Twilight of the Idols

A Diversity Double Standard At Indiana University?


Charlie Nelms is the Vice President of Student Development and Diversity here at Indiana University, and is an African American (which is pertinent to the discussion). He has written many editorials for the Indiana Daily Student, the school's newspaper, and I quote two of them here today.

The first is in response to the infamous David Horowitz anti-reparations ad, the second is in response to an editorial cartoon that ran on Feb 05, 2003. The editorial cartoon (which I could not find a link to) depicted a nerdy-looking, small, white male (complete with glasses and pocket protector) holding a sign that said "Perfect SAT - 12 points" and an athletic-looking, large black male (in a varsity letterman's jacket and whistling) holding a sign that said "Minority - 20 points." I am not postive that the signs said exactly that - but you get the idea.

From the editorial about the Horowitz ad:

I can hear the freedom of expression and freedom of the press arguments now! Did we not learn anything from Mahatma, Martin and Nelson? These three, and many others, sought to teach us that what is legal is not necessarily moral. Did the IDS seek to examine the ethics and the morality of Horowitz's claims, or did the debate focus primarily on whether he has a right to be heard? Did the IDS look closely, or at all, at the historical accuracy, or lack thereof, of Horowitz's arguments, or was the IDS more concerned with not wanting to be accused of political correctness by rejecting the ad?

From the edtorial about the cartoon:

I can hear the refrain now, "this is a free speech issue." Since when did free speech give one person or newspaper the right to denigrate an entire race of people?

One would get the impression that Nelms is not a proponent of free speech at all; at the very least, one would assume that he supports laws against "hate speech." However, read his editorial from today's Indiana Daily Student:

[T]he University's decision to allow him to continue to publish his remarks while a review is underway is consistent with what it means to live in a democratic society.
...
In a large, diverse community of learners, each of us must be allowed to speak, and each of us must in turn take responsibility for our own words and actions.
...
The idea of freedom of expression is an easy one to state, but harder to live: we must support the right of those we oppose the most to say what they wish. But we must also speak out for the causes of universal and equal human rights. In the end, truth will win the day.

Nelms seems to have no problem whatsoever with free speech with regards to sexuality-based stereotypes, which presents an interesting double standard, since he makes it quite clear that he thinks racially-based stereotypes should be supressed. The IDS staff points out this very possibility in the staff editorial from yesterday:

Had this Web log promoted hateful views of any other minority group, it seems likely that the mobilization and outrage would have been twice as immense.

Would we as a University tolerate a professor who expressed a preference for "white's only" water fountains? If one suggested that females should only serve as nurses and candystripers, not physicians, would we still offer employment and shout on high the glories of free speech?

Probably not.

I sent a letter to the editor of the IDS pointing this out; it'll be interesting to see if it gets printed and what the response will be.

Protests Mark First Day At Harvey Milk School


As one might have expected, there was a small but vocal group of protesters at Harvey Milk School when it opened, but the real circus didn't begin until twenty times as many counter-protesters, along with administrative figures, union representatives, and the media arrived. Nonetheless, everything seems to have went well and there were no incidents. Read about it here and here.

More On Florida's Fast-Track Graduation System


This AP Wire article has a rehash of the debate surrounding Florida's early graduation policy.

Supporters of a law granting a high school diploma in just three years said it will help curb crowding in Florida's schools. Critics fear it will deprive early graduates of extracurricular activities and senior year milestones.

Hrm? Critics fear that students will miss out on homecoming and senior prom and like, totally, some varsity football, man, you know? Geesh.

I think the fast-track graduation policy is a prety good idea, actually, and would agree with the Education Commissioner:

"It was meant for a small group, a band of students, who were not only mature enough but smart enough to graduate," Education Commissioner Jim Horne said.

If kids can get through the required classes - core stuff, no art, gym, or whatnot - and pass the FCAT in three years, why should they stay around for another year? Of course, not all critics are worried about the missed extracurricular activities:

"Kids are having a hard enough time as it is in college," said Okeechobee County School District Assistant Superintendent Lee Dixon. "You're giving up the fourth year of high school math, and high school science. You don't want to leave it up to kids to shortchange themselves."

If the kids are driven enough to push through all their core classes and pass the FCAT in three years, then I'm sure they're driven enough to succeed at most four-year colleges. Even if these students aren't quite ready for a four-year school, they're ripe candidates for community colleges that could serve as a great bouncing point between high school and a university.

Strangely, it seems like Florida just can't do anything right; they've got groups protesting that the FCAT is unfair and prevents kids from graduating on one side and groups protesting that the course requirements and the test aren't enough and kids need to stay longer on the other. Go figure.

Update (09/09/03, 8:30 PM): Kimberly at N2P is of a similar opinion about the above article.

St. Louis Schools: Why People Are Angry


Here again is the St. Louis Post-Dispatch article I linked at the end of the previous post; it is a rather lengthy explanation of what happened in St. Louis and why people are so angry.

Hundreds of loud, angry, mostly black parents and school employees were complaining and berating the majority white School Board and the new white superintendent.

Racism and a continued history of neglect, the crowd said, were behind the board's decision to close the schools in their neighborhoods. They didn't believe the board's claims that the school system was $90 million in the red. This was just insensitive white people up to their same old white tricks, they said.

In all reality, that sums up the issue. It's not about education in the least; it's about the fact that race relations in St. Louis appear to be in about the same place as they were "in the South 15 to 20 years ago." If a significant number of people genuinely think that the school board is lying to them and simply shut down the schools because of racism, then it should be unsurprising that parents are protesting and Al Sharpton is stirring the pot.

Anyway, as you read through the article, it becomes rather clear that the school board did not handle the situation as well as it could have; indeed, they often moved quickly where it might have been better to eke along and apply some finesse to smooth tensions.

"I don't know why they didn't just stand up and say, we're going to spend $5 million so we can save $40 million that will go directly into educating your children," [board supporter Howard] Denson said. "When they didn't, it set a nasty tone. All they had to do was explain it."

My favorite part of the article is probably this:

It was the same old tune, critics charged. Because most of the closings were in north St. Louis, the "black community" unfairly was bearing most of the burden, they said.

Why would that be my favorite part of the article, you ask? Because the "black community" is not a minority in St. Louis, and African-American children are not a minority in the schools (the article gives all of the details). In fact, as the article makes clear, it would have been impossible to close more than three schools without closing one that was predominantly black - and to have done as such would have meant closing schools at the expense of a minority racial group.

I don't want to imply that a majority cannot be discriminated against; they most certainly can. However, it seems quite apparent to me that if African-Americans make up a majority of the population, then they will naturally (and quite fairly) bear a majority of any burdens placed on the population.

The article goes on and on; the school board continued to remain aloof as the people got madder and more irrational. At one point, one of the board members even called a group of protesters Nazis, which certainly didn't help the school board's standing in the community. The board certainly handled the PR side of things poorly, but things could work out for the district in the end. If some real changes start to show up, it stands to reason that a lot of the protesters will fade away. If the district doesn't show improvement, however, tensions - both with respect to education and race - will continue to rise.

