There is a move afoot to put a stop to discrimination on our college campuses. The perpetrator of the discrimination? The American Red Cross. The proposed solution? Ban blood drives!

And while one school has refused to give in, there are other schools considering taking precisely that course of action.

The University of Vermont won't ban American Red Cross blood drives on campus despite a complaint from the school's affirmative action office that the organization violates UVM's non-discrimination policy.

"Donating blood is an individual choice and action -- not rising to the definition of protected activity in the case of discrimination or equal protection," Michael Gower, UVM's vice president for administration, wrote in a Jan. 17 letter detailing the school's position.

The letter was addressed to Kathryn Friedman, the executive director of the affirmative action office. Friedman had recommended that UVM curtail Red Cross blood drives on campus, arguing the Red Cross policy violated UVM's non-discrimination policy.

According to the letter, Friedman's office decided to oppose Red Cross campus blood drives after a former UVM student filed a complaint accusing UVM of permitting discrimination against gay men by allowing the Red Cross on campus.

Officials for the Red Cross blood center in Burlington were unavailable for comment late last week. Nationally, the organization's position has been that the Food and Drug Administration won't allow it to accept blood from sexually active gay men.

Among the many questions a prospective Red Cross blood donor is asked is whether the person is "a male who has had sexual contact with another male, even once, since 1977."

The policy is meant to keep HIV-positive blood from contaminating the nation's blood supply. HIV is the virus that causes AIDS. The FDA last considered whether to revise its policy in 2000, when a panel of FDA specialists voted 7-6 to maintain the ban.

Peter Jacobsen, executive director of Vermont CARES, said he understood the Red Cross was bound by the FDA policy but said the time had come for the FDA to revisit its stance.

"Personally, I think it's unfortunate," he said of the policy. "HIV-testing technology has made such incredible advances. It is able to sort out any HIV-infected blood."

The university president argues that the ban would not be in the best interest of the students or the community. But since when do left-wing ideologues give a damn about anything but their cause? So what if a few thousand people die, so long as nobody gets their feelings hurt by being excluded from donating?

Other regional universities, including the University of Maine and the University of New Hampshire, are considering whether to allow the Red Cross to continue to stage blood drives on their campuses.

The University of Maine's student government has voted to ban Red Cross blood drives on its Orono campus. The University of New Hampshire's Student Senate last year passed a resolution calling on the Red Cross and the FDA to revise their policies.

Here is a proposal – anyone offended by the current blood donation guidelines should refuse all blood products until the ban is changed. No whole blood, not platelets, no plasma, or anything else. Have your refusal tattooed in a prominent location on your body. That way your conscience won’t be offended – and there will be blood for human beings who are less concerned about PC politics and more concerned about the health and safety of the nation’s blood supply.

Posted by: Greg at 11:28 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 588 words, total size 4 kb.

Let’s set aside the First Amendment issues here fore a moment – and they are significant – and just consider whether the punishment is appropriate for the offense in question.

PITTSBURGH - A high school senior who was transferred to an alternative school as punishment for parodying his principal on the Internet is suing the district, arguing it violated his freedom of speech.

Justin Layshock had used his grandmother's computer and the Web site MySpace.com to create a phony profile under the principal's name and photo.
The site asks questions, and Justin filled in answers peppered with vulgarities, fat jokes and, to the question "What did you do on your last birthday?" wrote "Too drunk to remember," according to the lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

School officials questioned the teenager about the site on Dec. 21, and he apologized to the principal, the ACLU said.

On Jan. 6, the district suspended Justin for 10 days and transferred him to an alternative program typically reserved for students with behavior or attendance problems, according to the lawsuit. He also was banned from school events.

The lawsuit seeks Justin's immediate reinstatement to his regular school.

Alternative school? For a juvenile attempt at humor that happened off campus and outside of school hours? You must be kidding! The suspension is even an overreaction, but one could argue that it is appropriate if the site caused a major problem at the school or contained threats, but not for insults.

Looks like someone with the district, probably the principal, got his panties in a wad and decided to “make an example” of the student.

Bad move – because the taxpayers of the district will be paying for the bad judgment of the individual who made the decision.

Posted by: Greg at 11:24 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

The New York State Conference of the American Association of University Professors is objecting to the Academic Bill of Rights proposed in the state legismature. Let’s take a look at the portions of the legislation that they find so objectionable in their correspondance with their members.

Section 1. The education law is amended by adding a new section 224-b to read as follows:

Academic bill of rights.

1. A student enrolled in an institution of higher education has the right to expect:

a. A learning environment in which the student has access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion pertaining to the subjects the student studies in which, in the humanities, the social sciences and the arts, the fostering of a plurality of serious scholarly methodologies and perspectives has a significant institutional purpose;

In other words, they are objecting to a mandate to provide students with a well-rounded education.

b. To be graded solely on the basis of the student's reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects the student studies and to not be discriminated against on the basis of the student's political or religious beliefs;

It seems that the students wish to permit grades to be based upon the student’s conformity to religious or political ideologies rather than their knowledge of the material and their demonstrated scholarship. This is at odds with the traditions of Western liberal education, which had as its goal the liberation of the individual mind rather than it’s shackling.

c. That the student's academic freedom and the quality of education will not be infringed upon by instructors who persistently introduce controversial matter into the classroom or coursework that has no relation to the subject of study and that serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose;

The professors seem to think that students have no right to expect that they will be taught the subject matter of the course and not the personal opinions and philosophy of the professor on matters unrelated to the subject matter of the class. They view students as a captive audience to be indoctrinated. The irony is that this clause is based upon a 1940 statement of the AAUP on academic freedom.

d. That the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of conscience of students and student organizations are not infringed upon by administrators, student government organizations or institutional policies, rules or procedures; and

Contrary to the Bill of Rights and the repeated rulings of the Supreme Court, the AAUP believes that college students shed their civil liberties when they enter the campus.

e. That the student's academic institution distributes student fee funds on a viewpoint-neutral basis and maintains a posture of neutrality with respect to substantive political and religious disagreements, differences and opinions.

A fair and equitable distribution of mandatory student fees is somehow threatening to academic freedom?

2. A faculty member or instructor at an institution of higher education has the right to expect:

a. Academic freedom in the classroom in discussing subjects while making the students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints other than that of the faculty member or instructor and encouraging intellectual honesty, civil debate and the critical analysis of ideas in the pursuit of knowledge and truth;

I cannot understand what is objectionable here – unless the requirement that a professor provide students with a well-rounded education is a threat to current practices.

b. To be hired, fired, promoted, denied promotion, granted tenure or denied tenure on the basis of competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of expertise of the faculty member or instructor and not on the basis of political or religious beliefs; and
b. To not be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of political or religious beliefs.

