They were trying to pull an Imus on Rush Limbaugh. But, despite the efforts of Harry Reid and his forty solons, it didn't work. Clear Channel didn't fold the way MSNBC and CBS did. Thanks to Limbaugh's steadiness and quick wit, the attempt did blow back. The brilliant auction play not only defanged the attack but turned it against the perpetrators, making Reid and his posse look like forty-one schmoes despite everything the media could do to slant the story. (It accomplished very little for Harry back home either, if recent reports are any indication.)Every broadcaster should take note, no matter what side of the political spectrum they are on, if you fight back you give the censors nowhere to go.
Harry Reid probably is not going to be sending out such self-righteous, ham-handed letters anytime soon. Nor is the media or anyone else going to pull an Imus on any other new media figures. Limbaugh has not only embarrassed the Dems and restored his own reputation, he's also deprived the left of the Imus weapon, something that might have served them well over the next year or two.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Limbaugh vs. Reid, Part --Something or Other
This is what happens when you fight the censorship Nazi's.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Michael Graham on Middle School Birth Control
Michael Graham writes:
I have a daughter in a public middle school. I know how hard it is to get a school-sanctioned Tylenol on campus. I’ve fought the “no cupcakes, they might have peanuts!” fight. Some schools are getting rid of the snack machines out of fear of giving our children access to high-fructose corn syrup.Makes you wonder, doesn't it.
But these same liberal educators are going to let the school nurse my 11-year-old full of progesterone so she can “get her groove on” without fear of pregnancy?
Please. Just give her the cupcake.
Maine runs a series of school health clinics like the one at King Middle, most commonly treating things like sore throats and giving physicals. But King, which already hands out condoms to 12-year-olds regardless of whether mom likes it, wants to expand its mission to include aiding and abetting sexual assault.
Because in Maine, the age of consent is 16, too.
Liberal activists supporting the King Middle proposal claim it’s necessary because some of their students are sexually active. Of course they are - you’re giving them sex aids! What are they supposed to do with birth control? Use it to control weight gain? Trade it for Oxy?
The only reason to give 12-year-olds the pill is because they’re having sex. But sex with a 12-year-old is a felony in Maine, so who are they supposed to have this sex with? Other 12-year-olds?
Clinton Money Machine Redux
Hot Air has links to what could be the next Clinton Funrdaising mess.
Do we really need these crooks in the White House again?
Do we really need these crooks in the White House again?
And They Wonder Why Their Approval Rating is So Low
REP. STARK (D-CA): "SOLDIER'S GETTING HEADS BLOWN OFF FOR PRESIDENT'S AMUSEMENT!". Thanks to Gateway Pundit for the pointer and video.
The comment speaks for itself.
The comment speaks for itself.
A Truly Lost Generataion
Philip Mella on the Portland Maine birth control pill controversy:
This decision has achieved what most of us would have found impossible, which is a rare combination of a collective abdication of moral responsibility and a cynical endorsement of the presupposition that children are immune from ethical imprinting. We don't need psychologists to tell us that eleven year old children are emotionally unformed and fragile souls whose moral immaturity and compromised judgment can conspire to cause them indelible pain and suffering. Yet this decision puts them in the wholly untenable position of encouraging an act for which many adults are emotionally unfit.Hmmm! Good point.
We must wonder why the liberals, who are champions of this kind of stupidity, suppose that those 'victimized' by the sub-prime housing debacle aren't truly capable of making an informed decision, but insist that children have the maturity to decide whether or not it's wise to engage in sexual intercourse.
Maryland Law Allows Pre-Teens Confidential Access to Birth Control
Yesterday, I stood in shock of a recent decision by a Portland, Maine school board to allow a middle school to give out birth control pills to girls as young as 11. Apparently, I should have looked in my own back yard, as the Baltimore Sun reports:
Under the laws of 20 states and the District of Columbia a pre-teen can walk into a school administered health clinic (not the school nurse apparently, but if there is a clinic staffed by a nurse practitioner) she can ask and receive birth control pills WITHOUT NOTIFYING HER PARENTS OR GUARDIAN!!!!.
This kind of a law, while it may have lead to a reduction in the teen pregnancy rate, completely undermines the role of parents in the healthcare decisions related to their children. In Maine, the rationale for providing the birth control is that some girls will not want to discuss the matter with their parents. In Maryland, officials believe that the most girls will tell their parents. Unless the girls in Maine are of a completely different sub-species of girls than those in Maryland, the chances are that no girl tells their parents because to do so will indicate to the parents that they are sexually active.
There are so many health risks associated with not telling the parents that it is hard to fathom how this was even made law. First, there is the hormonal content of a birth control pill and the effect on younger girls, even those who have reached menses. This is no a simple matter of giving a child a Tylenol, which washes out of the system in relatively short order, but a pill that alters and regulates the hormones in a body, a body that is still growing and changing on practically a daily basis.
Second, the hormones in a birth control pill can interact with other drugs that may need to be prescribed. Unless the young girl informs the health care worker giving out the pill, there is a risk of interaction. If a girl gets another prescription from her regular doctor and the parents don't know of the birth control pills, there is a risk of an interaction. There is a reason why doctors ask questions about whether you are taking any medications before prescribing a new medication--it is to prevent dangerous interactions.
But aside from the medical/physical side of things, there is a conflict with other laws. For example, under most state laws, including Maryland, a doctor may not treat a child for say a broken leg without parental approval. Absent a life-threatening injury, doctors are supposed to wait for parental approval to do much of anything to any minor, even those as old as 17. Yet, girls as young as 11 can get birth control. How are we to reconcile those two policies? A girl with a broken arm can't authorize treatment of her arm because the law has deemed her incapable of making that choice, but she is capable of making a decision to get birth control?
Either she is old to enough to authorize all medical treatment or she is not old enough to authorize any medical treatment. Choose one policy because the conflict is too great.
The argument that a child is "entitled" to a right of privacy is ludicrous. A girl as young as 11 or 12 is not entitled to the same rights as an 18, 19 or 20 year old. There are so many other reductions in her rights that to say she enjoys a full right of privacy on this matter is ridiculous and flies in the face of logic. For example, in the schools in Frederick County, a high school girl or boy for that matter, cannot take a prescription drug for allergies without oversight by the school nurse. So the right to take a doctor prescribed antibiotic is circumscribed, but not the right to OBTAIN birth control. Is there anything else so ludicrous as that particular dichotomy?
One by-product of this debate is that there will be a fair number of state legislatures put on the defensive about this particular law, not that I expect that Democratically controlled Maryland General Assembly to change the law (that would make sense), but at least there will be some questioning.
While much of the nation debates a Maine school board's vote to let school-based clinics give young teens contraceptives without parental consent, Baltimore girls as young as 12 have had access to birth-control pills from such clinics for more than 20 years.When it comes to reproductive health care, it is apparent that this country as a real problem with hypocrisy.
Advocates say making contraceptives available has played a large role in the city's declining teen birth rate - especially in the past decade, when it has been cut in half for girls younger than 15.
It's not just in Baltimore. A Maryland law that dates to the 1970s allows a minor confidential access to contraception, meaning any adolescent girl can ask her doctor for birth control - knowing that information will not be shared with her mother or father.
Most girls will tell their parents, health officials said, but the girls have a right to privacy here, as in 20 other states and the District of Columbia.
"We promote abstinence as the best choice for teenagers," said Bonnie S. Birkel, director of Maryland's Center for Maternal and Child Health, "but we don't deny services to anyone."
Under the laws of 20 states and the District of Columbia a pre-teen can walk into a school administered health clinic (not the school nurse apparently, but if there is a clinic staffed by a nurse practitioner) she can ask and receive birth control pills WITHOUT NOTIFYING HER PARENTS OR GUARDIAN!!!!.
This kind of a law, while it may have lead to a reduction in the teen pregnancy rate, completely undermines the role of parents in the healthcare decisions related to their children. In Maine, the rationale for providing the birth control is that some girls will not want to discuss the matter with their parents. In Maryland, officials believe that the most girls will tell their parents. Unless the girls in Maine are of a completely different sub-species of girls than those in Maryland, the chances are that no girl tells their parents because to do so will indicate to the parents that they are sexually active.
There are so many health risks associated with not telling the parents that it is hard to fathom how this was even made law. First, there is the hormonal content of a birth control pill and the effect on younger girls, even those who have reached menses. This is no a simple matter of giving a child a Tylenol, which washes out of the system in relatively short order, but a pill that alters and regulates the hormones in a body, a body that is still growing and changing on practically a daily basis.
Second, the hormones in a birth control pill can interact with other drugs that may need to be prescribed. Unless the young girl informs the health care worker giving out the pill, there is a risk of interaction. If a girl gets another prescription from her regular doctor and the parents don't know of the birth control pills, there is a risk of an interaction. There is a reason why doctors ask questions about whether you are taking any medications before prescribing a new medication--it is to prevent dangerous interactions.
But aside from the medical/physical side of things, there is a conflict with other laws. For example, under most state laws, including Maryland, a doctor may not treat a child for say a broken leg without parental approval. Absent a life-threatening injury, doctors are supposed to wait for parental approval to do much of anything to any minor, even those as old as 17. Yet, girls as young as 11 can get birth control. How are we to reconcile those two policies? A girl with a broken arm can't authorize treatment of her arm because the law has deemed her incapable of making that choice, but she is capable of making a decision to get birth control?
Either she is old to enough to authorize all medical treatment or she is not old enough to authorize any medical treatment. Choose one policy because the conflict is too great.
The argument that a child is "entitled" to a right of privacy is ludicrous. A girl as young as 11 or 12 is not entitled to the same rights as an 18, 19 or 20 year old. There are so many other reductions in her rights that to say she enjoys a full right of privacy on this matter is ridiculous and flies in the face of logic. For example, in the schools in Frederick County, a high school girl or boy for that matter, cannot take a prescription drug for allergies without oversight by the school nurse. So the right to take a doctor prescribed antibiotic is circumscribed, but not the right to OBTAIN birth control. Is there anything else so ludicrous as that particular dichotomy?
One by-product of this debate is that there will be a fair number of state legislatures put on the defensive about this particular law, not that I expect that Democratically controlled Maryland General Assembly to change the law (that would make sense), but at least there will be some questioning.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Maine Middle School to Offer the Pill
Portland, Maine school officials voted to permit a middle school to dispense contraceptives. Yes, a middle school--and we are not talking about condoms, we are also talking about birth control pills.
The sexualization of our youngsters is bad enough when talking about consumer products such as dolls (the Bratz line in particular) or clothes (do 10-year-old girls really need thong underwear marketed to them?) because parents can exercise reasonable control over the purchases of their children. But when contraception in the form of condoms has been available to 11, 12 and 13 year olds in a middle school for five years and now contraceptive drugs are now available, we have strayed into an utterly surreal world. We need to be teaching our 11-13 year olds about responsible sexual behavior and at 13, that should include a warning that they don't need contraceptives because they shouldn't be engaging in any activity that would require such drugs.
The hypersexualization of American kids needs to stop.
Only one member of the school board in Portland got this right. Contraception is a duty of the parents and there is no reason for a school health center to be providing these services. I can envision a reasonalbe argument for high schools (I don't like it but I can see the rationale), but not for middle schools.
I don't brook the argument that "kids are going to do it whether we counsel against it or not." Such an argument is a surrender to the notion that kids run the world and the schools. I also don't brook the argument that some kids don't feel comfortable talking about sex with their parents. No kid does, but that doesn't detract from the parental responsiblity to do so. It is not a fun conversation for either side, but it is one that is just as important as "Don't do drugs."
Political leaders and school officials issue a regular hew and cry about the lack of parental involvement in our children's schooling and lives. Yet then we have steps like this one which not offers a mechanism for parents to abdicate their role, but practically begs the parent to not be involved in this aspect of their kids lives because the school makes these services available.
Pupils at a city middle school will be able to get birth control pills and patches at their student health center after the local school board approved the proposal Wednesday evening.I hope it is not just me that feels quesy about this step. I certainly hope that the school health center must obtain specific consent to dispense contraceptives rather than just a generalized consent to dispense drugs, but I would not be surprised if it were not required.
The plan, offered by city health officials, makes King Middle School the first middle school in Maine to make a full range of contraception available to students in grades 6 through 8, according to the state Department of Health and Human Services....
The Portland School Committee voted 5-2 for the measure.
Chairman John Coynie voted against it, saying he felt providing the birth control was a parental responsibility. The other no vote came from Ben Meiklejohn, who said the consent form does not clearly define the services being offered.
