February 27, 2006
Academic Freedom Non-Existant In UAE
This is really bizarre -- until we realize the level of Jew-hatred that exists through-out the anti-Semitic Muslim world.
ABU DHABI — Close on the heels of the cartoon controversy raging across the Muslim world, it is the turn of an upscale American school in Abu Dhabi to ruffle Muslim sentiments by teaching lessons that allegedly ''smell of racism.''
Over 100 copies of the social studies text book, 'World Cultures' taught to the sixth grade children were confiscated by the Ministry of Education yesterday, for allegedly presenting Islam and the Muslim countries including Gulf states in a negative light while glorifying Israel on the other hand, Khaleej Times has learnt.
And what shocking propaganda appears in this hate-filled book?
It has been accused that chapter 25 of the book running from page 599 to 614 contains a deluge of derogatory remarks against Islam and the Muslim world, for example, dubbing Middle East as one of the most dangerously explosive areas in the world and the Muslim conquest of India as the most bloodiest in the world history, to mention a few.
The sub chapters clubbed under the title 'North Africa and the Middle East' also elaborate on the religion and life-style of Israel with pictures. "Israel is one of a few democracies in North Africa and the Middle East today. Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Morocco are all kingdoms; the country of Syria has sponsored terrorism by giving aid to radicals in the Palestine Liberation Organisation, known as the PLO," read excerpts from page 610 of the book, copies of which Khaleej Times possess.
I don't see a single falsehood in the "objectionable" chapter -- though the comment about Syria is a bit heavy-handed (though 100% accurate).
The comments on the nature of education are enough to send a chill down the spine of this social studies teacher.
OPEN TRACKBACKS: Adam's Blog, Outside The Beltway, Conservative Cat, Stuck On Stupid, TMH's Bacon Bits
Posted by: Greg at
11:31 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 3 kb.
February 26, 2006
Does This Course Belong In High School -- *UPDATED*
UPDATE -- Two students from the school offer extensive comments about the class.
Does a course that explicitly advocates for a particular point of view on issues belong in a high school ?
My initial reaction is negative, but I wonder if allowing such a course as an elective is a bad thing.
For months, 17-year-old Andrew Saraf had been troubled by stories he was hearing about a Peace Studies course offered at his Bethesda high school. He wasn't enrolled in the class but had several friends and classmates who were.
Last Saturday, he decided to act. He sat down at his computer and typed out his thoughts on why the course -- offered for almost two decades as an elective to seniors at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School -- should be banned from the school.
"I know I'm not the first to bring this up but why has there been no concerted effort to remove Peace Studies from among the B-CC courses?" he wrote in his post to the school's group e-mail list. "The 'class' is headed by an individual with a political agenda, who wants to teach students the 'right' way of thinking by giving them facts that are skewed in one direction."
He hit send.
Within a few hours, the normally staid e-mail list BCCnet -- a site for announcements, job postings and other housekeeping details in the life of a school -- was ablaze with chatter. By the time Principal Sean Bulson checked his BlackBerry on Sunday evening, there were more than 150 postings from parents and students -- some ardently in support, some ardently against the course.
Sounds interesting -- but what of the charges the kid makes about the class?
Since its launch at the school in 1988, Peace Studies has provoked lively debate, but the attempt to have the course removed from the curriculum is a first, Bulson said. The challenge by two students comes as universities and even some high schools across the country are under close scrutiny by a growing number of critics who believe that the U.S. education system is being hijacked by liberal activists.
At Bethesda-Chevy Chase, Peace Studies is taught by Colman McCarthy, a former Washington Post reporter and founder and president of the Center for Teaching Peace. Though the course is taught at seven other Montgomery County high schools, some say B-CC's is perhaps the most personal and ideological of the offerings because McCarthy makes no effort to disguise his opposition to war, violence and animal testing.
So the course is, to use a phrase, biased and unbalanced, sort of like McCarthy himself during his days in journalism. I don't necessarily have a problem with a teacher being open about points of view and beliefs, but doing so brings with it a responsibility to present the other side as well. And that is what concerns me about this class. It sounds like advocacy.
What sort of things go on in the class?
The course is also offered at Montgomery Blair, James Hubert Blake, Albert Einstein, Walter Johnson, Northwest, Northwood and Rockville high schools, but the Peace Studies course at Bethesda-Chevy Chase is unique for a number of reasons. Although a staff teacher takes roll and issues grades, it is McCarthy as a volunteer, unpaid guest lecturer who does the bulk of the teaching. He does not work from lesson plans, although he does use a school system-approved textbook -- a collection of essays on peace that he edited.
For McCarthy, it seems Peace Studies is not just a cause; it is a crusade.
"Unless we teach them peace, someone else will teach them violence," he said.
Students might spend one class period listening to a guest speaker who opposes the death penalty and another, if they choose, standing along East West Highway protesting the war.
But that, students said, is part of the course's appeal.
"We're all mature enough to take it all in with a hint of skepticism," said Megan Andrews, 17. "We respect Mr. McCarthy's views, but we don't absorb them like sponges."
When they walk through the door of their fourth-floor classroom, students said, they never know what they might find. Once McCarthy brought in a live turkey to illustrate a point about animal rights. Everything went well until the turkey escaped and urinated in the hallway.
And Friday, when students opened the door, they saw Mahatma Gandhi -- or, rather, Bernard Meyer, a peace activist from Olympia, Wash., dressed as Gandhi. Meyer spent most of the class time taking questions from students about "life" as Gandhi. McCarthy, too, jumped in, quizzing Gandhi about his views on arranged marriage. At the end of the period, he jumped from his chair.
