Let’s be realistic here – TAKS (for high school, anyway) is going to be dead in a couple of years. The Texas Legislature has already mandated its demise and replacement with End of Course exams actually tied to the content of the course in which they are given. But that does not mean that the following idea is a bad one.

Texas students in certain grades would no longer have to pass the state achievement test to be promoted under a new school accountability plan unveiled Tuesday by leaders of the House and Senate education committees.

The proposal would scuttle a requirement originally championed by former Gov. George W. Bush as a way to curtail the widespread practice of social promotion – automatically passing students regardless of achievement.

In addition, the new accountability plan would base annual school performance ratings on three years of test scores rather than the most recent year, allowing school districts and campuses to make up for a bad year of results with a couple of positive years.

Now let’s be honest – the no promotion rule has been ineffective for years due to an exception allowing school officials and parents to agree to promote a student who failed anyway, as well as provisions for special summer programs for such students in most districts. On the high school level, the only sanction was at graduation, so the promotion issue was non-existent.

So what, then, is there to like about this proposal? It is the three-year rule for evaluating schools and districts. Such a plan would be more reasonable in many instances, allowing a school to overcome a single bad year – especially when such years are based upon the performance of a handful of students in a sub-group. I once heard of a school being rated unacceptable because three children (all new to the district) failed a single test – all were members of the same minority group and had led to the school to be deemed as failing to provide a proper education to that minority group. Similarly, I already know that many schools and districts in this area will take a hit in the wake of Hurricane Ike – the lost school days and disruption to the lives of our students will likely hurt scores. Does a one-year “snapshot” this spring REALLY reflect on the job these districts and schools are doing?

Oh, and a note to Greg at GregÂ’s Opinion: It isnÂ’t at all inconsistent to support state oversight of school districts because those districts are, in fact, a creature of the state itself and are therefore properly under such oversight. That differs from the case of federal oversight of the states, which constitutionally exist independent of and distinct from the federal government. So while one can argue about whether the current testing regime is a good one or not, it is not a case of the state intruding where it does not have any place going.

Posted by: Greg at 02:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 500 words, total size 3 kb.

When I was in middle school, our textbook had a bit of a memoir by Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. It was a decent piece of literature about his youth and love of the great outdoors. Since justices are appointed for life, I don’t see a problem with using the work of one as an example of a literary form. If, on the other hand, Douglas had been a politician who regularly stood for reelection, I’d argue the position differently – and I say this even though I hold Douglas in great esteem (though I would argue strongly against elements of his jurisprudence).

This brings us forward to the present day, and a choice by a textbook publisher that is rather troubling – the choice of Barack Obama’s Dreams from My Father as an example of a memoir in a recently published middle school textbook.

My 8th grade son is in an advanced English class at a public middle school here in Racine, Wisconsin. I just found out that my son's new (copyright 200 Wisconsin - McDougal Littell Literature book has 15 pages covering Barack Obama.

I was shocked - No John McCain, no Hillary Clinton, no George Bush - Just Barack Obama. I'm wondering how it is that Obama's story gets put into an 8th grade literature book? It would be one thing, if it was just the tidbit about his boyhood days, but 15 pages, and they talk about his "Life of Service". Honestly, what has Obama really done to be included in this book? Not only that, but on page 847 there is a photo of Obama at the 2004 Democratic Convention with at least 8 Obama signs in the background! Front & center is an www.obama2004.com sign.

Now let’s say this up front – Dreams from My Father is a good book, and it is a good example of a memoir. Were Obama not a living politician currently seeking office (and likely to continue doing so for the life of that textbook), I’d probably agree with the choice of the excerpt – though I’d have some concern, given that the book as a whole is written at a 12th grade reading level according to one article I recently saw. But the reality is that we are in the midst of an election campaign and will likely have Obama as a major political figure for the next couple of decades, and the choice therefore raises the specter of political favoritism, whether accidental or intentional.

For the record, let me add that my objection is not about Barack Obama per se. I’d have the same objection if this were an excerpt from Faith of My Fathers by John McCain. We simply need to keep the active politicians out of the textbooks to the degree possible – with the possible exception of history and government books, I don’t see where their presence is particularly appropriate or desirable.

H/T Newsbusters, Malkin

UPDATE -- 10/17/2008: The MSM catches up with this story -- sort of.

Posted by: Greg at 10:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 519 words, total size 3 kb.

At a number of schools around the country, all sorts of special accommodations have been made to enable Muslims to pray on campus.

Foot baths.

Prayer rooms designed with Islamic sensibilities in mind.

But on at least one campus, Christian prayer will get you tossed out on your ear, according to a lawsuit filed in California.

