President Obama, entering his first new school year, has decided to greet the kids returning to schools with a webcast.
This is hardly something new, and President Reagan and President George H.W. Bush did essentially the same thing, except that the internet had not been developed yet so they used television. Their broadcasts to the kiddies went off with relatively little controversy (mostly about how it might impact school schedules to accomodate the broadcast.)
But right-wing nut radio (the same folks who have gotten even GOP members of Congress so scared that they have to publically profess doubts about whether Obama was even born in Hawaii to avoid being run out of town by their Kool-aid guzzling 'base') has jumped all over it and is claiming that Obama is either overtly or subliminally planning to brainwash and indoctrinate their kids during the webcast, which is likely to run for only a few minutes.
School districts have been deluged with calls from talk radio listeners who have threatened to keep their kids home from school and several cowardly school districts around the nation have even decided not to carry the webcast at all.
I wonder how many parents who actually do make good on their threat to keep their kids home to protect them from the few deadly minutes of Presidential webcast will make darn good and sure they aren't indoctrinated by forcing them to listen to a whole day of Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
And what is the President going to say that is so horrible?
Well, we don't know yet although the White House plans to release the text of the webcast a day in advance. However I'm willing to go on record that he's not going to be quoting from the "Karl Marx Reader."
My best guess is that he will say some even more controversial things, stuff that will really give the right fits:
* Work hard.
* Stay in school.
* Don't do drugs.
* Listen to your parents.
If nothing else, I hope that it gives school administrators who have canceled it fits-- when they realize how stupid they look over it.
Showing posts with label schools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label schools. Show all posts
Friday, September 04, 2009
Saturday, March 08, 2008
California judge overreaches with ruling to criminalize homeschooling
Recently a ruling came down in California which could criminalize home schooling in that state.
Parents of the approximately 200,000 home-schooled children in California are reeling from the possibility that they may have to shutter their classrooms — and go back to school themselves — if they want to continue teaching their own kids. On Feb. 28, Judge H. Walter Croskey of the Second District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles ruled that children ages six to 18 may be taught only by credentialed teachers in public or private schools — or at home by Mom and Dad, but only if they have a teaching degree. Citing state law that goes back to the early 1950s, Croskey declared that "California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children." Furthermore, the judge wrote, if instructors teach without credentials they will be subject to criminal action.
I believe that this ruling is absurd. There are many reasons why parents home school their children. And in nearly all cases, the children are schooled with far more diligence, care and personal attention than they get in a crowded classroom, with twenty or more kids competing for the attention of a single teacher (even though I believe that most public school teachers do an excellent job, especially for the poor pay they get.)
There is a view held by some opponents that homeschooling parents are all a bunch of relgious fanatics intent on indoctrinating their children and teaching them creationism. I'm not disputing, for that matter, that there are some who fit that description, but that is not who most homeschool parents are. I've known many of them, and very few if any strike me as fanatics.
I know, because my wife and I homeschooled our eldest daughter twice, for a year each time. And the reason was the same-- she wasn't getting the education she needed elsewhere. When she was in the first grade, we moved from Los Lunas to Belen, New Mexico. She was at the top of her class in the new school. But then it turned out that one reason why was because she was using the same textbook that she'd used in kindergarten at another school the year before. We didn't want her to be a year behind already by first grade, so we took her out and schooled her at home. Then when she was in fifth grade, we moved to Corpus Christi, Texas. In Texas they have these ISD's (Independent School Districts) where the idea is that the taxes raised in each district pretty much stay in the district. Well, we were living in the West Oso ISD (lots of apartments, low property values) and the budget of the school there was practically nothing. Some of the books were twenty years out of date (in fact someone told me that the entire budget for the high school was not much more than what the high school two districts down, Calallen, spent just on its football program alone.) So again, we homeschooled our daughter (and even hired a woman with an English degree to supplement some of what we were teaching her with some reading and writing.) Often, homeschooling parents have networks with each other so they can participate in group activities (and it was more than once I was asked to work with some high school aged kid on his or her math.)
In both cases, we were considered qualifiedby the states or school districts involved to teach because I have a master's degree in Mathematics (including a full slate of undergraduate classes, as well as a bachelor's degree in Chemistry.) My wife at the time did not have a degree but she has always been skilled in computers. The idea that either of us would have to go get a teaching degree is ridiculous (as well as the fact that on both of these occasions such a requirement would have been self-defeating since it takes a couple of years at least to get one and in each case we home-schooled for a year because of local conditions-- and we had to make that decision and prepare for it quickly.)
