One of the resons that our nation's immigration laws get violated are situations like these, in which bureaucratic regulations make it nearly imposible to adjust the status of those on temporary visas who wish to stay in the US -- even if they have married US citizens and have become productive members of their communities.

And in this article, we find that students in two schools could lose excellent teachers. The problem is that they came to this country on cultural exchange visas that require they return to their home country for two years.

Most foreigners who marry U.S. citizens while on a visitor visa can adjust their status without leaving the country. But if they overstay a J-1 visa -- the three-year kind Chamorro has -- they must leave the United States to apply for a family member visa even if they marry a citizen, said Michael Defensor, a spokesman for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

On rare occasions, the U.S. grants waivers -- for example, if the return home would constitute extreme hardship to the family. Chamorro has argued that her husband, a freelance photographer, would suffer hardship in Colombia because of the country's high crime rate and poor pay for photographers. But Defensor said an extreme hardship would have to be something such as a medical condition that cannot be treated in the home country or a situation where a person's life would be in danger.

Chamorro came to the United States through the North Carolina-based Visiting International Faculty Program, which brings teachers from around the world to work in U.S. schools for up to three years. Teachers with the program sign a pledge to return to their country for at least two years afterward.

Most return to their countries within three years, said Ned Glascock, a spokesman for the program. "The idea is that teachers and others who qualify come for three years to teach about their cultures and then return home and share everything they've learned," he said. "The cultural exchange goes full circle, and they become cultural ambassadors for our country."

Since the program began in 1987, it has brought 7,000 teachers to the United States, he said, adding that "99.9 percent" of them have returned to their countries. "We're very clear with our teachers that it's not a program that's intended as a means of immigration to the United States," he said.

And i agree with the program and its rationale -- but the reality is that there are some people in that program who do marry US citizens. It is not a large number, and the requirement that these couples split or relocate abroad is draconian, given the myriad methods for adjusting the status of other immigrants -- including amnesty programs for illegal aliens.

Besides, at a time when teachers in math and science are at critical shortage levels, what are we doing sending back qualified ones who want to stay?

Posted by: Greg at 11:16 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 497 words, total size 3 kb.

Why this issue is even controversial has always been beyond me. And I was frankly pleased to see Kentucky act to ensure that its students learned about a common scholarly practice -- the use of BCE and CE instead of BC and CE by some scholars.

Unfortunately, the best educational practice -- teaching all sides of the issue -- has been unanimously repealed by the State Board of Education.

The state school board, with six new members, on Wednesday changed its answer on a history question that had turned into an emotional religious debate.

The reconfigured board, with six new appointments by Gov. Ernie Fletcher, reversed a decision two months earlier that would have taught students about a new way to describe historic dates traditionally identified as B.C. or A.D.

Those designations carry religious overtones because they stand for Before Christ, and Anno Domini — Latin for "in the year of the Lord."

The board's April 11 decision to adopt curriculum changes that included teaching the designations of B.C.E. for Before Common Era and C.E. or Common Era, had drawn criticism from some activist ministers and religious groups. Some conservative Christians complained the change was an attempt to sterilize a reference to Christ.

"It's part of a larger effort to expunge religious references in our culture," said Martin Cothran, a policy analyst at The Family Foundation, a conservative group based in Lexington. "I think it's not something that's coming from regular people. It's coming from certain other sectors of our society who think that we ought not to talk about religion in our public life."

Frankly, I view Mr. Cothran to be an utter jackass for making such a statement. It is about preparing students for college level work, where they will almost certainly be exposed to scholarly works which use the alternative dating system. Indeed, the areas in which the alternative designations are most likely to be found are scholarly works dealing with Biblical archaeology and scripture studies! Why? Out of respect for the many Jewish scholars (and small number of Muslim scholars) who work in those fields.

I teach the issue in my classroom within the first day or two of the beginning of the school year. I point out that multiple dating systems have existed throughout history and that some are used today. I note that the dating system we use in our society contains an affirmation of faith -- and that an alternative designation is sometimes used by scholars. I also note that the abbreviation may legitimately be rendered as either the "Chrisitan Era" or the "Common Etra", but that either alternative still revolves around the traditional rendering of the date of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. I then ask that they be consistent in their use of one or the other system -- and that my personal choice is the traditional BC/AD, but that either choice is 100% correct. I then move on -- usually to a quick review of longitude and latitude, having spent (at most) 15 minutes on the calendar issue.

This really is not a substantive issue -- I cannot understand the need for state-mandated ignorance of such a minor issue.

Posted by: Greg at 12:51 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 540 words, total size 3 kb.

Looks like this kid and his parents are going to need to teach his school district a little lesson about the First Amendment and relevant Supreme Court decisions related to the student rights.

In the ongoing attempt to punish a student for blogging (chronicled here and here), the Plainfield School Board "magnanimously" decided not to expel a 17-year-old student for posts on his Xanga site that referenced the Columbine massacre.

Unfortunately, the Board did remove the student from Plainfield South High School for the fall semester and place him in the district's alternative school.