Non-discrimination is supposed to be a good thing, according to the Left. Could it be that they hypocritically apply such matters only to themselves and their favored groups, and not to those who do not share their worldview?

3. An institution of higher education shall fully inform students, faculty and instructors of the rights under this section and of the institution's grievance procedures for violations of academic freedom by notices prominently displayed in course catalogs or student handbooks and on the institutional publicly accessible site on the Internet

4. The governing board of an institution of higher education shall develop institutional guidelines and policies to protect the academic freedom and the rights of students and faculty under this section and shall adopt a grievance procedure by which a student or faculty member may seek redress of grievance for an alleged violation of a right specified in this section..

A governing board under this subdivision shall:

Publicize the grievance procedure developed pursuant to this subdivision
To the students and faculty on every campus that is under the control 27 and direction of the governing board. .

We can’t be telling students that they have rights, can we? That would threaten the ability of the unbalanced professor to indoctrinate his captive audience!

In light of the inoffensive and reasonable nature of these provisions that the AAUP is objecting to in NY State, it can only be assumed that the requirement of professional conduct is offensive to the groups and that the legitimate rights and expectations of students need protection.

Maybe the time has come for the New York taxpauyers to cut the public college and university system loose as irredeemable corrupt, and see if the one-sided and biased faculty can survive on their own in the marketplace.

Posted by: Greg at 01:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 836 words, total size 6 kb.

The New York State Conference of the American Association of University Professors is objecting to the Academic Bill of Rights proposed in the state legismature. LetÂ’s take a look at the portions of the legislation that they find so objectionable in their correspondance with their members.

Section 1. The education law is amended by adding a new section 224-b to read as follows:

Academic bill of rights.

1. A student enrolled in an institution of higher education has the right to expect:

a. A learning environment in which the student has access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion pertaining to the subjects the student studies in which, in the humanities, the social sciences and the arts, the fostering of a plurality of serious scholarly methodologies and perspectives has a significant institutional purpose;

In other words, they are objecting to a mandate to provide students with a well-rounded education.

b. To be graded solely on the basis of the student's reasoned answers and appropriate knowledge of the subjects the student studies and to not be discriminated against on the basis of the student's political or religious beliefs;

It seems that the students wish to permit grades to be based upon the studentÂ’s conformity to religious or political ideologies rather than their knowledge of the material and their demonstrated scholarship. This is at odds with the traditions of Western liberal education, which had as its goal the liberation of the individual mind rather than itÂ’s shackling.

c. That the student's academic freedom and the quality of education will not be infringed upon by instructors who persistently introduce controversial matter into the classroom or coursework that has no relation to the subject of study and that serves no legitimate pedagogical purpose;

The professors seem to think that students have no right to expect that they will be taught the subject matter of the course and not the personal opinions and philosophy of the professor on matters unrelated to the subject matter of the class. They view students as a captive audience to be indoctrinated. The irony is that this clause is based upon a 1940 statement of the AAUP on academic freedom.

d. That the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of conscience of students and student organizations are not infringed upon by administrators, student government organizations or institutional policies, rules or procedures; and

Contrary to the Bill of Rights and the repeated rulings of the Supreme Court, the AAUP believes that college students shed their civil liberties when they enter the campus.

e. That the student's academic institution distributes student fee funds on a viewpoint-neutral basis and maintains a posture of neutrality with respect to substantive political and religious disagreements, differences and opinions.

A fair and equitable distribution of mandatory student fees is somehow threatening to academic freedom?

2. A faculty member or instructor at an institution of higher education has the right to expect:

a. Academic freedom in the classroom in discussing subjects while making the students aware of serious scholarly viewpoints other than that of the faculty member or instructor and encouraging intellectual honesty, civil debate and the critical analysis of ideas in the pursuit of knowledge and truth;

I cannot understand what is objectionable here – unless the requirement that a professor provide students with a well-rounded education is a threat to current practices.

b. To be hired, fired, promoted, denied promotion, granted tenure or denied tenure on the basis of competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of expertise of the faculty member or instructor and not on the basis of political or religious beliefs; and
b. To not be excluded from tenure, search and hiring committees on the basis of political or religious beliefs.

Non-discrimination is supposed to be a good thing, according to the Left. Could it be that they hypocritically apply such matters only to themselves and their favored groups, and not to those who do not share their worldview?

3. An institution of higher education shall fully inform students, faculty and instructors of the rights under this section and of the institution's grievance procedures for violations of academic freedom by notices prominently displayed in course catalogs or student handbooks and on the institutional publicly accessible site on the Internet

4. The governing board of an institution of higher education shall develop institutional guidelines and policies to protect the academic freedom and the rights of students and faculty under this section and shall adopt a grievance procedure by which a student or faculty member may seek redress of grievance for an alleged violation of a right specified in this section..

A governing board under this subdivision shall:

Publicize the grievance procedure developed pursuant to this subdivision
To the students and faculty on every campus that is under the control 27 and direction of the governing board. .

We canÂ’t be telling students that they have rights, can we? That would threaten the ability of the unbalanced professor to indoctrinate his captive audience!

In light of the inoffensive and reasonable nature of these provisions that the AAUP is objecting to in NY State, it can only be assumed that the requirement of professional conduct is offensive to the groups and that the legitimate rights and expectations of students need protection.

Maybe the time has come for the New York taxpauyers to cut the public college and university system loose as irredeemable corrupt, and see if the one-sided and biased faculty can survive on their own in the marketplace.

Posted by: Greg at 01:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 841 words, total size 6 kb.

That is what one Florida radio station has termed Dave F. Swafford, who walked into a classroom and punched out a teacher's aide who his daughter accuses of inappropriately touching her.

An angry father who marched into a classroom and punched a teacher's assistant in the face said Wednesday he was protecting his 15-year-old daughter, who had accused the man of inappropriately touching her.

Dave F. Swafford, 42, was charged with felony battery on a school employee after he hit the 35-year-old aide in front of a class full of students at Lakewood Ranch High School near Bradenton Tuesday morning, authorities said. He was also named ``Father of the Year'' by a local radio station for his actions.

``I'm not real proud of what I did,'' Swafford told The Associated Press Wednesday. ``You have to protect your children, and my daughter does not lie to me.''

It seems Mr. Swafford was unwilling to allow school procedures to be invoked and investigations to be made. He wanted action taken immediately – because, after all, his daughter doesn’t lie to him.

And that is why I think he is a sad and pathetic excuse for a parent (and for a man, for that matter). This is the situation that led to his assault.