Final note: I feel like John at Discriminations right now. I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry at how ridiculous the protesters' arguments are. It's bad enough that in the year 2003 - not 1973, as you might have thought from reading the article - there are still large groups of people who are more willing to believe that an entire city government is racist from the top down than to believe that the school system had been mismanaged for decades. Instead of claiming injustice and racism, why don't these people fight for accountability in the school system, fight for better teachers, and therefore fight for something that could lead to a real improvement in their children's quality of life?

Protests Mark First Day Of School In St. Louis


It looked like another day of he said/she said articles about the Houston school district and Yale strikes, but then this article popped up in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

A contentious first day of school began Monday in St. Louis with a rally and march by more than 100 protesters seeking a boycott of classes over an interim management team's decision to close 16 schools and lay off 1,400 workers.

At a pro-boycott rally before the opening bell, Democratic presidential candidate and activist Al Sharpton urged protesters to remain resolved despite those who would suggest that keeping kids out of school is counterproductive.

"I think that any parent would be irresponsible not to make sure their child is protected and that their child is serviced," Sharpton said. "It's a sad day but we must turn this time of sadness into a movement to redress that."

What a way to start out the school year, eh? I can't say enough how much I loathe Al Sharpton; the man is a bona fide racist, and the fact that he is being taken seriously as a democratic candidate for president shows how low the Democratic party has sunk in recent years (not that I'm necessarily complaining). I'm not sure how keeping one's children out of school furthers the goal of said children being "serviced," but common sense has a tendency to slice right through anything that comes out of Sharpton's mouth.

At some schools, like Vashon, which had only 37 percent attendance on the first day last year, were predicting attendance of nearly 80 percent today.

I concede that I don't know too much about typical first-day attendance numbers, but even 80% doesn't seem like much to brag about - and 37% sounds downright dismal. Are numbers like these normal?

David Klaus, 48, walked near the route with son Kevin Thompson, 12, who is entering sixth grade, purposely showing protesters that he was taking his son to school.

"I'm sure many of them are doing what they think is right," Klaus said. "To deliberately deprive the district and its children of more money is counterproductive at the minimum, stupid to be more blunt."

...

[T]he Rev. Sammie E. Jones urged church members to support their children by sending them to school. He accused some of the people leading the opposition of having personal agendas that do not meet the best interests of children.

"It doesn't make any sense to keep them out of school. If you want to march, march, but don't use our children," Jones said.

Well said. Not only are they pulling yet even more money out of a district that is - like most in the nation - strapped for cash, they're denying their children the opportunity to learn. It's not that I think money will solve all of the problems (it won't), nor is it that I think that the children are missing much (even in the best of schools, the first day is light on learning). But really, there's no excuse for exacerbating the problems here.

Protester Donna Jones, 46, took a vacation day to keep her three children -- ages 14, 12 and 5 -- out of school. She believes the kids are getting an education about civic involvement -- standing up against a school district she believes has ignored input from the public.

I've found a second article (read it here) that details what led up to this and how the school board managed to completely botch what should have been a welcome change. At any rate, once wonders if Ms. Jones' children will learn enough from this experience that they will one day major in social activisim.

Indiana University And Freedom Of Speech


I have remained silent thus far on the subject of Professor Eric Rasmusen and his now-infamous weblog, which is hosted (once and again) on Indiana University's servers. Since I realize that my silence probably seems a bit uncharacteristic (especially given that IU is where I attend school), let me just say that I am still considering what my exact opinion on this subject is - and until I have resolved that, I will refrain from saying anything. For a quick roundup of all the news articles and blog posts about the story, see Will's post at Crescat Sententia and Erin O'Connor's post at Critical Mass.

Changes Afoot


As you may have noticed, my Blogroll has underwent some changes; I pulled off some of the dead weight and added a number of other excellent edu-blogs. I've read all of these blogs for longer than I've been writing my own, but Blogrolling.com's software is only marginally easier to use than just typing in the HTML, so I've been a bit lax. All of the new additions are great blogs with intelligent people who make insightful posts, so if there are any that you're unfamiliar with, make sure to stop by their site.

Thanks go out to Highered Intelligence in particular - I've always been a sucker for a good compliment, heh.

Slow News Day


It appears that today is one of those rare days where, quite frankly, nothing interesting is going on.

The AP is reporting that the Landmark Legal Foundation is asking for a government inquiry into the NEA over possible misuse of dues money. Obviously, I don't know if the NEA did anything wrong or not, but the idea of an extremely large and powerful union misusing funds to influence elections doesn't seem so far-fetched to me.

In other, unrelated news, I am (finally) a full-time student again; I got into two of my waitlisted courses. Since I'm full time, that should mean that I will be eligible for financial aid - and then I'll be able to escape the pit of despair that is Blogger/Blogspot. Yay!

Computers Grade Essays, Eliminate All Need For Human Teachers


Maybe I'm just getting old, but even as an ardent technophile, this just seems like a bad idea to me.

For example, a high score almost always contains topically relevant vocabulary, a variety of sentence structures, and the use of cue terms like "in summary," for example, and "because" to organize an argument.

Using the phrase "in summary" is terrible style, same as "in conclusion." If you have to make it that obvious that you are summarizing or concluding your ideas, then there's something very wrong with whatever it is you just wrote.

The testing service recognizes that e-rater could yield a high score on an essay with a well-written but illogical argument. "Right now, e-rater looks at an essay like a bag of words," Dr. Burstein said. "If you use the right words, you could in theory get a good score without the argument necessarily making sense, because it's not at this point tracking a logical line of argumentation."

But Dr. Burstein points out that deliberately fooling the system is unrealistic, given the time it takes to do so. Normally, she said, test takers "give their best attempt at what they can do, and then you get reasonable, reliable results."

If I were taking an essay exam that I knew was being computer graded, chances are I would write the silliest argument I could come up with - I'd just use lots of "becauses" and "in summaries."

I don't care that the computers agree with human graders almost 100% of the time. I can't really believe that the computer does a good job of correcting grammar errors (which are typically far less important than errors in thinking), because I know how bad Microsoft Word is at correcting grammar - and don't we all remember that study a while back (no link, sorry) showing that students who used Word's spell/grammar check actually made more errors than those who didn't? And besides, anything that would accept the argument that "All men are ducks. Socrates was a man. Because of this, in summary, Socrates was a duck." is, by my estimation, 100% ineffective.

A Campus Fad That's Being Copied: Internet Plagiarism


Yes, I borrowed the title of this NY Times article. But I also gave credit for it - something that about half of college students don't seem to think is necessary, according to a new study.

The survey solicited students' comments about cheating, and one student wrote, "If professors cannot detect a paper from an Internet source, that is a flaw in the grader or professor."

Unfortunately, it seems like we're at a point where I must agree with this student. Professors: if there are any of you left who don't use Turnitin or Google to check papers for plagiarism, then you'd better get on the ball. Students can't be bothered to write their own papers; after all, college is supposed to be about drinking and hooking up, not this "education" nonsense, right?