Opponents cited religious and health objections.
Diane Miller said she felt the plan was against religion and against God. Another opponent, Peter Doyle, said he felt it violated the rights of parents and puts students at risk of cancer because of hormones in the pill.
A supporter, Richard Verrier, said it's not enough to depend on parents to protect their children because there may be students who can't discuss things with their parents.
Condoms have been available since 2002 to King students who have parental permission to be treated at its student health center.
The sexualization of our youngsters is bad enough when talking about consumer products such as dolls (the Bratz line in particular) or clothes (do 10-year-old girls really need thong underwear marketed to them?) because parents can exercise reasonable control over the purchases of their children. But when contraception in the form of condoms has been available to 11, 12 and 13 year olds in a middle school for five years and now contraceptive drugs are now available, we have strayed into an utterly surreal world. We need to be teaching our 11-13 year olds about responsible sexual behavior and at 13, that should include a warning that they don't need contraceptives because they shouldn't be engaging in any activity that would require such drugs.
The hypersexualization of American kids needs to stop.
Only one member of the school board in Portland got this right. Contraception is a duty of the parents and there is no reason for a school health center to be providing these services. I can envision a reasonalbe argument for high schools (I don't like it but I can see the rationale), but not for middle schools.
I don't brook the argument that "kids are going to do it whether we counsel against it or not." Such an argument is a surrender to the notion that kids run the world and the schools. I also don't brook the argument that some kids don't feel comfortable talking about sex with their parents. No kid does, but that doesn't detract from the parental responsiblity to do so. It is not a fun conversation for either side, but it is one that is just as important as "Don't do drugs."
Political leaders and school officials issue a regular hew and cry about the lack of parental involvement in our children's schooling and lives. Yet then we have steps like this one which not offers a mechanism for parents to abdicate their role, but practically begs the parent to not be involved in this aspect of their kids lives because the school makes these services available.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
There's An Unemployment Angle We Should Be Happy With
As violence falls in Iraq, cemetery workers feel the pinch :
At what's believed to be the world's largest cemetery, where Shiite Muslims aspire to be buried and millions already have been, business isn't good.I am sure that a surging Iraqi economy in other sectors can find work for these poor displaced workers.
A drop in violence around Iraq has cut burials in the huge Wadi al Salam cemetery here by at least one-third in the past six months, and that's cut the pay of thousands of workers who make their living digging graves, washing corpses or selling burial shrouds.
The Shirnking Budget Deficit
How's this for news, the budget deficit continues to shrink.
This despite efforts by both parties to spend more and more. Could it be that our prosperous economy responds to stupid spending by producing more?
This despite efforts by both parties to spend more and more. Could it be that our prosperous economy responds to stupid spending by producing more?
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Baltimore City Council Considers Supporting Teachers In Contract Dispute
If I were Andres Alonso, I would be screaming at this latest news in the protracted dispute between the Baltimore Public Schools and the Baltimore teachers union.
For those who are not aware, The Baltimore Teachers Union is staging a work to rule protest (which is only partially effective) because of an impasse with the School Board and Alonso over a 45 minute planning session.
For a profession that works largely in a separate environment, I would think that the opportunity to work with ones peers would be a welcome addition to the weekly routine.
For his part, Alonso appears to be standing firm with his demand, as I think he should. I think he should be more public with his reasoning, but I am not handling his press shop. In the end, I think the union comes out looking poorer on this matter. There is room for compromise but that possibility may be at an end now.
Now that the City Council is jumping in, the dynamics are about to shift. I think that Middleton is too beholden to the union and has what to me looks like a clear conflict of interest. Whether the resolution passes or not, the City Council is not making things better for getting involved. With elections coming up for Mayor and for City Council, the matter is now too politicized for any meaningful resolution.
Neither Alonso nor the union itself can really get a settlement without looking like they were pressured into it. Alonso, if he gives in, will look as though he caved to city council pressure, a stance he can't afford to be pushed into. For its part, the union looks like it can't negotiate without government interference and it looks weak. In short, everyone loses.
By everyone, I mean everyone, including the kids in Baltimore schools, who are the ultimate victims here. They are victims of the pettiness of the adults in the education system and their elected leaders. What lesson for them in all of this?
For those who are not aware, The Baltimore Teachers Union is staging a work to rule protest (which is only partially effective) because of an impasse with the School Board and Alonso over a 45 minute planning session.
Schools chief Andres Alonso wants principals to have the authority to require teachers to spend one planning period - about 45 minutes a week - collaborating with colleagues. The union says it considers the change a loss of planning time. Protesters at the school board meeting called for Alonso's ouster over the dispute.Well, now the City Council is getting involved by supporting the teachers union.
A dispute between the Baltimore Teachers Union and the chief of the city school system spilled into the City Council last night with the introduction of a nonbinding resolution supporting the union in the impasse.Try as I might, I just can't seem to wrap my head around this dispute. Collaboration with colleagues is a useful tool and the time could be put to use to for overall planning purposes. Imagine a group of second grade teachers collaboratively designing a lesson for reading or math. Or those same teachers could work together to help improve their skills in presenting information--you know doing things to make themselves better teachers.
Councilwoman Sharon Green Middleton, a former teacher and the wife of labor leader Glenard Middleton, introduced the resolution, which was sent to the council's labor committee.
Last week the councilwoman and her husband were among more than 150 protesters who protested a proposed change that could affect the way teachers use planning time.
For a profession that works largely in a separate environment, I would think that the opportunity to work with ones peers would be a welcome addition to the weekly routine.
For his part, Alonso appears to be standing firm with his demand, as I think he should. I think he should be more public with his reasoning, but I am not handling his press shop. In the end, I think the union comes out looking poorer on this matter. There is room for compromise but that possibility may be at an end now.
Now that the City Council is jumping in, the dynamics are about to shift. I think that Middleton is too beholden to the union and has what to me looks like a clear conflict of interest. Whether the resolution passes or not, the City Council is not making things better for getting involved. With elections coming up for Mayor and for City Council, the matter is now too politicized for any meaningful resolution.
Neither Alonso nor the union itself can really get a settlement without looking like they were pressured into it. Alonso, if he gives in, will look as though he caved to city council pressure, a stance he can't afford to be pushed into. For its part, the union looks like it can't negotiate without government interference and it looks weak. In short, everyone loses.
By everyone, I mean everyone, including the kids in Baltimore schools, who are the ultimate victims here. They are victims of the pettiness of the adults in the education system and their elected leaders. What lesson for them in all of this?
Boston Law Firm Bans Billable Hour
Boston Law Firm Bans Billable Hour. I get their point, as billable hours does inhibit efficiency to some degree.
However, having now been on both sides of the billable hour madness, I can tell you that it is inefficient and does disincentivize certain behaviors. It was also pretty common in service industries, law is just lagging behind.
For example, in medicine you pay for procedures or the doctor's visit. While that makes drawing a line between what you got and what you paid for, it does not incentivize efficient care. The incentive is to have very short visits (so the doctor can get more in--just think--when was the last time your doctor's visit lasted more than 10 minutes) and to have multiple procedures and tests.
While per transaction or per action billing may work for many legal services--for example, the creation of a simple will or the processing of an immigration visa. It may not work well for other services--litigation being one. Lawyers and legal consultants could spend thousands of hours coming up with a billing schedule and it would be subject to constant revision. Is that worth the effort?
However, having now been on both sides of the billable hour madness, I can tell you that it is inefficient and does disincentivize certain behaviors. It was also pretty common in service industries, law is just lagging behind.
For example, in medicine you pay for procedures or the doctor's visit. While that makes drawing a line between what you got and what you paid for, it does not incentivize efficient care. The incentive is to have very short visits (so the doctor can get more in--just think--when was the last time your doctor's visit lasted more than 10 minutes) and to have multiple procedures and tests.
While per transaction or per action billing may work for many legal services--for example, the creation of a simple will or the processing of an immigration visa. It may not work well for other services--litigation being one. Lawyers and legal consultants could spend thousands of hours coming up with a billing schedule and it would be subject to constant revision. Is that worth the effort?
Friday, October 12, 2007
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Baltimore Teachers Call for Superintendent Ouster
Well, that didn't take long. The Baltimore Teachers Union, upset with the progress of contract negotiations, over planning time, plan to call a vote of no confidence in Superintendent Andres Alonso, who has been on the job for only four months.
I think that the dispute over planning time is asinine. We are talking about nine minutes a day. In a previous post on this subject, I made these comments:
Well, welcome to the world of professionals. I work a full day, often 8 to 6 with another three to four hours of work at home. That is that nature of being a professional. You cannot claim to be a professional deserving of professional work standards and then complaint about the work conditions.
I also got the comment that I don't know what it is like to teach in Baltimore and that I should follow a "dedicated" teacher around for a week. Well, that commenter is right--I don't know what it is like to teach in Baltimore but assuming I could get paid on my job to follow a teacher around, I can guarantee you this--they won't like my assessment, even if I do sympathize with that teacher.
But what I do know is that if the teacher's union really believes their own rhetoric about wanting to put kids first, then the would just give up this silly little objection (and yes it is silly). I like the fact that Alonso is standing up and saying that it is non-negotiable. That is what a leader does, set priorities and stick to them. The union has agreed to a pay and benefits package. They should take their money and then perform. If you can prove to the students, their parents and the community that they are worth the money spent on their pay package, then at the next negotiation, they can revisit the planning time issue.
What the teachers union really wants is a group of stooges, both on the school board and in the Super's office. That is not what the students of Baltimore need. They need leaders, and teachers, that will actually follow my Ten Commandments of Education. The first one reads:
Demonstrate that, prove that and then we can talk about planning time. Until then, teachers must take a back seat to the kids. Only Andres Alonso appears to truly have his real clients interest at heart.
The dispute centers on what would seem to be a minor issue: 45 minutes a week of planning time. Alonso wants principals to have the authority to require teachers to spend one planning period a week collaborating with colleagues. The union says teachers don't have enough planning time as it is.Alonso is right. For far too long, school boards and superintendents have caved when it comes to contract negotiations. But Alonso is right, the issue is not really about planning time, that is only the context of the battle. The real battle is whether the kids will take precedence in a school system or the adults. For many people involved in education, the protection of the adults has seemed to take priority of what is best for kids.
The contract for the union expired July 1, and negotiations are at an impasse. The two sides have reached an agreement over pay and benefits.
"This is absolutely asinine that we are out here fighting over planning time," said Loretta Johnson, co-president of the union, which represents teachers and aides.
But Alonso said after the board meeting that he's not budging.
"The city has to make a choice," he said. "Is it about adult interests, or is it about kids?"
In a meeting this week with The Sun editorial board, Alonso said of the union dispute: "It's almost like defining the terms of engagement. I'm working from principle, not a political stance, and I think for some people in this city, that is so new."
I think that the dispute over planning time is asinine. We are talking about nine minutes a day. In a previous post on this subject, I made these comments:
The thing that really chafes me is that the impasse is over planning time--planning time. In a work day that is already an hour or so shorter than the rest of the world but France, and includes a 45 minute lunch break, further shortening the work day, the Baltimore teachers union is upset about planning time. Not having too many kids in the class, not pay, not benefits, not even the condition of classrooms (i.e. no heat or A/C) but planning time.In return, I got the comment that because a teacher spends six or more hours a day presenting material, they need planning time. But that is a false argument. By that standard, a teacher would need forty-five minutes a day to plan presentations for the entire day. Are you seriously telling me that an extra nine minutes a day is really going to help you? The same commenter noted that she/he works a 7-7 day and usually takes work home.
I don't know of any other job, unionized or otherwise, that even considers planning time a negotiable condition and the cause for a labor demonstration. The fact that heartens me is that I know many teachers will ignore the union and go about doing their jobs for our children the best they know how.
Well, welcome to the world of professionals. I work a full day, often 8 to 6 with another three to four hours of work at home. That is that nature of being a professional. You cannot claim to be a professional deserving of professional work standards and then complaint about the work conditions.
I also got the comment that I don't know what it is like to teach in Baltimore and that I should follow a "dedicated" teacher around for a week. Well, that commenter is right--I don't know what it is like to teach in Baltimore but assuming I could get paid on my job to follow a teacher around, I can guarantee you this--they won't like my assessment, even if I do sympathize with that teacher.