Swafford, the part owner of an air conditioning company, said he came to the school to meet with officials about allegations made by his daughter and other female students about the assistant's inappropriate touching and conduct. When he saw that the man was not in the meeting, he asked his daughter to take him to the classroom.

``I wanted to know why the guy was in a classroom teaching after my daughter came forward,'' he said.

A verbal exchange became heated, and ``I lost control,'' he said. He spent about 10 hours in jail and got out later Tuesday after posting bond.

You see, he wanted the man to lose his job based solely on his daughter's say-so. No need to investigate, no need to find the facts -- take the word of a 15-year-old and a couple of her friends and just fire the guy. This guy is such a hot-head that he didn't even bother to wait for his meeting with the administration -- he had his daughter lead him down to the guy's room so he could assault him. After all, his daughter has spoken, and she doesn't lie to him.

You may ask why I am not taking a hard line against child abuse. Quite simply, it is because I am not sure that there is abuse here. What I am sure is that we have another case of a parent walking into a school and committing an act of violence against school personnel. That isn't acceptable.

And as for the accusation made, I'd rather wait for there to be some investigation before drawing a conclusion. After all, kids do lie to their parents, even about this sort of stuff

I watched a colleague suffer through such an accusation a few years ago. A decent, compassionate, dedicated man, he had a trio of girls who were doing poorly in his class accuse him of giving them lewd looks and groping them. It wasn't true -- they just wanted out of his class so they could get As instead of Bs. He was suspended from work, and had to go home and tell his pregnant wife about the accusation (it was a difficult pregnancy, and his wife lost the baby that week). Once cleared, he was still the subject of rumors -- even though one of the girls admitted that she had lied. Even today, four years later, there still lingers a hint of scandal around his name, and certain parents will insist that their children be assigned to other classes. It is certain that he will never be hired as an administrator in this or any other district, despite completing his certification requirements a few weeks after the accusation was made; I wonder if he could even get a teaching job outside of the district. After all, there will always be those who will remember the accusation and be certain that these girls didn't lie.

So I'll be honest here -- I hope Swafford ends up serving the maximum sentence for the felony he committed, regardless of the guilt of the guy accused by his daughter. No one should be able to walk into a school and assault an employee, no matter how righteous their cause is alleged to be.

UPDATE: O'Reilly says the school has tape of the accused in a different location at the time of the incident -- and daddy has a violent rap sheet.

This report makes it clear that the "Father of the Year" attacked a man who was falsely accused by his lying daughter.

It turns out the daughter made it all up, the Manatee School District says.

The parent of a Lakewood Ranch High School student punched a teaching assistant at the school Tuesday, and said he was justified because his daughter claimed the teacher had touched her inappropriately.

But the girl's entire story was made up, school officials said today, and now the father faces a felony battery charge that could bring prison time.

The girl, who had been in a school-suspension classroom at the high school, was apparently motivated by revenge, Superintendent Roger Dearing said.

The teacher assistant, Deon W. Mathis, had turned the girl in to the office after seeing her pour soda onto another student from the second floor of a school stairwell.

Dearing said the district has statements from several other students and footage from a school security camera that proves the teaching assistant did nothing wrong. Video tapes show Mathis wasn't even in the classroom at the time the girl claimed the sex harassment took place.

Dearing said the district would pursue criminal charges against the parent, Dave F. Swafford, who has been making national TV rounds justifying the violence. He was slated to appear on the O'Reilly Factor tonight.

Dearing called Mathis a respected and caring educator. He is expected to return to work Monday after being put on paid administrative leave.

Oh, and by the way -- daddy was still defending his daughter and accusing the teacher on national television (O'Reilly) after the evidence was released. here's hoping for a big-time libel award in addition to a long jail sentence.

MORE COMMENARY (including much that is misguided): Southchild, Unknown Professor, PC540, Attu, Opinion Bug, Just Iggy, Evil Overlord, Right Thinking from the Left Coast, Teacher Children Hell, It's All Greek To Me, The Political Teen

TRACKBACKS: Stop the ACLU, Wizbang, Samantha Burns, Gribbit, Conservative Cat, MacStansbury, RightWingNation,, PointFive, Adam's Blog, third world country, Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, Real Ugly American, Liberal Wrong Wing, Uncooperative Blogger, Publius Rendevous, Bullwinkle, Voteswagon

Posted by: Greg at 01:20 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 1148 words, total size 9 kb.

but heaven forbid that a citizen enroll is child on the “wrong” side of a school district border.

In San Jose, Calif., many parents want to get their kids in Fremont Union schools because they're so much better than neighboring schools. So parents sometimes cheat to get their kids in. At least cheating is what local officials call it. Steve Rowley, district superintendent, said, "We have maybe hundreds of kids who are here illegally, under false pretenses."

Illegally. False pretenses. Sounds like the kids are criminals. All they're doing is trying to get a good public-school education. Don't the public schools' defenders insist all children have a right to a good public-school education?

And that is exactly the argument used for education border-jumpers and their offspring – they need a good education to succeed. But we won’t allow America kids to jump the borders of school districts to get one.

Read John StosselÂ’s column and you will be truly and righteously outraged.

Posted by: Greg at 03:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

Bravo to these five teachers who refuse to place a pro-gay poster in their classrooms, despite a district mandate.

Five teachers at San Leandro High School have refused to comply with a school district order to display a rainbow-flag poster in their classrooms that reads, " This is a safe place to be who you are," because they say homosexuality violates their religious beliefs, Principal Amy Furtado said.

The high school's Gay-Straight Alliance designed the poster, which includes pink triangles and other symbols of gay pride. In December the school board approved a policy requiring all district teachers to hang the posters in their classrooms.

District officials said the poster is an effort to comply with state laws requiring schools to ensure students' safety and curb discrimination and harassment. They say that too often teachers do not reprimand students who use derogatory slurs or refer to homosexuality in a negative way.

"This is not about religion, sex, or a belief system,'' said district Superintendent Christine Lim, who initiated the poster policy. "This is about educators making sure our schools are safe for our children, regardless of their sexual orientation."

“Not about religion, sex, or a belief system”? Really? So if a student expresses his firmly held religious belief that homosexual activity is immoral and that practitioners thereof are going to burn in Hell, they won’t be reprimanded? Heck, given the official endorsement of homosexuals as a protected class, will students who adhere to traditional moral and religious beliefs feel that “this is a safe place to be who you are”? I don’t think so.

Speaking as a teacher, I don’t accept anyone giving crap to anyone else over sexual orientation, race, or any of the other protected statuses. Not because these kids are “special”, but because all kids are special. My kids know that they will not get away with that sort of crap in my presence – and they learned that from their older siblings and cousins before they ever set foot in my room.

