East Lynne School District in Cass County, Missouri had ten teachers an one principal/superintendent this year. Right now, they have two teachers and one principal/superintendent. The events that happened there this year are a classic example of what happens when the person in charge is an idiot who is more concerned about being obeyed than about the safety of his students and the input of his staff.

Seven of 10 classroom teachers in a tiny school district resigned after a colleague was fired for helping an 11-year-old girl who was left alone in a playground to pick up rocks as punishment.

The fourth-grader in the East Lynne School District in Cass County was assigned the task last September for refusing to do her schoolwork, but she was unsupervised except for a security camera. The playground was near a road but inside a fence.

The fired teacher, Christa Price, went to the principal — who is also the district superintendent — and asked him to reconsider the punishment, but he wouldn’t. So on her free period, Price helped the girl pick up rocks. Other teachers watched the girl the next day.

At contract time in March, Superintendent Dan Doerhoff recommended firing Price, a popular teacher who had had good performance evaluations, for insubordination. Seven other teachers then chose not to return their contracts.

“If a teacher who advocates on behalf of safety of a student is not fit to be a teacher at East Lynne or anywhere in Missouri according to this administration, then none of us are fit to teach at East Lynne,” the teachers who resigned said Tuesday in a statement.

Now let's look at this situation. The punishment is one that served no particular educational purpose, and the nine-year-old student was left unattended by a road with only a security camera observing her. That is great if you want to have a grainy tape of an unidentified man shoving a struggling child into the back of a non-descript van with an obscured license plate. On the other hand, it doesn't do much to protect the child from possible abduction or a car hitting her.

The fact that this administrative idiot then chose to fire the teacher, who he had given high evaluations over the course of four years, is absurd. He apparantly doesn't like being challenged or questioned -- even if they involve genuine issues of student safety.

But it gets even worse. Not only did he make sure she would not be back at the school, he also has tried to make sure that Ms. Price would never be permitted to teach anywhere ever again.

Doerhoff also refused to sign the certification renewal that Price needs to get another teaching job, saying doing so would have been inconsistent and “could put me in a pickle.”

Yeah. It might make people realize that you are an absolute asshole -- but since everyone already knows that, so why not just sign it as a sign of your good will.

Fortunately, the appropriate state agency is taking notice, and doing its best to see that justice is done.

Jim Morris, spokesman for the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, said the departmentÂ’s Kansas City-area supervisor has offered to speak to certification officials on PriceÂ’s behalf.

My advice to teachers -- stay far away from this district.

My advice to the school board -- fire this administrator.

My advice to the citizens of the district -- vote out the board if they don't.

Posted by: Greg at 02:00 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 593 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, the Texas Legislature has done it. They have once again kicked the teachers in the teeth and said we don't mean squat to them.

Look at this story about the future of teacher retirement benefits.

Legislation aimed at stabilizing the $91 billion Teacher Retirement System won tentative House approval Monday, despite some claims that it pits active teachers against retired teachers.

Rep. Craig Eiland, the House sponsor of the measure, said if lawmakers do nothing to change the system, retired teachers won't be able to get a retirement payment increase for the next 12 to 15 years.

They haven't had one since 2001, he said.

It's also important to preserve the system as a defined benefit plan as opposed to a defined contribution plan, said Eiland, D-Galveston.

The system covers about 850,000 employees and about 240,000 retirees. The fund has $11 billion of unfunded liabilities and is 88 percent funded.

The bill would increase the retirement age to 60 from 55, although the change would affect only teachers who start working on or after September 2007.

It also attempts to stop incentives for early teacher retirement.

"We cannot afford it," Eiland said. "The whole purpose of this bill is to change retirement patterns, retirement behavior."

The proposal would change the base of retirees' benefits to the highest five years of their salary instead of the highest three.

Rep. Jim McReynolds, D-Lufkin, tried unsuccessfully to change that provision of the proposal.

"These are tough votes," McReynolds said. "It kind of pits us between our active teachers and our retired teachers." But in the end he voted for the bill, which tentatively passed 115-16. Some others who criticized parts of the bill abstained from voting.

Senators approved a similar proposal last week. If the Senate does not agree with changes made on the House side, a committee of a few lawmakers from each chamber will meet to work out the differences.

Later retirement. Lower benefits. A continued refusal of the state to make up the state contributions that were reduced more than a decade ago, creating this fiscal shortfall. We are still paid below state average, and the one "perk" that has been discussed this year will not start until after many teachers quit the classroom and will not benefit childless teachers or those who enter the classroom later in life or with older children.

Consider this retirement plan change, for a group of part-timers who make only $7200 a year plus their per diem when they meet in odd number years.

Senators and representatives earn $7,200 a year for their part-time jobs. They receive $128 per day for expenses during the 140 days they meet every other year.

The low pay is a result of Texas founding fathers' desire for citizen-legislators who would bring their real world experience to their law-writing duties.

But while the pay is low, the benefits can be good. The state pays for health insurance for lawmakers and their families.

Retired lawmakers can begin collecting pensions at age 50 if they serve for at least 12 years. Under SB 368, a retired official with 12 years' experience would get $6,431 more a year for a total pension of $34,500. Benefits increase with each year of service.