But what I do know is that if the teacher's union really believes their own rhetoric about wanting to put kids first, then the would just give up this silly little objection (and yes it is silly). I like the fact that Alonso is standing up and saying that it is non-negotiable. That is what a leader does, set priorities and stick to them. The union has agreed to a pay and benefits package. They should take their money and then perform. If you can prove to the students, their parents and the community that they are worth the money spent on their pay package, then at the next negotiation, they can revisit the planning time issue.
What the teachers union really wants is a group of stooges, both on the school board and in the Super's office. That is not what the students of Baltimore need. They need leaders, and teachers, that will actually follow my Ten Commandments of Education. The first one reads:
Your "clients" must come first.Commandmant One. Thou shall never forget that the most important people in schools are the students, first, last and always. Nothing trumps their importance, not your job or your cousin/uncle/aunt/mistress' job, not your favorite policy, not the school principal, not the school board, not even the teachers. Nothing!!Far too often, the adults involved in the education of our children look upon their role as somehow more important than the kids. Any policy or program that employs more adults should be looked up skeptically and properly disposed of. Educating kids, while a noble vocation, does not make your personal profession more important than those you serve.
Demonstrate that, prove that and then we can talk about planning time. Until then, teachers must take a back seat to the kids. Only Andres Alonso appears to truly have his real clients interest at heart.
O'Malley and Slots
The Frederick News Post Reports:
Governor Martin O’Malley said he’s open to the possibility of a referendum on slot-machine gambling. The Washington Post reported the idea was floated this week in private meetings between O’Malley and state lawmakers. O’Malley told The Post he’s open to all ideas that build consensus. Some lawmakers say a referendum could help break the legislative logjam on the issue. But Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, who supports slot machines, called the referendum idea “ludicrous.” A referendum would require a three-fifths majority in both houses, and the issue would not appear on the ballot until next fall.Of course, these same state lawmakers didn't like slots when Bob Ehrlich was governor, but now that they are on the short side of a budget deficit, it is looking like a good thing.
Liberal Outrage
Rick Moran has a great piece on the whole outrage on the left about the right's reaction to Graeme Frost.
Moran has more and it is worth the read.
The problem as far as I can see it is that conservatives must have erased their blog posts in the middle of the night of all the nasty things they’ve written about little Graeme while no lefties were looking because for the life of me, I can’t seem to find a single example from any conservative blog where one negative word has been written about a 12 year old little boy suffering the pain and trauma from an automobile accident. Not one. Zero. Nada. Zilch.Moran is right. I have not seen anyone actually criticize the child, but all the invective is against his parents.
There has, of course, been plenty written about his parents.
Moran has more and it is worth the read.
Maybe Some Should Have Guarded Him A Little Better
over the weekend, in the Dutch soccer league Heerenveen defeated SC Heracles Almelo by a score of 9-0. While the rout was bad enough for the second to last place club Heracles, the embarassment goes far deeper.
What could be worse that losing a professional soccer match by nine goals? Well, allowing one man, Afonso Alves to score three goals within nine minutes in the first half would be pretty bad. But wait, it gets worse, much, much worse. In the second half, Heerenveen scored five goals in 13 minutes.
Oh, no, wait for it!! It really does get worse.
Of the five goals scored in those 13 minutes, four, that is right FOUR of them were scored by Afonso Alves.
Alves scored seven goals in one game. You would have thought that Heracles would have double teamed him or something.
What could be worse that losing a professional soccer match by nine goals? Well, allowing one man, Afonso Alves to score three goals within nine minutes in the first half would be pretty bad. But wait, it gets worse, much, much worse. In the second half, Heerenveen scored five goals in 13 minutes.
Oh, no, wait for it!! It really does get worse.
Of the five goals scored in those 13 minutes, four, that is right FOUR of them were scored by Afonso Alves.
Alves scored seven goals in one game. You would have thought that Heracles would have double teamed him or something.
Charles Jenkins Did Not Violate His Oath of Office
Of all the charges thrown about regarding the Frederick County immigration proposal by Commissioner Charles Jenkins, the most irresposible is the charge that Jenkins somehow violated his oath of office. Local NAACP chapter president Guy Djoken is one culprit.
If proposing a law that would change existing law is a violation of one's oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, then every time a Congressmen went to the well of the House to drop a bill in the hopper, she would be violating her oath. The same holds true with any other legislator or elected official.
Jenkins did not violate his oath of office by proposing a change in the law or by proposing that a 25 year old court precedent be challenged. Had laws challenging court precedents never been passed, we would not have the nation we have. We could possibly still have slavery as a legal institution and we certainly would have segregation. Laws that are proposed and debated that seek to change existing law is how our nation grows and develops. We cannot have changes to the law without proposing changes, and proposing changes to the law is at the very heart of a legislators and County Commissioners duty.
Jan Gardner and Guy Djoken, you owe Charles Jenkins and apology and until you give him one, you can bet that neither of you will receive any support from me for anything, no matter how right you might be.
While Charles Jenkins may not be in the same position, I can afford to be vindictive.
Crossposted
"Without any actual data sustaining his view, (Jenkins) is embarking on a campaign at odds with the current laws and his oath of office," said Guy Djoken, branch president for the Frederick County branch of the NAACP.County Commission President Jan Gardner is another:
Gardner has said all along she opposes Jenkins' proposal, primarily because the federal government should craft immigration policy, but also because she does not believe school children should be targeted.To accuse Commissioner Jenkins of violating his oath of office is ludicrous on its face and Jenkins would be well within his rights to demand an apology from Gardner at least.
She has accused Jenkins of wanting to willingly break the law and violating his oath of office to the constitution.
If proposing a law that would change existing law is a violation of one's oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, then every time a Congressmen went to the well of the House to drop a bill in the hopper, she would be violating her oath. The same holds true with any other legislator or elected official.
Jenkins did not violate his oath of office by proposing a change in the law or by proposing that a 25 year old court precedent be challenged. Had laws challenging court precedents never been passed, we would not have the nation we have. We could possibly still have slavery as a legal institution and we certainly would have segregation. Laws that are proposed and debated that seek to change existing law is how our nation grows and develops. We cannot have changes to the law without proposing changes, and proposing changes to the law is at the very heart of a legislators and County Commissioners duty.
Jan Gardner and Guy Djoken, you owe Charles Jenkins and apology and until you give him one, you can bet that neither of you will receive any support from me for anything, no matter how right you might be.
While Charles Jenkins may not be in the same position, I can afford to be vindictive.
Crossposted
SCHIP and the Consequences of Choice
Another flaming idiot in Maryland.
Andrew Kujan has turned into the bane of our existence at Red Maryland. Brian Griffiths has already taken on Kujan on this post, but I think I have to throw in a couple of cents.
I have no issue with private schooling, if parents choose that route. I have no issue with parents who choose not to have health care for them or their children (as insane as that decision may be). I have house envy of the Frosts, but they have their home and I have mine. They have made their choices and they should suffer the consequences of their choices.
My problem is that I, as a taxpayer, should not have to subsidize their choices. Maybe the kids are on a scholarship to that private school, I don't know. But you have to question the prioritization of spending in a family of six, with four kids in private school, a huge house in a tony Baltimore neighborhood and no health insurance.
The political issue of SCHIP is that the Democrats and Kujan by extension, want to expand it beyond its original scope. The program was designed from the start to cover poor children, those living at or below the federal poverty line. It was not intended to cover their parents, it was not intended to cover a family of six with apparently considerable resources (as evidenced by a large house and private education). It was for poor people who had no other means of obtaining health care for their kids.
The real issue is that people make choices and those choices carry consequences. The government should not be in the business of cushioning those people who make choices and then desire protection from the consequences.
Andrew Kujan has turned into the bane of our existence at Red Maryland. Brian Griffiths has already taken on Kujan on this post, but I think I have to throw in a couple of cents.
I have no issue with private schooling, if parents choose that route. I have no issue with parents who choose not to have health care for them or their children (as insane as that decision may be). I have house envy of the Frosts, but they have their home and I have mine. They have made their choices and they should suffer the consequences of their choices.
My problem is that I, as a taxpayer, should not have to subsidize their choices. Maybe the kids are on a scholarship to that private school, I don't know. But you have to question the prioritization of spending in a family of six, with four kids in private school, a huge house in a tony Baltimore neighborhood and no health insurance.
The political issue of SCHIP is that the Democrats and Kujan by extension, want to expand it beyond its original scope. The program was designed from the start to cover poor children, those living at or below the federal poverty line. It was not intended to cover their parents, it was not intended to cover a family of six with apparently considerable resources (as evidenced by a large house and private education). It was for poor people who had no other means of obtaining health care for their kids.
The real issue is that people make choices and those choices carry consequences. The government should not be in the business of cushioning those people who make choices and then desire protection from the consequences.
Frederick County's Immigration Proposal Fails
An effort by Frederick County Commissioner Charles Jenkins to limit some social services spending on illegal immigrants failed by a 3-2 vote last night. In its place was a ridiculous call from Commission President Jan Gardner and Commissioner David Gray to ask the General Assembly to pass a resolution that
No concrete action other than watching TV is called for. Like the Delegates are going to have time to do that! Gardner and Gray are simply living in a dream land quite apart from you and I. Said Gardner:
Commissioner Gray also floored me with his belief that a mid-size county in a mid-to smallish state is going to have an impact on the Federal Government's policy. As I said, a dream land:
Jenkins is right, though a resolution to call for a resolution is a pointless exercise and really a waste of the Commission's time as well as that of the Frederick County General Assembly delegation.
I hope Jenkins takes on this issue next year. I suggest he modify his proposal to take out his weakest link--education services. Education is a tender subject and his proposal was of questionable legality. In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that a state could not deny public education benefits to illegal immigrants. While the Court has changed and the immigration picture as well, denying an education is a tricky solution.
If Jenkins were to carve out education services and beef up his argument about spending, he may have a better chance next year.
Cross Posted at RedMaryland.
called for the state and federal governments to solve a "dysfunctional national immigration system and policy," and to stop asking local governments to foot the bill for the impact of illegal immigrants.What???
It proposed no county action, instead urging specific measures for state and federal leaders to take and requesting they read e-mails sent to the commissioners and view a DVD recording of last week's public hearing on the proposal.
No concrete action other than watching TV is called for. Like the Delegates are going to have time to do that! Gardner and Gray are simply living in a dream land quite apart from you and I. Said Gardner:
The resolution tried to acknowledge the issues and direct positive community dialogue that isn't divisive.While I admit that Jenkins' proposal resulted in a divisive debate, it became divisive by the interest groups involved in the matter. The proposal itself is about allocating scarce resources, should it go to those who are citizens and those in this country legally or should it go to those who disregard our laws with apparent impunity? Granted, some aspects of Jenkins' proposal were of questionable constitutionality, it doesn't mean it is unworthy of a real debate in Annapolis.
Commissioner Gray also floored me with his belief that a mid-size county in a mid-to smallish state is going to have an impact on the Federal Government's policy. As I said, a dream land:
Gray said he hoped it could spur the federal government to make some changes and give people hope a solution can be found.It is never to going to spur the federal government to do anything since the touchy-feely resolution is never going to pass Annapolis, let alone make any dent in federal immigration policy. Is it sad that we are at each other's throats policitcally, yes, it is. But we as a county have been put in this position by a failure of the federal and state governments. It is time that we be the ones to step up to the plate and help ourselves, because surely no one else is going to do it.
"It's putting people at each other's throats unnecessarily and I think that's sad," Gray said.
Jenkins is right, though a resolution to call for a resolution is a pointless exercise and really a waste of the Commission's time as well as that of the Frederick County General Assembly delegation.
I hope Jenkins takes on this issue next year. I suggest he modify his proposal to take out his weakest link--education services. Education is a tender subject and his proposal was of questionable legality. In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that a state could not deny public education benefits to illegal immigrants. While the Court has changed and the immigration picture as well, denying an education is a tricky solution.
If Jenkins were to carve out education services and beef up his argument about spending, he may have a better chance next year.
Cross Posted at RedMaryland.
Local Media and Education Statistics
Friends of Dave parses a story from a local paper in California. When major dailies make mistakes like these, they tend to get shredded by lots of people. When local media does it, there is very little accountability to the public. This is why so many people have a wrong impression of NCLB and education policy, because it is reported so poorly.
An Interview with Nanny State author David Harsanyi
Bill Steigerwald has the interview with Harsanyi at Townhall.
Q: What’s “Nanny State” about?Go read the interview.