"Let's take a photo of us with Gandhi," he said, gathering the students.
I'll be honest -- i'd like to do some of this stuff in my classroom. In particular, I'd love to do the Gandhi thing with my kids, because I think it might really spark some of them to do some thinking and to reconsider the gang influence in their lives. I also think that such activities spark good learning due to their hands-on nature.
But taking the kids out for a protest or a rally? That disturbs me. Would I be permitted to take kids out of school to hold up pro-life signs? What about taking kids to stand across the street with signs supporting the war?
And does McCarthy present opposing views on capital punishment or the war? It does not sound like he does. Is such an approach intellectually honest, especially with high school kids?
I'm also curious -- does this school have an ROTC program? Does it allow military recruiters through the front door? Or is the ideology of the Peace Studies class a reflection of a wider anti-military sentiment, even though there is a large military presence in Bethesda?
Without such answers, I'm conflicted on the issue of keeping the class, although I am sceptical of it
I'm curious -- what do others think about this?
Other Voices: Michelle Malkin, Thunder Run, Dread Pundit Bluto, Pillage Idiot, Cranky Professor, Elephants in Academia, Hello, MoCo
OPEN TRACKBACKING -- Conservative Cat, Don Surber, Outside The Beltway, Blue Star Chronicles, Adam's Blog
Posted by: Greg at
11:12 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1059 words, total size 7 kb.
1
Isn't this an elective class? So, if students can choose or refuse this class, why should it be banned?
Posted by: Jane at Mon Feb 27 03:01:27 2006 (QnwsF)
2
I tend to agree with Jane. As long as other courses (electives) are permitted to be offered on the "other side" of the spectrum, there is little cause for concern.
Posted by: Hube at Mon Feb 27 11:18:13 2006 (VKwfs)
3
I am a sophomore at Bethesda-Chevy Chase, and I currently am taking Peace Studies; I have done so for the past three weeks or so. I am also acquainted with both Andrew Saraf and Avi Panth. It is very much a one-sided course; no other viewpoints are presented. People in the class are allowed to disagree; unfortunately our discussions rarely go anywhere due to (what I percieve as) an inability on all sides to listen to eachother. (I really like semicolons)
The protests on Friday are anti-war. No one is required to go out, with alternatives being working in the library or sleeping.
As far as I know, we have no ROTC program here; our school prides itself on being a college preparatory high school (though our college counselor would not allow her children to go to college west of the Mississippi). I have not seen any military recruiters and hope that I never do. However, due to a certain little section in No Child Left Behind (7028?), military recruiters should have no problem accessing people. I need to ask my dad if he opted out of that. It is an elective, and is usually only open to seniors. I have heard that it does not count towards graduation. I am not sure whether it counts in GPA. Everyone gets an A. No homework is assigned. There are no tests. Brady Blade (our official teacher) allows people to go to the library once or twice a week if they should so choose. There is no war or violence class, or even a self defense class, come to think of it. This all reflects the general attitude of B-CC, where Young Democrats outnumber Young Republicans 10:1. (Their sponsor teaches my AP World History class, which I have some (unfinished and not yet started) homework for due tomorrow). Who would have ever thought? Join the Young Republicans and be a rebel.
Last I heard, administration is in support of Peace Studies. The course may be reformed, but I doubt it will go away.
Posted by: Hsieyun at Mon Feb 27 14:40:37 2006 (CzOQf)
4
I will try to address some of the points people have posed and keep this as short as possible.
Though this is an elective class, any class that the school system offers is a manifestation of the very values that the education system holds dear; this is certainly true at the high school level. A professional degree of objectivity should be maintained in the county's education philosophy, since not all high school students are able to take Mr. McCarthy's teachings with a grain of salt. To some students, Mr. McCarthy's lectures are an introduction to the issues at hand.
Parents would throw a fit if a neo-conservative were brought in to teach decentralization or trickle down economics. No ROTC program either; most parents are vehemently opposed to any (what may be loosely deemed) conservative influence in the mainly liberal state. Furthermore, students do not always know what they are getting into when signing up for this class; the description of the class is a very vague 2 liner, sans any mention of the political nature of this class.
If you read some of the articles Mr. McCarthy has written, his teaching philosophy becomes shockingly clear. His own statements suggest that he inculcates an agenda tailored to his political motives. He has said "I cannot in good conscience teach the other side" (Students Astutely Aware). Though he does not stifle debate, he only presents facts from his perspective. He has mentioned that the moral course of action after 9-11 was to forgive the terrorists and ask for forgiveness in return, called grades/tests/homework forms of academic violence, called free market systems a form of economic violence, called our society a violent society...the list goes on. He is openly anti-military, in all its forms; he has even said that any school named after a military figure should be renamed (Lee, U.S Grant, Churchill, etc). He has a very unbalanced agenda that he is trying to promulgate.
As for opposing views; the facts that he presents and the guest lecturers that he brings in only, or disproportionately, support his view; I had the privilege of observing one such lecturer that was against capital punishment. He says himself that the counter balance to his views is found in the violent society that we live in, which is a highly circumstantial argument. Mr. McCarthy decides what topics to cover and how to cover them; he even edited the textbook. The lack of oversight in this class is appalling.
Here is one lecture that he gave at EKU that reinforces much of what I have said.
mms://media.eku.edu/mdr/media/chautauqua/chautauqua09042003vbb.wmv
By the way, this is not a question of conservative vs. liberal. I am personally a liberal, and I agree with some of what Mr. McCarthy preaches. This is a question of half-truths and interpretations, regardless of their affinity (liberal or conservative), being taught to impressionable high school students, without a counterbalanced point of view.