So the legislators, with their fully funded health insurance (like other state employees -- except teachers, who would be "too expensive to include" despite being promised equivalent benefits over a decade ago), will see an increase in their pension nearly equivalent to their entire annual salary. That will push their annual benefit above what many teachers get from TRS, and their retirement age and years of service are both lower than those of teachers.

Yep, you folks really have showed what great value you place on teachers.

Posted by: Greg at 11:38 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 635 words, total size 4 kb.

I never particularly enjoyed teaching English, though I did it for six years of my teaching career. The thing I most enjoyed, though, was the literature that I got to deal with on a recurring basis, teaching it year after year. Closest to my heart each year were the weeks I spent walking my student's through Harper Lee's great novel, To Kill A Mockingbird. I always asked them, after the first reading assignment, to tell me what the narrator says the story is about in the first chapter. If you can't remembr, I'll tell you at the end.

My students were always fascinated that Ms. Lee became a recluse, rarely speaking to the press or making public appearances -- or even leaving her apartment -- while I am intrigued by the reports that the dear lady has completed several other manuscripts, which will be duly shipped off to publishers after her death. So it is with great interest that I saw this article -- photo included! -- about one of Ms. Lee's rare public outings.

Harper Lee, who has been dodging publicity for decades since she published her only book, To Kill a Mockingbird, made a rare step into the limelight to be honored by the Los Angeles Public Library.

Lee, 79, stopped giving interviews a few years after she won the Pulitzer Prize for her 1960 coming-of-age book exploring racial prejudice in the South. She has turned down most requests for appearances.

But she couldn't refuse an invitation from Veronique Peck, the widow of actor Gregory Peck, who won an Oscar for his starring role as lawyer Atticus Finch in the 1962 film version of the book and became a lifelong friend with Lee.

Mockingbird co-star Brock Peters, who played the black man falsely accused of rape in the film, presented the award to Lee.

After Veronique Peck whispered in her ear, Lee gave her only remarks of the evening: "I'll say it again. Thank you all from the bottom of my heart."

Maybe this isn't the most significant piece of news I will ever write about. Maybe no one will give a rip at all about my affection for this woman. And perhaps many of you hated reading her one published book during your high school years. But I have to agree with Mrs. Peck's words about the woman who created the character who became her husband's greatest role.

Veronique Peck said Lee is "like a national treasure."

"She's someone who has made a difference with this book," she said. "All the kids in the United States read this book and see the film in the seventh and eighth grades and write papers and essays. My husband used to get thousands and thousands of letters from teachers who would send them to him."

By the way, does anyone remember what that long story was ostensibly about? As I always reminded my students at the end of the novel, it was the story of how Scout's brother Jem broke his arm.

And so much more -- so very much more.

Posted by: Greg at 03:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 3 kb.

I cannot begin to express my level of admiration for Marc Epstein, Dean of Students at Jamaica High School in New York. He has come out and said to the public what many of us on the frontlines of the education wars have been saying privately for years -- bring back vocational education, and dump the notion that a college education is appropriate for every student.

In the old days, dropouts were an unfortunate-but-accepted part of school life. It was assumed that some kids didn't want to go to school, no matter what the authorities tried to do to keep them in.

But unskilled jobs were plentiful back then, and anyone willing to put in a hard day's work could find employment. Today, we can't expect that a class of illiterate hard-working ditch-diggers will make their way successfully through life in these United States.

Now I would have to differ with Epstein on that last point. There are plenty of such jobs out there -- why do you think we have 12 million border-jumping mexicans living and working in this country without legal documentation. They are here because there are those jobs out there, and people can work at them and make something of a living. It is a lousy way to get by, but these people are proof that you can get by that way. Of course, they have a work ethic, and the students who are not coming to school don't, believing that they can hustle their way on the streets to be the next Scarface or Snoop Dogg.

It's not unusual for our large high schools to have upwards of 300 students over the age of 17 who are still classified as freshman. If you add the 15- and 16-year-olds who are on that same treadmill, as much as one third of a 2,500-student enrollment is making little or no progress.

Many enter school late and leave early. It is left to the NYPD to round them up and bring them to truancy centers. Rarely do any of them reform.

I teach on a campus that has only grades 9 & 10 -- grades 11 & 12 are on another campus (this way we qualify as one 4000 student 5A school in football). I cannot begin to tell the problems I have with students who call themselves "freshmores". I would guess that we have about 200 of them at my school. They are in their second year of high school, but started that second year with fewer than the six credits required to be classified as grade 10. We spend an inordinate amount of time and money trying to keep these kids in school -- "credit recovery" labs where they can do the on computer the alleged equivalent ofwhat they wouldn't do in class, a special school program for them that keeps a very few in school only half a day, and other programs that keep our drop-out rate lower than 5%.

But the real problem is that these are kids who, for the most part, are not academically inclined. They need a high school diploma and some marketable job skills. Sadly, our career education program has only a limited number of slots, so acceptance into the classes is with teacher approval only. That eliminates from consideration any student with an attendance, grade, or discipline problem -- the very students who might most benefit from being in such classes. I suspect the same is true at Epstein's school, which leads him to the following conclusion.