But I wouldnÂ’t put the poster up. It gives an imprimatur to one side of the homosexual rights issue that I think should not be given in a classroom setting. It is implicitly a tool of indoctrination.

And if you disagree with me, consider this – how long would this poster be allowed to remain in any public school classroom anywhere in the United States?

You want to tell me again that this isn't about special treatment for one group based upon their sexual practices, or the disfavoring of a point of view -- especially if it is religious?

UPDATE: I found the poster online. Look close and see what is missing.

Yep, that is right -- straight kids are pointedly not included among those for who the classroom is declared to be a safe place to be themselves.

UPDATE – 1/27/06: Looks like the teachers have given in. That is too bad.

"We are a diverse staff. We have teachers here who are active in their churches, and we respect their beliefs," Furtado said Wednesday. "But none of those teachers have said they won't put up the posters because of that."

Teachers have a week to hang the 8 1/2-by-11 posters, which were designed by the 30 or so students in the school's Gay-Straight Alliance. Furtado will check all 200 classrooms next week to see if the posters are visible, and she said she'd have "a private conversation" with teachers who don't comply.

"The expectation is compliance," she said. "It's board policy. But what's great is that today we have some very conservative teachers who've already put it up."

Too bad than none had the guts to stand their ground. The poster’s contents are exclusive, divisive, and oppressive – not inclusive, uniting, and liberating.

MORE AT: Right on the Left Coast, Joanne Jacobs, Dispatches From The Culture War, California Conservative

TRACKBACKS: Stop the ACLU, Wizbang, Samantha Burns, Gribbit, Conservative Cat, MacStansbury, RightWingNation,, PointFive, Adam's Blog, third world country, Bacon Bits, Stuck on Stupid, Real Ugly American, Liberal Wrong Wing, Uncooperative Blogger, Publius Rendevous, Bullwinkle, Voteswagon

Posted by: Greg at 03:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 690 words, total size 7 kb.

I criticized the initial plan – this change is an improvement, though the earlier version will make this plan tainted in the eyes of many on both the Left and Right.

A conservative activist dropped his offer to pay students up to $100 per class for providing information on what he called "radical" professors at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The activist, Andrew Jones, said Monday he would continue his effort with unpaid volunteers.

Jones' Bruin Alumni Association had offered UCLA students up to $100 to supply tapes and notes from classes to expose professors he considered to be pushing liberal political views on their students.

After news reports about the plan, Jones was criticized by faculty members who complained of a "witch hunt." Several prominent members of his organization's advisory board, including a former congressman, resigned from the group after details of the payment plan became public.

Jones, 24, a 2003 graduate and former head of the campus Republicans, said he was concerned about the level of professionalism among teachers at the university. He said the payment offer had become "a distraction from the real problem, which has been all along the issue of classroom indoctrination by UCLA professors."

The University is still opposed – and implicitly threatening to punish any student who dares to speak out and supply proof of classroom bias.

Lawrence H. Lokman, a UCLA spokesman, said University of California rules bar the distribution of course materials unless permission is granted by the instructor and campus chancellor. As a result, he said, Jones' campaign violates UC policy even if no payments are involved.

IÂ’m suspicious of this rule, because it prevents the public from finding out about the workplace conduct of public employees. Does that not constitute an unconstitutional restriction on the right to speak on a matter of public concern, and to petition for the redress of grievances?

And besides, wouldn’t the students in question be whistleblowers – who are, we are told, nothing less than patriots out to secure the public’s “right to know” and disclose the unsavory actions of government institutions and officials.

Posted by: Greg at 03:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 361 words, total size 2 kb.

Mike Adams reports on this coalition of conservative and libertarian students to overturn a rule at University of North Carolina-Greensboro that infringes upon freedom of association.

“The Anti-Discrimination statement must include that student organizations may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, gender, age, national origin, disability, military, veteran status, political affiliation or sexual orientation.”

After reading your report, members of the College Libertarians and College Republicans recognized that their rights as political organizations are being circumvented by this patently unconstitutional policy.

It is clearly unreasonable to request political organizations to admit members of opposing political parties. To require them to do so would sabotage the level of political discourse on campus. Therefore, these two groups have asked UNCG to change this policy. They have asked that the anti-discrimination statement be altered to except political groups from the political affiliation portion of the statement and religious groups from the religion portion of the statement.

Until the anti-discrimination statement is officially altered, the Republicans and Libertarians are refusing to include the full statement in their respective organizational constitutions. They are also refusing to otherwise comply with the unconstitutional policy. And, best of all, they have warned the UNCG administration that they are prepared to pursue legal action to remedy the situation.

The university is retaliating, recently billing them $238 for copying a few dozen pages of public records related to donors to UNCG. I’d like to encourage folks to help defray the cost of copying – and other related expenses – by donating a couple of bucks their way. You can do so at the following address: UNCG College Republicans, Elliot University Center, Box N3, Greensboro, NC 27402-6170. If you would rather have your money go to the UNCG College Libertarians, they can be reached here: UNCG College Libertarians, 110 Odell Place, Greensboro 27403 (make checks payable to Guilford County Libertarian Party). Give what you can to help advance reasoned political debate on one campus.

Posted by: Greg at 03:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 2 kb.

What possesses supposedly professional educators to do stuff like this?

BEAVER FALLS -- A 17-year-old high school student said he was humiliated when a teacher made him sit on the floor during a midterm exam in his ethnicity class -- for wearing a Denver Broncos jersey.

The teacher, John Kelly, forced Joshua Vannoy to sit on the floor to take the test on Friday -- two days before the Pittsburgh Steelers beat the Broncos 34-17 in the AFC Championship game. Kelly also made other students throw crumpled up paper at Vannoy, whom he called a "stinking Denver fan," Vannoy told The Associated Press.

Kelly said Vannoy, a junior at Beaver Area Senior High School, just didn't get the joke.

"If he felt uncomfortable, then that's a lesson; that's what (the class) is designed to do," Kelly told The Denver Post. "It was silly fun. I can't believe he was upset."

Fire this idiot for unprofessional conduct.

Yeah, it might make him uncomfortable -- that will be a lesson, and what the his termination is designed to do.

Posted by: Greg at 11:39 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

The Washington Post covers the dispute over when to start school -- an issue being faced in many parts of the country.

The pressures of federally mandated exams have pushed public schools here and in several other states to begin classes weeks earlier than usual to squeeze in more days of instruction before the critical tests, sometimes striking August entirely from vacation calendars and devoting the month, traditionally left open for childhood leisure, to class time.

But a widespread backlash, led by disgruntled parents organized into loosely affiliated Save Our Summers groups across the country, is underway.