I pose this question: is it our school’s role to serve as a political battleground?
Feel free to email me if you have any questions or seek further discussion.
Avishek Panth
panthster@gmail.com
Posted by: Avishek Panth at Mon Feb 27 15:01:11 2006 (ye/Wq)
5
The course is fine. First off, the protest rally's are not even decided by McCarthy. The time my class went out to protest, we decided a week before, without any provocation by the teacher, that we would organize it.
Interestingly, several students objected to the idea, stating that protesting the war was not a good idea. The class is not one sided. While the teacher has viewpoints, and he makes them said during discussions, it should also be formed in the minds of those learning about this article that his beliefs are in the midst of a discussion, one that has several people involved who either agree or disagree with his viewpoints. I would say there are an equal amount of people who disagreed with what he said on Animal Rights, and his viewpoints does not in anyway prevent us from speaking up. All decisions to act in the class are chosen by majority without anyone being forced to do anything in any way.
The class is great, and speaking as one who disagreed with McCarthy's views at times, I would have to say that the class provokes serious thought about several subjects.
Saraf, the one leading the picture in the Washington Post as a crusader of some sort, has not done his job in attacking the class. If he were to attack the class reasonably, he should have at least attended the class before primarily sending a letter that sparked this debate. "He had never been to the class or talked to me," says McCarthy. And I can assure you that he had never settled into our class before the letter.
But he did come once, and what did he say, that it wasn't as bad as he previously thought, meaning what others had told him. So this demonstrates that a series of beliefs by other faculty and students led this student to act on hearsay.
Somewhat depressing if you ask me...I'd rather learn peace studies.
Posted by: Alex Bannon at Tue Feb 28 04:35:19 2006 (Qaafn)
6
Glad to hear from current students and alumni. I'm an alumni as well, class of 86, so I didn't get a chance to take this course. But loving what's creeping up in support of the class -- it's nonsense. These kids are off base! Here's someone from the passionate side supporting:
http://www.greatsociety.org/fpm/content/view/191/2/
Posted by: hubert at Wed Mar 1 01:14:44 2006 (woPEB)
7
There are two issues here, given that this is offerered in a high school: First, this course has absolutely no academic content or value, and should therefore not be offered at all. It is indoctrination, not education. Second, this faculty member is abusing his power over students by feeding them his political agenda as if it did have some academic value.
The political demographics of the area or the school are wholly irrelevant here.
Posted by: rightwingprof at Wed Mar 1 02:55:38 2006 (hj1Wx)
8
Hubert -- after reading that piece, I can only say that I am frightened of any student produced by McCarthy's class.
Offering it is clearly a case of academic fraud -- the class appears to have little academic content and the primary criteria for passing appears to be respiration.
And given that his critique of the move to end the program seems to consist of a fairly long ad hominem attack on the two students who raise the issue, it seem clear to me that the course failed to even instill critical thinking skills, as the author claims.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Mar 1 18:17:10 2006 (LAQYS)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 20, 2006
“Teaching To The Test†Is “Teaching To The Standardsâ€
At last! Someone writing about the current testing regime prevalent in American schools who realizes that the evil notion of “teaching to the test†is, in reality, t
eaching to the standards set by the state.
Those who complain are not really talking about teaching to the state test. Unless teachers sneak into the counseling office and steal a copy, which can get them fired, they don't know what's on the test. They are teaching not to the test but to the state standards -- a long list of things students are supposed to learn in each subject area, as approved by the state school board.
Hardly anybody complains about teaching to a standard. Teacher-turned-author Susan Ohanian is trying to change this, and she refers to all advocates of learning standards as "Standardistos." But she has not made much headway, mostly because standards make sense to parents like me. We are not usually included in discussions of testing policy, but we tend to vote in large numbers, and everybody knows that any governor or president who came out against standards for schools and learning would soon be looking for work in the private sector.
Those who object to such standards (including the wrong-headed Ohanian) are really objecting to good education. After all, look the standards for my 10th Grade World History classes. Do you really find anything objectionable there? Anything that should not, reasonably speaking, be a part of a World History class? If anything, these TEKS (Texas Essential knowledge and Skills) provide a pretty good overview of the subject. When looked at in the context of the overall standards for grades 1-12, you find that they provide a great scope and sequence for learning. The TAKS test (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) tests to those standards – so if my colleagues and I teach to those standards, our students should pass the Exit Level test in 11th grade. That is not to say that I don’t have issues with the TAKS, but the fact that it is standards driven is not one of them.
Posted by: Greg at
11:02 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 354 words, total size 2 kb.
1
While I agree that teaching to standards is essential, I still think that teaching to a test results. Every test has its own style. When we teach to that specific style, we are teaching to the test. Take Washington state for example. Our WASL is a standards based test. I know for certain that students who understand concepts in class have struggled with the way in which the WASL questions are asked. So, while I agree that standards are essential, teaching to a test still exists. And when teachers have to spend valuable class time focusing on preparing students how to take the test, I believe we are doing them an injustice.
Posted by: Mr. McNamar at Wed Feb 22 03:15:28 2006 (Z4Ney)
2
Here's what I would do:
Instead of creating a test around those standards, I would just make each student go through the entire standards document and explain the answers to all the standards.
So, for example, when they get to "(A)identify the major eras in world history and describe their defining characteristics;" they would have their own open-ended answer prepared.