So what is to be done? For starters, small technical-training programs that point kids towards acquiring a trade, a state license and a GED are in place. But at present there are few seats, limiting the large numbers who might thrive in this setting.

Bill Clinton stated, "College isn't for everyone." The time for tracking kids based on interests and abilities is long overdue.

It shouldn't be viewed as discrimination. We're warehousing tens of thousands of kids until the age of 21, when they have made no progress since coming to high school. This breeds crime, wastes valuable education dollars and in the end leaves these kids with the same skills they'd have had if they'd dropped out after the eighth grade.

We've spent the past four decades killing these kids with kindness. Enough is enough.

Yes, indeed. Enough is enough. Let's make the commitment to track such students early (their behavior is generally evident before they enter high school) and put them into programs that fit their needs. We do that with special education students as a matter of law, even when they are mainstreamed into regular classes. Why not do the same for those who have clearly demonstrated that they need something other than a college prep program and a university education? It isn't leaving children behind -- it is getting them to success by a different route.

Posted by: Greg at 06:44 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 830 words, total size 5 kb.

In an attempt to raise the overall scores of students at Lincoln Middle School in Vista, California, the principal plans to end the district’s last remaining program for gifted students in the hopes that placing those students in regular classrooms will result in improved performance overall. Parents of the gifted students are concerned about the special needs of their students being sacrificed and ignored, while parents of Latino students object to the possibility that the gifted program might survive in some form or fashion.

"All students should be treated equally," Latino parents said in a letter to the board and district administrators. "We believe that the school should not create differences between students who know more and students who know less."

Doesn’t anyone recognize the absurdity of that statement? Why shouldn’t we treat our best and brightest to an education that meets their needs, just as we do those in special education programs? On what basis do we hold back the top kids and dragoon them into providing free tutoring for their slower classmates in the hopes that it will raise the other students’ scores. Especially when you consider what the source of the problem is.

The student body at Lincoln is 63 percent Hispanic or Latino. Of the school's 1,293 students, 437 are English-learners, and 99 percent of those speak Spanish.

That group has pulled down test scores, putting Lincoln on "program improvement" status under the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

So what this really comes down to for these Latino parents is that they want THEIR children put first, not some other parents’ children. I guess it is a simple case of Leave No Latino Child Behind – and screw the rest.

When are we going to get rid of the notion that helping our brightest kids reach their potential is a bad thing?

Posted by: Greg at 01:22 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

In an attempt to raise the overall scores of students at Lincoln Middle School in Vista, California, the principal plans to end the districtÂ’s last remaining program for gifted students in the hopes that placing those students in regular classrooms will result in improved performance overall. Parents of the gifted students are concerned about the special needs of their students being sacrificed and ignored, while parents of Latino students object to the possibility that the gifted program might survive in some form or fashion.

"All students should be treated equally," Latino parents said in a letter to the board and district administrators. "We believe that the school should not create differences between students who know more and students who know less."

DoesnÂ’t anyone recognize the absurdity of that statement? Why shouldnÂ’t we treat our best and brightest to an education that meets their needs, just as we do those in special education programs? On what basis do we hold back the top kids and dragoon them into providing free tutoring for their slower classmates in the hopes that it will raise the other studentsÂ’ scores. Especially when you consider what the source of the problem is.

The student body at Lincoln is 63 percent Hispanic or Latino. Of the school's 1,293 students, 437 are English-learners, and 99 percent of those speak Spanish.

That group has pulled down test scores, putting Lincoln on "program improvement" status under the federal No Child Left Behind Act.

So what this really comes down to for these Latino parents is that they want THEIR children put first, not some other parents’ children. I guess it is a simple case of Leave No Latino Child Behind – and screw the rest.

When are we going to get rid of the notion that helping our brightest kids reach their potential is a bad thing?

Posted by: Greg at 01:22 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

I donÂ’t usually support a school giving a punishment for statements made off school grounds and outside of school hours. But in this case, I think the nexus between a school event, the statement in question, and illegal conduct is such that the punishment is appropriate in this case.

A senior at a Frederick's Governor Thomas Johnson High School has been barred from attending her prom this Saturday because she told a newspaper she planned to drink alcohol on prom night.

Shawnda Lawson, 18, told The Frederick News-Post earlier this month that she had refused to sign a pledge that she wouldn't drink -- and she told the paper she likes drinking.

After the story was published, Lawson said she was told by her principal she was banned from the prom and told she was an embarrassment to the school.

County schools spokeswoman Marita Loose said school dances are a privilege, not a right.

Another student, Nicole Taylor, also told the newspaper she planned to drink on prom night. There is no word if she also faces punishment.

We lost a girl from my school several years ago when a drunk hit her boyfriend’s car on the way to his prom. We had several students injured – including one with a broken neck that could have left her paralyzed – in a wreck on the Galveston Causeway the year before that, but alcohol was not a factor. In reality, we have managed to dodge the tragedy of a car full of kids dying in a fiery wreck after getting liquored up. But when it is our turn to face such a prom tragedy, it will be the school (not the parents) that everyone expects to put a stop to the drinking – despite the fact that kids are searched by constables going in to prom and cannot leave the cordoned-off area of the hotel during the dance.