Legislators in Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama and Pennsylvania are weighing bills this year that would peg school start dates to Labor Day. North Carolina, Texas, Minnesota and Wisconsin passed similar measures in recent years.

The issue is one of the most controversial aspects in the debate over the exams used to comply with the No Child Left Behind law, leading to widening opposition and adding to the litany of complaints about the side effects of what critics call "high-stakes" testing.

Public schools here, for example, began classes at the beginning of August; essentially wiping out a month many had counted on for a spell of unhurried pleasure. Sherry Sturner, a mother of two in Miami-Dade County, had been looking forward to a family reunion up north and time at the swimming pool. But the new schedule did not accommodate them.

Now I won't waste my time teeing off on Mama Sherry, who seems to forget that there are two other entire months for her to spend at family reunions and lounging by poolside with the kids. Instead, I'll deal with the real issue -- the unreasonable expectations of parents and legislators on issues of school calendars and testing dates.

You see, the length of the school year has grown increasingly longer over the years. When I was a kid, the length of the school year was 170 days. Now it is 180 days here in Texas -- but parents and legislators still want us to fit everything into the same neat little "Labor Day to Memorial Day" package that existed when we were kids. The school year has lengthened as we have tried to increase standards in education, to reclaim the high rankings the US once had in academic performance.

And, of course, there is the issue of testing. If the state is going to tell us that we test in February (as we do here in Texas), then we want to get in the maximum number of days before testing, especially since promotion and placement decisions for students may be riding on test results which take weeks to be scored and returned by the state and its contractors.

But mostly it is a question of the number of available days for instruction, as well as certain cultural/traditional calendar issues, that give rise to early starts. This is especially true when districts wish to place semester exams before the Christmas holiday.

Let's look at this example of a school calendar, from what we will call "Generic Independent School District". It is typical of districts here in Texas.

This district already has a problem -- next year it needs to start in the week of August 21, given legislation passed in the last session of the Texas Legislature. I suppose that would not be too difficult to do. Eliminate the Staff Development Day on October 10, sending the kids to school on Veterans Day. Cut three days at Thanksgiving, giving kids only Thanksgiving and the day after -- I hope Grandma is only over the river and through the woods and not in another state or country. Push semester exams back a day, keeping the kids in school through December 16 -- teachers will just have to stay late to get their grades in before break, or perhaps finish on that January 2 Staff Development day. I guess that wasn't that hard.

But what about this idea that we should not start school until after Labor Day and be out by Memorial Day? How will we get the additional 10 instructional days? This is where it gets trickier -- for that involves taking 10 more days out of First Semester and finding days to replace them. That is impossible, as we have left only two non-instructional days after Labor Day and before Winter Break (which, for purposes of this discussion, cannot be touched -- imagine the parental uproar).

This new change already means that we are going to have to move some of First Semester into January. Kids will have one week of review followed by semester exams. To facilitate this, we need to eliminate the January 2 staff development day. That is one day out of the way, so we need nine more.

We have eleven possible days available. They are January 16 (MLK Day), February 13 (Presidents Day), March 6-10 (five days of Spring Break), April 14 (Good Friday), April 28 (Staff Development), May 25 & 26 (Thurdsay and Friday prior to Memorial Day).

Our first casualty has to be Spring Break. After all, it eliminates more than half of the deficit. Similarly, the two days in May are obvious choices, because they are just slack days before the Memorial Day deadline. We still need two days, so we must get rid of the Staff Development day in April (don't worry -- teachers will just do all of the eliminated days in August before the school year starts).

And so, we need just one more school day. Take your pick -- MLK Day, President's Day, or Good Friday (a likely high absentee day). Which do you get rid of? Do you offend blacks, Christians, or patriotic Americans? Personally, I'd get rid of MLK Day on the basis of its closeness to Christmas break, since it makes no sense to have a day off two weeks after a two-week break. But I doubt that any school board would have the testicular fortitude to stand by such a reasonable decision in the face of complaints from outraged black citizens. Similarly, I don't think that most Texas school boards would be willing to fight the battle over Good Friday -- especially given the financial hit that the district could take over the low attendance that day. So, we will eliminate Presidents Day.

What does that leave us? School starts on September 6, and students will attend every weekday until November 24. They will be back in session fro November 28-December 16, and then break for two weeks. School resumes on January 2, and the semester ends on January 13. Following MLK Day, school runs continuously until April 14, and from April 17 through May 26. Parents will, of course, complain that the lack of days off leaves their children tired and overworked, but what can be done? After all, they wanted that full three months off in the summer -- Memorial Day to Labor Day, just like when they were young. We cannot add days to the calendar.

So parents, legislators, tourism industry representatives and other interested individuals -- you have a choice. We must have kids in school at least 180 days (personally, I advocate more). The question is where to put those days. You can have a full three months of school vacation in the summer -- but if you get that, you will sacrifice those other days off you have come to expect during the year. If you take a count, the calendar I proposed had exactly fourteen weekdays off from Labor Day to Memorial Day -- and ten of them were during the Christmas season. Of the remaining four, two are customary vacation days at Thanksgiving, one is an ethnically sensitive national holiday and the other is part of a major religious celebration. That is not my choice -- it is yours. And it doesn't change my work schedule at all -- I will still have to report for Orientation and Staff Development during August, though perhaps a few days later.

But this calendar does something that those advocates do not realize -- it eliminates eight days of instruction before the TAKS test (February 21-23) and shifts them after TAKS. Does this help the students, or does it harm them? Does the elimination of a week-and-a-half of instructional time before the test make them more or less likely to pass? Given that students will be denied a diploma, retained a grade, or required to attend summer school or take remedial classes based upon their performance, I think it harms them. And like it or not, these tests -- and the consequences of low student performance -- are not going away any time soon.

You folks decide -- just tell me when and where I'll find a classroom full of kids with my name on their schedules and I will give them my all. I just hope you will give up the unrealistic dream of fitting a 180-day school year into a package designed for a 170-day (or shorter) school year.

UPDATE -- 1/24/06: Looks like the issue is rearing its head in Washington DC, where the School Board is debating an August 14 start date.

Posted by: Greg at 12:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1546 words, total size 9 kb.

I believe something needs to be done about biased teaching and the unprofessional politicization of classrooms. But I find the techniques used by this group to be disturbing.

A fledgling alumni group headed by a former campus Republican leader is offering students payments of up to $100 per class to provide information on instructors who are "abusive, one-sided or off-topic" in advocating political ideologies.