Of course, when an educational system is based on a set 'basket' of facts, like that, you need to have standards like "(A)identify elements in a contemporary situation that parallel a historical situation;" where the student takes two elements of his/her choosing and analyzes them, either on paper, or, as they sometimes do in Europe, orally.
So, I guess my main problem with the tests is that they aren't explicitly testing the standards enough.
Plus, I think that multiple-choice is not rigorous enough.
But my solution is very people-dependent and would require a lot of time. I'd suggest extending the school year for this type of assessment.
Any thoughts?
Posted by: Jessie at Wed Feb 22 04:57:25 2006 (tMN0a)
3
When most teachers speak about teaching to a test, they are not spouting eduspeak, but speaking about the common practice of disrupting the usual curriculum to teach the specific tricks necessary to pass a mandatory, high stakes test. We can try to sugarcoat it, or eduspeak it to death by calling it "teaching to the standards," but the actual practice remains the same.
And while the state educrats can doubtless recite various standards and claim that they all apply to a given high stakes test, it is often mere coincidence that what real teachers have to do to help their students pass coincides with those standards. This is particularly true in English. The mere act of reading and writing virtually anything involves the majority of English standards on a daily basis in virtually any state.
No, I'm sorry. "Teaching to the standards" does not change a sad and ugly reality, nor does it infuse high stakes testing with validity or value.
Posted by: Mike at Thu Feb 23 17:42:07 2006 (FaHHp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
“Teaching To The Test” Is “Teaching To The Standards”
At last! Someone writing about the current testing regime prevalent in American schools who realizes that the evil notion of “teaching to the test” is, in reality, t
eaching to the standards set by the state.
Those who complain are not really talking about teaching to the state test. Unless teachers sneak into the counseling office and steal a copy, which can get them fired, they don't know what's on the test. They are teaching not to the test but to the state standards -- a long list of things students are supposed to learn in each subject area, as approved by the state school board.
Hardly anybody complains about teaching to a standard. Teacher-turned-author Susan Ohanian is trying to change this, and she refers to all advocates of learning standards as "Standardistos." But she has not made much headway, mostly because standards make sense to parents like me. We are not usually included in discussions of testing policy, but we tend to vote in large numbers, and everybody knows that any governor or president who came out against standards for schools and learning would soon be looking for work in the private sector.
Those who object to such standards (including the wrong-headed Ohanian) are really objecting to good education. After all, look the standards for my 10th Grade World History classes. Do you really find anything objectionable there? Anything that should not, reasonably speaking, be a part of a World History class? If anything, these TEKS (Texas Essential knowledge and Skills) provide a pretty good overview of the subject. When looked at in the context of the overall standards for grades 1-12, you find that they provide a great scope and sequence for learning. The TAKS test (Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) tests to those standards – so if my colleagues and I teach to those standards, our students should pass the Exit Level test in 11th grade. That is not to say that I don’t have issues with the TAKS, but the fact that it is standards driven is not one of them.
Posted by: Greg at
11:02 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.
1
While I agree that teaching to standards is essential, I still think that teaching to a test results. Every test has its own style. When we teach to that specific style, we are teaching to the test. Take Washington state for example. Our WASL is a standards based test. I know for certain that students who understand concepts in class have struggled with the way in which the WASL questions are asked. So, while I agree that standards are essential, teaching to a test still exists. And when teachers have to spend valuable class time focusing on preparing students how to take the test, I believe we are doing them an injustice.
Posted by: Mr. McNamar at Wed Feb 22 03:15:28 2006 (Z4Ney)
2
Here's what I would do:
Instead of creating a test around those standards, I would just make each student go through the entire standards document and explain the answers to all the standards.
So, for example, when they get to "(A)identify the major eras in world history and describe their defining characteristics;" they would have their own open-ended answer prepared.
Of course, when an educational system is based on a set 'basket' of facts, like that, you need to have standards like "(A)identify elements in a contemporary situation that parallel a historical situation;" where the student takes two elements of his/her choosing and analyzes them, either on paper, or, as they sometimes do in Europe, orally.
So, I guess my main problem with the tests is that they aren't explicitly testing the standards enough.
Plus, I think that multiple-choice is not rigorous enough.
But my solution is very people-dependent and would require a lot of time. I'd suggest extending the school year for this type of assessment.
Any thoughts?
Posted by: Jessie at Wed Feb 22 04:57:25 2006 (tMN0a)
3
When most teachers speak about teaching to a test, they are not spouting eduspeak, but speaking about the common practice of disrupting the usual curriculum to teach the specific tricks necessary to pass a mandatory, high stakes test. We can try to sugarcoat it, or eduspeak it to death by calling it "teaching to the standards," but the actual practice remains the same.
And while the state educrats can doubtless recite various standards and claim that they all apply to a given high stakes test, it is often mere coincidence that what real teachers have to do to help their students pass coincides with those standards. This is particularly true in English. The mere act of reading and writing virtually anything involves the majority of English standards on a daily basis in virtually any state.
No, I'm sorry. "Teaching to the standards" does not change a sad and ugly reality, nor does it infuse high stakes testing with validity or value.
Posted by: Mike at Thu Feb 23 17:42:07 2006 (FaHHp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 17, 2006
Absurd Charges From Playground Game
HereÂ’s
another case where a judge ought to dismiss the charges and sanction the prosecutor.
What started as a version of the schoolyard game of dodge ball has apparently become a legal ordeal for a 12-year-old girl and her family.
Complaints by the parents of a student injured during a game at Hermosa Elementary School prompted authorities to charge Brittney Schneiders with battery.