The rest of the article is worth reading, although it's quite depressing to be reminded that lots students have no sense of personal responsibility whatsoever.

I'm Roughing It And I Didn't Even Know It


The New York Times had an article today about people who spend way too much money on haircare and clothes in order to look good for the first week of school. I found this part quite humorous:

Some were returning to high school, while others, like Lauren Hanono, were going back to college. In a day and a half, Ms. Hanono, 19, of Lawrence, N.Y., crammed in a hair coloring, a haircut, a manicure and body wax and an eyebrow wax. It's service she said she couldn't find in Bloomington, Ind., where she is a junior at Indiana University.

"It's like roughing it," said Ms. Hanono, a communications major.

Faithful readers will most likely recall that I attend Indiana University in Bloomington. Will, whom I mentioned in the previous post, also happens to be from Bloomington. And while I'm sure that Will would agree that Bloomington is perhaps not the nicest place on earth, there's more to do here in B-town than most cities twice its size; it's certainly not "roughing it." Besides, there are four places that offer hair-cutting services in the mall alone...

But then, I suppose I've never sought a "body wax" here in town, and I doubt that Will has, either. I feel so uncultured. Heh.

Update: Will had already posted about this, and he notes that there are places to get your eyebrows waxed (if not your body).

What's Wrong With Heroin In Schools?


Will at Crescat Sententia asked:

Twilight of the Idols notes how Rochester accidentally gave tenure to a teacher who was currently under suspension for having her husband sneak her heroin in her lunch. Well, yes, that's pretty silly. But I'm actually kind of curious--

Was the teacher doing anything else wrong other than just consuming heroin on the job? After this summer's research I'm not convinced that merely consuming heroin on a daily basis automatically renders one unfit to work. I mean, sure, if she was unable to teach or stealing their lunch money, or selling the stuff to children, that would be terrible . . . but I'd like to know more about what she actually did wrong.

This is actually quite a fair question, in my opinion. A friend of mine used to manage a 24-hour restaurant, and she had a cook who was simply awful - when he wasn't high on marijuana. When he was clean, he was jittery, nervous, and dropped things all the time; when he was high, he was in control of himself and the kitchen ran smoothly. His performance was so significantly better when he was high that my friend eventually told him not to come to work unless he was high (the cook certainly wasn't upset about that plan).

Sure, it's anecdotal evidence and all, but it's an example of someone who worked not just okay, but actually better, all while under the influence of a controlled substance. Being a cook at a greasy spoon is not the same, however, as being a teacher in a public school.

I suppose it should be made clear that I support full legalization of all drugs - so from a "moral" point of view, the fact that the woman in question took heroin is not an issue with me. I don't think she's done anything "wrong" at all. I think she should be allowed to ruin her life through a spiraling addiction if she so chooses (and the agrument that the state would then have to pay for her health care doesn't faze me; I don't believe in socialized medicine). There are, however, two major issues I see with her heroin usage in the context of her case in particular.

First: Even in my perfect libertarian world of privatized schools and legalized drugs and all that jazz (sorry, just watched Chicago again - great movie!), I don't think it would be such a good idea to have a heroin addict teaching children. I readily recognize that in said perfect world, if a school wanted to hire junkies, then it would be their prerogative to do so - but it would similarly be a parent's right to send their child to a school where the teachers weren't doped up on smack.

Is it possible that there are some people in the world who actually function better on heroin than off (similar to the cook I mentioned above)? Sure. Are there very many people like that? Doubtful. And even if a school found someone who happened to perform better while high, it would seem that hiring such a person would be a bad idea for "economic" reasons; how many parents would want a heroin addict teaching their kids? I can see hiring a hypothetical person who functions better while high to do a job that doesn't involve interacting with children - but it seems like such a person would be a poor choice for a teaching position.

Further, while I think schools should be allowed to hire junkies, it still seems like that would be setting a poor example, doesn't it? If I ran a school in the aforementioned perfect world, I wouldn't hire people who were drug addicts; in fact, I would probably have a clause in the contract stating that teachers who were even strongly suspected of using "hard" drugs (pretty much anything other than pot) would be unceremoniously fired. Just because I think people should be allowed to use drugs doesn't mean I think that they actually should use them.

Second: While I do not believe that the teacher in question did anything "wrong," she did do something illegal - there's a huge difference. Since she was employed by a public school, I would venture to say that they have every reason (if not right) to fire her for breaking the law.

It is presumably in a government's interest to enforce the laws that exist; why create the laws if they are not to be enforced? For example, imagine a totalitarian state with strict limitations on free speech. If a teacher at a state-run school in such a society were to espouse the virtues of free speech (whether in the classroom or outside of it), said speech which would almost assuredly break laws designed to limit free speech. It would seem natural for the teacher to be fired, because the teacher's lessons (or example) could imply to students that the government approves of such behavior. Similarly, in a society in which heroin usage is illegal, it seems only natural for a state-employed teacher who uses heroin to be fired.

I don't particularly agree with the above line of thought, from the standpoint that I don't think that the government has much business doing much of anything. Nonetheless, we do not live in a society where "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others" (from John Stuart Mill's On Liberty). We do, though, live in a society where (in one way or another) the government controls a significant portion of everything we do - from the contents of the food we eat to the quality of the education our children receive. And thus, in such a society, it seems easy to accept the fact that a teacher who commited an act which is illegal - but which is not necessarily "wrong" - would be punished.

Changes Under Way


I'm (unfortunately) going to have to stop staying up all night; I've got class at 9:30 in the morning (not too early, I suppose) and so you won't see me posting at 7:00 AM anymore. I'm planning on posting in the afternoon for most of this term - although depending on what classes I actually get into (gotta love waitlists), I may have enough time in the mornings to post then.

Also, as soon as my student loans come through, I think I'm going to splurge and move off of Blogger/Blogspot. I'm not even a blip on the radar of the blogosphere at this point, but I've been getting what I consider a fair amount of traffic - and I like all of you regulars too much to force you to deal with broken archives and comments that disappear. :-D Also, to those of you who have been responding to posts - both via comments and blog entries - I appreciate it greatly. I've been quite busy the past couple weeks, but things should settle down into a routine soon and I should be able to keep up a much better discourse. (For instance, I've been thinking about a response to Will at Crescat Sententia for a week and a half now. I think I know how to respond, and I'll probably do so in a day or two.)

With that, I am off to bed - tomorrow is my first day of class, and a few hours sleep beforehand certainly couldn't hurt, right? Heh.

Teachers Forced To Take Unfair, Demeaning Tests


There's an AP Wire article out today (currently on the front page of Yahoo) featuring lots of teachers complaining about the new federal quidelines for highly qualified teachers.

Because [science teacher Rebecca Pringle] doesn't have a science degree, she'll have to take a test showing her mastery of the topic or pass a state evaluation that could include a test.

