I guess I am taken aback by attempts to limit contact between students and the United States Armed Forces.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. A civil-liberties activist says school officials should better inform parents of their right to keep their children's information from military recruiters.

Beth Wilson says some schools are putting notices in handbooks or newsletters rather than providing separate forms to students. Wilson is director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky. She recently sent a letter to 176 school superintendents.

The 2002 No Child Left Behind Act requires schools to provide names, addresses and phone numbers to recruiters or risk losing federal funding -- unless parents "opt out." The law didn't specify how schools should notify parents of that right, and procedures vary among schools.

Kentucky education officials let districts decide how to notify parents.

This fall, about 24 percent of Louisville public high school students opted to keep their information private, up from about 20 percent last year.

Military recruiters say information from schools helps them to make home visits and calls and to send promotional material.

Now i see a real problem here. Assuming these kids are American citizens, do they not have the right to receive communication from their own government? Is it not a violation of the rights of the child to permit a parent to interfere with their right to communicate freely with agents of their government?

And what I find particularly amusing is that folks who don't believe parents have the right to be notified of, much less consent to, their child undergoing an invasive surgical procedure (abortion) now want to let parents control their child's access to career and educational opportunities. Groups that object strenuously to parents being permitted to pull their child from programs discussing what they view as immoral lifestyles are willing to permit them to opt their child out of contact with a government agency. Do I detect a bit of hypocrisy here?

UPDATE: The Washington Post has a longer article on the issue.

Now many parents -- aided by such anti-recruiting groups as the San Francisco-based Leave My Child Alone -- are demanding that school boards make it easier for families to prevent military recruiters from contacting their sons and daughters. They are mounting e-mail and letter-writing campaigns telling families they can block school systems from releasing student information to military recruiters. Even such national educational groups as the PTA are getting involved in the effort to get the word out.

But the military is spreading its own word -- about the benefits of a career in the armed services. This month, the Pentagon launched a $10 million marketing campaign aimed at encouraging parents to be more open to allowing their children to enlist. Although officials say the effort is not tied to growing antiwar sentiment, the commercials feature kids broaching the topic of enlistment with apprehensive parents and urge mothers and fathers to make it a "two-way conversation."

Many states have long allowed military recruiters access to student phone numbers and addresses, but the practice received a boost from the federal No Child Left Behind act. School systems that decline to release the information now risk losing federal dollars.

The advocacy is putting school officials in a quandary, particularly principals who say they want to be responsive to parents but also want to be fair to military recruiters, who by law are allowed the same access to student information as college recruiters. And, principals point out, although some parents wish to prevent military recruiters from reaching their children, others view military service as a good option.

"I'm just trying to follow the rules -- and the rules are the same for everyone,'' said James Fernandez, principal at Albert Einstein High School in Kensington, where recruiters have visited four or five times this year. Last year, five students from the school enlisted in the armed forces.

As i said, I'm a bit taken aback by those on the Left who don't care about the views of parents on any other isue DEMANDING that parents be able to prevent the federal government from talking to their children.

And, of course, they seem to have no problem with that same government funding the school those children attend. In fact, they usually want more.

Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear the proto-Sheehans tell the truth? "We loath the military and would prefer to leave the US vulnerable to attack."

Posted by: Greg at 02:53 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 750 words, total size 5 kb.

At Duquesne University, an allegedly Catholic institution of higher learning, you can openly oppose and violate Catholic teaching without fear of sanction. On the other hand, speaking in a manner consistent with the Catholic faith – even in a non-university forum – can get you punished, and even potentially expelled.

A Duquesne University sophomore will risk being kicked out of school rather than write an essay as punishment for expressing his view that homosexuality is "subhuman."

Ryan Miner, 19, of Hagerstown, Md., was sanctioned by Duquesne after posting his view in The Facebook, an online directory that is not related to the university.

Miner opposed an effort by other students to form a Gay-Straight Alliance group, an issue that is still being debated by the university.

"I believe as a student that my First Amendment rights in the Constitution were subverted and attacked," said Miner.

After Miner's comments appeared online, some students complained to the school.

After a hearing, the Office of Judicial Affairs found Miner guilty of violating the University Code, which prohibits harassment or discrimination based on sexual orientation, among other groups.

A 10-page paper was assigned as punishment. Miner said he refuses to write it and will file an appeal.

On what basis, I wonder, is this punishment being dished out? The Facebook is not a university publication. The university does not own or control the internet. Where is the nexus between this speech and the university that would subject Miner to university disciplinary action? I donÂ’t see one.

