of charters in 15 states and Washington, D.C., found that just 17% of charters were providing superior education opportunities for their students, half were no different from traditional schools and a third delivered results that were worse than public schools.

For anyone interested in reform, the Stanford study provided plenty to chew on, but few educators took a bite. Only a handful of states contacted the author for data that identified the schools and their performance. Most states and localities seemed utterly uninterested in facts that might shake their preconceptions.

A few districts took a more sensible approach. New York City contracted for its own study, and Raymond found some brighter news: More than half of charters delivered better outcomes in math than traditional schools. A non-profit educational group in New Orleans commissioned a study, too, and is using the data to award grants to effective schools.

New York and New Orleans are unafraid to close ineffective charters — something that was supposed to be central to the charter experiment. In exchange for taxpayer funds and freedom to operate outside the traditional school format, charters would be highly accountable. Somewhere along the way, accountability got lost. It's as tough to close a bad charter as a traditional failing school. Yet shutting down bad charters is as important as learning from successful ones.

As debate swirls around charters in Georgia, Indiana, New York City and other locales, there's no reason that the successful models shouldn't own a larger share of the education marketplace.

All that stands in the way are school boards afraid to close failing charters, and misplaced battles that pit charters against traditional schools.

SOURCE




Union Apologists: Why Keep School Seniority? Older Teachers Have Mortgages!

Some people can find an excuse for anything, including the ridiculous practice of “last in, first out,” which protects veteran teachers during periods of layoff in public schools.

We’ve heard unions complain that seniority must be maintained so that “administrators can’t discriminate against certain individuals (based on their age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, for example) or play favorites…”

Further, the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers theorized that efforts to dump the LIFO policy are “an effort to pit union members against each other, to get us sniping and backstabbing to keep our jobs.”

Perhaps the Philadelphia school board is simply interested in retaining the best teachers, regardless of seniority? Nah, that couldn’t be it.

Now consider this doozy from a Michigan newspaper reporter-acting-as-columnist, William F. Ast III:

“What's wrong with observing seniority when forced to lay off some employees?

“Employees with seniority are more likely to be established in the community. They are more likely to be paying mortgages. They are more likely to have children, with all the expenses and responsibilities associated with parenthood. Surely that's worth some consideration, and I'm a little tired of those who say loyal workers deserve no loyalty from the top.”

So teachers with mortgages deserve special job protections. They could be completely worthless at their job – a negative influence, in fact – but they have obligations they must meet. That means taxpayers and parents must tolerate their incompetence to make sure they don’t lose their house, right? Never mind the fact that children aren’t learning.

Unions have also claimed that seniority systems prevent school boards from laying off the highest paid teachers first.

This all, of course, runs contrary to common sense. School leaders want the best teachers, regardless of age, sex or race. Parents and students deserve no less. A seniority-based system is one of the greatest injustices in American public schools. It was adopted from auto companies and has no place in education.

With America’s academic performance in decline, we must make sure we have the best possible educators in every classroom. If that means a lesser teacher with a home mortgage loses their job, so be it.

The Philadelphia Federation of Teachers and Ast once again prove that the fight in America’s public schools really is about adult issues, not students.

SOURCE






Exam results in Wales plummet after school league tables are abolished

Another failure of "progressive" education

Schoolchildren have dropped an average of two grades in their GCSEs as a result of a decision to abolish league tables. It is one of a number of disturbing failings in Wales’s education system revealed in a shocking new Radio 4 programme recorded by John Humphrys.

SATs tests have also been ditched and a controversial new approach to the teaching of three to seven-year-olds – the Foundation Phase – has been introduced. The current generation of Welsh 15-year-olds, the first to have been educated under the new system, have been outperformed by pupils in every region in England, including the North East, Yorkshire and Humberside, similar economically and socially to Wales.

In Testing Times, Today presenter Mr Humphrys looks at the measures introduced by the Welsh Assembly in the field of education over the past decade. Because performance figures in Wales are not published, the BBC used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain statistics for the first time in ten years.

Meanwhile, the latest report from PISA, the Programme for International Student Assessment, which looks at education systems worldwide, states that Wales has slipped well below the average for the developed world for reading and is even worse for maths.

While making the programme, to be broadcast today at 1.30pm, Mr Humphrys returned to the Welsh primary school where he was taught 60 years ago – and was shocked by what he found. He said: ‘There’s no sitting in regimented rows with the teacher at the front. The Foundation Phase means very roughly that children learn through their own experiences.

‘According to the jargon, it focuses on ‘‘experiential learning and active involvement’’. What it means in practice is that children learn by playing or doing rather than being taught in any conventional sense.’

PISA says the abolition of SATs has also had a negative impact. Children in England are tested at seven, 11 and 14, but in Wales the tests for seven-year-olds were dropped in 2001 and the others were axed in 2004.

The head of PISA, Andreas Schleicher, told Mr Humphrys: ‘Whether abandoning those kinds of assessments was the right thing is up for debate.’

The programme reveals the most damaging change has been the abolition of school league tables.

Professor Simon Burgess, of Bristol University, told the radio presenter: ‘The removal of league tables in Wales led to a serious decline in exam performance. This was of really quite a sizeable magnitude of around two GCSE grades per student. So that’s like getting a D grade rather than a B.

‘Obviously parents want lots of things from a school. The league tables give them a way of working out which would be the best schools for their child. If you remove that information there’s less pressure on schools to perform well.’

And according to the BBC’s education correspondent, Ciaran Jenkins, who contributed to the programme, parents in Wales are being denied information about their country’s failing schools.

Mr Jenkins said: ‘If you’re a parent in England you log on to the Department for Education’s website or the BBC and there’s a wealth of information about every school’s performance. In Wales there is nothing at all.’

SOURCE



25 June, 2011

ACLU sues over Douglas County school vouchers

The Colorado ACLU and two other civil liberties groups filed suit Tuesday challenging the Douglas County School District's voucher plan, which would allow students to attend private schools with public money.

Mark Silverstein, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, said the group also intends "as soon as possible" to ask the court for an injunction to stop voucher payments from going to private schools.

"We all support the right of parents to send their children to private schools," Silverstein said at a news conference Tuesday. "The issue is they cannot do so with taxpayers' money."

Thirty miles away, Douglas County School District officials and board members held a news conference of their own, defending the groundbreaking program they say provides opportunities and choices for all students. "It is unfortunate that we have to spend time and resources defending what is in the best interest of our students," said District Superintendent Elizabeth Celania-Fagen. "But we are prepared to do that."

Indeed, when it unanimously approved the voucher plan in March, the school board directed district staff to prepare financially to defend the program in court.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, as well as the national and state organizations of the American Civil Liberties Union, filed the suit in Denver District Court on behalf of plaintiffs including the Interfaith Alliance of Colorado, a rabbi, a United Church of Christ pastor, Douglas County's library district director, and a handful of Douglas County parents and activists.

They contend the district's "Pilot Choice Scholarship Plan" violates the state constitution by allowing public funds to be channeled to religious schools.

The district expects to raise money to assist in its legal defense. "I am confident in our democratic process and that we will prevail over this lawsuit," school board president John Carson said.

District's approach

The district will have powerful organizations of its own backing it in court. "Within the next few days, the Institute for Justice will move to intervene in the case," said Michael Bindas, senior attorney for the Arlington, Va.-based group.

Douglas County's program is similar to others that have survived court challenges, Bindas said. The Douglas County School District's will as well, he contends, because it is neutral on religion and leaves the choice of school up to parents.

The voucher plan was approved by the Douglas County school board in March after months of debate that revealed deep fissures among parents in one of the state's most successful, and its wealthiest, school district.

The plan allows up to 500 students who are currently enrolled in one of the district's public schools to apply to attend a private school.

The district will give the participating students 75 percent of the funding it receives from the state for each student, or about $4,575, to attend a private school. The other 25 percent will stay with the school district. Students who receive vouchers from the district must take CSAP exams.

The district, like most others in the state, faced massive budget cuts this year, and district leaders touted the voucher plan as a financial boon.

The district opened the program to more than 100 schools in and near Douglas County. Of those, 33 applied to participate. As of Tuesday, 19 schools had received district approval to participate. Of those, 15 are religious in nature.

Under the terms of the agreement between the district and the participating schools, any student who attends a parochial school must be allowed to opt out of any religious education offered there.

According to the district, 497 students have qualified to receive vouchers — which the district calls scholarships — for for the 2011-12 school year.

The voucher amount would cover tuition at few of the district-approved private schools.

At Aspen Academy, one of the four non-religious schools, tuition is $11,957 annually for grades five through eight. Aspen Academy has accepted several Douglas County students, a school official told The Denver Post in April.

Earlier law struck down

Seven years ago, the Colorado Supreme Court struck down a voucher program created by the state legislature in 2003. That law would have provided students from failing schools statewide $4,500 toward tuition at the private school of their choice. That program directed local school boards to allocate the money to private and religious schools to cover the vouchers.

The court ruled the law improperly stripped local school districts of authority.

This time, the ACLU will focus on the religious nature of many of Douglas County's partner schools.

In addition, Silverstein targeted what he called "accounting shenanigans," in which the district will count the 500 students who receive vouchers as public school students for state funding purposes, when in fact those students will be attending private schools.

In addition to the district, the lawsuit names as defendants the Colorado Department of Education, which allocates public money to school districts based on the census of students enrolled in each district, and the state Board of Education.

SOURCE





'Learning Challenge' is Just More Federal Waste in the Making

Though the U.S. Department of Education rolled out its "Early Learning Challenge" on May 25, it's not too early to predict failure -- likely little or no boost for tots working on their ABCs, and surely a waste of $500 million extracted from taxpayers.

The program, part of the next phase of President Barack Obama's Race to the Top plan, works like its progenitor: To win some of this kickback of federal taxpayer money, states promise great deeds from early education and childcare programs (pre-K to third grade).

Any state doing so, however, invites the feds to point a knife at their back. The federal government will decide what programs and means of administering them merit these taxpayer dollars -- and has the power to take them away, just as the Obama administration is threatening to zero out Medicaid payments to Indiana because of the state's refusal to continue funding Planned Parenthood.

In addition, the feds' track record in this area is poor, to say the least. The federal government has bungled this crusade for decades, spending $167 billion (in 2009 dollars) since 1965 on Head Start (the central federal program for this age group) to widespread acknowledgement -- from the department's own studies, no less -- it has no effect on children beyond first grade. None.

The Department of Education assures us the same people who oversee Head Start will decide which states win Early Learning grants, which is roughly equivalent to having Charlie Sheen decide who should date your daughter.

Those Head Start officials will exert outsized influence on state proposals and the legislative changes states make to boost them. In the last round of Race to the Top, 42 states and the District of Columbia adopted "Common Core" curriculum standards, for example, because the administration made it clear states that did not would be docked on their Race to the Top applications. Several of these states, like Massachusetts, had previously boasted higher standards than the Common Core.

Iowa spent $70 million last year on its early childhood education programs - the cost began at $15 million in 2007. Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican, is trying to voucherize the program because, like other states, Iowa is overspending on education and the recession has hit property values so hard the state isn't taking in close to enough money to pay for it all.

Not only does this suggest that whatever new programs states start with Early Learning money, costs will grow and overwhelm state budgets (as is the general tendency with government programs), it also indicates bottom-up efforts work much better than the top-down plans likely to come from this "challenge."

The most important and dangerous consequence of the Early Leaning Challenge and Race to the Top in general is how they train states to look to Washington, D.C., for education directives. As teachers' unions everywhere have taught us, centralizing control away from families is the best way to kill creativity, waste money, stunt local and national economies, and dispirit everyone involved. Creating a frenzy in one, federally directed avenue will just stampede states over a cliff.

SOURCE





British Universities must tell students which subjects are best to study

Universities will be ordered to publish secret data on the A-level subjects most likely to win places on degree courses, under a radical shake-up of higher education. For the first time, admissions tutors will be required to tell pupils which options to choose in the sixth form to maximise their chances of getting into the most selective universities.

It follows concern that tens of thousands of candidates from state comprehensives are effectively barred from elite institutions by being pushed into taking “soft” A-levels, while middle-class pupils at grammar and independent schools receive better advice from teachers and parents.

The move is likely to lead to a drop in the number of teenagers studying subjects such as media studies, art and design, dance and photography – often secretly blacklisted by top universities – in favour of tougher options such as English, maths, history, geography and the sciences.

The reforms will be outlined in a long-awaited higher education White Paper to be published next week. The document will map out a wide-ranging programme of reforms for English universities to coincide with the substantial increase in student tuition fees next year. In a key change, it will propose scrapping existing admission quotas in favour of a more market-based approach.

David Willetts, the Universities Minister, is also keen to increase the amount of information available to prospective students in an attempt to ensure they receive value for money. He wants each university to draw up “student charters” – written guarantees on issues such as the number of lectures they will receive, support and feedback from tutors, graduate job prospects, standards of accommodation and academic and sporting facilities.

In another development, every university will be required to publish detailed information outlining the A-level courses students should take to secure places. Data will eventually be uploaded to the Government’s Unistats website, designed to help students apply to university. Other reforms include:

* Allowing top universities to admit as many bright students – those gaining at least two As and a B at A-level – as they want, to promote competition between institutions;

* Relaxing controls on the number of students taking degree courses at former polytechnics and further education colleges that charge less than £6,000, to keep the student loans bill down;

* Placing around eight per cent of remaining government-funded places in a central pool and allocating them in an “auction” to institutions with the lowest fees;

* Giving private education providers more incentives to run degree courses officially accredited by the Government, increasing diversity in the sector.

Earlier this year, the Russell Group, which represents leading institutions such as Oxford, Cambridge and University College London, published lists of A-level subjects favoured by admissions tutors. Mr Willetts wants this data to be released more widely by every selective university.

Figures released this week showed that comprehensive school pupils were significantly more likely to take soft A-level courses than peers in private and grammar schools.

Sir Steve Smith, the vice-chancellor of Exeter University and president of Universities UK, said: “We can’t have students from poor backgrounds taking the wrong courses, but universities have not always been explicit enough in outlining which courses they accept and which they don’t. “As it currently stands, the students with access to the best information and guidance are naturally those from the better-off backgrounds.”

SOURCE



24 June, 2011

The abuse of higher education

Texas Governor Rick Perry’s request for transparency and accountability in higher education has set the faculty furies loose.

On May 16, Gov. Perry responded, “The big lie making the rounds in Texas is that elected or appointed officials want to undermine or deemphasize research at our colleges and universities. That disinformation campaign is nothing more than an attempt to shut down an open discussion about ways to improve our state universities and make them more effective, accountable, affordable and transparent.”

What Perry seeks to achieve in Texas would be a laudable goal for every state in the country.

Let me start at the beginning. I began college teaching in 1961 at the University of Michigan. In the ‘70s I began to witness the steady demise of higher education—not higher research, but higher education.

Today, higher education is actually abusive—in two ways. One, it is staggeringly and unnecessarily expensive. Two, too many good teachers are taken out of the classroom.

How did we get in this mess?

It began in the ‘70s with the glut of Ph.D. graduates. I watched it happen with my colleagues. With more and more applicants applying for fewer and fewer positions, administrators needed new ways to distinguish among candidates. As it would be difficult to assess teaching abilities of a new Ph.D. candidate, focus switched to the quality of their publications.

It logically followed that publication replaced teaching; education became replaced with research. Publication was first, students came second. Prestige and image outside the classroom replaced teaching within it.

When I began university teaching, the average teaching load was five classes, or 15 credit hours per semester. It then dropped to four classes, then to three classes, and then today commonly to two or even a mere one class. Reduced teaching loads were granted so that professors could conduct research. It was now the external prestige of the university that mattered—more so than the internal education of students.

But much research has now become virtually worthless. I could cite a plethora of examples to support my charge, but let me cite just three representative examples.

John Silber, former dean at the University of Texas-Austin and president of Boston University, recently told the Texas Tribune that many products of research “aren’t worth anything.”

Hofstra University law professor Richard Neumann reported at a conference this April that it costs approximately $100,000 for a tenured law professor to publish one article per year and that 43 percent of law review articles are never cited by anyone. In Neumann’s words, “At least a third of these things have no value.”

World Shakespeare Bibliography reports that from 1980 to mid-2010, there were 39,222 scholarly articles published on Shakespeare. Professors can research and publish anything they wish; it’s a free country. But should they be given reduced teaching loads, at student and taxpayer expense, to publish the 39,223rd article?

Today, countless professors are virtually semi-retired. They teach one or two classes, totaling often some 40 students a semester. Their salaries are in six figures, and they teach 30 weeks a year, with 22 weeks off. Once they get tenure, indolence often sets in and they don’t have to research or publish anything.

A study released this May by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity revealed that of the roughly 4,200 faculty members at the University of Texas-Austin, the 840 most productive teachers taught 57 percent of all student credit hours, while the least productive 840 taught only 2 percent of all student credit hours. For the lower 80 percent of faculty, the average teaching load was 63 students per year.

CCAP reported that if the lower 80 percent of faculty taught just half the load of the top 20 percent – roughly 150 students per year – UT-Austin would save more than a quarter billion dollars per year. That savings would be enough to reduce tuition by more than half.

I suspect that many universities in the country aren’t as bad as UT, but abuse is nonetheless rife. Too many students are taught by young, inexperienced teaching assistants, and costs continue to rise exorbitantly.

Residents in every state should put relentless pressure on regents and trustees of universities to demand transparency and accountability of teaching loads and research. Of research, the public and regents must ask: how does each research project serve either students or wider societal needs?

Administrators and faculty will fight this exposure tooth and nail, but they must be held accountable for expenditure of public money. Only then will we get the best worlds of teaching and research.

SOURCE






One in four British state schools flouts duty to teach RE

Hundreds of state schools are killing off religious education by ignoring their legal obligation to teach the subject, it was claimed yesterday.

Since 1944 it has been enshrined in law that all five to 16-year-olds must study the subject at school. Typically, guidelines state it should comprise at least 5 per cent of their curriculum – equivalent to one hour every week – and all 14 to 16-year-olds must take at least half a GCSE in religious studies.

But research published yesterday shows one in four comprehensive and academy schools do not teach religious studies at GSCE. And some 31 per cent of grammars are now shirking the obligation.

The findings come as the Government seeks to leave the subject out of the new GCSE performance measure, the English Baccalaureate. And the Coalition has removed the onus from schools watchdog Ofsted to police take-up of the subject.

As a result, schools have less incentive to teach the subject and increasingly think they can get away with breaking the law, it is claimed. And religious experts fear RE is now at serious risk of completely disappearing in many schools.

Religious education has been integral to schooling in Britain since the Church of England first provided schools for the masses in 1812.

In 1870, when the State opened schools, it remained a core component. And with the Education Act of 1944 it became law for pupils aged five to 16 to be taught RE. Initially the law simply required schools to give ‘religious instruction’.

This remained unchanged to 1988 when the Education Reform Act established a mandatory National Curriculum of ten subjects, including RE. Over time the subject has broadened to include all major world religions and atheism.

Ed Pawson, chairman of the National Association of Teachers of Religious Education, said: ‘There has been a dramatic slump in the take-up of RE in secondary schools. ‘Once it dies out at GCSE level, it will die right across the board. ‘Nobody is policing the teaching of RE and the Government offers no incentive for it to be taught. It would be an absolute tragedy if it died out. ‘The subject is more relevant today than ever and gives pupils an understanding of their culture and heritage, and the culture of others.’

The association conducted a poll of almost 2,000 secondary schools and found more than 500 are breaking the law by failing to teach RE to children aged between 14 and 16.

It predicts this trend will surge by at least 10 per cent next year – and says the introduction of the English Baccalaureate is the key reason.

The English Baccalaureate is given to teenagers who score at least a C at GCSE in English, maths, science, a foreign language and a humanities subject, which is limited to history and geography.

But campaigners said that RE should have been included and its exclusion sparked a wave of protest.

A Department for Education spokesman said: ‘RE remains a vital part of the school curriculum. That’s why it remains compulsory for every single student up to 16.’

SOURCE







New spelling test for British 11-year-olds in primary school exam overhaul

All 11-year-olds will be forced to sit a new-style test in spelling, grammar, punctuation, handwriting and vocabulary to drive up poor standards of English, it emerged today.

Some 600,000 pupils will take the toughen-up literacy exam at the end of primary school as part of a major overhaul of Sats tests, it was disclosed.

It will replace an existing exam in writing composition which has been branded “pointless” by teachers because of inconsistent marking and fears young children struggle to come up with creative prose in formal test conditions.

An independent review of assessment in English primary schools said a more focused exam based on fundamental literacy skills would “raise attainment” in these areas and give teachers more freedom to monitor children’s composition throughout the year.

The review – led by Lord Bew, the crossbench peer – also recommended:

* Maintaining existing tests in maths and reading;

* Keeping the current system in which teachers informally monitor children’s speaking and listening skills;

* Introducing three year “rolling average” results for schools alongside annual scores to stop small primaries being penalised by sudden dips in grades;

* Giving children at least a week to sit tests if they are ill on exam day – replacing the current system in which absences are marked down as “failures”;

* Investigating the possible use of on-line testing and marking as a long-term replacement for traditional pen and paper exams.

The conclusions come amid claims from teachers and academics that Sats promote a culture of “teaching to the test” and lead to a narrowing of the curriculum.

Last year, a quarter of state primaries boycotted the exams as part of industrial action staged by the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Head Teachers. Today, both unions welcomed the reforms, saying they appeared to mark a “step in the right direction”.

But the NASUWT union branded the report a “fudge”. Chris Keates, general secretary, said: “The simple and straightforward question Lord Bew was asked to look at was the relative merits of teacher assessments versus externally marked testing, whilst ensuring public confidence. “However, he has ducked the issue and come up with a fudge.”

Currently, children take three exams in reading, writing and maths during the final May of primary education. Results are published in national league tables.

At the same time, teachers informally assess pupils’ progress in all three areas – alongside speaking and listening – and these results are released at the same time. In today’s report, Lord Bew proposed beefing up the role of teacher assessment by publishing results before formal exam scores.

He also criticised the existing writing test, which asks pupils to pen a piece of prose, verse or a formal letter. It is then marked for composition, spelling, grammar, punctuation and handwriting.

The review said composition should now be assessed informally by teachers throughout the final year of primary school. The other elements “where there are clear ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ answers” should be subjected to a new externally-marked test, it said.

The changes – which are likely to be accepted in full by the Government – are set to be introduced as early as next year.

Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, welcomed the review team's report, adding: "Their recommendations represent an educationally sound approach while taking account of different opinions. They are fair for teachers and schools.

"They give an opportunity for pupils to showcase their abilities. They still give parents the vital information they need about how their school is performing, in a range of new and different ways.”

SOURCE



23 June, 2011

Yale backs down (sort of)

After abruptly cancelling the Yale Interdisciplinary Initiative for the Study of anti-Semitism – and subsequently enduring two weeks of criticism – Yale University is now launching the new Yale Program for the Study of anti-Semitism (YPSA). Ignoring the past two weeks’ absurdities – the hysterics who called Yale anti- Semitic because of its decision and ham-handed handling of the issue – the new center is most welcome. That one of the world’s leading universities recognizes anti-Semitism as worthy of scholarly study is significant. This center should study anti-Semitism past and present, in the United States and the world – acknowledging the characteristics that define what Robert Wistrich calls “The Longest Hatred” and its many variations.

It is surprising how lonely this new program will be; there are few such centers in America. In an age of super sub-specializing, and despite campus hypersensitivity to all kinds of injustice, that five years ago there were no American centers studying anti-Semitism is scandalous. Dr. Charles Small deserves great credit for launching the first center in America, and for demonstrating how illuminating such centers can be.

Small needed to be a pioneer because anti- Semitism in America is often obscured by a cloak of invisibility. The “Longest Hatred” is today a most overlooked, masked and rationalized hatred. The obscuring is partially because American Jewish history is an extraordinary love story, a tale of immigrants finding a welcoming home suited to their skills, values and ambitions. American anti- Semitism does not compare to European anti- Semitism. The whys and whats of these differences are fascinating and also invite study.

The invisibility cloak works most effectively in hiding the “New anti-Semitism” – which singles out Israel and Zionism unfairly, disproportionately, obsessively. “Delegitimization” – an awkward term for an ugly phenomenon – is familiar to pro-Israel insiders, but means nothing to most others, many of whom simply explain all hostility by pointing to Palestinian suffering. This rationalist analysis ignores Israel-bashing’s irrational, often anti- Semitic, pedigree. The modern anti-Semite often claims, “I am not anti-Semitic, I am just anti-Israel or anti-Zionist.” And the discussion quickly becomes muddled, because there are valid criticisms to level against Israel and Zionism, as there are about all countries and nationalitisms.

ON CAMPUS today, the burden of proof usually lies with bigots to demonstrate they are not biased. Except, somehow, the burden usually falls on Jews when we encounter bias. Treating Israel as what Canadian MP Professor Irwin Cotler calls “the Jew among nations” frequently is anti-Semitic. Especially on campuses, the discussion is distorted because much modern anti- Zionist anti-Semitism comes from the Red-Green alliance – that unlikely bond between some radical leftists and Islamists. They should be natural enemies, yet they unite in hating Israel and Zionism.

Because so many professors and students are progressive, especially at elite universities, they frequently dismiss criticism of leftist anti-Semitism as McCarthyite or “neo-con.” But the anti-Israel hatred found on the Left has its own morphology and pathology. Good scholarship could explore its roots in the Stalinist 1930s and the anti-colonialist 1960s, could compare its European and American strains, while explaining what it says about the Left’s stance toward the Western world and the Third World.

More broadly, there is an historical mystery involved in how Zionism was tagged with the modern world’s three great sins – racism, imperialism and colonialism – and why Israel is compared frequently to two of the 20th century's most evil regimes, apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany.

In abandoning the realm of the rational, these accusations also demand study. Consider that Israel’s struggle is national not racial, so how is Zionism one of the few forms of nationalism deemed racist? Knowing that colonialism means settling land to which settlers have no prior claim, why are Israel’s origins called colonial? And how does imperialism properly describe the world’s 96th largest country holding on to neighboring territories it acquired after a war fought in self-defense, given that there are security as well as historic-religious reasons, and given Israel’s willingness to return the Sinai to Egypt in 1979 in exchange for the mere promise of peace? With so many absurd accusations piling up, and frequently echoing with historic anti-Semitic tropes, scholars can provide clarity – without addressing the right or wrongs of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.

Scholars can also clarify the relationship between this genteel, often masked, “progressive” indictment and the cruder Islamist indictment – part of a systematic campaign to delegitimize Zionism, ostracize Israel, and characterize Jews as apes and pigs, monkeys and shylocks. How central is this rhetoric to the Islamist movement? What is the significance of the ugly caricatures and words emanating from the Arab world? It is not anti-Islamic or anti-intellectual to note and analyze the centrality of Jew-hatred in this anti-Western ideology.

We need consciences, not scholarship, to condemn anti-Semitism, and we have institutes galore to track it.

Scholars can help define boundaries, create categories, sharpen vocabulary, explain origins, compare phenomena and provide context – also giving a reality check and warning of pro-Israel overreactions too.

Anti-Semitism has been around for too long, done too much damage, perverted too much contemporary diplomacy and campus politics, to be ignored.

Yale University should be congratulated for relaunching this program. Others should follow.

SOURCE






Feds crack down on campus flirting and sex jokes

When I was growing up it was widely believed that colleges and universities were the part of our society with the widest scope for free expression and free speech. In the conformist America of the 1950s, the thinking ran, few people dared to say anything that went beyond a broad consensus. But on campus anyone could say anything he liked.

Today we live in an America with enormous cultural variety in which very few things are considered universally verboten. But on campus it's different. There saying something considerably milder than some of the double entrendres you heard in cable news coverage of the Anthony Weiner scandal can get you into big trouble.