"I'm still in a state of anger and resistance," said Pringle, an eighth-grade teacher at Susquehanna Township Middle School in Harrisburg, Pa. "It's not fair to change the rules in the middle of the game. ... I have prided myself in staying current and being active in the field. For all that to be reduced to a multiple-choice test is an insult."

If she's stayed current and active in the field, then she shouldn't have a problem passing what will assuredly be a basic skills test. If she can't pass that test, then she has no business being in the classroom. Period.

Also, I'm not sure why she's so upset about this; in almost every line of work, employees are expected to pass performance reviews once or twice a year. From mall-store managers to white-collar Wall St. businessmen, it's simply a given that employees are examined and that the ones who aren't pulling their own weight are fired. Teachers are the exception, not the rule, in their lack of accountability thus far.

Beverly Ingle, a sixth-grade teacher at Laredo Middle School in Aurora, Colo., is starting her 25th year teaching. She may not be highly qualified because of the way the law handles different grades.

Middle school teachers must have a college major in each subject they teach - in her case, social studies and reading - or pass a rigorous test in those subjects. If Ingle taught sixth grade at an elementary school, she would only have to show mastery over a basic elementary curriculum.

...

"It's really unfair, but what am I going to do about it?" Ingle said. "I'll suck it up, like we always do as teachers, and I'll take more classes."

The difference between middle/high and elementary schools is vast; why it should come as a shock to anyone that they are tested for different things is beyond my capability to understand. Elementary school teachers are typically expected to teach numerous subjects to the same students all day, while middle/high school teachers focus on one subject and teach different students all day, so it seems quite logical to test elementary school teachers on elementary curriculum and middle/high school on the subjects that they specialize in.

Simple enough, I would think - and certainly not unfair. After all, if she's taught reading and social studies for 25 years, she should have no problem passing a "rigorous test," right? Right?

States are figuring out how teachers can show mastery of their subjects without taking tests that some consider demeaning.

This must be the end result of a generation of students whose self-esteem was more important than their education - a generation of teachers whose self-esteem is more important than their ability to teach.

Jamie Sawatzky, a fourth-year history teacher at Rocky Run Middle School in Chantilly, Va., qualifies with a degree in his subject. But he worries the law will prevent school administrators from hiring people who have intangible qualities to be brilliant teachers.

I'm not even going to ask how people who can't manage a bachelor's degree in a subject can be brilliant teachers - regardless of their "intangible qualities." I realize that this means that people can't move straight from corporate America to the classroom - which, I agree, may be an undesirable limitation - but Sawatzky's argument is far too similar to the "SATs are unfair because they don't test untestable qualities like imagination" argument for me to let it just slip past.

In New Orleans, new superintendent Anthony Amato must turn around a school system that, as he puts it, is most noted for failing test scores and leadership troubles. The teacher quality assignment is another huge task, as 40 percent of his teachers are not certified to teach their subjects or not certified at all, he said.

He has added literacy and math training for teachers and worked with local universities to coordinate teacher certification programs, among other steps.

If I hadn't already been severely disturbed by this article, I would have been after reading the above paragraphs. 40 percent of the teachers in the school district aren't certified to teach and some of the teachers require literacy training - gee, I wonder why the students aren't doing so well? If the teachers can't read, there's no reason in the world to expect that the students can.

The lesson to be learned from this article? [sarcasm on] It's unfair/demeaning/inappropriate to test teachers, because they are all swell people who really try their hardest and always have and always will, so don't be mean and try to hold them accountable. [sarcasm off] Either that, or simply that it's no wonder most kids have no sense of personal responsibility when none of their teachers do.

Houston (Kinda, Sorta) Takes Action Over Dropout Issue


From the New York Times: the Houston school district is (sort of) taking action against those involved in the underreporting of dropouts.

The Houston Independent School District will dock the salary of the former principal and a computer technician at Sharpstown High School, where false claims of no dropouts led to a state audit that found that nearly all the Houston schools examined were vastly undercounting dropouts.

The principal, Dr. Carol Wichmann, who retired in June, will lose $3,000 in salary, and the technician, Kenneth Cuadra, will be put on unpaid leave for two weeks and be reassigned to another school, a spokesman for the district said.

I'm going to assume that the article is poorly written (or that I don't understand some aspect of retirement policy), because it seems quite silly to dock the pay of someone who has already retired. Really, I quit my last job almost three months ago - and if they want to lower my pay, they can feel free to.

Either way, it sure doesn't seem like much of a punishment. It's the kind of slap on the wrists that doesn't discourage people from doing something wrong; it merely enourages them to avoid getting caught. And how come "nearly all the Houston schools examined were vastly undercounting dropouts" but only two people from one school are being punished?

In a statement, the district superintendent, Dr. Kaye Stripling, said an investigation of the misreporting found that Mr. Cuadra had not been ordered to change the dropout codes.

"While no specific directive contributed to reporting of low dropouts, a climate existed at the school that tolerated the reporting of unrealistic dropout rates," a statement by Dr. Stripling said.

I'm not convinced. Why would a computer technician randomly decide to change the dropout codes? What kind of climate would have to exist before a tech would alter school records?

I would say it was obvious (and so would State Rep. Rick Noriega) that someone told Mr. Cuadra to do what he did; otherwise, I can't imagine he'd have any reason to. Presumably, Mr. Cuadra's salary is not contingent on how many students dropped out. On top of that, it seems odd that Mr. Cuadra would even have the ability to alter records. Could he look up confidential information about students? Could he change grades? If so, why? There's no need for a tech to have access to information like that - he can hook a computer up to a network without having access to all of the school's data.

Others have called on the district to review the reports of the 15 out of 16 middle and high schools that were found to have submitted lower dropout numbers than they could document and to demand the return of bonuses given on the basis of false numbers. A principal could collect up to $5,000 for good performance, and area superintendents could collect upward of $10,000.

I just can't stop quoting Daryl Cobranchi: "When you choose to reward an outcome instead of a behavior, you shouldn't be shocked when people do whatever they (legally) can in order to obtain the reward." The caveat is, of course, if the reward is big enough and the punishment is small enough, people will do whatever they can to obtain the reward regardless of the legality of what they're doing. If Dr. Wichmann got a $5,000 bonus and a $3,000 salary dock, she still made $2,000 for lying to her superiors and the public. I'm sure she cried all the way to the bank.

U. Michigan Changes Admissions Policy


See articles here and here to get all of the (limited) details. My thoughts? Quite simply, Michigan will now do under the table what it used to do in the open.

Houston Schools Caught Lying - Again


This time, instead of lying about how many kids dropped out, Houston schools are lying about how many students attend college.

Davis High School, where students averaged a combined SAT score of 791 out of a possible 1600 in 1998, reported that every last one of its graduates that year planned to go to college.

Well, I'd say it's pretty apparent that with an average score of 791 on the SAT, these kids aren't going to college - most likely, they're going nowhere at all. From a former principal:

On paper, her school claimed that almost all of its graduates were headed for college. In fact, the principal said, most of them "couldn't spell college, let alone attend."

That's some impressive cynicism - even by my standards.