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

This little puke from the University of Cincinnatti opposes the Academic Bill of Rights -- a measure designed to ensure that students are graded on their knowledge and competence rather than their politics, religion, and ideology. He thinks that his words are a refutation of the ABOR, ">but he is instead an illustration of why it is necessary.

Rather than tell him (and his sponsor in the Ohio House) to go take a hike, the IUC passed a resolution on Oct. 11 confirming the following truisms: "Ohio's four-year public universities are committed to valuing and respecting diversity of ideas, including respect for diverse political viewpoints. Neither students nor faculty should be evaluated on the basis of their political opinions."

Except that not all "political opinions" are made equal, especially since modern conservatism has become synonymous with intolerance: it is anti-intellectual, counter-scientific, socially inept, recklessly interventionist and fiscally extravagant - even as it still defends discrimination against blacks, women and homosexuals.

College helps folks un-learn these toxic beliefs. It doesn't teach that they're of equal value to tolerance itself.

The liberal viewpoint is something to be defended, not compromised, which is probably why today's conservatives feel so out of place on America's college campuses.

How tolerant! The purpose of college -- and a state-funded one, no less, which exists on tax dollars extorted at the point of a gun -- is to instill the values of one side of the political spectrum and eliminate those of the other.

Is it any wonder that we far-right-wing extremists (read that "Republicans") feel there is a need for protection from those who would turn institutions of learning into centers of extreme-left-wing anti-American propaganda?

(Hat Tip -- FIRE's "The Torch")

Posted by: Greg at 12:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

Am I the only one disturbed by the opening paragraph of this story in the Washington Post?

A 10th-grade student in southern Prince George's County who allegedly attacked a biology teacher with a baseball bat during a class this week faces expulsion and possible criminal prosecution, a school system spokesman said yesterday.

Did you see that – “possible criminal prosecution”? What the hell is this “possible” crap? A teacher was physically assaulted with a deadly weapon in his classroom by a student. If this creep were to have done this to a random person on the street there would be no question of prosecution and he would already be some career criminal’s new girlfriend. Instead, we get this report.

According to [Prince George's schools spokesman John] White, the male student entered a biology classroom about 1 p.m. Wednesday and allegedly attacked the teacher in front of other students shortly before the class was to be dismissed. A witness said the assailant wore a ski mask, according to the Associated Press.

The suspect had been enrolled in a biology class with the teacher, but not during that period.

White said campus security officers caught the student as he was fleeing the classroom. He was questioned and released to his parents.

White said the teacher was treated at Southern Maryland Hospital Center in Clinton for bumps and bruises, including injuries to the face, head, shoulders and hands. The teacher was released late Wednesday and was recuperating at home, White said.

White declined to identify the student or the teacher. He said the teacher was a 28-year veteran of the school system who had been at Gwynn Park for more than a decade.

"It's unfortunate and unexpected," White said. "It's not a routine occurrence. That's why it's shocking."

WJLA television identified the teacher as Dario Valcarcel, who was listed on a school Web site as a science faculty member.

The school principal did not return a telephone call for comment. Messages left at a residential phone number for Valcarcel were not immediately returned.

Look at the stuff I put in bold there. “Injuries to the face, head, shoulders and hands” – in other words, an assault designed to incapacitate and/or kill Mr. Valcarcel and injuries sustained as he attempted to defend himself from what could reasonably be classified as ATTEMPTED MURDER. But all that happened to the perpetrator was being sent home with mommy and daddy! Why were the police not called in immediately so that an investigation could begin immediately and would-be killer arrested on the spot?

And you will notice the little bit at the end of the article about neither the principal nor the teacher responding o telephone calls seeking comment. My guess is that there will be none, at least if things operate as they do in my district. Only the district spokesperson and superintendent are permitted to speak to the media – we are even required to wear a little card along with our IDs that tell us that in the event of media contact we are required to report the matter to our supervisor, who will then contact our district spokesperson. The card also gives us the sum total of what we are allowed to say to the media under such circumstances – “You need to speak to the director of communications, Olga Obfuscation. Her cell phone number is XXX-XXX-XXXX.” Any further comment is grounds for disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

How long will it be until teacher safety is taken seriously in this country? Why are reports to the police not automatic and immediate? Why the secrecy surrounding incidents in the schools – like the one several years ago in my district in which an assistant principal was knifed breaking up a fight (fortunately with no serious harm)? Will it be necessary for another teacher to be driven from the classroom from Post-Traumatic Stress, to be permanently disabled, or to be killed?

Do we as educators need to speak out to raise the issue more clearly? Or will it take a nationwide walkout for teacher safety – and I ask that as a teacher in a state where such actions are illegal and grounds for both termination and sanctions against our certification.