PLAINFIELD — A teen's Internet rants against his high school bought him no less than a semester in an alternative school.

The 17-year-old student claimed in his personal blog site that he felt "threatened" by district staff and that the Columbine killers went on the murderous rampage because they were bullied.

If he follows the rules, he will be able to return back to Plainfield South High School second semester, said his mom who, in an effort to protect her son, didn't want her name used.

The Plainfield School Board "deliberated very carefully and had a very good discussion prior to rendering a decision" Monday night, said Superintendent John Harper, who couldn't comment further on the student disciplinary matter due to state and federal laws.

On Tuesday, a school administrator called the mother with the board's decision. The mother said during the expulsion hearing the school district painted a picture of her son as someone who was dangerous.

In reality, she said he was just venting on his blog site about how he felt when the school disciplined his friends for what they posted on their Xanga sites.

"(School staff) kept saying he wanted people to die. He didn't threaten a single person," she said about the expulsion hearing that lasted about 4½ hours last month.

The mother said her son told the hearing officer, "I did not say I was going to be the Columbine student."

She claimed what her son was trying to say was that the school would upset the wrong person and they would have another Columbine on their hands. However, the school staff told her that is not how they interpreted it, she said.

She feels that the board's decision is unfair.

"This is wrong. He did not threaten anyone. It was written from a home computer on home time," she said. "He didn't mention anyone's name. He didn't mention the school. He never made a direct threat."

Carl Buck, the student's attorney, did not return phone calls. But last month, he said the district was taking away the student's education for exercising his freedom of speech.

Now I cannot help but be troubled by this development, even though the board did not expel the student in question. If allowed to stand, this sets a startling precedent -- that speech on the internet is subject to a lower standard of First Amendment protection than speech in other media. It also allows schools a shocking level of control over students away from school.

Consider this -- the district is considering adopting a policy that reads as follows. I'll look at the current situation in light of its terms, because it seems to indicate teh mindset of the district authorities.

"While the district respects rights to freedom of expression under the First Amendment, students may be disciplined for Web site postings that materially and substantially disrupt the educational process or constitutes threats which endanger the health, safety and well-being of district or staff members."

This policy looks pretty reasonable until you dig into it.

First, it is limited to internet postings. These same words would not have been actionable under this policy had a student spoken them on a talk-radio call, uttered them in a television interview, or had them published in a newspaper or magazine. Were these other media included, there would be outrage on the part of free speech and press advocates around the nation. Indeed, the district would recognize that it was crossing into a constitutional quicksand were it to try to implement such restrictions on other forms of dissemination of such speech. That is why there is the specific limit in the policy. The target is therefore medium -- one which the district finds threatening because it is unfiltered by call-screeners or editors -- and the student is simply a convenient scapegoat.

Secondly, how can the words of a student on a website which cannot be accessed from school and which were posted from home, "materially and substantially disrupt the educational process" absent a bona fide threat or some other school-related nexus (posting test answers or instructions for hacking the district server, etc)? The actions of the school administration makes it abundantly clear that there was no bona fide threat discerned -- they did not contact law enforcement to report the alleged threat, which is would be the standard protocol if there were any reason to believe that the young man was contemplating acts of violence at school.

Third, the idea that these words constitute "threats which endanger the health, safety and well-being of district or staff members" is absurd. Who was threatened? What impact did it have on their well-being? Nobody and none, as demonstrated by the inaction of the school. Had this been a true threat which constituted a problem, the police should have been notified. More importantly, the student should not have been permitted to return to the Plainfield South to attend his regular classes during the last few weeks of the school year if his words or actions constituted a threat to the well-being of any individual. Oh, and I cannot help but notice who the district leaves out of the policy. A threat to the safety and well-being of other studetns is not included in the policy -- so I can only presume that the real "offense" being targetted by the policy is an adolescent failing to show proper respect and deferrence to teachers and administrators outside of school hours. In this case, the offense is a failure to kow-tow to a couple of pompous administrators who sought to regulate off-campus, after-school speech that is beyond the legitimate reach of public officials under the First Amendment.

And therein lies my concern. In the watershed decision on the civil liberties of students, Tinker v. Des Moines, the majority held that students do not shed their civil liberties at the schoolhouse gate. Implicit in this position is the understanding that students do, in fact, have those civil liberties away from school. That notion is meaningless if a school can act to punish a student based upon the exercise of one of those civil liberties away from school and outside of school hours. It is my sincere hope that the student and his family pursue this matter in court, for I believe they have a strong case that will define the parameters of protected student speech on the internet, and the degree to which school authorities may intrude into the after-school activities of students.

I've only encountered one post on the district's decision at this time. McKreck over at Occidentality offers a perspective that is somewhat more sympathetic to the school district, though he agrees that the decision was incorrect.

Posted by: Greg at 11:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1229 words, total size 8 kb.

Are these grants really for women and minorities only?

Harvard University will expand child-care and academic grants to support female and minority faculty and staff as they climb the ladder at the prestigious school, university officials plan to announce today.