Five other students also accused of battery stemming from the May 8 playground game opted to take probation, but Brittney Schneiders and her parents refused.
"I don't think I did (commit a crime)," Brittney told NBC4's Mary Parks. "I thought I was just playing a dodge ball game. I never thought it would come up to this level."
For seven years, Schneiders made the honor roll and received good citizenship awards, but the teen soccer star is in a legal mess over a game of "Wall Ball."
"Wall Ball" is a game where a team throws or kicks a ball in an attempt to hit other players.
Schneiders kicked a ball that hit a boy who wore braces, giving him a fat lip.
The district attorney, probation and sheriff's departments agreed with the school that the boy was repeatedly and unnecessarily hit with the ball and they filed charges against the students.
But Brittney's father, Ray Schneiders, believes the law has gone overboard.
"We are not parents who see our princess can do no wrong," Ray Schneiders said. "It is all about power and the manic egos of those who possess and abuse it."
David Hidalgo, supervising deputy district attorney for San Bernardino County, told NBC4 that although it is illegal for his office to discuss specific cases, he notes that there is always the option of community service or a letter of apology to resolve a case.
"When parents refuse to cooperate under those circumstances and they refuse to hold a minor accountable for their criminal conduct and insist they go to court to refute the allegations, then we have no choice," Hidalgo said.
The district attorney's office also is frustrated by not being able to legally and publicly divulge all the facts in the case, Parks reported.
The case is set for trial in March.
Unless there is significantly more to this case than is being reported, it seems to me that you have a well-connected parent and an over-zealous prosecutor out to punish what appears to be a trivial injury.
Posted by: Greg at
12:46 PM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Insane! Battery for wallball? What's next, charging the star linebacker for tackling too hard. Lawyers...maybe Cheney is on to something!!!
Posted by: John The Author at Fri Feb 17 14:55:17 2006 (HFq4N)
2
You got the HOLE storey not the WHOLE story.
As a parent with children at the School I have both general and specific knowledge as to the happenings last May. As seems to be the case more and more often the press and the media only got half the story. It seems a shame that while hiding behind the first amendment you can use that as a shield for not doing your homework and checking your facts. Just in case they did not teach you this in journalism school there are two sides to every story. The truth is not always news, but it is always the truth. It is clear that you spoke at length to the Schneiders’ and you got their “view†for what happened. None of my children were involved so I believe I can give you an unbiased version of the story.
First – The children were playing dodge ball not wall ball. The fact that they were playing against a wall does not change the game. Dodge ball is played with a jelly ball not a soccer ball. You throw the ball at a player not kick it and when it hits that player they are out. You do not continually throw the ball (or kick it) at the same player. When you do that that is not playing dodge ball that is picking on another child.
There has been several comments that “they were just playing a gameâ€. As I stated above what happened is not part of the game. I am sure it started innocently enough, but at some time the goal became to pick on one child. That is wrong.
There were basically seven children involved. One was being attacked by the remaining six. If you knew nothing else and I stopped here then you know that six on one is ALWAYS wrong. The six’s actions were reprehensible if for no other reason than six picking on one is wrong. The six started to continuously throw balls at the one. From your article they were throwing soccer balls and Brittany Schneiders even kicked the soccer ball into the head of the one.
School staff finely arrived and broke it up basically when it was about over. Because of the lack of actions of a weak principal nothing was done. The six did not lose any privileges and were not really punished. Had action been taken then this entire thing would have probably gone away.
Since the weak principal was not willing to act then the police became involved. From what I understand the police questioned the six without their parents present which is wrong, but I also understand that the six (or at least some of them) showed remorse about their actions.
The problem came from many of the parents, certainly the Schneiders, suffering from the fairly common ailment “My kid would never do anything wrongâ€. Kids make the wrong decisions; they mess up and they make mistakes - that’s what kids do. When you ask them you NEVER get the whole story. These six were wrong. End of story. A few of the parents of the six kids did not want to admit that. The shouting and swearing at staff members in the parking lot by Mrs. Schneiders and another parent and describing it as just “dodge ball gone bad†were prime examples of this belief.
Had the parents stepped up and said my kid was wrong and they will be punished then this would not have grown out of proportion because I believe that the police and the DA have better things to do, but the Schneiders could not admit that their sweet little Brittany would do any thing wrong. Well she did. She may be a nice girl and get good grades, but she had a history of picking on other children and so did at least some of the other of the 6. That is what some kids do. While it is wrong and not very nice it is not a crime and most kids grow out of it.
So by not admitting that their kid did the wrong thing this will go one for over a year and will probably effect many years of Brittany’s life. In the end she will be found guilty because she is guilty. Is this blown out of proportion? Yes! Is the DA wasting our tax dollars when real criminals are out walking around? Yes! The DA had taken a stance to prosecute six 12 year olds when the family of the victim is not really interested in it and I can only ask why. However that is not the point. When the Schneiders go on the radio and say “my kid did not do anything wrong†it is a lie. While I agree that it should not have been a matter for the courts, she was still wrong. Six on one is ALWAYS wrong. Mr. and Mrs. Schneiders should have admitted that in May and this would have been over with. Saying she did nothing wrong does not make it true. Talking to the newspaper and the TV and telling half the story is a lie as well. She was wrong.
A message to the Schneiders - Admit it and move on. Why drag the rest of the community into it with TV cameras that keep the children at the school, that none of the 6 attend any more, in for recess. Why affect hundreds of children when you are the ones who did the wrong thing. First your daughter made a mistake and then you made a bigger one by not wanting to admit it.