The year-old Bruin Alumni Assn. says its "Exposing UCLA's Radical Professors" initiative takes aim at faculty "actively proselytizing their extreme views in the classroom, whether or not the commentary is relevant to the class topic." Although the group says it is concerned about radical professors of any political stripe, it has named an initial "Dirty 30" of teachers it identifies with left-wing or liberal causes.

Some of the instructors mentioned accuse the association of conducting a witch hunt that threatens to harm the teaching atmosphere, and at least one of the group's advisory board members has resigned because he considers the bounty offers inappropriate. The university said it will warn the association that selling copies of professors' lectures would violate campus rules and raise copyright issues.

I don’t have a problem with documenting who is “abusive, one-sided, or off-topic”. I do have a problem with issuing a hit-list before beginning the process of documenting the problems. And I’ve got an even bigger problem with the payments being made to students for turning over notes and tapes. There is just something unsavory about it – and it undercuts the notion that the students making the reports are acting as whistleblowers rather than ideologically-motivated mercenaries.

I urge the Bruin Alumni Association to rethink their methods.

Posted by: Greg at 01:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.

Education is not a right.

That is what federal courts have held consistently.

They are right, and we should resist any altruistic impulse to place a “right to an education” in the Constitution, as proposed by Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. While his heart may be in the right place, he clearly hasn’t considered the implications of his proposal.

In an attempt to better achieve the ideal of genuine equal opportunity, I've proposed an education amendment to the Constitution. It says: (1) All persons shall enjoy the right to a public education of equal high quality; and (2) The Congress shall have the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.

Speaking as a teacher, I have to shout out my opposition.

First, it is vague. Up to what age are individuals entitled to a public education? Up to what level of educational attainment? Are we talking about education through grade 12 for those under the age of 21, as currently exists in most states? Or are we talking a right to education through a bachelorÂ’s degree? Or does that right go on through a Ph.D. and beyond? There is absolutely nothing there that answers the question, or which constrains some judge somewhere from decreeing that the individual right to education extends throughout an individualÂ’s entire lifespan.

Secondly, this proposal is a major expansion of federal power. It effectively destroys state and local control over education and federalizes it. Will federal funds accompany the federal mandates? Or will the state and local education authorities be expected to do the heavy lifting of funding the dictates of the federal government? It seems clear that there will be mandatory higher taxes on all Americans to fund this power grab, while the local schools will be less answerable to the local community.

Third, there is the question of the status of private and home schools. Will this amendment result in the end of such alternative educational programs? We do know that private schools and home schools generally adhere to higher standards than public schools, and that the students enrolled in such programs generally do better on standardized assessments than their publicly schooled peers. Why exclude the most effective educational programs from federal funding? That cannot be justified on any legitimate educational basis – and isn’t the goal here to ensure a high quality education for all children?

Lastly, there comes the question of school discipline. Once the right to an education is constitutionalized, it will be unconstitutional to remove a disruptive student from a school. After all, they have a right to that education, and a right to be at that school. Expulsion as a means of dealing with major disciplinary infractions will be gone. So, too, will be suspension, for that will also be a denial of the studentÂ’s right to an education. Will there be any disciplinary tools left to those of us on the frontlines of education around the country, or will the right of a particular student, no matter how disruptive or dangerous, to attend school trump the right of every other student in the school to be safe and to learn?

None of this is meant to say that education is unimportant. As a teacher, I would have to argue exactly the opposite. But expanding the sphere of federal power with an unlimited mandate for expenditures and no clear limits on the extent of this new right is not the solution.

TRACKBACK TO: Stop the ACLU, Publius Rendevous, Caos Blog, Right Wing Nation, Adam's Blog, Uncooperative Blogger, Linkfest Haven, Bullwinkle Blog, TMH Bacon Bits, Stuck On Stupid, third world country, Point Five, Conservative Cat, Samantha Burns, imagine kitty, Wizbang, Basil's Blog

Posted by: Greg at 12:50 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 624 words, total size 5 kb.

I may be a conservative Republican, but I've yet to see a merit pay system that I think would work. That includes the one adopted in the big district that borders mine, HISD.

Houston is about to become the biggest school district in the nation to tie teachers' pay to their students' test scores.

School Superintendent Abe Saavedra wants to offer teachers as much as $3,000 more per school year if their students improve on state and national tests. The program could eventually grow to as much as $10,000 in merit pay.

The school board is set to vote on the plan Thursday. Five of the nine board members have said they support it.

"School systems traditionally have been paying the best teacher the same amount as we pay the worst teacher, based on the number of years they have been teaching," Saavedra said. "It doesn't make sense that we would pay the best what we're paying the worst. That's why it's going to change."

Opponents argue that the plan focuses too much on test scores and would be unfair to teachers outside core subjects.

Count me as one of the opponents. I've never seen a merit system that cannot be manipulated by administrators to play favorites or screw teachers out of favor. Basing the pay on test scores unintentionally encourages cheating, and does have the effect of leaving elective teachers (and even some teachers of required classes) ineligible.

The plan is divided into three sections, with as much as $1,000 in bonus pay each.

The first would award bonuses to all teachers in schools rated acceptable or higher, based on scores on the state's main standardized test. The second ties pay to student improvement on a standardized test that compares performance to nationwide norms.

In the third section, reading and math teachers whose students fare well compared with others in the district would be eligible for bonuses.

Bonuses for all sections will be given only if students show improvement in the top half of scores.

Fallon said the plan is unfair to teachers in such subjects as art and music.

Now there is a bonus for all teachers. I think that is good. But it is also the smallest part of the bonus program, and so really undervalues the work done by teachers outside of the core subjects.

The second component introduces an additional test into the school year. That's right, students will lose more instructional time so that the bonus test will be given. That is because the TAKS test mandated by state law is not given nationally, and so provides no basis for comparison between states.

The third element offers a special bonus to reading and math teachers, but ignores the other two TAKS components -- science and social studies. Which test has the best performance statewide? Social studies. And the worst? Science. Reading is has room to improve, but math scores have been bad statewide. It just seems somewhat illogical to me to reward one section of the test but not another.

I'm also curious if there will be a reward by individual teacher. If there is, there is a simp;e way to play favorites. A principal has complete discretion over what classes a teacher has. Give the favorite the AP classes, and the teacher who is a thorn in the side a bunch of rmedial classes. I've been there -- one year I had four sections of kids 11th graders who had failed 10th grade English. I had one class that was usually 50% empty because of skippers and discipline cases. Want to guess what my test scores looked like? They were good, all things considered -- but a 76% passing rate was pretty anemic when the district-wide passing rate for the 10th grade test was 93%. Never mind that my three classes of regular 11th grade English passed at a 95% rate. Overall I was at an 82%, making me -- by the numbers -- one of the worst teachers in the district.