I've also known parents of special needs children who homeschooled because their local school districts would not or could not provide the specific help that they needed. One of my daughters' classmates has been homeschooled on and off because she has Krohn's disease and attending public school would be more difficult and at times embarrassing for her than it would be for other children (though she has also attended during times when her condition is under control.)
Now, there have occasionally been other, more sinister reasons why some parents may claim to be home-schooling, as was the case in the situation that led to this ruling:
The debacle originated with a suit over child abuse. One of the eight children of Philip and Mary Long, a Los Angeles couple, had filed a complaint of abuse and neglect with the L.A. Department of Children and Family Services. The agency determined that the Long children were being home schooled, taught by their uncredentialed mother while officially enrolled in independent study at Sunland Christian School. The DCFS then turned to the courts to mandate that the children attend public school so that teachers might spot evidence of abuse (a charge the parents deny). A juvenile court, however, determined that the Longs had a constitutional right to home school their children. The DCFS appealed and the case landed in Croskey's appellate court.
Clearly no child should be abused or not be educated (which is a form of abuse.) However it is ridiculous to prevent all homeschooling parents (there are 200,000 in California alone) from doing the best they can for their kids because of a handful of child abusers who are trying to use it to hide their crimes. Instead, why not require (as many states now do) that homeschooled kids get checked on once or twice a year so that their progress can be assessed and looked at for any signs of potential abuse, which can if necessary be followed up on with a home visit. And if a case of child abuse is discovered then the guilty parties should be prosecuted. But it seems to me that criminalizing homeschool is the wrong way to handle what is ultimately a much more narrow problem dealing with enforcement of existing law (child abuse is a felony no matter what the circumstances.)
Parents of the approximately 200,000 home-schooled children in California are reeling from the possibility that they may have to shutter their classrooms — and go back to school themselves — if they want to continue teaching their own kids. On Feb. 28, Judge H. Walter Croskey of the Second District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles ruled that children ages six to 18 may be taught only by credentialed teachers in public or private schools — or at home by Mom and Dad, but only if they have a teaching degree. Citing state law that goes back to the early 1950s, Croskey declared that "California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to home school their children." Furthermore, the judge wrote, if instructors teach without credentials they will be subject to criminal action.
I believe that this ruling is absurd. There are many reasons why parents home school their children. And in nearly all cases, the children are schooled with far more diligence, care and personal attention than they get in a crowded classroom, with twenty or more kids competing for the attention of a single teacher (even though I believe that most public school teachers do an excellent job, especially for the poor pay they get.)
There is a view held by some opponents that homeschooling parents are all a bunch of relgious fanatics intent on indoctrinating their children and teaching them creationism. I'm not disputing, for that matter, that there are some who fit that description, but that is not who most homeschool parents are. I've known many of them, and very few if any strike me as fanatics.
I know, because my wife and I homeschooled our eldest daughter twice, for a year each time. And the reason was the same-- she wasn't getting the education she needed elsewhere. When she was in the first grade, we moved from Los Lunas to Belen, New Mexico. She was at the top of her class in the new school. But then it turned out that one reason why was because she was using the same textbook that she'd used in kindergarten at another school the year before. We didn't want her to be a year behind already by first grade, so we took her out and schooled her at home. Then when she was in fifth grade, we moved to Corpus Christi, Texas. In Texas they have these ISD's (Independent School Districts) where the idea is that the taxes raised in each district pretty much stay in the district. Well, we were living in the West Oso ISD (lots of apartments, low property values) and the budget of the school there was practically nothing. Some of the books were twenty years out of date (in fact someone told me that the entire budget for the high school was not much more than what the high school two districts down, Calallen, spent just on its football program alone.) So again, we homeschooled our daughter (and even hired a woman with an English degree to supplement some of what we were teaching her with some reading and writing.) Often, homeschooling parents have networks with each other so they can participate in group activities (and it was more than once I was asked to work with some high school aged kid on his or her math.)