The plan outlines the first steps that Harvard will take to spend the more than $50 million that president Lawrence H. Summers pledged about a year ago to improve the climate for women on campus. Summers caused a furor last year by speculating about women's aptitude for science. That episode, coupled with complaints about his management style, led to his resignation, effective June 30.

The episode also led to two task forces, a flurry of recommendations, and a new position, a senior vice provost for faculty development and diversity. The office of Evelynn M. Hammonds will release its first annual report today.

Hammonds said in a telephone interview yesterday that Harvard will spend $7.5 million on child care and grants to help faculty and staff meet the demands of work and family.

Sounds to me like unequal treatment creating a hostile environment and unequal playing field based upon race and gender.

Posted by: Greg at 09:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.

Do schools have any business dictating what parents feed their kids?

We've seen some places try peanut bans on the basis of a single child with an allergy. While I disagree with the draconian measure, I can commend the motivation.

But this strikes me as the first step towards schools dictating what parents decide to feed their kids, treading into an area of parental autonomy that is not for schools to violate.

Parents who visit their children at lunch would be required to eat school food rather than bring the children fast-food lunches under a proposed wellness policy in the Palmyra Area School District.

That doesn't set well with some parents. Lori Swisher, who has three children at Forge Road Elementary School, agreed the schools don't need soda machines or daily doughnuts, but bristled at "one more government restriction."

Swisher said she occasionally has brought pizza or a sub to her kids at school. "I like to think I serve mostly healthy meals, but when all three have sports, sometimes fast food is the option," she said.

The school board will vote June 15 on the guidelines, which Collene Van Noord, director of curriculum and instruction, said is part of a nationwide effort to combat childhood obesity by teaching healthy eating and exercise habits.

What next? A ban on all meals from home?

Posted by: Greg at 10:57 PM | Comments (155) | Add Comment
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

I guess it happens from time to time, but I cannot imagine doing something like this during school hours while students are present.

Two Hillsborough County middle school teachers have resigned after students saw them having sex in a classroom, a report released Wednesday states.

Foreign language teacher Frances J. Sepulveda, 30, and physical education teacher Bryant J. Wilburn, 29, quit two days after the May 22 incident at Coleman Middle School, 1724 S. Manhattan Ave.

Sepulveda's classroom door was locked and paper covered its window, but a boy and a girl saw the teachers through the window, the report states.

Hillsborough school district spokesman Steve Hegarty said information about the incident will be sent to the state Department of Education.

"These teachers showed appallingly bad judgment," he said. "We dealt with it quickly, and the teachers are no longer welcome in the Hillsborough County classroom."

Appallingly poor judgment? That is certainly an understatement.

But at least they were not fooling around with students.

Posted by: Greg at 09:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

Back when my Darling Democrat and I both worked, we would put the Apolitical Pooch in her crate at 6:30 and release her when we got home at 3:300 -- an 9-hour crate time with no bathroom break. We would immediately get her to the field across teh street when we came home.

Why can't a teen be expected to wait 90 minutes to use the restroom -- especially with many schools having 10-minute passing periods between classes?

Even though Daniel Thornton occasionally needed to go to the bathroom during his AP history course last year, he also needed a B on the midterm to maintain his grade. So he did what lots of students at Forest Park Senior High School in Woodbridge do in their Darwinian pursuit of academic success: Thornton endured a full bladder and instead hoarded his two restroom passes, which, unused, were worth six points of extra credit.

It was enough to bump the 18-year-old's midterm grade from a C-plus to a B.

"Occasionally it made days unpleasant, but I was just very careful. I would try to go in the five minutes beforehand or afterwards, between classes," said Thornton, who will graduate this month. "Some of my classmates definitely had a lot of trouble. People around me would fidget, especially girls."

Bladder control, especially in an era of 90-minute classes, is a vital skill in many Washington area high schools, where administrators often limit access to restrooms during class to reduce interruptions and quash potential mischief in areas without adult supervision.

Restrooms, of course, have been a choice milieu for school scofflaws since the advent of indoor plumbing. With school security a top priority, administrators have become vigilant enforcers as they try to block loitering, bullying or drug use in student restrooms.

What I've noticed is that many kids are using the restroom as the new phone booth. I've heard whispered comments about same-sex encounters as well -- especially in the girls restroom. And of course, there are the other illicit transactions mentioned in the article.

And the interesting thing is that it is usually the same kids wanting to go at the same time.

And I won't get into the question of the girls whose period apparently begins on the first day of school and runs through the end of May -- shouldn't they seek medical assistance?

What I am saying is that 90% of these bathrooom breaks are about getting out of class for illicit purposes -- not taking care of necessary bodily functions.

As a result, I will be very happy to see my school return to a more traditional schedule, with 45 minute periods. After all, there will be no excuses for not being able to wait in most instances -- and since our school declares teh first 20 minutes and last 20 minutes of each period to be a "dead time" when no student is permitted in the hall, we won't have any time to send them anyway!

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 502 words, total size 3 kb.