Or are we just expected to continue be low-paid functionaries whose safety is irrelevant to our employers?

(10/22/05 -- I'm linking this to several "Open Trackback" posts around the web. Welcome to visitors from Cao's Blog, Jo's Cafe, MacStansbury, Cafe Oregano, Basil's Blog, Adam's Blog, Mudville Gazette, Publius Rendevous, Obligatory Anecdotes, Indepundit, The Political Teen, TMH's Bacon Bits, Vince Aut Morire, Two Babes and a Brain, Point Five, and My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.)

Posted by: Greg at 10:39 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 782 words, total size 6 kb.

Am I the only one disturbed by the opening paragraph of this story in the Washington Post?

A 10th-grade student in southern Prince George's County who allegedly attacked a biology teacher with a baseball bat during a class this week faces expulsion and possible criminal prosecution, a school system spokesman said yesterday.

Did you see that – “possible criminal prosecution”? What the hell is this “possible” crap? A teacher was physically assaulted with a deadly weapon in his classroom by a student. If this creep were to have done this to a random person on the street there would be no question of prosecution and he would already be some career criminal’s new girlfriend. Instead, we get this report.

According to [Prince George's schools spokesman John] White, the male student entered a biology classroom about 1 p.m. Wednesday and allegedly attacked the teacher in front of other students shortly before the class was to be dismissed. A witness said the assailant wore a ski mask, according to the Associated Press.

The suspect had been enrolled in a biology class with the teacher, but not during that period.

White said campus security officers caught the student as he was fleeing the classroom. He was questioned and released to his parents.

White said the teacher was treated at Southern Maryland Hospital Center in Clinton for bumps and bruises, including injuries to the face, head, shoulders and hands. The teacher was released late Wednesday and was recuperating at home, White said.

White declined to identify the student or the teacher. He said the teacher was a 28-year veteran of the school system who had been at Gwynn Park for more than a decade.

"It's unfortunate and unexpected," White said. "It's not a routine occurrence. That's why it's shocking."

WJLA television identified the teacher as Dario Valcarcel, who was listed on a school Web site as a science faculty member.

The school principal did not return a telephone call for comment. Messages left at a residential phone number for Valcarcel were not immediately returned.

Look at the stuff I put in bold there. “Injuries to the face, head, shoulders and hands” – in other words, an assault designed to incapacitate and/or kill Mr. Valcarcel and injuries sustained as he attempted to defend himself from what could reasonably be classified as ATTEMPTED MURDER. But all that happened to the perpetrator was being sent home with mommy and daddy! Why were the police not called in immediately so that an investigation could begin immediately and would-be killer arrested on the spot?

And you will notice the little bit at the end of the article about neither the principal nor the teacher responding o telephone calls seeking comment. My guess is that there will be none, at least if things operate as they do in my district. Only the district spokesperson and superintendent are permitted to speak to the media – we are even required to wear a little card along with our IDs that tell us that in the event of media contact we are required to report the matter to our supervisor, who will then contact our district spokesperson. The card also gives us the sum total of what we are allowed to say to the media under such circumstances – “You need to speak to the director of communications, Olga Obfuscation. Her cell phone number is XXX-XXX-XXXX.” Any further comment is grounds for disciplinary action, up to and including termination.

How long will it be until teacher safety is taken seriously in this country? Why are reports to the police not automatic and immediate? Why the secrecy surrounding incidents in the schools – like the one several years ago in my district in which an assistant principal was knifed breaking up a fight (fortunately with no serious harm)? Will it be necessary for another teacher to be driven from the classroom from Post-Traumatic Stress, to be permanently disabled, or to be killed?

Do we as educators need to speak out to raise the issue more clearly? Or will it take a nationwide walkout for teacher safety – and I ask that as a teacher in a state where such actions are illegal and grounds for both termination and sanctions against our certification.

Or are we just expected to continue be low-paid functionaries whose safety is irrelevant to our employers?

(10/22/05 -- I'm linking this to several "Open Trackback" posts around the web. Welcome to visitors from Cao's Blog, Jo's Cafe, MacStansbury, Cafe Oregano, Basil's Blog, Adam's Blog, Mudville Gazette, Publius Rendevous, Obligatory Anecdotes, Indepundit, The Political Teen, TMH's Bacon Bits, Vince Aut Morire, Two Babes and a Brain, Point Five, and My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.)

Posted by: Greg at 10:39 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 787 words, total size 6 kb.

A Catholic school has fired a teacher who refuses to comply with a new diocesan policy to display an American flag in all classrooms – arguing that doing so contradicts his Catholic faith!