Therefore, I think this is a good, proportionate response to the statement made by Ms. Lawson to the newspaper. She may go out and get loaded, but no one will be able to complain that the school “should have done something”.

Posted by: Greg at 12:21 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

You can claim to be an Indian, Professor Churchill – but you can’t make the Indians claim you.

The statement, issued May 9 in the name of the tribal leader, Chief George Wickliffe, and posted on its Web site Tuesday, does not mince words:

"The United Keetoowah Band would like to make it clear that Mr. Churchill IS NOT a member of the Keetoowah Band and was only given an honorary 'associate membership' in the early 1990s because he could not prove any Cherokee ancestry."

The tribe said that all of Churchill's "past, present and future claims or assertions of Keetoowah 'enrollment,' written or spoken, including but not limited to; biographies, curriculum vitae, lectures, applications for employment, or any other reference not listed herein, are deemed fraudulent by the United Keetoowah Band."

That should settle the matter for anyone with a shred of integrity – though Churchill and his apologists will probably still make the fraudulent claim. His attempt to assert “Indian-ness” based upon an honorary membership in the tribe is like trying to claim the title of “Dr.” based upon an honorary degree.

The matter is very clear, according to the tribe.

"Mr. Churchill was never able to prove his eligibility in accordance with our membership laws," the statement said.

The chief said his tribe had decided to honor Churchill with the associate membership because Church-ill had promised to write the tribe's history and had pledged "to help and honor the UKB."

"To date Mr. Churchill has done nothing in regards to his promise and pledge."

So, to settle the matter once and for all – Ward Churchill’s claim to be an Indian is as fraudulent as his scholarship.

Comment on Churchill's claim -- SCSU Scholars

Posted by: Greg at 12:19 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

Fairleigh Dickinson University saw fit to treat its graduating seniors to the anti-American rantings of so-called journalist Seymour Hersh -- who proceeded to outrage a large number of them.

Journalist Seymour Hersh described U.S. soldiers in Iraq as "victims," eliciting jeers and cheers from an audience of about 6,000 people at a college commencement on Monday.

Hersh, speaking to graduates of Fairleigh Dickinson University and their families, said American soldiers are "doing an admirable job under terrible conditions" but don't know much about the war they are fighting.

"They are as much victims as the people they are sometimes forced to kill," Hersh said.

The comment was greeted by a loud expletive from one member of the audience. Booing and more swearing followed, but other audience members stood and cheered.

Now I'm sorry, but I've long had a problem with the concept that a commencement address is a forum to engage in a political speech. The event isn't about the speaker -- it is about the graduates, and when it gets abused by the speaker for some other purpose I take offense. I think that's why so many folks objected to Hersh's anti-American comments -- especially when he dishonored the warriors fighting in the War on Islamofascism that began only a few miles from the campus during the first weeks of the graduates' college career.

And I am particularly taken aback by Fairleigh Dickenson's decision to bring in the anti-American Hersh given their actions earlier in the semester. Yeah, I am referring to the firing of a professor because of his un-American beliefs.

[Professor Jacques] Pluss said he was dismissed in March because university officials learned of his involvement in the National Socialist Movement, which bills itself "America's Nazi Party." School officials said he was let go for missing too many classes.

The 51-year-old professor bristles when he is called a white supremacist or racist.

"The world is made up of different cultures, all of which have a place, all of which have a direction and all of which should have a say in determining their own futures," he said.

University officials declined to elaborate on Pluss' ouster. It was unclear what role -- if any -- Pluss' political views played in the decision.

Pluss, who had taught at the university since 2002, said he joined the neo-Nazi group in February but kept his views a secret on campus.

Yeah, I guess that there is a double standard on campus -- un-Americans on the right get fired, but un-American Leftists get honored. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't go whole-hog and just invite Ward Churchill, the poster child for un-American college faculty who get to keep their job in the name of "academic freedom."

Posted by: Greg at 03:23 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 469 words, total size 3 kb.

Just when I thought that Zero Tolerance stupidity couldn't get any more extreme, I encounter this little gem from the Atlanta area.

Two seniors at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. High School will miss their baccalaureate -- but make their graduation -- after a stink that started over a cake knife.

Because of the school's zero tolerance policy on weapons, Ashley Pickens and Candace Grier, both honor students, were suspended from school for 10 days and told they would not be allowed to attend their baccalaureate ceremonies. The DeKalb school superintendent upheld that punishment but decided to allow the girls to walk with their classmates during graduation.

The trouble started when the girls brought a cake to school and looked for a knife to cut it. They say they found a butter-type knife in the school's band room and tried to return it, but the door had since been locked.

One of the girls put the knife in her book bag. Then a teacher saw it.

"He said it really didn't matter [that it was used for a cake]," Pickens said. "[He said] it's a knife on school grounds, and you have to be written up for it -- you ought to be glad we didn't have you arrested."

Now let me get this straight -- they used a school utensil and for that have been punished. Someone must be out of their mind!

But there is some hope.