These reflections are inspired by a seemingly innocuous 19-page letter on April 4 from the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights to colleges and universities. The letter was given prominence by Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which has done yeoman work opposing restrictive speech codes issued by colleges and universities.

OCR's letter carries great weight since there are few things a university president fears more than an OCR investigation, which can lead to loss of federal funds -- which amount to billions of dollars in some cases.

The OCR letter includes a requirement that universities adopt a "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof for deciding cases of sexual harassment and sexual assault. In other words, in every case of alleged sexual harassment or sexual assault, a disciplinary board must decide on the basis of more likely than not.

That's far short of the requirement in criminal law that charges must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. And these disciplinary proceedings sometimes involve charges that could also be criminal, as in cases of alleged rape.

But more often they involve alleged offenses defined in vague terms and depending often on subjective factors. Lukianoff notes that campus definitions of sexual harassment include "humor and jokes about sex in general that make someone feel uncomfortable" (University of California at Berkeley), "unwelcome sexual flirtations and inappropriate put-downs of individual persons or classes of people" (Iowa State University) or "elevator eyes" (Murray State University in Kentucky).

All of which means that just about any student can be hauled before a disciplinary committee. Jokes about sex will almost always make someone uncomfortable, after all, and usually you can't be sure if flirting will be welcome except after the fact. And how do you define "elevator eyes"?

Given the prevailing attitudes among faculty and university administrators, it's not hard to guess who will be the target of most such proceedings. You only have to remember how rapidly and readily top administrators and dozens of faculty members were ready to castigate as guilty of rape the Duke lacrosse players who, as North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper concluded, were absolutely innocent.

What the seemingly misnamed Office of Civil Rights is doing here is demanding the setting up of kangaroo courts and the dispensing of what I would call marsupial justice against students who are disfavored by campus denizens because of their gender or race or political attitude. "Alice in Wonderland's" Red Queen would approve.

As Lukianoff points out, OCR had other options. The Supreme Court in a 1999 case defined sexual harassment as conduct "so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims' educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities." In other words, more than a couple of tasteless jokes or a moment of elevator eyes.

Lukianoff and FIRE have an admirable record of defending students' and faculty members' free speech regardless of their point of view, but anyone familiar with their work knows that the most frequent targets of campus disciplinary groups are male, conservative, religious or some combination thereof.

I wonder whether there is some connection between this and the dwindling percentage of men who enroll in and graduate from college. Are we allowing -- and encouraging -- our university administrators to create an atmosphere so unwelcoming and hostile to males that we are missing out on the contributions they could make with a college or graduate degree?

Education Secretary Arne Duncan has shown an admirable openness to argument and intellectual debate. Perhaps someone will ask him whether he wants his department to be encouraging kangaroo courts and marsupial justice on campuses across the country.

SOURCE




One in four primary school pupils in Britain are from an ethnic minority and almost a million schoolchildren do not speak English as their first language

More than a quarter of primary school children are from an ethnic minority – an increase of almost half a million since 1997, it emerged yesterday.

The Government’s annual school census painted a picture of a changing Britain where schools are under mounting pressure from mass immigration.

In some areas, only 8 per cent of primary pupils are from a white British background. Nearly one million children aged five to 16 – 957,490 – speak English as a second language, up from almost 800,000 five years ago. And 26.5 per cent of primary pupils – 862,735 – are from an ethnic minority. When Labour took office in 1997, the total was 380,954. At secondary level, the total of ethnic minority children – 723,605 – has risen from 17.7 per cent to 22.2 per cent in five years.

The biggest group of ethnic minority pupils were Asians [from India & Pakistan & Bangladesh], making up 10 per cent of primary pupils and 8.3 per cent of secondary pupils. The number from ‘other white backgrounds’ in primaries has almost doubled since 2004 – from 74,500 to 136,880 – reflecting arrivals from Eastern Europe and other new EU member states.

In Manchester, Bradford, Leicester and Nottinghamshire white British primary pupils are in a minority. And in Luton just 30 per cent are classified as white British. In some London boroughs, such as Newham, only 8 per cent of children up to the age of 11 are from a white British background.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of think-tank MigrationWatch, said this was an ‘inevitable consequence of Labour’s policy of mass immigration’. He added: ‘We now have nearly a million schoolchildren whose first language is not English and who consequently need extra attention which can only be at the expense of English-speaking students.

‘This underlines the need for the Government to meet its commitment to get net migration down to tens of thousands by 2015.’

A Department for Education spokesman said: ‘Having English as a second language doesn’t always mean that English skills are necessarily poor. It only shows the language the child was initially exposed to at home – the evidence is clear that once English is established, children catch up and even overtake their peers.’

Overall, 24 per cent of children in primary and secondary schools are of an ethnic minority – 1,586,340. The DfE classification of ‘white British’ does not include Irish, traveller, gipsy or Roma pupils.

A record number of parents are lodging appeals after their children were refused places at their primary school of choice. DfE figures show there were 42,070 such appeals in 2009/10 – a 10.5 per cent rise on the year before and a doubling since 2005/6. Immigration and families trying to get into sought-after schools have been blamed.

SOURCE



22 June, 2011

Texas Teacher Chastises 6th Grade Students for Watching Fox News Instead of CNN

In Late May 2011, I was contacted by a parent who told me a troubling story of finding out that her daughter’s 6th grade classmates were being chastised for watching Fox News (see what the teacher said below). The School is in Lumberton ISD in Lumberton, TX and the teacher is Karen Talbert who teaches science class. Upon learning this information, I wanted to make certain that this information was correct before going forward. I talked to fellow teachers of Karen Talbert who told me that Mrs. Talbert was a nice lady who was not shy about expressing her political opinions. I believe that she is a nice lady and I believe that it is perfectly fine to express one’s opinion, but is it appropriate to express your personal political opinions as fact to impressionable 6th grade students?

My next step was to meet with the family. They are a nice family who seem genuinely concerned that their daughter is being told by a teacher which news stations to watch. The most troubling part is that these parents almost did not know what happened in their daughter’s class. That is the problem with a leftist agenda in schools. It mostly goes undetected because the students believe their teachers tell them only right things so there is no reason for them to run home and tell their parents what their teacher said in school. When I met the parents of this 6th grade girl, the mother sat down and wrote out the following statement about the incident:

“One night last week we were all sitting at the dinner table and our daughter asked 'is Fox News the national news?' We said yes and asked why. She told us that her teacher told the class that Fox News was bad and that they should only watch CNN.

Our daughter is 12 years old in 6th grade at Lumberton intermediate School. Her teacher who is telling the class this is Mrs. Karen Talbert, a 6th grade science teacher. We started to tell our daughter that this was not right of her teacher and that she should not listen to the teacher’s personal views.

Our daughter then told us about the time that one of her classmates was talking to another classmate and she made the comment 'Fox News said that Obama was not making good decisions.' Our daughter then told us that Mrs. Talbert went up to this girl’s desk and put her hand down on the desk and started yelling at her about how Fox News doesn’t know what they are talking about and they never tell the whole story so if you want good news and the right news you need to watch CNN. Our daughter said the classmate looked like she was going to cry because the teacher was getting so upset.

As a parent, I am not concerned what news station someone else watches. My concern is that a teacher should not be giving her personal political views to students. They get enough bad influences as it is and they don’t need it from teachers too.”

That statement is straight from the mother of one of the little girls in this science class.

It is not surprising that there are liberal teachers in this conservative community of Lumberton, TX. It was only a couple years ago that I passed out an American flag to every house in Lumberton on the anniversary of 9/11. The flag came with a flyer promoting conservative values. I was not very surprised that I got an email from someone who was not happy. This person said she was a liberal and said I was wrong and that she will pray to Mother Mary to have her son Jesus help us conservatives make it through this Democratic Rule.

The thing that surprised me though was that this person signed this letter as “Michelle Champagne, Junior English and World History Teacher”. As you can see, this person did not sign her letter as a concerned citizen. She signed her letter as a high school teacher. I certainly would question what kind of a slant that she has in her history lessons.

We wonder why there is such a strong movement in Texas towards Homeschooling and Private Schools. It is because parents do not want their children indoctrinated by a leftist agenda in Textbooks or even by liberal teachers themselves, such as this Lumberton ISD teacher chastising students for watching Fox News.

Public Schools are a double edged sword. On one hand you want to send your kids there to learn. On the other hand it is horrifying to see the immoral and violent environment that children have to be in at many public schools.

It was just in the last few months that Mansfield ISD was exposed for mandating Arabic Culture training, or how about the incident at Seagoville ISD (Dallas, TX) where the teacher watched a bully beat up another student and did not even call for help, or how about when a school like in Lumberton ISD performs a play with vulgar language and that talked about minors putting ads online to get laid.

How about when parents are selective in the negative influences their children are exposed to and then their child gets on the school bus and the music is blaring songs that glorify sex and violence. I remember a couple of years ago my little brother was humming a very inappropriate song that he did not even know what the words meant in the song. I asked where he learned that song and he told me on the school bus. Most schools, like Lumberton ISD, have radios on the busses and there are no restrictions to what is played to the students of all ages riding on the bus.

I could go on and on about the immoral and violent environment of many public schools, but you get the point already.

I am very concerned about the negative and inappropriate environment that children are forced to be in at Public Schools. I hope this story of a Lumberton ISD teacher telling children that Fox News is bad will open up the eyes of parents so that the parents will start asking more questions and demand that schools do a better job of creating a safe and neutral environment for their children.

SOURCE





'Unacceptable' exam blunders in bungling Britain

Exams taken by tens of thousands of schoolchildren have contained errors this summer.

The Education Secretary ordered the qualifications watchdog to intervene after tens of thousands of pupils taking Latin, maths and physics papers were presented with impossible questions or printing mistakes.

It is believed at least nine tests have now been affected by errors this summer, sparking claims from head teachers that the credibility of the exams system is under threat.

The latest mistakes came just weeks after Ofqual ordered all exam boards to carry out emergency checks on papers being sat throughout June to eradicate further mistakes.

On Tuesday, one board at the centre of a series of blunders issued a fresh apology and pledged to sack staff responsible.

In its first intervention since the mistakes came to light, the Department for Education said the errors were "completely unacceptable". "The Secretary of State is angry about these and other errors," a spokesman said. "He has said repeatedly that the exam system is discredited and action must be taken. The department has been in close contact with Ofqual and the Secretary of State is speaking to them today to get a briefing on what action they are taking.”

The latest errors centred around two GCSEs in maths and Latin and an A-level physics paper. One maths exam set by the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance included questions originally answered by pupils taking the same test in March.

The printing error affected up to 31,659 pupils taking the exam at 567 schools and colleges on Tuesday morning.

AQA said some schools had received the correct paper, while others received the "problem" paper, which had new questions at the beginning and end, but old ones in the middle. Some schools were sent a combination of correct and problem papers.

The exam board apologised for the error, adding: “We are in the process of investigating with our printers how this problem has arisen.”

Two more errors in tests set by the OCR exam board also came to light. One A-level physics paper – sat by almost 8,000 students on Tuesday morning – contained a measurement given in both centimetres and metres, when it should have been in metres only. One question was affected, worth two to four marks.

A Latin GCSE sat by up to 8,000 pupils in 540 schools and colleges on Monday asked candidates to answer a series of questions about a piece of prose. But the questions contained three separate references to either the wrong author or the wrong characters contained within the text. The errors were collectively worth 14 out of 50 marks.

Bene't Steinberg, director of public affairs at Cambridge Assessment, which operates the OCR board, insisted the errors covered a tiny proportion of the 16,000 questions set every year. But he added: “We are very upset and angry about this and, when we get to the bottom of what’s happened, the person responsible will lose their job.”

David Craggs, headmaster of Gad’s Hill independent school in Kent, attacked the AQA printing error, adding: “It is vital that pupils, parents and employers have faith in the examinations. Unfortunately, episodes such as this undermine the credibility of the exam system as a whole.”

SOURCE





Pathetic Australian public school leaves kids wearing blankets

WHILE most schools insist on ties and blazers, Greensborough College's new uniform policy is likely to be somewhat more unusual - blankets will be allowed to be worn in class. The school council will vote today to amend temporarily the uniform policy and allow students to bring blankets to school due to occupational health and safety concerns.

"The school is responsible for the well-being of children and this is the only way we can see we can meet their needs," said school council president Glen Martin.

Greensborough College's power supply is so inadequate, the electricity has cut out four times this winter, leaving students shivering in classrooms without heating. "It is always on bitter cold mornings … if the power goes out even the gas heaters don't work," principal John Conway said.

Year 9 student Nick Goldsmith said students were already allowed to wear beanies and scarves in class - provided they were in the school's colours of navy blue and white.

"Last Thursday the year 12s were doing a GAT [general achievement test] and the power went out," Nick said. "It does get pretty cold."

Conditions at Greensborough College, which was promised a $20 million upgrade by the previous government, are so Dickensian a corridor floor collapsed last year, trapping bags under the building. "The building has been sinking into the ground for over 40 years - the stumps are rotten," Mr Conway said.

An audit found the school needed a 400-amp power supply rather than the existing 300-amp supply. However, this would cost $187,000 and the Education Department told Greensborough College it would have to fork out for a quarter of the cost. "I've written a submission to the department, saying I can't pay that," Mr Conway said.

He said Greensborough College's enrolments had jumped from 355 to 986 in the past 10 years, and the school had to spend all its cash reserves on things like new lockers just to cope with the influx of students. "We had to spend locally raised funds on facilities development, including building a new kitchen," he said.

Mr Martin said parents were frustrated the Baillieu government had not committed funding to the school and hoped the blanket uniform policy would highlight the deprivation. "The government is spending nothing in the northern suburbs on education - we are the forgotten suburbs," he said.

Local Labor MP Colin Brooks said students at Greensborough College should not be punished because of the way their parents voted. "It's time that the Premier stopped dithering and intervened in this embarrassing saga," he said.

Education Minister Martin Dixon said the education department was working with the school to help overcome its power supply and facilities issues. "The department has provided more than $80,000 for internal electrical works at the school and is also currently undertaking an energy audit of the school site," Mr Dixon said.

SOURCE



21 June, 2011

Florida teachers union sues state over new pension law

The state's largest teachers union joined with other labor organizations Monday in suing Gov. Rick Scott to overturn a new 3 percent payroll contribution demanded of 655,000 government workers who belong to the Florida Retirement System.

The Florida Education Association said the suit was the first of several it intends to file to block policies enacted by the Republican-ruled legislature. Union attorney Ron Meyer said a challenge is coming soon to the merit-pay plan that became the first bill Scott signed into law.

Scott and other state officials are named as defendants in the class-action suit filed Monday on behalf of 11 public employees who are members of the retirement system.

A central provision of the lawsuit claims the legislation (SB 2100) violates a contractual agreement with public employees that dates to 1974, when the pension plan was converted to a "noncontributory system" for workers. "We believe a promise is a promise and the state of Florida should live by the promises it makes," Meyer said after filing the suit in Leon County Circuit Court.

The lawsuit also asks the court to issue an injunction ordering the 3 percent contributions, which kick in July 1, to be segregated in a state account pending the legal outcome. Meyer said it's likely the case will eventually go to the Florida Supreme Court.

Scott said he was confident the state would prevail. "Asking state employees to pay a small percentage into their pensions is common sense," Scott said. "Floridians who don't work in government are required to pay into their own retirement. This is about fairness for those who don't have government jobs."

Scott in his budget proposal this year recommended even more sweeping changes to the state's pension fund, including 5 percent payroll contributions from employees. Lawmakers, however, settled on demanding 3 percent from the paychecks of retirement system workers, pulling roughly $1 billion into the state treasury and helping close an almost $3.8 billion budget shortfall.

Teachers and other school personnel represent the majority of the 655,000 members of the retirement system affected by the new law. But the 11 workers suing the state include members of the AFL-CIO; American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; Fraternal Order of Police; and Service Employees International Union.

After the lawsuit was filed, the Florida Police Benevolent Association filed a motion with the court, seeking to join the legal challenge.

Officials with Palm Beach County's teachers union praised the Florida Education Association's lawsuit. Executive Director Tony Hernandez said the 3 percent contribution is "a form of taxing teachers to balance the state budget."

"It's unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game," said Kathi Gundlach, acting president of the Classroom Teachers Association, the county's teachers union. "This affects our teachers' livelihoods," she said.

The Palm Beach County School District is expected to save $55 million in fiscal 2012 with the savings it gains by having to contribute less to employees' retirement accounts, Chief Financial Officer Mike Burke said. "The state reduced our funding more than $90 million," Burke said. "We're banking on that money to help the budget."

The FEA and many of the unions represented in Monday's lawsuit had been heavy backers of Democrat Alex Sink, who narrowly lost to Scott in November. House Democratic Leader Ron Saunders of Key West praised the lawsuit, echoing claims about the contribution amounting to an income tax.

"Florida House Democratic Caucus members fought this unconstitutional attempt to balance the state budget on the backs of our public servants," Saunders said. "I am pleased to see the FEA continue the fight against this mandatory personal income tax."

SOURCE




An extended school year in Britain?

Schools will open throughout the year and teach on Saturdays under a Coalition plan to raise education standards, it emerged today.

The Government’s flagship “free schools” will be given new powers to shake-up the academic year by axing traditional holidays and staging booster lessons outside the normal timetable, it emerged.

Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, said the plans would help working parents and provide extra tuition for children falling behind.

In a speech on Monday, he praised one school in Norwich that is proposing to open for six days a week for 51 weeks of the year. Others are planning to keep pupils in school until at least 5pm or stage regular weekend lessons.

The disclosure came as it emerged some 281 bids have been made to run free schools since March. Of those, it is believed 100 will open next year.

Free schools are state-funded institutions run by parents, teachers’ groups, private companies, religious organisations and charities.

On Monday, it emerged that Sir Michael Wilshaw, the Coalition’s favourite head teacher and principal of Mossbourne Academy in Hackney, is to open his own free school in the south of the deprived London borough.

With complete freedom from local authority control, the schools can rewrite the curriculum, deviate from national rules on staff pay and set their own admissions.

Mr Gove said others would also use their freedom to alter the length of the school day and academic years. "Free schools offer a genuine alternative and they have the freedom to be different; like the Norwich Free School, which will integrate high-quality education and child care year-round,” he said.

"The school will be sited right in the heart of Norwich so that working parents can make full use of the affordable extended school provision, which will be available on the school premises for six days each week, 51 weeks of the year."

The school – being opened by a group of teachers and working parents in September – says it will run an "extended service" paid for by families, before and after school. The only time it will be closed is for a week at Christmas and bank holidays. The school is also planning to split the year into six terms, with a two-week break between each and four weeks off in August.

The West London Free School, spearheaded by writer Toby Young, which is also due to open in September, says it expects pupils to stay in school, or at music and drama clubs until 5pm between Monday and Friday.

Mossbourne Academy, which was opened under the last Labour Government, already operates a longer school day and opens at weekends.

Speaking at the Policy Exchange conference, Sir Michael said the school had helped to raise standards by having the children stay in school until "six, seven or eight in the evening". Often they have their evening meal at school, he added.

A Government spokesman said: "Free schools and academies can open year-round if they want to. They can change the school day, the length of the school term however much they want."

SOURCE






Britain's church schools under threat, warns Bishop of Oxford

The Church is in danger of being driven out of public education by Government reforms and a generation of teachers ignorant of even the basic tenets of Christianity, a senior cleric has warned.

A rush to introduce new academies and changes to the curriculum could threaten the very “survival” of the church schools system unless urgent action is taken, according to the head of the Church of England’s Board of Education.

The Bishop of Oxford, the Rt Rev John Pritchard, also warned that a tide of secularisation had undermined the standard of teaching of the Christian faith. Even in schools run by the church itself many teachers now lack a “default understanding” of Christianity, he said.

The warnings are contained in a hard hitting report about the state of faith schools and religious education to be debated by the Church of England’s General Synod next month.

Around a million children are currently being educated in Church of England schools with a similar number benefiting from a Roman Catholic or other Christian education. But the bishop said that a “call to action" was needed to maintain the "proud history" of the Church of England's contribution to education.

He described the Coalition’s education programme as the “the most fundamental shift in the publicly funded school system” since the 1944 Education Act which introduced the system of grammar schools, secondary moderns and technical institutions.

But he said that "very short notice" had been given for many recent changes as the Government agenda is "driven through” Parliament adding: “This is not the best way to build for the future.”

Amid doubts about the level of influence the Church will continue to have in schools which convert to become independently run academies, some feared that the religious foundation could quickly “drift until it had no meaning”, he added. “The changed rationale and growth of academies requires action now to ensure the survival of our provision,” he said.

The Bishop, who provoked controversy earlier this year with plans to cut the number of places in church schools, also stepped up his criticism of the decision to exclude RE from the new “English Baccalaureate” standard. The decision had had an “immediate and depressing effect” on the number of pupils choosing the subject, he said.

But he added that a wider tide of secularisation also threatens to the teaching of Christianity. “Standards in RE are not healthy,” he said. “In particular the teaching and learning about Christianity is generally not well done.

“The Church of England should not be overly complacent about the quality of teaching about Christianity in its own schools. “Syllabuses generally do not give enough help to teachers now entering the profession who lack even a default understanding of Christianity. “While Diocesan Boards of Education still provide in-service support for teachers the mountain is very large and progress is slow.”

SOURCE



20 June, 2011

Who cares about American history?

by Jeff Jacoby

WHEN THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION last week released the results of the latest National Assessment of Educational Progress -- "the Nation's Report Card" -- the bottom line was depressingly predictable: Not even a quarter of American students is proficient in US history, and the percentage declines as students grow older. Only 20 percent of 6th graders, 17 percent of 8th graders, and 12 percent of high school seniors demonstrate a solid grasp on their nation's history. In fact, American kids are weaker in history than in any of the other subjects tested by the NAEP -- math, reading, science, writing, civics, geography, and economics.

How weak are they? The test for 4th-graders asked why Abraham Lincoln was an important figure in US history and a majority of the students didn't know. Among 8th-graders, not even one-third could correctly identify an advantage that American patriots had over the British during the Revolutionary War. And when asked which of four countries -- the Soviet Union, Japan, China, and Vietnam -- was North Korea's ally in fighting US troops during the Korean War, nearly 80 percent of 12th-graders selected the wrong answer.

Historically illiterate American kids typically grow up to be historically illiterate American adults. And Americans' ignorance of history is a familiar tale.

When it administered the official US citizenship test to 1,000 Americans earlier this year, Newsweek discovered that 33 percent of respondents didn't know when the Declaration of Independence was adopted, 65 percent couldn't say what happened at the Constitutional Convention, and 80 percent had no idea who was president during World War I. In a survey of 14,000 college students in 2006, more than half couldn't identify the century when the first American colony was founded at Jamestown, the reason NATO was organized, or the document that says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Numerous other surveys and studies confirm the gloomy truth: Americans don't know much about history.

Somewhere in heaven, it must all make Harry Truman weep.

He never attended college and had no formal intellectual credentials, but Truman was an avid, lifelong student of history. As a boy he had devoured Plutarch's Lives and Charles Horne's four-volume Great Men and Famous Women, developing an intimacy with history that would later become one of his greatest strengths. "When Truman talked of presidents past -- Jackson, Polk, Lincoln -- it was as if he had known them personally," the historian David McCullough wrote in his landmark biography of the 33rd president.

Truman may have been exaggerating in 1947 when he told Clark Clifford and other White House aides that he would rather have been a history teacher than president. Yet imagine how different the NAEP history scores would be if more teachers and schools in America today routinely imparted to their students a Trumanesque love and enthusiasm for learning about the past.

Alas, when it comes to history, as Massachusetts educator Will Fitzhugh observes, the American educational system imparts a very different message.

While the most promising high school athletes in this country are publicly acclaimed and profiled in the press and recruited by college coaches and offered lucrative scholarships, there is no comparable lauding of outstanding high school history students. A former public school history teacher, Fitzhugh is the publisher of The Concord Review, a journal he began in 1987 to showcase the writing of just such exceptional student scholars. The review has printed 924 high-caliber research papers by teenagers from 44 states and 39 nations, The New York Times reported in January, winning a few "influential admirers" along the way.

But this celebration of what Fitzhugh calls "varsity academics" amounts to just drops of excellence in the vast sea of mediocrity that is American history education. Another kind of excellence is represented by the National History Club that Fitzhugh launched in 2002 in order to encourage middle and high school students to "read, write, discuss, and enjoy history" outside the classroom. Beginning with a single chapter in Memphis, the club has grown into an independent national organization, with chapters in 43 states and more than 12,000 student members involved in a rich array of history-related activities.

"Our goal," says Robert Nasson, the club's young executive director, "is to create kids who are life-long students of history." He and Fitzhugh have exactly the right idea. But as the latest NAEP results make dismally clear, they are swimming against the tide.

SOURCE





Some British university students are now heading to America to study

With the cost of a British university set to triple, we are no longer sneering at the price Yanks put on education. Instead, we'd quite like a slice of that ourselves.

It was revealed this week that the number of British students applying to top American universities has risen by one third in the past year. The news was greeted not with outrage, but with resigned nods of the head.

"There's no question the fees increase has opened up the whole US market," says Norman Renshaw, whose firm InTuition Services helps find American scholarships for British undergraduates. "The question parents are asking is whether the increase in UK fees will mean increased investment on the part of those universities. And the answer is no. So they're coming to the conclusion that they should look elsewhere."

More and more their gaze is heading westwards. According to the Fulbright Commission, which facilitates the flow of students back and forth across the Atlantic, there has never been a greater British interest in American colleges.

"The number of UK students in the States is 8,861, two per cent up on the previous year," says the commission's senior adviser, Lauren Welch. "And that's just for the year 2009-10, which is before the fees increase became a big issue. Plus, we've had a 30 per cent increase in web traffic, and at our last US College Day, in London, we got 4,000 visitors in one day, which was 50 per cent up on the previous year."

While British universities are turning down more applicants per year, American universities are making strenuous efforts to harvest this sudden, abundant crop of young Brits.

"More British citizens come to Florida than any other nationality - only now we want to import not just holidaymakers, but students," says J Robert Spatig, of the University of South Florida, in Tampa, who has been on four fresher-hunting trips to the Britain in the past nine months.

"In fact, your £9,000 fee mark is pretty much the same as the amount we charge," he says, "which is $15,000 [£9,375 at current exchange rates]. The cost of living is much lower in the US, and on top of that, we are in a position to extend scholarships that start at £4,000 per year, and go up to £6,000 for your most able students. All of a sudden, we have become less expensive than your University of Manchester. Plus we have better weather."

Not all American universities are as fee-friendly as South Florida, however. According to the US College Board, average undergraduate tuition rates are £12,000 at state-funded universities and £16,800 at their private counterparts. And that's not including living costs of around £5,500 per year. The top institutions charge higher fees, around £23,750.

"It's very likely that you'll end up applying to a university you've never heard of," says Welch. "That doesn't mean it's not top-notch. There are 4,000 universities in the United States, of which 70 are ranked among the world's top 200."

True enough, the choice is astonishing: there are 700 universities in California alone, as opposed to 300 universities and further education colleges in the United Kingdom. So where do would-be applicants start? And how do they know they're applying to the kind of institution that appears in Social Network, rather than Animal House?

A good place to look is one of the university ranking guides, such as those compiled by US News (America only) or software firm QS (worldwide). Things to consider are size of student population (from 4,000 to 40,000) and level of academic requirement (the lower it is, the better your chance of a scholarship).

But that's just the start. In terms of prestige (and cost), you need to know if your intended alma mater is one of the eight north-eastern Ivy League universities such as Yale, Harvard or Brown, where Emma Watson, of Harry Potter fame, went to study; one of the 30 "public" Ivies (less famous, but still top-notch, for example Michigan, North Carolina at Chapel Hill); or one of the 62 Association of American Universities colleges (membership by invitation only). Private universities tend to be smaller and more expensive than state-funded ones. Liberal arts colleges have a broader curriculum, and are geared more towards undergraduates, while research colleges are more graduate-orientated.