It seems that the schools have been lying about how many students go to college in order to attract more students (and of course, more money). There's nothing technically illegal going on, since the schools aren't required to report to the state how many students are going on to college; nonetheless, as the article points out, this just makes federal Education Secretary Rod Paige look even worse. It's quite apparent that this coverup was also going on while Paige was superintendent of the Houston district, and one must begin to wonder if he would have even been considered for his current job if this information had come out sooner.

Ashleigh Blackmon, a graduate of Yates in 2002, said she did not for a moment believe all her classmates were planning on college but was not sure her school's claims did any harm.

"It doesn't mean anything, because who cares?" she said, and then paused. "But it could mean they lie about a lot more of other things."

Indeed.

Cultural Bias Alleged In Teacher Certification Tests


Lots of former New York City teachers are upset about the fact that they got fired because they failed mandatory certification exams; they have claimed, naturally, that the tests were culturally biased.

The protesters urged the city to reconsider its firing of 10,000 uncertified teachers over the last five years, saying the test was culturally biased against blacks and Hispanics.

Marc Pessin, a co-chairman of a teachers' group called the Progressive Action Caucus, which organized the demonstration, said the passing rate among blacks and Hispanics was about 40 percentage points lower than that among whites.

I won't go into detail explaining how ridiculously wrong this assertion is; Kimberly has already done so multiple times - and besides, she does a better job of explaining such matters than I would, anyway. Put simply, the fact that blacks and hispanics don't do as well on the test does not mean that the test is biased; it means simply that blacks and hispanics don't do as well. This could be for any number of reasons - and one of the least likely is "cultural bias."

Regina Powell, who worked for 19 years in schools in East New York, Brooklyn, first as a teacher's aide and later as a teacher, said she had lost her job last year after failing the test and had to go on welfare recently.

"It started as a dream come true, but it ended in disaster," Ms. Powell said. "It hurts to even think about it. I've gotten so many award letters, and accolades from parents and the Board of Education."

A 19-year veteran teacher and she couldn't pass what amounts to a basic skills exam? Good riddance. It may hurt her to think about how she got fired, but it hurts me even more to think that someone like her was allowed to get the job in the first place - much less keep it for nearly two decades.

Jose Aguasvivas, a former math and Spanish teacher in the bilingual program at Roosevelt High School in the Bronx, said he was typical of teachers who had failed the test because English was not their first language. "I even have a master's degree in bilingual elementary education," he said. "But the test is very confusing. If the test is in Spanish, then I pass it no problem."

...read that again. Superintendent Laboy doesn't have anything on this guy. Mr. Aguasvivas has a master's degree in bilingual elementary education but he can't pass a test in English? How can he possibly consider himself bilingual when he obviously can't function in English? If Mr. Aguasvivas wants to sue someone, he should consider suing the school that sold him his master's degree; it obviously isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Side note: two articles in a row that mention people who worked somewhere for 19 years... It must be a conspiracy! Heh.

Yale's Union Workers Walk Out -- Again


Yale employees - primarily maintenance and clerical workers - have staged a walkout because the school isn't giving them a large enough raise. I would assume that it's well known by this point that I really, really don't like unions. I loathe them, in fact. Listen to this:

"Their [Yale's] offer stinks," said Peggy Nelson, a maintenance worker who earns $29,000 a year after 19 years on the job. "I have three kids, and what they're offering isn't enough to support a family."

$29,000 after 19 years sure isn't very much money, I agree. So, I came up with this idea for Ms. Nelson: get a different job! For instance, she could take night classes at a local vocational school and become an RN or an NP - they make gobs of money. Regardless, she needs to stop whining about how little money she makes; if the job is so horrible, why didn't she get a different job 18 years and 11 months ago? I mean, the job market may not be prime right now, but it has had some real highs since 1984 and surely she could have found something that paid better if it mattered that much.

And while this may draw some fire, I feel obligated to mention that it would be reasonable to assume that if her three kids are still at home and being supported by her, then it's likely that none of them are over nineteen. If the amount she's making now isn't enough to support a family, then whatever she started at certainly wasn't enough - yet she started a family nonetheless. That sure isn't Yale's fault, now is it?

As it stands, most dining halls are closed and lots of professors " are expected to move their classes off campus to honor the picket line." Yale isn't there for these clerical workers - it's there for the students (or at least, it should be). If only Yale could take a cue from Ronald Reagan and just fire all these unionites... That would be "economic justice."

Wish Me A Lot Of Luck!


Today's attempt at registering for classes was quite futile. For all practical purposes, there are no openings in non-graduate, non-100-level courses in either the philosophy or the history department (my two majors). I am - get this - registered for one class and waitlisted for five, just so that I might get into enough to be full time.

I could take the couple of low-level courses I need to fill out graduation requirements, of course, but I need to speak with an advisor and find out which courses count and which ones don't... And my advisor didn't bother to return my phone call. Gee, thanks, Ms. Adviser Woman - I didn't really want to take classes this term.

Anyway, as penance for not writing anything yesterday, I present to you today three New York Times articles. Enjoy. :-)

Wish Me Luck!


G'morning! I've interrupted your regularly scheduled cynical rants in order to overhaul my sleeping schedule and go sign up for classes. Since I'm a new student at IU this fall, I wasn't allowed to sign up for classes even a week ago - no, I had to wait till today.

The last time I checked online, there were 9 seats open in non-graduate philosophy classes; I'm hoping that since I'm a major, I'll be able to appeal to the professors in the classes I want. Neither Modern Jewish Philosophy (which might be interesting, admittedly - it's something I know nothing about) nor Introduction to Philosophy and Art (which meets with a gender studies class, for chrissakes) are high on my list of classes to take.

And of course, today is freshman move-in day, so traffic within a mile any direction of campus will be a nightmare. But I'll make it, one way or another - perhaps I can just smugly remind myself that this is my sixth school in seven years, which just has to be some kind of record, right? Heh.

Update: "F" Is For Florida Schools...


The second part of the St. Petersburg Times' "Journal of an F Year" is up - it can be viewed here.

There's nothing much to cover from the second part of the series that I didn't go over with respect to the first; the administrators are just as inept and numbers are just as fudged in the second half of the year as they were in the first half. Nonetheless, here are some highlights:

Today's update of the journal drives home the fact that even though 70% of the students aren't reading at grade level, Shaw Elementary has a TV studio so that kids can broadcast the morning announcements. I'm well aware of the fact that almost everyone likes to be on TV, but surely the money that went into this studio could have been better spent.

[Principal] Mrs. Pedrero, the queen of optimism, is thrilled with the school's third progress report to the state: 75 percent writing well; 73 percent reading on grade level; 79 percent on level in math.

The big question: Will the improvement they're charting show up in the FCAT scores?

...

The shine in the winner's circle lasts all of three hours, until Mrs. Pedrero opens the second box, overlooked in the hubbub. It has third-grade reading scores, the ones that determine who must stay back.

Of the 91 third-graders who took the test, 41 failed. Her Triple Crown is turning into a crown of thorns.