In both cases, we were considered qualifiedby the states or school districts involved to teach because I have a master's degree in Mathematics (including a full slate of undergraduate classes, as well as a bachelor's degree in Chemistry.) My wife at the time did not have a degree but she has always been skilled in computers. The idea that either of us would have to go get a teaching degree is ridiculous (as well as the fact that on both of these occasions such a requirement would have been self-defeating since it takes a couple of years at least to get one and in each case we home-schooled for a year because of local conditions-- and we had to make that decision and prepare for it quickly.)
I've also known parents of special needs children who homeschooled because their local school districts would not or could not provide the specific help that they needed. One of my daughters' classmates has been homeschooled on and off because she has Krohn's disease and attending public school would be more difficult and at times embarrassing for her than it would be for other children (though she has also attended during times when her condition is under control.)
Now, there have occasionally been other, more sinister reasons why some parents may claim to be home-schooling, as was the case in the situation that led to this ruling:
The debacle originated with a suit over child abuse. One of the eight children of Philip and Mary Long, a Los Angeles couple, had filed a complaint of abuse and neglect with the L.A. Department of Children and Family Services. The agency determined that the Long children were being home schooled, taught by their uncredentialed mother while officially enrolled in independent study at Sunland Christian School. The DCFS then turned to the courts to mandate that the children attend public school so that teachers might spot evidence of abuse (a charge the parents deny). A juvenile court, however, determined that the Longs had a constitutional right to home school their children. The DCFS appealed and the case landed in Croskey's appellate court.
Clearly no child should be abused or not be educated (which is a form of abuse.) However it is ridiculous to prevent all homeschooling parents (there are 200,000 in California alone) from doing the best they can for their kids because of a handful of child abusers who are trying to use it to hide their crimes. Instead, why not require (as many states now do) that homeschooled kids get checked on once or twice a year so that their progress can be assessed and looked at for any signs of potential abuse, which can if necessary be followed up on with a home visit. And if a case of child abuse is discovered then the guilty parties should be prosecuted. But it seems to me that criminalizing homeschool is the wrong way to handle what is ultimately a much more narrow problem dealing with enforcement of existing law (child abuse is a felony no matter what the circumstances.)
Thursday, September 27, 2007
New student aid law a huge step forward.
Today President Bush signed a landmark piece of legislation that was sent to him by the Democratic Congress. The legislation, called the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, does what the Republican Congress failed to do: help financial aid keep up with the skyrocketing costs of college that have made it unaffordable for millions of would-be students.
The bill will expand the PELL program by $11.4 billion over the next five years and increase the maximum PELL grant from $4,310 in 2007 to $5,400 by 2012. While this is not everything that it could be (with many students even at state universities having to pay upwards of $25,000 annually for tuition, fees, books, room and board, and other expenses), it does represent a realization of how fast college costs have been increasing as state and federal budget cuts force college boards to increase tuition and fees by large amounts and on a yearly or almost yearly basis.
Beyond that, the bill does a lot of other things. For example, it allows active duty members of the military to defer their payments while they are in the service, and even for a year after they leave. It is amazing to me that with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this had not been attended to earlier, but I guess it takes a Democratic Congress to do more for our servicemen and servicewomen than just say nice things about them and wave a flag around. It also cuts the interest rate on Federally backed student loans in half, making repayment easier for students who leave college with a mountain of debt and then have to pay it back while they are just starting on their careers.
In fact, if those careers involve teaching, the bill goes even farther-- it gives students the option to actually have student debt forgiven if they teach for at least a few years after college. Local school districts are limited by their budgets and often cannot afford to compete for the best talent from universities because they can't pay as much as they could earn in the private sector. But this provision in the law amounts to a huge strengthening of the hand of school boards, as a teaching job will now be much more competitive with private sector jobs even though the school board may not have to spend a dime more than they would have. More to the point, this represents a real and concrete investment in education.
The President issued a terse signing statement in which he expressed his displeasure with certain aspects of the law (though he did sign it) but nevertheless it is a law today.
And don't let anyone lie to you-- this was a huge achievement by Congress with the reluctant agreement of the President. It is a very big step forward.
The bill will expand the PELL program by $11.4 billion over the next five years and increase the maximum PELL grant from $4,310 in 2007 to $5,400 by 2012. While this is not everything that it could be (with many students even at state universities having to pay upwards of $25,000 annually for tuition, fees, books, room and board, and other expenses), it does represent a realization of how fast college costs have been increasing as state and federal budget cuts force college boards to increase tuition and fees by large amounts and on a yearly or almost yearly basis.