Because of your attitude and actions the DA has decided to pursue this case. While I disagree with the DA and feel it is a waste of my tax dollars you are the cause not the DA, the school, the staff or even your daughter.
As a parent I expect to only get half the story from a kid, but you are adults. Start acting like it. It is too late to head this off and keep it from happening (which I believe you could have done) by doing the right thing, but you can stop it now. When you do everyone’s life can go back to normal including your families and the rest of ours as well.
Admit it - Your child is not perfect. This could have been a good lesson for them. If you pick on someone weaker then you, you will be punished. Instead Brittany has learned that you will believe anything she says and there are no consequences for her actions.
She was wrong, you were wrong, admit it and move forward.
Posted by: Bill Smith at Tue Feb 21 14:21:28 2006 (GcgMF)
3
So, Bill, what is YOUR connection to this case? Where do you get YOUR version of the events. I ask that not as an attack, but to judge the credibility of your words.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Feb 21 15:31:26 2006 (wfdL5)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Double Standards At Illinois
The
Catholic League For Religious and Civil Rights has
weighed ln on the controversy over the Mohammad cartoons being republished in the Daily Illini.
February 17, 2006
CARTOON UPSETS UNIV. OF ILLINOIS OFFICIALS
The February 9 edition of the Daily Illini, the student newspaper at the University of Illinois, republished cartoons that made fun of Muhammad. Those responsible for doing so, the editor in chief and the opinions page editor, have now been suspended.
The response of school officials to this incident is the subject of Catholic League president Bill DonohueÂ’s news release:
“Richard Herman, the chancellor of the University of Illinois, is critical of the decision to reprint the anti-Muhammad cartoons. He maintains that a discussion about the controversial Danish cartoons could have taken place without republishing them. He’s right, but that is not the way the university treats anti-Catholic fare on campus.
“In March 1997, the same Urbana-Champaign campus displayed drawings by Michele Blondel that showed red glass vaginas hanging inside European Roman Catholic cathedrals; two of them had red glass holy water cruets with crosses on them. I wrote a letter to the president registering my objections, and received a reply from the chancellor, Michael Aiken.
“Aiken said he regretted that the art ‘disappointed’ me (flat beers disappoint me, not lousy art). He instructed, ‘Most viewers find Blondel’s art to be quite subtle as it invites the viewer to contemplate and reflect on topics as diverse as the body, the church, and architectural and religious symbolism.’ Stupid me—I thought it was Catholic-bashing porn. His closer was precious: ‘The University believes that true intellectual discourse extends not only to written communication but also to the visual.’ Except when Muslims get angry.
“So what’s changed? Do Catholics have to call for beheadings to get respect? How else to explain the condescending response I got, and the sympathetic response afforded Muslims? Similarly, nobody was disciplined for offending Catholics, but two kids have been suspended for offending Muslims!”
Indeed.
And the New York Times has an interesting overview about the case – including the relatively calm response at other Midwestern universities where some or all of the cartoons were published, including my alma mater, Illinois State University.
Posted by: Greg at
12:45 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 374 words, total size 3 kb.
Shocking College Behavior!
My Aggie buddies will be pleased
this story doesn't come from College Station -- it is from Kentucky. Gives a whole new meaning to the term "animal husbandry".
Some Bowling Green, Ky., police officers found more than they bargained for after stopping by a Western Kentucky University fraternity party early Thursday.
The officers discovered a live goat stuffed into a storage room of the Alpha Gamma Rho house with no food or water, standing in its own urine and feces, according to WBKO-TV in Bowling Green.
The authorities cited 19-year-old Trenton Dakota Jackson with a second-degree count of cruelty to animals.
Officials aren't sure why the goat was in the storage room and don't know how long the goat had been held captive. Some of the students told police the goat was going to be used in a hazing ritual.
Brian Peyton, the president of Western's Alpha Gamma Rho chapter, said the goat was brought in as a prank, to make some pledges think they would have to have sex with it, WBKO reported. But Peyton told the TV station that the incident wasnÂ’t related to hazing. He said that nobody actually was going to have sex with the goat, the TV station reported.
The goat was sent to the Warren County Humane Society so it could be examined by a veterinarian.
The fraternity has been ordered to stop all activities during an investigation. Alpha Gamma Rho has been cited for hazing three times since 1996.
The executive director of Alpha Gamma Rho's national organization in Kansas City, Mo., said he's also suspended the fraternity chapter. The organization will send someone to the university to investigate the allegations and cooperate with university officials, director Philip Josephson said.
Insert your fraternity joke here.
Posted by: Greg at
12:40 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.
1
As an aggie & member of a fraternity, I think these charges (2nd degree??) are ridiculous.
It's a funny prank to make these pledges think they're going to love a goat. That's funny.
And they probably only had the goat for *maybe* a week, and everyone's upset that this thing walks on it's own crap & urine? C'mon! That's what goats DO! They don't care about cleanliness, unlike dogs which will atleast pick a common spot/corner.
I think it's entirely trumped up, in my opinion.
btw, go eat @ Luigi's Ristorante Italiano in Galveston, TX. Superb!
Posted by: Eric Clemmons at Fri Feb 17 13:10:09 2006 (yPOKC)
2
There's actually a little more to it. Here's the worst part,
"Examiners found abrasions in the goat's rectum, but could not determine what caused them, said Lorrie Hare, director of the Humane Society."