How, exactly, did the principal manage to report that 73 percent of the students were reading at grade level at mid-year when they obviously weren't? How were the students measured at mid-year? There was nearly a twenty percent difference between the school's numbers and the test's numbers; it seems fairly obvious that something was wrong with the way the school determined which students were reading at grade level.

Fifth-grade math - 50 percent failed - lifts their mood, sort of.

"We had a level 6?" Some unknown genius earned a top score? "We need to get them an award."

It seems that Mrs. Pedroro - the principal of the school! - was unaware that the highest score in the math section is a 5; she was simply reading "Column 6" on the spreadsheet. Shouldn't the principal be aware of facts as basic as the grading scale on the FCAT?

Why grade at all? Responsible educators don't need the threat of a bad grade, [Pedrero] says. They're always working to improve.

Forgive my cynicism, but a principal who can't be bothered to know the grading scale on the high-stakes test that her students are legally required to take sure doesn't seem very responsible to me.

29 percent meeting high standards in reading.

25 percent meeting high standards in math.

74 percent meeting high standards in writing.

The above numbers are from Shaw's scores for the 2002-03 year, and I have to question the FCAT here: how can a majority of students be unable to read at a high level yet be able to write at a high level? The skills quite naturally go hand-in-hand, after all.

Anyway, Shaw ended up with a D for the year; they did improve some, after all. I applaud the teachers' efforts, of course... But I think that the issues at Shaw Elementary are as apparent as they are common. Computers instead of teachers; a TV station instead of books; wildly disparate numbers between the school and the state (73% vs 55% reading at grade level, for instance); parents who simply don't care. These are all issues that are shared by school districts across the country - and all of the above problems will have to be solved before any real progress can occur.

"F" Is For Florida Schools And The Failing Grades They Get


The St. Petersburg Times brings us this disheartening account of the past year at one of Florida's infamous "F Schools." The article is full of stories about kids who are really, truly good enough, but because they're poor and the state is unfair (so goes the logic of the administrators), they just can't pass the mean ol' FCAT; significant print is also given to teachers who are excessively whiney about the fact that their school is getting a bad rap. First come the excuses:

[Superintendent] Lennard tells the assembled reporters: The state changed its grading formula again. Under last year's formula, Lockhart, Oak Park, Robles and Shaw elementaries all would have made passing grades. Lockhart missed passing by only two points.

If, as the article says, 70% of kids aren't making it in reading and math and almost 50% are missing the mark in writing at Shaw, I shudder to think of a system of accountability that would let Shaw pass. The lowest mark I've ever seen for a passing grade in any actual classroom is 60%; Shaw isn't even remotely close to that. The state's change in formula may be what changed Shaw's official status from "pass" to "fail," but the reality of the situation is that Shaw was a failure - regardless of its official status.

It's summer vacation and Szedriel Olivia Mulero is home watching TV. She started Shaw in kindergarten and will be a big fifth-grader this year.

Kids picked on her last year, which her father attributes to Szedriel's innocence (still plays with Barbies), her name-brand shorts and skirts (FUBU) and her hair (styled at the salon every month, $50 a pop).

I'll avoid asking why the hell her parents are wasting this money if they're poor. I know how many good and nutritious meals I could make for a fifty dollar haircut and a forty dollar pair of shorts, so I'm just going to assume that they're from the rich end of the spectrum at Shaw... Because to assume that parents could blow $600 a year on hair care for a ten-year-old kid when they have trouble keeping food on the table would simply destroy too much of my fragile faith in humanity.

Deputy superintendent Jim Hamilton asks what the schools need to turn F's into A's. We're shooting for the moon here, he says. Don't worry about cost.

They shoot. They want:

More computers...

By the time I reached this point in the article, I was seething. 70% of the kids at this school can't read at grade level, and they want computers?! How are the students going to use these computers if they can't even read? Computers don't teach children; teachers teach children. Why does this simple fact escape so many administrators? Thankfully, the article later describes how the computers "inflict early-morning confusion" on students "as [they] freeze, one by one." Neither teachers' assistants nor books are known to freeze often - at least in Florida, although I'm sure it would be different in Alaska (heh) - and perhaps either one of these would have been a better purchase.

The January 24 entry is particularly symbolic of the issues at Shaw. A teacher (Ms. Gettel) is taking a group of older students to read to the younger students, part of a program called Buddy Reading, and one of the older students asks what the title of the book that she's carrying (to read to the younger children!) is:

"What's that word, Ms. Gettel?"
"You tell me."
She makes pleading eyes.
"Okay," Ms. Gettel says. "What are the first three letters?"
"P-O-P."
"What are the last three letters?"
The girl purses her lips. "Puht."
"No, the last three letters."
The girl shakes her head.
"Poppleton," Ms. Gettel says, giving in just before her older kids reach the door.
Time for Buddy Reading.

Time for Buddy Reading, indeed. How is this girl supposed to help the younger kids read when it's quite plain that she herself can't read? Perhaps that $40,000 the school spent on low-quality laptops that teachers and students alike can't use should have went to another reading tutor.

There's a first grader who punches his pregnant teacher in the belly. The FUBU wearing fifth-grader with the $50 haircut can't even make an intelligent guess at a simple math problem ("She divides 0.84 by three and enters 0.24.") and is all too happy to quit trying - but she wants to be a clothing designer. There's even a Chinese restaurant that serves sushi, and while that may not be a problem with the school, it's still extraordinarily strange.

*sighs*

I could go on and on forever about the many problems at this school and the plainly ineffective solutions that are being tried - just go read the whole article for yourself, if you haven't already.

"It Was A Mistake"


According to the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, that's what a spokeswoman for the Rochester, NY school district had to say about the decision to grant tenure to a teacher who is currently suspended due to the fact that her husband was bringing her heroin to help her get through the day.

Rochester Teachers Association President Adam Urbanski said Correy Hallinean intends to resign, so the tenure issue is moot.

“This will not be an issue, nor does the union want to make it an issue,” he said.

Wow, a union backing down from a fight; I am as pleased as I am surprised. What a refreshing change from the NYC teacher who was arrested for possession of cocaine and got his job back after the union pitched a fit.

Board President Shirley Thompson said the board and district administration will “make sure the process is reviewed and cleaned up and that closer attention is paid to who is granted tenure.”

Sounds like an excellent idea to me. I understand that the school board had a lot of material to cover, I understand that they're busy, so on and so forth... But it really pains me to think that these people didn't notice that they gave tenure to a teacher they suspended a mere three months earlier for possession of heroin on school grounds.

Excessive - Indeed, Needless - Use - Of Dashes


I won't bother getting onto the topic of global warming itself (suffice to say that I loathe educrats and ecocrats equally), but this sentence from a Reuters article caught my eye:

But the process has picked up pace over recent decades -- particularly since the 1970s -- under the impact of global warming fueled -- many scientists believe -- by high emissions of greenhouse gases.

Surely, the writer or an editor could have thought of a better way to write that. Eugene Volokh is simliarly annoyed (by pointless parentheticals).