School officials claimed they enforced clearly written codes of conduct. Wednesday, a school tribunal will hear the girls' appeal to attend baccalaureate ceremonies.

Maybe someone will recognize that a butter knife is not a weapon, but is instead a tool that they were using appropriately.

Posted by: Greg at 02:07 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 281 words, total size 2 kb.

The University of Oregon has a policy of offering special small section classes in the Math & English departments, limited to 18 students, with the first 10 slots reserved for African-American, Asian-American/Pacific Islander, Chicano/Latino, Native American or multiracial students.

Why?

University Senior Instructor Michel Kovcholovsky, who teaches the OMAS's math classes, said the classes were created to foster a comfortable environment for minorities. "That was the basic idea, so that they don't feel afraid to raise their hand and ask something."

The school does no favor to students by allowing them this sheltered environment. Furthermore, it violates the law by limiting access based upon race or ethnicity.

And I’m curious – would the university consider a special “white’s only” section to create a comfortable environment for white students who are afraid ask questions in front of minorities? I think we all know the answer to that.

Posted by: Greg at 11:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

I understand dissection in a classroom. I mean, it is a legitimate tool for study of biology. But when it comes right down to it, you are working with a dead crature that will in no way feel pain or be harmed – and generally are using a frog, which is not one of the higher creatures on the intellectual/emotional ladder.

But vivisecting a dog in a high school class is something else entirely.

A biology class lesson in Gunnison, Utah involving the dissection of a live dog has outraged some parents and students, according to a report.

Biology teacher Doug Bjerregaard, who is a substitute teacher at Gunnison Valley High School, wanted his students to see how the digestive system of a dog worked.

Bjerregaard made arrangements for his students to be a part of a dissection of a dog that was still alive.

The dog was still alive, but the teacher said it was sedated before the dissection began.
With the students watching, the sedated dog's digestive system was removed.

"It just makes me sick and I don't think this should go on anywhere and nobody's learning from it," student Sierra Sears said.

The teacher said the lesson would allow students to see the organs actually working.

"I thought that it would be just really a good experience if they could see the digestive system in the living animal," Bierregaard said.

The school's principal, Kirk Anderson, said notifications went to parents explaining the dog was going to be euthanized and that the experiment would be done with the dog's organs still functioning.

The teacher is standing by his decision and calls it the ultimate educational experience.

Principal Anderson said he supports the lesson and it will be allowed to continue because the students are learning.

The dog used in the experiment was going to be euthanized despite the class project.

I’m sorry, but this is inappropriate – not while the creature was alive. I’m reasonably confident there is some animal cruelty law being violated by this.

Posted by: Greg at 11:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

This story has some interesting issues in it, but I’m not sure what I think.

Kerry Lofy figures that girls get to wear dresses to the Lake Geneva Badger High School prom, so why couldn't he?

But now that he has been suspended from school for three days, is being forced to miss his last track meet (and a chance for the school's pole vaulting record) and has to pay a $249 ticket for disorderly conduct, Lofy's not so sure he picked the right battle to fight.

"Things got a little crazy," Lofy said Tuesday from home, where the 18-year-old senior is serving the suspension after Saturday night's antics.

High school officials are not returning calls for comment on the case, but to hear Lofy tell it, this is a classic case of the price you pay for fighting for your rights of self-expression.

Lofy said he thought it would be funny to show up at his senior prom Saturday wearing a dress. Lofy went to the prom with Victor Anderson, a friend. Lofy says the school did not have any problem letting two males attend prom together, but school officials who had heard of Lofy's plan to wear a black dress warned him that he would not be allowed in the dance if he showed up dressed as a woman.
Lofy says he is not gay. He says he agreed to go with Anderson, who is gay, because Anderson is his friend and he wanted to go to the prom but didn't have a date. Anderson confirms this. Lofy concedes that he was uneasy going to prom with another male, and wearing a dress was a way to deflect other people's suspicions.

Are girls permitted to wear traditionally male attire – such as a tuxedo?

Would the dress have been acceptable if it had been wore by the gay student?

What about if the gay student self-identified as a “transgendered” individual?

Does any of that matter?

Like I said, there are issues here, and I don’t even begin to know where to begin to address them.

But I was struck by this sentence at the end of the article.

Lofy plans to go to Colorado Mountain College in the fall and major in ski hill management.

Ski Hill Management is a major?

Posted by: Greg at 11:52 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 389 words, total size 2 kb.

This story has some interesting issues in it, but IÂ’m not sure what I think.

Kerry Lofy figures that girls get to wear dresses to the Lake Geneva Badger High School prom, so why couldn't he?

But now that he has been suspended from school for three days, is being forced to miss his last track meet (and a chance for the school's pole vaulting record) and has to pay a $249 ticket for disorderly conduct, Lofy's not so sure he picked the right battle to fight.

"Things got a little crazy," Lofy said Tuesday from home, where the 18-year-old senior is serving the suspension after Saturday night's antics.

High school officials are not returning calls for comment on the case, but to hear Lofy tell it, this is a classic case of the price you pay for fighting for your rights of self-expression.