Beyond that, the bill does a lot of other things. For example, it allows active duty members of the military to defer their payments while they are in the service, and even for a year after they leave. It is amazing to me that with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, this had not been attended to earlier, but I guess it takes a Democratic Congress to do more for our servicemen and servicewomen than just say nice things about them and wave a flag around. It also cuts the interest rate on Federally backed student loans in half, making repayment easier for students who leave college with a mountain of debt and then have to pay it back while they are just starting on their careers.
In fact, if those careers involve teaching, the bill goes even farther-- it gives students the option to actually have student debt forgiven if they teach for at least a few years after college. Local school districts are limited by their budgets and often cannot afford to compete for the best talent from universities because they can't pay as much as they could earn in the private sector. But this provision in the law amounts to a huge strengthening of the hand of school boards, as a teaching job will now be much more competitive with private sector jobs even though the school board may not have to spend a dime more than they would have. More to the point, this represents a real and concrete investment in education.
The President issued a terse signing statement in which he expressed his displeasure with certain aspects of the law (though he did sign it) but nevertheless it is a law today.
And don't let anyone lie to you-- this was a huge achievement by Congress with the reluctant agreement of the President. It is a very big step forward.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Media discovers-- schools pushing underperforming kids to drop out. I could have told them that last year.
Have you ever ran across an article that leaves you scratching your head, not because you doubt its truth, but because it seems like some research wonk in the media has just 'discovered' a situation that you've known about for years?
That just happened to me a few minutes ago. I was perusing CNN.com, and ran across this article on a high performing high school that is forcing low performing students to drop out because the school is rated on overall test performance.
And the case they cite might not even be considered completely one-sided, since the article makes it clear that the student they profiled (though there are others as well) was only pushed out of that school, not out of school altogether, and she may have contributed to her own academic deficiencies by absenteeism and disciplinary problems-- though it is only in the new world of conservative double speak where the way to solve a problem with a student playing hooky is to make them leave the school. However, I've known personally about more egregious cases than that. In my line of work, I've talked to a number of young people just in the past year or two who told me that they didn't finish school because after failing standardized tests the first time around they were advised by their high school advisors to drop out, and did so (though I'm happy to say that none of the students who told me this had gone to my own local high school-- if they had, I'd raise heck with the school board about it.) This is a disturbing new development-- I thought school counselors were supposed to encourage students to stay in school, not advise them to drop out and become quitters.
As far as absenteeism is concerned, all I know is that I've not met a truant officer for decades. Are there still any out there? My best guess is that the reason they've disappeared is probably some combination of legal requirements and regulations (probably, to be honest, imposed by liberals) and budget cuts (imposed by conservatives.) Maybe there still are some, and I just haven't met any (luckily my own kids have never required their services-- whatever problems they've had in school, unauthorized absence wasn't on the list.)
An even deeper level of this problem is that in some school districts it seems that students are flunked more often in specific grades, primarily because of the fear that they will perform poorly on standardized tests. For example, according to data collected by Walt Haney and his colleagues at Boston College, the number of ninth graders in 2000 nationwide exceeded by 13% the number of students who were in eighth grade nationwide in 1999 (source.) By 2000 (which is before the implementation of NCLB) a lot of states had already implemented standardized testing at the tenth grade level, and in many of them performance on these tests was already tied in various ways to school funding. So, apparently students were 'held back' at a much higher rate in the ninth grade than they were in the eighth or other grades so that they would have another year of being 'taught to the test' before they had to lay it on the line. Now, I have no problem with the concept of holding back a student if it is warranted by a failure to learn the material in the grade level in question (in this regard I disagree with the author of the source article), but that should apply to all grade levels, not just the grade before it is time to take the test.