Textbook Battle On Evolution (Ha, ha, get it? Textbook? Heh...)


From the Houston Chronicle: Lawyers in Texas are gearing up for a battle over the treatment of evolution in the biology textbooks the state is planning on adopting.

There's nothing new in the debate here; religious types are arguing that evolution should not be taught as fact, while science types are claiming that facts should be taught as, well, facts.

David Hillis, a biology professor at the University of Texas, said he thinks the publishers have done a good job discussing evolution, but he is worried that the text will be diluted or that misleading information will be added. If science really is the issue, he asked, why are there no similar controversies at scientific meetings or in scientific journals?

"This argument is being waged over high school textbooks because that is where the final decisions are not made by scientists but rather by politicians," said Hillis.

Well said. In all honesty, I see no particular issue with options (be they creation "science" or Master Architect theories) being in textbooks in private schools - and it should be well known by now that I support privatization of all schools, so I'm pretty open minded here. The thing is, we're not talking about private schools here, we're talking about public schools, and I really don't think there's any room for advocating religious beliefs in the science textbooks public schools use. Kids are at home far more than they're at school, and there's plenty of time to teach them about religion then. Oddly enough, the article quotes (of all people) a Baptist Minister who agrees with me:

"Individual religious beliefs about the origin of life are sacred and illuminating, and they should be studied in homes and religious congregations, just as evolution is studied in science classrooms and laboratories," said Larry Bethune, a Baptist minister who serves as chairman of the Texas Freedom Network, a group dedicated to the separation of church and state.

Far more humorous, though, is this quote from the end of the article:

Publishers last year also responded to criticism that there wasn't enough information about minorities in the textbooks by adding passages about Mexicans who helped defend the Alamo...

That may make for a great story about Mexicans, but it sure doesn't make for a happy story about African-Americans; after all, anyone who has taken even a cursory American History course in college should know that one of the primary reasons Texans railed against Mexican rule was that slavery had been abolished in Mexico. So, the publishers added passages about Mexicans who were presumably pro-slavery and anti-Catholic in order to make the Diversity Police happy. Priceless.

Update: Massachusetts Superintendent Laboy


Remember Wilfredo Laboy, the Mass. Superintendent that couldn't pass the English exam? (I know, he is so two weeks ago.) Well, according to the Boston Herald, Supt. Laboy has until the end of the year to pass the test - or he'll most likely get fired.

This seems fair enough to me. Laboy has already tried (and failed) three times; if he can't get it in four, perhaps he should look into a job as a teacher's aide.

Discrimination Against... Non-Hawaiians?


Here's an ethnic group one doesn't hear much about: Hawaiians. They made it into the news today, however; the Honolulu Advertiser reports that a U.S. District judge is forcing a traditionally Hawaiian private school to admit a seventh grader who is only arguably of Hawaiian descent.

The details are all in the article... My opinion is that the judge made the best decision he could, given the circumstances. The decision on whether the school can legally give preference to native Hawaiians will come later; presumably, if the school accepts federal money, it will not be allowed to discriminate as such. The article only mentions that the school is funded primarily by a private trust; it does not make clear whether the school takes money from the government or not.

The identity politics involved are interesting only as a novelty, since I am unaccustomed to speaking of Hawaiians (although a former manager of mine is a native Hawaiian, and a great guy to boot):

Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa, director of the Center for Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawai'i, said the decision was unfair to Native Hawaiian children who still want to be admitted.

"There are 48,000 Hawaiian children in the public system who would love to have that spot," she said. "They should be taken care of first."

Replace Hawaiian with "white" or "African-American" for fun and games. And of course, always remember that if education were completely privatized in the first place, then we wouldn't have to deal with cases like this. Without government interference, there could be Hawaiian schools, Hispanic schools, GLBTQ schools, et al - and mixed schools for the majority of the population that doesn't care what color you skin is or who you sleep with.

Americans Oppose Vouchers - Sort Of


According to this AP Wire release, most Americans are opposed school vouchers. There seem to be some interesting caveats, though:

Some 62 percent of respondents said that if they were given a full-tuition voucher they would send their child to a private or religious school. With a half-tuition voucher, that number dropped to 51 percent.

So while a majority of Americans may oppose vouchers, a majority of Americans would use them if they could? What's the deal with that?

Anyway, according to the poll, Americans also think that teachers' salaries are too low. Americans don't seem to realize that by introducing vouchers into the mix and encouraging competition, those salaries might go up. The article says it best:

[P]oll responses to voucher questions can fluctuate significantly, possibly because the public is unclear about how such a system would work.

Here is the actual poll data from Phi Delta Kappa International's website.

Green? Supergreen!


I managed to get my new hard drive up and running tonight. With this addition, I now have a mind-boggling 360 gigs of hard drive space. Cool.

I'm very, very tired right now, so I'll grace you with just a couple quick posts before I hit the proverbial hay. Barring other vital hardware going out, regular posting should now resume - really, this time I mean it. :-)

My Apologies To My Readers


I haven't been posting because I have suffered massive hardware failures over the past several days. (I'm at the library right now.) My video card died; I replaced it only to find that my primary hard drive (a four year old Maxtor 40 gig) had finally made it to its last legs. I've managed to scrape together the cash for replacement parts, so I should have everything put back together and in order by late tonight. And of course, since computers are always easy to use and work on, I'm sure I won't run into any infuriating hardware conflicts or anything. Really, I am. :-) Anyway, I appreciate those of you who have kept visiting over the past week and a half, and I'll try and have everything in order by tonight or tomorrow. Thanks!

Follow-up: Blind Student in Washington, D.C. Finally Gets His Equipment


The Washington Post reports here that it took a US District Judge threatening fines, but the school finally got around to giving Jonathan Herring the equipment he needs to study at home. See my original post from August 2nd here for the rest of the details.

Correction!


I'm finally back in Bloomington tonight. It was great to be back home for a few days, but it's even better to be back home. This apartment is my home now; I left the other one years ago, and going back is as much pleasure as it is pain, heh. Daily blogging will now recommence - I'll start with a correction to an earlier post.

As a couple people pointed out in response to my post about Des Moines' "voluntary desegregation plan," it matters (for a number of financial reasons) that students are leaving the district. I knew this. Why I said otherwise is beyond me; I'll consider it a hazard of typing out posts quickly on my mom's computer, which has this infernal trackball that is awkward to the point of being unusable. In the future, I'll try not to post without thinking (or from my mom's computer, ick).

Regardless, I do maintain that it is not the responsibility of English speaking students to educate non-English speaking students, nor should the English speaking students' education suffer for non-English speaking students' sake. We should be looking for education to be less socialized, not more. The English speaking students should be allowed to move out of the district if for no other reason than the fact that a good education for some is better than a poor education for all.

Harvey Milk School Redux: Let The Lawsuits Begin!


This Liberty Council press release gives all the details (and some related links) to the latest twist in the Harvey Milk School saga.

According to the release, a State Senator and a mother of four have gotten together and filed a lawsuit claiming that the existence of a school for GLBTQ students is discriminatory.