A Bridgeport teacher says he was fired because he refused to display the American flag in his classroom.

Stephen Kobasa taught English at Kolbe-Cathedral High School. He didn't want a flag in his classroom. He says it conflicts with his Catholic faith and teaching beliefs.

Stephen Kobasa says,"In the room there was a crucifix, a depiction of the executed Christ, which cancels all flags. It would simply be a contradiction for me to maintain them both."

Kobasa says he offered a compromise in which he agreed to display the flag at the start of the school day so students could say the Pledge of Allegiance if they wanted, then he would remove the flag. He says the diocesan superintendent rejected that compromise.

Having the American flag in class is part of a new Bridgeport diocese policy.

School administrators wouldn't comment on Kobasa, except to say they will not discuss personnel matters.

First, this is a simple case of termination for insubordination. The diocese made a reasonable rule regarding the display of the flag. The teacher refused to comply, preferring to substitute his own preference for the policy of his employers. The decision to terminate him is appropriate.

And I’m curious – how can one work for a Catholic school that requires the display of a flag yet try to claim that such a practice contradicts the teachings of the Catholic faith? I know that in four years of Catholic seminary education, I never encountered any such prohibition, nor any such convoluted theological reasoning against the display of a flag.

Posted by: Greg at 11:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

Setting aside the fact that I theoretically can't get past the district's fire wall and filtering software (I suspect I know how, but choose not to make the effort because I like my job), there is a simple reason I don't blog from school. I don't want to have to justify or defend what I write to the powers that be in the district office if I ever give offense to a parent or district employee.

I don't write about students with any degree of specificity for the same reason -- posting my candid views about some of them would be difficult to defend. I love them all, but cannot say that I like every last one of them. And I won't get into my opinion of some parents I've had to deal with over the years.

That is why I think this former teacher was stupid to be accessing her blog from school -- ESPECIALLY considering the content.

A Mansfield elementary school teacher resigned after school officials found she used her class computer to access a personal Web log chronicling sexual exploits and containing disparaging remarks about her students.

Becky Pelfrey, 38, had worked for the Mansfield district for three years and had spent seven years working for Arlington schools.

Her log featured links to sexually-oriented Web sites and comments about her students, including a reference to them as "stinky kids."

School district spokesman Terry Morawski said the district has not sought to file criminal charges and he is not certain that Pelfrey committed a crime.

Pelfrey and her husband think his ex-wife (Becky Pelfrey's former best friend -- we won't get into the issues that raises) may have alerted the school to bolster her side of a child custody case. That really isn't relevant in my book. If you are a teacher, you should not have a sexually explicit blog that you are accessing from home (actually, I don't think you should have one at all). And if you do discuss your sex life on a blog, you really should not be talking about your students in that forum.

Posted by: Greg at 02:43 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

It started with a satirical letter to the local paper. It has ended with one of country music's most-loved classic songs censored by a band director who lacked the testicular fortitude to defend his music selection.

After the devil went down to Georgia, it seems, he got censored in Prince William County.

In preparation for a guest appearance at the Peach Bowl in Atlanta, the marching band at C.D. Hylton High School had a logical and seemingly innocuous idea: play a Georgia-themed song. They decided on "The Devil Went Down to Georgia," by the Charlie Daniels Band.

But early this month, a local newspaper, the Potomac News, published a letter by a Woodbridge resident who, after having seen the C.D. Hylton Bulldawg Marching Band perform the country-western hit at a football game, wondered how a song about the devil could be played at school events, because of the separation of church and state.

Fearing bad public reaction, Hylton's longtime band director, Dennis Brown, pulled the song from the playlist. "I was just being protective of my students. I didn't want any negative publicity for C.D. Hylton High School," he said.

The result has been a loud outcry in Prince William COunty and the surrounding area.

"God have mercy. How did we become a country full of weenies who give into the cranky nonsense of 1 voice?" one person tapped out on a computer. "I guess I need to go back to school. I thought the idea behind our country was that the majority ruled? You know, like the majority of people voted for the President's re-election and now the ruling party is knuckling under to every left wing nut out there? I give up!"

A person identified as Ticked Off Parent chimed in: "What's next? School Book Burnings because someone finds To Kill a Mockingbird offensive? Whoever started this should be banned from the school, NOT THE SONG!"

Another wrote in: "So what if the song does actually 'revolve' around Satan? Satan has its rightful place in history as does Women's suffrage, slavery, and every other subject bad or good!"