Two students filed a federal lawsuit this past Monday against the publicly-funded College of Alameda alleging that school officials at the California school threatened to expel them for praying.

The events prompting the lawsuit took place in December, 2007, a press release from the Pacific Justice Institute reports.

That month, student Kandy Kyriacou visited an instructor to give her a Christmas gift. Kyriacou found the instructor alone in her shared office. When the instructor indicated she was ill, Kyriacou offered to pray for her.

The instructor bowed her head and Kyriacou began to pray. They were then interrupted by another faculty member, Derek Piazza, who entered the room and said “You can’t be doing that here!”

Kyriacou left to join her friend and fellow student Ojoma Omaga. Piazza followed Kyriacou and repeated his rebuke. The students related that they were surprised by his intimidating behavior.

Three days before Christmas, both students received letters notifying them of the college’s retroactive “intent to suspend” them. While school policy requires such letters to state factual bases for the charges, the letter only vaguely accused the students of “disruptive or insulting behavior, willful disobedience . . . persistent abuse of college employees.”

An administrative hearing reportedly found KyriacouÂ’s prayer worthy of discipline and threatened suspension or expulsion for further infractions.

Excuse me – “You can’t be doing that here”?

Why not, exactly? Since when is a public college or university a religion-free zone? Since when is voluntary prayer forbidden – especially since, it would appear, that the prayer was taking place in the instructor’s office, which would be a private (or at least semi-private) space. Even were the office shared with Piazza, that would not in any way limit the right of Kyriacou and her instructor to engage in prayer in that space, any more than it being a shared space would allow Piazza to dictate what topics of conversation the two could discuss in the space.

What’s more, Piazza’s decision to pursue the two students and engage in an ongoing religiously based harassment of the two should have resulted in disciplinary action against Piazza, not the students. Such behavior was clearly an abuse of whatever minimal authority that Piazza would have outside of a classroom or his office space. While the record here is unclear as to what interaction the two students had with Piazza during that time, I would imagine that it related to the two attempting to defend their First Amendment rights – something which should not result in disciplinary action at a public institution.

I’m curious – would the same penalty have been imposed if these had been some of the school’s “diverse” Muslims? Or would Piazza been shipped off to a sensitivity class for giving the students offense by his words and action – assuming he was not the subject of a fatwa or beheading.

Posted by: Greg at 10:53 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 540 words, total size 4 kb.

I’ll be honest with you – I’ve got no problem with teachers who are politically active. I certainly am, and am offended that there are those (mostly Harris and Fort Bend County Democrats who have twice sought to get me fired for blogging) who argue that my political activity and expression of political opinions makes me unfit to teach and should be the basis for firing me from my job.

Now it may surprise some of you, but I actually tread very carefully in terms of politics in my classroom. When my students and I discussed the election back before the hurricane, I was neutral enough that they were evenly split as to which presidential candidate I am supporting. And I certainly would never wear a campaign button in class – and don’t do bumper stickers on my car. I simply don’t believe in indoctrinating my students.

That’s why I am disturbed by this story – I think it is unethical for teachers to wear buttons like the ones below anywhere on school grounds.

Teachers at Soquel High School have agreed not to wear "Educators for Obama" buttons in the classroom after a parent complained that educators were attempting to politically influence his daughter and other students.

John Hadley, an importer of South African goods, called the school to complain Friday after his 16-year daughter Teegan returned home and reported that she had seen several teachers wearing the buttons.

Hadley said his family supports Sen. Barack Obama's rival, Sen. John McCain, but that he is opposed to teachers wearing political paraphernalia regardless of its nature.

"It doesn't matter who they are supporting," Hadley said Tuesday. "Teachers lose their free-speech rights when they go into a classroom. They are allowed to stick to the curriculum, not political views."

The law disagrees with Hadley, but does allow districts to set limits on the political activities of teachers during the school day.

Now letÂ’s address a couple of points here. I donÂ’t know that there was an attempt to influence students here, but instead believe it was an attempt to influence colleagues. But the reality is that during the school day we have an influence on our students that can be profound, and our expression can have unintended influence upon our students. So while we do not surrender our rights at the schoolhouse gate (to quote Tinker), we also assume a certain obligation to behave in an apolitical, professional manner during our class time. We do have a captive audience, after all, and have an obligation not to use that time to indoctrinate them with our political opinions. I therefore believe the school is not out of line in its actions in this case.

Please note, however, that Darren at Right on the Left Coast takes a somewhat different view on this situation.

Posted by: Greg at 01:31 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 474 words, total size 3 kb.