One proposal I have heard and which I favor is to restructure high school similar to what we have in college-- there would no longer be formal grades, but students would have to complete a certain level of classes (including certain specific core courses). Students would be placed in classes based on similar background and abilities, rather than age; If necessary, students could be put into a course that came before the core curriculum course, while others might be able to jump into a course that is a year or two more advanced than their former eighth grade classmates. Four years might be an average time to spend in school, but some students might be able to do it in three years while others might need five or six (if beyond six years then we might consider a transition program into the community college where they could earn a diploma or equivalent while using the high school credits they had to that point accumulated and additional work at the community college.) The whole stigma/expectation associated with age and grade level would likely erode in this kind of environment. Why exactly is it more important that a tenth grader should be in an English class with other tenth graders rather than with other students (of whatever grade level) who have similar writing skills? In this environment completion of the core curriculum would show proof of knowlege so there would be no need for standardized testing, but if it was insisted there had to be then take it after the student has completed say a specific English class and a specific Math class, both of which are included in the core curriculum.
But whatever we do, it is absolutely an outrage that we have reached the point where students are being encouraged to leave school by those who should be most involved with helping them to stay in school. But the financial incentive for the schools is now to do exactly that.
That just happened to me a few minutes ago. I was perusing CNN.com, and ran across this article on a high performing high school that is forcing low performing students to drop out because the school is rated on overall test performance.
And the case they cite might not even be considered completely one-sided, since the article makes it clear that the student they profiled (though there are others as well) was only pushed out of that school, not out of school altogether, and she may have contributed to her own academic deficiencies by absenteeism and disciplinary problems-- though it is only in the new world of conservative double speak where the way to solve a problem with a student playing hooky is to make them leave the school. However, I've known personally about more egregious cases than that. In my line of work, I've talked to a number of young people just in the past year or two who told me that they didn't finish school because after failing standardized tests the first time around they were advised by their high school advisors to drop out, and did so (though I'm happy to say that none of the students who told me this had gone to my own local high school-- if they had, I'd raise heck with the school board about it.) This is a disturbing new development-- I thought school counselors were supposed to encourage students to stay in school, not advise them to drop out and become quitters.
As far as absenteeism is concerned, all I know is that I've not met a truant officer for decades. Are there still any out there? My best guess is that the reason they've disappeared is probably some combination of legal requirements and regulations (probably, to be honest, imposed by liberals) and budget cuts (imposed by conservatives.) Maybe there still are some, and I just haven't met any (luckily my own kids have never required their services-- whatever problems they've had in school, unauthorized absence wasn't on the list.)
An even deeper level of this problem is that in some school districts it seems that students are flunked more often in specific grades, primarily because of the fear that they will perform poorly on standardized tests. For example, according to data collected by Walt Haney and his colleagues at Boston College, the number of ninth graders in 2000 nationwide exceeded by 13% the number of students who were in eighth grade nationwide in 1999 (source.) By 2000 (which is before the implementation of NCLB) a lot of states had already implemented standardized testing at the tenth grade level, and in many of them performance on these tests was already tied in various ways to school funding. So, apparently students were 'held back' at a much higher rate in the ninth grade than they were in the eighth or other grades so that they would have another year of being 'taught to the test' before they had to lay it on the line. Now, I have no problem with the concept of holding back a student if it is warranted by a failure to learn the material in the grade level in question (in this regard I disagree with the author of the source article), but that should apply to all grade levels, not just the grade before it is time to take the test.
One proposal I have heard and which I favor is to restructure high school similar to what we have in college-- there would no longer be formal grades, but students would have to complete a certain level of classes (including certain specific core courses). Students would be placed in classes based on similar background and abilities, rather than age; If necessary, students could be put into a course that came before the core curriculum course, while others might be able to jump into a course that is a year or two more advanced than their former eighth grade classmates. Four years might be an average time to spend in school, but some students might be able to do it in three years while others might need five or six (if beyond six years then we might consider a transition program into the community college where they could earn a diploma or equivalent while using the high school credits they had to that point accumulated and additional work at the community college.) The whole stigma/expectation associated with age and grade level would likely erode in this kind of environment. Why exactly is it more important that a tenth grader should be in an English class with other tenth graders rather than with other students (of whatever grade level) who have similar writing skills? In this environment completion of the core curriculum would show proof of knowlege so there would be no need for standardized testing, but if it was insisted there had to be then take it after the student has completed say a specific English class and a specific Math class, both of which are included in the core curriculum.
But whatever we do, it is absolutely an outrage that we have reached the point where students are being encouraged to leave school by those who should be most involved with helping them to stay in school. But the financial incentive for the schools is now to do exactly that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)