Posted by: Michael at Mon Feb 20 02:53:05 2006 (j1hwL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 14, 2006
Ohio Board Of Education Eliminates Critical Thinking Standard In Science Classes
No more will students in Ohio science classes be taught to think critically or use the scientific method to examine evidence for and against scientific theories. instead, they are to be presented only evidence in support of scientific theories, but not any evidence that may call such theories into doubt.
Why the change from good science education to indoctrination? because some fear that teaching kids to think might lead them to draw conclusions that contradict scientific orthodoxy.
The Ohio school board voted Tuesday to eliminate a passage in the stateÂ’s science standards that critics said opened the door to the teaching of intelligent design.
The Ohio Board of Education decided 11-4 to delete material encouraging students to seek evidence for and against evolution.
The 2002 science standards said students should be able to “describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” The standards included a disclaimer that they do not require the teaching of intelligent design.
So the message of the real close-minded fundamentalists to Ohio students is clear -- don't think; accept Darwinist dogma on faith.
Posted by: Greg at
05:58 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Thanks for submitting the article. Short-but-sweet! Hope you have time to see this and the other submissions as the Darwin is Dead Carnival on my blog...
Posted by: radar at Sun Feb 26 13:38:17 2006 (7uafD)
2
I have a question about your definition of "Darwinist dogma."
Darwin said nothing about genetic drift (i.e., no selection involved), yet every non-ID believer and non-creationist I know accepts the mountains of evidence for its existence.
If we only adhere to Darwinist dogma, how is it that we accept that loads of evolution occurs by mechanisms that didn't occur to Darwin?
Posted by: John at Mon Feb 27 12:37:56 2006 (2m11r)
3
Hmm... what's that "of evolutionary theory" doing in there? I mean, why single that out, instead of just saying "of everything the students are taught in science classes"? Or are the students NOT supposed to analyze critically everything they are taught, with the big exception of evolutionary theory?
What's the point of that?
Until that's explained, I suggest y'all tone down the "kids aren't supposed to think critically in school" kind of comments, an example of which is presented above: "instead, they are [...] presented only evidence in support of scientific theories, but not any evidence that may call such theories into doubt."
I suppose that should read: "they are [...] presented only evidence in support of all scientific theories except for the theory of evolution, but not any evidence that may call such theories (except for the theory of evolution) into doubt."
Posted by: BTLewis at Tue Feb 28 00:33:09 2006 (6YXZB)
4
That "critically analyze" language in the Ohio standards was just part of a general stealth effort by certain Board of Ed members to insert propaganda for creationist/anti-evolution content. The otherwise-hard-to-explain singling out of evolution that commenters above point out is just the beginning.
The standards came attached to a "model lesson plan," offered as an optional template for Ohio science teachers, that was loaded with exactly the sort of Intelligent Design and even old-fashioned Creationist content that has been debunked a million times *and* thrown out as unconstitutional in case after case.
The Board's advisory committee of scientists told the Board members behind the model lesson plan that it was full of misleading and untrue material criticizing evolutionary theory, even using such words as "lies." This fact was kept from other Board members when the "critical analysis" standard and lesson plan were previously voted on and passed; these members' discovery of how they'd been misled helped lead to the change in this latest vote. One of the members who led the charge against the "critical analysis" material identifies herself as a creationist, but she recognized the standards as bad ones and recognized that she'd been duped.
This is a typical tactic of anti-evolutionists: change the label, keep the content and protest and deny mightily when people don't buy it. That's the tactic behind the facelift for Creationism that produced Intelligent Design, and behind the facelift that has now replaced ID with "critical analysis" or "teach the controversy."
Posted by: Michael Wells at Wed Mar 1 03:56:57 2006 (gasG7)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 11, 2006
War On Drugs Overkill
Do we really need
to turn childhood pranks into criminal activity when there is no harm and no intent to do harm?
A 12-year-old Aurora boy who said he brought powdered sugar to school for a science project this week has been charged with a felony for possessing a look-alike drug, Aurora police have confirmed.
The sixth-grade student at Waldo Middle School was also suspended for two weeks from school after showing the bag of powdered sugar to his friends.
The boy, who is not being identified because he is a juvenile, said he brought the bag to school to ask his science teacher if he could run an experiment using sugar.
Two other boys asked if the bag contained cocaine after he showed it to them in the bathroom Wednesday morning, the boy's mother said.
He joked that it was cocaine, before telling them, "just kidding," she said.
Aurora police arrested the boy after a custodian at the school reported the boy's comments. The youngster was taken to the police station and detained, before being released to his parents that afternoon.
So we have a 12-year-old suspended from school and facing criminal charges for. . . behaving like a 12-year-old.
Here's hoping that the prosecutors have more sense than the cops and the school.
Posted by: Greg at
03:11 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.
1
comment3,
Buy pamela anderson sex tape,
,
No Credit Check Loans For You, ajppbs,
Super Cheap Airplane Tickets Here, kroy,
Paris Hilton Sex Tape Now, 1748,
Lindsay Lohan Sex Tape Real, ixryf,
Posted by: hhvdks at Sat Feb 21 13:03:28 2009 (Khlcn)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 09, 2006
A Victory For Equality
Racial discrimination in official programs
has been eliminated at Southern Illinois University – Carbondale under terms of a consent decree entered into with the Department of Justice. The decree requires that the University end all race-based graduate fellowships.
Southern Illinois University has a tradition of being the first and the best Illinois institute of higher learning outside Chicago to give opportunity to minorities, and president Glenn Poshard swears the tradition won't change - even as the university ends minority exclusivity in fellowships under orders from the federal government.