Oh, and while we are at it, I want to point out something in this article, for those who go on about union ifluence on education.

Traditionally, Houston teachers' experience and education levels have determined their pay scale. Starting teachers make about $36,000 a year. Salaries can rise to about $45,000 with advanced degrees and more experience.

Texas has no collective bargaining, meaning the teachers union can lobby the district for raises but cannot strike.

Houston area districts also pay quite well -- in other parts of the state, the numbers can be about $10K lower on the salary front. Statewide, we average nearly $7K below the national average salary for teachers. And as far as lobbying goes, many districts don't even decide on the next year's pay scale until mid-summer -- months after contracts must be signed, and sometimes after the state deadline for resignation. While salaries rarely go down, you can never be sure if there will be a salary increase for the following year -- or how much of one. Also, there is no tenure in any school district I am aware of. So you will understand why I look askance at this plan that is being imposed without significant teacher input.

I'm hoping my district gets no ideas from HISD.

Posted by: Greg at 03:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 895 words, total size 5 kb.

I cannot believe that this boy (his behavior shows him to be anything but a man) has messed up again so quickly.

Former Virginia Tech quarterback Marcus Vick turned himself into the Suffolk Magistrate's Office in Suffolk, Va., this afternoon after three warrants were issued for his arrest for waving a firearm at three men in the parking lot of a McDonald's restaurant on Sunday night.

Vick, the younger brother of Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick, was charged with three misdemeanor counts of brandishing a firearm. He was jailed at Western Tidewater Regional Jail around 2 p.m. today and was released on $10,000 bond, according to Magistrate Lisa Noel.

Vick is scheduled to appear Jan. 12 in Suffolk General Court.

Vick, 21, was dismissed from Virginia Tech's football team last Friday "due to a cumulative effect of legal infractions and unsportsmanlike play," according to Virginia Tech President Charles W. Steger. Vick had faced a two-game suspension at the beginning of the 2006 season as discipline for stomping the leg of Louisville defensive end Elvis Dumervil during the Hokies' 35-24 victory over the Cardinals in the Jan. 2 Gator Bowl in Jacksonville, Fla.

But Virginia Tech officials dismissed him from the team after they learned he had been cited Dec. 17 for driving with a suspended or revoked driver's license and speeding in Hampton, Va. -- the eighth and ninth traffic offenses since he enrolled at Virginia Tech in 2002.

Good grief -- it has been just a couple days since he was dumped by Virginia Tech for his thuggish criminality and his subsequent declaration of his intent to turn pro!

I don't see how any team could justify spending an early draft pick on this guy. He is a loose canon, just waiting to commit a crime of violence that puts him behind bars for an extended period.

You'll love the comments over at Every Day Should Be Saturday.

Posted by: Greg at 02:51 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

That was the question asked by Ray Donovan, Reagan's Labor Secretary, after he was found not guilty of corruption charges. It is the question that many folks found not guilty ask. And I suspect that it was the question asked by Virginia teacher who was accused of sexual abuse of a student, found not guilty, but who was fired anyway.

His answer? Back to court.

But things have gone quite wrong for him in the process -- not only has he been denied his day in court, but he and his lawyer have been sanctioned by the judge!

After all the difficulties David Perino encountered as a teacher -- his arrest on charges of sexually abusing a student, his acquittal in court and his firing in spite of that -- he thought he had one last recourse: Sue. Sue them all.

And so he did. Last summer, Perino filed eight lawsuits against the Prince William County school system and several of its employees, including former superintendent Edward L. Kelly, who died Thursday night.

But last week, Perino's quest to win his job back and clear his name was smacked off course when Prince William Circuit Court Judge William D. Hamblen ordered sanctions against him and his attorney. Hamblen declared that the lawsuits constituted harassment, the school system's attorney said. The judge ordered the pair to pay more than $14,000 to cover the school system's legal fees.

Perino and lawyer Pamela Cave have less than 30 days to appeal the sanctions. They say they intend to.

Such sanctions are quite rare, which leaves some observers wndering why the judge took this course of action.

"I don't recall one of our attorneys ever being sanctioned," said Robert Chanin, who has been general counsel for the National Education Association since 1968. "They are ordered if a lawyer truly brings a frivolous case without good faith or a legal basis. Don't harass the other side and waste the court's time."

And let's be honest here -- the damage to this man's good name and the loss of his job are pretty substantial damages, especially when a group of public officials state that they don't care what a jury of his peers had to say on the matter.

The dispute between Perino and the school system began Dec. 12, 2003, when a 20-year-old student with Down syndrome accused the 16-year veteran of sexually abusing her inside his empty classroom during school hours. The woman alleged that Perino tried to sodomize her; Perino said they talked about photographs on his wall before he ordered her to return to her regular classroom.

His first trial, in May 2004, resulted in a hung jury. Months later, a second jury found him not guilty of aggravated sexual battery and attempted forcible sodomy.

Last spring, Perino faced a School Board grievance hearing to keep his job. But School Board members voted to fire him, saying they believed he was guilty of sexual abuse. They also discovered pornographic images on his classroom computer and accused him of downloading the items. Perino denied doing any of it and said other people had access to his computer.

No I will grant that there is a different burden of proof at a criminal trial and an employment hearing. But this just points out the problem of allowing additional hearings and sanctions against an individual found not guilty. It strikes me that the concept of "res judicata" should apply here -- the matter has been decided by a court, and is not to be reexamined in another setting.

And therein lies the problem, especially in this age when there are more and more accusations of sexual misconduct by teachers coming to light -- how do we deal with those falsely accused, and where do they go to get their reputations (not to mention their careers) back?

Posted by: Greg at 01:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 659 words, total size 4 kb.

To read the beginning of this article, we have a serious crime against kids committed by someone in a special position of trust with kids -- don't we?

FBI agents on Friday arrested a former Baldwin County principal on child pornography charges, accusing him of having graphic phone and electronic conversations with a convicted sex offender in which the men discussed abducting and killing two young girls.

Authorities said they have no evidence at this point that Steve Dennis Thomas, who served as an elementary school principal in Stapleton and Bay Minette and later worked in the system's central office, carried out any of those actions.

"The charge is limited at this time to the child pornography. The investigation is continuing," said Special Agent Craig Dahle, a spokesman for the FBI's Mobile field office.

Now I do have a very simple question about the charges -- does any of this involve actual pornographic images, or is it just text/spoken words? I would think that words alone -- absent any action -- might be hard to prosecute for First Amendment reasons. But regardless, we don't want this freak anywhere near kids, and parents should be concerned about his presence at any school.

Not that he is currently employed by the school district.