After finding some possible colleges, a student must take a Sat, or scholarship aptitude test, which is like a grown-up 11-plus, incorporating maths, writing and critical reading. The Fulbright Commission offers limited hand-holding, but you can expect a warmer embrace from organisations that specialise in finding places and scholarships for Brits.

The boldest claims are made by InTuition services, which guarantees 10 academic scholarship offers, or a refund of your fee (£1,560). It also runs a sports scholarship trip to Florida, on which you spend 10 days trying to impress US college coaches (£2,340). For a more modest fee (£995), Pass4Soccer puts on a showcase event, during which young British footballers attempt to catch the eye of American coaches.

"Getting a US soccer scholarship was the best thing that ever happened to me," says Pass4Soccer's Tom Nutter, a former England Under-16 footballer, who went to Texas A&M University in 2005, on a 75 per cent scholarship. "The facilities are tremendous, and you get treated like a real professional. I got to play against lots of guys who went on to play for the US national team, and at the end of it all, I came out with a degree, which I might not have got if I'd tried to make it as a pro in England. You're a student first and an athlete second; the coaches would actually go round the lecture halls in person to check you were attending the classes."

There's one thing that all British students acknowledge: you're expected to work much harder at an American university. "You take five subjects per semester, and in each you have to attend two lectures and one discussion per week, or you get marked down," says 24-year-old Edward East, who went to the University of Virginia, at Charlottesville.

"You've got to keep your grade point average up all the time," says Lauren Hewett, who is on a tennis scholarship at the University of Tampa, Florida. "I was never entirely comfortable with idea of continual assessment for every piece of work you do, and for every class you attend or don't attend," says Adam Alfandary, who, instead of reading history at Cambridge, chose a liberal arts degree at Amherst College, in Massachussetts. "But you learn early on that you're in a place where people are uncompromisingly serious about education."

Ask any of these students whether it was worth the hard work, and they all respond in the affirmative.

"I've been offered a world of opportunities," says 21-year-old Laura Tunbridge, who was rejected from all her first-choice universities in Britain, but won a scholarship at Yale. "I've been to Ecuador to study Spanish, to Vermont to ski, and to New York to see the City Ballet. Because Yale is a liberal arts college, you study such a wide range. I'm majoring in film studies, but I've studied Spanish, philosophy, astronomy, English, applied mathematics and theatre."

As well as broadening minds, it seems a transatlantic degree strengthens character, too. "He's so much more mature and confident than when he left Britain," says accountant Barbara Allen of her son Will, who has just finished a degree in nano-physics at McGill University, Montreal.

"His time there has given him a truly international perspective. He's still only 22, yet the idea of going to live and work in a foreign country leaves him undaunted. I'm in no doubt that it's been money well spent."

SOURCE






100 'free schools' to open in Britain next year

More than 100 schools run by parents, teachers and charities will open in little over a year in a boost to the Coalition's Big Society programme, ministers will say.

Some 281 applications have been made in the past three months to establish a new wave of "free schools" - government-funded institutions run independent of local council control.

New figures show almost 60 per cent of bids to open new-style schools have been made by community groups. Around a fifth come from independent schools seeking to open satellite campuses for parents unable to pay for a private education.

In most cases, applicants are attempting to establish new schools because of a shortage of places in the local area or to "address historic academic failure", the Government said.

Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, will use a speech today to insist that his "free school" policy is on track to meet initial targets. Last month, Labour said the Big Society idea - designed to devolve power to communities - was "descending into farce" after Lord Wei, the peer in charge of the reforms, said he would stand down.

Addressing a conference in London today, Mr Gove will point to "extremely promising" recent "free school" applications as evidence that the reforms are working. "Our critics said it was impossible to open a school in little more than a year. Several will open this September," he said ahead of the speech. "Our reforms are about creating a generation of world-class schools, free from meddling and prescription, that provide more children with the type of education previously reserved for the rich."

Under the policy, any non-profit making group can apply to open a school free of local council interference. The group will have almost complete independence to hire staff, set teachers' pay, alter the academic year and write the curriculum.

Some 323 applications were made to open schools last year with about 90 per cent rejected because of weak business cases. Forty were improved, and about 14 schools are expected to open in September.

Of 281 applications made under a new, more rigorous, regime launched this year, it is estimated that around 100 will open in September next year. Of those, most are for mainstream schools, although a small number of bidders are seeking to open institutions for pupils with special needs or those expelled from ordinary primaries and secondaries.

SOURCE



19 June, 2011

Indoctrination Fridays: California Federation of Teachers Works Unionizing Propaganda into Curriculum

The California Federation of Teachers thinks it’s important for kids to learn how to run a business. I come from a small business family, so I’m cool with that. The curriculum immediately starts off on the wrong foot, though, because it’s not from the perspective of an entrepreneur, but rather a disgruntled employee.

A “Labor Studies Curriculum for Elementary Schools,” entitled “The Yummy Pizza Company,” takes up to 20 classroom hours over a two-week period. Important concepts in the 10 lessons, such as the value of work and money management, are critical components, but are quickly overshadowed by the fact that 40% of the curriculum is about forming Pizza Makers Union Local 18. That’s right – the program is focused on teaching kids to unionize.

I don’t suppose this creative curriculum has anything do to with current issues, like collective bargaining privileges for public employees. Teachers wouldn’t be so blatant as to involve young children in their political issues, would they?

Art lessons are incorporated into the curriculum. Students are assigned the task of designing a union logo and membership cards. Math is also a focus. Part of the lesson involves calculating “union dues as a percentage of wages.”

But the lesson doesn’t end with forming the union. What’s next? Contract negotiations, of course! Yes, elementary kids are then taught the finer points of collective bargaining. Members of the Pizza Makers Union may “vote to accept offer, negotiate further or strike.”

The next lesson covers “Unions in the real world,” where “Students will learn about a real union and how it helped its members,” as well as “some labor history and a few prominent labor leaders.”

Kids are then encouraged to interview their parents about whether or not they belong to a labor union. Additionally, students will “act out the life of a labor leader.” One wonders how students will manage to depict the thuggery that union bosses have become famous for.

At the end of the curriculum, San Francisco teacher Bill Morgan gave a first-hand account of his use of these lessons.

“Like many teachers involved in the labor movement, I have tried to bring labor and workplace issues into my classroom. The best I could manage was some isolated history lessons about this or that strike, or some organizer who showed exemplary courage or dedication.”

But Morgan felt he needed a stronger lesson to drive his point home.

“At this point, I decided, as the Curriculum stipulates, to explore the down side of management – labor relations.” So he decided to cut students’ pay in the classroom Yummy Pizza shop.

“This is where the lesson became reality. A storm of protest arose, and many of the students decided to follow the example of Cesar Chavez (who we were studying) and go on strike. Twenty-one of the twenty-seven students present that day voted to strike, and strike they did. With my few faithful scabs, I tried to make pizza that next day. Strikers kept coming over to them, trying to convince them to walk out. Three did, and I was left with only three helpers. When we went downstairs to the yard to see our pizza cookies, things got uglier. Picketers walked back and forth in front of our stand, strikers came up and sneezed on the cookies, and told the other kids not to buy them and a scuffle broke out over a sign.”

Are you freaking kidding me?

Morgan says he successfully propagandized his students.

“Just say we were able to confront in an organic, not imposed way, some of the central economic and social issues of our society. I would encourage anyone who is interested in labor and workplace issues to use the ‘Yummy Pizza’ curriculum,” he ended.

These 20 hours of educational time are little more than a back door way for labor unions and their most strident activists to foist their propaganda on unwitting elementary students. Morgan acknowledges the subtle manner he used to deliver his ultimate message. It is critical parents are aware of it, be on the lookout for it, and if they choose, try to root it out of their schools.

Morgan isn’t the only union activist pushing this stuff in his classroom. In nearby Berkeley, 2nd grade teacher Margot Pepper explained in a 2007 edition of Race, Poverty & the Environment, “For over a decade I’ve been teaching my six-, seven-, and eight-year-old students to strike against me.” Like Morgan, Pepper acts like the mean boss and invites confrontation and leads students to specific conclusions.

“…I give workers hints, like reading Si Se Puede by Diana Cohn, about the Los Angeles Janitor’s strike, or encouraging them to engage in a tug of war with me over a jump rope in which they all have to join together to bring me down. One year, students snuck into the classroom and made picket signs out of construction paper, masking tape, and poles made of linked markers or meter sticks. I’ve found it’s best to demote supervisors to a non-managerial position just as we go to lunch, so they will feel a sense of solidarity with workers, instead of terrorizing them into complacency, as nearly happened this year.

“Once workers realize I’m powerless before their united action, they immediately overthrow all class rules. They scream until I surrender. After the class quiets down, I quickly explain that some rules exist to benefit the boss, the others, for the good of all. They ratify each rule anew, and have consistently thrown out the new contract as benefiting only their employer.”

Socialists realize they don’t need to win political offices to change America. They can do it through education, the arts and the media. Changing culture in general, they know, will be far more damaging to the American experiment and harder to undo than an election. That’s precisely what they’re doing.

SOURCE






School sports under threat in Britain

This is the time of year when schoolchildren learn that there’s more to life than lessons, and the nation’s playing fields, heavy with the whiff of freshly mown grass, resound to cries of “Come on, Phoebe! Break her legs!” School sports day is a quintessential part of British life, but its future is threatened by regulation, greed and paranoia – and the game is ours to lose.

Last week, Jeremy Hunt, the Secretary of State for Culture – a brief that apparently encompasses the promotion of competitive bean-bag passing – launched the latest in a long line of mostly inglorious government initiatives intended to revive sport in schools. Based around a series of regional “Games Festivals”, the programme will culminate in a national schools’ event in September.

Not that the minister over-played his suitability for the task. “I went to a sport-mad school,” he said. “Sport was compulsory. And I was completely useless at it.” Ah-hah, but this sorry admission was simply to tease out the bigger point: that competition offers benefits even for those children who fail to win the prizes.

It was hard to argue. Any look at the national kidscape reveals the scale of an unfolding disaster. No previous generation has been so unfit, overfed and – bizarrely in an era of sporting celebrity worship – so ill-disposed to exercise. The consequences are all too obvious. Computer games, TV and junk food are becoming the recreational norm for our children. If they get any fatter, we’ll have to start taking school photos from the air.

Yet there are those who do argue. Most come from within the state school sector, and their thinking goes that children could be traumatised by losing, so it’s better that no one should win. One upshot has been that the once-happy and wholesome ritual of the school sports day has become a battleground of ideas. In some places – particularly the big cities – the competitive element has been virtually stripped out in favour of “fun ’n’  fitness” days where everyone has a teamly romp, but no one is allowed to win anything. While in the better-off shires and boroughs, the redoubts of aspiration, a crazed culture of death-or-glory has taken hold. And that’s just among the parents.

Last year in the Telegraph, the comedienne Kathy Lette chronicled the ordeal that middle-class mothers must now endure with the approach of sports day. “Once upon a time,” she wrote, “the mothers’ race involved nothing more than a few fun, gentle heats, mums running in their stockinged feet, perhaps balancing an egg on a spoon. But ever since the advent of the alpha-mum – that breed of woman who has given up her high-powered job to be a high-powered mummy – the mothers’ race has become gladiatorial. My local park, Hampstead Heath, is chock-a-block with deranged, determined mothers, panting along with their personal trainers, trying to achieve Olympian stamina for the big day.”

Exaggerated? Not by much. “It’s the scariest day of the year in Notting Hill,” says Rachel Johnson, editor of The Lady. “Most of the mummies spend a whole year cross-training.” But as the competitive stakes have risen, the school playing field has become a treacherous place for today’s win-at-all-costs parents. According to Bupa, half of Britain’s physiotherapists have treated an adult with a sports day injury. Sprinting caused the most problems (33 per cent of injuries) followed by the three-legged race (17 per cent) and the sack race (15 per cent).

“School sports days can be surprisingly competitive,” said Dr Peter Mace, assistant director of Bupa, which commissioned the survey. “Men and women should warm up beforehand and not over-exert themselves.”

Palpitating with pushiness, and consumed by the desire to see all opposition crushed, the parents then get behind their children. Once, a schoolboy’s idea of embarrassment was that his mother might come to sports day in the wrong hat. Now, it’s that his dad will pick an argument with the headmaster. Schools routinely witness abuse and barracking of judges, and fights among spectators.

Not that parental enthusiasm is necessarily a bad thing. Dan Travis, a Sussex-based tennis coach, who campaigns across the country for traditional sports days, says: “In many cases, the parents are the last line of defence. They are the ones who stand up for sports day. They don’t accept this idea that losing will cause upset and disappointment to their children. They understand that that’s how life is, and they want competition.”

Yet the problems with sports day go well beyond trendy educational thinking. During the New Labour years, more than 2,000 playing fields were sold off, and although the rate has slowed, they are still vanishing. Today’s teachers – burdened with paperwork and target-setting – claim they no longer have time to run sports days. The insistence on criminal record checks has deterred many who would have volunteered to help in their place.

The health and safety contagion has delivered further blows. Schools routinely cancel sports days if it’s too wet, too hot, too cold or the field is bumpy. Recently, in the West Midlands, parents were contacted by lawyers offering to seek compensation payments for sports day injuries or sunburn. The result, says Josie Appleton, head of Manifesto, a civil liberties group that fights excessive regulation, “is that children are leading ever more sanitised, dull, unadventurous lives. They need the reality check of competition.”

It wasn’t always like this. The sports day tradition grew out of a stern Victorian belief that the best should always be encouraged, and the rest helped by their example. From it developed the notion of “muscular Christianity”, a particular speciality of public schools. With the 1902 Balfour Education Act, organised sport spread rapidly to the state sector, although the big day’s Spartan packaging was gradually softened with the encouragement of families to attend and the introduction of “fun” events such as the egg-and-spoon race.

Today the challenge is to save it. And not pull a hamstring in the process.

SOURCE





Lazy parenting blamed for kids being behind at school

Hang on! Most things that kids used to do as play have been banned as unsafe. No wonder they just watch TV

LAZY parenting is resulting in children starting school developmentally disadvantaged because they watch too much TV instead of playing and being read to.

A neuro-psychologist in the UK, Sally Goddard Blythe, researched the link between children who missed out on simple childhood activities and those who started school with learning problems.

She found many toddlers were watching 4.5 hours of TV a day instead of playing, and went on to start school with poor emotional development and motor skills.

Dr Marc de Rosnay, an early childhood development expert from the University of Sydney's school of psychology, said children were put in front of a television screen too often.

"We are living in a world where there are lots of opportunities for a child to be engaged with no one for an extended time," he said. "There is some decent research that shows that motor skills develop when kids are out and about and experiencing the physical world ... as a nation (we now have) more children growing up with low levels of activity. "There are government recommendations about how much TV kids should be watching, and it's not much."

While he stopped short of saying that parents who did not read to their children or interact with them were "neglectful", Dr de Rosnay said there were developmental consequences for children who missed out on that nurturing. "It's fair to say that children who miss out on interacting with their parents, peers and siblings will find themselves at a disadvantage compared with children who have had that interaction," he said.

But he added that using play to develop a bond and trust between parents and child was more important than teaching a child to read at a young age.

"We live in a world now where children are meant to be numerate and have the first steps of letter recognition before they start kindergarten," he said. "We used to live in a world where kindergarten was the place that was done."

Dr de Rosnay said there was no evidence that if a child started school unable to read and write it would affect their long-term learning.

Ms Goddard Blythe found that almost half of all UK five-year-olds who started school only had the motor skills of a baby, including the inability to hold a pencil. The cause, she said, was because parents had not spent enough time playing with their children or letting them play with others.

Ms Goddard-Blythe also argued that when children missed out on being read fairy tales, it impacted on their ability to understand "moral behaviour" and how to deal with emotions.

SOURCE



18 June, 2011

What Teachers Unions Won't Tell You About School Layoffs

The media and education establishment’s hair has been on fire over the thousands of layoffs that are occurring in American public schools. They’ve bought into the union line that school funding is in crisis, when in reality, spending is unsustainable.

Because of collective bargaining agreements, many school districts’ hands are tied and layoffs are the only option. They can’t save money by changing employee health insurance policies, or obtaining salary freezes or wage concessions, because the unions won’t allow it.

This all supposedly leads to what the unions denigrate the most (besides Republicans): larger class sizes.

The Obama education stimulus package accomplished two things: it temporarily maintained artificially large school employment levels and created the layoff “crisis” that school boards are now grappling with. You see, the stimulus lasted for two years and provided money to keep unnecessary staff on the job. But then the money was cut off and schools could no longer afford to keep extra teachers on the payroll.

So school districts are now laying teachers off, some by the thousands. And the layoffs may be justified.

Census figures, first dissected by the Education Intelligence Agency’s Mike Antonucci, show that government school employment rates have been increasing as student enrollment has been decreasing.

“The latest Census Bureau report provides details of the 2008-09 school year, as the nation was in the midst of the recession. That year, 48,238,962 students were enrolled in the U.S. K-12 public education system. That was a decline of 157,114 students from the previous year. They were taught by 3,231,487 teachers (full-time equivalent). That was an increase of 81,426 teachers from the previous year.”

No wonder there’s a “crisis” – so many people and so little work, and a lack of tax dollars to keep everyone employed.

But that’s strange, because, as Antonucci points out, per pupil spending has continued to rise across the nation.

“Per-pupil spending rose 2.6 percent, and spending on employee compensation (salaries and benefits) rose 2.3 percent. The United States average for per-pupil spending was $10,499, with 25 states spending more than $10,000 per student.”

Those facts are such stubborn things. Unions would have us believe that the resources taxpayers invest in education are not sufficient to maintain quality schools. But their arguments must be taken with a grain of salt. If we need fewer teachers, the role and power of teachers unions will suffer. As Detroit Public Schools Emergency Financial Manager Robert Bobb said, “the greatest resistance (to school reform and budget cuts) comes from the guardians of the status quo who still guard the status quo long after the status quo has lost its status.”

Society should be focused on maintaining the necessary number of teachers for today’s student population, instead of keeping a bunch of educators on the public payroll for no particular reason.

SOURCE




Working class pupils 'perform better in Slovenia than UK'

Poor children in Britain are more likely to be condemned to educational failure than in most other developed nations, new figures show. In a damning indictment of Labour’s legacy, it emerged that deprived pupils in countries such as Estonia, Indonesia, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Mexico and Slovenia perform better than those from Britain.

Data from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development shows some 31 per cent of poor children internationally manage to exceed expectations for their social class in school tests. But in Britain, the proportion slumps to just a quarter – placing the country below the global average and 39th out of 65 countries.

It suggests disadvantaged children in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have less chance of climbing the social ladder than in the majority of developed nations.

Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, said achievement among the poorest pupils was a “scandal” and suggested a £30billion rise in the schools budget under Labour failed to improve results.

The comments came as the Government threatened to convert hundreds of the poorest-performing primary and secondary schools into independent academies under the leadership of private sponsors in an attempt to drive up standards. Some 200 of the worst primaries will be pulled out of local council control as early as 2012, it emerged.

Addressing head teachers in Birmingham, Mr Gove said: “The scandal which haunts my conscience is the plight of those students from the poorest backgrounds, in the poorest neighbourhoods, in our poorest-performing schools who need us to act if their right to a decent future is to be guaranteed. “We still have one of the most segregated schools systems in the world, with the gap between the best and the worst wider than in almost any other developed nation.”

He added: “Just over half of students get a C pass in GCSE maths and English. And the half which fail are drawn overwhelmingly from poorer backgrounds and are educated in poorer-performing schools.”

In the latest study, the OECD analysed the number of students who “overcome their socio-economic background” to perform well at school. The data – based on independent maths, reading and science tests sat by 15-year-olds in 2009 – shows the proportion of pupils drawn from the poorest 25 per cent in each country who go on to perform above the international average for their social class.

According to figures published this week, more than 70 per cent of poor pupils in parts of China and Hong Kong exceeded the standard expected of them. Korea, Singapore and Japan were also named among the top-performing nations.

Britain was ranked 39th out of 65 countries, below other European competitors such as Portugal, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Ireland and Sweden. It was also rated lower than the United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, but it outperformed Germany, Austria and Russia.

The Government has already pledged to bring exams into line with rigorous tests sat in the Far East amid fears school standards are slipping behind other nations.

SOURCE






Only a specialist US school can help autistic Australian boy, say family

A MELBOURNE family is moving to the US for "emergency education" because it believes the Victorian school system has failed their 11-year-old son. The autistic boy is from one of at least nine families suing the Education Department through the Federal Court for discrimination and what they claim is inadequate education.

Some families say they have spent up to $100,000 on therapy, tutoring and legal fees in their bids to get their "left behind" disabled children up to speed.

While experts warn parents their court battles could come with big financial and psychological costs, the desperate mums and dads say legal action has become a last resort.

The mother moving her family to the US next month said she sent her "severely autistic" son to three Melbourne schools before researching overseas options.

The family will continue Federal Court action against the Education Department after settling in a US school that specialises in teaching autistic children. "It's very hard going to court, but it's also very hard not to. We're hoping to avoid a ghastly outcome for our son," the mother said.

"It's a pretty lonely life for him at the moment. He does not have grade-five language and he doesn't have much confidence around his peers. But he's a learner, so we're excited about him making progress."

Documents lodged with the Federal Court show the family's claims include expenses for "emergency education" in the US. Other students with discrimination cases in the Federal Court include:

A GIRL, 13, with several diagnosed learning disabilities who, according to her mother, has been denied funding for an aide despite "having the reading and writing skills of a grade one (student)".

A BOY, 16, allegedly suffering low self-esteem, anxiety, bullying and victimisation because his learning difficulties were not properly addressed by a Melbourne high school.

Bendigo mother Anne Maree Stewart is also considering legal action against the state education system. She claims her son Matthew, 9, who has a form of autism called Asperger's syndrome, has at times been "treated like a piece of dirt" because of his disability.

Children with a Disability Australia executive officer Stephanie Gotlib said education standards were the chief concern for parents of disabled children.

But child psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg urged parents to think carefully about legal action. "I can certainly understand their frustration. But the psychological impact of having your shortcomings paraded in the public arena may not be in the best interests of these kids."

An Education Department spokeswoman said its $550 million Program for Students with Disabilities supported 20,000 students.

SOURCE



17 June, 2011

School Surveys 7th-Graders on Oral Sex‏

A middle school in Massachusetts is under fire for requiring children to complete a graphic sex survey -- without parental knowledge or consent -- that included questions about sexual partners and oral sex.

The Rutherford Institute, a civil liberties organization, filed a complaint with the U.S. Dept. of Education against the Fitchburg School Committee. They are representing the two middle school-aged daughters of Arlene Tessitore.

Tessitore said her daughters, both students at Memorial Middle School, were told they had to complete a Youth Risk Behavior Study. “Kids were actually told to sit down and take them,” said John Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. “The parents here are very upset.”

Whitehead said the girls were deeply disturbed by the subject matter of the study – including questions about suicide, drug use and sexual behavior. “One of the questions is, ‘have you ever had oral sex,’” Whitehead said. “You’re talking about kids who probably don’t even know what oral sex is.”

He said the survey also delved into even more graphic language. “It’s adult material,” he told Fox News Radio, noting that one question asked students what method they used to prevent pregnancy during their last sexual encounter. “It goes down a whole list, including birth control pills, condoms and one of the answers is ‘withdraw,’” Whitehead said. “Adults know what this is, but kids have to imagine or go online to find out what it means.”

Principal Fran Thomas told Fox News Radio that students were indeed given the survey – and admits it was graphic. But Thomas said the school has nothing to do with the content and they were required to administer the survey to fulfill a grant requirement.

“I can take no responsibility for what’s on that survey,” Thomas said. “It’s not generated by the school system.” Thomas said the survey was funded by a federal grant and administered by LUK Inc., a local social services agency -- in coordination with the Centers for Disease Control.

The organization’s leader did not return numerous calls for comment. But according to its website, LUK, Inc.’s mission is to “challenge and support youth & families to recognize and fulfill their unique and productive potential through community-based prevention, intervention and education services.”

A spokesperson for the CDC denied any involvement in the Fitchburg sex survey. The CDC said only seven states and six urban districts include sexual identity questions on their YRBS surveys – and the questions are optional.

But Principal Thomas disputed that notion. “It was not optional,” he said. “It’s part of a grant that they applied for and the district said you have to administer this survey.”

According to Whitehead, parents were sent a “passive consent” opt-out form. However, Tessitore said she never received the form and never gave permission for her daughters to take part in the survey.

“It was a case of the school telling parents what they were going to do,” he said. “If parents want their kids to answer these kinds of questions as federal law requires, they should give written consent. But if they don’t give consent, I don’t think public officials should be asking children such questions.”

Thomas said he understands the concerns expressed by the parents. But should the middle school be asking children questions about oral sex? “That’s not a question I’d be asking,” Thomas said. “That’s not information that needs to be gathered in an indiscriminate manner – asking every single student these sorts of questions.”

Thomas said it wasn’t appropriate. “I think there are many things that schools are called upon to do because they think they’ve got a captive audience,” he noted.

Whitehead wants the Department of Education to step in and demand that the Fitchburg school follow the law when it comes to parental consent. “Parents send their children to public schools to receive an education; not to become subjects of governmental data mining,” Whitehead said.

SOURCE





What’s in your best interest?

I find it fascinating that the New Albany-Floyd County government school system is working hard to find a way to avoid complying with the new state law that helps charter schools make use of empty school buildings.

Who would have thought that an entity in charge of teaching kids would be so against the basic idea of sharing with others?

On the other hand, I’m equally fascinated that the Indiana Public Charter School Association thinks it’s OK to force the sale or lease of property for $1 when such property is clearly worth much, much more.

Who would have thought that an entity that believes in applying business methodology to education would be so against the basic idea of paying fair market value for a piece of property?

I can certainly understand NA-FC being concerned about maintaining their control over local buildings like the currently unused Galena school. The school district has enjoyed a countywide monopoly for a long time and they have nothing to gain if one of the schools is possibly turned over to a competitor.

I can also understand why Indiana charter schools think they deserve to have control of some of the assets built up over the years by local school districts. After all, charters are government schools too. (It’s like tater tots and hash browns. They look a little bit different and some prefer one over the other, but in the end they are both just greasy processed potatoes.)

What’s really interesting is how both groups are scrambling to claim they are the ones looking out for the “best interest of the taxpayers.” It’s laughable really, to hear both parties talk as if taxpayers were some sort of entity that had a singular interest at heart.

It’s not true of course. As a matter of fact, it’s impossible. Taxpayers are individuals, with unique desires, interests, goals and opinions. There is no magical transformation of those widely varying individual differences when they are all forced to fund a government program.

Some taxpayers want the people who control the NA-FC government school system to do what they can to keep the building out of the hands of other government funded educational entities.

But their neighbors may want a government funded charter school to have the opportunity to use Galena school for the special Republican-mandated discount price of $1.

And still other neighbors may want to sell it off to the highest privately funded bidder and move the property completely out of government hands, returning any and all proceeds back to individual taxpayers.

So there is no such thing as either group working for “the best interest of taxpayers.” The school corporation is interested in the school corporation. Charter schools are interested in charter schools.

If these groups really cared about the taxpaying individual, they would understand the real need society has in completely separating school from the state. They would stop using force and respectfully request funding for their educational offerings. They would allow complete individual freedom in determining whether or not to fund either of their options. They would focus on gaining clients by marketing the benefits of their alternative and actually earn voluntary funding by providing a useful and valuable service.

As long as these groups do not behave in this manner, you can be sure they care nothing about individual interests. They will continue to force you to fund them and as a reward you will get to watch them fight over who gets to use the buildings to indoctrinate kids on ridiculous, false and impossible ideas like “the best interest of taxpayers.”

SOURCE





Chicago Blocks 4% Teacher Raises

The board of education voted unanimously Wednesday to rescind 4% raises that teachers were scheduled to get in the next school year, setting the stage for a fight between the city and the teachers' union.