We know, of course, how we reached such a point. The ACLU and their fellow-travelers in the judicial branch have twisted the First Amendment into something other than what was envisioned by those who wrote it and thaose who ratified it. Constant lawsuits by militant atheists like Michael Newdow have rendered school boards and too many teachers afraid to permit even the most innocuous religious references stand (a friend in another state tells me that the faculty was told not to say "God bless you" in response to sneezes after one parent complained). So the religious and cultural practices of the majority are ruthlessly suppressed in many schools in the name of "sensitivity" to a relative handful of whiners.

Even Charlie Daniels himself has weighed in on the matter.

"I am a Christian, and I don't write pro-devil songs. Most people seem to get it. It's a fun little song," Daniels said Friday in a telephone interview from Mokena, Ill., where he was scheduled to perform a concert. "I think it's a shame that the [marching band director] would yield to one piece of mail. If people find out that he can be manipulated that easily, he's going to have a hard way to go."

And what of the author of the original letter that appeared in the local paper? What does he think?

As for that nettlesome letter writer, Robert McLean? The defense contractor, whose children are home-schooled, said he went to Hylton's football game just because he enjoys the sport. His letter, he said, was meant to start a philosophical debate, not to wreck any student's marching band experience. Besides, he said, he loves "Devil."

"It was one of the first 45s I had as a kid," he said.

So it appear that NO ONE had a real objection to the song. Someone just wanted to point to the absurdity of stripping Christian rligious references from the public square and public school. And one spineless band director, unable to comprehend the satire, backed down.

I have three suggestions.

First, restore the song to the band's repertoire.

Second, find a new band director, one who has the courage of his convictions.

Three, transfer the current band director, Dennis Brown, to someplace where he is likely to do no harm -- like the the district bus barn, where he can sweep and wash the buses twice a day.

There is a particularly fine post on this controversey at Bacon's Rebellion, which includes a comment with links to a number of relevant stories and letters from the community in the paper where this all started.

More at Sierra Faith, Ignorant Hussy, Sasha Undercover, ACSBlog, Life on the Wicked Stage, Patrick Cooper, and Daily Pundit.

Posted by: Greg at 08:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 804 words, total size 6 kb.

Dr. Mike Adams offers this pointed comparison between his cousin, arch-racist politician Theodore Gilmore Bilbo, and liberals who support segregated programs and facilities for ethnic minorities.

My cousin Bilbo would be proud of your third email to me this morning, which defended separate campus facilities for blacks including, but not limited to, African American centers. In that email, you explained that you really arenÂ’t a segregationist. That was before you said that black people just feel more comfortable when surrounded exclusively by blacks.

My cousin Bilbo felt more comfortable when surrounded by his kind, too. At least he was honest enough to call it segregation.

You and my cousin Bilbo have a lot in common. You both support segregation and you both have what you personally “feel” are good reasons for it. But I am against both you and Bilbo. I will fight segregation, despite the fact that your daughter is “black” and “upset” and that you think I have tongues growing out of the side of my face. I will fight segregation because I believe that it is wrong. And I will not capitulate to identity politics.

It is a strange day in America when segregationists are called “anti-racists” and anti-segregationists are called “racists.” It makes me very sad. But my cousin Bilbo would be proud.

As little as four decades ago, the end of segregation was seen as “progress” by liberals. Today, the resegregation of America is progress. I guess it is true – if you wait long enough, what’s old is new again.

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Public schools were etablished to educate students. The idea was that they would prepare students to be productive citizens in a democratic society. Somewhere along the way, though, this notion got corrupted. Schools came to be seen as the one-stop social service center for students. Thus we saw the establishment of free and reduced lunch programs, school breakfast programs, and health clinics, as well as special programs for young women who are unable to keep their knees together and get knocked-up -- as well as free day care for their babies.

So why should it be surprising that the liberals of this world expect schools to keep on feeding kids at taxpayer expense during the summer? The Houston Chronicle is upset that some local school districts have not caved into its demands that they arrange meals for students during the months of July and August, after summer school ends.

Let me restate what I said back in July on this very subject.

Who Is Responsible For Feeding The Children?

No, I'm serious -- who is responsible for feeding the children? Is it the parents, or is it the government?

That is my reaction to an editorial in today's Houston Chronicle.

Last month, needy children ate more than 2 million free, nourishing meals thanks to the Houston Independent School District. The Galena Park school district fed wholesome meals to 48,000 hungry youngsters.

Both school systems should be commended for recognizing the importance of a reliable, accessible source of food for children whose parents can't provide it. So it's inexplicable that both districts left the same kids utterly adrift when both shut their doors to prepare for the school year.