A: It’s about the difference between coercing someone to do the right thing and convincing them to do the right thing. In the Nanny State, we coerce them -- or the government does, at least. All these intrusions -- what we eat, what we smoke, what we watch -- one by one they don’t seem like they are much. But when you bundle them together, you have a movement, and a movement that undermines our freedoms. That’s what the book’s about. ...
Q: Who’s responsible for this Nanny State -- liberals, conservatives, Jane Fonda, Jerry Falwell?
A: All of the above. I would say that the left typically believes that government can make us better people and protect us from all the vagaries of life. On the right, at least rhetorically, we hear a lot about individual freedom. But in the past few years, and maybe it’s compassionate conservatism, we see the Republican Party coddling adults as well and buying into the Nanny State. It’s still not as bad as the liberals, but bad enough. But there are many different kinds of people involved in the Nanny State and it’s driven by all kinds of concerns -- hyper-risk-aversion and political correctness are also part of it. It’s not like you can pin it down to one or two types of people. It’s a bunch of people.
Health Care Competition
John Stossel:
The areas of medical care and services that are not covered by insurance, i.e. plastic surgery and laser eye surgery among them. It funny how much doctors who don't rely on government subsidies or insurance payments really do try to help their patients. While Stossel, of course, can only profile a couple of doctors, he does well with his choices. When government and insurance companies are kept away from the transaction, good new things happen. He writes:
Tell that to the Presidential candidates.
Health-care costs overall have been rising faster than inflation, but not all medical costs are skyrocketing. In a few pockets of medicine, costs are down while quality is up.What are those few pockets?
The areas of medical care and services that are not covered by insurance, i.e. plastic surgery and laser eye surgery among them. It funny how much doctors who don't rely on government subsidies or insurance payments really do try to help their patients. While Stossel, of course, can only profile a couple of doctors, he does well with his choices. When government and insurance companies are kept away from the transaction, good new things happen. He writes:
A doctor in Tennessee I talked to publishes his low prices, such as $40 for an office visit. can't make money this way. But Dr. Robert Berry told me you can. "Last year, I made about the average of what a primary-care physician makes in this country," he said.It really is as simple as market economics. The demand for health care is there, we know that it is. There is a vast supply of health care avaialable, perhaps too much. So market forces say that prices should go down. However, they don' because of government and insurance company intervention. But when those two forces are absent, the market works, just like it should.
Berry doesn't accept insurance. That saves him money because he doesn't have to hire a staff to process insurance claims, and he never has to fight with companies to get paid.
His mostly uninsured patients save money, too. Unlike doctors trapped in the insurance maze, Berry works with his patients to find ways to save them money.
"It's coming out of their pockets. And they're afraid. They don't know how much it's going to cost. So I can tell them, 'OK, you have heartburn. Let's start out with generic Zantac, which costs around five dollars a month.'" When his patients ask about expensive prescription medicines they see advertised on television, he tells them, "They're great medicines, but why don't you try this one first and see if it works?"
Sometimes the $4 pills from Wal-Mart are just as good as the $100 ones.
Speaking of Wal-Mart, medical clinics are popping up in Wal-Mart stores and in other similar markets. The clinics offer people with simple problems like sore throats and ear infections relatively hassle-free care cheap. Almost everything costs $59 or less. And the clinics are typically open seven days a week.
When consumers pay for medicine themselves, saving insurance for the big things, and doctors deal directly with consumers, doctors begin to compete. They start posting prices and work to keep them low.Health care is not a right and there is no need for government intervention beyond being a market player as an insurance agency. If consumer paid for routine care out of their own pocket and saved insurance for the big things, like a long term illness or a surgery, then you see costs go down.
And consumers gain more control of their health care. Instead of governments and insurance companies deciding for patients, patients decide.
Competition gives consumers more choices. And choice gives them power. Remember that when you hear a politician promise to make health case accessible and affordable through the force of government.
Tell that to the Presidential candidates.
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
What If Heidi Fleiss or Deborah Jean Palfrey Sponsored Your Soccer Team
A lower division Italian soccer club has done something similar. In America at least, players are required to do some public appearances on behalf of sponsors. MLS limits it to no more than a couple per month and a max number of total appearnaces.
If one of your sponsors was an escort agency, you can bet that most players, especially the single ones would waive that contract requirement.
If one of your sponsors was an escort agency, you can bet that most players, especially the single ones would waive that contract requirement.
FIFA's Goalmouth Referees
Hmmm! Not sure what to think of this, either the human element or the computer chip thing.
Liberal's Ethical Lines: An Oxymoron
Christy Hardin Smith:
Yeah, some ethical boundaries.
Look if the Democrats pick a boy to be their "spokesman" they should have done a better job vetting him. If he lives in a 3,000 square foot in a tony Baltimore neighborhood, some questions are going to be asked.
The difference between the far right wing and the far left wing: the far right will do anything — anything — so long as the ends justifies the means. The far left folks have ethical boundaries that they try very hard not to cross: things like attacking other people’s minor children is bad form, let alone harassing a family that includes a child with severe brain damage from an auto accident.Oh like smearing a General? Like sending Michelle Malkin (the supposed target of this attack) hate mail, bigoted statements and racial epithats.
Yeah, some ethical boundaries.
Look if the Democrats pick a boy to be their "spokesman" they should have done a better job vetting him. If he lives in a 3,000 square foot in a tony Baltimore neighborhood, some questions are going to be asked.
The Politics of Exit Exams
The Baltimore Sun looks at the politics and perils of high school exit exams--the chance that some kids won't pass.
These are two very different questions. One is a question about education and pedagogy, the other is about political CYA and unfortunately the latter does nothing to help kids.
In Maryland,
The problem of course is that people are making all kinds of excuses for the kids. Everything for English as as Second Language (ESL) students to kids with "test anxiety" are going to get a pass from the exam requirement. While federal law requires states make accomodations for students with verified disabilities, my fear is that test anxiety will become a disability and that means they will probably get a pass.
No one seems to be asking an important but relevant question. What is the reason why kids are failing the tests? I find it difficult to believe that an average of 30% of students haven't passed the tests (statewide) without a reason. Do we even know what kids are missing on the tests? Assuming such an analysis has been done as to which questions are being missed, what is the cause. With 66,000 students in the class of 2009, surely there must be some statistical pointers.
Another relevant question might be how well does the test match up with the curriculum? One could easily assume that the two match, but that may not be the case at all.
The answers to these questions should lead to either a better curriculum or a better test. But we cannot and should not allow ourselves to be led down the path of softening the requirement. Sure, it is politically scary to be looking at 2,000 to 3,000 students and telling them they won't graduate because they haven't passed the requisite tests. Even scarier is the prospect of looking their parents in the eye and saying the same thing.
Make no mistake, the finger pointing is going to be ugly. But the blame rests not only on teh students, but on their schools, their teachers and their politicians. The parents are not without their share of the blame, either. But no one should escape accountability and letting the students off the hook allows them and everyone else to escape the consequences of their failure and no one has learned a thing.
For all the states with an exit exam, when it was developed, it was easy as there were no human faces associated with the failure of the exam or the failure of the policy. Now we as citizens are looking at both squarely. If you are going to have an exit exam and spend millions to develop it, you can't simply scrap it because the price is suddenly too high. Either it was a good policy to begin with or it is not. If state policy makers think it is a bad idea, they should say so instead of trying to end run around the problem by granting some dispensation because a kid can't pass the test. In either case, we must take responsibility.
We will do better in the long run by failing these kids now and figuring why they are passing rather than to give them a pass.
Maryland isn't the first state to have second thoughts about denying diplomas to thousands of high school kids who can't pass state tests.So the question that is asked by policy makers is not "What should we do to help each kid pass the test as written?" but the question becomes "What can we do to get around the exit exam requirement so that I can look tough on standards without actually holding everyone accountable?"
As the graduation deadline grew near, Washington state delayed requiring its math exam. Utah dropped the testing requirement altogether. In Massachusetts, the teachers union mounted an ad campaign against the tests - though the state held firm.
And in California, parents got angry and filed a class action suit. Students still have to pass the tests to get a diploma, but they can stay in high school for up to six years if that's what it takes.
Across the nation, state leaders have gotten nervous as the date approaches to deny high school diplomas. They have agonized over what to do, though in the end, only Utah has decided to do away with the requirement.
"States realize that they have set standards that kids simply aren't able to meet ... or the failure rates are simply too high politically," said Jay Heubert, a professor at the Teachers College, Columbia University.
These are two very different questions. One is a question about education and pedagogy, the other is about political CYA and unfortunately the latter does nothing to help kids.
In Maryland,
State data released last month showed that 68 percent of students in the Class of 2009 have passed the English exam. In Baltimore, 41 percent have passed. Statewide, there was a 77 percent pass rate on the algebra, 71 percent on government and 62 percent on biology.Under the Maryland program, the exams are given to students after they take the relevant class. English is at the 10th grade level.
In concept, making sure that all high school graduates are at least competent in a few basic subjects is easy for politicians to embrace. Maryland began planning more than a decade ago for high school assessments in many subjects. The testing requirement was supposed to take effect for the Class of 2007 but was delayed until 2009.
Then last month, after hearing complaints, state schools Superintendent Nancy S. Grasmick proposed that students who fail the tests three times be allowed to do a senior project instead. Grasmick said it would be a rigorous assignment designed for only a few thousand students a year.
Under Maryland's current rule, students also can get a diploma by getting a minimum composite score on the four tests. And for special-education students and those with testing anxiety, a different but "comparable" test is now being tried out in three districts.
The problem of course is that people are making all kinds of excuses for the kids. Everything for English as as Second Language (ESL) students to kids with "test anxiety" are going to get a pass from the exam requirement. While federal law requires states make accomodations for students with verified disabilities, my fear is that test anxiety will become a disability and that means they will probably get a pass.
No one seems to be asking an important but relevant question. What is the reason why kids are failing the tests? I find it difficult to believe that an average of 30% of students haven't passed the tests (statewide) without a reason. Do we even know what kids are missing on the tests? Assuming such an analysis has been done as to which questions are being missed, what is the cause. With 66,000 students in the class of 2009, surely there must be some statistical pointers.
Another relevant question might be how well does the test match up with the curriculum? One could easily assume that the two match, but that may not be the case at all.
The answers to these questions should lead to either a better curriculum or a better test. But we cannot and should not allow ourselves to be led down the path of softening the requirement. Sure, it is politically scary to be looking at 2,000 to 3,000 students and telling them they won't graduate because they haven't passed the requisite tests. Even scarier is the prospect of looking their parents in the eye and saying the same thing.
Make no mistake, the finger pointing is going to be ugly. But the blame rests not only on teh students, but on their schools, their teachers and their politicians. The parents are not without their share of the blame, either. But no one should escape accountability and letting the students off the hook allows them and everyone else to escape the consequences of their failure and no one has learned a thing.
For all the states with an exit exam, when it was developed, it was easy as there were no human faces associated with the failure of the exam or the failure of the policy. Now we as citizens are looking at both squarely. If you are going to have an exit exam and spend millions to develop it, you can't simply scrap it because the price is suddenly too high. Either it was a good policy to begin with or it is not. If state policy makers think it is a bad idea, they should say so instead of trying to end run around the problem by granting some dispensation because a kid can't pass the test. In either case, we must take responsibility.
We will do better in the long run by failing these kids now and figuring why they are passing rather than to give them a pass.
Gifted Classes--Efforts to Keep Smart Kids From Being Too Educated
Rory from Parentalcation has just moved to Anchorage Alaska (gotta love those military duty rotations) and has decided to not have his 4th grade son tested for the gifted program in Anchorage Schools. His reasoning:
Her teacher regularly notes to us that Elena finishes her work not only quickly, but quite accurately. The biggest problem her teacher has is keeping Elena from getting into trouble with all her free time.
While we have not had to address teh "gifted" problem, yet, I am worried that Rory's experience will become mine. Both my wife and I were "gifted" as children (not to brag or anything). But while we did cover things in greated depth in my gifted classes, we didn't really do anything "advanced." Peanut is bright, energetic and engaged, but I worry that she won't be for long. I want her education to mean something and while we can provide enrichment activities on our own, I worry that it won't be enough.
It wasn't all that hard a decision. His experience last year in South Carolina was a waste of time. He colored more posters in his gifted class than he did in art class.My oldest started kindergarten this year. While we have always encouraged our girls to read and explore things, I didn't think the Peanut was that far advanced for a nearly six year old (she was born in December and thus in kindergarten at almost age six). Was I mistaken.