David Vitale, president of the newly seated Chicago Board of Education appointed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, said the board valued teachers but with the city's budget troubles, "we cannot reasonably expect to pay" the raises.

Annual 4% raises are written into the teachers' contract, subject to a vote by the board of education. The contract was negotiated in 2007, and this is the first year the board has voted the raises down.

Mr. Vitale said the salary increases would cost the district about $100 million, pushing the district deficit to $712 million on a $5.5 billion operating budget. Chicago teachers will still receive pay bumps for years of service and additional college degrees ranging from about 1% to 5% for most teachers, district officials said.

Karen Lewis, president of the Chicago Teachers Union, blasted the board and Mr. Emanuel, saying the district has given away too many tax breaks to businesses. "This city did not get into this financial mess by overpaying teachers," she said in a prepared statement. "Thirty-thousand hard-working teachers negotiated a contract in 2007 and have spent every day of the last four years keeping our promise to the children of Chicago."

Ms. Lewis asked during the board meeting for the contract to be honored. Union leaders have until midnight Monday to accept the decision or seek to renegotiate the entire contract. Ms. Lewis said she would talk to her membership about the next step.

The board also voted to block salary increases promised to seven other unions representing lunchroom workers, janitors and other school employees.

The vote comes as school districts nationwide are asking teachers to forgo raises or make other concessions. In districts ranging from Los Angeles to Fabius-Pompey, N.Y., teachers have capitulated, partly to avoid layoffs. The battle over teacher salaries gained national attention after Wisconsin lawmakers voted to cap teacher raises and strip unions of most bargaining rights.

School districts are being squeezed as federal stimulus dollars run out, states cut education budgets and teacher pension obligations rise. Chicago district officials expect to lose about $260 million in federal stimulus money and $77 million from the state for the next fiscal year.

Michael Podgursky, a University of Missouri-Columbia economist who studies teacher compensation, said salary increases, rich pension agreements and the teacher hiring binge that districts went on during their flush years have created the current mess. He said nationwide student enrollment has increased by about 20% since the 1980s while teacher employment has grown by about 40%.

"We have a ton more people on the payroll and they are all marching up the salary schedule," he said. "The result is a huge sponge sucking up resources."

Nationwide, the average teacher salary has increased steadily to about $55,350 in 2009-10 from $31,367 in 1989-90, according to the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers' union. Adjusted for inflation, the increase is about 5.7% over that 20-year period, according to the union.

The Chicago vote wasn't a surprise. Mr. Emanuel, who controls the nation's third-largest school system, has warned for months that teachers would have to sacrifice.

In a prepared statement, Mr. Emanuel commended the board for "courage in facing the hard-truth of a $712 million deficit" and its "commitment to ensuring the public schools are accountable to Chicago's taxpayers."

Mr. Vitale said the district would rather eliminate the 4% pay increase than raise class sizes, cut early childhood education or discontinue a violence prevention program.

He said the district already has trimmed $75 million from the budget, including cutting administrators. He wouldn't rule out teacher layoffs.

Mr. Vitale said he awaits the union decision on whether to accept the pay freeze or open the contract. "Our hope is we can work productively with them to solve this [budget problem] and put children first," he said.

SOURCE



16 June, 2011

U.S. students’ grasp of US history lags

From presidents to precedents, knowledge sparse

US students are less proficient in their nation’s history than in any other subject, according to results of a nationwide test released yesterday, with most fourth-graders unable to say why Abraham Lincoln was an important figure, and few high school seniors able to identify China as the North Korean ally that fought US troops in the Korean War.

Overall, 20 percent of fourth-graders, 17 percent of eighth-graders, and 12 percent of high school seniors demonstrated proficiency on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Federal education officials said they were encouraged by a slight increase in eighth-grade scores since the last time the history test was administered, in 2006. But even those gains offered little to celebrate, with fewer than a third of eighth-graders able to answer even a “seemingly easy question’’ asking them to identify an important advantage that the American forces had over the British during the Revolutionary War, the government’s statement on the results said.

Diane Ravitch, an education historian who was invited by the national assessment’s governing board to review the results, said she was particularly disturbed by only 2 percent of 12th-graders correctly answering a question concerning Brown v. Board of Education, which she called “very likely the most important decision’’ of the US Supreme Court in the past seven decades.

Students were given an excerpt including the passage “We conclude that in the field of public education, separate but equal has no place, separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,’’ and were asked what social problem the 1954 ruling was supposed to correct.

“The answer was right in front of them,’’ Ravitch said. “This is alarming.’’

The tests were given last spring to a representative sample of 7,000 fourth-graders, 11,800 eighth-graders and 12,400 12th-graders nationwide. History is one of eight subjects — along with math, reading, science, writing, civics, geography, and economics — covered by the assessment program also known as the Nation’s Report Card.

The program defines three achievement levels for each test: “basic’’ denotes partial mastery of a subject; “proficient’’ represents solid academic performance and a demonstration of competency over challenging subject matter; and “advanced’’ means superior performance.

The students did best in economics: 42 percent of high school seniors were deemed proficient in the 2006 economics test, a larger proportion than in any other subject over the past decade. But Jack Buckley, commissioner of the statistical center at the Department of Education that carries out the tests, said that because the assessments in each subject were prepared and administered independently, it was not really fair to compare results across subjects.

On the history test, the proportion of students scoring at or above proficiency rose among fourth-graders to 20 percent from 18 percent in 2006, held at 17 percent among eighth-graders, and fell to 12 percent from 13 percent among high school seniors.

On the test’s 500-point scale, average fourth- and eighth-grade scores each increased 3 points since 2006. But officials said only the eighth-grade increase, to 266 last year from 263 in 2006, was statistically significant. Average 12th-grade scores dropped to 288 from 290 in 2006.

While changes in the overall averages were small, there was significant upward movement among the lowest-performing students — those in the 10th percentile — in fourth and eighth grades, and a narrowing of the racial achievement gap at all levels. On average, white eighth-grade students scored 274 on the latest test, 21 points higher than Hispanic students and 23 points above black students; in 2006, white students outperformed Hispanic students by 23 points and black students by 29 points.

History-education advocates contend that poor showings on the tests underline neglect shown the subject by policy makers, especially after the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act began requiring schools to raise scores in math and reading but in no other subject. The federal accountability law, advocates say, has given schools and teachers an incentive to spend less time on history and other subjects.

“History is very much being shortchanged,’’ said Linda K. Salvucci, a history professor in San Antonio who is chairwoman-elect of the National Council for History Education.

Many teacher-education programs, she said, also contribute to the problem by encouraging aspiring teachers to seek certification in social studies rather than in history.

SOURCE




Scandal of British school failures: 'Almost half not providing a good enough education'

Almost half of schools in England are not giving pupils a good enough education, inspectors said today. Around 45 per cent of those that have been assessed by Ofsted since the start of the academic year were found to be just satisfactory or inadequate.

As education watchdog Ofsted focuses more on weaker schools, inspections of institutions deemed to be 'outstanding' has been deferred unless there is a noticeable decline in standards.

Overall more than a third of schools inspected since the start of the current academic year were found to be 'satisfactory' while six per cent were declared inadequate. Only 10 per cent of schools were given the top rating and the remainder were given a 'good' rating.

When they are inspected, rather than being given a numerical score, schools are given a rating of outstanding, good, satisfactory or inadequate. Nurseries, primaries, secondaries, special schools and pupil referral units that receive the latter two ratings are effectively judged as not being good enough.

Between September 2010 and April this year around 1,849 of the 4,062 schools that were visited by inspectors were judged to be satisfactory or inadequate. Nearly half (1,805) were judged to be 'good' with only 408 being given top marks.

Ofsted chief inspector Christine Gilbert said: 'Ofsted's current school inspection arrangements set out to be more challenging to schools, so it is encouraging to see 54 per cent were judged good or outstanding. 'Greater involvement of headteachers and senior staff in the inspection process is helping schools better understand areas for development and action.'

The watchdog added that because of the focus on weaker schools there is no direct comparison with grades of previous years.

Concentration on poorer performing schools reflects moves by the Government to raise standards and from January no school that is deemed outstanding will face inspection unless standards slip.

Data for the whole of the academic year 2009/10 show that eight per cent of schools inspected were found to be inadequate, 37per cent were satisfactory, 43per cent were good and 13per cent were outstanding.

SOURCE




Female predominance in Australian universities too

There are a lot of very highly paid jobs in the mining industry nowadays which would appeal to people who like operating heavy machinery etc. There are some women driving Haulpak trucks but not many

Ben McCulloch, a final-year education student at the Burnie campus of the University of Tasmania, is hoping for a position in a local primary school next year. Picture: Chris Crerar Source: The Australian

AS an education student, Burnie local Ben McCulloch says being a male on his female-dominated campus is "like being in training" for when he graduates as a primary teacher.

"It helps me get used to working with lots of females," he said.

Mr McCulloch, 21, is one of just 130 male students - 27 per cent of the student body - at the University of Tasmania's Burnie campus. It's a trend mirrored on regional campuses across Australia, with at least a half having less than one-third male students.

Of Australia's 106 regional campuses, only 10 had a majority of male students in 2009. Another eight had equal representation, but all are micro-campuses with fewer than 20 students.

The data released to the HES reveals a picture of female dominance at most regional campuses, magnifying the trend of feminisation in metropolitan universities. Richard James, director of the Centre for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Melbourne, said the percentage of domestic female enrolments on Australian campuses was approaching 60 per cent.

He said since the 1980s women were using education for social mobility, while men had work options not open to women.

"There are pull factors keeping men out of higher education . . . work opportunities women don't have access to," he said.

"At least some of the women who are going on to tertiary education are doing so because there isn't another option."

Professor James said the courses at regional campuses, which tended to be female-centric, also played a role in keeping local boys away.

Women also were clustered in low-status, low-paying vocational courses, such as nursing, teaching and child care. "These are highly feminised professions, teaching increasingly so in the past 30 years."

Writing in today's HES, Andrew Harvey from La Trobe University said raising the participation rate of regional men required "a shift in focus from the supply of places to demand for them". Regional campuses were "a necessary but insufficient condition for attracting regional men."

"Universities will need to work more closely with schools, industry and communities to increase the pool of applicants."

This would require new selection methods to reduce the dominance of the Australian Tertiary Admission Rank, which had a strong correlation with wealth, improved pathways via vocational education and entry for mature-age students based on work experience.

Mr McCulloch said while most of his male friends went to university, they all left for the mainland, Launceston or Hobart. His decision to stay in Burnie was primarily economic; he could live at home and keep his job. But he also hoped to get an appointment to a local school after he finished his degree in October.

SOURCE



15 June, 2011

More hatred of Christianity in the educational system

A California school district has canceled a fundraising program featuring memorial bricks, scuttling proceeds of $45,000, after two women submitted Bible verses in their tributes.

The two women, Lou Ann Hart and Sheryl Caronna, had filed a court complaint in January against the Desert Sands Unified School District after the district blocked them from placing the Bible verses on bricks to be installed in walkways at Palm Desert High School in Palm Desert, Calif., about 10 miles east of Palm Springs. The women sought an injunction against the district to compel it to allow the scripture bricks.

Instead, school district officials have decided to rescind the fundraiser and refund money of every community group or individual who purchased a memorial brick, according to a court filing last week with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The move has angered advocates of religious freedom in the public sphere. "Christians should be allowed to express themselves on public school campuses just like everyone else," David Cortman, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, said in a written statement.

Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative Christian organization, initiated the lawsuit for Hart and Caronna. "It is cowardly to shut down everyone's participation in this program simply out of animosity toward Christian speech," Cortman said. "There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about a Bible verse on a brick when a school opens up a program for anyone to express a personal message. The school could simply have allowed the Bible verses, but instead, it chose to punish everyone."

Hundreds of other messages had been accepted for the bricks, Cortman's organization said, including inspirational and religious themes, such as a quote from Mahatma Gandhi and a Bible quotation -- "Yes, it is possible" -- written in Spanish.

Hart, of Palm Desert, and Caronna, of Rancho Mirage, were informed after submitting their bricks that they would not be included because the religious content risked an unconstitutional establishment of religion, Alliance Defense Fund officials said.

According to the court complaint, the bricks were offered in two sizes and prices: 4 inches by 8 inches for $100 and 8 inches by 8 inches for $250. Alliance Defense Fund officials told FoxNews.com a total of $45,000 was raised as a result of the sales.

Desert Sands Unified School District officials have not responded to repeated requests for comment. Robert Hicks, the school's new principal effective on July 1, told FoxNews.com in an email that he was unable to comment.

According to last week's filing, district officials agreed to provide a copy of guidelines to be used for approval of any future memorial bricks within the next two years at any school within the district.

In February 2010, the school's parent-teacher organization announced the fundraiser, which was later approved by the school and the district. No limitations were given at the time as to the content of the messages, which were to be used to "create a legacy, commemorate a special event or given recognition to various entities," according to Alliance Defense Fund.

Peter Lepiscopo, a San Diego-based attorney who served as local counsel on the matter, confirmed during a brief phone interview late Monday that the case had been finalized last week. "The case has been settled," he said.

Asked if the fundraiser is expected to be launched again, Lepiscopo replied: "We'll see at this point."

SOURCE




Are philanthropists backing the best charter schools?

The central problem confronting American education is not that we lack models of excellence; it is our inability to routinely replicate those models. Build a slicker cell phone or brew a tastier cup of coffee and the world beats a path to your door. Find a better way to teach kids everything from calculus to Cantonese and... crickets.

Our failure to replicate educational excellence has been recognized for years. In an attempt to overcome it, philanthropists have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into scaling-up networks of charter schools — hoping to grow the great ones and crowd-out the laggards. Regrettably, this strategy isn't working.

Over the past half-year I collected data on the donations made to networks of charter schools in California — any group of two or more charters that share the same management, methods, or founders. I then studied the academic performance of these networks on the California Standards Tests, controlling for individual student characteristics, school-wide peer effects, and addressing a concern known as selection bias. As a check on those results, I also looked at charter networks' AP test performance. If philanthropists were consistently directing their generosity to the highest-performing networks, there would be a strong correlation between grant dollars and academic performance.

There isn't. The three top-performing charter school networks rank 21st, 27th, and 39th in terms of the grant funding they've received, out of 68 total networks. In fact, the correlation between CST scores and grant funding is so tiny as to be negligible — it's a 1 on a scale from 0 to 10. That's smaller than some correlations we see due to random chance. For instance, the correlation between the length of the networks' names and their CST scores is twice as strong as the correlation between grant funding and scores.

The AP results are worse; higher grant funding is associated with lower AP performance, though the correlations are negligible in magnitude.

This disappointing overall result is not due to a lack of excellent charter school networks. For example, low-income black and Hispanic students at the top-ranked American Indian Public Charter Schools outperform the statewide averages for middle- and upper-income whites and Asians.

AIPCS resoundingly outscores famous charter school networks like KIPP (which also does well), and even beats two of the most prestigious and academically selective public schools in the nation: Lowell High in San Francisco and Gretchen Whitney outside of Los Angeles. Lowell and Whitney receive thousands of applications each year, of which they accept only a small fraction — and they consider the applicants' test scores in their admissions decisions. AIPCS consistently outscores them despite accepting all applicants or using a random lottery when oversubscribed.

Nor is the problem that growth inevitably breeds mediocrity. There is no significant relationship between enrollment growth and academic performance. So we have models of excellence, and there is no intrinsic reason why they can't be replicated, but our philanthropy-plus-charter-schools model isn't managing to do it. Why?

Rather than merely speculate about the cause of our failure and immediately hop on another education reform bandwagon, perhaps it's time we pull over and look at a map. As it happens, there already are a number of places around the globe where educational excellence is scaling up. Where top teachers use the Web to reach not hundreds or thousands of students but hundreds of thousands. And where they are rewarded for doing so with salaries in the millions of dollars. There are successful networks of schools that have grown not merely to a few dozen schools in a few dozen states, but to tens of thousands of schools in scores of countries.

Why do top teachers in Korea's for-profit tutoring sector become celebrities who earn more than the nation's professional baseball players? Why has the Japanese tutoring chain, Kumon, expanded to serve over four million students worldwide? Could it be because the tutoring sector operates within the same free enterprise system that has resulted in the massive scale-up of excellence in every other field? Is it an accident that when we reward education entrepreneurs for their success, their success grows? Could it be that philanthropists have failed to consistently fund the best charter schools because they do not expect a return on their investment, as hard-nosed venture capitalists do?

These questions have obvious, if inflammatory, answers. Until we let education participate in the same free enterprise system that drives the scale-up of everything from iPhones to Facebook, excellent schools and teachers will remain floating candles—beautifully illuminating their immediate vicinity, but doomed never to touch off a wider blaze.

SOURCE







British government school pupils 'held back by soft High School courses -- leaving just one-in-six qualified for elite universities'

Just one in six comprehensive pupils stands a chance of studying at an elite university – because they take the wrong A-levels, figures show.

Russell Group universities, such as Bristol, Leeds and Manchester, as well as Oxford and Cambridge, only accept those with top grades in three or more core A-level subjects.

But official figures show that each year just 15 per cent of state school pupils are entered for three or more of these A-Levels – maths, sciences, English literature, the humanities or modern and classical languages. Instead they take ‘soft subjects’ such as media studies and law, which will deny them places at more than 20 prestigious universities.

Almost a third of private school and grammar school pupils take three core subjects, data for 2010 shows.

State school take-up varies widely by local authority. In Knowsley, Merseyside, just 1 per cent of pupils did three core subjects compared with 25 per cent in Hammersmith and Fulham, West London.

Tory MP Elizabeth Truss who requested the figures in a Parliamentary question, blamed schools for pushing pupils into easier subjects. ‘They are being missold low quality subjects that are not accepted at top universities to boost results,’ she warned.

Dr Wendy Piatt, of the Russell Group, said: ‘Too few students from some state schools opt for science, maths and language A-levels, restricting their options at university.’

SOURCE



14 June, 2011

SCHUYLKILL VALLEY, Pa.: Two HS Students Skip Graduation Walk After They’re Barred From Wearing Army Sashes‏

Two high school students decided to skip their graduation walk after they were told minutes before the ceremony that they could not wear symbolic Army Sashes. The two boys have signed up to join the military and say they just wanted to honor the country. But school officials say that violates the rules.

Joel Hunsicker and Jordan Marker go through regular physical training every Thursday since they enlisted in the US Army. “I’m willing to sacrifice my body, my mind, my soul and my life to make sure that people can have a better life,” Marker said.

The young men wanted to demonstrate their commitment by wearing US Army sashes or stoles during commencement from Schuylkill Valley High School.

“We get our army stoles on we‘re just about to go out and the one teacher said you got to leave that here you can’t wear them. I said what do you mean we can’t wear them,” said Marker.

“We won‘t wear them and we’ll go sit with our parents and honor our fellow students by supporting them by sitting there and watching them,” Hunsicker added.

This morning, Marker described the situation in more detail to “Fox and Friends,” and said both students refused to make a scene and argue the policy. Instead, the honored their fellow classmates by silently protesting:

The school superintended told WFMZ that the decision not to allows the sashes was in no way a statement against the military. Rather, the school has a policy that works to keep the focus on academic achievement. [Bulldust!]

SOURCE





University degrees 'not worth the money', say British parents

A third of middle-income parents believe university is on longer worth the investment following a hike in tuition fees, according to a research. Some 31 per cent of mothers and fathers from relatively well-off households say courses are too expensive following a decision to allow universities to charge up to £9,000 a year, it was claimed. Half of those questioned also insisted that degrees no longer offered children the same start in life.

The conclusions are made in a report by Edge, a charity chaired by Lord Baker, the former Conservative education secretary. It follows a move by the Government to increase the cap on fees from £3,290 to £9,000 for students starting undergraduate courses in 2012.

Ministers insist that the reforms will actually make university more affordable for school-leavers. Although fees are rising, the earnings threshold for repayments is higher and students will pay off less every month than under the current system. Debts are wiped out after 30 years and it is believed a third of graduates will never repay the full amount.

But Lord Baker suggested that more children should pursue practical courses, such as apprenticeships, as an alternative to higher education. "For too long, middle income parents have been blinkered to the alternative education options to university for their child,” he said. "The vocational route provides something incredibly valuable to a young person because it equips them with the skills they need to succeed in the workplace."

In the latest study, researchers PCP surveyed 500 parents from households with an income of between £15,000 and £40,000. Some 57 per cent of parents with children aged 11 to 18 said a university education was less valuable than it was 10 years ago and 47 per cent claimed degrees no longer gave young people a good start in life.

It came as university leaders admitted that the new funding system had not been explained to parents properly. A separate study by Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors, found that a third of parents had little or no understanding of changes being introduced from next year.

Sir Steve Smith, UUK president, said: “As vice-chancellors we are aware that it is more important than ever that our universities go out and tell a positive story of what we can offer prospective students.”

A spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: "Going to university depends on ability - not the ability to pay. "New students will not pay upfront costs, there will be more financial support for those from low-income families and everyone will make lower loan repayments than they do under the current system once they are in well-paid work.

"A university degree is an excellent investment in your future. Students and their families need to know that applying for student finance is quick and easy and can be done online."

SOURCE





All British pupils 'should study maths to 18', say experts

This is rather stupid. Many children have no aptitude for maths. And what if they are going into a field that does not need it? What if one wants to follow many distinguished Englishmen and read classics at Oxbridge?

All children should be forced to study mathematics up the age of 18 to prevent the vast majority of pupils leaving school with poor numeracy skills, according to experts. Sixth-formers should take a new generation of specially-tailored courses amid fears hundreds of thousands of young people lack the basic level of maths demanded by universities or employers, it is claimed.

The Advisory Committee on Mathematics Education (Acme), which represents academics and teachers, said fewer teenagers in Britain studied the subject to a high level than in other developed nations. Skill levels are so poor that around two-thirds of students taking maths-based degree courses lack the basic knowledge needed to get by, the study found.

Many universities are being forced to downgrade the entry requirements for courses in order to fill their places, researchers said.

Acme – an independent advisory panel based at the Royal Society – recommended that all young people should study maths for a further two years to remedy the failings.

Ministers already want pupils who fail to get a C grade GCSE in the subject to continue studying it in the sixth-form, but the latest study goes much further by calling for all pupils to take an advanced course in maths.

Prof Dame Julia Higgins, Acme chairman, said: "In the last 30 years, many university subjects have become more mathematical but the number of students with the appropriate level of mathematical skills has not risen far enough to match this. "All young people should study some form of mathematics to the age of 18 in order to better prepare them for higher education and the world of employment. "In order to do this, additional courses need to be developed for study at the post-16 level."

Currently, fewer than one-in-five students take advanced maths courses beyond the age of 16 – leaving Britain trailing behind many other developed nations. By comparison, between 50 and 100 per cent of teenagers in other countries, including the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Japan and Korea, study maths to a decent level.

The report found that around 330,000 students were currently taking degree courses that required a high level of mathematical knowledge, including maths, statistics, engineering, science, finance, business studies and even social sciences. But Acme suggested as many as 210,000 of these students struggled with the demands of courses after leaving school with poor levels of maths.

The report, which followed a two-year investigation, blamed the rise of school league tables which prioritise short-term cramming to pass exams at the expense of developing pupils’ problem-solving, reasoning and communication skills. It also found that official rankings pushed pupils into taking easier subjects at GCSE and A-level instead of tougher options such as further maths.

Dame Julia added: “Students are leaving school without the mathematical skills required for the next stages of their lives, whether that is the workplace or further study.

“This is a fundamental failing that must be addressed if we are to have mathematically-literate future generations capable of rising to the challenges of a new, more technologically-dependent and competitive world.”

SOURCE



13 June, 2011

Duncan Threatens to Alter No Child Left Behind

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan is threatening to use the power of his position to alter key elements of No Child Left Behind if Congress doesn't renew and upgrade the education law before the next school year begins.

Mr. Duncan is promising to waive specific requirements of the law in exchange for states agreeing to adopt other efforts he has championed, such as linking teacher evaluations to student achievement, expanding charter schools and overhauling the lowest-performing schools. Effectively, he's warning Congress that if it doesn't overhaul the nine-year-old law, he'll bypass lawmakers to get his way.

"Principals, superintendents and children cannot wait forever for the legislative process to work itself out," Mr. Duncan said in a conference call with reporters. "As it exists now, No Child Left Behind is creating a slow-motion train wreck for children, parents and teachers."

No Child Left Behind, President George W. Bush's signature domestic achievement, has been up for renewal since 2007. Congress has so far extended it on a year-by-year basis.

The law requires states to test students in math and reading and punishes schools that fall short of score objectives set by the states. The law has been widely criticized for labeling too many schools as failures, narrowing the school curriculum and prodding states to water down standardized tests.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Duncan have aggressively pushed Congress to overhaul the law and, until recently, it was expected to be one of the few bipartisan achievements this year. But Republicans have begun to push back, especially tea-party Republicans who want to reduce the federal government's role in K-12 schools.

Mr. Duncan's pledge to use the waiver process didn't sit well with two Congressmen working to renew the law. "Given the bipartisan commitment in Congress to fixing No Child Left Behind, it seems premature at this point to take steps outside the legislative process that would address NCLB's problems in a temporary and piecemeal way," Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Senate education committee, said in a statement.

Rep. John Kline, Republican chairman of the House education committee, has said he feels no urgency to move a bill, despite Mr. Duncan's pressure. "He'd like to get this done before they go back to school in September. We're not going to do that," he said in a May interview with the Wall Street Journal. He said he hopes to have the matter settled in 2011, partly because it's more difficult to pass ambitious legislation during a presidential election year.

Mr. Kline is particularly hostile to Race to the Top, Mr. Obama's pet program that provides competitive funding for states that embrace the education changes he favors. The president has repeatedly cited this as a key to his administration's success in education and a blueprint in reauthorizing No Child Left Behind.

Jennifer Allen, Mr. Kline's spokeswoman, said the Congressman didn't know details of Mr. Duncan's recent waiver promise, but said, "Chairman Kline remains concerned about any initiative–including waivers–that would allow the secretary to pick winners and losers in the nation's education system."

Mr. Kline said his committee would pass legislation in small pieces so that members, particularly newly elected ones, can understand it.

The law as it stands gives the education secretary broad authority to waive certain provisions. Mr. Duncan wouldn't offer specifics on which provisions are under consideration, but said he's opposed to one that currently punishes schools for not reaching high, specified goals, even as they make dramatic improvement. He also said he might offer states flexibility on how they can spend federal education money.

Mr. Duncan said individual states could apply for waivers and he might approve them in exchange for agreements to embrace other education changes. States that already have adopted reforms favored by the administration also would be considered.

"There is zero intent here to abandon accountability," Mr. Duncan said. "In fact, ideally, this flexibility would be in exchange for courage and reform."

SOURCE






Yale, Jews and double-standards

Last week Yale University announced its decision to close down its institute for the study of anti-Semitism. The move has been widely criticized as politically motivated. For its part, the university claims that the move was the result of purely academic considerations.

While not clear-cut, an analysis of the story lends to the conclusion that politics were in all likelihood the decisive factor in the decision. And the implications of Yale’s move for the scholarly inquiry into anti-Semitism are deeply troubling.

The Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism (YIISA) was founded in 2006. Its purpose was to provide a scholarly approach to the study of contemporary and historical anti- Semitism. It was attached to Yale’s Institution of Social and Policy Studies. It was fully funded from private contributions. Yale did not in any way subsidize its activities from the university’s budget.

Since its inception, under the peripatetic leadership of its Executive Director Dr. Charles Small, YIISA organized seminars and conferences that brought leading scholars from all over the world to Yale to discuss anti-Semitism in an academic setting. Its conferences and publications produced cutting edge research. These included a groundbreaking statistical study published by Small and Prof. Edward Kaplan from Yale’s School of Management that demonstrated a direct correlation between anti-Israel sentiment and anti- Jewish sentiment.