Now wait just one minute here. What is the business of a SCHOOL district? Is it providing an education for its students, or is it the complete care and feeding of the kids year round? I think the answer is obvious to sensibele, thinking people. That would explain why the Chronicles editorial staff gets the answer wrong.

Now I have to be careful here, because I work in one of these districts, but it seems to me that we have lost focus on the mission of the public schools. That mission is the intellectual, social, and moral education of children. It is not to be a one-stop medical/feeding/day-care center. During the school year, my district offers a free day-care program for the offspring of our students, a free/low-cost heath care clinic for students, and a free/reduced lunch program for all students. This summer it offered free breakfast and lunch for any "child" who walked in off the street, regardless of income -- and "child" was defined as AGE 20 AND UNDER! That's right. We had "children" age 18-20 (what most thinking people would generally refer to as "adults") walking into school buildings and being fed at taxpayer expense. What was even more absurd, the regulations imposed by the federal government forbade the sale of these same meals to school employees who were working in the building, including those of us who were actually teaching summer school!

Now, though, that the program is over, the Chronicle is upset that these districts are shirking some sort of purported moral responsibility to feed the children when there is no school in session.

Like other school districts around the country, Houston and Galena Park are eligible for reimbursement from the federal government for food and operating costs of student free meal programs. The government pays $2.74 for each meal a child consumes, which can be used to hire staff to handle the food and monitor the number of meals served. But as summer school ends and the fall semester starts to loom, school systems apparently find it difficult to keep serving the federally-funded meals on their campuses. Galena Park stopped serving its meals Friday; HISD shut most of its 256 cafeterias several weeks earlier.

This needless lapse in stewardship should not be allowed to happen. Even if entire school systems must close their doors for maintenance, the schools can still act as conduits to get that free food to poor children. Even after a district has ended its program for the summer, it can restart it again as a sponsor for another site, almost until the start of the school year. All the district needs to do is contact nonprofits, whether community centers or churches willing to provide a site where children can eat. Schools can invite teachers or contract cafeteria personnel to freelance as food managers at the interim locations. More than likely, some parents and other community members would be happy to oversee a meal program for free.

Arranging interim food service in the summer might be time-consuming, but what task could be more urgent?

I don't suppose that the Chronicle ever considered proposing that private groups run such programs without government money or oversight. After all, how can we possibly expect there to be positive results without government involvement? And I can't help but laugh at the notion that teachers should volunteer to run such programs -- after all, Texas teacher salaries are only about $6000 below the national average. Why doesn't the Chronicle send its employees out during the middle of the day to run such programs if, as they claim, "there is no task which could be more urgent"? All of this overlooks such antiquated notions as having the children fed a meal at home, prepared by a parent or other family member.

It's certainly feasible: In San Antonio, the schools have organized an almost seamless transfer of summer meals. There is no excuse for Harris County school districts to deny the same services for our own hungry children.

Right now, tens of thousands of Houston children are going without needed meals. Administrators at HISD and GPISD should get on the phone to help them right now. They'll likely find plenty of nonprofits eager to lend a hand. Galena Park Boxing Academy, which is also a child enrichment center, has space for 200 children to eat free meals at once, academy President Kenny Weldon said. The facility can even supply a monitor.

"Of course we'd be willing," Weldon said. "What do you do — take care of kids for one part of the year but not the other?"

But then again, maybe I am too hard-hearted. Maybe the editorial is right. Children need to be fed year-round, and parents are clearly not up to the task.

But what about other school breaks and holidays? These children should not be left to fend for themselves for a week or two at Thanksgiving, Christmas, or Spring Break! Clearly, the cafeterias must remain open during those times off as well.

And what about the irresponsible practice of sending children home on Friday afternoon and closing the cafeterias over the weekend? It seems absurd that we would expect children to survive through a Saturday and a Sunday without a hot breakfast and lunch. School districts need to keep the cafeterias open on the weekend as well, to avoid subjecting our nation's children to two whole days without nutrition.

I've also got a solution to what I see as the "dinner problem". By extending the school day by two or three hours, we can make sure that each student gets a hot dinner, ensuring three square meals a day. The interim time could be devoted to additional instructional time, though I certainly see the objections of those who see the extra classroom time as educators over-emphasizing academics.

But what I've not managed to solve is how to guarantee that evey child gets a bowl of ice cream and a kiss on the forehead before bed. What do you think -- are parents up to such a task?

Now let me begin by saying that additional reflection has led me to recognize that my comment about children getting a kiss on the forehead and a bowl of ice cream at bedtime is a bit insensitive. After all, I left out both the mint on the pillow and the turn-down service that is given at any decent five-star hotel. My sincerest apologies for not including them in the expected services that schools should be expected to provide for their students!