You see, it has been over three years since he worked for the school district -- possibly five years or more.

The Baldwin County school board voted in 1999 to remove Thomas from his principal position in Bay Minette. Although officials provided no explanation for the move at the time, longtime board member Bob Wills said Friday it was because of deficiencies in Thomas' work.

"He was moved from the position because he was not following board policy in a number of areas," Wills said.

Thomas was moved to the system's administrative office in Loxley, possibly overseeing the distribution of textbooks, Wills said he recalled.

It is unclear exactly when Thomas left the system. Other school officials contacted after 5 p.m. Friday said it has been years since Thomas has worked for the system.

Faron Hollinger said when he returned to the school system as superintendent in 2002, Thomas was no longer employed there.

Thomas is currently employed at a retail store in Spanish Fort, but he was not at work Friday, according to a manager who would not say how long Thomas worked there.

So my big question is this -- how long does someone have to be out of education for them to quit being identified as an educator, especially if their alleged misdeeds happened years later and not in the context of their teaching career?

Posted by: Greg at 04:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 3 kb.

I frankly do not understand how the Washington, DC public schools can even be taken seriously after reading this story.

D.C. School Superintendent Clifford B. Janey has notified 1,100 uncertified teachers -- about 25 percent of the system's teaching force -- that they will lose their jobs if they do not obtain proper credentials by June 30.

Most of those teachers have expired provisional licenses or have not submitted proof of a valid D.C. teaching license. Janey said yesterday that he took the action because the teachers had been warned repeatedly that they were in danger of being dismissed if they did not comply.

He also cited teacher standards in the federal No Child Left Behind law. But Janey acknowledged that his dismissal plan goes well beyond what that law requires. According to that law, school districts must demonstrate by June that they are making a good-faith effort to put only "highly qualified" teachers in their classrooms, a standard that includes full state certification.

"The question for us is how long can we wait for individuals who have known about the expectation to become fully certified but fail to meet it, irrespective" of the No Child law, Janey said. "We want to send an unambiguous message about the importance of becoming fully certified. This recognizes the kind of impact a good teacher has on the quality of life of children. We are putting a premium on teacher quality."

Now I understand that there are folks on various and sundry temporary certificates in classrooms. When I moved to Texas from Illinois, I was put on such a certificate until I passed the state certification test down here. I have colleagues who are on such certificates as they go through intesively monitored alternative certification programs. But none of us would have ever been allowed to stay in the classroom past the expiration of such a certificate unless we could produce a valid permanent certificate! How is it that so many folks in Washington have been allowed to do so?

It is not clear how many of the 1,100 can meet Janey's deadline. School and teachers union officials said some of the teachers simply need to pass the District's licensing exam, while others need more college credit hours in the subject they are teaching and might have trouble getting them in time. Officials could not say how many teachers are in each of those categories.

Janey said that according to school system records, 545 of the teachers have never had a valid D.C. license. Union officials dispute that figure, saying that the system has a history of poor record-keeping and has likely lost some files.

Half of these teachers have never had a valid certificate in the District of Columbia? How did that happen? I cannot believe the union's explanation, because any teacher in such a situation should be able to easily produc their original certificate or their test scores or other evidence of certification.

But the union goes furhter.

George Parker, president of the Washington Teachers' Union, agreed that the number of uncertified teachers likely will drop by June. But he questioned whether the system will be able to recruit enough certified teachers to fill vacancies.

Parker said that exceeding the federal requirements is "a good objective" but that school officials "have the responsibility to put in place professional development and training to help teachers become certified."

Like many states, the District uses the Praxis teacher licensing exam, which assesses general competency in reading, math and English as well as knowledge in the area of expertise. Some English teachers, for example, might need tutoring to pass the math section, Parker said.

I disagree with you, George. The school district does not have a responsibility to operate such a program. If anything, the union does -- after all, you extort hndreds of dollars out of the paychecks of teachers each year under color of law. Shouldn't you be doing someting to help them maintain their employment?

How bad is teh situation in Washington? This little bit at the end of the article tells a lot of the story. Look at the little detail (I've put it in bold) that doesn't show up until the last line of the article.

Janey also said 58 uncertified teachers were notified yesterday that they will be laid off at the end of this month because enrollment has fallen. Enrollment dropped from about 62,700 last year to 59,600 this year, continuing a steady decline.

The District routinely adjusts staffing levels during the school year when official enrollment figures are released, but individual schools normally decide which positions to cut. Janey said he targeted the uncertified teachers as part of the system's effort to raise teacher standards. All 58 have been working with three-year provisional certifications that expired between 1999 and 2002, he said. To keep working, they must produce a credential by the end of next week.

Excuse me -- certificate between three and six years out of date and they are STILL employed in Washington classrooms? There needs to be some serious housecleaning in that district if sucha situation has been allowed to fester.

Posted by: Greg at 03:12 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 871 words, total size 5 kb.

I had never heard of this before.

This is no ordinary boot camp.

These are no ordinary recruits.

It takes just four days for the U.S. Marine Corps to transform 80 teachers, guidance counselors and principals from South Florida schools into a more patriotic, informed group armed with an attitude to help it recruit students.

Twelve weeks a year, the Marines invite teachers from anywhere east of the Mississippi to visit their training depot on marshy Parris Island in South Carolina. During the all-expense-paid trip, teachers watch recruits at nearly every phase of training, from initial physical-strength tests to a grueling 54-hour segment called The Crucible.

Teachers fire rifles with live ammunition. Alongside recruits, they eat prepackaged meals that can be heated without stoves, the kind eaten on the battlefield. They see recruits reunite with their families. They tackle parts of an obstacle course and battle each other with giant Q-tips called pugil sticks to practice martial arts.

The Marines ask only that they set aside their political views about the current war and their skepticism.

Before the trip, Kane More didn't know a lot about the Marines. "Now I know they are Marines, not soldiers," said More, who teaches at West Boca Raton High. "I now know Marines are more real, normal kinds of people who very much believe in what they are doing."

Although Marines from the Fort Lauderdale recruiting station are regulars at 133 high schools in South Florida, giving teachers a recruit's-eye view of boot camp is a way to create a legion of advocates when Marines aren't around.

Especially when some Iraq war critics are campaigning to bar recruiters from campuses.

"The purpose of the educators' visits is to help our recruiting," said Maj. Guillermo Canedo, public affairs director at Parris Island. "It's such a different world. It's such an insular world to some extent. It's hard for the American public to understand."

I have a couple of questions.

1) Is this program available in other parts of the country?

2) Do the other branches of the military have such programs?

3) Who do I call to apply?

Posted by: Greg at 09:16 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.