At a large conference last August titled, “Global anti-Semitism: A Crisis of Modernity,” among other things, YIISA confronted the genocidal nature of Islamic anti-Semitism. The conference produced more than 800 pages of scholarly research materials on all facets of anti-Semitism, including anti-Semitism in Western academia.

Senior Yale lecturers like Yale’s diplomat-in-residence and eminent international security studies scholar Charles Hill, and Yale’s Sterling Professor Emeritus of English and Comparative Literature and Holocaust survivor Geoffrey Hartman, served on YIISA’s faculty advisory committees and participated in its activities. According to YIISA’s website, several dozen Yale professors and lecturers from throughout the university community were associated with YIISA. Their participation in its activities contributed to the institute’s comprehensive study of anti-Semitism. As the only center of its kind throughout North America, YIISA’s activities were widely covered by the media. Small and other YIISA personnel have been regularly interviewed in the US and global media on subjects related to the world’s oldest and most resilient form of bigotry.

In response to my query over the weekend, Yale’s Press Secretary Thomas Conroy wrote that the decision to close YIISA was made by a faculty committee during a routine five-year review of the program. The committee “concluded that [YIISA] had not attracted a critical mass of relevant faculty or stimulated sufficient new research.”

Yale Prof. Donald Green, who heads the Institution for Social and Policy Studies that housed YIISA, released a statement explaining that YIISA, like all other programs, was evaluated by two set criteria: Its success in publishing articles in top-tier academic journals and its success in attracting a large number of students to its courses. Green claimed that unlike his institute’s centers for the study of American Politics, Agrarian Studies, Field Experiments, and its Ethics, Politics and Economics major, YIISA failed to achieve the required success in instruction and publication that would merit an extension of its operations.

On the face of it, these measures of success appear to be reasonable measuring rods of the worthiness of YIISA’s continued operation. But upon reflection, the use of these criteria to determine YIISA’s academic viability is deeply unfair. These criteria are reasonable for politically neutral or popular subjects like agrarianism or American politics. But sadly today, at Yale and throughout the world, the subject of anti-Semitism is steeped in controversy and an objective analysis of its various aspects is considered politically incorrect. Consequently, a decision to use routine standards of assessment for a non-routine subject is not a fair decision. Indeed, it is reasonable to argue that it is a politically motivated decision.

From several perspectives, YIISA’s conference on anti-Semitism last August was a stellar success. The conference, which was held over three days, attracted more than a hundred top tier scholars and policymakers from around the world. It was heavily covered by the American and global media. In its willingness to address head-on the genocidal nature of Islamic anti-Semitism generally and Iranian anti-Semitism in particular, it was a path-breaking event in academia. The same can be said of its willingness to host open discussions of the prevalence and policy implications of Palestinian anti-Semitism.

But as far as campus politics were concerned, YIISA’s conference was a failure. Like nearly all university campuses in the US, Yale is dominated by the political Left. YIISA’s conference was denounced by the leftist blogosphere which alleged that it was discriminatory against Muslims.

The Left’s rage at the conference was further incited by the PLO’s decision to condemn the proceedings. In a letter to Yale’s President Richard Levin, the PLO representative in Washington, DC Maen Rashid Areikat, demanded that the university disassociate itself from the conference.

Areikat wrote, “It’s shocking that a respected institution like Yale would give a platform to these right-wing extremists and their odious views, and it is deeply ironic that a conference on anti-Semitism that is ostensibly intended to combat hatred and discrimination against Semites would demonize Arabs – who are Semites themselves.”

Then there is Iran. In January 2010, Iran announced that it was instituting a boycott of 60 institutions. Yale was among them. Although the regime did not explain the reason for the boycott, university officials attributed Tehran’s decision to YIISA’s activities in spotlighting the regime’s role in promoting genocidal anti-Semitism.

Due to the boycott, Yale professors involved in research in Iran were forced to end their activities. These professors reportedly blamed YIISA rather than Iran for the cancellation of their research projects.

Deputy Provost and Political Science Professor Frances Rosenbluth served on the faculty committee that reviewed YIISA’s performance and concluded that the university should close the center. In recent years Rosenbluth appointed Judge Richard Goldstone and Iran-regime apologists Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett to serve as senior fellows at Yale’s Jackson Institute for Global Affairs. Last September the Leveretts brought their students to New York to hold a seminar for them with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Unlike the YIISA conference, the move did not stimulate any significant controversy at the university.

Sources involved with YIISA allege a senior university official privately complained that “YIISA’s activities harm the Yale Corporation.” The clear insinuation was that due to YIISA’s activities, Yale has had difficulty raising money from Arab sources.

Politics arguably has also played a role in YIISA’s difficulty in publishing articles in top tier academic publications and even in attracting students to its courses. Today the discourse on anti- Semitism has been corrupted by politics. In the current atmosphere, publishing scholarship on topics like Islamic Jew hatred, or anti-Semitism and progressive politics is widely viewed as a career ender. Scholars who are interested in these subjects are therefore likely to opt out of publishing articles or books on them.

By the same token, the toxic nature of the intellectual environment related to anti-Semitism, anti- Zionism and contemporary forms of both arguably renders top tier journals averse to publishing articles on them. So too, in light of the politically correct echo chamber that governs university politics and appointments, it is eminently reasonable to assume that an article about these subjects would be harshly treated in peer-reviews.

In this context it is worth recalling the history of cowardice at Yale in the face of Islamic criticism. In 2009, Yale University Press was slated to publish a book about the 2005 Muhammad cartoon controversy. When the decision was met with furious responses from various Islamic quarters, Yale caved. It decided to censor the cartoons that were the subject of the book from the book itself.

In short, the discriminatory atmosphere that dominates academic discourse on anti-Semitism generally and Islamic anti-Semitism in particular makes it difficult to use the generally objective assessment tool of the number of publications in top-tier journals to judge the academic value of YIISA.

As for student participation, the predominance of political correctness on university campuses acts as a deterrent for students who would otherwise be drawn to courses on the subject. A Yale student who aspires to an academic career will be quick to recognize the study of anti-Semitism – and particularly its contemporary manifestations – is an academic dead end.

There are Jewish organizations that are dedicated to educating university students about anti- Zionism and anti-Semitism in all their varieties.

Foremost among these organizations is Stand With Us, which in its 10 year history has become active on scores of campuses in the US and worldwide. Stand With Us publishes fact sheets and booklets to inform students about the facts regarding Israel and the Middle East that are systematically removed from their course syllabuses.

While significant, the contribution these groups make to the discourse on anti-Semitism is generally limited to the level of student activism. Professors and their politically correct measuring rods for academic worthiness are largely insulated from their efforts.

The inequities in the academic treatment of research and instruction on anti-Semitism make Yale’s decision to close YIISA all the more lamentable.

Indeed, in and of themselves they justify a move by Yale and other universities to aggressively promote YIISA’s activities and establish similar institutes. If a top-ranking university like Yale had been willing to truly back the academic study of anti-Semitism, it would have empowered students and faculty alike to research and study the subject.

In their responses to inquiries about the decision to close YIISA, Yale spokesmen were quick to say that Yale remains committed to studying anti-Semitism. They pointed to Yale’s Hebrew and Jewish studies courses as proof of the university’s support for free inquiry on the topic. But their protestations ring as hollow as the message of YIISA’s closure is clear. The study of Islamic anti-Semitism is an academic third rail. Do it at Yale and you are done for.

YIISA’s closure also sends a clear message to Jewish donors concerned about the anti-Jewish turn that so many top universities are taking. To date, wealthy Jewish donors have operated under the assumption that they can impact the hostile discourse on Jewish issues on campus by providing piecemeal support for specific programs. In the case of YIISA, Jewish donors believed that they had developed a beach head in a hostile campus environment that would bring a dose of reality into the otherwise hallucinogenic discourse on Israel and the Islamic world.

Yale’s decision to close YIISA indicates that the piecemeal approach is not effective. One institute cannot impact the virulent faculty hostility to Jewish related issues on campuses like Yale. It also cannot compete with the deep pockets of Arab governments.

YIISA’s closure indicates that a new strategy of concentrating Jewish philanthropic resources is required. Supporting a handful of carefully selected universities will probably have a greater longterm impact on the general discourse on issues like contemporary anti-Semitism than spreading smaller amounts of funding across a larger number of institutions.

SOURCE





Recognising that role models are important doesn’t make you a patronising Lefty

I think that Katharine Birbalsingh has a small point below but I doubt that is very important. Cream will rise to the top regardless. There have been many examples of people from humble backgrounds rising to the top by their own efforts. Abraham Lincoln of course springs to mind. But I guess that people of modest ability may benefit from good examples

Once at a London dinner party I met a white English guy, married to a Nigerian woman who was soon to give birth. They lived in Lagos. I asked him about his future family and whether they would return to London. He shook his head. “I would never bring my children up in London. I would only ever bring my children up in Nigeria.”

I grinned. “Really? Why?” “Because my children will be black. And I want them to grow up in a country where being black and successful is perfectly normal.”

Secretly I was impressed that this white man should understand this point: that role models are essential for children to make successes of themselves. People like to think that they alone are the masters of their destinies. They ignore the various influences that will have supported them psychologically when they were young. They ignore the privilege that helped to get them to where they are. That isn’t to say that these influences and privileges are ALL that matter. But they do have a part to play.

It isn’t just a coincidence that children often end up doing something similar to what their parents did or that they might choose the same career as their best friend’s father or an old uncle whom they admired. Neither is it surprising that white middle-class American kids in New Jersey can listen to gangster rap and sing merrily along to the screaming talk of “hos” and “bitches” without being remotely influenced by this gutter culture. Yet Snoop Dogg bans his children from listening to his own music because he knows that it may very well ruin their lives. The only “female” dog his children will hear about is their own pet golden retriever.

Recognising that role models are important doesn’t make one into a good-hearted, patronising, excuse-making Lefty. It simply means one is accurate in one’s analysis of culture and human nature. Where such leftist-type thinking takes a wrong turn is when it is widely believed that role models are ALL that matters. Clearly, good schooling, inspirational teachers, high expectations, boundaries and direction are just as important, if not more so.

People tend to identify with those who look like them, sound like them, those who are part of their culture, who speak their language and so on. This shouldn’t come as any great surprise. That isn’t racism. It’s just the way we are. When you’re abroad and you meet some fellow Brits, you suddenly start chatting because you share something in common and you feel comfortable. In the same way, little boys and girls look around and identify with those who are like them. Manicure shops are often staffed by Korean and other East Asians in London just like Pakistanis often run corner shops up North. People tend to follow their own. Sure, there are always exceptions – Eminem can ask Slim Shady to stand up – but I’m describing a general trend.

“In Nigeria,” this white man argued, “black lawyers, doctors and bankers are everywhere.” In the day, when I would search for black professionals to speak to my kids, finding them was difficult. A black state-educated – better yet, educated in the inner-city – doctor or banker? It was like looking for a needle in a haystack. But find a black rapper? They were a dime a dozen. In fact, some of the kids themselves were experts at it.

Sure, you can conclude that the reason for this is that black people have rhythm in their blood or that they’re all too stupid to do well at school to enable successful careers. Or you could consider the matter for a moment and conclude that perhaps on this one a little more thinking is required.

SOURCE



12 June, 2011

Glamorous historian seeks role at 'new Oxford University’



Amanda Foreman, the glamorous historian, wants to lecture at A C Grayling’s proposed New College of the Humanities. A C Grayling’s plans for a private university to rival Oxford and Cambridge have received a glamorous boost.

Amanda Foreman, who once posed naked behind a pile of books, tells Mandrake that she wants to lecture at the London-based New College of the Humanities.

“If they asked me, then I’d love to do it,” the historian says at The Oldie literary luncheon at Simpson’s-in-the-Strand, in London. “Since I’ve had baskets of babies, I haven’t had time for lecturing.”

Foreman, 42, whose book Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire was turned into a film starring Keira Knightley, has five children, but has squeezed in some lecturing. “I did a talk in New York with William Shawcross that raised something like half a million dollars,” she says.

Prof Grayling’s plans for the New College of the Humanities, which will charge fees of £18,000 per year, have provoked such hostility that the philosopher was forced to abandon a talk after a smoke bomb was thrown.

“Obviously, it’s expensive, but I’ve heard that they’re going to fund-raise for it, like they do at private universities in the States,” says Foreman, pictured right. “If they don’t offer bursaries, people won’t go. There aren’t enough rich and clever people out there.”

She supports the rise in fees at other universities. “There was a lot of crap being taught before, like David Beckham studies, Mickey Mouse courses,” she claims. “Hopefully, the rise in fees will stop that kind of course.”

SOURCE





Two British primary school teachers face sack after children serve Irish coffee - even though only one parent complained

Two teachers are facing the sack for allowing pupils to serve Irish coffee to adults at a primary school charity event – even though just one parent complained.

Acting headteacher Steven Raby and a colleague are being investigated for alleged ‘gross misconduct’ after the nine and 10-year-olds sold the whiskey-laced drink to parents.

None of the children was allowed to try the coffee and they were supervised by staff at St Bridget’s Primary School in Warrington, Cheshire.
Warrington Council is investigating St Bridget's School headteacher Steven Raby and a colleague for 'gross misconduct'

Warrington Council is investigating St Bridget's School headteacher Steven Raby and a colleague for 'gross misconduct'

But Mr Raby and his colleague now stand accused of ‘using children to sell alcohol on unlicensed premises’.

Joanne Prinsep, who has two sons at the school, said: ‘Hardly anyone even had the Irish coffee. It’s completely ridiculous.’

Pinaki Ghoshal, assistant director of children and young people’s services at Warrington Borough Council, said: ‘We are conducting an internal investigation into this matter following a complaint from a parent.

'Until this is concluded, it would be inappropriate to make any further comment.’

SOURCE





Australia: Aptitude tests show benefits

IQ rediscovered

APTITUDE tests for school-leavers have proven their value as a way into universities for clever students who would have no prospect of making it on their final exam results, a trial has shown.

A report on uniTEST, released yesterday by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, concludes the assessment facilitated the admission of students who "otherwise would not have received a place, and that these students performed on par with their counterparts who gained entry through other means, most commonly through Year 12 scores".

"While the evidence is limited, both uniTEST and control group students appeared to report similar levels of academic engagement as well as learning and skill development," the report found.

UniTEST was developed by British company Cambridge Assessment and the Australian Council for Educational Research, which also conducted the pilot study. Six universities participated across three years, and while the report does not reveal which ones, the study's lead author, ACER's Hamish Coates, said the Australian National University, Macquarie, Flinders, Deakin and Monash universities were among those who had taken a keen interest in the issue.

During the pilot, almost 1500 people sat the uniTEST, with about 400 gaining admission. The report concluded at least 165 who might have missed out on entry via normal channels had been admitted.

"Scores appear to be particularly helpful for students from historically under-represented backgrounds, and have been shown to be less influenced by important characteristics like socio-economic status," it said. It concluded uniTEST scores combined with achievement scores were an improved predictor of grade point averages during the first two years of university.

Dr Coates said Australia was "drunk" on achievement data including admissions scores such as the Australian Tertiary Admission Ranks. While higher education had grown strongly during the past three decades, there had been no commensurate change in the admissions system and well-designed aptitude tests were part of the answer. "[Not only can we] get people in the door, but once they are there we know they have the intellectual capacity to succeed," Dr Coates said.

The need for a transparent and efficient means of admission was crucial as the system moves to uncap enrolments from next year, and in light of the Bradley target of 40 per cent participation.

Macquarie University vice-chancellor Steven Schwartz supported the uniTEST study, which captured students who might otherwise not qualify for university yet were perfectly capable of succeeding. "We need an admissions system that can find hidden talent that is not revealed by ATAR scores," he said.

However, DEEWR said low uptake in the pilot program meant the department had not drawn any definitive conclusions about the value of uniTEST. "While the report recommends the national implementation of uniTEST, the government does not intend to direct universities to undertake specific enrolment practices," it said.

University of Melbourne expert Richard James, the lead author of a paper on tertiary admission for the Victorian government in 2009, wrote part of a chapter in the current report. "Aptitude assessment deserves a higher profile in university admissions than is presently the case," said Professor James, director of the university's Centre for the Study of Higher Education.

"But aptitude assessment will not be appropriate for all institutions and for all courses. We are likely to see admissions criteria and practices diversify as we move into a more deregulated environment and aptitude assessment ought to be part of the mix."

SOURCE



11 June, 2011

Silly report below about the need for more education waltzes around the fact that most of the High School dropouts are black

And until they recognize that blacks need programs that work for them specifically, there will be little progress

Some meaningful education beyond high school is now recognized as the gateway to middle-class life. Although national leaders from the public and private sectors have called for more Americans to earn college credentials, researchers, policymakers, and politicians remain divided on exactly how much and what kinds of higher education are really needed for both individuals and the nation to prosper. The report, Diplomas Count 2011: Beyond High School, Before Baccalaureate—Meaningful Alternatives to a Four-Year Degree, explores the pros and cons of new thinking about the educational and economic viability of postsecondary pathways between a high school diploma and a four-year degree.

The high-profile push to boost levels of college completion comes amid continuing concerns about the pace of improvements in high school graduation and the extraordinarily concentrated nature of the nation’s dropout crisis. Despite the marked progress highlighted in the report, nearly 3 out of every 10 students in America’s public schools still fail to earn a diploma. That amounts to 1.2 million students falling through the cracks of the high school pipeline every year, or 6,400 students lost every day. Most nongraduates are members of historically disadvantaged minority groups. Dropouts are also more likely to have attended school in large, urban districts and to come from communities plagued by severe poverty and economic hardship.

The report—part of an ongoing project conducted by the Bethesda, Md.-based Editorial Projects in Education—also tracks graduation policies for all 50 states and the District of Columbia and presents an updated analysis of graduation patterns for the nation, states, and the country’s 50 largest school systems. The new analysis focuses on the class of 2008, the most recent year for which data are available. Diplomas Count 2011 was produced with support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.

The report’s journalism chronicles the space between a diploma and four-year college education, by exploring efforts to build meaningful pathways that may not end with a bachelor’s degree, including: next-generation high school programs that combine college-preparatory studies with updated career and technical education; early-college high schools geared to the local labor market; and community colleges, the key institutions linking many high school graduates to higher education and the workplace.

Policymakers and reform leaders increasingly make the case for aggressive measures to improve schools in both economic and educational terms, arguing that a more educated population leads to a workforce that is better prepared for the demands of a 21st-century global economy. To explore these dynamics, the EPE Research Center conducted an original analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which collects information on 3 million individuals every year.

The report finds that about 39 million Americans, nearly one-third of the prime working-age population, have some postsecondary education but less than a four-year degree. The typical subbaccalaureate worker earned $30,000 in 2009, about $8,000 more than a high school graduate. More than a quarter of adults with an associate degree have annual incomes at or above the median level of four-year college graduates.

The center also characterized 469 distinct occupations based on the educational level of typical job-holders and identified 50 occupations in which the majority of workers have a subbaccalaureate level of postsecondary schooling. Median annual earnings within that segment of the labor market vary dramatically, from only $18,000 for massage therapists to $73,000 for managers in the firefighting and fire-prevention field.

SOURCE





School options truly liberate parents

Your editorial "Emancipation proclamation" (May 31) showed justifiable outrage over the 4-3 Georgia Supreme Court decision that invalidated a state-level alternative route for parents who had been frustrated by recalcitrant local school boards in their quest of independently managed charter schools for their children.

You are correct that it is a beautiful thing when charter schools can operate with considerable autonomy and offer families educational approaches and curricula not found in the standardized system. And, yes, it is a shame that the Supreme Court majority is effectively saying that parents now must go on bended knee in search of such within-the-system choice.

Yet, given that charter schools are, after all, public schools, it is wise to bear in mind that they will be subject on occasion to shifting political and ideological whims. To be truly liberated, parents need to be secure in their freedom to school their children at home, or to use vouchers to choose private schools free of governmental interference.

SOURCE





More than 5,000 British schools face special measures under crackdown by regulator

Up to 5,300 schools with below average test results could be failed by Ofsted unless they show improvement, it has been revealed. It will mean they are placed in the special measures category or given a notice to improve.

The only exceptions will be where they are ‘improving steadily and closing the gap with the national average for all pupils’.

The tougher inspection regime is being piloted this term in 150 schools and will be introduced across the country in January. An inspectors’ guide to the watchdog’s latest framework, which has been seen by the Times Educational Supplement, shows it will pay more attention to pupil attainment and levels of progress.

Schools could be hit if their results for a particular category of pupil – such as boys or children in care – are below average and not enough improvement is being made. The pressure on schools with below average scores appears to go beyond those seen as ‘coasting’, and takes in any that are not improving faster than the national rate.

Of the state primaries with Sats results last year, 3,883 – 39 per cent – were below the national average on the percentage of pupils achieving level four in English and maths. And 1,486 state secondaries – 48.6 per cent – were below average on the main five A* to C GCSE measure, including English and maths.

The guidance for inspectors shows that any of these schools not deemed to be ‘closing the gap’ will be given an ‘inadequate’ grade for achievement, which leads to an overall ‘inadequate’ rating.

Schools that are judged ‘inadequate’ are given either a notice to improve – where specific changes that have to be made – or put in special measures, which can lead to the head teacher or governing body being replaced and even closure.

The document states a condition of getting a ‘satisfactory’ grade or above in achievement is that ‘where attainment is below average overall, or below average for any group, it is improving steadily and therefore closing the gap with the national average for all pupils’.

William Parker School in Daventry, Northamptonshire, meets the GCSE target, but will fail its Ofsted inspection next year under the guidelines, unless it significantly improves its results this summer. Head teacher Jason Brook is responding by reluctantly introducing vocational BTEC qualifications to push up scores.

He told the TES: ‘Judging on national averages is crass and blunt. They need to take account of schools’ individual circumstances. ‘We were delivering the curriculum that we knew was right. But I can’t afford to do that any longer. I have got to join the game.’

Brian Lightman, of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: ‘What we don’t want is more perverse incentives to play the league tables. ‘Inspections should be looking at the overall quality of education.’

Russell Hobby, of the National Association of Head Teachers, said: ‘If a school achieves great progress with pupils that come in with low attainment then they are doing a remarkable job, even if the final results are below the national average.’

An Ofsted spokesman said it would ‘carefully consider’ the views of schools and inspectors following the pilot schemes, before publishing the framework in September. ‘Inspectors rightly look to see the difference the school is making for pupils so that they make progress from their starting points on arrival in school,’ he added. ‘For children and young people to succeed, this progress must be satisfactory at least, and should often be good or better.’

SOURCE



10 June, 2011

NYC schools must not be polluted by Christian services

A federal appeals court has ruled that New York City can ban churches from using public school facilities for Sunday worship services and does not violate free speech.

Thursday's 2-1 decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan overturned a lower court ruling that allowed the Bronx Household of Faith to hold services in a public school.

The justices said that it could unconstitutionally convert schools into state-sponsored Christian churches on weekends.

An attorney representing the church said they would appeal the ruling.

The ruling means that dozens of churches that rent public school buildings in New York City could face eviction by the end of June.
The

Department of Education said it’s reviewing how to implement the decision. The city said it has no intention of immediately evicting the groups. However, they may be asked to cease using school buildings by the end of June.

“We are very pleased with the Court’s decision today in this longstanding case, which, reversing the lower court, upholds the Department of Education’s policy not to allow public schools to be used for congregational worship services,” said city attorney Jane Gordon in a written statement. “The Department is quite properly concerned about having any school in this diverse city identified with one particular religious belief or practice.”

Jordan Lorence, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, blasted the ruling and called it “very, very disappointing.”
“If we do not get an emergency stay, the churches could be thrown out by the school district,” Lorence told Fox News Radio.

“They might be meeting on the street.” Lorence said they hope the court will grant a longer stay so that churches can continue to rent public buildings. “The religious groups are not seeking special treatment, but equal treatment,” Lorence told Fox News Radio.

“It would be a tragedy if these churches that serve the communities would be tossed out and be made homeless by this anti-religious policy.” But the court determined that allowing churches to use schools resulted in an “unintended bias in favor of Christian religions” – since most Christian churches worship on Sunday.

“Jews and Muslims generally cannot use school facilities for their services because the facilities are often unavailable on the days that their religions principally prescribe for services,” Judge Pierre Leval declared. “At least one request(ed) to hold Jewish services (in a school building used for Christian services on Sundays) was denied because the building was unavailable on Saturdays. This contributes to a perception of public schools as Christian churches, but not synagogues or mosques.”

Judge Leval also took issue with the evangelical church’s membership. “Bronx Household acknowledges that it excludes persons not baptized, as well as persons who have been excommunicated or who advocate the Islamic religion, from full participation in its services.” Leval wrote.

But it all boiled down to a key point, the judges decided. “In the end, we think the board could have reasonably concluded that what the public would see, were the Board not to exclude religious worship services, is public schools, which serve on Sundays as state-sponsored Christian churches,” Leval wrote.

One of those churches that could be homeless is The Journey Church, an evangelical congregation of about 1,000 people that meets in four different public school buildings. “For us, it’s always been about having equal access that any other secular organization might have,” said Kerrick Thomas, one of the church’s pastors.

“I think the fear a lot of people have is that a church meets in the school and they’ll be proselytizing – and it’ll appear that the school is promoting the church. But that’s not the case.” The Journey Church was founded nine years ago and for many of those years, the congregation has worshipped in public school buildings. Thomas said churches are not given any favors. They pay thousands of dollars in rent – and must abide by the same rules as any other organization.

“There are no special benefits given to churches,” he told Fox News Radio. Nevertheless, Thomas said they’ve developed positive relationships with every school they’ve rented – and they’ve gone above and beyond to help students.

“Our commitment has always been to leave the schools in better shape than when we got there through any way we could help and support,” Thomas said, adding that in many instances they’ve assisted schools anonymously. In one case, the church provided school supplies and computers for under-privileged children.

Another wanted to perform a play but the school lacked theatrical equipment. So the church provided a sound and lighting system. “We just did that because we wanted to help out,” Kerrick said. “We believe in what the schools are doing.”

But the court determined that allowing churches to use public schools would send the wrong signal to the public. “When worship services are performed in a place, the nature of the site changes,” Judge Leval wrote. “The place has, at least for a time, become the church.”

Whatever happens, Pastor Thomas said they will continue to minister to the city. “We’ll find a place and we’ll work hard,” he said. “I’m confident we’ll find a home – but it’s going to be difficult.”

SOURCE






Why Cross-Examination Rights Matter in Campus Sexual Harassment Cases under Title IX

by Hans Bader

As part of its broader attack on safeguards against false accusations, the federal Education Department is urging colleges to strip students and faculty of the right to cross-examine their accusers in disciplinary proceedings over alleged sexual harassment. In an April 4 letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali, the Education Department said that it “strongly discourages schools from allowing the parties personally to question or cross-examine each other during the hearing.”

This is perverse, since the subjective nature of the legal definition of harassment means that there is no category of cases in which cross-examination is more useful or essential to ensure due process. To legally qualify as sexual harassment under Title IX, or racial harassment under Title VI, speech must be severe and pervasive enough to create a hostile learning environment for the listener, and interfere with the listener’s education, both in subjective and objective terms, according to court rulings like the Supreme Court’s 1999 Davis decision. Transitory offense is not enough. If the accuser admits on questioning that she did not really view the offensive speech as being a “big deal,” or was not shocked or surprised by it, that probably rules out the existence of a subjectively hostile environment. Indeed, a federal appeals court dismissed a racial harassment claim for just that reason in Newman v. Federal Express Corp., 266 F.3d 401 (6th Cir. 2001).

But a wrongly-accused person can’t establish that lack of a subjectively-hostile atmosphere without questioning the accuser, and may not be able to show that the accuser wasn’t greatly impacted by the speech without cross-examining the accuser about its alleged effect on her and her studies, such as whether she continued to enjoy her college experience after overhearing the allegedly “harassing” remarks.