It seems like the supervisor of Anchorage's gifted program ran across my post, and is concerned (last comment), to quote her:Last week there was a Gifted Parent Forum in Anchorage and its too bad you did not attend. There was much discussion about Gifted Education and the challenges educators face when trying to meet the educational needs of gifted children.I am more concerned about the challenges that gifted children have, than the challenges of their teachers.
Except for the Individualized Acceleration (IA) Program at Rogers Park Elementary, Anchorage's IGNITE gifted program consists of "enrichment opportunities that incorporates universal themes with classroom learning in alignment with the district's standards and goals".
It seems to me that the biggest challenge that gifted teachers have is finding enough time wasting "enrichment" activities to spend time doing to prevent the kids from getting to far ahead.
Her teacher regularly notes to us that Elena finishes her work not only quickly, but quite accurately. The biggest problem her teacher has is keeping Elena from getting into trouble with all her free time.
While we have not had to address teh "gifted" problem, yet, I am worried that Rory's experience will become mine. Both my wife and I were "gifted" as children (not to brag or anything). But while we did cover things in greated depth in my gifted classes, we didn't really do anything "advanced." Peanut is bright, energetic and engaged, but I worry that she won't be for long. I want her education to mean something and while we can provide enrichment activities on our own, I worry that it won't be enough.
More Naked Teachers
The Instapundit links to a story out of Knoxville about an elementary school teacher with non-nude naked pictures.
Oh, no, not again!!
From the newpaper story:
First, the fact that the Schools Security Chief is in charge of policing the actions of school employees in their private lives is simply disturbing. Given that there are real security concerns out there, surely the taxpayer funds spent on his salary and his staff could be better spent than surfing the web looking for nude pictures.
Second, this woman has not apparently violated any laws. She has probably shown more skin at the beach than she does in the photos. She has a right to live her non-school life the way she wants. What she has done is not immmoral, illegal or in any way degrades her ability to do her job.
Third, how is unprofessional defined by Tennessee law. I am sure it is pretty vague. Is drinking unprofessional? Drinking is legal (so long as the person is over 21 and not driving). Is swearing unprofessional? It is free speech. I can see a limit on foul language at work, but if a person is on the street and their car breaks down, they have a right to drop the F-bomb. Is having sex with lots of consulting adults unprofessional? Assuming it isn't happening in public, there is no law against it. Is having naked pictures of oneself on display immoral? It may be lacking in common sense, but it is not immoral or unprofessional--assuming they aren't taken on school grounds.
Fourth, who gets to determine what is unprofessional. The Superintendent? What gives him/her the power to do so? The possibility of arbitrariness is quite great.
Hey, if you want to post naked pictures of yourself, go right ahead. There may be consequences, but the problem is that it is hard to say it is unprofessional. I may be void of common sense but it shouldn't be enough to void your employment.
Oh, no, not again!!
From the newpaper story:
Knox County Schools security officials have turned over partially nude Internet pictures of an elementary school teacher to the district’s human resources administrators.I have so many reactions, I am not sure where to start.
School security chief Steve Griffin said this morning that his department scoured the Web after they received information Friday relating to photographs of Inskip Elementary School teacher Melinda England.
“We found these pictures of her at various sites,” Griffin said this morning.
England described herself as a 28-year-old woman, who has a daughter, according to her profile, he said.
One photograph shows England shirtless, her left hand covering her right breast and her left breast is in the crook of her left elbow.
Another picture shows her lying on her stomach, face down, wearing black panties. Her bare back is visible.
Human resources officials are looking into the matter.
Inskip administrators on Friday sent a letter home to parents alerting them of the situation.
The letter, written by assistant principal Patricia Moore, states that at this time, “we have no allegations or any information that would indicate that Ms. England has done anything inappropriate during school time or in her relationship with students.”
The letter also notes that teachers maintain their First Amendment rights, but there are provisions in Tennessee law that address unprofessional behavior by teachers.
“If the superintendent believes a teacher has acted in an unprofessional manner he may take any action from the level of a verbal reprimand all the way through initiating termination proceedings,” the letter states.
First, the fact that the Schools Security Chief is in charge of policing the actions of school employees in their private lives is simply disturbing. Given that there are real security concerns out there, surely the taxpayer funds spent on his salary and his staff could be better spent than surfing the web looking for nude pictures.
Second, this woman has not apparently violated any laws. She has probably shown more skin at the beach than she does in the photos. She has a right to live her non-school life the way she wants. What she has done is not immmoral, illegal or in any way degrades her ability to do her job.
Third, how is unprofessional defined by Tennessee law. I am sure it is pretty vague. Is drinking unprofessional? Drinking is legal (so long as the person is over 21 and not driving). Is swearing unprofessional? It is free speech. I can see a limit on foul language at work, but if a person is on the street and their car breaks down, they have a right to drop the F-bomb. Is having sex with lots of consulting adults unprofessional? Assuming it isn't happening in public, there is no law against it. Is having naked pictures of oneself on display immoral? It may be lacking in common sense, but it is not immoral or unprofessional--assuming they aren't taken on school grounds.
Fourth, who gets to determine what is unprofessional. The Superintendent? What gives him/her the power to do so? The possibility of arbitrariness is quite great.
Hey, if you want to post naked pictures of yourself, go right ahead. There may be consequences, but the problem is that it is hard to say it is unprofessional. I may be void of common sense but it shouldn't be enough to void your employment.
Fred Thompson on Fairness Doctrine
The whole post is good, but I love this bit:
The real issue here is not what you “can” see or hear — which is what the Fairness Doctrine was about originally. It’s what you’re “choosing” to see or hear.Of course that is what Fairness Doctrine Part Deux is all about, regulating a market that has made a statement. We can't be having that.
OR Teacher Wants Her Gun With Her
I have seen this story in a couple of other places.
Funny thing is that I just re-read the Lopez decision from the Supreme Court which struck donw the Gun Free School Zones act.
I hope she wins. The more teachers are armed, the less likely we are to see Columbine style attacks and tangentially a little more discipline in schools when it relates to teachers.
Funny thing is that I just re-read the Lopez decision from the Supreme Court which struck donw the Gun Free School Zones act.
I hope she wins. The more teachers are armed, the less likely we are to see Columbine style attacks and tangentially a little more discipline in schools when it relates to teachers.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Bill And Hil: Up To Their Old Tricks
Investor's Business Daily looking at a rehash of the 90's, Clinton Style.
Remember the rolling disclosures of the last presidency, when the Clintons would release just enough information after a scandal broke to placate the pliant media? Well, here they go again.
Only this time, they are telegraphing that they will keep certain things altogether secret should they return to the White House as co-presidents. And you thought they couldn't be more brazen.
Both Clintons, for example, have refused to disclose the names of donors to the William J. Clinton Foundation. Bill says he will remain mum about all past donors, though he didn't say that in so many words. As usual, you have to closely parse his words. Speaking of Hillary, he said, "If she gets elected president, I will disclose the contributions that people make from there going forward."
Catch that? He will let the public know about any donations going forward — that is, after January 2009 — but not one donation before then. The $100 million-plus in donations raised for his library, "global initiatives" and other Clinton activities until that point will remain anonymous. In short, he really doesn't plan to disclose a thing.
Bill Clinton--Ambassador At Large
Yet another reason not to vote for Hillary--Bill Clinton, First Gentlemen (as if that doesn't send shivers up your spine) but also Ambassador at large.
Children as state informants
This from Thomas Lifson atAmerican Thinker Blog:
Children are being turned into police informants via their doctor (and nevermind medical confidentiality). This turns out to be widespread, since professional guidelines for pediatricians from the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend interrogating children about the parents.A troubling practice indeed and that is why because of my concerns about my children, either my wife or myself will always be in the examination room until my girls turn 18. (and no, I don't want to go with my daughters to Ob/Gyn appointments when that happens-that is just too weird for both of us.)
Isn't this the sort of thing that liberals claim they are against? Isn't this a lot worse than asking librarians about who has been checking out books about explosives? I thought liberals got excited when the state sticks its nose into the bedroom. But if it turns out that Mom and Dad have their gun safe there, apparently liberals are okay with it.
Because it goes without saying that people who regard guns in the house as per se suspicious are nearly all liberals. It is all done in the name of the best of intentions, of course. Most of the people implementing the policy really do think they are minimizing the risk to children by getting guns out of the house.
For the progressive cause, this sort of intrusion is a two-fer, because it weakens the bonds of family. Ever since Rousseau, the left has regarded the family as an obstacle to the revolutionary transformation of human nature they seek.
The Childishness of America
Candace de Russy has some interesting notes on a book review dealing with a book that argues we has a nation seem to cherish our teenager-ness and how it is affecting how we deal with terrorism. By not being adults, we are damaging our future. This comment just jumped out at me:
But here is the problem, I think Americans know themselves (but don't know the enemy). I think Americans believe they are at heart consumers and don't care. I think they will freely admit to being self-centered--for the most part.
Like the teenager, the problem is that despite our consciousness of it, we don't see any benefit to making any changes.
In any conflict, understanding ourselves is as important as understanding the enemy.This is classic Sun Tzu, who wrote that the general who knows himself and the enemy will always be victorious, if for no other reason than that general will know how and when to fight.
But here is the problem, I think Americans know themselves (but don't know the enemy). I think Americans believe they are at heart consumers and don't care. I think they will freely admit to being self-centered--for the most part.
Like the teenager, the problem is that despite our consciousness of it, we don't see any benefit to making any changes.
A Lesson from Michael Steels
Former Maryland Lieutenant Gov. Michael Steele: "2006? Get over it. It's time to focus on winning... Here's what I learned in 2006: You can't please everyone... but you certainly can make everyone mad at you at the same time."
A very good lesson.
Hat Tip: Jim Geraghty
A very good lesson.
Hat Tip: Jim Geraghty
Why Compliance is a Good Thing
Allison Hayward has the short story of Cynthia McKinney. The moral of the story--comply with the FEC--they make it easy.
Asserting First Amendment Rights Unfortunate?
I respect the work that Professor Rick Hasen has done in the election law field and on some matters, we agree, but I have to say this is one area where we disagree.
The Federal Election Commission is considering rules related to ads exempt under the Wisconsin Right to Life as applied rules. Here are Professor Hasen's comments:
I find it disheartening that organizations have to fight for the right to speak their collective mind, i.e. exercise their first Amendment rights.
As the First Amendment says--"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech or of the press..." Wanting to exercise First Amendment speech rights is not unfortunate, it is iherent.
The Federal Election Commission is considering rules related to ads exempt under the Wisconsin Right to Life as applied rules. Here are Professor Hasen's comments:
I've already noted that the James Madison Center (who represented plaintiff in the WRTL case) has taken the position that the FEC should exempt from disclosure ads entitled to the "as applied" FEC exemption. Richard Briffault and I have taken a contrary position, arguing that the FEC regulations should apply only to whether corporations and unions may use their treasury funds to pay for such ads.I rarely agree with what big labor has to say, but I will fight for their right to say it.
Now, while perusing this page containing all the comments on the rulemaking submitted to the FEC, I see that Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO/AFSCME/SEIU, and National Association of Realtors have taken the same unfortunate position on disclosure as the James Madison Center. (links in original omitted)
I find it disheartening that organizations have to fight for the right to speak their collective mind, i.e. exercise their first Amendment rights.
As the First Amendment says--"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech or of the press..." Wanting to exercise First Amendment speech rights is not unfortunate, it is iherent.
Frederick County's Jenkins Standing Firm on Immigration Plan
Frederick County Commissioner Charles Jenkins refuses to back down from his plan on immigration and county services desipte emotional testimony from Hispanic residents and groups as well as the ire of his colleagues.
The sad part is Commissioner Jenkins and Sheriff Chuck Jenkins (no relation) appear to be the lone voices in County government who have a plan to combat illegal immigration.
At a time when the state government is facing a massive budget deficit and the county government is not exactly rolling in cash either, it would stand to reason that if the county is spending money on providing services to illegal immigrants, there should be a way to combat those expenses.
The problem, of course, is that a policy like the one Jenkins proposes is not "humane." However, there are two specific benefits, beyond the cost savings that would come from his proposal. First, we would finally get a really good idea of how many illegal aliens are in our county as well as how much in services they consume. Second, obviously, is the message that Frederick County is not a sanctuary. If you come to this county as an illegal alien, you are not welcome.