SIU filed a consent decree in the federal court in Benton Wednesday, the same day the U.S. Department of Justice filed its official complaint about three graduate fellowship programs it claims violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from hiring people exclusively based on race, nationality or gender. The combined effect of the two actions stops further legal proceedings, as long as the university adheres to a list of requirements set down by the agency for the next two years (see sidebar for details). SIU escaped the settlement with no fines, penalties or expenses other than its own legal costs.
During a press conference after the special board meeting Wednesday in which trustees unanimously moved to accept the consent decree, Poshard said for whatever reason the government zeroed in on SIU's practices in minority recruitment, officials were going to make the change an opportunity to commit to opening up all its graduate aid programs for all students in the system.
Excuse me, but that is an admission that the graduate aid programs were not open to all, and that you had been discriminating. There is no other way to parse that statement. For you to then cast aspersions upon the Justice Department for investigating SIU or upon the motives of those who reported your violations of federal law and the constitutional rights of every student at the school is obscene. But Poshard did exactly that – while at the same time denying that was his intent.
"I don't know the motivation of the people who maybe contacted the people of the justice department on this," Poshard said. "I don't judge their motivation, but whatever it is, we're going to do this because it is the right thing to do."
That very statement indicates that you do judge their motivations and find them wanting. You imply that there was some malignant intent, and that you folks are just the innocent victims. But that isn’t the case at all – those who reported you were clearly seeking the end to illegal racial discrimination, and you folks fought it until it was clear you were going to lose. The folks who made the report were clearly on the side of the angels, sir, and you were not. Get off your high horse, break out the sack-cloth and ashes, and start doing some serious penance.
Can and should SIU-C reach out and recruit women and minorities? You bet, and it is something that I know the school has done in a significant manner for decades (my family has over a half century of association with the University as both students and faculty). That is something that Salukis should take pride in. Racial and gender exclusion, though, betray that heritage, and must be eliminated as a matter of principle, not just as a matter of abiding by the law.
More At Discriminations.
OPEN TRACKBACKING: bRight & Early, Bacon Bits, Is It Just Me?, Blue Star Chronicles, Jo's Cafe, The Real Ugly American, Don Surber, Basil's Blog, Bloggin' Out Loud, Stuck On Stupid, Conservative Cat
Posted by: Greg at
10:44 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 611 words, total size 5 kb.
February 03, 2006
Is This Typical Today?
I teach high school, but I certainly havenÂ’t encountered
anything quite as outlandish as this at my school. Has anyone heard about this stuff in their part of the world?
Alair is headed for the section of the second-floor hallway where her friends gather every day during their free tenth period for the “cuddle puddle,” as she calls it. There are girls petting girls and girls petting guys and guys petting guys. She dives into the undulating heap of backpacks and blue jeans and emerges between her two best friends, Jane and Elle, whose names have been changed at their request. They are all 16, juniors at Stuyvesant. Alair slips into Jane’s lap, and Elle reclines next to them, watching, cat-eyed. All three have hooked up with each other. All three have hooked up with boys—sometimes the same boys. But it’s not that they’re gay or bisexual, not exactly. Not always.
Their friend Nathan, a senior with John Lennon hair and glasses, is there with his guitar, strumming softly under the conversation. “So many of the girls here are lesbian or have experimented or are confused,” he says.
Ilia, another senior boy, frowns at Nathan’s use of labels. “It’s not lesbian or bisexual. It’s just, whatever . . . ”
Since the school day is winding down, things in the hallway are starting to get rowdy. Jane disappears for a while and comes back carrying a pint-size girl over her shoulder. “Now I take her off and we have gay sex!” she says gleefully, as she parades back and forth in front of the cuddle puddle. “And it’s awesome!” The hijacked girl hangs limply, a smile creeping to her lips. Ilia has stuffed papers up the front of his shirt and prances around on tiptoe, batting his eyes and sticking out his chest. Elle is watching, enthralled, as two boys lock lips across the hall. “Oh, my,” she murmurs. “Homoerotica. There’s nothing more exciting than watching two men make out.” And everyone is talking to another girl in the puddle who just “came out,” meaning she announced that she’s now open to sexual overtures from both boys and girls, which makes her a minor celebrity, for a little while.
The again, maybe it is just a question of our conscious decision to supervise our students in the halls, while “enlightened blue-state educators” in New York think group sex in the hallways is nothing more than a learning experience.
Posted by: Greg at
02:36 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.
1
What. in. the. world. is. THIS?
What is this school thinking?
What are the teachers thinking?
I already know the kids aren't thinking.
Oh, good God.
Posted by: Ms Cornelius at Thu Feb 9 13:52:51 2006 (x6oT6)
2
I have heard of some outrageous things in my time as an educator, but this one has to take the cake. WTF are they thinking in that school? Heck, who the heck is running that school, and why are there no parents up in arms over this? I can understand things may be a bit more liberal these days, but I think this is not quite how it is supposed to be.
BTW, found this post via the Carnival of Education.
Posted by: Maverick Librarian at Sat Feb 11 12:40:47 2006 (+Inkp)
3
Don't worry... students have protested this decision and many members of the staff and faculty are supporting the efforts... the board of trustees will be voting on this and will probably end up in court. we won't stand for denial of services and discrimination up in our neck of the woods :-)
Posted by: UVM Activist at Sun Feb 12 06:57:21 2006 (LmJG2)
4
Wow... why couldn't I have gone to this school? That's hot.
Posted by: wow at Fri Feb 17 07:05:22 2006 (Xs5MO)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
120kb generated in CPU 0.1358, elapsed 0.3347 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2091 seconds, 194 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.