There is a fine line between protected speech about unpleasant sexual topics and unprotected sexual harassment, and it is crucial that accused people be able to prove that their speech did not amount to sexual harassment. Even sexually vulgar speech on political issues is protected on college campuses, as the Supreme Court’s Papish decision illustrates. And perfectly civil, non-vulgar students have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings for sexual and racial harassment, in violation of the First Amendment, merely for expressing commonplace opinions about sexual and racial issues, like criticizing feminism or affirmative action, or discussing the racial implications of the death penalty. (See the examples cited in the Amicus brief of Students for Individual Liberty in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, available at 1998 WL 847365.)

To fully defend themselves against sexual harassment charges over speech on sexual topics that doesn’t really amount to sexual harassment, people who are wrongly accused of sexual harassment will sometimes need to cross-examine their accuser to show that their speech did not really have any sexually harassing effect, and thus did not legally amount to sexual harassment, despite their accuser’s attempt to make a mountain out of a molehill.

The Education Department’s attack on cross-examination will lead to free speech violations, by resulting in students being convicted of harassment even when their speech did not create a subjectively-hostile environment, much less interfere with the accuser’s educational opportunities. If the speech has not created such an environment, it has not caused tangible harm, and cannot be banned merely because a hypothetical listener might have objected to it. One case illustrates this principle. In Meltebeke v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 903 P.2d 351 (Or. 1995), the Oregon Supreme Court struck down a religious small-business owner’s fine for religious harassment because the state agency’s harassment rule violated religious-freedom guarantees. Justice Unis, in his concurrence, noted that the rule also violated free speech, and was unconstitutionally over-broad, because it only required that the speech create a hostile environment for a hypothetical reasonable person — not for the actual complainant, who did not need to experience a subjectively-hostile environment.

There is no uniform rule that people are constitutionally entitled to cross-examine their accusers in campus disciplinary proceedings in general (unlike in criminal prosecutions), but there are certain types of disciplinary proceedings where cross-examination can end up being constitutionally required. In cases like Donohue v. Baker (1997), judges have ruled that cross-examination was constitutionally required on due-process grounds when it was essential to test the credibility of the accuser.

Sexual harassment cases commonly turn not only on such credibility disputes, but also on the complainant’s alleged subjective emotional state, which makes cross-examination far more essential than in the ordinary campus discipline case. (By contrast, other kinds of disciplinary cases often turn solely on objective events that can be verified without any cross-examination of the accusing witness.) So the Education Department’s attack on cross-examination in sexual harassment cases may well result in many violations of the Constitution’s Due Process Clause, in addition to exceeding its legal authority under Title IX.

Even if it did not violate the Constitution, the Department of Education’s assault on cross-examination would still be unjustified, since cross-examination has justly been called “the most powerful engine for the discovery of truth ever devised by man.” In sexual harassment cases brought in court, the defendant invariably has the opportunity to cross-examine the accuser, because courts recognize that cross-examination is useful in exposing false allegations.

The erosion of due process safeguards will also have a negative effect on sexual misconduct cases in general. Discipline based on false accusations is already much too common. As former Massachusetts ACLU leader Harvey Silverglate notes, many universities, such as Stanford, the University of Virginia, Brandeis and Washington University, have altered their disciplinary procedures in sexual harassment and assault cases under pressure from the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. But “even before” that, “a number of students around the country were found guilty in campus tribunals on sexual assault charges, only to be later vindicated. At George Washington University, a student found guilty of sexual assault — despite the eyewitness testimony of his three roommates that the encounter was consensual — is now suing the school for $6 million in damages. The University of North Dakota found a student guilty of sexual assault, but refused to reopen the case even after state authorities charged his accuser with filing a false police report.” I earlier discussed why the Education Department was wrong to force schools to alter the burden of proof in sexual harassment and assault cases.

Cato Institute attorney Ilya Shapiro and FIRE lawyer Greg Lukianoff argue that the erosion of due process protections resulting from the Education Department’s pressure on schools will interact with broad campus sexual harassment policies to undermine basic principles of free speech.

SOURCE






British Exams watchdog demands review of all A-level and GCSE questions after more blunders revealed

All exam questions are to be inspected for mistakes after errors were found in several papers, putting thousands of pupils’ grades in jeopardy. The watchdog Ofqual has ordered exam boards to review GCSE, AS-level and A-level papers being sat this month after a deluge of complaints about ‘disappointing and unacceptable’ blunders.

Six separate papers are under investigation already. Each contained an impossible question that could not be answered correctly.

Biology, maths, geography, computing and business studies exams were all affected. One of the incorrect questions was worth up to 11 per cent of the paper.

Although examiners have pledged to take into account the mistakes found on papers, students have complained that they wasted vital time on these questions – and so couldn’t complete other parts of the paper.

The National Union of Students has warned that the errors will affect some students’ chances of gaining university places.

Ofqual has taken the unprecedented step of writing to all exam boards in England, Wales and Northern Ireland about the mistakes. Glenys Stacey, the watchdog’s chief executive, said: ‘The recent run of exam errors is disappointing and unacceptable. There have been a number of question papers that have included errors. ‘I am calling on awarding organisations to take steps now to protect students from further disruption and anxiety.’

The majority of blunders were in exams set by AQA, Britain’s biggest exam board.

HOW THE BOARDS BLUNDERED

* A geography AS-level exam by AQA asked students to identify the fastest part of a river. But the diagram was wrongly labelled, so they could not answer.

* A question in an AS-level maths exam sat by 6,800 students, worth 11 per cent of the total mark, asked students to find the shortest route along a network of tracks in a forest. The route was supposed to be equal to an equation set out in the test paper – but the OCR exam board didn’t calculate the length properly.

* In an AS-level biology exam from the Edexcel exam board, 17,000 candidates were supposed to find the correct DNA sequence from a series of combinations shown – but the right answer was missing.

* For an AS-level business studies paper set by AQA, 41,400 students were asked about a fictitious chocolate company’s profits. But the firm’s adjoining profile information failed to show what its profits actually were.

Shane Chowen, of the NUS, said: ‘More needs to be done to reassure those who sat the erroneous papers that they will not have their future prospects placed in jeopardy. ‘Those students confronted with unanswerable questions may have had their performance in the rest of the exam affected. ‘The only fair solution is to give those that want it, the option to re-sit the exam.’

Each exam board marks the tests that it sets. Ofqual monitors the boards and ensures their accuracy. It also moderates a sample of papers. But errors found in exam questions will raise fears that more mistakes will be made when papers are marked.

Dr Jim Sinclair, of the Joint Council for Qualifications, which represents exam boards, said: ‘Students should be assured that no one will be disadvantaged as a result of these mistakes.’

SOURCE



9 June, 2011

CA: An education Dept. SWAT raid???

SWAT teams have become America's Taliban. They can brutalize you without trial and on suspicion only. Now even the Education Dept. is deploying them

A federal education official Wednesday morning offered little information as to why federal agents raided a Stockton man's home Tuesday. The resident, Kenneth Wright, does not have a criminal record and he had no reason to believe why what he thought was a S.W.A.T team would be breaking down his door at 6 in the morning.

"I look out of my window and I see 15 police officers," Wright said. As Wright came downstairs in his boxer shorts, he said the officers barged through his front door. Wright said an officer grabbed him by the neck and led him outside on his front lawn. "He had his knee on my back and I had no idea why they were there," Wright said.

According to Wright, officers also woke his three young children, ages 3, 7, and 11, and put them in a Stockton police patrol car with him. Officers then searched his house. "They put me in handcuffs in that hot patrol car for six hours, traumatizing my kids," Wright said.

As it turned out, the person law enforcement was looking for - Wright's estranged wife - was not there.

Wright said he later went to Stockton Mayor Ann Johnston and Stockton Police Department, but learned the city of Stockton had nothing to do with the search warrant.

U.S. Department of Education spokesman Justin Hamilton confirmed for News10 Wednesday morning federal agents with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), not local S.W.A.T., served the search warrant. Hamilton would not say specifically why the raid took place except that it was part of an ongoing criminal investigation.

Hamilton said the search was not related to student loans in default as reported in the local media.

OIG is a semi-independent branch of the education department that executes warrants for criminal offenses such as student aid fraud, embezzlement of federal aid and bribery, according to Hamilton. The agency serves 30 to 35 search warrants a year.

"They busted down my door for this," Wright said. "It wasn't even me."

The Stockton Police Department said it was asked by federal agents to provide one officer and one patrol car just for a police presence when carrying out the search warrant. Police officers did not participate in breaking Wright's door, handcuffing him, or searching his home.

"All I want is an apology for me and my kids and for them to get me a new door," Wright said.

SOURCE






NJ: Gov. Christie to unveil public-private school partnership plan

Gov. Chris Christie will announce legislation Thursday to create public-private partnerships to run some schools in New Jersey, three people with knowledge of the plan said tonight. The governor is scheduled to make the announcement at noon at the Lanning Square Elementary School in Camden.

Two of the sources said Christie will be appearing with Camden Mayor Dana Redd, a Democrat who has worked with the Republican governor on education issues.

It's unclear exactly how the public-private partnerships would work, and the sources said it would start as a pilot program. They declined to speak on the record in advance of the public announcement. One source said individual districts would need to opt into the pilot program and approval from local school boards would be required.

Christie’s acting education commissioner, Christopher Cerf, has experience in public-private school partnerships. He previously led Edison Schools, a for-profit company that became the largest private-sector manager of public schools. Cerf left the company, now called EdisonLearning, in 2005.

Since Christie's campaign for governor two years ago, he has criticized the state of urban education in New Jersey, saying public schools and teacher unions have perpetuated a failing system.

Angel Cordero, who helped create the Community Education Resource Network, an alternative school for dropouts, applauded the plan for public-private schools. "It’s time we think out of the box and break up the monopoly" of the teachers unions, he said. "This is the perfect storm right now. People are ready."

Christie was in Camden for the Community Education Resource Network's graduation ceremony on Friday, where he and other political leaders called for a shakeup in the public school system.

Steve Baker, a spokesman for the New Jersey Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, expressed skepticism about the partnership proposal. "Anything that turns public schools over to private operation, and reduces public accountability, would be very problematic," he said tonight.

Christie has enraged the NJEA with his push for more charter schools and a voucher program. The voucher proposal, called the Opportunity Scholarship Act, has stalled in the Legislature despite support from both sides of the aisle as some Democrats have pushed to downsize it.

SOURCE




British school to ban parents from sports day for first time in 130 years amid fears of children 'mixing with strangers'

It is often one of the proudest moments for any parent to see their child compete, but Upwell Community Primary School in Norfolk is considering holding the event behind closed doors because of a safety row.

Many parents have been left furious at the decision and say they may keep their children off school on that day in protest. It would be the first time in the 130-year-old school's history that it has barred mothers and fathers from its sports day.

The row stems from a small group of parents who boycotted a children’s art event at the school that members of the public could also attend. A number of parents did not send their children to school on that day and headteacher James McBurney is concerned the same thing would happen on its sports day.

'It is with the greatest and sincerest regret that all staff have decided, in light of recent events, that sports day is likely to take place without parents being invited,' he wrote in a school newsletter. 'We understand that we have many supportive parents and we would like to offer our heartfelt apologies for this decision. 'We have deliberated over this at great length but feel that many day-to-day routines have been misinterpreted or misunderstood.

'The present climate is affecting the well-being of all children and staff morale. 'However, we are prepared to postpone sports day until June 29 and decide nearer to the time whether parents will be invited.'

One unhappy parent who received the newsletter from the school said she did not know why Mr McBurney had made this decision, saying 'It is just going to upset parents even more.' She added if the ban on parents attending was upheld, several would not send their children to school on that day as a 'protest'.

But the head believes the move could be for the best. He said: 'We have the highest regard for the safety and well-being of all of our children and staff and want to ensure sports day is the best day possible for children and their parents and carers.

'However, we have concerns that some parents may not be supportive on the day and we have therefore decided to postpone the event while we seek assurances from parents. This was not an easy decision but was one taken by all of the school's staff.

'There will also be visitors on site during sports day and we therefore need to make sure that everyone is satisfied with how the day is run so that attendance levels can be maintained and the day is able to run as smoothly as possible.'

SOURCE



8 June, 2011

Arm your children with skepticism about authority

For those of you with children now and those who will have children in the future, guard them. As precious as a child is to a parent they are equally so to the state. Children are the future, as the old saying goes. Most parents will judge the success of their child based on their child’s success in the dominant paradigm. One is raised to obey and behave, as their parents were taught. The state sees a tax base, ever growing.

All parents will pass on lessons to their children. The large majority of these lessons will be passed unconsciously. A father who grew up being yelled at will, in turn, yell rather than speak to his children when any stressful situation arises. A young girl criticized at every turn will grow up to be a mother who finds fault in all that her child does. Parents who accept arbitrary edicts from any authority will raise children to do the same.

There is a perpetual war for the minds of the young. These prized lives we fight for are the very weapons of battle. When we, as parents, do not teach our children to question, to analyze, and to think critically, we send them into the world unarmed, to be slaughtered and enslaved.

This, for me, was recently driven home at a local middle school talent show. I took my daughter to see her cousin perform. What we witnessed was a performance of a more sinister nature. During each act on stage the kids would be texting each other or holding up back lit phones much as my generation did lighters at a concert. But the assistant principal would make rounds collecting all of the students’ phones. I took out my own phone and texted as well, making sure that he saw me. The man approached, then retreated. To my disgust he would not speak to an adult but would only accost the younger and weaker of the crowd. The children would, when demanded, turn over their phones. Most had an air of indignation but did not resist.

Enter my nine year old daughter. At intermission she approached the tyrant and, in full view and sound of many others, began to question him. She pointed out that these phones were private property. The assistant principal told her that, just like at the movies, cell phone should be off. Then told her that the school prohibited use of cell phones by students. She countered that the phones could not be taken at the movie theater. My daughter went on to explain that the kids were not in school at this time. The show was at 7:00 pm and the public was invited. This was not a function of the school, but a function at the school. She added “taking the kids’ phones and not the adults’ is just bullying kids because that’s all you can bully.” I choked with pride.

So please, teach your children to think for themselves. Let them ask questions. If you do not know the answer be honest about it and help to find the answer. And never end with “because I said so.” Do not disarm your kids before sending them out into a hostile world bent on enslaving them.

A friend or co-worker may roll their eyes at you when you speak of the current state of things, but your child will listen when you have shown honesty and consistency. They will grow with free minds, unable to understand the pride of those who wear their chains as tight as possible without choking to death. In the future our children will be the shining beacon on the hill for others to look to when confused and broken. Weaponize their minds with logic, armor them with rationality, then loosen them upon the world we hope to someday see free.

SOURCE





Students face degree crisis: Troubled British universities may axe courses before they're completed

Thousands of students are applying to universities that may axe their course before they have gained a degree. Researchers looked at 125 UK institutions and found that 50 are facing financial ruin. Up to two-thirds of these universities, most of which are former polytechnics, are loss-making, according to the study by consultancy firm the Parthenon Group.

There are already up to ten universities on an ‘at risk’ register held by university funding watchdog the Higher Education Funding Council for England. Business Secretary Vince Cable has said many are ‘effectively broke’, and should not be propped up but allowed to close.

Yesterday a report by the Public Accounts Committee warned that some institutions ‘may fail’ when fees rise to £9,000 next year.

Margaret Hodge, chairman of the committee, highlighted the risk and called for HEFCE to name the universities in trouble. The Labour MP said: ‘HEFCE doesn’t tell the public about any institution that has been in financial difficulty for three years. If you are a student risking your money to go to that university you have a right to know because if a university were to fail you would have put your money up front, you wouldn’t get your education and wouldn’t get your degree. ‘I don’t think the Government will stand behind a university that falls into financial difficulty.’

Matt Robb, who conducted the Parthenon Group research, pinpointed 50 universities classed as ‘general teaching universities’. These institutions, such as De Montfort and Salford, focus on courses like business studies, design, IT and education. At each, as many as two-thirds of all courses are loss making.

London Metropolitan University, which is on the ‘at risk’ register, has said it is to axe 400 courses.

SOURCE





British regulator warns of 'weak' vocational qualifications

Pupils are being awarded top grades on "weak" vocational courses that leave them with a poor grasp of business, Government inspectors warned today.

Ofsted said an analysis of lessons and written work “brings into question” the claim that courses sat by thousands of schoolchildren are comparable with mainstream GCSEs. In a damning conclusion, the education watchdog said pupils taking vocational business courses were often given good marks despite being left with poor knowledge and understanding of the subject. Courses were often “narrow and simplistic” in an attempt to improve students’ grades in written tasks without properly developing their skills, it was claimed.

Currently, schools can use vocational qualifications such as BTECs as an alternative to GCSEs. They can be worth as much as four mainstream qualifications and critics claim they have been used in the past to inflate schools’ positions in league tables.

But in today’s report, Ofsted questioned whether these courses should be equivalent to GCSEs, saying some were defined by an “atomistic approach to the development and demonstration of knowledge and understanding, which took no account of the quality of learning”.

It comes less than two years after Ofsted raised similar doubts over the value of vocational qualifications in information and communication technology (ICT).

Ministers have already announced plans to review practical qualifications and reform school league tables to stop heads using them as “equivalents” in official rankings.

Christine Gilbert, Ofsted’s chief inspector, said: “Vocational qualifications provide a valuable route to employment and further study for many learners. “However, the report highlights the need to review the equivalency of vocational business qualifications that are assessed wholly or mainly by internally set and marked assignments with more traditional GCSEs and A-levels.”

In the latest study, inspectors analysed standards in economics, business and enterprise subjects over a three-year period. The study – based on visits to 161 English schools and colleges – found the overall effectiveness of education was good or outstanding in more than three quarters of secondaries. But even when provision was good, Ofsted found a number of “common weaknesses”, including a lack of opportunities to work directly with local businesses.

The number of pupils taking a GCSE in business studies dropped from 78,300 in 2007 to 68,700 in 2010. Evidence suggests this was “due in part to schools switching to alternative vocational courses” such as BTECs and OCR Awards, which enable students to gain a qualification equivalent to as many as four GCSEs, according to Ofsted.

“Despite good results, the quality of students’ work, their knowledge and understanding, and their ability to apply learning to unfamiliar contexts and to demonstrate higher level skills, were often weak,” the report said. It added: “Evidence from lesson observations, scrutiny of written work and discussion with students brings into question the case for claiming that such courses are equivalent to between two and four single award, traditionally examined GCSEs.”

Earlier this year, a Government-commissioned report by Prof Alison Wolf, from King's College London, found up to a third of post-16 students were taking vocational courses that failed to prepare them for the world of work.

A spokesman for the Department for Education said: "Good vocational education is crucial to boosting our economic growth. This report raises serious concerns about the quality of some courses taught in our schools. “All young people should have access to high-quality qualifications that lead to employment, further or higher education – as Professor Alison Wolf made clear in her review. This summer, we will be carrying out a consultation on the characteristics of high-quality vocational qualifications so we can ensure that only those qualifications that meet the criteria are taught in our schools. "We also plan to do more to encourage industry experts to teach in schools – providing students with a better understanding of how the business world works."

A spokeswoman for Pearson, which owns the exam board that runs BTECs, said: “We’re pleased that Ofsted found many excellent examples of BTEC courses helping young people to gain real world business and enterprise experience. "As the report points out, when vocational courses are taught well, 'students developed skills valued in employment and higher education – such as enterprise and work-related skills, and ICT, presentation, investigation, research and organisational skills – which were not always well-developed in more academic courses'. “Pearson believes all schools and colleges should be aiming to build better links with employers and give young people a better understanding of enterprise. We strongly believe that this type of vocational learning, when done well, is vital for the health of the UK economy."

SOURCE



7 June, 2011

Tennessee Trumps Wisconsin: Kills Teacher Collective Bargaining

To fix public schools, you have to control public schools. And there’s little control when teachers unions, with their self-serving agendas, question every cost-cutting proposal and reform on the table.

That’s why so many state governments have taken swift action to limit the power of organized labor in public schools. Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Idaho and Michigan were the first, and Tennessee added itself to the list on Wednesday.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam affixed his signature on House Bill 130 and Senate Bill 113, ending collective bargaining and giving local school boards the full authority to operate their districts in the manner they choose.

That doesn't mean the unions are shut out of the discussion. The new laws create a process called “collaborative conferencing,” where the school board, administrators and union officials will be forced to sit and discuss many of the normal issues, including salary, insurance, grievance procedures and working conditions.

If the two sides agree on any number of issues, they can sign binding “memorandums of understanding,” that will serve the same purpose as collective bargaining agreements. But any issues that are left unsettled will be the sole domain of the school board, with no appellate procedure available to the unions.

School boards will also have the option of not entering into any sort of agreement with the union. In that case they would have full authority to deal with all issues in an arbitrary manner.

Nobody elected the unions

Tennessee lawmakers were careful to leave a few key items off the discussion table, including personnel and staffing decisions, how to use grant money, the evaluation process for employees and whether or not payroll deductions can be made for political purposes.

That means the end of the road for the treasured union concept of seniority, particularly when it’s applied at layoff time.

Basically, lawmakers allowed the unions to keep their bark, but wisely took away their bite. And if school boards get tired of the barking, they will be allowed to close the windows, pull the shutters and go about their business.

Democrats in the legislature, outnumbered in both chambers, have been fuming about the legislation.

“This bill does nothing except take away every part of professional negotiation, every single part,” House Minority Leader Craig Fitzhugh told knoxnews.com. “Don’t be fooled.”

Actually, we’re not fooled at all. And we kind of like the unique process created by collaborative conferencing.

There are certainly thousands of great teachers in Tennessee, and they’re the soldiers on the front lines. School boards would be stupid to ignore their input when making major decisions.

On the other hand, it was necessary to take away veto power from the teachers unions, due to their stubborn opposition to money-saving contract concessions and education reform efforts.

School boards are elected by the public to run public schools. Nobody elected the unions.

SOURCE





At last, an Oxbridge for those who can’t get into Oxbridge

A private university that will take on the cream of the rejects is a simply brilliant idea, writes Boris Johnson

A few years ago, I met a man who was almost in tears of rage at the injustice that had been done to his son. I was trying to sneak out of some drinks party when he started telling me about this prodigy. His A-level scorecard was perfect; he held colours for rugby; he had been captain of the school debating team, keeper of the philately club, editor of the magazine – and yet he had been turned down by the dons of virtually every top university in the country.

What was going on, wailed my friend. This kind of thing never happened in his day, he said; and he went on to speculate that there was some kind of secret Pol Pot-style persecution of the children of the bourgeoisie. Since then I have heard many similar complaints about university admissions procedures (and I bet you have, too), and after one particularly harrowing conversation with a disappointed mum I had an idea for a brilliant business venture – a new institution that would be both socially responsible and immensely financially lucrative. I would found Reject’s College, Oxbridge. That is to say, I would find investors for a new elite academic institution, aimed squarely at the wrathful parents – many of them Oxbridge graduates – who simply could not understand how their own offspring could rack up three A-stars and grade 8 bassoon, and yet find themselves turned down.

In my mind’s eye I could see exactly how it would work: we’d get some dusty old goods yard at the back of Oxford or Cambridge. We’d turn it into a gorgeous neo-classical quadrangle, designed by Robert Adam or someone like that. We would have a prospectus full of the Reject’s College arms (Floreant Rejecti) and the lawns with snaggle-toothed lecturers leering at their pupils over a bottle of chilled white wine.

We would vindicate the principles of academic freedom, as famously outlined by Justice Felix Frankfurter, of the US Supreme Court, in 1957. That is to say, we – and I saw myself as provost or master – would decide what should be taught, how it should be taught, and whom to admit for study, and we would decide all these things on academic grounds and academic grounds alone.

Apart from that, I am afraid I was a bit vague about how exactly Reject’s College would work. So you can imagine my joy yesterday when I saw that someone had not only had my idea, but had gone one better: he had found the cash and the backing to make it happen. “Top dons to create new Oxbridge” was a headline to gladden the heart of many a grieving parent and frustrated academic. In fact, the whole thing is such unambiguously good news that I scarcely know where to begin.

It is the brainchild of Prof A C Grayling, who certainly looks and writes like a philosopher (I seem to remember some good stuff on Russell and Wittgenstein), but who turns out to have a Bransonesque practical flair. Together with Richard Dawkins, Niall Ferguson, Sir Christopher Ricks and various other academic superstars, he is setting up a New College of the Humanities, based in Bloomsbury.

They have found the premises, they will start taking applications from next month, and the first one-on-one Oxbridge-style tutorials will take place in autumn 2012. They will ultimately have 1,000 undergraduates, all of whom will be expected to achieve a minimum three As at A level to get in; and since this will mean a whole new higher education institution for London, so lengthening our lead as the university capital of the world, I thought it would not be too pompous if I rang up Prof Grayling to congratulate him.

He explained that the idea had first occurred to him years ago, when he was tutor for admissions at an Oxbridge college. “For every person we admitted, we turned away 12, each of whom could have done outstandingly well at the university,” he said. The trouble with Britain today, he said, was that we simply didn’t have enough elite university provision – and especially not in the humanities subjects, where teaching budgets are under such pressure.

It was absurd, he argued, that so many of our young people are going off to America to do their degrees, and he is surely right. The shortage of places in top universities is now so acute that we have 10,000 UK school leavers a year who are spending $60,000 a year on Animal House-style frat parties on the Podunk Liberal Arts Campus or other American colleges. That cash could be going into the hard-pressed British system.

Which brings us to the key question. Prof Grayling’s New College for the Humanities is going to charge a staggering £18,000 for tuition alone, and that is before we have come to the accommodation costs. How on earth are people going to afford it? He has a ready answer, in that he and his colleagues want to see 30 per cent of undergraduates receive some help with their fees, and a large proportion will have full scholarships, funded either charitably or from the fees of those who can afford to pay. It is this strong commitment to attracting students from disadvantaged families that has earned the project the support of such famous lefties as Prof Linda Colley and Sir David Cannadine.

This is not an attempt to replace the existing taxpayer-funded system or to “privatise” the universities. It is about getting more cash into the teaching of the humanities, and about additional elite provision. It is about creating a new and different model for university education, side by side with the existing system. If well handled, it could be just as successful in widening “access” as any of the current outreach programmes being pursued by other universities. It is the boldest experiment in higher education since the University of Buckingham was founded in 1983, and it fully deserves to succeed and to be imitated.

If academics are fed up with the tyranny of the Research Assessment Exercise; if they are demoralised by endless government attacks on their admissions procedures; if they feel they are being scapegoated for the weaknesses of the schools, then the New College for the Humanities shows the way. Three cheers for A C Grayling.

SOURCE




Quis magistros ipsos docebit?

Australian teacher graduates face a test before registration

ASPIRING primary school teachers are expected to face questions about animal groupings, energy and literacy processes in Queensland's controversial teacher test.

Sample questions of what teaching graduates could face in the nation's first teacher pre-registration exam have been placed on the Queensland College of Teachers website.

The test, which hopeful primary school teachers will be required to pass before they can attain registration in Queensland from the end of this year, will examine a graduate's literacy, numeracy and science skills.

One sample question asks graduates to place a kangaroo, tadpole, echidna, emu and lizard into its right animal grouping - fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds or mammals.

Another in the science category requires graduates to use their knowledge of sound and heat energy to answer a question.

Under numeracy, graduates are asked when a train is scheduled to arrive if it leaves Mount Isa at 1.30pm on Monday and the trip takes 20 hours and 40 minutes.

In literacy, one question asks which word is a preposition and another asks graduates to sequence the typical behaviours of a child learning to read.

It will also test their knowledge of course content and teaching.

The test follows a recommendation by Professor Geoff Masters in a review of how to lift Queensland students' literacy and numeracy standards, after the state came second last in the first national tests in 2008.

The Queensland Teachers Union and Queensland Deans of Education Forum initially said the tests were offensive to universities and a double-up of what was already being taught.