Now Jenkins' plan, which includes cutting off education services, may face some serious legal issues, particularly a Supreme Court ruling that does not allow local school boards to deny public education to the children of illegal immigrants. I would like to see Jenkins' plan as a whole passed and then let the legal process take over on those items that may have some legal complications. However, Jenkins and Board President Jan Gardner are particularly starting to battle on the issue of education.
Here are the contact emails and phone numbers for the Members of the County Commission. Please call them and email them to urge them to include Commissioner Jenkins Plan in the legislative package.
Jan H. Garner, President, email: jgardner@fredco-md.net phone: (301) 600-3190
David P. Gray, Vice President, email: dgray@fredco-md.net phone: (301) 600-1101
Kai Hagen, email: khagen@fredco-md.net phone: (301) 600-1303
John L. "Lennie" Thompson, email: lthompson@fredco-md.net phone: (301) 600-1303
Be sure to send a note of thanks to Commissioner Jenkins at chjenkins@fredco-md.net
Crossposted at Red Maryland
Jenkins (R) said Wednesday he plans to move forward with his proposal requiring all agencies, nonprofits and schools that receive county funding to verify that the people they help are in the country legally.Jenkins is right and there were not nearly enough people in support of the plan at the Tuesday hearing. Those of us who were there were essentially shut out of the process and more than a few were intimidated by the sheer mass of those opposed to Jenkins plan.
Jenkins would withhold funding from any agency or nonprofit that continues to serve illegal immigrants.
‘‘I haven’t changed my mind,” Jenkins said. ‘‘There was some compelling testimony. I’m not without a heart. But there is another side of the coin not heard last night from the people that want to protect our taxpayers. I think that’s lost.”
The commissioners on Tuesday are scheduled to discuss the 19 bills proposed for the package of legislation they will present to the Frederick Delegation to the General Assembly in November.
Due to Frederick’s form of government, certain legislation can only be approved by the General Assembly, even if it would apply to the county.
That includes Jenkins’ immigration plan. He said he wants the illegal immigration bill included because he believes the federal government has failed to protect the U.S. border. He argues that local governments across the country are enacting similar bills because of failure on the federal level.
Jenkins said he has received a lot of e-mail from residents on the issue. Though he did not know the precise number, he said it was ‘‘10-to-1,” meaning that for every e-mail opposed to his proposal, he received 10 in favor.
He said he hoped his supporters would have come out Tuesday night to speak, but believed that pressure from immigration proponents kept them away. ‘‘I think it’s difficult for folks,” he said.
The Frederick chapter of the NAACP, church leaders, immigration groups and local Hispanics packed Frederick City Hall Tuesday night telling Jenkins and his board colleagues that they do not want the immigration proposal included in the legislative package.
The sad part is Commissioner Jenkins and Sheriff Chuck Jenkins (no relation) appear to be the lone voices in County government who have a plan to combat illegal immigration.
At a time when the state government is facing a massive budget deficit and the county government is not exactly rolling in cash either, it would stand to reason that if the county is spending money on providing services to illegal immigrants, there should be a way to combat those expenses.
The problem, of course, is that a policy like the one Jenkins proposes is not "humane." However, there are two specific benefits, beyond the cost savings that would come from his proposal. First, we would finally get a really good idea of how many illegal aliens are in our county as well as how much in services they consume. Second, obviously, is the message that Frederick County is not a sanctuary. If you come to this county as an illegal alien, you are not welcome.
Now Jenkins' plan, which includes cutting off education services, may face some serious legal issues, particularly a Supreme Court ruling that does not allow local school boards to deny public education to the children of illegal immigrants. I would like to see Jenkins' plan as a whole passed and then let the legal process take over on those items that may have some legal complications. However, Jenkins and Board President Jan Gardner are particularly starting to battle on the issue of education.
Here are the contact emails and phone numbers for the Members of the County Commission. Please call them and email them to urge them to include Commissioner Jenkins Plan in the legislative package.
Jan H. Garner, President, email: jgardner@fredco-md.net phone: (301) 600-3190
David P. Gray, Vice President, email: dgray@fredco-md.net phone: (301) 600-1101
Kai Hagen, email: khagen@fredco-md.net phone: (301) 600-1303
John L. "Lennie" Thompson, email: lthompson@fredco-md.net phone: (301) 600-1303
Be sure to send a note of thanks to Commissioner Jenkins at chjenkins@fredco-md.net
Crossposted at Red Maryland
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Deja Vu All Over Again
Diane Ravitch writes:
We all know it is unattainable, but if 100 percent is unattainable, where do we draw the line for acceptability? Should it be 90 percent, 95 percent, 99 percent or something else. And if we draw the line somewhere else, how do we as a nation explain why some percetntage of children will get left behind. I know we have to be pragmaticly, but can't we also hold up some ideal as a target as well?
Hat Tip
No Child Left Behind can, however, be salvaged if policymakers recognize that they need to reverse the roles of the federal government and the states. In our federal system, each level of government should do what it does best. The federal government is good at collecting and disseminating information. The states and school districts, being closer to the schools, teachers and parents than the federal government, are more likely to be flexible and pragmatic about designing reforms to meet the needs of particular schools...Under current law, Congress now decides precisely which sanctions and penalties are needed to reform schools, which is way beyond its competence. The leaders of the House and Senate Education Committees are fine men, but they do not know how to fix the nation’s schools.In my best Keanu Reeves impression: Whoa! That sounds familiar. Ravitch also suggests dumping the 100 percent proficiency goal as unattainable.
The obvious solution is to reverse roles. Washington should supply unbiased information about student academic performance to states and local districts. It should then be the responsibility of states and local districts to improve performance.
We all know it is unattainable, but if 100 percent is unattainable, where do we draw the line for acceptability? Should it be 90 percent, 95 percent, 99 percent or something else. And if we draw the line somewhere else, how do we as a nation explain why some percetntage of children will get left behind. I know we have to be pragmaticly, but can't we also hold up some ideal as a target as well?
Hat Tip
Missouri Violated NCLB
Why, because they don't like NCLB.
There are a lot of laws I don't like, but unless I can get them changed, they are laws that we must follow--and state governments should not be in teh business of defying federal laws. You know, that whole, being and example thing.
There are a lot of laws I don't like, but unless I can get them changed, they are laws that we must follow--and state governments should not be in teh business of defying federal laws. You know, that whole, being and example thing.
2007 Blue Ribbon Schools
From the Department of Education. According the Dept of Ed,
The No Child Left Behind-Blue Ribbon Schools Program honors public and private K-12 schools that are either academically superior in their states or that demonstrate dramatic gains in student achievement.
The program requires schools to meet either of two assessment criteria. It recognizes schools that have at least 40 percent of their students from disadvantaged backgrounds that dramatically improve student performance in accordance with state assessment systems; and it rewards schools that score in the top 10 percent on state assessments.
Of the schools submitted by each state, at least one-third must meet the first criterion of having 40 percent of the students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The program allows both elementary and secondary schools to be recognized in the same year.
More Phony Soldiers
Gateway Pundit has the story.
Something tells me that there are going to be a lot of politicians taking a good hard, long look at their past claims of military service and some restatments coming.
That's the problem with lies, they tend to come back to haunt you.
Something tells me that there are going to be a lot of politicians taking a good hard, long look at their past claims of military service and some restatments coming.
That's the problem with lies, they tend to come back to haunt you.
Not Your Average Fatwa
Saudi Arabia's top cleric has issued a fatwa ordering Saudi's not to leave Saudi Arabia to join jihad.
Would that the fatwa said that jihad is unacceptable everywhere, but this appears to be step in the right direction.
Would that the fatwa said that jihad is unacceptable everywhere, but this appears to be step in the right direction.
Sneaky, Underhanded.....Senators
Ed Morrissey has done something that most people who are reporting on the "rage" of Justice Clarence Thomas, he has read the transcripts of the confirmation hearings.
Not only was it a high tech lynching, it included some pretty dirty pool.
Not only was it a high tech lynching, it included some pretty dirty pool.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Pundit Calls on Justice Thomas to Recuse Himself from Key Cases
Brent Budowsky argues that Clarence Thomas is too biased against liberal interests to be a effective judge:
Justice Thomas was not likely to support liberal causes before this book came out and he is not likely to do so in the future. Any liberal group appearing before the court has essentially ruled out getting Justice Thomas vote anyway. Nothing has changed.
Get over it Budowsky.
The new term has begun for a bitterly divided court in a dangerously divided nation, and the most visible event was a Supreme Court justice using the court’s return as a book promotion to remind the world of his enemies, demons, biases and vendettas.And this is different from the past 16 years how????
This is extraordinary and unprecedented.
Justice Clarence Thomas should now recuse himself from any cases involving any litigants who opposed his confirmation, because his attacks on them destroy any pretense of judicial impartiality. This is a man with a chip on his shoulder, axes to grind and scores to settle.
Justice Thomas was not likely to support liberal causes before this book came out and he is not likely to do so in the future. Any liberal group appearing before the court has essentially ruled out getting Justice Thomas vote anyway. Nothing has changed.
Get over it Budowsky.
More on Rush
Micheal Ledeen:
It's interesting that the Dems' attack against Rush is taking place at the same time Clarence Thomas's riveting autobiography hits the bookshelves, because both illustrate one of the central features of contemporary politics: the Left's loss of intellectual coherence and confidence, and its consequent turn to the vilification of individuals.
Limbaugh v. Reid
The head of the syndicator of Rush Limbaugh's radio program defends the radio host.
In reality, this is the only route to take. To argue that one of the most profitable syndication programs around should somehow be limited or censored would not only be bad business but would also lead to "Fairness Doctrine Redux."
Of course, the irony of the whole situation is that, even if what Limbaugh said about phony soldiers is right, Democrats in Congress have routinely slammed the military--See comments of John Murtha and others.
In reality, this is the only route to take. To argue that one of the most profitable syndication programs around should somehow be limited or censored would not only be bad business but would also lead to "Fairness Doctrine Redux."
Of course, the irony of the whole situation is that, even if what Limbaugh said about phony soldiers is right, Democrats in Congress have routinely slammed the military--See comments of John Murtha and others.
Justice Thomas--One Angry Man
Ruth Marcus' column in the Washington Post argues that Clarence Thomas is not only an angry man, but a liar.
I have not read Justice Thomas' memoir, although I hope to do so soon. I likewise have not seen all the interviews with Justice Thomas in the wake of the book's release. Having said that though, what I can tell you is that Justice Thomas is probably entitled to a little anger at this point.
To be sure, the release of a memoir, especially one that deals with his confirmation process, is sure to dredge up the past and lead to continued questions about "did he or didn't he" harrass Anita Hill. The fact, however, that media members like Ruth Marcus focus solely on the Anita Hill matter and nothing else undoubtedly stokes Thomas's anger and rightfully so. Here is what Marcus had to say:
Everyone assumes that Anita Hill was right. Clarence Thomas thinks she had an axe to grind and now because of the whole incident, Clarence Thomas has an axe to grind and grinding away he is. If the events of our past shape the person we are today, is it any wonder that Clarence Thomas is an angry man. His treatment during his confirmation and his treatment by the liberal establishment (they see him as a traitor to his race) since then would probably lead lesser men to have lashed out long ago and in a much more demonstrative way. In the interviews I have seen and heard, Clarence Thomas may be an angry man, but his is quietly angry, resorting largely to the written word to vent his frustrations.
Instead of letting the Justice have his few minutes to explain his life and the events of it from his point of view, writers like Ruth Marcus have to attack Clarence Thomas again, and again, and again. In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter any more? Will it matter in 20 years or 50 years? No, all this demonstrates is our fascination with the tawdry.
I have not read Justice Thomas' memoir, although I hope to do so soon. I likewise have not seen all the interviews with Justice Thomas in the wake of the book's release. Having said that though, what I can tell you is that Justice Thomas is probably entitled to a little anger at this point.
To be sure, the release of a memoir, especially one that deals with his confirmation process, is sure to dredge up the past and lead to continued questions about "did he or didn't he" harrass Anita Hill. The fact, however, that media members like Ruth Marcus focus solely on the Anita Hill matter and nothing else undoubtedly stokes Thomas's anger and rightfully so. Here is what Marcus had to say:
If Thomas did what Hill claims, how to understand his undimmed anger, his absolute denials, his willingness to pick the scab anew? If he didn't, how to understand her motive for lying -- and her summoning such unlikely details as pubic hairs on Coke cans?Marcus then goes on to list some of the "evidence" that backs up Hill's version of the story. Of course, all this evidence would be tossed from a court as hearsay, but that doesn't matter to the media. If Thomas complains of a media lynch mob in pinstripes rather than white hoods, perhaps he ought to look also for their press pass.
