May 31, 2009
A Connecticut school district is considering a proposal to close schools on two Muslim holidays.The Region 16 Board of Education is expected to take up the Student CouncilÂ’s proposal this week.
The board represents the towns of Prospect and Beacon Falls, Conn.
The resolution asks the board not to hold classes on the day that marks the end of the fasting period of Ramadan and on the day that concludes the annual observance of the pilgrimage to Mecca.
As a teacher, I have a really simple view on school calendar issues – does the proposal help or hinder school operations. That is especially true after sitting on the district committee that designed the calendar for the upcoming school year.
Is there a significant Muslim population in the district? Does keeping the school open on those Muslim holy days so significantly increase absenteeism that it impacts the operation of the schools due to low attendance? If the answers to these questions is YES, then close the schools on those days. If not, then donÂ’t. Ditto holidays for Jews and Hindus and Buddhists. But if such changes fail to improve school efficiency, then donÂ’t make the change.
Posted by: Greg at
10:34 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 223 words, total size 1 kb.
May 15, 2009
As Jaded as I Am . . . [Roger Clegg]. . . this really bothered me. The Washington Post had an op-ed today regarding the decision of the College Board to discontinue the AP exam for Latin literature, "which covers Cicero and four lyric poets." Buried in the penultimate paragraph, and stated not at all uncritically, is this sentence: "The College Board said this decision was related to the number of minority students taking the exam."
Now, I don't know if the exam should have been continued or not, but it is very sad if the reason it was discontinued was because the racial mix of students taking it was politically incorrect, and it is equally sad if this is considered an acceptable reason even by a teacher who is otherwise outraged at the College Board's action. O tempora, o mores!
What? The value of learning a particular field and the ability to earn credit in it is to be predicated upon the number of minority students? That is outrageous. After all, we would never accept the argument that there are too few white students taking an exam to justify continuing to give it – why accept the argument that the failure of a sufficient number of member of other racial/ethnic groups to take it renders it worthy of being discontinued?
Posted by: Greg at
01:12 PM
| Comments (45)
| Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 2 kb.
(, 
)), 
P, 
), May 14, 2009
California does the former, but has refused to do the latter.
Hence this suit.
Students from 19 states yesterday filed a class-action lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from California officials for charging them significantly more than illegal aliens pay to attend state-run colleges.The 42 plaintiffs say California state lawmakers and the University of California board of regents knowingly violated a federal law enacted in 1996 that says any state that offers discounted in-state tuition to its illegal aliens must provide the same lower rates to all U.S. citizens.
California has a "unique" statute barring discrimination on the basis of geographic origin, said lead attorney Michael J. Brady.
Some students in the University of California system could be eligible for as much as $300,000 in total damages, he said.
Damages of $300K? I'm intrigued. What is the difference in tuition?
Mr. Brady said out-of-state students are paying $20,000 more than illegal aliens per year to attend schools in the University of California system. In the California state university system, the difference is $11,000 per year."And in the community college system in California, which has a total of 1.5 million students, the tuition differential is $6,000 a year," he said.
I don't see how we get to that figure for damages, unless the statute allows for punitive damages significanty beyond actual damages. But the really interesting issue is that the state of California really has no defense to offer due to the history of the statute in question.
Mr. Brady said California officials knew their tuition law that took effect in 2002 was unfair and illegal."Former Governor Gray Davis initially vetoed it, saying it violated federal law and that it would cost California $65 million [in damages]," Mr. Brady said. "He sent it back to the state Legislature with that warning, but they re-enacted the same law," which Mr. Davis eventually signed.
Mr. Brady said administrators of the University of California system also recognized that the state law was invalid, and they refused to implement it unless they were "given immunity." As a result, he said, California lawmakers enacted an "immunity statute," which says that if the state tuition law is declared illegal or unconstitutional, schools in the University of California system would not be held liable for retroactive tuition differences.
Even after it was vetoed on the grounds it was illegal, the legislature passed the bill again. And after the schools pointed out that the law put them at risk, the legislature attempted to immunize them from liability -- something that I don't see as possible given that state law is trumped by federal law in this instance. Any court would be bound to strike down the immunity statute as well, for the state cannot ban damages from federal lawsuits.
Posted by: Greg at
09:34 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 511 words, total size 3 kb.
57 queries taking 0.1417 seconds, 195 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