Lofy said he thought it would be funny to show up at his senior prom Saturday wearing a dress. Lofy went to the prom with Victor Anderson, a friend. Lofy says the school did not have any problem letting two males attend prom together, but school officials who had heard of Lofy's plan to wear a black dress warned him that he would not be allowed in the dance if he showed up dressed as a woman.
Lofy says he is not gay. He says he agreed to go with Anderson, who is gay, because Anderson is his friend and he wanted to go to the prom but didn't have a date. Anderson confirms this. Lofy concedes that he was uneasy going to prom with another male, and wearing a dress was a way to deflect other people's suspicions.

Are girls permitted to wear traditionally male attire – such as a tuxedo?

Would the dress have been acceptable if it had been wore by the gay student?

What about if the gay student self-identified as a “transgendered” individual?

Does any of that matter?

Like I said, there are issues here, and I donÂ’t even begin to know where to begin to address them.

But I was struck by this sentence at the end of the article.

Lofy plans to go to Colorado Mountain College in the fall and major in ski hill management.

Ski Hill Management is a major?

Posted by: Greg at 11:52 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 395 words, total size 2 kb.

Let me get this straight – a principal found a shirt with these two messages offensive and disruptive?

A teenager was back in class on May 6 after receiving a one-day suspension for wearing a T-shirt with slogans including “freedom of expression” and “don’t drink and drive” that school administrators considered disruptive.
Hanna Smith, 18, a junior at Tift County High School, said Principal Mike Duck told her that if she wore the shirt again she would be suspended for the remainder of the year.

The principal was arrested six years ago for DUI and running a stop sign, The Tifton Gazette said May 6 in a story on SmithÂ’s suspension. Duck made a public apology for the DUI and was himself suspended for five days.

SmithÂ’s mother, Tracy Fletcher, said she would defend her daughterÂ’s right to express herself, even if it meant hiring an attorney and taking the case to court.

“They want everyone to fit into a mold, and there’s no room for individuality. These kids are our future, I think they should be treated with a little more respect. Their opinions count. Their thoughts count,” Fletcher said.

The principal confirmed that Smith was back in class on May 6 without the banned T-shirt, which also had a peace symbol on the front and “Veritas,” which means truth, written on the back.

Now let’s look at this and try to discern what is offensive here. A peace sign? Hardly. The word “Veritas”? Most kids probably couldn’t pronounce it, much less tell you what it means. Could it be “Freedom of Expression”? One would hope not, given that teaching the concept is mandatory in any American government or history class. Well then it must be “Don’t Drink and Drive”. I guess that the drunk who the school board unwisely allows to run a high school had his feelings hurt by that message, one which simply urges that the laws of the state (and common sense and common decency) be followed. Certainly there isn’t anything that would disrupt school in any of those messages, so that must be it.

But I love this quote from Principal Mike Duck.

The school systemÂ’s dress code forbids disruptive clothing, grooming and symbols. Principals decide whatÂ’s disruptive.

“I have an obligation to maintain an orderly environment,” Duck said. “The courts give me the authority and the right to make those decisions and as long as I’m sitting in this chair that’s what I’m going to do.”

Frankly, sir, based upon that addled comment I’m surprised you are sitting in the chair instead of falling out of it trying to get to that bottle of Smirnoff you keep in the back of your desk drawer to calm your DTs. But if you want a quick primer on the rights of students, might I direct you here and here. In case your hangover is giving you too much trouble, I’ll give you the highlights – Tinker v. Des Moines, “Students don’t surrender their rights at the school house gate”, First Amendment, civil rights and liberties, arbitrary abuse of power. You know, the same stuff I keep writing about regularly on this site and on my previous one.

And I cannot help but admire the stand taken by this young adult, 18-year-old Hanna Smith.

“I think it’s silly that we can’t practice the freedoms that they teach us here,” Smith said. “You would think that school officials would have respect for the law and people’s rights, or at least they should.”

You’ve got it exactly right, Hanna – it is impossible to teach our students to be citizens of a free society while granting them no greater liberty than an inmate in a maximum security penitentiary, for the habits necessary to survive as the latter are not those necessary to prosper as the former.

Posted by: Greg at 12:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 648 words, total size 4 kb.

DonÂ’t you love it when some geeks get a neat idea into their head and run with it?

Suppose it is the future - maybe a thousand years from now. There is no static cling, diapers change themselves, and everyone who is anyone summers on Mars.

"The odds of a time traveler showing up are between one in a million and one in a trillion," says Amal Dorai, who conceived the convention.

What's more, it is possible to travel back in time, to any place, any era. Where would people go? Would they zoom to a 2005 Saturday night for chips and burgers in a college courtyard, eager to schmooze with computer science majors possessing way too many brain cells?

Why not, say some students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who have organized what they call the first convention for time travelers.

Actually, they contend that theirs is the only time traveler convention the world needs, because people from the future can travel to it anytime they want.

"I would hope they would come with the idea of showing us that time travel is possible," said Amal Dorai, 22, the graduate student who thought up the convention, which is to be this Saturday on the M.I.T. campus. "Maybe they could leave something with us. It is possible they might look slightly different, the shape of the head, the body proportions.