I covered the Thomas hearings for The Post, every excruciating hour, and I can imagine, as Kevin Merida and Michael A. Fletcher suggest in their book, "Supreme Discomfort," that the entire story has not been told. Perhaps there was some flirtation, maybe more, that it behooved neither party to acknowledge.
But I also believe the evidence then backed Hill's version of events. What has emerged since only further buttresses her assertions.
Thomas describes Hill as a "touchy and apt to overreact" employee whom he'd refused to promote; who asked to follow him from the Education Department to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after the alleged harassment; and who continued to seek his professional help after leaving the agency.
"I felt sure that I had never said or done anything to her that was even remotely inappropriate," he writes, and, if he had, "she would have complained loudly and instantly, not waited for a decade to make her displeasure known." For his part, Thomas describes himself as "one of the least likely candidates imaginable for such a charge."
Everyone assumes that Anita Hill was right. Clarence Thomas thinks she had an axe to grind and now because of the whole incident, Clarence Thomas has an axe to grind and grinding away he is. If the events of our past shape the person we are today, is it any wonder that Clarence Thomas is an angry man. His treatment during his confirmation and his treatment by the liberal establishment (they see him as a traitor to his race) since then would probably lead lesser men to have lashed out long ago and in a much more demonstrative way. In the interviews I have seen and heard, Clarence Thomas may be an angry man, but his is quietly angry, resorting largely to the written word to vent his frustrations.
Instead of letting the Justice have his few minutes to explain his life and the events of it from his point of view, writers like Ruth Marcus have to attack Clarence Thomas again, and again, and again. In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter any more? Will it matter in 20 years or 50 years? No, all this demonstrates is our fascination with the tawdry.
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Teacher Developed Merit Pay Proposal
In response to this post about teacher merit pay and my question as to whether any teachers had a proposal or ideas about merit pay or pay for performance proposals, I got an email directing me to this site. I have read through the executive summary of the proposal, but not the whole thing.
While most proposals dealing with merit pay or pay for performance have been put forward by policymakers or interest groups, this is the first that I have seen that is actually developed by teachers. Some of the ideas have merit, but to be honest I had not thought about changes to the base pay system. What this proposal suggests is that changes to the base pay structure look at three levels of teaching experience, novice, professional and expert. Their thought being,
One of the items in the Executive Summary noted that teachers should be rewarded for helping their students make significant academic gains. While student achievement is the bottom line performance for teachers, it cannot be predicated upon a single test result. I whole heartedly agree and I hope that the full report has more information on this score, but I need some more input here. What do these teachers believe should be the basis or a factor to be considered in measuring student and therefore teacher achievement? Surely it cannot be the grades in their own courses, we need some basis of objective measurement. Without it we are simply floundering in teh dark of subjectivity and that serves no one's interest, least of all the students.
Finally, one thought that really jumped out at me was a team structure. Highly successful teachers and those most likely to obtain bonuses have an incentive not to share their findings and methods with others. What the proposal suggests is that performance pay plans should incentiving the sharing of professional knowledge. Again, I don't know the full details of what is being propsed, but the initial idea strikes me as both logical and expensive. If bonuses, real bonuses are to be paid out to a group then the cost gets higher. But by the same token we need to encourage the sharing of professional knowledge amoung teachers in the same school/system. I very much look forward to how this is proposed in the full report.
I will have more reactions when I get through the whole report.
While most proposals dealing with merit pay or pay for performance have been put forward by policymakers or interest groups, this is the first that I have seen that is actually developed by teachers. Some of the ideas have merit, but to be honest I had not thought about changes to the base pay system. What this proposal suggests is that changes to the base pay structure look at three levels of teaching experience, novice, professional and expert. Their thought being,
If you don't have a career ladder that encourages teachers to advance in their profession--and be paid accordingly as they advance--tinkering around the edges by provideing $2,000 bonuses for a handful of teachers will not secure the stable, high-quality professional workforce we need.This is very true. I have always thought that if we are going to pay bonuses, they need to be real bonuses, on the scale of 20-25 percent of base salary. A bonus of $2,000 will be eaten up by taxes (bonsues are taxed at teh highest marginal tax rate possible, and then you get it back (if at all) in tax refund). Tiny bonuses won't do the trick. Reorganizing the base pay system would then, probably free up some money for merit pay. However, one cautionary note, when reorganizing a system so that a career ladder becomes clearer, there may be some short term losers and that would need to be addressed.
One of the items in the Executive Summary noted that teachers should be rewarded for helping their students make significant academic gains. While student achievement is the bottom line performance for teachers, it cannot be predicated upon a single test result. I whole heartedly agree and I hope that the full report has more information on this score, but I need some more input here. What do these teachers believe should be the basis or a factor to be considered in measuring student and therefore teacher achievement? Surely it cannot be the grades in their own courses, we need some basis of objective measurement. Without it we are simply floundering in teh dark of subjectivity and that serves no one's interest, least of all the students.
Finally, one thought that really jumped out at me was a team structure. Highly successful teachers and those most likely to obtain bonuses have an incentive not to share their findings and methods with others. What the proposal suggests is that performance pay plans should incentiving the sharing of professional knowledge. Again, I don't know the full details of what is being propsed, but the initial idea strikes me as both logical and expensive. If bonuses, real bonuses are to be paid out to a group then the cost gets higher. But by the same token we need to encourage the sharing of professional knowledge amoung teachers in the same school/system. I very much look forward to how this is proposed in the full report.
I will have more reactions when I get through the whole report.
The Ultimate Star Wars Construction Project
Bryan Preston points to the story of a man who built a 21 foot model of an X-Wing Fighter. George Lucas, eat your heart out!!
Actually Lucas might like the idea, but his lawyers may sue the builder anyway.
Actually Lucas might like the idea, but his lawyers may sue the builder anyway.
Suppression of Islam=Bad, Suppression of Other Religions
Who cares.
When it comes to tyranny of Buddhits monks in Burma--that is the reaction of the international community. Hat Tip: Instapundit
When it comes to tyranny of Buddhits monks in Burma--that is the reaction of the international community. Hat Tip: Instapundit
Washington DC Superintendants In Favor Of National Standards?
That seems to be the message behind some of the statement in this Jay Mathews Column.
Education has traditionally been a state function and responsibility. At the same time, however, merely because a practice is prevelant may be the poorest reason for continuing it. A national standard, backed up by a nationally produced test actually would save a great deal of money. Instead of having multiple tests, set to multiple standards for the various states, coupled with teh attendant equivalence problems, i.e. what is the relative stingency of say Maryland's standards as compared to Virginia or Iowa or Alaska, a single standard across the nation is clear, either the state or school or teacher meets the standard or they don't. It is as simple as that.
While there is a certain amount of reluctance to take this next step, it appears to be gaining favor at least among some supers. The Washington Area supers are talking about turning NCLB on its head, aruging that a national test and a national standard with sanctions and remediations coming from the states and localities might be more practical. In this respect they could very well be right.
In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville argued that local application of the law is necessary in order to provide necessary flexibility for different circumstances. Tocqueville did not argue that a national law was inherently bad, but that local administration would ensure that the spirit of the law, as well as its letter, were better enforced locally.
Lets assume that the national govenrment imposed a specific test and specific standard. Each school would know where it ranked, both locally, state-wide and nationally. There would be no doubts as to the efficacy of comparison. However, if the states are left with the duty to sanction and/or remediate the schools that are lagging, the states and the local education authorites could then address the specific needs of each school, tailoring a remediation plan that fits teh schools needs, rather than a solution handed down from the feds without any consideration of the school's particular circumstances.
The remediation could be in multiple steps. For example, the LEAs could have responsiblity for schools that fail to meet standards for one or two years. If the pattern persists, perhaps then teh state could get invovled. If the pattern persists for more than say four years, then the feds could step in.
The idea is worthy of consideration.
But by supporting national testing and learning standards, a position that Congress has rejected in previous years, some Washington educators are giving new life to a movement whose most outspoken supporters have been academics and pundits, not school administrators.While I like and really embrace the idea of national standards from a consolidated education policy standpoint, I must admit to a conflict of the idea from the federalist side of me.
"I've never figured out why in the world we wouldn't have a national education standard," said Montgomery County School Superintendent Jerry D. Weast. "We have standards for toys and everything else."
Congress might vote on whether to revise No Child Left Behind this year. With criticism of the law ratcheting up, changes are likely.
Jack D. Dale, superintendent of Fairfax County schools, called the current system "incoherent, contradictory and inconsistent." Arlington's School Board, using an argument advanced by Superintendent Robert G. Smith, said No Child Left Behind "provides neither high consistent standards nor consistent measures for accountability."
Education has traditionally been a state function and responsibility. At the same time, however, merely because a practice is prevelant may be the poorest reason for continuing it. A national standard, backed up by a nationally produced test actually would save a great deal of money. Instead of having multiple tests, set to multiple standards for the various states, coupled with teh attendant equivalence problems, i.e. what is the relative stingency of say Maryland's standards as compared to Virginia or Iowa or Alaska, a single standard across the nation is clear, either the state or school or teacher meets the standard or they don't. It is as simple as that.
While there is a certain amount of reluctance to take this next step, it appears to be gaining favor at least among some supers. The Washington Area supers are talking about turning NCLB on its head, aruging that a national test and a national standard with sanctions and remediations coming from the states and localities might be more practical. In this respect they could very well be right.
In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville argued that local application of the law is necessary in order to provide necessary flexibility for different circumstances. Tocqueville did not argue that a national law was inherently bad, but that local administration would ensure that the spirit of the law, as well as its letter, were better enforced locally.
Lets assume that the national govenrment imposed a specific test and specific standard. Each school would know where it ranked, both locally, state-wide and nationally. There would be no doubts as to the efficacy of comparison. However, if the states are left with the duty to sanction and/or remediate the schools that are lagging, the states and the local education authorites could then address the specific needs of each school, tailoring a remediation plan that fits teh schools needs, rather than a solution handed down from the feds without any consideration of the school's particular circumstances.
The remediation could be in multiple steps. For example, the LEAs could have responsiblity for schools that fail to meet standards for one or two years. If the pattern persists, perhaps then teh state could get invovled. If the pattern persists for more than say four years, then the feds could step in.
The idea is worthy of consideration.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Campaign Finance Spin Begins
Barack Obama announces 19 million in fundraising for third quarter.
He has been massaging his expectations for a while. Of course, 3rd quarter fundraising is generally harder since most people are on vacations during the period and thus less inclined to give money.
Hillary Clinton has not released figures, but may not do so since their fundraising for the quarter was plagued by teh Norman Hsu matter.
He has been massaging his expectations for a while. Of course, 3rd quarter fundraising is generally harder since most people are on vacations during the period and thus less inclined to give money.
Hillary Clinton has not released figures, but may not do so since their fundraising for the quarter was plagued by teh Norman Hsu matter.
Transcript of Limbaugh Interview with Justice Clarence Thomas
I caught about an 45 minutes of this interview with Justice Clarence Thomas. I can't wait to get his book.
The interview was interesting, some highlights include going to junior seminary at age 16, learning first year algebra on his own one summer and some thoughts on his confirmation.
The interview was interesting, some highlights include going to junior seminary at age 16, learning first year algebra on his own one summer and some thoughts on his confirmation.
Instant Run-Off Voting
Former Independent Presidential candidate John Anderson has this op-ed on instant runoff voting.
I have always liked the idea and think that it certainly solves the problem of a plurality win in most situations.
The problem is that some election law "reformers" will complain about it being too complicated for some voters.
I have always liked the idea and think that it certainly solves the problem of a plurality win in most situations.
The problem is that some election law "reformers" will complain about it being too complicated for some voters.
Federal Judge to Murtha--You Have to Testify
In a case that is sure to test the limits of teh Speech and Debate Clause, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer has order Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) to testify in a defamation case in which he accused Marines of cold-blooded murder.
Oh, by the way, those same Marines are being cleared left and right of the murder charges.
The fact is that the Speech and Debate Clause is likely to protect Murtha's statement. The question is whether the House will allow him to continue to make such irresponsible statements and whether his constituents will allow him to do so.
But then again, stranger things have happened.
Oh, by the way, those same Marines are being cleared left and right of the murder charges.
The fact is that the Speech and Debate Clause is likely to protect Murtha's statement. The question is whether the House will allow him to continue to make such irresponsible statements and whether his constituents will allow him to do so.