Quite simply, folks, the time has come to get schools to refocus on their primary mission, which is providing an education. Lunch and breakfast programs are fine during the school year, but parents must take responsibility for providing basic necessities for their children. Schools need to get out of the business of providing medical care and social services to children. Speaking as a teacher , I can tell you that those of us on the frontlines of education in a classroom are simply being overwhelmed by the additional demands placed upon us that go beynd the scope of providing an education to our kids. We cannot be all things to all people, nor can we provide all services to all children, if we are to effectively fulfill our primary role of teaching our students. Please, for the sake of our children, let us get back to teaching!

Unfortunately, it looks like one of the districts (or at least the district spokesperson) has fallen into the Chronicle's trap of conceding district responsibility for feeding children year-round.

But Galena Park has not made any effort to transfer its meal service. The Parks and Recreation Department contacted the school district to discuss the matter, but the district did not follow up on that conversation, spokeswoman Staci Stanfield said.

"It's a priority to make sure that our students are fed," she said. Nevertheless, she added, the district has taken no action "at this point in time" to fulfill that priority.

I wish you had given a better answer, Staci. The correct answer to the question was "It's a priority to make sure that our students are educated, and the district plans on taking no action at this time or any other to operate or facilitate any program that detracts or distracts from our focus on that mission. As such, it is up to the private sector to see to the feeding of children when we are not in session."

Of course, giving that answer would require a level of courage and honesty that those who rise to the rarified heights of district spokesperson or other district administrative positions have long-since lost in their quest to make more money and have less day-to-day contact with children in that messy setting that is a classroom. It also would have required remembering that the primary task of a school district is education.

And sadly, too many of those who set educational policy have lost focus on that task.

Posted by: Greg at 12:50 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1803 words, total size 11 kb.

As a teacher, I am on shaky legal ground requiring a student to stand for the ledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem. Court cases have made that clear since at least World War II. How, then, did the teachers at this school think they could get away with this politically correct idiocy?

A recent Mexican Independence Day assembly at Larkin High may have taken cultural sensitivity one step too far, a Larkin parent said this week.

Robert Bedard said his son was reprimanded when he declined to stand for the Mexican National Anthem during a ceremony at the west Elgin school last month.

His 17-year-old son, a senior in the process of enlisting, feared honoring another nation’s anthem might jeopardize his military status. Sitting down cost him a trip to the office.

Bedard questioned this week whether the scales of cultural diversity may have tilted out of balance.

I have no problem with cultural celebrations. I have no problem with students learning about other countries. Good Lord – I am a world history teacher who has to spend a lot of time dealing with the cultures of many different societies over the span of at least five millennia. I’m therefore not too bothered by the existence of programs to teach awareness of Mexican (or, more broadly, Latin American) culture and history.

On the other hand, this seems to have crossed the line from being a learning experience into an indoctrination program. It was a celebration of the patriotic holiday of another country, when most schools do not even mark all of the American patriotic celebrations, such as Columbus Day, Veterans Day, of President’s Day (interestingly enough, schools around here only mark four national holidays – Thanksgiving, Christmas, the socialist-inspired Labor Day, and the politically correct Martin Luther King Day). None falls into the category of “patriotic holiday”. Why mark the independence of a foreign country with a patriotic program – and punish the failure of students to demonstrate sufficient patriotic fervor for that country?

In this case, the father has a clear issue about patriotism.

“If they have an assembly, I would be happy if they will not try to force students to honor patriotic elements of another culture unless they also honor our flag, our anthem as well,” Bedard said. “It’s just respect for both cultures.”

I think the point needs to be made even more forcefully. This is America – our public institutions do not mark the patriotic celebrations of other countries, only our own.

Posted by: Greg at 11:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

As a teacher, I am on shaky legal ground requiring a student to stand for the ledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem. Court cases have made that clear since at least World War II. How, then, did the teachers at this school think they could get away with this politically correct idiocy?

A recent Mexican Independence Day assembly at Larkin High may have taken cultural sensitivity one step too far, a Larkin parent said this week.

Robert Bedard said his son was reprimanded when he declined to stand for the Mexican National Anthem during a ceremony at the west Elgin school last month.

His 17-year-old son, a senior in the process of enlisting, feared honoring another nationÂ’s anthem might jeopardize his military status. Sitting down cost him a trip to the office.

Bedard questioned this week whether the scales of cultural diversity may have tilted out of balance.