QDEF chair Professor Wendy Patton said extensive consultation had been undertaken on the exams and while there were still some concerns, they were waiting to see the actual tests before making any further judgment.

The Queensland College of Teachers (QCT) website reveals aspiring primary school teachers will face two 90-minute exams with 60 questions each on literacy and numeracy and one 60-minute science test with 40 questions.

The computer-based exams will take place in designated testing centres across Queensland at the end of the year. Teaching graduates will be able to sit the exam as many times as needed to pass and attain registration.

"The purpose of the QCT pre-registration test is to ensure that aspiring primary teachers meet threshold levels of knowledge about the teaching of literacy, numeracy and science and have sound levels of content knowledge in these areas," the QCT website states.

QCT director John Ryan said the tests would not be a panacea for proficiency but would ensure graduates teaching in Queensland schools met a minimum standard.

SOURCE



6 June, 2011

New for-profit colleges regs: Double backlash

The Obama administration's crackdown on for-profit colleges is drawing backlash from conservatives and liberals alike.

On Thursday, the Education Department released the final regulations aimed at what are known as career or vocational schools, which train medical technicians, chefs, welders, electricians and the like. The regulations will cut federal aid to programs that don't lead to "gainful employment."

"These new regulations will help ensure that students at these schools are getting what they pay for: solid preparation for a good job," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said. "We're giving career colleges every opportunity to reform themselves, but we're not letting them off the hook, because too many vulnerable students are being hurt."

Under the regulations introduced Thursday, a program would meet standards if at least 35 percent of former students are repaying their loans and the estimated annual loan payment of graduates doesn't exceed 30 percent of their discretionary income or 12 percent of their total earnings. The first year programs would be deemed ineligible is 2015.

Progressive groups say the new regulations aren’t strong enough, while others say they go too far. "Given the overwhelming evidence that the worst for-profit colleges are abusing students and taxpayers, the rule isn't strong enough, but it's still an important reform that could, over time, help millions of students," said David Halperin, director of Campus Progress, the youth arm of the Center for American Progress.

"We believe that, collectively, the rules issued by the administration, ongoing investigations by state attorney general, and increasing scrutiny by Congress and the media will ultimately compel for-profit schools to clean up their act or else shut their doors."

The National Black Chamber of Commerce called for Congress to derail the implementation of the gainful employment rule because it says it unfairly targets only for-profit schools, doesn't address the excessive cost of higher education and it may be illegal. "It is the result of a biased rule-making process that essentially targeted only one sector of post-secondary institutions," Harry Alford, president chief executive of the chamber, said in a statement. "Moreover, it is beyond the department's legal authority to regulate in such a broad, new policy-making fashion."

For-profit students represent 12 percent of all higher education students, 26 percent of all student loans and 46 percent of all student loan dollars in default, according to the Education Department. More than a quarter of for-profit schools receive 80 percent of their revenues from federal student aid.

"While for-profit schools have profited and prospered thanks to federal dollars, some of their students have not," Duncan said. "This is a disservice to students and taxpayers, and undermines the valuable work being done by the for-profit education industry as a whole."

A half dozen Democratic lawmakers blasted the rule — Reps. Alcee Hastings of Florida, Carolyn McCarthy of New York, Donald Payne of New Jersey, Edolphus Towns of New York, Tim Holden of Pennsylvania and Ted Deutch of Florida. "It is deeply troubling that an administration supposedly committed to increasing college completion in the United States would propose a regulation that restricts minority access to higher education and limits job opportunities for those who need them most," Hastings said.

The Heartland Institute also ripped the rules. "Attacking the industry most responsible for popularizing higher education among the disadvantaged seems to be at odds with the Obama administration's goal of getting more kids into college," said Marc Oestreich, a legislative education specialist at the institute.

Sen. Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in Senate, also didn't give the rule a ringing endorsement. "This rule may stop the worst violators among the predatory for-profit schools but it will not protect thousands of young students who are being burdened with debt by many worthless diploma mills," he said in a written statement. "If we are serious about protecting taxpayers and students, we should view this rule as the starting point."

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers gave the rule a lukewarm reception. "While this rule is a step in the right direction – accomplished amid intensive lobbying against it – there is more work to be done," she said.

SOURCE





LA: Creationism law skirting US ban survives challenge

The Louisiana law allows teaching contrary to evolution on the grounds it promotes critical thinking. The successful defense last week of a three-year-old Louisiana law is casting a spotlight on how conservative groups are seeking to circumvent a federal ban on the teaching of creationism in public schools.

The Louisiana Science Education Act, which allows teaching contrary to science on the grounds it promotes critical thinking, is increasingly serving as an inspiration to religious conservatives in other states. Its defenders decry the “censorship” of nonscientific ideas and advocate allowing teachers to teach “both sides” on certain scientific theories.

So far in 2011, similarly worded legislation was introduced in Florida, Texas, Missouri, Kentucky, Oklahoma and New Mexico, but all failed at the committee stage. However, a bill in Tennessee passed the state House in early April and is awaiting a Senate vote in the 2012 session.

In Louisiana, the challenge to the Science Education Act was defeated last Thursday in the Senate Education Committee by a 5-to-1 vote. State Sen. Karen Carter Peterson (D), who authored the bill to repeal the 2008 law, said she received letters of support from more than 40 Nobel Prize-winning scientists.

Senator Peterson told the Associated Press on Tuesday it was “fundamentally embarrassing” for her state to have the law remain on the books, adding that it would further damage Louisiana’s ability to attract top talent in the sciences.

The 2008 law gives elementary and secondary school teachers the right to bring materials into science classrooms as supplements to textbooks on matters “including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.”

The scientific community has long advocated that allowing anything but science in the teaching of evolution will be intellectually harmful. [Leftists hate ANY alternative views] In an e-mail sent to the Associated Press, Harold Kroto, a Nobel Prize winner for chemistry in 1996, said voting against the repeal creates a situation that “should be likened to requiring Louisiana school texts to include the claim that the Sun goes round the Earth.”

While evolutionary biology is based in the work of Charles Darwin, which shows how humans evolved through natural selection, creationism is rooted in a fundamental reading of Biblical texts that say mankind is the product of a divine maker.

With the law intact, Louisiana is the state that has gone the furthest in approving legislation that opens the door to allowing alternatives to science taught in its schools.

SOURCE





40 UK universities are now breeding grounds for terror as hardline groups peddle hate on campus

England's universities have become a breeding ground for extremism and terrorist recruitment, according to a disturbing government report.

Officials have identified 40 English universities where ‘there may be particular risk of radicalisation or recruitment on campus’.

A soon to be published Whitehall report – seen by the Daily Mail – will point to a string of examples of students going on to commit terrorist acts against this country or overseas.

Alarmingly the Prevent review says that ‘more than 30 per cent of people convicted for Al Qaeda-associated terrorist offences in the UK . . . are known to have attended university or a higher education institution.

‘Another 15 per cent studied or achieved a vocational or further education qualification. About 10 per cent of the sample were students at the time when they were charged or the incident for which they were convicted took place.’

The report, prepared by Home Office officials, warns of hardline Islamic groups specifically targeting universities which have large numbers of Muslim students in order to peddle a message of hate.

Students are even ‘engaging in terrorism or related activities while members of university societies’.

But it says the universities are not doing enough to respond to this threat to national security. Fewer than half of universities are engaged with the police.

Home Secretary Theresa May will demand universities do more to confront this threat. She also wants more action to deport preachers of hate.

The universities which have given places to fanatics include some of our most prestigious institutions.

The report will say that terrorists who have attended English universities include Taimour Abdulwahab al-Abdaly, the Stockholm suicide bomber who had a BSc in sports therapy from the University of Luton, now the University of Bedfordshire.

The alleged Detroit underpants bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, studied mechanical engineering at University College London between 2005 and 2008.

Two of the fanatics convicted of the transatlantic liquid bomb plot – ringleader Abdulla Ahmed Ali and Assad Sarwar – attended City and Brunel Universities respectively.

The review says the Department for Business, which is in charge of universities, has identified about 40 English universities where there may be a particular risk.

Some now have a dedicated police officer to advise on tackling radicalisation.The document raises particular alarm about the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS). It says there are ‘several examples of students engaging in terrorism or related activities while members of university societies affiliated to FOSIS.

Such extremists must have no part in any organisation that wishes to be recognised as a representative body.’

The finger of blame for radicalising students is pointed at Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which David Cameron promised to ban in opposition, and off-shoots of a fanatical group once run by preacher of hate Omar Bakri.

One section warns: ‘We believe there is unambiguous evidence to indicate that some extremist organisations, notably Hizb-ut-Tahrir, target specific universities and colleges (notably those with a large number of Muslim students) with the objective of radicalising and recruiting students.’

Universities UK says that universities ‘are places where ideas and beliefs can be tested without fear of control’, and that they act as a safeguard against ideologies that threaten Britain’s open society.

The worries about the lax attitude of some universities is combined with concern about the student visa route. Ten of the 11 Pakistani nationals seized on suspicion of plotting an atrocity in the North-West in 2009 had student visas.

The alleged ringleader of this plot – Abid Naseer – was a computer studies student at Liverpool John Moores University.

Mrs May is determined to crack down on the abuse of the student visa route.

However, she has faced opposition within government from Michael Gove’s Education Department and Business Secretary Vince Cable.Meanwhile, Whitehall officials are said to be concerned that Mr Gove’s flagship ‘free schools’ policy – where parents can obtain state funding to open and run their own schools – could be targeted by extremists.

Security officials working in a dedicated unit are expected to vet the backgrounds of all would-be applicants for evidence of extremism or radicalisation.

The Prevent strategy is said to have caused behind-the-scenes rows within the Government.

Mr Gove is understood to have argued that the Government should not engage with groups which hold any extremist beliefs – even though these are the ones most likely to attract would-be terrorists.

Four months ago, in a major speech in Munich, the Prime Minister signalled an end to ‘passive tolerance’ of extremist Islamic organisations which foster hatred against the West and radicalise young Muslims.

SOURCE



5 June, 2011

FIFTH grader arrested for breaking teacher's nose in California

An 11-year-old California boy at an alternative school for at-risk students is accused of punching his fifth-grade teacher in the face and breaking her nose.

San Bernardino County sheriff's investigators say the teacher was attacked around 9 a.m. Thursday at the Adelanto Community Day School in Adelanto, about 85 miles northeast of Los Angeles. The teacher was taken to a nearby Mojave Desert hospital for treatment.

The boy was arrested for assault with injuries and was taken to the High Desert Juvenile Detention and Assessment Center. He has not been named because of his age.

Investigators tell the Victorville Daily Press that the boy became upset when the teacher asked him to move to another seat in the classroom. The boy allegedly refused to move and yelled at the teacher before getting up and punching her.

The alleged incident was said to take place in one of the classrooms in the school, which is located at 11824 Air Expressway.

Christine McGrew, spokeswoman for the county Superintendent of Schools, told Victorville Daily Press: 'There was an incident that took place at the Adelanto Community Day School. 'At this time, my understanding is that the teacher’s nose is broken'.

Initial reports incorrectly stated the boy was in the fourth grade, as school officials later confirmed he is a fifth grader.

Ms McGrew told the paper the Adelanto Community Day School is an alternative school for at-risk students, many of whom may have been expelled from other institutions, had attendance issues or were otherwise not doing well in traditional settings. The classrooms are smaller to foster more individual attention.

Ms McGrew said: 'This is a rare and isolated incident. Some of the programs have security officers on site and that’s dependent on the number of classrooms. 'This is a rare occurrence that this would happen'.

It is not known if any security personnel were on school grounds during the alleged incident.

SOURCE




Gormless British graduates need more time at the university of life? They lack basic workplace skills, claims study

Employers believe too many graduates are unfit for the workplace, according to a study. They lack skills in communication, problem solving, presentation, customer relations and even punctuality.

Bosses believe all universities should be required to teach employment skills as part of degree courses, say researchers.

Universities were also urged to set up more work experience placements and internships for students to ensure they don't join the dole queue when they graduate.

The study, commissioned by the education charity Edge and carried out by Glasgow University, highlighted a 'notable majority' unable carry out duties in the workplace.

It warned of a systematic failure to 'promote employability across higher education.'

The report follows the publication of statistics which show the number of jobless graduates rocketed to a 15-year high in 2010.

A fifth were out of work in the third quarter of last year which was double the number when the recession began.

The latest study shows one in six employers is unhappy with graduate 'skills and competencies' when they apply for jobs.

It says:'Employers are frustrated that higher education courses do not meet their needs,' says the report.

'Employers expect graduates to demonstrate a range of skills and attributes that include team-working, communication and often managerial abilities or potential.'

Around 40 universities run programmes where students gain official recognition if they complete 100 hours of voluntary work, job placements or carry out extra-curricular activities.

The report says degrees should be more tailored towards the needs of businesses.

SOURCE




New British university to rival Oxbridge will charge £18,000 a year

Subtext: A way for rich families to buy a university place for their kids

A group of the world's leading academics have launched a new British university which they hope will rival Oxford and Cambridge, it was announced today.

New College of the Humanities (NCH) will charge fees of £18,000 a year and offer the "highest-quality" education to "gifted" undergraduates, according to its creators.

The privately-funded independent seat-of-learning will be based in Bloomsbury, central London, and open in September 2012. It will initially offer eight undergraduate humanities degrees taught by some of the globe's most prominent intellectuals, college officials said.

Professor AC Grayling, the philosopher who will be the college's first Master, secured millions of pounds of funding from investors to set up the institution which has been likened to America's elite liberal arts colleges. He said: "At NCH we believe in the importance of the humanities and excellence in education. "Our priorities at the College will be excellent teaching quality, excellent ratios of teachers to students, and a strongly supportive and responsive learning environment. "Our students will be challenged to develop as skilled, informed and reflective thinkers, and will receive an education to match that aspiration."

The college claims to offer a "new model of higher education for the humanities in the UK" and will prepare undergraduates for degrees in Law, Economics and humanities subjects including History, Philosophy and English literature.

Students will also take three "intellectual skills" modules in science literacy, logic and critical thinking and applied ethics. Practical professional skills to prepare them for the world of work including financial literacy, teamwork, presentation and strategy will also be taught.

College chiefs say students will receive a "best in class education", with one-to-one tutorials, more than 12 contact hours a week and a 10/1 student to teacher ratio.

Prof Grayling said that budget cuts and dwindling resources are likely to limit both quantity and quality of teaching in the UK, leaving the fabric of society poorer as a result. He hopes the college - a registered charity - will counteract this. "Our ambition is to prepare gifted young people for high-level careers and rich and satisfying lives," he added.

The 14 professors behind the project include evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and eminent historian Sir David Cannadine. All will teach.

NCH chairman Charles Watson said: "Higher education in the UK must evolve if it is to offer the best quality experience for students and safeguard our future economic and intellectual wealth. "New College offers a different model - one that brings additional, private sector funding into higher education in the humanities when it is most needed, and combines scholarships and tuition fees."

He added: "As well as securing the highest-quality education for hundreds of students, we believe an independent university college, established right in the heart of London, will contribute to the long-term economic welfare of the capital, attracting students and professors who are contributing to the local economy as well as equipping our graduates for jobs in the service economy, such as the financial sector, professional services, the media and the creative industries, all of which are such vital contributors to the UK economy."

Prospective students can apply immediately, with the college offering assisted places to more than 20% of the first year's intake.

SOURCE



4 June, 2011

Don’t nationalize education

A number of educators, academics, and political figures recently signed a statement released by the Albert Shanker Institute favoring a “common content core curriculum” for all public schools in the United States. The idea has an obvious appeal: Simply select what students should learn and tell the schools to teach it. However, as H.L. Mencken wrote, “there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.” There is no single best curriculum for all students in all districts, and any attempt to create one at the federal level opens the door to political meddling in educational content.

Across the country, there is widespread disagreement among educators, politicians, and the general public about what constitutes a good curriculum. Even within districts, conflicting interest groups fight heated battles over curricular changes.

On April 26, a group of students took over a board meeting of the Tuscon Unified School District, protesting a proposal that would change the district’s Mexican American Studies program from a social studies credit to an elective. Student supporters of the program chained themselves to the board’s dais and could not be removed by security. Under a national curriculum, disputes such as this would have to be resolved at the federal level. Congress would determine what students should learn. Allowing Congress to serve as the custodian of truth in the teaching of history, social studies, and other subjects is asking for trouble.

In fact, our current system is already too centralized, with state legislators and boards of education committing new crimes against veracity every time curriculum design comes up for debate. Last spring, conservatives on the Texas State Board of Education pushed through a new social studies curriculum. Among other changes, the new curriculum required a greater emphasis on the “conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s,” and excised the insufficiently religious Thomas Jefferson from a list of thinkers who inspired revolutions in the 18th and 19th centuries, replacing him with overtly Christian figures such as John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas. The left plays this game just as much as the right. California’s guidelines forbid textbooks to “cast adverse reflection on any gender, race, ethnicity, religion or cultural group.” That sounds well-meaning, but it has led to a whitewashed version of history for fear of offending any interest group.

We should return decisions about educational content to the local level. That would not make these arguments disappear, but it would give parents the greatest opportunity to find a curriculum that suits their educational preferences.

Furthermore, localized curricula would give teachers more flexibility in meeting students’ individual educational needs. When I pursued teacher certification, I encountered repeatedly in my coursework the idea that every student learns in different ways. Good teachers must vary the information they present and how they present it in order to appeal to the different aptitudes and interests of their students. A national curriculum may not completely strip teachers of the ability to tailor lessons for the particularities of their students, but every new mandate from on high removes a little more autonomy from the educators who know their students best.

Many American schools are in desperate need of reform, but more federal micromanagement is not the solution. We need more autonomy for schools to innovate and serve the individual needs and interests of their students, and greater choice for parents to hold those schools accountable. A national curriculum would take us in the opposite direction — toward heavily politicized subject matter and no alternatives for students whose needs are left out. Reforming education in this country is not one large problem — it’s millions of small ones, and a national curriculum would only make them harder to address.

SOURCE




Florida teacher who punched student won't be charged

Sandra Hadsock clenched her teeth, balled up her right fist and closed her eyes. The 5-foot-5 art teacher's first punch was a wild haymaker, just glancing the towering student's right cheek.

Then, as she drew her arm back again, Hadsock gripped the boy's jacket collar and leveled a right cross, catching him square on the jaw. His head snapped to the side and his mess of orange hair blew back.

Now, three weeks after the incident was caught on a student's cell phone videocamera, the State Attorney's Office has decided not to file criminal charges against Hadsock, who had been arrested on a single count of child abuse.

Hadsock landed at least one punch on the student's face, causing a minor cut on his lip, authorities said. But the video doesn't provide conclusive evidence that the 64-year-old veteran teacher wasn't acting in self-defense when she swung at the student who called her vulgar names, prosecutor Brian Trehy said.

Students who witnessed the incident said the teen made contact first and the teacher was responding to that, Trehy said.

"You couldn't put a piece of paper between them," Trehy said. "You can't tell if he actually made contact, but it's certainly reasonable to believe that it could have happened."

In a phone interview Thursday afternoon with Hadsock and her attorney, Ty Tison, she expressed relief that the criminal chapter is over.

"It was the right thing to do," Hadsock said of Trehy's call. "I was defending myself, and he made the right decision."

Hadsock and Tison offered previously unreleased details that led up to the incident outside Central High School's classroom D102.

The student licked a classroom window and left saliva, Tison said. Hadsock and another teacher asked the boy to clean the window, and he refused. Hadsock told him to go to the principal's office.

At that, the student launched a verbal assault, calling her a "f---ing c---" as he walked across the room toward her in what Hadsock felt was a menacing manner, Tison said.

"Step back right now!" Hadsock shouts. But instead of stepping back, the student steps forward. Hadsock punches him twice, and another boy pulls him back.

"Oh my God!" a girl exclaims. "He didn't do anything. You can't punch him in the face." "He pushed into me," Hadsock, visibly shaken, says.

"I didn't touch her," the student responds. "You guys saw that, right? I didn't touch her."

Tison said the video "speaks for itself." "If she would have done nothing, you might have been talking about some very severe injuries to a 64-year-old teacher," Tison said. "She wasn't going to wait to find out."

The student was suspended but not arrested.

A married mother of two grown daughters, Hadsock started with the district as a substitute teacher in 1985 and became a full-time teacher three years later, a faculty member when Central opened in 1988. She has a clean disciplinary record and was voted by students for the school's Teacher of the Year award last school year.

She said she hopes school officials will consider the facts of her case and her record, and allow her to return to the classroom, but it's still unclear if that will happen.

She was suspended with pay after her arrest and will have a predetermination hearing this summer as the school district conducts its own investigation, said Joe Vitalo, president of the Hernando Classroom Teachers Association.

Superintendent Bryan Blavatt did not return messages Thursday.

"I've been doing this for 22 years, and it's part of who I am, a teacher who makes a positive influence in kids' lives," Hadsock said. "I'm a very optimistic person so I'm seeing a near future where I'm back making lesson plans and getting my room in order for next year and doing the job that I do so well."

In the meantime, she is not allowed to have student contact, which means she won't be able to attend Central's graduation ceremony tonight.

Hadsock's story touched a nerve with readers. Many who posted comments on tampabay.com cheered her for sticking up for herself. She said she has received correspondence from strangers throughout the country offering words of support.

The writers agreed that bad student behavior is an epidemic, she said, and it's causing good teachers to leave the profession.

"For a solution, I think you need well-trained teachers, but you also need good parenting and students who want to learn and who understand the need for, and are grateful for, a good education," she said. "Our values have gotten backward somewhere, and we need to reassess as a nation what's important."

SOURCE




CA: Parents defenseless against gender 'diversity training'

As teachers spent May 23 and 24 using all-girl geckos and transgendered clownfish to teach gender diversity lessons, a California school has raised concerns with teaching that there are more than two genders.

Students in all grades at Oakland's Redwood Heights Elementary School got an introduction to the topic on Monday, as teachers told them there are different ways to be boys and different ways to be girls. In the lesson called "Gender Spectrum Diversity Training," documents released by the school say that students were taught that "gender is not inherently nor solely connected to one's physical anatomy."

Another document from the school advises parents that "when you discuss gender with your child, you may hear them...exploring where they...fit on the gender spectrum and why."

Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), says it is difficult to imagine the liberal indoctrination endured by elementary students.

"No child in kindergarten should be introduced to the question of whether or not they really are a boy or really are a girl," he contends. "That has no place in public schools, and these schools are engaging in an area that without question results in children having problems that they likely would not have had otherwise."

He questions the legitimacy of the topic. Meanwhile, legal counsel is being offered to parents who oppose gender-diversity lessons.

"Legally, there is no right under California law for parents to opt out from this kind of outrageous pro-transgender indoctrination," Dacus laments. "Nonetheless though, as legal counsel, we are giving them advice as to how to protect their children."

Some of the reading list includes Boy, girl or both? and My Princess Boy for grades K-1, What is gender? and 10,000 Dresses for grades 2-3, and Three Dimensions of Gender for grades 4-5 -- the age group that was also introduced to the song, "All I Want to Be is Me."

SOURCE



3 June, 2011

Fat City: Thank you, Illinois taxpayers, for my cushy life

By David Rubinstein, a professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Illinois at Chicago

After 34 years of teaching sociology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, I recently retired at age 64 at 80 percent of my pay for life. This calculation was based on a salary spiked by summer teaching, and since I no longer pay into the retirement fund, I now receive significantly more than when I “worked.” But that’s not all: There’s a generous health insurance plan, a guaranteed 3 percent annual cost of living increase, and a few other perquisites.

Having overinvested in my retirement annuity, I received a fat refund and—when it rains, it pours—another for unused sick leave. I was also offered the opportunity to teach as an emeritus for three years, receiving $8,000 per course, double the pay for adjuncts, which works out to over $200 an hour. Another going-away present was summer pay, one ninth of my salary, with no teaching obligation.

Easy Street

I haven’t done the math but I suspect that, given a normal life span, these benefits nearly doubled my salary. And in Illinois these benefits are constitutionally guaranteed, up there with freedom of religion and speech.

Why do I put “worked” in quotation marks? Because my main task as a university professor was self-cultivation: reading and writing about topics that interested me. Maybe this counts as work. But here I am today—like many of my retired colleagues—doing pretty much what I have done since the day I began graduate school, albeit with less intensity.

Before retiring, I carried a teaching load of two courses per semester: six hours of lecture a week. I usually scheduled classes on Tuesdays and Thursdays: The rest of the week was mine. Colleagues who pursued grants taught less, some rarely seeing a classroom. The gaps this left in the department’s course offerings were filled by adjuncts, hired with little scrutiny and subject to little supervision, and paid little.

Sometimes my teaching began at 9:30 a.m., but this was hardship duty. A night owl, I preferred to start my courses at 11 or 12. With an hour or so in my office to see an occasional student, I was at the (free) gym by 4 p.m. Department heads sometimes pleaded with faculty to alter their schedules to suit departmental needs, but rarely. Because most professors insist on selected hours, to avoid rush hour and to retain days at home, universities must build extra classroom space that stands empty much of the day.

The occasional seminars were opportunities for professors to kick back and let graduate students do the talking. Committee meetings were tedious but, except for the few good departmental citizens, most of us were able to avoid undue burdens.

Another perquisite of the job was a remarkable degree of personal freedom. Some professors came to class unshaven, wearing T-shirts and jeans. One of the deans scolded the faculty for looking like urban guerrillas. He was ridiculed as an authoritarian prig.

This schedule held for 30 weeks of the year, leaving free three months in summer, a month in December, and a week in spring, plus all the usual holidays. Every six years, there was sabbatical leave: a semester off at full pay to do research, which sometimes actually got done.

Most faculty attended academic conferences at taxpayer expense. Some of these were serious events, but always allowed ample time for schmoozing and sightseeing. A group of professors who shared my interests applied for a grant to fund a conference at Lake Como. It was denied because we had failed to include any women and so we settled for an all-expenses-paid week at Cambridge, England.

The grandest prize of all is, of course, tenure. The tenured live in a different world than ordinary mortals, a world in which fears of unemployment are banished, futures can be confidently planned, and retirement is secure.

All of this at a university without union representation!

To be fair, the first years of a newly hired assistant professor can be harrowing. Writing lecture notes to cover a semester takes effort. But soon I had abundant material which could be reused indefinitely and took maybe 20 minutes of review before class. Adding new material required hardly more effort than the time to read what I would have read anyway.

The only really arduous part of teaching was grading exams and papers. But for most of my classes I had teaching assistants to do this, graduate students who usually knew little more about the topic than the undergraduates.

My colleagues, to their credit, promoted me to full professor knowing my ideological heterodoxy. I fear that a young Ph.D. looking for work today who challenged the increasingly rigid political orthodoxies would have a hard time. But the discipline of sociology is so ideologically homogenous—a herd, as Harold Rosenberg put it, of independent minds—that this problem is rare. Universities cherish diversity in everything except where it counts most: ideas.

According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, Harvard, donating 4 to 1 in favor of Democrats in 2008, was one of the more politically diverse major American universities. Ninety-two percent of employees at the University of Chicago donated to Democrats. The University of California favored Democrats over Republicans, 90 percent to 10 percent. And William and Mary employees preferred Democrats to the GOP by a margin of 99 percent to 1 percent. Neil Gross of Harvard found that 87.6 percent of social scientists voted for Kerry, 6.2 percent for Bush.

Gross also found that 25 percent of sociologists characterize themselves as Marxists, likely a higher percentage than members of the Chinese Communist party. I would guess that if Lenin were around today he would be teaching sociology and seeking grants to fund the revolution.

The research requirements to achieve tenure and promotion are rigorous. The top journals reject as much as 90 percent of the work submitted, so accumulating the half-dozen or so articles usually required to be tenured took sustained effort.