The event is potluck and alcohol-free - present-day humans are bringing things like brownies. But Mr. Dorai's Web site asks that future-folk bring something to prove they are really ahead of our time: "Things like a cure for AIDS or cancer, a solution for global poverty or a cold fusion reactor would be particularly convincing as well as greatly appreciated."

I love the notion that there need be only one, as time travelers can always get there from any other point in the future. It reeks of the sort of cleverness that Douglas Adams showed in The Restaurant At the End Of The Universe.

And I love this explanation of why folks should come out for the party.

"If you can just give up a Saturday night, there's a very small chance at it being the biggest event in human history," he said.

Well, it certainly beats the reason for attending the annual St. Flatulus Day party back when I was in the seminary.

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 2 kb.

Every rule has to admit that there are situations that are exceptions. Such exceptions often are tacit rather than written down. ShouldnÂ’t common sense have let there be one here?

A high school student was suspended for 10 days for refusing to end a mobile phone call with his mother, a soldier serving in Iraq, school officials said.

The 10-day suspension was issued because Kevin Francois was "defiant and disorderly" and was imposed in lieu of an arrest, Spencer High School assistant principal Alfred Parham said.

The confrontation Wednesday began after the 17-year-old junior got a call at lunchtime from his mother, Sgt. 1st Class Monique Bates, who left in January for a one-year tour with the 203rd Forward Support Battalion.

Mobile phones are allowed on campus but may not be used during school hours.

When a teacher told him to hang up, he refused. He said he told the teacher, "This is my mom in Iraq. I'm not about to hang up on my mom."

The word “Iraq” would have led me to turn a blind eye – and I would have been supported by every administrator on my campus. We all banded together a couple of years ago to look out for one of our boys when his mom, dad, and older brother all deployed at the same time. I know for a fact that he had the home and cell phone numbers of at least a half dozen teachers in his wallet, as well as personal email addresses. He had "walk-in" privileges at the principal's office, something that we teachers don't have. I somehow doubt that Kevin has been afforded any such consideration, despite the fact that his mother is his only living parent.

What I'm saying is that I wish this school had shown a bit more concern about this student's psychological and emotional well-being.

But then again, I may be biased.

After all, my dad was a Navy officer who we once figured was gone for six of my first 12 years, including multiple tours in Vietnam, so I can really identify with this boy.

Other takes on this story -- Michelle Malkin, Zero Intelligence, Outside The Beltway, Cam Edwards.

Posted by: Greg at 01:08 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 2 kb.

Now I chose that title very deliberately. That isnÂ’t the way the story is being presented in the media, or being argued by the teacher and his lawyers. But when one cuts through all the rhetoric, histrionics, and outcry, that is what this story comes down to.

A Gwinnett County teacher was fired early Friday after refusing to raise a student athlete's grade he lowered because the student appeared to be sleeping in class.

The Gwinnett County School Board voted 4-1 early Friday _ after a marathon Thursday night meeting _ to fire Dacula High School science teacher Larry Neace, said school system spokeswoman Sloan Roach.

Neace left the building after the ruling and would not comment.
His lawyers said they planned to appeal the dismissal to the State Board of Education within 30 days.

Now that sounds pretty damning, doesn’t it. It certainly has all the right villains – student athlete, building administrators, school board members – arrayed against one poor defenseless teacher who is trying to stand up for excellence in education. Unfortunately, that isn’t what I see going on here. What I see is a teacher using a poor educational practice in direct contravention of district policy, and then engaging in insubordination when directed to conform his grading and classroom management practices to district policy.

Neace, who has taught at Dacula High for 23 years, was removed from class after he refused to raise the grade he had given a football player on an overnight assignment. Neace said he cut the student's perfect grade in half because he thought the student had fallen asleep at his desk the day the assignment was made.

School officials said they gave Neace a chance to restore the football player's grade. When he refused, they sent him home. He has not been allowed back at school since April 14, when he was told he could resign or face being fired.

Superintendent J. Alvin Wilbanks recommended to the board that Neace be fired.
"He cannot have a policy that supersedes board policy," Wilbanks said. "He had no right to do that."

Neace said he had a practice of reducing the grades of students who waste time or sleep in class. His course syllabus warns that wasting class time can "earn a zero for a student on assignments or labs."

No administrators had previously complained about the practice, which he adopted more than a decade ago, Neace said.

Let’s look at what happened. You had a kid who may or may not have fallen asleep in class on Wednesday (a pet peeve of mine that earns kids a d-hall with me the following afternoon, I might add) being penalized on a homework assignment that was not required to be completed or turned in until Thursday morning (I’m speculating on the days of the week to make the point). The student completed the assignment within the allotted time, and did it well – but was given a failing grade instead of the grade he earned. That isn’t reasonable, and it violates district policy. The superintendent has the matter exactly correct when he says that teachers do not get to override board policies with which they disagree.

Nease says he has done this for years. What that means is that he has been lucky. No one has complained that he has been dealing with disciplinary matters by lowering grades. Someone who knew what was allowed finally complained, and the administration became aware what the teacher was doing. When they attempted to enforce district policy, the teacher refused to comply with a legitimate and legal directive. That is insubordination. Case closed – fire him.