But then again, stranger things have happened.
It is the Little Things That Matter
Great Story: "Last Wednesday, while flying from Phoenix to the Alamo City on U.S. Airways Flight 207, a San Antonio man, Gil Anderson, witnessed something memorable.
Shortly before takeoff, he overheard a flight attendant tell a young uniformed soldier sitting in front of him: 'A lady in first-class wants to switch seats with you.'
The soldier accepted the offer and walked up to the first-class section.
'When the lady came back to our area, I had a tear in my eye,' Anderson said when he phoned this column soon after his plane landed. 'I gave her a little round of applause.
'Then, by golly, everybody in that area started applauding,' he said in a voice tinged with emotion. 'It was a very moving moment.'
Acknowledging the applause of Anderson and the other passengers, the first-class lady said simply: 'I did it because he deserves it.' "
Shortly before takeoff, he overheard a flight attendant tell a young uniformed soldier sitting in front of him: 'A lady in first-class wants to switch seats with you.'
The soldier accepted the offer and walked up to the first-class section.
'When the lady came back to our area, I had a tear in my eye,' Anderson said when he phoned this column soon after his plane landed. 'I gave her a little round of applause.
'Then, by golly, everybody in that area started applauding,' he said in a voice tinged with emotion. 'It was a very moving moment.'
Acknowledging the applause of Anderson and the other passengers, the first-class lady said simply: 'I did it because he deserves it.' "
A Look At Alternate History
From Roger Simon:
The terrorists would not have restrained themselves from attacking us just because Al Gore was in the White House. They could give a damn who sits in The Oval Office, they want the occupant dead no matter what, and America along with it.
It is easy to wish things had been different, but even if they had, would the world be any different now. Who knows, but it isn't and get over it.
I know this because I believe in my heart that had Al Gore been elected president in 2000 (and as we all know he almost was – he won the popular vote), he would be just as knee deep in the War on Terror as George Bush is right now and fighting it in more or less the same manner. He would be in Iraq.I tend agree.
Yes, you read me correctly. Forget the Nobel Prize and the global warming Oscar, if Al Gore had been elected in ‘00, he’d be burning excess Air Force One fuel, jetting behind the lines to Anbar Province, dealing with an ornery (possibly antiwar) opposition party and doing his best to ignore wretched poll numbers, a hostile media and whacko Code Pink demonstrators (not to mention his quondam allies on the Moveon-Kos end of his party who by now would be calling for his impeachment).
You may not believe me, but I don’t even think it’s much of a stretch, certainly no grand fictional scheme à la Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America in which Lindbergh defeats Roosevelt in the election of 1940 and the U. S. opts out of World War II. The Clinton-Gore administration wasn’t the least bit afraid to use force. Erratic about it - maybe. Insecure about it - maybe. But pacifist? Ask Milosevic.
The terrorists would not have restrained themselves from attacking us just because Al Gore was in the White House. They could give a damn who sits in The Oval Office, they want the occupant dead no matter what, and America along with it.
It is easy to wish things had been different, but even if they had, would the world be any different now. Who knows, but it isn't and get over it.
Living Wage Law In Effect
Maryland's Living Wage law goes into effect today effectively trashing the labor market in some ways.
My wife works at the University System of Maryland Hagarstown Complex. I don't know if they contract out teh custodial services, but let us say they do. Let's say that the company that is contracted paid its employees a going rate of $7.50 a hour last month. Starting today, they must pay $8.50 per hour since Hagarstown is in the "rural" part of the state. Where does that extra $1.00 per hour come from--that's right, the taxpayer. As a government agency, USM gets its funding, in part from tax payer money. The remainder comes from student tuition, of which the students are overwhelmingly Marylanders. The contractor is not going to simply eat the extra dollar in pay, he is going to pass it on to his customers, i.e. the state of Maryland and others.
So that $1.7 billion budget deficit predicted for this upcoming year, probably going to get bigger.
Oh, let's also not forget the inflationary pressures of enforced higher wages. With more money in their pocket, these workers are going to spend more, driving prices up for everyone, including themselves. Add in the increased sales tax these workers are going to have to pay and the pressure will soon come to up the living wage in the rural zones.
Oh, let's also not forget some changes that are bound to come as a result of $2.80 difference in the minimum wage law in the "rural areas" and the Baltimore Washington Corridor. $2.80 more an hour for work in those counties will make those jobs more appealing, driving further development not in the rural zones but in the already overcrowd B-W corridor. Those people, who can't afford to live in the area, will commute to the area, adding to overcrowding on the roads (and demand for more roads) and oh, yeah will have to pay the increased gas tax that Uncle Marty is looking to pass.
This just makes so much sense!!!
One of the most significant pieces of legislation passed is the nation's first "living-wage" law, which will set a higher minimum wage for those employed by state contractors.The "living wage" bill will not be a boon to the Maryland economy. While it only applies to state govenrment contractors, it's effect will be felt across the entire economy. Let's take a small example.
The law sets minimum wages for employees of government contractors at $11.30 an hour in the Baltimore-Washington area and $8.50 an hour in rural areas.
"Monday is a historic day for working families in Maryland," said Thomas E. Perez, Maryland's secretary of labor, licensing and regulation. "Maryland is the first state in the union to enact a statewide living-wage law and, as the richest state in the union, I think we are in a good position to set the tone for other states."
The law was praised by Progressive Maryland, a liberal coalition of business and religious groups that has lobbied for such a measure for years.
"The bill is a huge improvement over what came before it," said Sean Dobson, executive director of Progressive Maryland. "Workers who are employed by state service contracts can now get paid enough to live without having to use food stamps.
My wife works at the University System of Maryland Hagarstown Complex. I don't know if they contract out teh custodial services, but let us say they do. Let's say that the company that is contracted paid its employees a going rate of $7.50 a hour last month. Starting today, they must pay $8.50 per hour since Hagarstown is in the "rural" part of the state. Where does that extra $1.00 per hour come from--that's right, the taxpayer. As a government agency, USM gets its funding, in part from tax payer money. The remainder comes from student tuition, of which the students are overwhelmingly Marylanders. The contractor is not going to simply eat the extra dollar in pay, he is going to pass it on to his customers, i.e. the state of Maryland and others.
So that $1.7 billion budget deficit predicted for this upcoming year, probably going to get bigger.
Oh, let's also not forget the inflationary pressures of enforced higher wages. With more money in their pocket, these workers are going to spend more, driving prices up for everyone, including themselves. Add in the increased sales tax these workers are going to have to pay and the pressure will soon come to up the living wage in the rural zones.
Oh, let's also not forget some changes that are bound to come as a result of $2.80 difference in the minimum wage law in the "rural areas" and the Baltimore Washington Corridor. $2.80 more an hour for work in those counties will make those jobs more appealing, driving further development not in the rural zones but in the already overcrowd B-W corridor. Those people, who can't afford to live in the area, will commute to the area, adding to overcrowding on the roads (and demand for more roads) and oh, yeah will have to pay the increased gas tax that Uncle Marty is looking to pass.
This just makes so much sense!!!
Democrats are Stupid on Tax Policy
Betsy Newmark points to an Associated Press item on how Democrats want to pay for the SCHIP expansion--with cigarette taxes.
From the get-go, I have opposed the idea of expanding SCHIP, most because this expansion, despite all the rhetoric, is not about expanding coverage for uninsured children, but for exapnding coverage of adults who don't make that much money. If SCHIP covered only kids under the age of 18 or under 22 if in college, I wouldn't object--well not as stenuously at least. But this program will cover as many adults as children and that is not the original goal of the program.
But I digress. This is the second proposal I have seen in as many weeks to increase the tax on certain items that disproportionately affects the poor. Actually, it is the third. Democrats in Congress want to increase the federal cigarette tax in order to pay for the proposed expansion. Fine, if you want to increase the federal cigarette tax in order to stop smoking, I have no argument, but if you are using a sin tax to fund another program, there are real economic consequences. As you increase the cigarette tax, the less revenue you will bring in. People with borderline finances will, over time, quit smoking and thus stop paying the cigarette tax. Thus, as the tax goes up, the fewer people are buying cigarettes, tax revenue goes down.
Who is more likely to smoke--yep--people on the lower end of the economic spectrum. So an increase on cigarette taxes are likely to impact the very people Democrats claim to want to help--the poor. People who are middle class and wealthy can afford both the increased tax and the increased medical bills associated with cigarettes (sort of). But the poor don't have that luxury.
In other tax news, Governor "Uncle Marty" O'Malley (D-MD) is proposing to not only increase the cigarette tax, but also to increase teh sales tax. As any economist will tell you, a sales tax increase is phenomenally regressive--affecting the poor far more than it affects those in upper income brackets. While most grocery items and other essentials are not taxable items, a lot of other goods and services consumed by the poor are. For example, fast food--taxable and used far more frequently by the poor than the rich (who pay additional tax on their dining out as well, but can afford it.)
Then there is the gas tax that Uncle Marty wants to impose. Most of Maryland is paying around $2.75 a gallon for gas now. Adding a few cents a gallon doesn't sound like much until you consider how many poor Marylanders have to drive to work everyday. Making gas cost more is not going to help them in any way.
Thus, recent democratic moves to expand programs or generate more revenue simply demonstrates the stupidity of the party when it comes to tax policy. Yes, a sales tax increase and a gas tax increase and even a sin tax increase is felt broadly, but the impact on the poor (the Democrats designated constituency) is far greater than anyone else. Not wise politics and not wise tax policy.
From the get-go, I have opposed the idea of expanding SCHIP, most because this expansion, despite all the rhetoric, is not about expanding coverage for uninsured children, but for exapnding coverage of adults who don't make that much money. If SCHIP covered only kids under the age of 18 or under 22 if in college, I wouldn't object--well not as stenuously at least. But this program will cover as many adults as children and that is not the original goal of the program.
But I digress. This is the second proposal I have seen in as many weeks to increase the tax on certain items that disproportionately affects the poor. Actually, it is the third. Democrats in Congress want to increase the federal cigarette tax in order to pay for the proposed expansion. Fine, if you want to increase the federal cigarette tax in order to stop smoking, I have no argument, but if you are using a sin tax to fund another program, there are real economic consequences. As you increase the cigarette tax, the less revenue you will bring in. People with borderline finances will, over time, quit smoking and thus stop paying the cigarette tax. Thus, as the tax goes up, the fewer people are buying cigarettes, tax revenue goes down.
Who is more likely to smoke--yep--people on the lower end of the economic spectrum. So an increase on cigarette taxes are likely to impact the very people Democrats claim to want to help--the poor. People who are middle class and wealthy can afford both the increased tax and the increased medical bills associated with cigarettes (sort of). But the poor don't have that luxury.
In other tax news, Governor "Uncle Marty" O'Malley (D-MD) is proposing to not only increase the cigarette tax, but also to increase teh sales tax. As any economist will tell you, a sales tax increase is phenomenally regressive--affecting the poor far more than it affects those in upper income brackets. While most grocery items and other essentials are not taxable items, a lot of other goods and services consumed by the poor are. For example, fast food--taxable and used far more frequently by the poor than the rich (who pay additional tax on their dining out as well, but can afford it.)
Then there is the gas tax that Uncle Marty wants to impose. Most of Maryland is paying around $2.75 a gallon for gas now. Adding a few cents a gallon doesn't sound like much until you consider how many poor Marylanders have to drive to work everyday. Making gas cost more is not going to help them in any way.
Thus, recent democratic moves to expand programs or generate more revenue simply demonstrates the stupidity of the party when it comes to tax policy. Yes, a sales tax increase and a gas tax increase and even a sin tax increase is felt broadly, but the impact on the poor (the Democrats designated constituency) is far greater than anyone else. Not wise politics and not wise tax policy.
Teachers and Merit Pay
Not surprisingly, teachers in Washington state don't like merit pay proposals that link pay to performance.
Teachers--it is coming. Your best bet is to get in front of the issue with a proposal that would work from your perspective, and it must link your merit pay and performance to student learning. Test scores aren't the end all, be all, but I don't think any political solution is going to completely dump test scores as a measurement.
For all my teacher readers out there (all one or two of you), if you could design a system, what would it look like?
Teachers--it is coming. Your best bet is to get in front of the issue with a proposal that would work from your perspective, and it must link your merit pay and performance to student learning. Test scores aren't the end all, be all, but I don't think any political solution is going to completely dump test scores as a measurement.
For all my teacher readers out there (all one or two of you), if you could design a system, what would it look like?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)