But it is not clear what value this work has to those who pay the salaries. As Thomas Sowell has argued, building a scholarly reputation requires finding a niche that no one else has explored—often for good reason. I am hard pressed to explain why sometimes exquisitely esoteric interests should be supported by taxpayers: This expertise certainly does not match the educational needs of students. (Full disclosure: The book that established my scholarly reputation is titled Marx and Wittgenstein: Social Science and Social Praxis.)

The work done by most of my colleagues did bear on issues of wider relevance and not all of it was so ideologically compromised as to be useless. But the readership of academic journals is tiny, and most of this work had no impact beyond a small circle of interested academics—for understandable reasons. Philip Tetlock, a research psychologist at Berkeley, tested the accuracy of 82,361 predictions made by 284 experts including psychologists, economists, political scientists, and area and foreign policy specialists, 96 percent with post-graduate training. He found that their prognostications did not beat chance. The increasingly ideological nature of social science will not improve this record.

To be sure, some of my colleagues were prodigious researchers, devoted teachers, and outstanding departmental, university, and professional citizens. But sociologists like to talk about what they call the “structural” constraints on behavior. While character and professional ethics can withstand the incentives to coast, the privileged position of a tenured professor guarantees that there will be slackers.

An argument can be made that, compared with professionals in the private sector, college professors are underpaid, though according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “by rank, the average [salary] was $108,749 for full professors.” It is difficult to compare the overall goodness of different lives, but there is a back of the envelope shortcut. In my 34 years, just one professor in the sociology department resigned to take a nonacademic job. For open positions, there were always over 100 applicants, several of them outstanding. The rarity of quits and the abundance of applications is good evidence that the life of the college professor is indeed enviable.

The life of a professor is far more attractive than that of most government employees, but elements of professorial privilege can be found in the lives of other public sector workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the quit rate for government workers is less than one-third that of the private sector. Applications for federal jobs exceed those for the private sector by at least 25 percent, and when workers move from private to federal employment their earnings, according to Princeton’s Alan Krueger, increase by 12 percent.

And then there are the public schools. Because K-12 education is local, generalizations are difficult. But there are many egregious cases. Less than 2 percent of teachers in Los Angeles are denied tenure. In the last decade, according to LA Weekly, the city “spent $3.5 million trying to fire just seven of the district’s 33,000 teachers for poor classroom performance.” Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a Democrat, liberal, and former union organizer, described union leadership as an “unwavering roadblock to reform.” Teachers in Florida gain tenure after three years of “satisfactory” evaluations and, in 2009, 99.7 percent received this evaluation. Michelle Rhee said that when she took over the D.C. school system in 2007, 95 percent of the teachers were rated excellent and none was terminated. Just 0.1 percent of Chicago teachers were fired for poor performance between 2005 and 2008.

This circumstance has attracted the attention of public officials. Illinois, with the support of some prominent Democrats, is desperate to cut back a public employee pension system that, even with recent reforms, will go broke within 10 years. John Kasich, Republican governor of Ohio, has proposed that the teaching load of college professors be increased by one course every two years.

Such efforts at restraint are routinely met with Wisconsin-like howls of outrage. One of my colleagues, whose retirement benefits exceed the $77,900 household income average for retired government employees in Illinois, was indignant that the state had managed to require an additional $17 a month for his dental insurance. How dare they!

Protests against efforts to reform pay scales, teaching loads, and retirement benefits employ a “solidarity forever, the union makes us strong” rhetoric. What these professors and other government workers do not understand is that they are not demanding a share of the profits from the fat-cat bourgeoisie. They are squeezing taxpayers—for whom the professors purport to advocate—whose lives are in most cases far harsher than their own.

SOURCE

There is a grumpy but shallow reply to Rubinstein by philoophy professor Roderick T. Long here. My own experience (tenured) teaching Sociology for 12 years in a major Australian university was very similar to what Rubenstein reports. The major difference is that I always speed-read student assignments so spent little time on it. My marking was not degraded by that however. Colleagues even congratulated me on how good I was at marking!

I also did what academics are supposed to do: Spend heaps of time on research. But, judging by their output and other things that I saw, I was very much the exception in that regard among my colleagues. There were many periods when I was the only academic in the Department who was actually in his office -- usually poring over computer printouts or hammering away on my old Olivetti typewriter. I also used to spend half a day a week in the "current journals" section of the library -- but I doubt if I ever saw a Sociology colleague there -- JR






Indian-American girl scoops $40,000 spelling-bee prize with 'cymotrichous'

Ms. Roy is the ninth Indian-American in the last 13 years to win. How come such a tiny minority is so outstanding -- even when many would come from homes where English is not the first language? No mystery really. Indians are extremely verbal. Talk is one of India's major exports. When you call the call-centre of a large organization, your query will often be routed through to India

Sukanya Roy, a 14-year-old girl from Pennsylvania, wins the 2011 US National Spelling Bee by spelling the word 'cymotrichous'.

Miss Roy took top prize in the 84th annual US National Spelling Bee after she saw off her competitors over 20 rounds of on-the-spot spelling at the final in Oxon Hill, Maryland.

After winning, the teenager, who was competing in her third championships, was shaking with excitement.

"My heart started pounding, I guess. I couldn't believe it," Miss Roy told broadcaster ESPN, immediately after receiving her trophy.

The finals have been screened live on US television since 2006 and drew and audience of over one million last year.

The winning word, cymotrichous, is an adjective relating to having wavy hair. Miss Roy, who also speaks fluent Bengali, said she knew the word immediately. "I just wanted to spell it right," she said. "I really didn't want to get it wrong."

Besides the trophy, the newly-crowned champion speller took home a $30,000 cash prize, a $2,500 US savings bond, a complete reference library, a $5,000 scholarship, $2,600 in reference works and other prizes.

SOURCE




18 Signs That Life In U.S. Public Schools Is Now Essentially Equivalent To Life In U.S. Prisons

In the United States today, our public schools are not very good at educating our students, but they sure are great training grounds for learning how to live in a Big Brother police state control grid. Sadly, life in many U.S. public schools is now essentially equivalent to life in U.S. prisons.

Most parents don't realize this, but our students have very few rights when they are in school. Our public school students are being watched, tracked, recorded, searched and controlled like never before. Back when I was in high school, it was unheard of for a police officer to come to school, but today our public school students are being handcuffed and arrested in staggering numbers. When I was young we would joke that going to school was like going to prison, but today that is actually true.

The following are 18 signs that life in our public schools is now very similar to life in our prisons....

#1 Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has announced that school officials can search the cell phones and laptops of public school students if there are "reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school."

#2 It came out in court that one school district in Pennsylvania secretly recorded more than 66,000 images of students using webcams that were embedded in school-issued laptops that the students were using at home.

#3 If you can believe it, a "certified TSA official" was recently brought in to oversee student searches at the Santa Fe High School prom.

#4 A few years ago a class of 3rd grade students at one Kentucky elementary school were searched by a group of teachers after 5 dollars went missing. During the search the students were actually required to remove their shoes and their socks.

#5 At one public school in the Chicago area, children have been banned from bringing their lunches from home. Yes, you read that correctly. Students at that particular school are absolutely prohibited from bringing lunches from home. Instead, it is mandatory that they eat the food that the school cafeteria serves.

#6 The U.S. Department of Agriculture is spending huge amounts of money to install surveillance cameras in the cafeterias of public schools so that government control freaks can closely monitor what our children are eating.

#7 A teenager in suburban Dallas was recently forced to take on a part-time job after being ticketed for using bad language in one high school classroom. The original ticket was for $340, but additional fees have raised the total bill to $637.

#8 It is not just high school kids that are being ticketed by police. In Texas the crackdown extends all the way down to elementary school students. In fact, it has been reported that Texas police gave "1,000 tickets" to elementary school kids over a recent six year period.

#9 A few months ago, a 17 year-old honor student in North Carolina named Ashley Smithwick accidentally took her father's lunch with her to school. It contained a small paring knife which he would use to slice up apples. So what happened to this standout student when the school discovered this? The school suspended her for the rest of the year and the police charged her with a misdemeanor.

#10 A little over a year ago, a 6 year old girl in Florida was handcuffed and sent to a mental facility after throwing temper tantrums at her elementary school.

#11 In early 2010, a 12 year old girl in New York was arrested by police and marched out of her school in handcuffs just because she doodled on her desk. "I love my friends Abby and Faith" was what she reportedly wrote on her desk.

#12 There are actually some public schools in the United States that are so paranoid that they have actually installed cameras in student bathrooms.

#13 Down in Florida, students have actually been arrested by police for bringing a plastic butter knife to school, for throwing an eraser, and for drawing a picture of a gun.

#14 The Florida State Department of Juvenile Justice has announced that it will begin using analysis software to predict crime by young delinquents and will place "potential offenders" in specific prevention and education programs.

#15 A group of high school students made national headlines a while back when they revealed that they were ordered by a security guard to stop singing the national anthem during a visit to the Lincoln Memorial.

#16 In some U.S. schools, armed cops accompanied by police dogs actually conduct surprise raids with their guns drawn. In this video, you can actually see police officers aiming their guns at school children as the students are lined up facing the wall.

#17 Back in 2009, one 8 year old boy in Massachusetts was sent home from school and was forced to undergo a psychological evaluation because he drew a picture of Jesus on the cross.

#18 This year, 13 parents in Duncan, South Carolina were actually arrested for cheering during a high school graduation.

SOURCE



2 June, 2011

Middle School Yearbook List Compares Hitler and Bin Laden to… George W. Bush

Who says young people aren’t political? A quasi-scandal has broken out at Arkansas’ Russellville Middle School. The school’s yearbook featured a list of the “Top 5 Worst People of All Time.”

Some of the world’s most horrific murderers and maniacs were included: Adolph Hitler, Osama Bin Laden, Charles Manson…

Few people would argue that these individuals don’t deserve a spot on that roster. Each went on murderous rampages and were, arguably, mentally-imbalanced. However, it‘s the list’s last two names that are causing a stir: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The former president and vice-president don’t seem to share many characteristics with the other men they were clumped with.

Once the yearbooks were printed, the district attempted to remedy the alleged oversight. KLRT-TV has more:

"Superintendent Randall Williams calls the list “an oversight.”

Parents caught it after the yearbooks were printed. The district’s solution was to cover the list with tape. It didn’t work.

“Really?” said Williams when told the tape could be pulled off. “Well that’s disappointing because the yearbook supplier told us this was a definite fix.”

There’s no word yet on potential disciplinary measures for the teacher responsible for managing the yearbook’s production process, though the principal maintains that it was an accident.

Mediaite asks another important question: Where did the list come from?

Williams explains that the teacher in charge of the yearbook didn’t put it in and is “very, very, very upset” about missing it before printing.

Apparently some of the students pulled the thing off of the website Ranker.com, a site where people just make lists of stuff.

A cursory search didn’t find the exact list in question although there are a ton of “worst people” rankings that do feature members of the Bush administration like this one, this one, and this one.

SOURCE






Dumb British High School examiners

Impossible maths paper puts university places at risk, say A-level pupils

A-level students fear their university places may be at risk after they were set an ‘impossible’ question in a maths exam.

One of Britain’s biggest exam boards apologised for the blunder yesterday which affected a paper sat by nearly 7,000 students.

A teacher who saw the exam paper spotted the error and alerted the OCR last Friday.

Yesterday furious students flooded social networking sites calling for the exam to be re-run.

The question, which could not be solved, accounted for more than 11 per cent of marks.

The exam board pledged to take the mistake into account, but students said the precious minutes wasted on it meant they failed to reach other parts of the test.

On The Student Room website, one teenager said: ‘They should definitely give us a re-sit.’ Another said: ‘I spent 20 minutes on that question (as it was worth the most marks) and had to rush everything else. I really needed to get an A and now I am scared I won’t even get a B.’

The error centred around a 90-minute ‘decision mathematics’ AS-level exam sat by students in 335 schools and colleges. AS- levels are normally sat in the first year of two-year A-level courses. In the final section, students were presented with a diagram showing a network of tracks in a forest. The exam board failed to calculate the length properly, which meant it failed to tally with their mathematical equation.

An OCR spokesman said: ‘We have several measures in place to ensure candidates are not unfairly disadvantaged as a result of this unfortunate error. ‘Because we have been alerted to this so early, we are able to take this error into account when marking the paper. We will also take it into account when setting the grade boundaries.’ He added: ‘We will be under- taking a thorough review of our quality assurance procedures.’

SOURCE






In Australia's academe, the Left show the totalitarian stuff of which they are made: Larissa Behrendt revisited



Larissa Behrendt claims to be an Aborigine and pretends to wisdom about Aboriginal affairs -- but she is as pink-skinned as I am and has nothing new to offer on Aboriginal policy. She is nothing like a real Aborigine, even if she has some remote Aboriginal ancestry. She is just a conventional Leftist. She is comfortably ensconced with others of her ilk at the University of Technology, Sydney, far away from the day-to-day problems of real Aborigines. Her many awards and honours suggest that her claims of Aboriginality have served her well, however. It's so comforting to give awards to "Aborigines" who are just like us. It helps to hide the real and sad differences that need to be dealt with constructively -- JR

Janet Albrechtsen

This is about a big idea: the human right to free speech. Yet in the academic world devoted to human rights where Larissa Behrendt earns her living, free speech is often scorned. As the poster girl for urban academics, the law professor has done a first-class job of exposing the Left's lack of commitment to free speech.

Behrendt is entitled to her views. But as a high-profile indigenous academic with a long list of public appointments - professor of law and director of research at the Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning at the University of Technology, Sydney, former chair of one of the Australian Research Council's panels that hands out taxpayer-funded research grants and so on - Behrendt is accountable for what she says and does.

If she wants to follow an out-dated agenda of postcolonial guilt, treaties and indigenous sovereignty, she is free to do so. Some will agree with her. Many others will disagree with an agenda best described by anthropologist Peter Sutton as pie-in-the-sky. They will argue that real progress depends on eradicating violence against indigenous women and children.

Yet when Behrendt tweeted that watching bestiality on television was less offensive than watching Bess Price, a strong supporter of the Northern Territory intervention, on ABC1's Q & A, Behrendt clearly rejected the merits of debate. She undermined her own credibility as a defender of human rights when she transformed an important debate about indigenous violence into something petty and personal.

Behrendt's email apology does not hide her deeper contempt for free speech when she defaulted to the Left's standard tactic of trying to muzzle those with different views. Those who stray from the orthodoxy are not just wrong, they are evil - worse than watching bestiality. Ergo, those with evil views should not be seen or heard.

And then there's the hypocrisy. Behrendt and her fellow travellers are using discrimination laws to try to shut down Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt for expressing strongly held views. Behrendt said much worse things about Price.

Just imagine the fatal career consequences had a white academic tweeted in the way Behrendt did. Defending Behrendt and her appointment to the government's review of Aboriginal higher education, chairman of the Indigenous Higher Education Advisory Council Steve Larkin said the tweet fiasco had nothing to do with higher education.

This is not just about a throwaway tweet. As The Australian reported on April 19 and 20, Behrendt tried to stop the National Indigenous Times from publishing the views of human rights lawyer Hannah McGlade, whose focus is protecting indigenous women and children from violence. While Behrendt said she had had no conversations with Stephen Hagan, editor of the Times, she wrote an email to the newspaper's general manager Beverley Wyner and her husband, John, which noted her distress at discovering McGlade was a likely new contributor.

In the email, Behrendt writes: ". . . I felt that this meant that our paper was giving all her views legitimacy, including her personal attacks on me." What happened to debate, Dr Behrendt?

In fact, Behrendt's disdain for free speech has everything to do with higher education. As naive as it sounds, the heartbeat of free speech should be at its healthiest within our universities. Instead, free speech risks flatlining when a professor of law ridicules and shuts down opponents. Warren Mundine told The Australian: "If you don't have free debate in academia, then where the bloody hell are we going?"

Consider this too. Since 2002, Behrendt has been a director of the Sydney Writers Festival, a cosy, taxpayer-subsidised couch where like-minded people sit and nod in agreement. At no stage has historian Keith Windschuttle been invited to talk about his contributions to history. He's been invited to the Adelaide Writers Festival, the Melbourne Writers Festival. Even Byron Bay luvvies have hosted him. But not the writers' clique in his home town.

There is a devastating human cost here. It is no coincidence that the human right to free speech is the critical driver of human progress. Progress doesn't come from sticking with the herd. In every sphere, the best ideas often challenged the mainstream. Behind every advance, there is a dissident voice, a radical idea, a genuinely curious, bravely independent mind. Yet so many on the Left, who mistakenly wrap themselves up as progressives, have little time for such voices of dissent.

As Mundine says: "This is about serious debate. Nothing could be more serious than the issues raised by Bess Price in regard to violence against women and children within our society. This really gets down to the very fabric of what our society stands for."

SOURCE



1 June, 2011

A school with a difference

And a school that does NOT demand adherence to the party line, unlike most American universities

This might be the most mysterious school in China. The gates are closely guarded by the People's Armed Police, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Headmasters of this place, a training ground for future leaders of the Communist Party of China (CPC), are always one of the country's vice-presidents, if not the president. Former headmasters include Mao Zedong, Liu Shaoqi and Hu Jintao.

It is also a haven where possible cures for China's economic and social ills are discussed and debated, and where policy trends are set.

Situated next to the Summer Palace, an 18th century imperial retreat in suburban Beijing's northwest, the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China - the Central Party School - is like no other university or college in the country.

Without the usual hustle and bustle, the 100-hectare leafy campus is extremely quiet, and almost empty. There is no bicycle congestion. Instead, the roads outside school buildings are lined with black Audis, the German brand selected as the government's official sedans.

The serenity and security are prepared for those who study there - provincial governors and ministers, young and middle-aged officials, their guest speakers and sometimes the country's top leaders.

The speeches that top leaders deliver at the Central Party School, and their articles printed in the school's publications, often signal new strategies and policies that will be adopted by the central government.

Seeking new solutions

The most recent example is the notion of innovative social governance - keeping a handle on social issues while fulfilling people's fundamental interests - brought about amid growing public concerns over unbalanced and unsustainable development.

In February, at the opening ceremony of a seminar for provincial and ministerial officials at the school, President Hu Jintao called for new methods of social management in a bid to "ensure a harmonious and stable society full of vitality", Xinhua News Agency reported. Hu acknowledged that the country is "still in a stage where many conflicts are likely to arise", despite remarkable social and economic development.

In his speech, Hu highlighted the necessities to "improve the structure of social management", which must be achieved through the Party committee's leadership, government's responsibilities, support from non-governmental organizations and public participation.

In March, at the annual sessions of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference National Committee, a proposal high on the agenda called for establishing a sound social management system with Chinese characteristics during the 12th Five-Year Plan (2011-2015) period.

More detailed plans have since been drafted, including one for a comprehensive and dynamic national population database. Zhou Yongkang, secretary of the Central Political and Legislative Affairs Committee of the Communist Party of China, made that proposal in an article published in Qiushi, the CPC central committee's biweekly journal.

Steering the policymaking in China is a tradition for the Central Party School, according to Wang Haiguang, a professor in the school's history department.

Broad range of programs

The Central Party School, founded in 1933 in Jiangxi province, has trained 61,024 officials under different types of programs.

Provincial and ministerial-level officials usually undergo two months of training on political science, public management, economy and history. Young and middle-aged officials spend six months to a year at the school, usually followed by a promotion.

Since 1981, the school also has offered postgraduate and doctoral programs for about 500 non-official students. They focus on philosophy, economics, laws, politics and the history of the Communist Party of China.

"The Central Party School has played an important role in several critical stages in China's history," Wang said. "In some way, it is partly navigating the country's development through influencing decision-makers."

Following the end of the "cultural revolution" (1966-1976), Hu Yaobang, then headmaster of the Central Party School, led a fervent discussion about the criterion for "testing truth" among the officials receiving training at the school.

At the time, whatever Mao said was regarded as the truth or principle to follow. The discussion led by Hu was whether this rule should continue.

The discussion was held in a stubborn social environment still dominated by the notion of "two whatevers" - "we will resolutely uphold whatever policy and decisions Chairman Mao made, and unswervingly follow whatever instructions Chairman Mao gave."

It led to the publication in May 1978 of a commentary piece, titled "Practice Is the Sole Criterion for Testing Truth," in Guangming Daily. The concept put forward in the article won approval by the majority of Party members, but it also touched off a fierce national debate. The debate was believed to be a great movement to free the minds of Chinese people from personality cults, and also a solid ideological foundation for the economic reforms and opening-up that would follow.

Freedom of speech

Although outsiders expect the Central Party School to be conservative, the school tolerates free internal discussions, even without limits. Li Tao, a 27-year-old postgraduate student at the school, was surprised by the freedom of speech in class.

"Teachers told us there were no taboos in their teaching, and officials can debate on almost any sensitive issues in the country," Li said. "This is actually a place of mind emancipation and free speech."

"Officials might be discreet in talking to strangers or in public, but their internal discussion in class is unbounded," said Wu Zhongmin, a professor at the Central Party School who focuses on social justice research. "Sometimes their opinions can be really audacious and revolutionary.

"The Central Party School is a place where officials and researchers debate about the future of the country and the Party," Wu said. "They have to face the problems and find ways to solve them. Speaking empty words or simply flattering makes no sense here."

Discussions are closely linked to the most sizzling social problems, such as illegal land grabs, inequality between rural and urban areas, and corruption. To give trainees a better understanding of these problems, the Central Party School sometimes invites outspoken scholars to give lectures.

One speaker, in 2009, was Yu Jianrong, head of the Rural Development Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and a prominent advocate for farmers' rights. He addressed the rapid urbanization that has resulted in farmland being taken up for construction projects and the use of the petition system for redress.

Some farmers, believing they had not been adequately compensated for their land, appealed to the petition system. But going over local officials' heads by petitioning can lead to ill treatment by officials whose job performance is downgraded when they do not handle problems well locally.

Wang Changjiang, director of the school's Party Building Teaching and Research Department, said officials are aware that mishandling such social problems could create greater chaos.

"China has so many problems now," Wang said. "As the country's governors, officials have no reason to ignore those problems. They must bear in mind that only reform and changes to the Party can help it stay in power."

Social and economic changes also have led to changes in officials' mindset, he said. In the early 1990s, higher ranked officials were unaware of some of the problems at the grassroots.

Wang said he met strong opposition from trainees when he tried to talk about democratic reform in 1996. But in recent years, more high-ranking Party leaders began to realize the need to carry out government reform following economic progress.

"The Central Party School might be the most ideal place for such discussions," he said, "because you can't find anywhere else where hundreds of high-ranking officials gather for months."

International exchanges

Since the mid-1990s, the Central Party School has welcomed another group of guest speakers - top leaders from foreign countries - in a bid to give Chinese officials a wider horizon and better understanding of different cultures, values and political systems.

Most recently, Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, gave a speech titled "Europe and China in an Interdependent World" on May 17 during his visit to Beijing. Besides talking about the economic crisis, he also addressed human rights, climate change and other concerns common to both Europe and China.

SOURCE





Report reveals one in three children in London doesn't own a single book

Three in ten children live in households that do not contain a single book, a poll has found. The survey of more than 18,000 youths across the country has shown large numbers do not own any books or read on their own, fuelling slumping education standards.

This was coupled with the finding that children with no books are two-and-a-half times more likely to fall below the expected reading level for their age.

One teacher in the capital told how, when he asked his pupils to bring in a book from home to speak about with the rest of the class, a nine-year-old boy brought in the Argos catalogue. 'It's the only book my family have,' the youngster told his teacher.

The study also found almost 40 per cent of those aged eight to 17 live in homes with 10 or fewer books – although 85 per cent of those aged eight to 15 own a games console, and 81 per cent have a mobile phone.

The research, conducted by the National Literacy Trust, follows official statistics showing one in five children leaves primary school without reaching the expected level of progress in English.

The same proportion leaves school without an A* to C grade in both GCSE English and Maths.

Education Secretary Michael Gove has highlighted the problem, which has seen England slip from 7th to 25th in the world literacy rankings, and said he wants children to read 50 books a year.

Researcher Christina Clark, who led the poll of 18,171 eight to 17-year-olds in 111 UK schools, found children with no books had ‘lower levels of attainment, negative attitudes to reading and read less frequently’.
A young girl being given one-on-one reading lessons. According to the National Literacy Trust, 80 per cent of parents rarely find time to read with their young children (stock image)

A young girl being given one-on-one reading lessons. According to the National Literacy Trust, 80 per cent of parents rarely find time to read with their young children (stock image)

Sir Jim Rose, former director of Ofsted, said: ‘We are in serious trouble. We need to do something urgently. It is a responsibility we cannot afford to shirk.’

A separate study of 70,000 people in 27 countries, by Nevada University, recently found that children who grew up in a home with 20 or more books remained in education three years longer than those born to families with empty bookshelves.

SOURCE





Scottish School orders pupils to wear baggy clothes 'to deter paedophiles who like boys in tight trousers'

Furious parents yesterday criticised a school after they were asked to buy their children baggy clothes to deter paedophiles. King's Park Secondary School, in Glasgow, asked parents to ensure modesty in their children's uniform in a bizarre letter which claims sex offenders may be taking pictures of schoolboys in tight trousers.

The letter, dubbed 'paranoid in the extreme' by one parent, was sent home even though police say there have been no incidents of schoolchildren in the area being targeted. And children whose parents fail to conform to the approved dress code could be forced to miss out on fun school trips.

The letter says: 'We believe an appropriate school uniform protects children from being targeted by sexual predators. 'There is recent evidence in south Glasgow of adults photographing schoolgirls in short skirts and schoolgirls/boys in tight trousers, then grooming them through the internet. 'We must do all we can to keep our children safe. A modest school uniform is more appropriate than fashion skirts, trousers or tops.'

The crackdown on pupil attire has been slammed by shocked parents whose children don't want to obey the strict rules. One blasted: 'There is no way an ugly uniform is going to deter a predator and determined sex offender. 'This is just paranoid in the extreme. There are better ways to safeguard children than spreading needless panic.' Another added: 'It is laughable to think the uniform can act as some sort of paedophile-repellent.'

The tough new policy forces cash-strapped parents to shop from an approved list of items available only at high street store Marks and Spencer. Girls can wear only knee-length pleated skirts or trousers and boys loose-fitting trousers.

A school source claimed the rules were sparked by the case of pervert Barry McCluskey, 39, who pretended to be a schoolgirl to target schoolchildren online. He managed to make contact with 49 girls from his King's Park home between 2007 and 2010.

The source said staff were not willing to take any chances and felt clothing could act as a safeguard for the children in their care.

But Scottish Liberal Democrat education spokesman Liam McArthur said school bosses should have spoken to police if they had such real fears of predatory paedophiles. He said: 'The school needs to bring this to the attention of police as a matter of urgency.' Tory MSP Ruth Davidson added: 'This situation sounds very worrying.'

A Glasgow City Council spokesman said there had been 'extensive consultation' over the draconian new uniform rules. He said: 'The welfare and protection of pupils are the highest priority.'

However, the Scottish Parent Teacher Council said 'shock tactics are not required'. Chief executive Eileen Prior said: 'Creating a link between school uniform and paedophilia seems to be a dangerous and unhelpful one for everyone involved.

'It implies that young people are in some way responsible for the activities of paedophiles, which is an extremely dangerous argument and one which has echoes of the comments sometimes made around rapists and women's dress. 'If there is evidence of activity by a paedophile in the area, then police and parents should be informed and involved.'

She added: 'Many parents - and indeed young people themselves - are keen to have a dress code in school which requires everyone in the school community to dress in a way which is appropriate for a working environment.'

Scottish Liberal Democrat education spokesman Liam McArthur said: 'This situation raises some very serious issues. 'The school needs to bring this situation to the attention of the police as a matter of urgency. 'Likewise, if parents have any concerns whatsoever they should be raising these with the police.'

SOURCE






Primarily covering events in Australia, the U.K. and the USA -- where the follies are sadly similar.


TERMINOLOGY: The British "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