The fact that we are dealing with a football player is essentially irrelevant to the issue. The Board says that such grade penalties are forbidden. Neace could have given a detention, referred the student to the office, called the parents, or even called the coach (something athletes at my school seek to avoid at all costs). Instead he decided to apply a penalty that is forbidden to he, and he got slapped down when the parents complained about the violation. When it comes right down to it, Larry Neace is the guy who thinks he is above the rules, not the student athlete and his parents.

Let's look at some of the grading policies in my district. By Board policy, the grading scale is set, the percentage weight given to test and non-test assignements is set, and grades cannot be docked for behavior that doesn't involve academic dishonesty. Under Texas law, no one other than me can change a grade I assign without me signing off on it -- unless it can be documented that I have assigned a grade in violation of School District policy or state or federal law, in which case the superintendant or his designee (the building principal) can make the change if I refuse. That law preserves the integrity of my grades, but prevents me from being arbitrary and capricious in my grading.

For those of you who work in private industry, especially if you own a business, look at the situation objectively. What happens to employees who violate management policies and, when ordered to follow them, refuse to do so and claim management is unreasonable? They get fired, and it is rare that such terminations ever become an issue.

Do I have a concern here? Sure I do – I’d love to know why the administration didn’t know that Neace was applying a penalty that was forbidden under Board policy. That needs to be looked at by the Board. But the belated decision to make a teacher comply with the same rules that apply to every other teacher in the district is not a problem in my book.

Others, though, have a variety of views on the case, including Zero Intelligence, The Force Arena, Palm Tree Pundit, Ramblings' Journal, Michelle Malkin and Winfield Myers.

Posted by: Greg at 12:24 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1006 words, total size 6 kb.

I'm not going to get into the rude behavior of the folks who protested Ann Coulter last night in Austin. I'm not going to point out that fart noises, gestures of mastubation, nise-makers, and obscene questions are beyond the bounds of civility in a polite society. I won't even argue that such folks deserve to be removed from the university community for antics which disgraced the school, showing them unfit for higher education.

No, I want to focus on the bias of The Daily Texan in reporting on the speech and the opponents of freedom who disrupted it.

First, there was the news story.

Incessant heckling and shouting culminated in an arrest Tuesday night during a speech by Ann Coulter, an extreme right-wing pundit, at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum.

Shouts became so pervasive during the question-and-answer session that Coulter informed the organizers she would no longer take questions if the hecklers were not silenced. For a time, the shouts were considerably lessened, until the issue of gay marriage was broached.

Coulter said she supported the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman on the basis that a good woman civilizes and inspires a man to strive for something better, leading to a question that was met with a stunned silence

Then there was the opinion column.

To be honest, I was surprised there weren't more protesters.

When the auditorium filled up to see Ann Coulter last night, I only saw about 15 people in the back with signs. They looked like the usual protest crowd. Earth tones, shaggy hair, somber faces, folks who have their own wipe-board signs to adapt for every situation.

I guess for a conventional extremist like Ann Coulter there is no good rallying point for the local upstarts. She does not particularly irritate any specific campus community.

She just generally rubs all liberals the wrong way. Yet, one can always rely on that most reliable of protest groups, the one-size-fits all International Socialist Organization.

Who gets labeled in politically unflattering terms? Is it the folks who engage in low-grade terrorism to prevent free speech in a public place? Or is it their victim?

It is, of course, An Coulter, not the folks who deserve to be labeled as totalitarians-in-training for their attempt at speech suppression.

Maybe this is an issue that needs to be examined by the UT administration -- the failure of the journalism department to teach proper journalistic standards like fairness and balance, and the failure of the school paper to implement them.

UPDATE: For another overwrought view of AnnCoulter, visit here.

Posted by: Greg at 09:48 AM | Comments (48) | Add Comment
Post contains 452 words, total size 3 kb.

The friendly folks at Fresh Politics share their take on this bit from National Review.

College administrators have been enthusiastic supporters Eve Ensler’s play The Vagina Monologues and schools across the nation celebrate “V-Day” (short for Vagina Day) every year. But when the College Republicans at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island rained on the celebrations of V-Day by inaugurating Penis Day and staging a satire called The Penis Monologues, the official reaction was horror. Two participating students, Monique Stuart and Andy Mainiero, have just received sharp letters of reprimand and have been placed on probation by the Office of Judicial Affairs. The costume of the P-Day “mascot” — a friendly looking “penis” named Testaclese, has been confiscated and is under lock and key in the office of the assistant dean of student affairs, John King.

You have got to read about the over-reaction of the administration to this satire by the ever-outrageous Roger Williams University College Republicans. The free speech implications here are clear, given the officially sponsored antics of the Vagina Warriors who put on The Vagina Monologues.

And remember -- unlike the last censorship case I wrote on involving the play, this involves college students on a college campus.

I'm particularly amused by the administrator who thought that Testacles was a giant mushroom.

UPDATE: For additional commentary, visit Joanne Jacobs, Number 2 Pencil, The Education Wonks, and Moonbat Central.

UPDATE 2: Here is a really funny take on the play and the story.

Posted by: Greg at 02:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.