I have no problem with cultural celebrations. I have no problem with students learning about other countries. Good Lord – I am a world history teacher who has to spend a lot of time dealing with the cultures of many different societies over the span of at least five millennia. I’m therefore not too bothered by the existence of programs to teach awareness of Mexican (or, more broadly, Latin American) culture and history.

On the other hand, this seems to have crossed the line from being a learning experience into an indoctrination program. It was a celebration of the patriotic holiday of another country, when most schools do not even mark all of the American patriotic celebrations, such as Columbus Day, Veterans Day, of President’s Day (interestingly enough, schools around here only mark four national holidays – Thanksgiving, Christmas, the socialist-inspired Labor Day, and the politically correct Martin Luther King Day). None falls into the category of “patriotic holiday”. Why mark the independence of a foreign country with a patriotic program – and punish the failure of students to demonstrate sufficient patriotic fervor for that country?

In this case, the father has a clear issue about patriotism.

“If they have an assembly, I would be happy if they will not try to force students to honor patriotic elements of another culture unless they also honor our flag, our anthem as well,” Bedard said. “It’s just respect for both cultures.”

I think the point needs to be made even more forcefully. This is America – our public institutions do not mark the patriotic celebrations of other countries, only our own.

Posted by: Greg at 11:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

Every year, several of my students get knocked up. Most are 15 or 16, dating guys who are 18-20. I recently had to report a case to CPS regarding a girl who is 15 sleeping with a 23 year old male. So yeah, I agree with this.

A new analysis of the sex lives of high schoolers has this advice: Teach the older teens to keep their hands off the younger ones.

One in four girls under 18 who have had sex say their first lover was with a male 3 or more years older, according to a new analysis of federal data.

One in 10 boys who have had sex say they lost their virginity to a female 3 or more years older.

Some of these cases involve teens with older adults. But, said the lead author of the report, "most of these sexual experiences occur between young teens and older teens.''

The analysis, by the think tank Child Trends, described the typical scenario as a 14-year-old girl having sex with a 17- or 18-year-old male.

So parents –know who your daughter is dating, and equip her to make good decisions. And do not be afraid to cut the guy out of her life if it seems that sexual activity is possible/probable. That is the first line of defense to protect these young women from sexual exploitation.

Posted by: Greg at 10:59 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 238 words, total size 1 kb.

Talk about your cases of bad judgement.

A substitute teacher in Lake County, Fla., was terminated and banned from teaching in the county after he ripped out a student's insulin pump during class apparently thinking it was a ringing cell phone, according to a Local 6 News report.

Officials said a ninth-grade student at East Ridge High School, who is a Type I diabetic, was in class Monday when his insulin pump began to beep, indicating he was low on insulin.

Witnesses said the class teacher, Richard Maline, 51, asked the student what the beeping was.

School officials said Maline then grabbed the device, thinking it was a cell phone beeping and detached the tube that connects the insulin pump to the student's leg.

The student went to the school's clinic and had the tube reinserted.

It generally isnÂ’t a good idea to try to snatch something away from a kid unless it presents a clear and present danger, regardless of how insubordinate a student is being. This substituteÂ’s actions, probably taken without even asking for an explanation, are truly beyond the pale.

Posted by: Greg at 01:04 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

It isn't a hypothetical question -- Texas is under a court order to spend no more money on schools as of today, pending a fix of our school financing system.

State district Judge John Dietz last autumn ruled the Texas school funding system unconstitutional and issued an Oct. 1 deadline for the Legislature to fix the system or stop funding it.

Lawmakers have since failed three times — once during the regular legislative session and in two failed special sessions called for the issue — to overhaul the way Texas pays for public schools.

The state, represented by the office of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, has appealed Dietz's ruling to the Texas Supreme Court. The state's high court is expected to issue a decision in the case within the coming weeks, but it wasn't in the court's Friday package of decisions

Now the appeal to the state Supreme Court should have resulted in an automatic stay, but no actual order has been issued. Some districts, especially those which filed suit, are not sure what they should do. The state attorney general says that the filing of the appeal made the stay automatic, but no court has spoken on the issue.

Not, of course, that the schools do not have the money to open.

Even so, schools receive their funding from the state on the 25th of each month, meaning schools are funded at least until Oct. 25, said Debbie Graves Ratcliffe, a spokeswoman for the Texas Education Agency.

"They've just gotten their payments," she said. "Schools will be open in most parts of Texas — the guys that didn't have hurricane damage will be open."

Yeah, that is true -- but do they have the authority to spend it?

So who knows -- the schools here in Texas may be shutting down sometinme in the next three weeks. Let's wait and see.

Posted by: Greg at 12:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.