Eugene of the Volokh Conspiracy wonders:

What if the school doesn't explicitly bar heterosexuals, but just pitches itself as a school aimed primarily at homosexuals, with the intention of drawing a mostly homosexual student body? My sense is that courts would treat discrimination in recruitment of students -- publicly stating that the school really wants mostly homosexuals -- as being tantamount to discrimination in admission, which is the general rule in antidiscrimination law.

This seems to be the case, rather than a hypothetical situation. While straight students are nominally accepted (see Harvey Milk's application here), it stands to reason that the school is either 1) misrepresenting itself and is just a normal school that accepts anyone or 2) in fact a school geared specifically for homosexual students - at the expense of heterosexual students.

Vacation Update


Home is... well, home. Since I'm assuming most anyone who reads this has already left home, I'm sure you're all aware of the ups and downs of going back. So while I'm thoroughly enjoying spending time with the family, I'm also looking forward to getting back to Bloomington on Sunday - and getting back to blogging every day!

Accountable For What?


Michael Winerip hit the nail on the head with his article in today's NY Times about the Houston dropout cover-up.

[Education Secretary Rod] Paige's spokesman, Dan Langan, referred dropout questions to Houston officials, but said that the secretary was proud of the accountability system he established here, that it got results and that principals freely signed those contracts.

It's seems impossible to imagine that even a spokeman would do anything other than condemn the Houston district. Just look at the quote: "proud of the accountability system?" What accountability system? So far, no administrators (save for a lone whistle-blower) have been reprimanded for their part in the cover-up. "[I]t got results?" You bet it did; before Paige's plan, there were lots of dropouts and everyone knew about them. After Paige's plan, there are lots of dropouts and nobody knows about them. Those are results to be proud of.

Terry Abbott, a Houston district spokesman, agreed that both Dr. Paige and the current superintendent, Kaye Stripling, pressured principals to make district goals. "Secretary Paige said, and rightfully so, the public has a right to expect us to get this job done," Mr. Abbott said. The principals were not cowed, he said, declaring, "They thrive on it." Every administrator under Dr. Paige and Dr. Stripling, Mr. Abbott said, has understood "failure is not an option" and "that failure to do our jobs can mean that we could lose those jobs — and that's exactly the way it should be."

As for adequate resources for truant officers to verify dropouts, he said individual schools decided how to use their resources, but added, "Money is not the problem, and money by itself won't solve the issues we deal with every day."

I would completely agree with Mr. Abbott's first statement if a principal's job was to ensure that students were being educated, not to ensure that the numbers look good - which it apparently is. Far more impressive, however, is his second comment; it's rare to hear anyone in an educracy admit that money 1) isn't a problem and 2) won't solve any problems.

As Daryl Cobranchi (who also posted on this here) so correctly noted with respect to NYC's pushout problem, this is what happens when you reward an outcome instead of a behavior. Students aren't doing better. Administrators are just getting better at marginalizing the ones who don't perform. Says whistle-blower Dr. Robert Kimball: "This isn't about educating children . . . It's about public relations." Indeed.

"Voluntary Desegregation Plan"


From the Des Moines Register: a judge has upheld a school board's decision to deny a (white) couple's transfer request for their daughter - in the interest of diversity.

A judge has allowed a northeast Iowa school district to limit the number of white students who can transfer, a ruling that could make it easier for rural districts to block so-called white flight.

I can't imagine how this is legal. Rather, I can't imagine how it should be legal - but in our era of affirmative action and the like, it's not particularly shocking. Imagine a judge upholding a school board's decision to limit a black couple's freedom to enroll their child where they wanted; now imagine the outcry from the pro-diversity public at such an appallingly racist decision. Why isn't there an outcry at the limitation of a white couple's freedom?

Officials in some other rural Iowa districts have fretted in recent years about the growing number of white students who are leaving schools in towns with meat-processing plants that employ large numbers of immigrants. Students transferring from districts in which they live take with them the state's per-pupil financial aid, about $4,500 a student.

School officials in those districts worry that their schools will face the task of educating non-English speaking students with dwindling financial resources. They also worry their schools will face federal sanctions if students fail to show annual progress in reading and math.

Okay, let's look at it like this: if each student has the same amount of money spent on his/herself as every other student, then it doesn't matter that kids are leaving the district. There will still be the same amount of money per student and therefore, the quality of education for the non-English speaking students should not decline - nor should it matter that English-speaking students are leaving the district. If, however, the money is being spent unequally, then the system is broken anyway. The latter case would mean that the system is effectively denying English-speaking students the education that they are legally obligated to receive (and pay for through taxes) to the benefit of non-English speaking students. That's equality.

"We can now fully implement our voluntary desegregation plan," said Superintendent David Strudthoff.

Voluntary? Voluntary in the sense that a judge has had to uphold a school board's decision to deny a request for a trasnfer based on the color of the student's skin alone? Voluntary, indeed.

Cameras In Classrooms


Kimberly told us how schoolteachers in Britain suggested it. Now, according to USA Today, administrators in Biloxi, Mississippi have done it - installed webcams in every single classroom, that is.

[Biloxi Superintendant] Drawdy says the cameras are there for safety -- ''for supervision and not snoopervision.'' But the images could be used by others to evaluate teachers, he concedes. ''If you've got unscrupulous administrators, that's always a possibility. But if we're going to act as professionals, then we should not be doing something in the classroom that we would be afraid to be on camera.''

This is highly reminiscent of the Orwellian argument that people shouldn't mind being observed because they shouldn't be doing anything wrong, and if they're doing something wrong, then it'd be a good thing if they were observed. I'm going to have to side with privacy advocates here; I just don't think it's a good idea to make cameras in the classrooms mandatory.

However, if a teacher wanted to have a webcam in the room to keep an eye on things, I suppose it should be at his/her discretion. I see both ups and downs to having the cameras installed, and if a teacher were to decide that they preferred the benefits of having a camera (showing parents how their children act up, for instance) over the benefits of no camera (no parents breathing down your neck because little Johnny didn't get called on), then I'd think they should be able to make that decision on their own.

That's what worries critics, who say such recordings could be used for other purposes: What if a parent complains that a teacher uses class time to promote birth control or drug use, or even terrorism?

Public school teachers shouldn't be using classtime to promote any of these things, and if a parent accused a teacher of doing so, the camera would either a) exonerate the teacher or b) prove his/her guilt. Without the webcams, it's simply the teacher's word against the parent's, and all too often the teacher gets the short end of the stick in these types of scenarios. While I don't particularly support the usage of webcams, I don't see how anyone could say that the situation described above would be a detriment of having them, not a benefit - unless you think public employees should be teaching kids about how terrorism is okay, of course.

[Science teacher R. Scott] Page, who unhooked the cameras after switching classrooms last winter, says he'd oppose using Webcams to provide evidence in a dispute between student and teacher. ''If it gets to the point where my word against students' isn't good, then I go find another job,'' he says.

Private message to R. Scott Page: You'd better go ahead and start looking now; it's only a matter of time before it becomes necessary.